Notices
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 401 to 454 of 454
Like Tree181Likes

Thread: Why should it matter not to believe in God?

  1. #401  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Flick and Strange: Seems obvious at this point that you cannot figure out what is the joke and you are pissed about it. This is not really a math problem. I would not expect most post-moderns to be able to figure this out since they do not rely
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #402  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,498
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Flick and Strange: Seems obvious at this point that you cannot figure out what is the joke and you are pissed about it. This is not really a math problem. I would not expect most post-moderns to be able to figure this out since they do not rely
    Does that mean that, despite your silly jokes, you accept that things can be proved in maths and, specifically, it can be formally proved that 2+2=4?

    (And I am not pissed about anything. Just trying to make sure you understand that math can prove things.)
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #403  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034


    Forget I even posted in this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #404  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Flick and Strange: Seems obvious at this point that you cannot figure out what is the joke and you are pissed about it. This is not really a math problem. I would not expect most post-moderns to be able to figure this out since they do not rely
    So somehow, your poor and unintelligible "sense of humor" validates your argument that you can mathematically prove that 1=0?

    Do you​ even know what you're saying at this point?
    Strange likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #405  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Flick asked:

    sked:
    So somehow, your poor and unintelligible "sense of humor" validates your argument that you can mathematically prove that 1=0?
    OK, I did not, off the top of my head remember the crazy problem which I now think is represented by the youtube video below which proves that 1+1=0.

    1 + 1 = 0: The Proof! - YouTube
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #406  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Strange asked:

    Does that mean that, despite your silly jokes, you accept that things can be proved in maths and, specifically, it can be formally proved that 2+2=4?
    Well, this is not really a math forum, but I propose that you "prove" to me that 2+2=4. I do not recall that I said 2+2 did not equal four, merely that I said it cannot be proved. May I also refer you to my last post to Flick on proving that 1+1=0.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #407  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    curiouser and curiouser
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #408  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by ABOUT data field from Daytonturners Youtube link
    I've seen a few so-called "Maths tricks" on YouTube, most involving division by zero or basic algebra, so here's my contribution. You do need to know a bit about square roots and the complex number i, though. Of course, there is a flaw in the proof - the point is for you to spot it.
    Now here is an actual proof that 1+1=2; 1+1=2
    Strange likes this.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #409  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Strange likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #410  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Re: Lynx' link.

    The formula used here is far beyond my high school math so I do not know if it actually proves that 2+2=4. To tell the truth, I do not even know that the 1+1=0 proof actually proves that 1+1 does equal 0. Each so-called proof requires that one have a prior understanding of what numbers stand for as well as numerous other symbols. I do have a prior understanding of what numbers stand for. I understand most of the symbols in the 1+1=0 proof but not all of them while many of the symbols in the 2+2=4 proof are meaningless to me though I do understand what it tries to show. Thus neither of these formulas is capable of actually communicating with me or proving anything to me. The proof does not actually prove that 2+2=4. It, rather, proves that 2+2 is greater than three and less than five, leaving only four so long as we are dealing with whole numbers and eliminating fractions. I am familiar with Fibonacci numbers and sequences in the context of somebody's (Robert Prechter) stock trading system although I do not use it.

    My common sense tells me that 2+2 does actually equal four and that 1+1 does not really equal 0. We understand 2+2=4, not because it has been proven, but because we understand that numbers are abstractions which usually stand for real things depending on the context to which they are applied. And we knew it long before the proof posited by Lynx Fox was developed.

    I do note, however, that no one has explained what happened to the missing dollar in the motel story.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #411  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,659
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    The formula used here is far beyond my high school math so I do not know if it actually proves that 2+2=4. To tell the truth, I do not even know that the 1+1=0 proof actually proves that 1+1 does equal 0. Each so-called proof requires that one have a prior understanding of what numbers stand for as well as numerous other symbols. I do have a prior understanding of what numbers stand for. I understand most of the symbols in the 1+1=0 proof but not all of them while many of the symbols in the 2+2=4 proof are meaningless to me though I do understand what it tries to show. Thus neither of these formulas is capable of actually communicating with me or proving anything to me. The proof does not actually prove that 2+2=4. It, rather, proves that 2+2 is greater than three and less than five, leaving only four so long as we are dealing with whole numbers and eliminating fractions.
    IOW "I can't understand it, therefore it's not correct".

    My common sense tells me that 2+2 does actually equal four
    Bull.

    We understand 2+2=4, not because it has been proven, but because we understand that numbers are abstractions which usually stand for real things depending on the context to which they are applied. And we knew it long before the proof posited by Lynx Fox was developed.
    Equally bull.

    I do note, however, that no one has explained what happened to the missing dollar in the motel story.
    Wow!
    The first time I heard that it took me about 30 seconds to see where the error was.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Amusing, but flawed.
    "Time AND money" = time PLUS money, not time x money.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #412  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,498
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Well, this is not really a math forum, but I propose that you "prove" to me that 2+2=4.
    As that would require a good understanding of set theory, which would take a significant amount of effort, I suggest you go and study this yourself if you are interested (which I'm sure you are not). As it is a mathematical proof rather than a party trick it is not something that can be explained in a couple of sentences.

    I do not recall that I said 2+2 did not equal four, merely that I said it cannot be proved.
    That is what you said. And it is wrong. Your arrogant refusal to accept that you might be wrong is rather sad (and, as I understand it, a sin).

    May I also refer you to my last post to Flick on proving that 1+1=0.
    What is wrong with you? That is NOT a proof. It is a joke, a trick, a deceit. I suppose you also think that stage magicians really do cut women in half?

    To repeatedly claim this is a proof is either deliberately dishonest or very, very stupid.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #413  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Ah, interesting. Not what I was thinking of but it will do. Nice to know that there are multiple ways of proving the same thing.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #414  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,498
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Re: Lynx' link.

    The formula used here is far beyond my high school math so I do not know if it actually proves that 2+2=4. To tell the truth, I do not even know that the 1+1=0 proof actually proves that 1+1 does equal 0. Each so-called proof requires that one have a prior understanding of what numbers stand for as well as numerous other symbols. I do have a prior understanding of what numbers stand for. I understand most of the symbols in the 1+1=0 proof but not all of them while many of the symbols in the 2+2=4 proof are meaningless to me though I do understand what it tries to show. Thus neither of these formulas is capable of actually communicating with me or proving anything to me. The proof does not actually prove that 2+2=4. It, rather, proves that 2+2 is greater than three and less than five, leaving only four so long as we are dealing with whole numbers and eliminating fractions. I am familiar with Fibonacci numbers and sequences in the context of somebody's (Robert Prechter) stock trading system although I do not use it.

    My common sense tells me that 2+2 does actually equal four and that 1+1 does not really equal 0. We understand 2+2=4, not because it has been proven, but because we understand that numbers are abstractions which usually stand for real things depending on the context to which they are applied. And we knew it long before the proof posited by Lynx Fox was developed.
    Yet, despite you limited knowledge of mathematics, you are quite willing to assert that such a proof is not possible. Unbelievably arrogant.

    I do note, however, that no one has explained what happened to the missing dollar in the motel story.
    It is sleight of hand, like a card trick. You just choose to add the wrong numbers up and *hey presto* get the wrong answer.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #415  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Flick asked:

    sked:
    So somehow, your poor and unintelligible "sense of humor" validates your argument that you can mathematically prove that 1=0?
    OK, I did not, off the top of my head remember the crazy problem which I now think is represented by the youtube video below which proves that 1+1=0.

    1 + 1 = 0: The Proof! - YouTube
    Uh, Dayton? Yea, the poster of that video wrote in the "About" description underneath the video window "Of course there is a flaw in the proof - the point is for you to spot it." Dude! You just posted "April Fools!" as evidence.

    In case you missed it the first time I posted it, here is a proof of 1+1=2; http://tachyos.org/godel/1+1=2.html
    The very fact that a proof exists that 1+1 has a specific value(2) proves that 1+1 cannot equal zero.

    2$, in the liars pocket, plus the 25$ for the room, is equal to 27$. Which is the amount that is left from 30$ after we remove the 3$ refunded. It is just for such an obfuscated error in logic that your posted Youtube "proof" is bogus.
    Strange likes this.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #416  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,498
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    2$, in the liars pocket, plus the 25$ for the room, is equal to 27$. Which is the amount that is left from 30$ after we remove the 3$ refunded.
    And is also, not surprisingly, equal to 3 x $9 the three guests paid.

    "Ain't math great." (Dayton Turner)
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #417  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Sorry my response is so short, but my palm appears to now be permanently attached to my face.
    zinjanthropos likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #418  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Sorry my response is so short, but my palm appears to now be permanently attached to my face.
    Likewise. Has Dayton actually answered any inquiries?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #419  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Answered? Well, sure.

    Unfortunately, his answers have all been complete nonsense, links to things he clearly didn't read, or claims that we're all too stupid to get what he's saying. If this had been a test, his answers would have earned him an F.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #420  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Answered? Well, sure.

    Unfortunately, his answers have all been complete nonsense, links to things he clearly didn't read, or claims that we're all too stupid to get what he's saying. If this had been a test, his answers would have earned him an F.
    He should have been a politician. His MO, the changing of the subject, is so obvious to a fault. He's a believer with that very well established defensive mechanism, something you don't get by just going to a revival meeting for the first time.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #421  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    I googled this and smiled.

    Let me say first of all that there is no real proof for the statement 1 + 1 = 3.

    You cannot use correct mathematics to prove an incorrect statement. However, there are a couple of cutesie "proofs" of stuff like this, and you can use them to "prove" anything you want. The most famous example is the "proof" that 1 = 0, and once you prove anything that isn't true, you can prove ANYTHING else. You could prove that the moon is made of green cheese. You could prove that 5 = 8. You could prove that I'm your father. And yes, you could also prove that 1+1 = 3. That's because the statement p => q is always true when p is false.


    Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math




    Now I feel I can prove ANYTHING!

    Thank you Dr. Math

    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #422  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,803
    Why should it matter not to believe in Math?
    dinky likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #423  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,498
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Why should it matter not to believe in Math?
    It doesn't matter because math doesn't care (unlike the more jealous gods).
    zinjanthropos likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #424  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Maybe use incorrect mathematics to prove God exists.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #425  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Maybe use incorrect mathematics to prove God exists.

    That might make Dayton happy. Give it to him for a Christmas gift, he might accept it.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #426  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Godel might have beaten me to it.

    Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    S
    ure, I wasn't conscious when he died, but I still hate him now.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #427  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Godel might have beaten me to it.

    Gödel's ontological proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    S
    ure, I wasn't conscious when he died, but I still hate him now.
    I don't think Dayton wants God anywhere near reality. God's much safer where He is right now.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #428  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Strange observes:

    Yet, despite you[r] limited knowledge of mathematics, you are quite willing to assert that such a proof is not possible. Unbelievably arrogant.
    My point, exactly, that agnostics and atheists, in their limited knowledge of spiritual things continue to assert that there is no proof of God. It would also appear that such people are totally lacking of any sense of humor.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #429  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,498
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    My point, exactly, that agnostics and atheists, in their limited knowledge of spiritual things continue to assert that there is no proof of God. It would also appear that such people are totally lacking of any sense of humor.
    So, rather than admit you were mistaken, you turn it into an attack on others. Is that what is meant by "turning the other cheek"?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #430  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    My point, exactly, that agnostics and atheists, in their limited knowledge of spiritual things continue to assert that there is no proof of God.
    So, God has spoken to you then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #431  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Strange observes:

    Yet, despite you[r] limited knowledge of mathematics, you are quite willing to assert that such a proof is not possible. Unbelievably arrogant.
    My point, exactly, that agnostics and atheists, in their limited knowledge of spiritual things continue to assert that there is no proof of God. It would also appear that such people are totally lacking of any sense of humor.
    I have limited knowledge of Middle Earth, but I still know it isn't real...
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #432  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    I don't know anything about the New Hebrides, but I know they exist.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #433  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,803
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    I don't know anything about the New Hebrides, but I know they exist.
    if I were to say...

    I don't know anything about God but I know He exists

    How do you think both statements compare? I think your answer is important here.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #434  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    How is it possible to know a lot about something which cannot be measured or observed? You may know a lot about religion, but that only suggests that you believe religion exists.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #435  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Ah!

    I've found some old assignment questions to indulge.

    1.1.18 Determine whether each of these conditional statements is true or false.

    a) If 1 + 1 = 3, then unicorns exist.
    This statement is true because F -> F has the truth value T.

    b) If 1 + 1 = 3, then dogs can fly.
    This statement is true because F -> F has the truth value T.

    c) If 1 + 1 + 2, then dogs can fly.
    This statement is false because T -> F has the truth value F.

    d) If 2 + 2 + 4, then 1 + 2 = 3.
    This statement is true because T -> T has the truth value T.




    http://math.berkeley.edu/~bernd/hw1sol.pdf
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #436  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,909
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    My point, exactly, that agnostics and atheists, in their limited knowledge of spiritual things continue to assert that there is no proof of God. It would also appear that such people are totally lacking of any sense of humor.
    It is a well documented fact that atheists tend to score highly on general religious knowledge surveys; U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

    Now, I suppose that you are just going to have to take my word, that for the rest of this post I shall rely on memory alone and not reference any further material. Though I shall be taking my time.

    So Dayton, what do you think about the new Pope, Pope Francis? I did not think that I could be so fond of a Pope. There are persistent rumors that Francis sneaks out of the Vatican at night with his chief almoner to distribute charity to the local poor. Pope Francis took his name from St Francis of Assisi, a historical advocate of charity for the poor. This spirit of doing charity is, to my mind, well summed by the red words from Matthew "As you have done unto the least of these, so also have you done unto me." In the Vajracchedika, Siddartha Gautama admonishes that "Alms should be given without attachment to any sight, sound, scent, nor any phenomenal consideration."
    Perhaps Francis of Assisi is best known for his proclamation that "The visible is temporal, the invisible eternal." What did Francis mean? I think the same thing that Jesus meant in a particular exchange with Peter. Jesus and Peter were hanging out at the temple in Jerusalem. Peter says "What of it lord, this great temple?" Jesus replied "One day not two stones of this temple will stand together." While this exchange is often mistaken for a prophecy, (The referenced temple was destroyed by the Romans about 60 AD.) I assert that Jesus was illustrating for Peter that primary premise of spirituality illustrated by the proclamation of St Francis of Assisi, that there is a Platonic realm of ideals that has primacy over the ordinary world of (imperfect) form. Of course this is also made obvious in Jesus actions of turning over the tables of the money lenders in the temple, and his proclamation that "A camel shall pass through the eye of a needle before a rich man should enter the kingdom of heaven."
    Were I personally to leave some statement to the body of religious thought, it would be this "If every day is not holy, and the whole of the world is not a temple, then it matters not a persons philosophy or religion for they do not practice it." I would like to add that a love of reason and order does not preclude a love of beauty.

    Peace be with us all.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #437  
    Forum Freshman mongodoesnotunderstand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    5
    At the lowest level if you believe in the placebo effect and it works for you go with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #438  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    GiantEvil said

    It is a well documented fact that atheists tend to score highly on general religious knowledge surveys; U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project
    This is sad but true. However, the Bible does not seem to suggest that the persons who know the most about God are the ones who go to heaven. Rather it suggests that the people who acknowledge his existence and accept the grace He freely offers are the ones who go to heaven no matter how much or how little they know.

    As to the Pope: I am not Roman Catholic but it does seem that Pope Francis is more focused on serving the people than serving the church. That is only my impression based on some of the things which have been written about him.

    Maybe we should get together for coffee or something some day at Jantzen Beach. No sales tax over here!!!! PM me.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #439  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,803
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    the Bible does not seem to suggest that the persons who know the most about God are the ones who go to heaven. Rather it suggests that the people who acknowledge his existence and accept the grace He freely offers are the ones who go to heaven no matter how much or how little they know.
    A familiar refrain. Acknowledging something you can't possibly know anything about. Things like heaven & freely offered grace are divine extras that no one can know about for the simple reason that God is only a belief. That's where god belief ends, there's no facts you can add to it. Sure you can offer more beliefs but that's all they are. Unfortunately those become factual knowledge for most believers, that's the failure of religion, the whole thing is a massive fraud.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #440  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    the Bible does not seem to suggest that the persons who know the most about God are the ones who go to heaven. Rather it suggests that the people who acknowledge his existence and accept the grace He freely offers are the ones who go to heaven no matter how much or how little they know.
    A familiar refrain. Acknowledging something you can't possibly know anything about. Things like heaven & freely offered grace are divine extras that no one can know about for the simple reason that God is only a belief. That's where god belief ends, there's no facts you can add to it. Sure you can offer more beliefs but that's all they are. Unfortunately those become factual knowledge for most believers, that's the failure of religion, the whole thing is a massive fraud.
    Indeed so, I'm afraid.
    In an age of reason, why do people from all walks of life and all around the world persist in a belief of a recent creation, a flat earth, heaven and hell, the fall of man, the immaculate conception, life after death, prophecy, the Devil, angels and demons, a perfect God and an imperfect Man, and the salvation for believers?

    Only a few days ago I was in conversation with a doctor of medicine, a member of the baptist community. He was telling me of the Fall of Man, and how this had probably happened to humans alone in the whole universe. Hence the need for Christ.
    While I support the right for an individual to believe in whatever in a free society, I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
    If an objection could be made, then I would focus not on the Fall of Man, but on the extraordinary Rise of Man.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #441  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,803
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    While I support the right for an individual to believe in whatever in a free society, I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
    I support the right to believe in a god if anyone wondered.

    What can I say? How can a non believer be angry with Dayton? He's defending his beliefs yet I don't think he does it for the vast number of believers in the world, but for himself. Remember that he also needs to defend his beliefs against others who share the god belief. I wonder how he fares there? Don't seem to get too many chances to hear religions debate each other but I imagine it's interesting.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #442  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Ox said:

    While I support the right for an individual to believe in whatever in a free society, I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
    This is scary!!!

    Who gets to draw that line? You? Me? Obama? The Pope? Some Ayatollah? A Mahrishi? Maybe it should be a punishable crime to believe in Sasquatch or aliens? Or God?

    And, lest we forget: As an atheist, you represent a skimpy seven percent of the world's population. So how do you think your views would fare in a line drawing contest?
    Last edited by daytonturner; December 21st, 2013 at 04:29 PM. Reason: adding paragraph
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #443  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Ox said:

    While I support the right for an individual to believe in whatever in a free society, I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
    This is scary!!!

    Who gets to draw that line? You? Me? Obama? The Pope? Some Ayatollah? A Mahrishi? Maybe it should be a punishable crime to believe in Sasquatch or aliens? Or God?

    And, lest we forget: As an atheist, you represent a skimpy seven percent of the world's population. So how do you think your views would fare in a line drawing contest?
    ~ Who gets to draw the line.. No lines need be drawn. Common sense must prevail. Education and thought process will determine the values placed on belief structures.. Faith in the greater strength of the human mind.. I am concerned with the controlled thinking mentality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #444  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Ox said:

    While I support the right for an individual to believe in whatever in a free society, I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
    This is scary!!!

    Who gets to draw that line? You? Me? Obama? The Pope? Some Ayatollah? A Mahrishi? Maybe it should be a punishable crime to believe in Sasquatch or aliens? Or God?

    And, lest we forget: As an atheist, you represent a skimpy seven percent of the world's population. So how do you think your views would fare in a line drawing contest?
    I completely agree. The Catholic church tried to control beliefs once. It ended in the slaughter of thousands, people being burned alive, witch hunts... I like to think we're above that.
    babe likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #445  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,803
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Ox said:

    While I support the right for an individual to believe in whatever in a free society, I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
    This is scary!!!

    Who gets to draw that line? You? Me? Obama? The Pope? Some Ayatollah? A Mahrishi? Maybe it should be a punishable crime to believe in Sasquatch or aliens? Or God?

    And, lest we forget: As an atheist, you represent a skimpy seven percent of the world's population. So how do you think your views would fare in a line drawing contest?
    Well since you're drawing a line at seven percent, skimpy is where you hope atheist population stays. Are you saying atheists are barely tolerable at that level? Would you like to see that percentage higher?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #446  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Ox said:
    While I support the right for an individual to believe in whatever in a free society, I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
    This is scary!!!
    Who gets to draw that line? You? Me? Obama? The Pope? Some Ayatollah? A Mahrishi? Maybe it should be a punishable crime to believe in Sasquatch or aliens? Or God?
    And, lest we forget: As an atheist, you represent a skimpy seven percent of the world's population. So how do you think your views would fare in a line drawing contest?
    Would you believe in God if someone had not told you about the idea of God? Your emotions would then be directed elsewhere. Possibly towards the wonders of the heavens. For the ancients the starry sky was wonder enough.
    The line get crossed when vulnerable kids (and even adults) are told that religion is the truth, when clearly it's nothing more than an opinion.
    I am not an atheist or a theist or an agnostic. I believe there are 2 contrasting alternatives - deism and adeism. Both have a valid argument, and I don't hold a preference because unlike theists and atheists I will listen to interpretations.
    2 such interpretations are:
    Deism: The universe might show the hand of a creator. If gravity were a little bit stronger or weaker then the universe could not have formed to produce life. This would only be valid if the universe is all there is (no multiverse).
    Adeism: Being one of an infinite number of universes, our universe has formed to produce life, in a similar way to evolution by natural selection.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #447  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Flick Montana said:

    It ended in the slaughter of thousands, people being burned alive, witch hunts... I like to think we're above that.
    Does it occur to you that subsequent to this, Hitler slaughtered 6 million Jews because they were Jews and maybe11 million others, Stalin was responsible the deaths of 23-40 million people, many through ethnic purges; and the all time champ Mao Zedong who is responsible for the deaths of an estimated 43-78 million people? And you are outraged with a measly by comparison 40-60 thousand executions for witchery, none of which, by the way, ever took place in Salem, Massachusetts.

    Astromark said:
    No lines need be drawn. Common sense must prevail. Education and thought process will determine the values placed on belief structures.. Faith in the greater strength of the human mind.. I am concerned with the controlled thinking mentality.
    Is the height of naivety or what!? Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all educated people who's greatest feats were involved in controlling thinking.

    Which actually gets us back to the original post. It makes a lot of difference whether you believe in God or not. The non-believers have given us these three champions of murderous despots plus a long list of others.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #448  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Does it occur to you that subsequent to this, Hitler slaughtered 6 million Jews ...
    I know. I said "Catholics" didn't I?

    I think you're starting to muddy the difference between controlling religious beliefs and simply murdering those who oppose you. I was trying to refine the point and keep it within the brackets of religion.
    pavlos and babe like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #449  
    Forum Masters Degree pavlos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    Does it occur to you that subsequent to this, Hitler slaughtered 6 million Jews ...
    I know. I said "Catholics" didn't I?

    I think you're starting to muddy the difference between controlling religious beliefs and simply murdering those who oppose you. I was trying to refine the point and keep it within the brackets of religion.
    Well credit were credits due. Dayton is correct in one instant of his reply to you, Hitler was a Lutheran Catholic.
    A logician saves the life of a tiny space alien. The alien is very grateful and, since she's omniscient, offers the following reward: she offers to answer any question the logician might pose. Without too much thought (after all, he's a logician), he asks: "What is the best question to ask and what is the correct answer to that question?" The tiny alien pauses. Finally she replies, "The best question is the one you just asked; and the correct answer is the one I gave."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #450  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,803
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner View Post
    It makes a lot of difference whether you believe in God or not
    No it doesn't. Atheists didn't kill Christ did they? Both the Romans and Jews had a god or two, one very similar to yours. How about the North American Indian, Aztec, Inca, they had gods and they took a shit kicking from theists. Being a believer does not protect you from a fellow believer.
    Lynx_Fox, pavlos, MrMojo1 and 2 others like this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #451  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    ~ Remember; ~ 'Why should it mater not to believe in God', or is that God's ? and that not seeing a difference is at the core of these issues. That so many red small fish get thrown on the table to sway a argument gets funny if not tedious. I see the 'trinity' get wheeled out and just know you can not argue with indoctrinated fears.. I may just be struck by a lightning bolt any moment now... I claim to have a 100% atheist view that I make that a clear statement with no complications of belief structures at all. That if I were to want a label, it would be of scientific revue. Robust scientific inquiry.
    ~ I note the term 'LOVE' used as some sort of lame mystical force.. I can not find tolerance for such BS.. The want of reproduction weighted with all the twists and turns of expectations of health, support, care, companionship, business partner, Breeding companion. The concept of 'love' is in trouble. I also see that 'The Force' could be used in conjunction with the 'Spirit' or 'love' or whatever you think, you think.. All of which ARE indoctrinated concepts of control and conquer. That I may not convince any will not find surprise by me.. Mine is never the last word. As for the original question; It maters that a truth is not found. That lies of indoctrinated fears of the ignorant are spread and that fear of the unknown are weapons of the foolish. The Sheeple.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #452  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ~ Remember; ~ 'Why should it mater not to believe in God', or is that God's ? and that not seeing a difference is at the core of these issues. That so many red small fish get thrown on the table to sway a argument gets funny if not tedious. I see the 'trinity' get wheeled out and just know you can not argue with indoctrinated fears.. I may just be struck by a lightning bolt any moment now... I claim to have a 100% atheist view that I make that a clear statement with no complications of belief structures at all. That if I were to want a label, it would be of scientific revue. Robust scientific inquiry.
    ~ I note the term 'LOVE' used as some sort of lame mystical force.. I can not find tolerance for such BS.. The want of reproduction weighted with all the twists and turns of expectations of health, support, care, companionship, business partner, Breeding companion. The concept of 'love' is in trouble. I also see that 'The Force' could be used in conjunction with the 'Spirit' or 'love' or whatever you think, you think.. All of which ARE indoctrinated concepts of control and conquer. That I may not convince any will not find surprise by me.. Mine is never the last word. As for the original question; It maters that a truth is not found. That lies of indoctrinated fears of the ignorant are spread and that fear of the unknown are weapons of the foolish. The Sheeple.
    I may not believe in GOD.....but I damn well KNOW and believe in LOVE.
    I have had it. I have experienced it, and not just short termed but LONG term.
    Love had never been control or conquer. It has just meant love, as in being there when needed, support, physical, yes, and it means hugs and warmth and laughter, and standing by someone when they are in difficult times. It means making a meal and hugging your child. It also means that child returning that to you an passing that on.

    I don't agree you on this one


    LOVE to me, is VERY VERY VERY REAL. Not imagined, not sheeple, not a breeding companion, but a real friend and companion and lover to boot, and it is NEVER CONTROL..nor conquer...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #453  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    ~ and, in response to 'Babe's post #452. Yes, I soften my view with a special note; That to care or to have compassion need not be love. That what a parent feels of their children is that what love is ? Then yes, I have lots of it.. Happy to be shown as wrong.. I when making such a stand I am not attempting to group the love we feel as a corrupt action. A feeling. A desire. A caring. The parental governance or even the want to care for and nurture a partners needs. Mutual compassion,. Then YES I put my hand up and fess up to being in love.. Often and on going..
    The phrase " For the love of God " Is where my foggy thinking was going with my little rant. I as you know I do not find a God to love.. and I see no proof of Her love for me. My objection was wrong I agree. I see the beauty of the Nature of this Earth and even in the hostility of extreme weather events. A love of nature I could argue.
    Of the young and youthfully exuberant I feel and see the word Love miss used. Am I jealous.. yep. So yes I withdraw that daft point and agree that love is VERY real. I feel it have it and am lucky to be both in, and be loved.
    In a discussion of 'Why it maters to believe in God. ( Gods )'.
    I do see why I did this and it was to attempt to show how our feelings can and are manipulated. That you must 'love' God yet can not show her as real. That as a astronomer I can not find a need for Gods. The scale of what we know does not show the need for any God. That answering questions of creation with a 'God did it'. Is just not a scientific response. I know of no God and despite searching can find no truth of facts found. Moving the goal posts further down the field is not a scientific method.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #454  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    ~ and, in response to 'Babe's post #452. Yes, I soften my view with a special note; That to care or to have compassion need not be love. That what a parent feels of their children is that what love is ? Then yes, I have lots of it.. Happy to be shown as wrong.. I when making such a stand I am not attempting to group the love we feel as a corrupt action. A feeling. A desire. A caring. The parental governance or even the want to care for and nurture a partners needs. Mutual compassion,. Then YES I put my hand up and fess up to being in love.. Often and on going..
    The phrase " For the love of God " Is where my foggy thinking was going with my little rant. I as you know I do not find a God to love.. and I see no proof of Her love for me. My objection was wrong I agree. I see the beauty of the Nature of this Earth and even in the hostility of extreme weather events. A love of nature I could argue.
    Of the young and youthfully exuberant I feel and see the word Love miss used. Am I jealous.. yep. So yes I withdraw that daft point and agree that love is VERY real. I feel it have it and am lucky to be both in, and be loved.
    In a discussion of 'Why it maters to believe in God. ( Gods )'.
    I do see why I did this and it was to attempt to show how our feelings can and are manipulated. That you must 'love' God yet can not show her as real. That as a astronomer I can not find a need for Gods. The scale of what we know does not show the need for any God. That answering questions of creation with a 'God did it'. Is just not a scientific response. I know of no God and despite searching can find no truth of facts found. Moving the goal posts further down the field is not a scientific method.
    When I speak of love...I never speak of god....to me..."for the love of god" is a phrase...simply that. Nothing more and nothing less.

    We then agree....love is a wonderful emotion, and sometimes a PAINFUL emotion and experience.....but to know love...in the real sense is the best present you will ever have.
    astromark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 20th, 2013, 12:12 AM
  2. Matter V Anti-matter imbalance and inflation
    By mikeohare in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 11th, 2012, 02:34 AM
  3. Mrs. God says God is a one woman God. No Mary thank you.
    By Greatest I am in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 7th, 2008, 01:30 PM
  4. If a matter/anti-matter collision generated the b-bang...?
    By FractalMind in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 8th, 2007, 06:12 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •