Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.

 
   
5 of 5
5
Why do some people believe in a god?
Posted: 29 February 2012 09:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8788
Joined  2006-12-17
Dennis Campbell - 29 February 2012 07:04 AM
Mike78 - 29 February 2012 06:58 AM

BANG!  Now blow the smoke away from your finger BM and ride off into the sunset.  You killed us with your deadly weapons.

I am in favor of stringent gun control for those kinds of weapons; they’re too dangerous for Witches and Goblins and such. Why, just the other day an innocent Gremlin was playing with his father’s theist gun, it went off and blew him into fairy dust!

grin)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 February 2012 09:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3404
Joined  2012-01-31
TheBrotherMario - 29 February 2012 05:51 AM

Yeah, I’ll take a swing.

When you put in your mind the concept of “biological abilities”, and then you apply this concept as a viable explanation as to what is not only the “seat” of human thought (i.e., the brain) but also the power behind human thought, you are not being “rational” and “profound”, but “subjective” and “superficial”.

For reality is more than what your senses tell you it is. In your thinking you cling to your senses like a baby clings to his mother’s teat, then you spew out one “opinion” after the next that is leading you and those who hear you further and further away from what reality actually is.

(Whack!)

Look at a coin. Try to see both sides at the same time. You can’t, because your eyesight is limited. Even if you get out a mirror, you will only see one side as it is and the other as a reflection.

So it is with reality. Our senses show us the physical world alone. We must use a mirror of sorts to see the other side of reality that is hidden from us unnecessary and limited beings. This other side of reality we refer to as the spiritual world.

(Going!)

Reality becomes supported and explained when both its sides are attended to.

The atheist/materialist is a simpleton of sorts, loudly proclaiming the world of the senses as the only world there is. (I believe Bruce calls them, very appropriately, “flatlanders”.)

The claim by these simpletons, and you, that the billions and billions of people, century after century, who view reality as two-sided are “arrogant, misinformed, and unintelligent” is what is “horseshit”.

The data (such as, the quality of the human mind) and human history (such as, the vast attendance to spritual matters) is on the side of a two-sided reality.

(Going!)

Modern thinkers look for smoking guns (such as, Arctic meteorites, manipulated life, and scientific theories) for an irrefutable proof that the physical world is all there was, so therefore is all there is.

But, not surprisingly (to me and many others), no such smoking gun has been found.

Atheist/materialists ignore these failings and rush headlong with agenda-driven zeal, leaving in their wake an insignificant body of work that will end up as mere footnotes of human thought in the omnibus of intelligent philosophical and scientific inquiry.

(Gone!)


Futile attempt on my part, so I’ll keep it short:

The same way the bicep flexes, the brain thinks. Claiming this, or any of the sound evidence thereof, as subjective is wrong (although very common.) I’m always perplexed when people try to argue their opinion regarding cognition as if it is something intangible, therefore indiscernible (or triggered by something greater). It is very much measurable with the right understanding. When understood and applied, we have an irrefutable understanding of what is reality and what isn’t. The supernatural and god is neither reality nor a part of any alternative reality. They are, in fact, a product of our cognitions being applied in an extraordinary, but fictional manner. You, BM, either do not possess or are unwilling to apply this scientific knowledge. I’m going with the former. And teaching you would be pointless because I neither think you’re smart enough to understand nor deserving enough of that type of effort, mainly because as I would inevitably peel away layers to unveil the truth, you would just rebut with “well what about behind this door?” And when you’ve run out of doors, you’d decide to purposely misunderstand me. Thus, kiss my ass.

 Signature 

I’m 100% sure god doesn’t exist.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 February 2012 10:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  13978
Joined  2007-07-20

Job,

Welcome to the BM fan club!

 Signature 

Religion is good for one thing: making you feel better while someone else rules you.  Religion is more a reflection than a cause of conflicts. The causes lie in conflicting cultural mores and traits.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 February 2012 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6030
Joined  2007-12-19
saralynn - 27 February 2012 10:55 AM

I didn’t say what he did wasn’t pretty incredible, I just said he didn’t create life.  Maybe I should go back and listen to the second half.  How did he define “species”?  A brand new species?  If I had the time, I would poke around the internet and find out the definition of species. Not just the definition, which I think I know, but the implications.  Did he create a brand new subgroup of bacteria?  A bacteria with new characteristic?  .  Again, it seems to prove evolution, but not necessarily why there is evolution and if the process teleological…and who or what made the chemicals which combine to form chromosomes?  GAD is right…if my argment is flawed, it is more the God of the Gaps error, not failed logic.

But, you are right; I should go back and listen to the whole interview.  I will do it later/

My understanding is that he made synthetic DNA and placed it in a manipulated (altered) biological cell using a manipulated (altered) biological agent (yeast). No, he did not create life from scratch. He created a synthetic version of a key component, DNA, that allows life to take the forms it does and is able to manipulate the forms, with greater diversity expected with further research. This is extremely amazing.

Also, as I understand it, the problem biologists have with “duplicating” the conditions of natural formulation for life is solving the problem of the conditions for protein and DNA to have taken hold (ie, what was the agent that sufficed temporarily to allow DNA to develop). The research, as I understand from Dawkins, that holds the most promise and where science is most focused currently, is the RNA World Theory (ie, RNA has the properties to allow the time for duplicating DNA to have taken hold).

It seems to me that this research might hold some clues for the natural process but maybe not, I don’t know. It certainly has created a “different” form of life by different agents, but no, I don’t think anyone is claiming that it “replicated” the natural process for which life was naturally formed.


syn·thet·ic
   [sin-thet-ik]

adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, proceeding by, or involving synthesis ( opposed to analytic).

2.
noting or pertaining to compounds formed through a chemical process by human agency, as opposed to those of natural origin: synthetic vitamins; synthetic fiber.

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 February 2012 01:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3404
Joined  2012-01-31
Dennis Campbell - 29 February 2012 10:22 AM

Job,

Welcome to the BM fan club!

Ha! Thanks :/

 Signature 

I’m 100% sure god doesn’t exist.

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 5
5