Hello again,

When I read your all posts I often wonder what for is that whole discussion?
I’m asking, because I really don’t believe that changing such fundamental basis for our personality like belief in God or Science could be made under the force of others verbal argumentation. Even such case happened I think that it had been “prepared” by prior “hard occurrence”. So, what the purpose is of that arguing against other posts?
Please find below some possible reasons (by me) of such long term discussion between limited number of participants:
1. This is competition – participant arguing to win the satisfaction “I’m better”.
2. This is the way to confirm oneself outlook of live (that outlook of live often is incoherent and cause suspense: Is it really it?)
3. This is the way to save other’s souls/health minds. NOTE: this is a quite good way to forget about my soul/health mind.
4. This is the way to share the results of oneself considerations with others – especially when her/his husband/wife doesn’t want to listen such stores.
I’m not in the position to prove the nonsense of this debate – really not. I was active member of your community a year ago (my previous user name was “Ivan Kruk”) and I could indicate all of this four above reasons in my mind but there is much more interesting reason/sense of this debate which I discovered some time later. I have realized that my hard involvement in discussion required to consider ones again all of my truths or definitely judge what my opinion is . And during such consideration some new explanations appeared and some old truths become little bid changed. Finally my participation in the religious debate was a significant step in development of myself.
I’m really wonder if what are your reflections on your participation in this debate – please be open and genuine.

Chris63


------------------

Greetings Chris63,

Personally, I dunno why I'm here half the time. Boredom, I suppose. I log on when there's nothing cookin' at work, and try to make some sense, occasionally anyway.

There is the consideration that nothing makes your own beliefs gell in your own head better than having to defend them. When I first arrived here I was in transition from an agnostic to a theist point of view. But now that it's all gelled, what's my excuse?

I suppose there is also the ego issue. I do feel superior occasionally, but more often I get knocked down or shown up, and that's always good for the character. I have also made friends from this forum, one of which I have actually met in person. I also drag my friends in from elsewhere and try to get them to join the fracas, with varying degrees of success. My husband reads these threads too, and though he doesn't post we do occasionally discuss what's been said here. His viewpoint is so similar to mine he rarely feels the need to post anyway.

Eh..it passes the time, and it's slightly less mindless than TV

Hi Ivan,

I remember you, welcome back. You made some good posts back last year. Why change your id?

Doubtless there are many reasons why people debate here, and of course I can’t speak for everyone. Here are a few reasons why I think this debate continues.

1. We are all basically competitive (survival instinct) and we want to ‘show off’ our skills.

2. Any ideas that have value need to be tested. What better way than to put them on display and let others pull them apart. If they are sound then they will withstand the onslaught. If you have made a mistake then you will soon learn. This key mechanism helps us to adapt and to learn.

3. Some like to preach the ideas of others because they have none of their own but desperately want to join the party.

4. Some simply want to learn from others.

5. Others simply want to share their knowledge and gain pleasure from seeing others learn.

6. Others are angry at injustices and want others to believe their solutions.

7. Some are told they must tell others (i.e. Christian Evangelism).

8. Some are addicted to message boards.

9. Some simply enjoy an intellectual challenge (competitiveness again).

I think I am mainly 1,2,4,9.

I think point 2 is the most valuable. I can also confirm that I have learnt a great deal during my past year here which has significantly helped my personal growth. But there also seems to be enormous value from the interaction itself. For example I could probably have learnt what I have from studying and reading relevant books, but that route simply lacks the adrenaline rush that comes from researching the material to refute the argument of a fellow debater. The debate forces me to read material that I would probably never have read otherwise.

Have fun
Cris

Chris63 -

You and Cris both left off what I consider an important reason..

Fun!

I find debate extremely entertaining. Of course, its not the only reason.. I also participate to learn. I learn about other people's view, and how to better defend my own.

And anyway, the occasional 'conversion' does happen. Perhaps not by the 'heavyweights' of these contests, but I would wager that many people read without posting.

FyreStar

By Cris' numerology, I'd say I'm about 1245.

I have friends and acquaintances with whom I engage in similar oral discussions every now and then, but they can never reach the depth or expressiveness that written discussions sometimes reach. Additionally, it is somehow awkward discussing such things in a casual manner, because you end up immediately labeled too cerebral to make good company. So, when I feel a need to be cerebral, I end up here. Then, written discussion is more memorable (even beside the fact that you can look up what you've "said" a year ago); I find that I retain better the thoughts and points that I have put in writing (an effect not unsupported by scientific studies of this phenomenon), and through this I am able to hold ground and make better progress. The richer the context, the better.

I do enjoy teaching, learning and winning.

As far as learning goes on the religion board, I learn the most when I confront certain beliefs that I originally find paradoxical and downright puzzling. Debating with such people helps me better understand the origins and mechanics of such beliefs, the cause and effect of them -- which is not too far from my scientific ambition (to understand the workings of the human mind.)

Teaching -- any time we articulate anything, we teach, whether intentionally or not (teaching in itself can be simply construed, I think, as information transfer, with the more orthodox notion imposing a methodical structure over such transfers.) The quality of what we teach may vary, as can the purpose behind the teaching. To be a teacher of value, one tries to work with substance; conveying useless fluff is only a waste of the students' energy (and ultimately quite inconsiderate and disrespectful.)

While a good scrap is fun, and though winning is enjoyable, I like to hope that it is not the only thing I can achieve. If I win, I don't want people to go away saying, "So Boris <u>beat</u> me, but if only I knew more, then I'd show him..." I hope every time I kick someone's butt, that I might make them do some thinking and some searching. And I don't want those who "lose" to simply search for counter-facts to my facts (although that is appreciated); I want them to ultimately ponder, in case they "lost", whether I might actually be right (what is it, really, that makes one belief more worthy than another?) I want people to feel themselves in my shoes, to gain an alternate perspective, however temporarily; if my "victories" do not accomplish that, then they are worthless. Personally, I have taken quite a few trips down such empathy lanes already, and I invariably end up learning a lot.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

"I’m really wonder if what are your reflections on your participation in this debate – please be open and genuine."

beyond all that was mentioned above, I also hope to gain something new, the ideas and imagination of others.

------------------
It's all very large.

Uh......Come again Bowser?

That's not something I would expect to hear from you! :)

If nothing more, argument forces thought, even if it's for the purpose of protecting ego. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> Also, if we are fortunate, a new and imaginative thought is thrown up on the board.

------------------
It's all very large.

If nothing more, argument forces thought, even if it's for the purpose of protecting ego.

I'll drink to that. I'll smoke to that. I'll toke to that. ;)

But I have no answers of my own. They're far too muddled; essentially, above all else, it's because I spend more time thinking than writing these days, and while I'm only a little disturbed by this, it seems that the regular habit of trying to organize my thoughts into cohesive ideas is a good one.

Besides, Ufos, God, and Politics? What in the world more do I need to keep me chattering away?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)

Ivan!!

How are you? Long time no hear :(

Nice to see you back if its only a quick stop over.

Most peoples reply's to your question gel well with me, but there's one more thing, a point that Boris touched on about teaching and learning.

"TO INSPIRE AND TO BE INSPIRED"

My main reason for coming when I can is to try to enspire other and myself to go beyond the circle we live in, to contemplate things regardless of how illogical or irrational or far fetched or stupid they may seem.

To inspire people to reach out to God and others with the precious life they have, to live that life, to enjoy that life and to be a window to the world through that life of who it is that gave that life.

Anyway nice to see you around again.

Allcare

Tony H2o

I would just like to point out the fact that God does not exist, has never existed and never will exist. He is neither outside time, nor pre-dating time, nor in control of time. He's just out of time.

And fictional.

------------------

-------------------
God does not exist.

Originally posted by LargeToad:
I would just like to point out the fact that God does not exist, has never existed and never will exist. He is neither outside time, nor pre-dating time, nor in control of time. He's just out of time.

And fictional.

What were we thinking?

You should have said that thousands of years ago.
You could have saved billions of people a lot of time.

Well, now that you've settled that, what's next?

Now we should press on, ignoring baseless religious superstitions, and develop a meaning to life.

Originally posted by Cris:
Now we should press on, ignoring baseless religious superstitions, and develop a meaning to life.

Press on to what?

and develop a meaning to life.

I would like to believe that we come here not to make any sweeping changes in humanity but to share our ideas with others and, in the process, feed that nagging little creature that is constantly hungry for knowledge of what else is out there. My brothers grew up pretty isolated. Whatever my parents said about the world, that was how it was. I was the only one who managed to get an outside influence early on. I thnk we come to this board to get outside influence so that our thoughts don't inbreed and create these twisted little mutant-thoughts that exist only in stagnation.

I guess we're here because we think, because we like to think, and because we like to hear others' thoughts.

"I would just like to point out the fact that God does not exist, has never existed and never will exist. He is neither outside time, nor pre-dating time, nor in control of time. He's just out of time."

A universal negative is hard to prove. So, you've managed to disprove the existence of a being who transcends our universe? You have done away with a being who transcends the ten-dimensions (or is it eleven now?) of our universe? I'd like to see your refutation of a being capable of creating space-time dimensions at will? I wouldn't be too confident in your assertion of disproving the existence of God.

One reason I love the intellectual nature of Christianity is because God transcends the universe. A lot of arguments about omnipotence and this and that fail mainly because a four-dimensional being is imperfectly describing God's attributes and knocking down a straw man.

This is in a slightly different context. It pertains to the trinity. I composed it today. Its part of a larger unfinished work. See what you can glean from it:

I feel compelled to point out the paradoxical nature of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. God is one yet God is three persons (note Christianity does not support polytheism nor is it a tritheistic faith). The three-in-oneness of God is extremely hard to fathom at best and some, myself included, might say impossible. I called the trinity a paradox rather than a contradiction because our transcendent yet immanent Creator is beyond perfect perception to us. I do not mean to imply we can just wish away "contradictions" concerning God's nature at will. What I mean is synonomous to what numerous sciptural passages teach:

Isaiah 55:8-9, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Psalm 145:3, "Great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; His greatness no one can fathom."

Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, although it was pertaining to the problem of evil, pointed this out, "For if there is a God, His wisdom must be infinitely superior to ours, and we will not understand all of His ways . . . This is the only answer Job got, and Job was satisfied, for he was a good philosopher. This posture is not blind fideism but eminent reasonableness." 11

We may not be able to explain paradoxes like the Trinity but we can explain why we cannot explain them. If everything in the Bible about God was understandable it would be convincing evidence against the Bible's credibility. A book written by only men would contain such material, but not a book inspired by an infinitely greater, transcendent Creator whose ways and greatenss we cannot fathom!

Romans 9:18, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

Add those verses in with the notion of progressive revelation, Biblical anthropomorphisms and 1 Corinthians 13:11-12, and one is intellectually justified in adhering to paradoxical views recorded in the Bible.

1 Corinthians 13:11-12, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

In other words, if the primary source of my epistemology concerning who God is, what He does, what my life is about, why we are here et cetera, teaches a three-in-oneness of
the God it reveals then I believe it. This treatise is concerned with who the biblical Jesus is. The credibility and inspiration of the Bible will not be include in this study. The Trinity is a large enough issue in itself.

James Leo Garrett, "The dotrine of the trinity points to the mystery of the Divine being whom Christians worship and serve and who by their confession is at work in their lives. As a truth the Trinity has baffled the most astute Christian thinkers throughout the history of Christianity. It defies normal human logic and transcends our human, modal, natural, and psychological analogies." 12

11. Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Kreeft and Tacelli, pg 124.
12. Systematic Theology: Bibilical, Historical, and Evangelical, Chapter 23, page 288.

Peace,
Vinnie

------------------
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Originally posted by Cris:
and develop a meaning to life.

Well, thanks.

I actually saw that and I assumed that was part of the pressing on.

Since you are separating the two, that must mean that you are at square zero without even a direction to go in.

Without trying to put you on a spot, what plan do you have to find a meaning for life?

From where I sit, you have nothing really to look for, you have no direction to look in, you have nowhere to start from and you have nowhere to go.

I can see why looking for the meaning of life would be right up there on the to-do list.

Hi Tony,

I see the human race at only the beginning of its evolution. The recent rapid progress in genetic science and computer science gives strong indications that we are about to undergo a very rapid and massive change (some call this the singularity). This change is seen by many as the creation of super intelligence, either through humans or through AI. After this we may well come closer to defining where we want to direct future human (or probably posthuman) efforts. At the present time there is no meaning to human life, other than meanings placed on the lives of individuals by themselves, but as a race we as yet do not have a defined direction.

Here are some links that explore these ideas further. If you have not met this thinking before then you may well see it as quite radical, especially Transtopianism. Even if you might not agree with these movements they will perhaps give you a view to alternative philosophies. Note that some of these articles are by leading research scientists, and heads of University departments.

Transhumanism is a good place to start - http://www.transhumanism.com/

The singularity – http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html

Super Intelligence – http://www.nickbostrom.com/superintelligence.html

Computing Power Equaling the Human Brain – http://transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm

Mind Uploading –http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/MUHomePage.html

And finally Transtopianism – http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/r/y/cryonic4life/index.html

You should see that much thought and planning is well underway for preparing the human race for the next few decades and beyond.

Have fun
Cris


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited February 19, 2001).]

Tony,

Note that I am not looking for the meaning to life, there isn't one yet. The intelligence of the human race is far too low to define something so immense. We must evolve first and generate our own meaning.

Cris

meaning to life: FUN

I debate to learn, have fun (competition), and to defend my beliefs. I've learned a lot from others and helped fine tune my values. Amazing thing happen when you force people to leave the humdrum daily life and think.

another reason to post and another meaning to life, thought.

have fun

FA_Q2,

I differentiate between purpose of life and meaning of life.

The two concepts are often mixed together and confused.

What you are really doing is giving or finding purpose to your life. The meaning of what you are doing is something quite different.

Cris

Maybe your right but I do hold one thing as true to the meaning of life: It is different for everybody.
I hope you find yours soon. I cant believe that there is a grand scheme of things, like humanity has a purpose, to do so would be religious ;) So everybody must find their own reason of existence. The purpose and reason in life seem to be the same anyway.

ilgwamh:
"One reason I love the intellectual nature of Christianity is because God transcends the universe. A lot of arguments about omnipotence and this and that fail mainly because a four-dimensional being is imperfectly describing God's attributes and knocking down a straw man.

This is in a slightly different context. It pertains to the trinity. I composed it today. Its part of a larger unfinished work. See what you can glean from it:

I feel compelled to point out the paradoxical nature of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. God is one yet God is three persons (note Christianity does not support polytheism nor is it a tritheistic faith). The three-in-oneness of God is extremely hard to fathom at best and some, myself included, might say impossible. I called the trinity a paradox rather than a contradiction because our transcendent yet immanent Creator is beyond perfect perception to us. I do not mean to imply we can just wish away "contradictions" concerning God's nature at will. What I mean is synonomous to what numerous sciptural passages teach:"

Sorry for coming on this so late but I just had to reply.

