Can The Theories Of...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@6 March 2004 - 19:47

Religion is a creation of fear, that simple.  I imagine that with functional MRI and other methods we will find that praying is closely associated with the "fear" center.

Without fear, God is irrelevant.

---

I admire your certainty. In my experience those of a religious persuasion have some doubt and question the validity of their beliefs. They are only human and without absolute proof they are prone to ask them-self if their belief in God is valid, and if it is are they behaving in the way God would want them to ? It all comes down to their faith in the end.

You however are unencumbered with such things and can dismiss all theistic religions, indeed all religions with so few words. How happy the religious would be if they had your depth of faith and belief in their own opinions.

I can only assume that you teach a class in philosophy. If not you should, we would not wish this clarity and certainty of belief to be lost. Pass it on, the tender of years need mentors with such certainty.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by internet.weather@7 March 2004 - 22:29

I admire your certainty. In my experience those of a religious persuasion have some doubt and question the validity of their beliefs. They are only human and without absolute proof they are prone to ask them-self if their belief in God is valid, and if it is are they behaving in the way God would want them to ? It all comes down to their faith in the end.

You however are unencumbered with such things and can dismiss all theistic religions, indeed all religions with so few words. How happy the religious would be if they had your depth of faith and belief in their own opinions.

---

I fail to see the need to dismiss any Religion, I was merely stating where the NEED for such a thing stems.

You question your "faith" because it is baseless. There is no way to check the validity of your faith versus the faith of others and the hundreds of different religions which are practiced. Everyone one is a believer but since there is only one God, somebody has got to be wrong, that much is certain.

As far as behaving correctly in Gods eyes, aren't you really just acknowledging what is correct in your own eyes. Is there anything in the Bible that makes no sense to you, but you do it anyway because it is God's will?

I don't believe in your God, but I still hold to the same morals you do. Why? Because we all know that morals stem from recognizing "selfish" behavior. That is all morality is.

When the big dog pushes the little dog out of the way and eats both treats, it does not recognize that it is being selfish, it is just doing what it can to survive.

You recognize that it is "self centered" behavior and you can abstractly appreciate that you may be the "little dog" so you wish to promote a philosophy that both should get 1 treat each, to be fair. This is the nidus from which all "morals" originate. You don't need a God to tell you this.

My goal is not to disrespect religion, my goal is introspection. Why do people believe what they believe and act as they do.

hobbes

An excellent post, you support your reasoning by specious argument. However you do it remarkably well. It is to your credit.

"Everyone one is a believer but since there is only one God, somebody has got to be wrong, that much is certain."

There are religions which believe in less than one God, or more than one God. You however state that there is one, with your normal degree of confidence. Even though you do not believe in God at all. Charming debating technique, to use a matter of faith you fundamentally disagree with, to support your view. I am genuinely impressed by that.

The dogs wishing to survive and overeating to do so. Are we to take it that wild animals eat their fill and then feed the children. Eating both treats is hardly doing all it can to survive. You know as well as I do that two dogs will eat from the same bowl. Particularly dogs who get fed regularly. Indeed they will leave some food and go back later.

How do you know that you hold the same morals I do ? I certainly can't say the same of you, as I am not aware of your stance on many subjects. I would also suggest that my sense of morality is based on more than an ability to recognize selfish behaviour. Being able to live within a structured society may equate to that, but that is just a set of rules we have made up as we went along. That is not morality, that is convenience and consent.

I did not mean to suggest that it was your goal to overtly dis-respect religion. You obviously disagree with it and take a lot of bother in explaining why. It really is to your credit that your posts are so readable, but don't try your Jedi mind tricks with me Laddie.

Your post offers nothing that needs refuting. Whether there is one God or 42, it doesn't change a thing.

As for the dog scenario, it was just an example of of bigger concept, and you know it. It could have been the largest alligator eating the entire gazelle, while the smaller ones watched.

My posts come from pure intent. To suggest that I have an agenda and will resort to specious comparisons for the sole purpose of supporting it is rather an insult.

To use a "technique" would presume a mentality of deceit, again an insult to my posting philosophy.

I may be wrong, but I NEVER attempt to deceive.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@7 March 2004 - 23:01

I may be wrong, but I NEVER attempt to deceive.

---

That sounds like a moral standpoint. Where is the selfish element ?

My apologies btw, I am quite sure your deceit is entirely unintentional.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by internet.weather+7 March 2004 - 23:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (internet.weather @ 7 March 2004 - 23:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@7 March 2004 - 23:01

I may be wrong, but I NEVER attempt to deceive.

---

That sounds like a moral standpoint. Where is the selfish element ?

My apologies btw, I am quite sure your deceit is entirely unintentional.

[/b][/quote]
I just noticed, you said one God or 42, I thought your position was that there was no God. More unintentional deceit ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by internet.weather+8 March 2004 - 00:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (internet.weather &#064; 8 March 2004 - 00:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@7 March 2004 - 23:01

I may be wrong, but I NEVER attempt to deceive.

---

That sounds like a moral standpoint. Where is the selfish element ?

My apologies btw, I am quite sure your deceit is entirely unintentional.[/b][/quote]
The selfish element:

I speak to you in truth so that you do the same&#33;

Like when you tell me that the lake is safe to skate on, I want to trust you. If I have lied to you, why would I think that you are not lying to me?

Not really a hard concept.

Deceit is an intentional act, BTW

As far as my comment on the number of Gods, please refer to an earlier post and realize that I have stated that I don&#39;t have faith in a particular God, but I do admit that God is a possibility.

It is hard to paddle without an oar, no?

To answer the question posed by the thread, I think, yes, they can.

Clearly there are those religions (or branches within religions) which have set their faces against this approach however, there is nothing intrinsic within evolution that necessarily gainsays "the Watchmaker" argument. All it requires is a very patient God and a very long game plan. Some religions are content with such a scenario.

It sometimes strikes me that those who bring a religious bent to their anti-evolutionary arguments are a tad impatient and seem to have a need for a small universe with a short history. This perhaps says more about their emotional needs than their theology. At the end of the day what business is it of anyone if the universe is old and the Watchmaker(s) like(s) a lot of detail?

Nevertheless, equally, there is not particularly anything in evolution that supports the Watchmaker idea either. Quite why a bacterial mutation that resulted in the symbiosis of single cells, with mitochondria (the benign bacteria) allowing for cell division, occurred, is anyones&#39; guess. Chance or Created?

To me evolution is a best fit explanation for the world as we find it, fossil records, geology and earth sciences regarding atmospheric compostion through the ages. Evolution does not, to my mind either prove or disprove existence of power beyond our ken. This is, therefore, still the realm of faith - whatever we each may conceive this to be.

On seperate note, I take it Internet Weather is not Internet News on lucidity pills. :blink:

IW - Orwellian: as in George Orwell, 1984, Animal Farm, Road to Wigan Pier, etc.,

Edit: just tinkering.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes+6 March 2004 - 15:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 6 March 2004 - 15:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Without fear, God is irrelevant.
[/b]

---

I agree somewhat.

Without God I&#39;m pretty sure I would have murdered at least 5 people that I can think of. The consequence of going to hell wouldn&#39;t be there. To avoid jail time, just plan it very well.

<!--QuoteBegin-dlingeverything
Evolution and Creation can not be combined.

They both lie in two different realms, the realm of fact and theology.

[/quote]

Evolution is not fact. It&#39;s theory. Very sound theory but nevertheless, not fact.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman+8 March 2004 - 01:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 8 March 2004 - 01:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@6 March 2004 - 15:47
Without fear, God is irrelevant.

---

I agree somewhat.

Without God I&#39;m pretty sure I would have murdered at least 5 people that I can think of. The consequence of going to hell wouldn&#39;t be there. To avoid jail time, just plan it very well.

<!--QuoteBegin-dlingeverything
Evolution and Creation can not be combined.

They both lie in two different realms, the realm of fact and theology.

---

Evolution is not fact. It&#39;s theory. Very sound theory but nevertheless, not fact. [/b][/quote]
Hobbes is a little bit scared, Could I be 1 of the 5?

It is amazing that you have faith in a religion which is so much further away from proof than the theory of evolution. It is probably more a function of need than an appreciation of reality.