The History of Religion-- What about the Present of Religion?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by rodereve, Jan 20, 2013.

  1. Balerion Banned Banned

    None of those are evidence for the existence of God. Consciousness is a completely natural phenomenon. Life is a wholly chemical process. There is no such thing as a "God gene." Concepts of godhood came about through cultural evolution, not natural selection.

    They aren't even remotely the same. Belief that a car will stop before it hits you (if you even believe such a thing with a car hurtling towards you) would be based on previous experience; ie, cars stopping just in time for other would-be road pizzas. Faith in God is belief in the unseen, something for which there is no previous experience to fall back on.

    No one has ever been cured of HIV/AIDS by any means, so it's a definite no.

    I sincerely doubt that you have any idea whatsoever as to what's been documented in medical literature, so let's drop the charade, shall we? You're clearly uneducated and uninformed on this subject, so try to keep it to things you actually know something about, because otherwise you overreach, as you have here.

    As to a sugar pill being more effective than an antidepressant, I don't know. I guess it speaks to how awesome the mind is.

    Then what are you trying to say? When Fraggle said God clearly did not exist, you said "It's not so clear," and then went into the alleged powers of faith. If you weren't trying to tie this somehow to God, what exactly are you trying to say?

    No, not literally. If it's a natural phenomenon, it isn't a miracle. And anyway, the doctors don't mean a literal miracle. They mean it in the sense of a long-odds occurrence.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    No evidence for your claims about life being a wholly chemical process or even that concepts of god are derived purely out of cultural constructs (although we could definitely talk about reductionist/atheist views of the universe arising purely from cultural constructs ...)
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Balerion Banned Banned

    Of course there is. We know that life occurs via chemical processes, that concepts of godhood arrive out of cultural constructs, and no evidence to suggest that any other factor is involved.

    There's nothing reductionist about atheism or an atheist's view of the universe, so it's a fallacy to use the two terms as interchangeable. But you are right that they arrived from cultural constructs. Science and philosophy being two of them. Surely those are superior to the constructs from which your primitive religion came, such as fear of the dark and ignorance of physics or meteorology or any of the various things that today debunk the mysticism surrounding those faiths.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    actually we all know that life occurs via other life forms.
    absolute zero evidence of life arising from chemicals.
    If you think otherwise , wiki is waiting to grant you fame and fortune I guess ...

    w-w-w-w-w ... that's nearly one data point you almost had there

    empty plastic bags have more substance than your statements atm ....

    there's nothing in your previous post to suggest you weren't talking about reductionist/atheist world views ...

    If you want to start talking about god arising purely from cultural constructs, you land yourself in the camp of hard atheism and pursuing an absolute negative. Knowing the intense philosophical problems that accompany such a position, many intelligent atheists retreat back to a more modest weak atheism.

    Talking about reductionist views et al as arising from cultural constructs however doesn't suffer in the same manner since one can one can show there is no evidence for their claims on the authority of their own ontological systems (unlike, say , an atheist, who has to assert their all-knowing authority in order to explain exactly what they believe theists are talking about - like you do when you start talking about their apparent ignorance of meteorology or physics ... despite it being completely laughable that either of these two sciences in any shape manner or form are capable of supporting the atheist position ... much less debunking the theist one)
  8. Balerion Banned Banned

    No, what you're talking about is eyewitness testimony. You've narrowed the scope of "evidence" to only include a lab result in which chemicals resolve into a living organism. Unfortunately for you, evidence is a much broader term.

    If you don't have anything of value or substance to add, then this is just another failed attempt at wit.

    Again, you've done nothing to show that atheism is reductionist, nor how my post was in any way whatsoever reductionist. If you want to call it atheistic, fine, but it's based on science. I know it sucks for you that reality tends to lean in the direction of atheism, but them's the breaks.

    No, that's a non-sequitur. I don't address the question at all. It's entirely possible that there is a first mover who set this all in motion and our conception of godhood arose solely through cultural constructs. And every single shred of evidence suggests that this is precisely how our myriad gods came to be.

    More rambling nonsense. If you didn't understand the point I was making, it's better to ask than to run off at the mouth pretending as if you did. I find discussions are more productive when gaps in understanding are bridged through direction questioning. But that would be the obvious, intelligent viewpoint, and therefore reserved for honest, intelligent posters. Since I don't seem to be the presence of either, I'll go ahead and fill in the blanks for you.

    The atheist position does not require appeals to authority, nor omniscience (a mistake you and wynn are constantly guilty of, and ever failing to even attempt to support). It's based on the same methodology your kind hijacks when propagating the lie that is Intelligent Design, except the atheist position is based on legitimate data. As to why physics or meteorology support the atheist position, it should be self-evident (and I sense that it is, and you're only keeping up the act because you now have an audience). If primitive man understood how the weather worked, or what was or wasn't possible for a human being to do, then the superstitions leading to religious dogma simply never would have arisen. This is why no one in their right mind believed Jerry Fallwell when he said homosexuality was responsible for Hurricane Katrina. Two thousand years ago, however, such an idea probably would have gained considerable traction. Hell, it did: look at the flood myths. Rather than just being a random occurrence, a localized flood becomes the handiwork of a vengeful god.

    Of course, because of your intellectual dishonesty and ignorance of atheism, you'll try to peg this as "hard" atheism, but it isn't anything of the sort. All of what I said can be true in a universe that was created by some intelligent being. In other words, saying that Yahweh is a myth says nothing about the true nature of existence other than "He didn't do it."
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    i never said they were.
    you know this how exactly?
    yes, i know.
    science still has no clue how it all came about though.
    i remember reading something about it in "new scientist" i believe.
    i wasn't there so i have no clue.
    are you saying that medical literature has never documented the placebo effect?
    and i meant it.
    no scientist in their right mind would EVER say something doesn't exist unless they had solid proof.
    where is this solid proof at balerion?
    the situation isn't as cut and tried as you think.
  10. Balerion Banned Banned

    Yes you did:

    I'm sorry, is that not a list of things you are claiming as evidence for God's existence?

    I know this because if your physical brain is injured or damaged, your consciousness changes or disappears entirely, suggesting that it is dependent on the functionality of the brain.

    Not "no idea." They have several models, they just don't have one universally-accepted model.

    Another fallacy. You've heard of archaeology, no?

    No, of course they have. I'm saying that you've likely never read any medical literature in your life, and it seems disingenuous for you to cite it as a source when you're really just guessing.

    Proof only exists in math, so it certainly isn't a requirement for a scientist to make a statement. What is required for such a statement is evidence, of which there is heaps and mounds. If you actually studied this stuff, like the origin of the bible myths, you'd probably come to the same conclusion.

    First of all, the saying is "cut and dried," (or cut and dry) not cut and tried. Secondly, you've just contradicted yourself. You were citing those as evidence of God's existence. Why the lies?
  11. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    I see . You should have been specific when you were talking of evidence as it that occurs purely in your mind as opposed to being capable of performed, witnessed or established in the "real" world

    Kindly take your own lessons to heart .

    Post evidence for claims that god is culturally constructed (preferably evidence at it occurs outside of your mind) or please be quiet

    at this point it behooves you to explain how your views/posts are not atheistic/reductionist since all you appear to be doing is heading further down that path

    First of all you are yet to begin to offer any evidence for this claim of yours (aside from it apparently existing in your mind) ... much less how these (apparent) culturally defined versions of god distinguish themselves from the possibly real version of goal (lol - seriously you are starting to write like a comedy sketch now)

    Perhaps that would be a valid statement if you ever offered any explanation of your claims.

    Basically the dialougue is reading like this:

    Bal - "god is a wholly culturally defined phenomena"

    Me - "no evidence for that claim"

    Bal - "yes there is"

    Me - "what is it?"

    Bal - "god is a wholly culturally defined phenomena"

    will the irony never end?

    so you keep saying, yet you totally fail to provide any data (legitimate or otherwise) and continue on your tirades about "what theists are really talking about".

    On the other hand however, one doesn't have to usurp the scientific process to show that reductionist world views are not capable of asserting any agenda on divinity/atheism/etc

    perhaps that would make sense if it was clear that's how religion arose (given that simply because it may appear that way in your mind, its not necessarily valid ... since you could also think of a pink unicorn too y'know

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ), or even if the said two sciences in question could somehow contextualize the issue of god ....

    and jerry fallwell is the most respected, influential figure of religious philosophical discourse you can think of ?

    Or are you simply straw manning?

    is this as it occurs in the real world or as it occurs in your mind?
    Just thought we better clear up this detail before we analyze this statement of yours ...

    On the contrary it certainly requires more than a wheelbaroow full of intellectual dishonesty when you start talking about all concepts of god having no authority outside of the cultural systems they appear in while simultaneously denying you are pushing a hard atheist agenda. Noted that the manner that you push this proverbial around is by saying that there could exist a god but the concepts about him are false ... while markedly failing to mention how on earth you would distinguish between a real concept of god and a version that is fictionally (aka "culturally") attributed

    you are simply pushing shit uphill but are too intellectually bankrupt to admit it.
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    for you to come across with bullshit like this is beyond belief.
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    you can be a complete vegetable and still be conscious balerion.
    you mean one that works.
    several models?
    i'm only aware of 2.
    RNA and amino acids.
    the scientific community has almost given up on amino acids, but not quite.
    RNA isn't fairing much better.
    yes, i'm acquainted with ancient ruins.
    i'm not even going to ask.
  14. Balerion Banned Banned

    Look at your posts. It's an assumption based on the way you present yourself.

    So you were simply lying before?

    You can be conscious, yes, but not in the same manner you were before. (unless you had something awful like Locked-in syndrome) If you knew anything about what you were talking, you'd know that consciousness isn't simply a "yes" or "no" proposition. But you'd rather remain ignorant and just run off at the mouth, apparently.

    They haven't yet been able to replicate any of them in a lab, but that could very well change in the future, and it's not a dealbreaker because the science is sound. In theory, however, many of the models do work, it's just a matter of having no way to know which of the possible scenarios actually happened, if any of them did. Even if they created monomers in the lab tomorrow, it wouldn't prove that this one method is how it happened, it would just mean that we've actually demonstrated one of the ways it might have happened.

    Comments like this are why I don't believe you have any idea what you're talking about.

    Have a go.

    It's more than just discovering ancient ruins, it's unraveling history through those ancient places and objects. In other words, you don't have to own a time machine to know how things happened.

    I know, because it would destroy your ignorant little fantasy. It must really suck knowing that exposure to reality would destroy your worldview.
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Truisms ... are just so damn mesmerizing!
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    yes, putting forth the placebo effect was a bad presentation.
    and again, how do you know this?
    are you guessing again?
    and i can win the 30 million dollar lotto 7 times in a row.
    the only thing it proves is that you created monomers in the lab.
    point out the specific sections that deal with starting materials other than amino acids or RNA.
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    so bring it home by presenting this "heaps and mounds" of evidence.
  18. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Wow, talk about spewing ad hominems rather than addressing the persons claim! This can only be an evasion.
  19. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    IOW, we do not have sufficient empirical evidence to favor any of them.
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013
  20. Balerion Banned Banned

    I haven't guessed at all. All of this stuff is documented in the medical literature you are so fond of reading. Go talk to someone with severe brain trauma after a car accident, see if they even recognize you anymore. Hell, add some chemicals to your own brain and see how your consciousness changes. Go drink a twelve-pack and see how you feel.

    What you do base your skepticism on?

    No, genius. It would prove that organic molecules could form from inorganic precursors, a presumed condition for the beginnings of life. Hence, "one of the ways it might have happened."

    Don't ask me to do your fucking homework for you. Read the goddamn article or just own up that you're talking out of your ass.
  21. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Only insofar as "organic molecules" are not necessarily life.

    Most often the term monomer refers to the organic molecules which form synthetic polymers... -

    The modern meaning of "organic compound" is any one of them that contains a significant amount of carbon - even though many of the "organic compounds" known today have no connection whatsoever with any substance found in living organisms. -

    Seems you are equivocating "organic" where it does not necessarily imply life.
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    it isn't a lack of evidence, it's a lack of lab verification.
    despite the best efforts of science we have been totally unable to recreate life under ANY conditions.
    the only experiment into this that i am aware of is the miller experiment which gave rise to amino acids.
    even this experiment failed.
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    yes, at one time "organic chemistry" was basically the chemistry of compounds containing carbon.

Share This Page