View Poll Results: Do you believe in a god?
Yes
41
62.12%
No
25
37.88%
Voters: 66. You may not vote on this poll
Do you believe in God?
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,644
From: Lawrence, Kansas
Car Info: 19' Impreza Sport Manual / 99 Miata / 13' OB
Just thought I'd throw this in for people interested in discussing or reading up on the subject matter further. Same (sort of) discussion going on here:
http://secularhumanism.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000011.html
I found it interesting being both a Scientist and a Secular Humanist.
Outside of an occasional post on a BB I rarely like to discuss religion or lack their of. I am always interested in other peoples views. I respect them and agree to disagree.
http://secularhumanism.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000011.html
I found it interesting being both a Scientist and a Secular Humanist.
Outside of an occasional post on a BB I rarely like to discuss religion or lack their of. I am always interested in other peoples views. I respect them and agree to disagree.
Thread Starter
@Stoptech
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,416
From: San Francisco, CA
Car Info: 2002 WRX Wagon
Well, it seems like we have reached a point where people are trying to convince others of their position rather than explain what their position is.
Unfortunately, I am still missing a large part of where Jason is coming from and also a bit of where Chris is coming from. Oh well, I have already learned more than I thought I would. Perhaps my brain just functions on too simple a level to understand some of this stuff.
Unfortunately, I am still missing a large part of where Jason is coming from and also a bit of where Chris is coming from. Oh well, I have already learned more than I thought I would. Perhaps my brain just functions on too simple a level to understand some of this stuff.
Originally posted by Steppin Razor
Well, it seems like we have reached a point where people are trying to convince others of their position rather than explain what their position is.
Unfortunately, I am still missing a large part of where Jason is coming from and also a bit of where Chris is coming from. Oh well, I have already learned more than I thought I would. Perhaps my brain just functions on too simple a level to understand some of this stuff.
Well, it seems like we have reached a point where people are trying to convince others of their position rather than explain what their position is.
Unfortunately, I am still missing a large part of where Jason is coming from and also a bit of where Chris is coming from. Oh well, I have already learned more than I thought I would. Perhaps my brain just functions on too simple a level to understand some of this stuff.
time to slow down? maybe...
-Gagan
NASIOC Slut
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,723
From: Roseville, CA
Car Info: 1995 Subaru Impreza 1.8 L
Originally posted by mmboost
Kostamojen,
Just I guess, since I can't read your mind... but I could swear you're not actually reading my posts before you respond to them... at least enough to follow what I'm saying. :-/
I am not saying something is a fact when it is not . I am saying that most of our culture is willing to believe something is a fact when what we consider to be facts are actually part of an ever-changing set and yet they still live and act as though what we know are facts. If knowledge and what we consider to be facts are actually ever-changing then it could not be a reliable source of Truth. This is undeniable: if our source of supposed-Truth is periodically redefining what Truth is, then it is not a reliable source of Truth.
Kostamojen,
Just I guess, since I can't read your mind... but I could swear you're not actually reading my posts before you respond to them... at least enough to follow what I'm saying. :-/
I am not saying something is a fact when it is not . I am saying that most of our culture is willing to believe something is a fact when what we consider to be facts are actually part of an ever-changing set and yet they still live and act as though what we know are facts. If knowledge and what we consider to be facts are actually ever-changing then it could not be a reliable source of Truth. This is undeniable: if our source of supposed-Truth is periodically redefining what Truth is, then it is not a reliable source of Truth.
But anyway, Truth is not what is at question. Truth is defined as what actually happened or what actually is, THAT is undeniable. What we define socially as a "fact" is irrelevent to a fact. The facts that you are thinking of are facts that are arguable, and thus not facts, and not neccesarily knowledge. Our collective knowledge is constantly growing, never changing, just growing. What IS changing constantly is belief, and that is why we call it belief. That is all I am trying to say.
I also see that you define knowledge and truth and fact as something other than what they are, and need to adjust that to make sense of existance. Because someone says something is true does not neccesarily make it so, that is what you are getting at, no?
NASIOC Slut
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,723
From: Roseville, CA
Car Info: 1995 Subaru Impreza 1.8 L
Originally posted by mmboost
And so, one again (someone shoot me), my whole point is what people are calling fact, in other words believing to be actual, True, actually existing, are often later found to be not actual, not True, not actually existing ... and therefore are not reliable. My issue is, this is a large basis of our culture's "faith" in science... and yet by their own griping it is actually no better an explanation of Truth than faith (in God) is. If your perception of truth is always changing then how True is it? Why should it then be considered reliable? Or more reliable than anything other system? Its either True or False, right?
jason
And so, one again (someone shoot me), my whole point is what people are calling fact, in other words believing to be actual, True, actually existing, are often later found to be not actual, not True, not actually existing ... and therefore are not reliable. My issue is, this is a large basis of our culture's "faith" in science... and yet by their own griping it is actually no better an explanation of Truth than faith (in God) is. If your perception of truth is always changing then how True is it? Why should it then be considered reliable? Or more reliable than anything other system? Its either True or False, right?
jason
(mostly due to how I read threads, sorry)Yes, I agree whole hartedly with you. Information, facts, truths, etc. are presented as that to us whether through science or religion and are potentially not true. It is very difficult, yes, but possible. We live in the realm of the possible, of the concrete, thus the truths that you seek are all around you, you only have to find them without letting yourself get in the way.
Originally posted by joltdudeuc
alright, i didn't want to say this but, there is no spoon...
-Gagan
alright, i didn't want to say this but, there is no spoon...
-Gagan
state your position, clarify for the people, and discuss, but lets not try to push things upon others.
deal?
-Gagan
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,639
From: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
CHRISTOPH1371 WROTE:
Hitler believed what he said, and so did millions of others. Was "he right about Jews and Gypsies and Christians and Homsexuals because he believed it? " Now I am sorry, but that's just dumb. OF course he was right.
OK, lets make sure that we all understand you Chris.... You, Chris, the guy from I-Speed, believe that Hitler was right in his views about the birth defected, Jews, Chrsitians, homosexuals, gypsies... his view that they were inferior to Aryans and therefore deseved to be an annihilated? You think "Of course he was right?"
I just want to be sure I understand you. I think we all should understand you clearly on this.
jason
Hitler believed what he said, and so did millions of others. Was "he right about Jews and Gypsies and Christians and Homsexuals because he believed it? " Now I am sorry, but that's just dumb. OF course he was right.
OK, lets make sure that we all understand you Chris.... You, Chris, the guy from I-Speed, believe that Hitler was right in his views about the birth defected, Jews, Chrsitians, homosexuals, gypsies... his view that they were inferior to Aryans and therefore deseved to be an annihilated? You think "Of course he was right?"
I just want to be sure I understand you. I think we all should understand you clearly on this.
jason
NASIOC Slut
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,723
From: Roseville, CA
Car Info: 1995 Subaru Impreza 1.8 L
Originally posted by joltdudeuc
what that means is, we're truly beginning to not focus on telling others what we believe, but trying to show other that we are right.
state your position, clarify for the people, and discuss, but lets not try to push things upon others.
deal?
-Gagan
what that means is, we're truly beginning to not focus on telling others what we believe, but trying to show other that we are right.
state your position, clarify for the people, and discuss, but lets not try to push things upon others.
deal?
-Gagan
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,639
From: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
Kostamojen,
I see now how we are argreeing, just having said things so differenlty it was hard to see
But I still am curious... what we are agreeing on, my conclusion that I arrived at was my actual point, that is: Science is not superior to faith as a world view for explaining eternal, (meta)physical truth. The flaws of faith as claimed by science, actually infect science as well... in one way or another it is or might be unproveable or even wrong because the ultimate Truth is not known to us. Therefore we cannot make a judgement on faith or science as superior explanation.
Would you go so far as to agree there, too?
My desire is to make people think... especially those who go the party line and say "I trust in science" because it is what our culture currently teaches. I want people to see that that "trust" is actually a belief. in other words, it is faith
jason
I see now how we are argreeing, just having said things so differenlty it was hard to see
But I still am curious... what we are agreeing on, my conclusion that I arrived at was my actual point, that is: Science is not superior to faith as a world view for explaining eternal, (meta)physical truth. The flaws of faith as claimed by science, actually infect science as well... in one way or another it is or might be unproveable or even wrong because the ultimate Truth is not known to us. Therefore we cannot make a judgement on faith or science as superior explanation.
Would you go so far as to agree there, too?