The holy trinity is in no was difficult to understand. Have you ever read the Enders Game series? Good books. It is a sci-fi/fantasy that explores just that, at least in the 3rd or fourth books. The father son and husband analogy works quite well also. Also Christianity has no intellectual nature. Simply stating that we cannot hope to understand it so we wont try is not intellectual.

And off the subject:
I thought that we were still considered 3 dimensional since we can only move through time in one direction?

It is 11 dimensions now if you buy in to super string theory.

Originally posted by Cris
Here are some links that explore these ideas further. If you have not met this thinking before then you may well see it as quite radical, especially Transtopianism. Even if you might not agree with these movements they will perhaps give you a view to alternative philosophies. Note that some of these articles are by leading research scientists, and heads of University departments.

Sorry, Cris, I didn't notice your reply here until today.

But thanks for the links, I'll check them out.

Hi to old friends and new. I think one of the main reasons for this debate is indeed to find some meaning for life. And I think the meaning of life is to evolve, as is the nature of the universe. We merely follow the rules of the universe. To evolve is to experience, to be sentient. We (fictional soul givers) created single-celled bacteria and algae out of the elements, for the sole purpose of experiencing them evolve into the millions of life forms that have ever graced this planet, in the same way that we were created. Life forms are like the nerve endings of the universe and we all have a role to play. You will evolve, because we meant you to! And you will try to emulate us, by creating artificial life and intelligence that you can gain experiences and knowledge through, which in turn, will try to emulate you, because that’s how you programmed it! And so on and so forth, that’s how it is in the whole universe; it’s just a series of evolutionary events.
Let me give you an insight into what the universe is like: Consider and imagine, the beginning of an organic life form if you will, from the very first moment of conception, to the splitting of the first cells, the development of the cells into bodily organs, blood and bone. Consider and imagine if you can, the chores, interactions and instant communications performed by the various cells. Imagine, first the vigour and then the deterioration in the cells, as the body goes through puberty, then grows old and dies.
Imagine the huge number and many types of bacteria, which shared, aided and fed off this body while it was alive and which is now thriving on the dead cells, the dead body, having transformed, into a live body of bacteria, fungus and algae. Now imagine, that the dead body, which is crawling with bacteria, is full of insect eggs, also containing their own bacteria and also containing their own cells. The eggs mutate, become larvae and begin to feed on the dead cells and live bacteria, developing into healthy insects, which then become part of the food chain themselves, thereby assisting in the survival of the animal they came out from and ensuring their own survival in the process.
Can you imagine the number of complicated, interactive processes that took place during the life and death of this body at molecular level? Could any human be physically aware of any of these processes in action? The answer is no! Can any man-made machine, ever compute the number of processes and give any meaning to them? The answer is no! I’m just trying to emphasise the scale of complexity here...
Can a body survive without certain cells? The answer is yes! And there are also certain cells that are fundamental to the healthy survival of a body, but no cell can survive without a body. No man is an island, no planet is an island and no cell is an island. All cells are subject to processes taking part in every region of the body. Imagine your solar system as a tiny cluster of cells and your galaxy as a minor bodily organ, within a body that is alive and vigorous. The processes taking part in the body are all interrelated, relying on one another for the body to function properly, but the tiny cluster of cells within the bodily organ I mentioned, would only be aware of a tiny bit of the process. And, as the tiny cluster of cells would be akin to your solar system, at molecular level you would be able to see the sun, the planets and moons, at sub-molecular level you would be able to see life forms, at sub-sub-molecular level you would be able to see the cells in the life forms and at sub-sub-sub-molecular level you would be able to enter a new universe. This is what the universe is like, organic, concentric, never ending!
Nothing is static, everything changes and there is a purpose to everything. The truth is, that all intelligent life forms—-including us—-are limited in our knowledge by local constraints determined by our species and purpose. Ponder this: The cells in a finger, can never know the origins of the body, in the same way as cells in a shin bone, can never know of the existence of fingers—all knowledge has limits--.
(Mostly an extract from my fantasy adventure novel -The Guru Cake- by G N Kosta, copyright)

Concider this

I post here maily beacue it gives me a place to "meet" people with similar intrests, alo ithelp we debate things better.

Plus it's just plain fun!!

Actually, I don't post all that much. I love to read some of the regulars here tho. :) I have often said that some of the longer threads are a delight to read.

It seemed to me that the thread starter was asking "why do we bother posting here at all?" This may be a slightly off para-phrase, but if that was what was being asked, then I must say, that it is a question I have often posed to myself.

One notices that a depressingly large number of posts are replies to die-hard religionists. A statement as absurd as -
"if you don't believe in god, you should better be right, or you will burn in hell forever"
can generate a surprising number of long detailed replies.

IMO, this is a pity, and a waste of the talents and time of the ppl who reply to these in the first place. For one, the religionists (here at sciforums) do not seem to be interested in any meaningful debate. As a result, many long and well thought out replies only result in one line comebacks or petty insults.

And the other, IMO more important issue, is that these talented posters have wasted their time. Time in which they could have presented or addressed more interesting issues. Instead, they resorted to the (intellectually easy) excercise of dis-proving christianity. IMO, almost any person with a minimum capacity for intelligent thought soon comes to the conclusion that christianity is bunk.

A moment of silence for all those threads that could have been ... :( :(

Another thing which struck me was the fixation some of the strongest anti-religionists have [against] christianity. I have often wondered how they would fare when addressing the fundamentals of other religions. For instance, what do the anti-religionists have to say about the concept of "enlightenment"?

I am sorta new here ( well not really ), But I love the community. People here have amazing knowledge. We have all kind of people here. Some believe in God some don't. Some like to talk about religion some like to talk about science. I think it is very informative and great learning experiance.
I am logged in here all the time since I work at the place where we have to be on internet. So it is just very nice informative place to hang out as well as to share ideas and learn from others.
:cool:

I noticed that a reason given for posting here was "intellectual stimulation" or something along those lines.

To me this seems ridiculous. No "intellectual stimulation" arises from debunking ridiculous myths that a normal 12 yo can see through.

The average "atheist" (if I might use that term for the anti-religionists) presents far better material than ANY religionist on this board. It's almost comical to see some of the "discussion" here -

tiassa: (2000 word reply, with numerous footnotes and references)
KalvinB: "Is that so? Says who? You are an idiot who will burn in hell." (full reply in 15 words or less)

One fails to see what stimulation is gained from matching wits with a religionist .... :(

there's two meaning-of-lifes (you don't have to tell me that me and my english sucks)

there's meaning of your life and meaning of all life in universe.

first one you can read from your biography when you are dead (it's hard i know, but those who believe in god, can do it)

we can't know the second one because no one has told us that (it's not in any books).

purpose of your life is simple. you can choose it.

If anything we must admit been an atheist can be lonely at times,
most people do not want to discuss religion with you, cause we don't believe anything they have to say, they know this, so they really dont want to be arguing with you for their cause. However athiests are not chasing people to convert to atheism, I never hide the fact that I'm an athiest, sometimes I do find physical people who will discuss my points of view with an open mind, however that happens rarely.

I come here to meet, discuss, learn, win, loose, motivate, be motivated, by other like minded individuals, I also learn from thiest a great deal, I learn why I really don't belive for instance, the zeal of Tony1 & Sir Loon, the desperation of their ranting, is basically the same desperation of churches, going out of bussiness, (i.e. not long ago I read about a priest who preached from the top of the roof, of his church in order to recruit followers, must of been going broke the guy!! :D) So I learn to defend my points of view from the zealot religious nuts out there, physically or digitally.

I also come here for fun, entertainment in a intelectual activity such as this is enjoyable, and it keeps out of trouble.

A plus, I get to practice at my typing and spelling
:p :D, my girlfriend would say I needs lot of practice at both. :D :rolleyes: