So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?

by Boudica Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:41 pm

First topic message reminder :

Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

So why can't we leave each other to get on with it?

by Guest Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:37 pm

by snowyflake Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:03 am

You are free to reject the discipline definitions, but they remains nonetheless.

You haven't provided any definitions, Rock. I have yet to see a definition of what and who from you. You have provided us with your interpretation but I don't think they are accepted in the mainstream.

The car rolled

What: The car
Did what: rolled

I would accept that because "did what" implies an action (verb). What on its own does not. A verb is not a 'what'. A verb is an action word. What is not an action word.

by **Ivan** Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:17 am

I know this thread was started by an English teacher, but this is getting ridiculous!
lol!

by Guest Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:45 am

by Guest Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:07 am

by Shirina Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:53 am

I know this thread was started by an English teacher, but this is getting ridiculous!

Agreed. Rock once again was able to sidebar the original topic with semantics.

by tlttf Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:44 am

There's a surprise Shirina? Shocked

by egginbonce Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:47 am

Tosh wrote:This is fascinating stuff, lets look at this from Texas view, who is the subject noun and what is the verb, in other words who does what. Now "what does what " does not make sense, since whats dont do anything, they are inanimate.

It is easier to use who universally rather than have two whats.

I now consider Genesis 1;1 as evidence that YNWH exists.

A tree blows in the wind............a stone rolls down the road(or thinks, depending on your relationship with stones!)...............etc
Sorry, but inanimate things DO do things, they just dont do them with intent,and grammar doesnt make that distinction!! sunny

by Guest Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:27 am

by snowyflake Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:46 am

How do you know it’s evidence of love?

Read the article Rock. Look for other scientific journals on the same subject. At the very least it's a scientific study that shows what happens to the brain when we 'fall in love'. It is evidence of the biochemical, biological reactions we have when we fall for someone.

Whereas, the bible has none of that. You talk about blank-slating but you don't really. You are nearly as bad as polyglide in your dogmatic protection of your beliefs.

Rather than debate perhaps you can tell us why belief in God is so important to you. Trying to underpin it with it science and ancient languages just doesn't resolve anything.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:55 am

I have provided you with definitions that existed long before I existed. These are the identical definitions used by Edward R. Morrow in his wartime reports from London. These are the identical definitions used by Walter Cronkite in his role as editor and correspondent of the CBS Evening News. These are the definitions used by journalists who still report rather than spin doctor the news. In a way, since his student taught these definitions to me as he was them, these definitions were taught to me by the chairman of the communications department at one of the finest undergraduate schools of communications and journalism in the English-speaking world.

Right. I think we are getting to the bottom of your thought processes here, Rock. You are using a journalism method of reporting. Who, what, when, where and how.

Who: God
What (happened): Created
When: Doesn't say
Where: Doesn't say
How: Well he's God and can wave anything into existence

Who: Doesn't say
What (happened): Big Bang
When: 13.8 billion years ago
Where: at the beginning of the universe wherever that may be
How: Doesn't say

This is how I would interpret Genesis 1:1 and the Big Bang. I see no connection whatsoever between the bible and scientific theory. You do and with that you underpin your faith. Trying to sell it to others as some grand cosmic connection between the beginning of the universe and the bible.

Ok Smile

by Tosh Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:11 am

Who is going on for GOODNESS SAKE ?

by snowyflake Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:21 am

Who do you mean, Tosh? Smile

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:03 am

Ivan wrote:I know this thread was started by an English teacher, but this is getting ridiculous!

How to parse sentences:
http://www.ehow.com/how_8533574_parse-sentences.html

by Tosh Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:14 am

oftenwrong, just tell me if Texas is right or wrong, I am losing the will to live.

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:26 am

You know how to get my attention, you little rascal.

by Tosh Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:04 pm

On my last visit the scientific objection to the evidence for macro-evolution consisted of " bones in dust ". I assume this means some consider inference or deduction as unscientific, if that is the case then we might as well scrap every theory we have and unless we can physically observe something then its just a matter of faith.

This seems to me to be a rather dishonest attempt to level the playing field to accommodate a faith based belief, surely not, these people are Christians.

by Guest Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:27 pm

by Tosh Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:42 pm

How do you know that brain biochemical reactions are caused by feeling love? I’m not asking, how do you “know?” I’m asking, how do you know?

You seem to have a very low opinion of reasoning, and yet you employ reason to demonstrate its lack of validity, this seems unreasonable to me but what do I know.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:49 pm

http://www.dnalc.org/view/960-Causes-Smoking-p53.html

I don't know what you are talking about when you are trying to differentiate between "know" and know, Rock.

The evidence linking smoking to cancer is overwhelming. We know that smoking causes damage to tumour suppressor genes and switches on oncogenes.

If the evidence is there and it is strong enough evidence, I can be fairly certain up to a high percentage of certainty. It is about making rational judgements on the likelihood of any scenario. As there is no evidence for God, I can be fairly certain to high percentage of likelihood that he does not exist. As I've been around for over half a century and never witnessed in all that time any supernatural occurrences ever, except the ones that I made up in my head and wanted to believe, I am fairly certain that the supernatural does not exist. Ghosts, spirits, gods, God, and out of body experiences can all be explained by science. Humans just want to attach a spiritual dimension to things because it is psychologically comforting.

In saying that, if the evidence ever presents itself and it is indisputable, I am more than willing to change my mind on any given topic. I am willing to learn new concepts and accept new evidence. In the meantime, God does not exist in any indisputable way.

by Tosh Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:58 pm

It is in the interests of all snake oil salesman to attack science and reality with philosophical aspersions on the nature of knowledge, its intended to cast doubt on the merits of reason and evidence, the cornerstones of the secular enlightenment.

They don't mind all the technological benefits but they resent its intrusion on their metaphysical beliefs, they possess no other weapons to fight secularism, they have no evidence so they attack evidence, they have no knowledge so they attack knowledge and they have no reason so they attack reason.

It is simply dishonest,they want to change the playing field ONLY for their own personal ends.

by Guest Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:27 pm

by Guest Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:31 pm

by Tosh Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:34 pm

I choose to post scholarly response to your comments about me to me and your comments about me to others. If you choose to characterize scholarly response to your comments about me to me and your comments about me to others as “semantics”, you are free to so choose.

Your opinion is not a scholarly article, you have failed to provide a scholarly article as requested, your repetitive spamming simply confirms my assessment of your character. This issue can easily be resolved by you providing a scholarly article that confirms without both a "who" and a "what" there can be no complete sentence.

by Tosh Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:37 pm

I’m talking about the difference between correlational and causal relationships.

Both are accepted as knowledge except by empiricists, and an empiricist cannot know God exists.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:41 pm

I’m talking about the difference between correlational and causal relationships.

Correlational evidence can be quite strong and is often used in scientific studies, Rock. I wouldn't discount correlational evidence out of hand just because it isn't 'causal' enough. There needs to be 95% confidence that your results do not come about by chance and this is built into the study design and the statistical analysis of the data.

by Tosh Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:50 pm

Correlational evidence can be quite strong and is often used in scientific studies, Rock. I wouldn't discount correlational evidence out of hand just because it isn't 'causal' enough. There needs to be 95% confidence that your results do not come about by chance and this is built into the study design and the statistical analysis of the data.

All knowledge is a statistical probability regardless of the type of evidence, he is trying to dilute the importance of inference, just more evasive gobbledegook rejected by the authority that governs knowledge.

He just makes up his own rules and tries to wrap it up in pseudo science.

by Guest Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:58 pm

by snowyflake Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:00 pm

He just makes up his own rules and tries to wrap it up in pseudo science.

That's ok, Tosh. We're discussing eh? I think Rock is trying to convince himself as much as he is trying to convince us that his belief that God is real is real.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:03 pm

Part of scientific caution is using cautionary language when concluding that correlational relationships are causal relationships. “Conclude” denotes caution.

Yes. Making claims that God is real isn't cautionary. You never say God might exist. You say he does exist. If you are going to use science to underpin your faith then at least apply the same rules to your belief in God as you demand of science.

by Tosh Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:14 pm

Part of scientific caution is using cautionary language when concluding that correlational relationships are causal relationships. “Conclude” denotes caution.

More garbage, causal relationships are also concluded.

by Tosh Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:53 pm

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

by Tosh Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:59 pm

Examination of the scientific method reveals that science involves much more than naive empiricism. Research that only involves simple observation, repetition, and measurement is not sufficient to count as science. These three techniques are merely part of the process of making observations (#1 in the steps outlined above). Astrologers, wiccans, alchemists, and shamans all observe, repeat, and measure — but they do not practice science. Clearly, what distinguishes science is the way in which observations are interpreted, tested, and used.

by Guest Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:38 pm

by Guest Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:48 pm

by Tosh Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:53 pm

That being said, read 1 Timothy Chapter 2 and examine each word Paul speaks as he speaks of knowing Y’shua. When one knows someone in that manner, one’s knowledge is sure.

Paul did not write 1st Timothy and Paul never met Jesus, if this is your best example of sure knowledge then you are neither a precise nor rational thinker.

Let’s assume that there is no bioelectrical evidence tht love exists. You still know damned good and well that you love your loved ones independent of any scientific evidence. That’s the “know” of which Paul speaks, and it’s independent of any scientific evidence.

All you are saying is the feeling of God exists, this is not knowledge of God's existence unless you wish to reduce God to an emotional state of mind.

I hope you are because in my opinion God is an emotional state of mind, and that is what the metaphors in both the Jewish Scriptures and the NT are trying to personify.

by Guest Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:54 pm

by Tosh Sat Mar 23, 2013 8:12 pm

My original use of “who-what”, “when-where”, and “how-why” in public message board forums, originally posted on the MN UK Politics forum on its “Evidence for the existence of god” thread, August 2010.

Texas, do you think you are starting to go a little bit senile, do you really believe the comparison merits 3 years of repetitive banality ?

Maybe we should move onto discussing if the " heavens and earth " is synonymous with the universe ?

ALSO MY FRIEND, YOU HAVE DISHONESTLY ALTERED THE MEANING OF THE WORD " BARA ", IT DOES NOT MEAN CREATED FROM NOTHING. tut tut.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:36 pm

You’ve entered the noun “Big Bang” when “what” must always be a verb.

What happened: a big bang

That answers the question, Rock. If you like, I can phrase it this way:

Who: Something
What happened: caused a big bang or rapid expansion
When: 13.8 billion years ago
Where: somewhere in time and space
What: that resulted in our universe.
How: Don't know
Why: Don't know

If you wish to use the word “God”, you use a word that lacks any applicable etymological meaning,

I don't think it matters much really do you? We are speaking about the same thing which is the point. Whether or not I call it what you call it doesn't matter. That is beside the point of the discussion.

by Tosh Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:26 am

I don't think it matters much really do you?

Let me tell the jokes, you are talking to a man who discusses the neutrality of a subject noun/pronoun for 3 years and keeps a spread sheet for goodness sake.

Everything matters to someone with OCD, seemingly just typing a vowel sends you to hell.

You gotta laugh, I feel like Dr Livingston watching a witch doctor lay out his chicken entrails with OCD precision, there is no doubt the shaman is devout.

by Guest Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:46 am

by Sponsored content