Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 90
  1. #21
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Same here. Doesn't mean to me that a superior being is responsible.
    I agree. You won't find me praying in a church.

    Considering how complex our natural world is, its no wonder more people don't just put their faith in a supreme being as its just plain easier to believe that somebody waved their magic wand and things just happened.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."


  2. #22
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    as its just plain easier to believe that somebody waved their magic wand and things just happened.
    Not if you take any time to think about it. Where did the "supreme being" come from? Positing the existence of a supreme being doesn't simplify the question of "Creation;" it just adds another hypothetical layer of complexity to the issue.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  3. #23
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    123

    Default

    No more complex than matter spewing forth from nothing. Where did that matter come from? Moreover, how did the spark come to be in a void of nothingness?

    Can you even call nothingness a void? It simply doesn't exist.

    I think the most rational answer to the entire question is that there's just as much chance of there being a God, as there is that the universe created itself.

  4. #24
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by abeth86 View Post
    No more complex than matter spewing forth from nothing.
    That's less complex than an invisible sky daddy spewing forth from nothing who then "creates" the Universe from more nothing.

    I think the most rational answer to the entire question is that there's just as much chance of there being a God, as there is that the universe created itself.
    I'll go you one better: The most rational answer is that we don't know and probably never will. We can speculate about "just as much chance" of one thing or another but the truth of the matter is that we can't even reasonably make odds one way or another.
    Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 09-03-2010 at 09:30 PM.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  5. #25
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    123

    Default

    I'll go you one better: The most rational answer is that we don't know and probably never will. We can speculate about "just as much chance" of one thing or another but the truth of the matter is that we can't even reasonably make odds one way or another.
    More eloquently my point exactly.

    Although I wouldn't go so far as to say we'll *never* know, we do tend to be pretty curious types. We also tend to figure out what we're questioning.

  6. #26
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    Not if you take any time to think about it. Where did the "supreme being" come from? Positing the existence of a supreme being doesn't simplify the question of "Creation;" it just adds another hypothetical layer of complexity to the issue.
    You have obviously studied religion, the basis of most religions is faith. It's hard to argue with faith. Faith by its own definition doesn't require evidence.

    The truly religious will have an explanation and story to support their beliefs. Will it be something you can disprove. Not likely.

    If you have that faith, then it's very simple to explain creation.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  7. #27
    Forum Member ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    If you have that faith, then it's very simple to explain creation.
    In your own mind, perhaps. To everyone else, it's just silliness.

  8. #28
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman View Post
    In your own mind, perhaps. To everyone else, it's just silliness.
    It's not "my mind". I don't have that faith.

    Also, I think its a bit immature to write off what a large percentage of the world believes as silliness.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  9. #29
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Also, I think its a bit immature to write off what a large percentage of the world believes as silliness.
    How about a more neutral term? "Irrational"
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  10. #30
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    How about a more neutral term? "Irrational"
    I'm not denying that I feel that way at times. However, I have seen loved ones benefit from their faith. Does that mean that some supreme being helped them as opposed to some internal strength, no.

    Many people get strength from their faith, so irrational, stupid... all those judgemental words seem, to me, to ignore the positives of faith.

    Don't lecture me about the negatives of faith, I understand those as well.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  11. #31
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Would Steven Hawking have the 'nads to go to Mecca during Their Pilgrimages and trot out that statement?

  12. #32
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    Many people get strength from their faith, so irrational, stupid... all those judgemental words seem, to me, to ignore the positives of faith.
    With respect, "irrational" isn't judgemental; it's a statement of fact. Yes, some people draw strength from their faith regardless of the fact that it's irrational by definition. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

    Belief can be divided into two broad categories: belief based on objective evidence (aka "facts") and belief without objective evidence (aka faith).

    Everything we "know" is based on some extent on faith; the faith that we exist and that our senses are reporting a reasonably accurate impression of reality.
    Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 09-04-2010 at 04:11 PM.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  13. #33
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    123

    Default

    Here's a thought for those who challenge faith as silly outright -

    Quantum mechanics suggests that the observer determines the outcome of any experiment, simply by choosing beforehand which outcome he wants to see occur. Schrodinger's Cat is the famous case explaining it - is the cat alive or dead? It's neither until observed.

    It's (at least theoretically) possible that if everyone believed that God had ultimate control, that the universe would adapt itself to become beholden to the whims of a creator.

    The universe is a much more interesting place than you could possibly imagine.

  14. #34
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,167

    Default

    Faith is just that faith. It neither needs to be proved or disproved. It only needs to be believed. My faith is because I have chosen to believe. If you are concerned what others think maybe you should reflect own what you actually believe. Do you have faith because you believe in something great than yourself, or do you believe because of what others around you think?

  15. #35
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doughesson View Post
    Would Steven Hawking have the 'nads to go to Mecca during Their Pilgrimages and trot out that statement?
    Would that make his point less valid?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  16. #36
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Would that make his point less valid?
    Besides, infidels aren't allowed in Mecca.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  17. #37
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    With respect, "irrational" isn't judgemental; it's a statement of fact. Yes, some people draw strength from their faith regardless of the fact that it's irrational by definition. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.
    We'll have to disagree on this point. What is rational to one person may not be rational to another.

    I don't think it's rational to jump out of an airplane with a parachute on for fun. Others think its just fine.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  18. #38
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    We'll have to disagree on this point. What is rational to one person may not be rational to another.
    I have to disagree with your disagreement. Rationality is a function of logic which follows a set pattern that doesn't vary with personal preference. "Faith" is irrational because it is not based on logical reasoning. If one were to base one's beliefs entirely on reason (aka rational thinking), one would be an agnostic atheist. Any deviation form that perspective is "irrational." That's just a matter of definition -- not judgement. Some beliefs operate in regions where rationality doesn't function; "faith."

    I don't think it's rational to jump out of an airplane with a parachute on for fun. Others think its just fine.
    Don't knock it until you've tried it. It's sure as hell not rational to run into burning buildings either but I'm not about to stop any time soon.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  19. #39
    Back In Black ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I have to disagree with your disagreement. Rationality is a function of logic which follows a set pattern that doesn't vary with personal preference. "Faith" is irrational because it is not based on logical reasoning. If one were to base one's beliefs entirely on reason (aka rational thinking), one would be an agnostic atheist. Any deviation form that perspective is "irrational." That's just a matter of definition -- not judgement. Some beliefs operate in regions where rationality doesn't function; "faith."
    By calling someone irrational, you are passing judgement upon them and their reasoning.

    Also, a truly religious person would claim that there is evidence to support their faith.

    Just like getting on a plane and trusting that it won't crash requires faith (unless you are personally doing the pre-flight checks, maintenance log verifications, and interviewing the pilots). Does it mean that we are irrational to fly in a plane?

    In addition, you can only have faith that there was no jesus and he didn't rise from the dead. There is no evidence either way. So, it could be argued that it is irrational to not believe in it.

    It's not black and white, like a lot of issues in our world.

    Further: You or anyone can't prove that god does not exist. So you have a belief, just as a religious person does with no proof or evidence. So, the believer and the non-believer are both rational or both irrational.
    Last edited by ChiefKN; 09-04-2010 at 05:46 PM.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  20. #40
    Forum Member DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    By calling someone irrational, you are passing judgement upon them and their reasoning.
    I beg to differ. The rules of logic are independent of personal opinion. Conclusions based on "faith" are, by definition, contrary to rationality. It's not judgement; it's just the meaning of the words.

    Also, a truly religious person would claim that there is evidence to support their faith.
    Where rationality is concerned, only objective evidence is valid.

    Does it mean that we are irrational to fly in a plane?
    One can fly on a plane based on rational judgement. Not that everyone bothers to understand or make rational analysis of the relative safety of flight. As there is no objective evidence for the existence of g_d(s) on which to base analyses, any such belief is inherently irrational.

    There is no evidence either way.
    Indeed, there is no evidence that Jesus ever existed outside of the pages of the Bible.

    Further: You or anyone can't prove that god does not exist.
    I think I stated as much several posts back.

    So you have a belief, just as a religious person does with no proof or evidence.
    Not at all. Without taking a stand either way; not believing that something exists (i.e. because of lack of evidence, for instance) is not the same as claiming that it does not exist.

    So, the believer and the non-believer are both rational or both irrational.
    False. You are overlooking the neutral position. It is irrational to believe that g_d(s) exist or that g_d(s) do not exist. It is entirely rational to neither believe that g_d(s) exist or that g_d(s) do not exist.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts