Comments on: under attack, sentiments harden

By: dan

dan — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:57:37 +0000

FYI – I was going to “let” this thread go dormant, not “make” it, in case anyone wondered.

And, in case anyone wondered, I DO post the critical statements as well.

And you called me out appropriately; I was going for more of the Wiccan Rede, but I took it to an Epicurean level. Happiness is elusive. The “Not Happy” I was really referring to was the just response to “I’m happy in Christ, therefore no gays should get married” or the “we have billboards all over America, but we’ll complain about yours” approach.

By: Deb Seaton

Deb Seaton — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:26:44 +0000

Well, I’m coming to this thread late, but I have to add at *least* this one comment.

Dan, your comment: “What you do after that is of no relevance to my View of Things, as long as it Makes You Happy, and your Happiness doesn’t make other people Not Happy.”

You have successfully defined absolute nothingness. There is absolutely NO ACTION a person can take that would satisfy the criteria you stipulate. Most assuredly, what makes one person happy will make another NOT. Choices by their very existence are the rejection of one option and a rejection of another, or a host of other, options.

Even one’s decision to act solely for the happiness of another often makes self unhappy, or one’s parents, or one’s friends. That premise is nonsensical. The only true, verifiable option is to follow the only barometer one can truly know at all, and that is one’s own. Anything else is is supposition at best, interpretation at worst.

I wish I could “INSERT” beneath the relevant/related source comments like you can on Wave!

By: dan

dan — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:01:34 +0000

Well, whereas the word “nothing” is pretty all-encompassing, I’ll stipulate to my out of context-edness for the sake of the discussion. And since I advocate reason rather than devotion (as that’s where the discussion has gone), I’ll let this thread go dormant.

By: Emily Overturf

Emily Overturf — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:32:56 +0000

Your quote of John 15:5 is out of context. You did not include “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” This is in regards to the works of Heaven. This is perfectly logical that apart from the center; a person would wither and die in the effort. You must be renewed, reenforced and reenergized from the main to continue. But this is true in all things, regardless of the process. A hermit, no matter how brilliant, without renewed access to continued knowledge; reenforcement & re-energized from technology advancements will be come stagnet, obsolete and eventually useless in any advancement of knowledge whether it be philosopy to medical advancement.
Since God does not send Angels with 3X5 index cards spelling out todays’ directive; I still feel blessed and HONORED, not subjegated when I am allowed an ephiphany that is forward thinking and helps either my friends, coworker or others; and should I have been a scientist who was blessed with capacity to obtain the knowledge (and yes I believe in “Pray to God” but keep rowing to the shore)to cure cancer, I would feel obligated to God to give him praise for using me as a vessel for good works. As we are here for His pleasure, I’m good with that. I do not see it as a sad thing, but an honor. I have free will and get to do anything I damn well please; good or bad. But I can place that aside, and ask to be a servant of the Lord. If I am used, it is a blessing, not a curse. I do not feel smothered,or less myself; more often I have a sense of fulfillment not otherwise obtained.
I undestand a desire of individuality. A desire to say, this is mine, I did it. “Look mom, no hands.” I also will acknowledge that a great many things have been accomplished by Folks who did not acknowledge the existance of God. But the opposite is true as well.
My biggest hope is that everyone, believers and non-believers, will learn to look at eachother not on a spiritual level, but on a human level. We are all on this big round boat together. It is way past time we learned to live together.

By: dan

dan — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:38:11 +0000

“A greater purpose; a reason to know in order to move forth humanity, or an ideal, or a greater good, or a purposeful end.” Atheists have all that. I know I do. I would argue that believers – at least Christians – don’t. Re: “apart from me, you can do nothing.” (John 15:5) THAT, in my opinion, is what’s sad; that a life is so empty it needs a god-figure in it. If I cure cancer, I do it so that people will stop suffering. If you do, you do it because god told you to/wants you to/etc. I don’t think obeying a god-commandment is a moral decision; I think it boils down to a cost-benefit analysis. And ultimately, if that makes you happy, it’s a Good Thing.

If you find the cure to cancer, scientifically proven, then that’s the end of the discussion. You have done an amazing thing, and it satisfies my intellectual curiosity (FWIW). What you do after that is of no relevance to my View of Things, as long as it Makes You Happy, and your Happiness doesn’t make other people Not Happy.

By: Emily Overturf

Emily Overturf — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:36:02 +0000

A greater purpose; a reason to know in order to move forth humanity, or an ideal, or a greater good, or a purposeful end. Without a contributory goal this all just feels futile and dry. Like sawdust.
I can’t fathom it. And if I was in a position where I didn’t see that my presence was for an infinite purpose (and I mean that in an humble way, not in arrogance) to an infinite power, I would simply wish to cease to be. But, that is how it strikes me.
I truly want to understand how this all works for you. Which is why I enjoy discussing these things with you. 1.) You are one the most brilliant people I know. And 2.) one of the few people truly respect and value an opinion of.
You mentioned “just because we don’t know “why” yet doesn’t mean we need to start spiritualizing the “because.”” Ok I respect your direction in that. But I feel my spirituality around me and through me like a veil, ever-present. Say I find the cure to cancer, scientifically proven. And in finding that cure I give all the credit to God. Do you doubt the validity of my Science because I claim spiritual assistance?

By: dan

dan — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:18:01 +0000

Then don’t be. You guys are defining it that way, not me.

“Knowledge without faith or belief in something, is mechanics.” Interesting opinion. In what “something?”

By: Emily Overturf

Emily Overturf — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:02:20 +0000

Reality is Grey. And if Reality is a contour line drawing the line is a blur.
Knowledge without faith or belief in something, is mechanics.
I don’t want to be a computerized marionette. I want to be a real girl.

By: dan

dan — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:49:14 +0000

Woo Woo! The Logical Fallacy Train has pulled into the station! Now boarding are Appeal to Authority, Bare Assertion, the ever-popular Red Herring, the Historian’s Fallacy, and rounding it up is Tex, the Sharpshooter!

“Why can’t you… both be a believer and scientist?” I never said you couldn’t. I am saying that there is no need to “believe” the results of the rigorous scientific endeavour. The outcome is the outcome, whether you believe it or not.

Please read what you quote: definitions one and four can’t BOTH be accurate. And you know why Those of Faith heal better. The research is there, and it is a perfectly-demonstrated scientific theory, at that, having nothing to do with the supernatural.

So I gave you an out from having to “prove” atheism is a religion? How convenient. And you threw in the Straw Man and Ad Hominem, to boot. Hope there’s room left on the train.

By: Kellwood

Kellwood — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:59:37 +0000

“And I disagree with “Educated guesses are guesses.” The educated don’t guess; they hypothesize, test, and invite others to replicate the results (which is why we don’t have cold fusion yet).”

hy⋅poth⋅e⋅sis:
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.

Source: Dictionary.com

“I am merely stating that I believe in science and logic because they work.”
Why can’t you have both both be a believer and scientist?
Is reality either black and white?
Is reality a contour line drawing? No shadows or colors?
Are the only answers just yes and no?

Some examples of some “irrational” scientist or mathematicians :
Albert Einstein-Jew, The author of “Relativity”
Sir Isaac Newton- Some sort occult, Laws of Gravity
Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarisizmi- Islam, The Father of Algebra
John Polkinghorne- Particle Physics and Anglican Priest, President of Queens College at Cambridge and author of “The Way the World is : The Christian Perspective of a Scientist”
Francis S. Collins- Christian, Director of NIH and author of “The Language of God”

Everyday, I here some of the worlds leading oncologists say that remission is greater with people of faith than those who have none. Why is this?

I also know that I can’t convince you that atheism has is a religion. The denial of belief makes one deaf.