My desire is to make people think... especially those who go the party line and say "I trust in science" because it is what our culture currently teaches. I want people to see that that "trust" is actually a belief. in other words, it is faith
jason
Thread Starter
@Stoptech
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,416
From: San Francisco, CA
Car Info: 2002 WRX Wagon
Jason I totally agree with everything you just said, but I just want to clarify one thing:
What you mean is that you want people to understand that trust in science is actually the same thing as faith in science. (I understand that and why you say that) So faith isn't so unreasonable after all. So you are saying that faith in science is comparable to faith in a god, right?
My desire is to make people think... especially those who go the party line and say "I trust in science" because it is what our culture currently teaches. I want people to see that that "trust" is actually a belief. in other words, it is faith.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think that we all can uderstand especially when I am quoted correctly. For the next time please quote the whole thing please.
Here is what you quoted me as saying: note THIS NOT THE ENTIRE QUOTE
"Hitler believed what he said, and so did millions of others. Was "he right about Jews and Gypsies and Christians and Homsexuals because he believed it? " Now I am sorry, but that's just dumb. OF course he was right. "
THIS is the ENTIRE QUOTE;
"Hitler believed what he said, and so did millions of others. Was "he right about Jews and Gypsies and Christians and Homsexuals because he believed it? "
Now I am sorry, but that's just dumb. OF course he was right. Why else would he work so hard to get where he wanted to go...because he thought he was wrong!? I accept that he thought he was right. I don't have to agree with that...that too is just silly, well at least for me."
My point to your question of hitler being right, was that he thought himself to be right, why else would he go about his ways...because he thought what his ideas were wrong.
Jason or whomever, does that now make sense when you read the whole quote?
Chris
Former Migrant Farm worker and darn proud of it
Also Chris as in I-Speed USA
Here is what you quoted me as saying: note THIS NOT THE ENTIRE QUOTE
"Hitler believed what he said, and so did millions of others. Was "he right about Jews and Gypsies and Christians and Homsexuals because he believed it? " Now I am sorry, but that's just dumb. OF course he was right. "
THIS is the ENTIRE QUOTE;
"Hitler believed what he said, and so did millions of others. Was "he right about Jews and Gypsies and Christians and Homsexuals because he believed it? "
Now I am sorry, but that's just dumb. OF course he was right. Why else would he work so hard to get where he wanted to go...because he thought he was wrong!? I accept that he thought he was right. I don't have to agree with that...that too is just silly, well at least for me."
My point to your question of hitler being right, was that he thought himself to be right, why else would he go about his ways...because he thought what his ideas were wrong.
Jason or whomever, does that now make sense when you read the whole quote?
Chris
Former Migrant Farm worker and darn proud of it
Also Chris as in I-Speed USA
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,639
From: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
Steppin,
I see how it might appear that I am trying to convey that. Its not what I meant, sorry. What I am trying to accomplish is to get people not to flat out discount faith, or spirituality, without actually considering the flaws of a "trust" in science.
I.e. people will say "I trust in science because it is full of facts that have been proven to be true and beause of that I discount faith". And if you are agreeing with me as you see, you would now see that statement as naive. I want people to see how naive it actually is
Only until then, I believe, can people have a better chance at an objective conversation about faith, and ultimately God.
jason
I see how it might appear that I am trying to convey that. Its not what I meant, sorry. What I am trying to accomplish is to get people not to flat out discount faith, or spirituality, without actually considering the flaws of a "trust" in science.
I.e. people will say "I trust in science because it is full of facts that have been proven to be true and beause of that I discount faith". And if you are agreeing with me as you see, you would now see that statement as naive. I want people to see how naive it actually is
Only until then, I believe, can people have a better chance at an objective conversation about faith, and ultimately God.
jason
VIP Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,639
From: Longing for my ol' white '02 WRX :(
Car Info: 2016 Acura RDX ... meh. Um, nice subwoofer?
Originally posted by christoph1371
I
Jason or whomever, does that now make sense when you read the whole quote?
I
Jason or whomever, does that now make sense when you read the whole quote?
"Of course he was right" is completely different from "I accept that he thought he was right".
Can you possibly make a clear statement? Do you agree with Hitlers views. Do you think Hitlers views on annihilating those human beings was right? Yes ?No?
jason