Do you believe in God?

[buttershug]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Dondrei:

Really? Let’s look at some of the examples of actions listed under moral turpitude.

• Arson
• Blackmail
• Burglary
• Embezzlement
• Extortion
• Forgery
• Fraud
• Robbery
• Theft
• Perjury
• Kidnapping
• Murder
• Assault
• Manslaughter
• Rape

Can anyone rationally argue that there shouldn’t be laws against those actions?

So you are saying that those are not crimes against people's lives?
Dondrie said it was ok to have laws in defence of people's lives.
I think making the things in that list illegal would be in defense of people's lives. No third party morality needed.

Did it not occur to you that some actions can be on both lists?

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Heresy
Blasphemy

 

[plasmo]

Re: Do you believe in God?

No. I believe in the possibility of some sort of god or gods (or aliens or superbeings or some other unknown creator), although I believe it's less possible than finding unicorns or leprechauns in some hidden part of a rain forest and much less likely than a creator-less universe that just popped into existence in some way that I and no other scientist yet understands. I think the possibility of a god described in any of the major religions is even more remote.

The more you study religions in general, the more psychologically and sociologically explainable they all become.

Here are a few popular points which might or might not have been brought up yet:

Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive; one deals with belief and the other with knowledge.

A great set of Straight Dope articles on who wrote the Bible.

Oh, and on a personal note, almost nobody I know who goes to church, says the are "Christian" or whatever other religion they are, prays at meals, etc really believes in it. My sample might be skewed a bit because I tend to hang out with more-educated people (and, in general, more-educated people are smarter and, in general, smarter people tend to be less religions), but I can't think of a single person I really know who, even though they do all those things, truly believes in any of it. And, of course, there are all of my European friends, who just laugh at the whole idea of religion flat out rather than trying to carry out the motions like my American friends.

 

[Spinns]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Some of the smartest people in history have been religious

Georgias Agricola 1495-1555 founder of metallurgy
Johannes Kepler 1571-1630 discoverer of the laws of planetary motion
Robert Boyle 1627-1691 founder of modern chemistry
Isaac Barrow 1630-1677 Newton's teacher
Niels Seno 1638-1686 founder of geology
George Boole 1815-1864 discoverer of pure mathematics
James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879 father of modern physics
Georges Lemaitre 1894-1966 the priest who showed us the universe is expanding

Some more notable People
Nicolaus Copernicus: 1473-1543 Polish Astronomer
Developed the heliocentric theory of the solar system.

Galileo Galilei: 1564-1642 Italian Physicist
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Johannes Kepler: 1571-1630 German Astronomer
The 3 laws of planetary motion. Advanced Copernicus' heliocentric theory.
"Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."

Blaise Pascal: 1623-1662 French Mathemetician and Theologian
"There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus Christ." (Pensees)?

"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false?... if you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists."

"But by Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ, we prove God and teach doctrine and morals. Jesus Christ, then, is the true God of men."

Newton Isaac: 1642-1727 (born Dec 25) English Mathemetician
Laws of gravitation and motion, developed calculus. Major contributions to optics, physics, math and astronomy.
The solar system itself could not have been produced by blind chance or fortuitous causes but only by a cause "very well skilled in mechanics and geometry."

Michael Faraday: 1791-1869 English Chemist
Discovered Benzene, electromagnetic induction, lines of force, relationship between polarized light and magnetic fields. Strong believer in the literal interpretation of Scripture. Deacon and elder in his church.
"Since peace is alone in the gift of God; and since it is He who gives it, why should we be afraid? His unspeakable gift in His beloved Son is the ground of no doubtful hope."

Lord Kelvin: 1824-1907 (William Thomson) British Physicist
First and second laws of thermodynamics. Absolute temp scale. Trans-Atlantic cable.
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism."

The people mention above were of a Christian faith and I can provide many more examples if you like also think of all the smart religious people there/were are if we delve into other religions too I'm sure the number would grow significantly

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Some of the smartest people in history have been religious
EDIT
The people mention above were of a Christian faith and I can provide many more examples if you like also think of all the smart religious people there/were are if we delve into other religions too I'm sure the number would grow significantly

For many of those listed above, although they did not reject The Idea of God, or Faith in God, did not fit the religious mode of the times and considered the local pastors well meaning idiots at best.
Several where arrested and persecuted by religious authority's until they recanted the heresy's that make them acclaimed as scientists
Your list is not the ringing endorsement of Christianity by scientists it claims to be.

I listed as Agnostic since I believe in God to the extent that I would define God as the force or forces that is responsible for the universe.

Thats about all the definition I have though. I don't believe in participation in organized religion though.

 

[KillerAim]

Re: Do you believe in God?

buttershug:

So you are saying that those are not crimes against people's lives?

That's not the point I was trying to make. Dondrei wants to differentiate between laws based on morality and laws based on human survival. I was just demonstrating that he was using a very narrow definition of moral codes. I would say that acts that are directly harmful to humans (rape, theft, murder, etc.) are also violations of morality for most people and most religions. There is no clear cut difference, so arguing that laws based on one concept are 'good' while arguing that laws based on the other concept are either 'bad' or 'worthless' makes no sense.

- - -

BobCox2:

Heresy
Blasphemy

Admittedly, any act that would make such things illegal does nothing to protect Society. In fact, they harm Society. I'd put them in the same category as:

• Café standards
• Most recycling laws (Unless they are economically viable like aluminum)
• Cap and Trade laws on Carbon Dioxide emissions
• The banning of the sale of normal incandescent light bulbs.
• Subsidies for gasohol, wind, and solar power.

Your list is not the ringing endorsement of Christianity by scientists it claims to be.

Spinns was not arguing that Christianity has a ringing endorsement from Science or scientists. He was just refuting the standard naive arguments presented here again by Plasmo that (1) Science and religion are incompatible, and (2) that religious people are uneducated boobs who would renounce their faith if they 'got some learnin'.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: Do you believe in God?

heresy
blasphemy

madness!!!

 

[Beckflec]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Isn't it a sin for Christians to be playing Diablo?

I mean, God is pretty damn popular over in those Spanish speaking countries and in Spanish Diablo means Devil, in a distorted way you're basically supporting the Devil (slightly dependent on how you choose to play, though.)

 

[buttershug]

Re: Do you believe in God?

buttershug:

That's not the point I was trying to make. Dondrei wants to differentiate between laws based on morality and laws based on human survival. I was just demonstrating that he was using a very narrow definition of moral codes. I would say that acts that are directly harmful to humans (rape, theft, murder, etc.) are also violations of morality for most people and most religions. There is no clear cut difference, so arguing that laws based on one concept are 'good' while arguing that laws based on the other concept are either 'bad' or 'worthless' makes no sense.
.

If he wasn't making the point I thought he was, I will. I think it is not good to have laws with any consideration in regards to morality. I think they should strictly be based on protecting society.

 

[KillerAim]

Re: Do you believe in God?

buttershug:

If he wasn't making the point I thought he was, I will. I think it is not good to have laws with any consideration in regards to morality. I think they should strictly be based on protecting society.

That all depends on how you define 'protecting society'. Are you talking about laws that deal with direct threats to people and their property such as murder, rape, theft, etc.? Or are you talking about indirect threats to society such as smoking bans in private businesses, the banning of the sale of 'normal' light bulbs, or oil drilling restrictions on land in order to keep the land in a pristine condition for future generations?

 

[WildBerry]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Isn't it a sin for Christians to be playing Diablo?

I mean, God is pretty damn popular over in those Spanish speaking countries and in Spanish Diablo means Devil, in a distorted way you're basically supporting the Devil (slightly dependent on how you choose to play, though.)

Since you're actually killing (or trying to kill) the Big D, that's a broad definition for supporting something. Now I know why they're yelling "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS", they always want the G.I.'s dead.

 

[Beckflec]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Since you're actually killing (or trying to kill) the Big D, that's a broad definition for supporting something. Now I know why they're yelling "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS", they always want the G.I.'s dead.

What I mostly meant was the thought of supporting something that makes the devil a pop culture item.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: Do you believe in God?

What I mostly meant was the thought of supporting something that makes the devil a pop culture item.

I got your point, making it something you familiarise yourself with in stead of making it a taboo rings of support to some folks. I get that.

I just thought the comment was amusing when juxtaposed with the *crowbar swings'* storyline.

 

[buttershug]

Re: Do you believe in God?

buttershug:

That all depends on how you define 'protecting society'. Are you talking about laws that deal with direct threats to people and their property such as murder, rape, theft, etc.? Or are you talking about indirect threats to society such as smoking bans in private businesses, the banning of the sale of 'normal' light bulbs, or oil drilling restrictions on land in order to keep the land in a pristine condition for future generations?

Smoking is a direct threat.
Carbon monoxide is a deadly poison. Then there are also all the other chemicals that do damage to people. It's pretty direct.
If someone put warfarin in people's coffee, you would consider that to be direct wouldn't you?

 

[KillerAim]

Re: Do you believe in God?

buttershug:

Smoking is a direct threat.

We're talking about second-hand smoke, not smoking. Also, in either situation, we're talking about voluntary actions by consenting adults. Are you arguing that there should be some laws that protect people from their own actions?

Carbon monoxide is a deadly poison. Then there are also all the other chemicals that do damage to people. It's pretty direct.

Let's focus on carbon monoxide. How much exposure does a person get to carbon monoxide from second hand smoke as compared to a urbanite who lives and works near streets over which thousands of vehicles travel each day? Should there be laws that ban living, walking, or working near a high traffic area; or, should there be laws that forces cities to spend money to make sure that its people have no higher exposure to carbon monoxide than the average rural area?

If someone put warfarin in people's coffee, you would consider that to be direct wouldn't you?

Are you really trying to compare an intentional poisoning of a product to a situation where the exposure to toxins are a well-known natural result of the normal usage of a product?

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Dondrei:

No, one group is talking about a breakdown in a moral code that will eventually lead to an increase in moral turpitude which will eventually lead to internal and external conflicts which will eventually lead to the destruction of a Civilization. The other group is talking about gradual climatic changes that will eventually lead to intolerable living conditions in certain areas of the World the will eventually lead to internal and external conflicts that will eventually lead to the destruction of a Civilization.

Ridiculously non-proximal threat. Got it.

Really? Let’s look at some of the examples of actions listed under moral turpitude.

• Arson
• Blackmail
• Burglary
• Embezzlement
• Extortion
• Forgery
• Fraud
• Robbery
• Theft
• Perjury
• Kidnapping
• Murder
• Assault
• Manslaughter
• Rape

Can anyone rationally argue that there shouldn’t be laws against those actions?

buttershug:

That's not the point I was trying to make. Dondrei wants to differentiate between laws based on morality and laws based on human survival. I was just demonstrating that he was using a very narrow definition of moral codes. I would say that acts that are directly harmful to humans (rape, theft, murder, etc.) are also violations of morality for most people and most religions. There is no clear cut difference, so arguing that laws based on one concept are 'good' while arguing that laws based on the other concept are either 'bad' or 'worthless' makes no sense.

Explanation included because otherwise I wouldn't have guessed what you were supposedly getting at.

Distinction is irrelevant, if it's covered by defense of lives it's one thing and if it isn't but only in defense of a moral code then it's another, end of story.

Ah, another name calling response. Do you really believe that calling people names in a place where you know you’ll never have to fear any retaliation makes you sound tough? If my opinion is so off-base than it should be real easy for you to do the basic research that you talk about and prove me wrong. Why haven’t you done so?

Uh, why would I do your work for you? The embarrassment I feel for you when reading your posts about anything not directly related to money is not that strong.

Why would you bring up sounding tough? Swearing sounds tough to you? Are you in primary school?

It’s true that there can be short term variations in measurements that are predicted accurately over the long term, but there is absolutely no empirical evidence that supports the long-term predictions. So what you have is a theory that is based on the results of computer model predictions, not empirical testing. Each of these eight or nine programs attempt to mathematically measure the impact of all the variables that affect climate; a task so complicated that climate prediction was the primary example used to explain the concept behind chaos theory. On top of this, not one of the programs has accurately predicted future climate since they were first used.

So all your comment about “short term variability in a long term predictable event†does is to say that it is possible that these programs area accurate. I’ll agree with that statement; one decade of poor predictions doesn’t necessarily mean that the programs will be wrong in the long term. BUT, your comment is NOT an argument that, in any way, lends credence to the program predictions.

Why do you keep insisting on talking about something anyone can see you know nothing about?

For your information I don't have a particular standing on climate change. I just have a particular standing on idiots. Especially the kind who are old enough to know better.

??? Do you ever read what you post? In what you cited, I used the term “moral code†to describe the same thing that one sentence earlier I described as “belief systemsâ€. The reason I used “belief systems†in the first sentence was due to the fact that I was referring to both groups; religious fanatics AND Global Warming fanatics. The second sentence ONLY referred to the religious fanatics; therefore, I felt safe in describing their belief system as a moral code. I used the term “belief system†as a neutral term to show that I think that the majority of people in both groups came to their conclusions based on their beliefs in the accuracy of the evidence used in support of their positions.

Ah, I see the misunderstanding. When you said their belief systems you meant the sides rather than the societies. You confused me by in the following sentence talking about a breakdown in its moral code, meaning society's.

Which I think is still the Achilles Heel of your argument, both in terms of lack of historical support and the obvious ideological distinction between the two kinds of laws. Which, despite yourself, you do in fact endorse (cf #226).

Nice try. The comparison was weather to climate, NOT weather to global warming. And, even in THAT case, global warming is nothing more than a belief that the changes in climate over time for all local climates will end up with higher temperatures (mostly at night) on average for the world. This is still nothing more than the accumulation of weather predictions over space and time.

No, stupid.

 

[KillerAim]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Dondrei:

Ridiculously non-proximal threat. Got it.

I'm glad you agree with me. Both sides justify laws that limit personal freedom based on a ridiculously remote threat.

Distinction is irrelevant, if it's covered by defense of lives it's one thing and if it isn't but only in defense of a moral code then it's another, end of story.

I agree with one necessary distinction. The defense must be against a threat to one's life or property that is direct and, to borrow your term, proximate.

Uh, why would I do your work for you? The embarrassment I feel for you when reading your posts about anything not directly related to money is not that strong.

Because that is what mature people do in a discussion where there are different viewpoints; they support their positions. So, I'm not asking you to do my work for me, I'm asking you to do your own work. And, in case you didn't know, saying "No, it doesn't" when someone argues that "x" causes "y" to happen is not support for a point of view.

Why would you bring up sounding tough? Swearing sounds tough to you? Are you in primary school?

No, but it appears that you are. About the only age that I can think of where people think that they score points by calling someone who disagrees with them a name is when they are in primary school. Resulting to name-calling is a sign of immaturity and it's a sign that the name caller knows that he lost the argument.

Why do you keep insisting on talking about something anyone can see you know nothing about?

Again, prove it. Remember, you're the only one that has made a statement about global warming that is, by your own admission, demonstrably wrong. Again, if it is so easy to prove me wrong, I think you'd jump at the chance to show me up. That fact that you haven't is very telling.

I just have a particular standing on idiots. Especially the kind who are old enough to know better.

Another incidence of no support for a position and a fall back to name-calling; more evidence of immaturity.

No, stupid.

Yet another incidence of no support for a position and a fall back to name-calling; more evidence of immaturity.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Raised as a Baptist but agnostic now.

Sometimes I wish I still believed, because I would probably be a happier person.

 

[WildBerry]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Raised as a Baptist but agnostic now.

Sometimes I wish I still believed, because I would probably be a happier person.

Why do you think it would alleviate your concerns? Many revivalist movements actually call those who have not "born again" with various terms for "those without sadness", for according to these people, they have not yet faced the humiliating sadness that is realising your own incompleteness (and that will eventually, again, according to them, lead to submission before God) - and that the people without "living faith" can thus be free of the real concerns.

Not that I'm signing what they're saying, just saying there are two sides to this story, too.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Do you believe in God?

Why do you think it would alleviate your concerns? Many revivalist movements actually call those who have not "born again" with various terms for "those without sadness", for according to these people, they have not yet faced the humiliating sadness that is realising your own incompleteness (and that will eventually, again, according to them, lead to submission before God) - and that the people without "living faith" can thus be free of the real concerns.

Not that I'm signing what they're saying, just saying there are two sides to this story, too.

Believing that your consciousness lives on after death, and that your actions in life have repercussions in the forever is a powerful comfort.