The nature of the Almighty

[boagie]

Irishcop,

Calling science or atheism a religon is a little like saying bald is a new hair colour.Science based on reason,religion based on faith.Reason based on evidence,faith based on--------------------?Faith?

At any rate if we chose to read the symbols of Christianity it will take a little work.Is there anyone out there well versed in this,we could use a master of metaphor here if we have such a beast among us!

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by boagie

Irishcop,

Calling science or atheism a religon is a little like saying bald is a new hair colour.Science based on reason,religion based on faith.Reason based on evidence,faith based on--------------------?Faith?

At any rate if we chose to read the symbols of Christianity it will take a little work.Is there anyone out there well versed in this,we could use a master of metaphor here if we have such a beast among us!

I beg to differ. Science can indeed become a person's religion by definition, as I already stated, but i'll elaborate. Some fields of science are intrinsicly philosophical, and require a belief based on unprovable, untestable and unobservable phenomena.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).

or....

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation–noun 1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

The only difference "Science" has with "Religion", is the absence of an omnipotent father or mother figure. However, consider Einstein, who believed in Spinoza’s god.
Anyone who believes in an atom, phenomena at an Event Horizon, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or the Big Bang, to name a few, are simply going on faith that the mind experiments of Scientists were correct and the our logic and reason can be tossed out the window, when those phenomena happen as predicted.
Science has its own philosophy, code of ethics, and belief in the unseen and unprovable. Therefore, when Science supplants God, it is by all definition that individual's religion.
Likewise with the Atheist, the belief that God does not exist, is what it is, a religious belief.

[boagie]

Hi Irishcop,

Indeed for every IS there IS an IS NOT but the sum properties of IS NOT are nil,not, in the negative,zero.So Irish,would you say then that everyone is really religious wether they wish to be or not,wether they are aware or not,even against their will they are necessarily believers------by George,George said it was good and it was good!! If atheism,and science are religions,what are Christians getting all f k up about?They should be happy everyone is in the fold,following the straight and narrow path of righteousness.If those who don't believe really do belive than there is no disbelief, indeed disbelief is a phantasmagora,an illusion,the veil of Maya,I think I understand now Irish,life really is like a box of chocolates.




For new comers, be aware this is a Christian site.

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by boagie

Hi Irishcop,

Indeed for every IS there IS an IS NOT but the sum properties of IS NOT are nil,not, in the negative,zero.So Irish,would you say then that everyone is really religious wether they wish to be or not,wether they are aware or not,even against their will they are necessarily believers------by George,George said it was good and it was good!! If atheism,and science are religions,what are Christians getting all f k up about?They should be happy everyone is in the fold,following the straight and narrow path of righteousness.If those who don't believe really do belive than there is no disbelief, indeed disbelief is a phantasmagora,an illusion,the veil of Maya,I think I understand now Irish,life really is like a box of chocolates.

If your free will leads you to look at it like that, then yes, everyone has a religious belief even if its against their will. The same way, in that context, that also against every one's will, they have a sex preference (straight, gay, or bi); or against their will they have to either like, dislike, or be apathetic to eating broccoli.
As in mathematics, 1 and -1, still have an absolute value of 1. If belief in God constitutes a religious condition, why would disbelief not constitute a religious condition as well?
In politics, Democracy and Dictatorships (for example) are diametrically opposed, but they are both still political views.
If Science (with some individuals) and atheism are not religions, can you explain how they are exempt?

To answer your question, "So Irish,would you say then that everyone is really religious wether they wish to be or not,wether they are aware or not,even against their will they are necessarily believers (?)", I would say yes, everybody with a mentality to consider what they believe are believers in some fashion about religion; whether that would be pro or con.

[boagie]

Irish,

"If your free will leads you to look at it like that",what kind of crap is this? Did you assume prior to this statement that I was functioning without free will or perhaps manipulated by a higher power/s,are our higher powers in conflict with on another Irish.If everyone has a religious belief why is Christianity so hostile to the antheist? Are they not in their natures believers.Actually Irish I do believe that humanity is compelled towards mythology,or as the late Joseph Campell put it,"All life is mythologically compelled," It is for me a matter of how healthy said religion/mythology is,and I do not see Christianity,Islam,or for that matter Judaism as healthy,they should be respectfully placed upon the shelf along with the Greek gods.

So,the believers of disbelief demand equal time in the churches of our commmunities.Your belief is obviously what substains our disbelief therefore you are in part responsiable for our disbelief,and we on the other hand are responsiable for your belief ------------ a check will do fine.Who is on first!

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by boagie

Irish,

"If your free will leads you to look at it like that",what kind of crap is this? Did you assume prior to this statement that I was functioning without free will or perhaps manipulated by a higher power/s,are our higher powers in conflict with on another Irish.If everyone has a religious belief why is Christianity so hostile to the antheist? Are they not in their natures believers.Actually Irish I do believe that humanity is compelled towards mythology,or as the late Joseph Campell put it,"All life is mythologically compelled," It is for me a matter of how healthy said religion/mythology is,and I do not see Christianity,Islam,or for that matter Judaism as healthy,they should be respectfully placed upon the shelf along with the Greek gods.

So,the believers of disbelief demand equal time in the churches of our commmunities.Your belief is obviously what substains our disbelief therefore you are in part responsiable for our disbelief,and we on the other hand are responsiable for you belief ------------ a check will do fine.Who is on first!

That was merely a response to your own commentary on free will, or more precisely a lack of it, and apparently I made my point. That being, it is a non-issue, with respect to categorizing Disbelief as a religious conviction, or Science as a religious supplanting.
I assume only that you have preconceived notions about my beliefs, logic, and possibly my intelligence based upon some of your expressed notions about Christians, and your apparent propensity to lump Christian, Jew and Muslim alike into one totalitarian mold. I assume nothing else about your convictions or cognitive ability, but I am supposing you are intelligent and well meaning.
It seems to me, that it is the atheists who are fervently hostile to believers, or at a minimum, the churches. Atheists are always crying foul through ACLU lawyers and demand societal freedom from religion, as opposed to freedom of religion. It is atheists who force their beliefs on the majority, for example, demanding such things as nativity scenes being dismantled from public property but are mute about Santa Clause and Easter Bunny displays. They make an uproar about the Ten Commandments on the wall of an Arkansas courtroom, and win, in the Supreme Court, where the Justices still sit under ..... you guessed it, a display of the Ten Commandments.
If Atheists think the notion of God is hokey, that's their right. However, they are in the minority, and to attack symbols of the faith is pointless, and counter-productive on their merit. It merely serves to galvanize the majority.
I am Christian, and I know many Christians, but I have never heard a single one advocate teaching Creation in public schools, or creating the United Christian States of America, or any such theocractic institutions.
If you see Christians exercising their right, as citizens, to effect policy and the laws of the land, give credit where it is due .... the ACLU and prominent atheists who endeavor to eliminate or place limitation their rights to practice their religion too.
Additionally, you can't blame my personal religious beliefs for your own, anymore than you can blame my political Conservatism for Jane Fonda's treason.

You are skirting my question to you. Can you demonstrate definitively why Atheism and Science fail to meet the criteria of a religion?

[boagie]

Irishcop,

"You are skirting my question to you. Can you demonstrate definitively why Atheism and Science fail to meet the criteria of a religion?"

Their focal point is not faith,faith is willing yourself to believe something without any bases for belief.Your logic seems to despense with any distinction however,so what is there for you to protest,disbelievers are in fact believers,it would seem no effort was necessary to be religious,certainly it matters least what you think.It is the person I believe that presents a premise,belief ect..,to provide proof of his claim,the religious claim the presence of a personal god whom is actively working in the world.The atheist does not accept this,how would you prove to him the reality of this god? What is faith if not desire,desire for certainty and thus security.Please define how you understand faith,what is it, if not what I have already stated.





In order to investigate cognitive aspects of the experience of delusions, including onset and recovery,autobiographical accounts of schizophrenia were reviewed. results ---------------------just kidding!!!

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by boagie

Their focal point is not faith,faith is willing yourself to believe something without any bases for belief.Your logic seems to despense with any distinction however,so what is there for you to protest,disbelievers are in fact believers,it would seem no effort was necessary to be religious,certainly it matters least what you think.It is the person I believe that presents a premise,belief ect..,to provide proof of his claim,the religious claim the presence of a personal god whom is actively working in the world.The atheist does not accept this,how would you prove to him the reality of this god? What is faith if not desire,desire for certainty and thus security.Please define how you understand faith,what is it, if not what I have already stated.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).

In Science the things hoped for is knowledge, the conviction of things unseen I have already provided examples of, ie an Event Horizon, and phenomena at the quantum level, both of which are phenomena that seem absolutely bizarre to our senses, and both were deduced not from scientific method, but by thought experiments. The conclusions are inexorably entangled with pure philosophy.
The closest thing to scientific method to predict the behavior of an electron is derived by linear accelerators and Feinman graphs, however those scientists involved will tell you that by merely observing the electron it changes its behavior, even if the observation is indirect. If the observation consists of reading data after the fact, it still changes the behavior retroactively. Which is no big feat for an electron, because a Feinman Graph predicts electrons that can travel backward through time.
This is merely flakes off the tip of the iceberg, totally bizarre supernatural phenomena, universally accepted by the Science community, preached by folks at The Cavendish, Einstein, and et al. There are a plethora of other examples, all of which are unobservable, untestable, and defy our senses, and yet they enjoy a huge congregation of Scientists who believe.

About being an Atheist I can only introduce more conjecture. I surmise Atheists feel assurance there is no God, because if there is no God; no repentance is needed to avoid Hell, there is no need to ask a Father figure for help or forgiveness. I also guess that the conviction of things unseen for an Atheist is that he is the ultimate power and a source of enlightenment, having shed the concept of God, which has been plaguing Man since his first primordial dawn.

This tangent has caused us to stray far from the issue of the thread, but I must say, I am enjoying the dialogue.

[boagie]

Irishcop,

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1)."

"faith is assurance of things hope for." In what way are they assured?" the conviction of things not seen." So how does one establish this conviction of things not seen,on what bases this conviction? You didn't really think this would pass for reasonable?


Irishcop I admire your resourcefulness but I think it is not reasonable to compare the speculations of science with the stated claims of certainty of religion.Science does not claim certainty but a perhaps temporal model of the most probable,certainty is the domain of religion,as shaky as that must be.


As to the topic of this thread, "The nature of the almighty. I imagine with all the Christians here it is intended to speak about the Christian concept,but there are as many concepts as there are peoples in the world.The gods do tend to have the characteristics given them by their worshippers.




New comers be aware this is a Christian site.

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by boagie

Irishcop,

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1)."

"faith is assurance of things hope for." In what way are they assured?" the conviction of things not seen." So how does one establish this conviction of things not seen,on what bases this conviction? You didn't really think this would pass for reasonable?

Irishcop I admire your resourcefulness but I think it is not reasonable to compare the speculations of science with the stated claims of certainty of religion.Science does not claim certainty but a perhaps temporal model of the most probable,certainty is the domain of religion,as shaky as that must be.

As to the topic of this thread, "The nature of the almighty. I imagine with all the Christians here it is intended to speak about the Christian concept,but there are as many concepts as there are peoples in the world.The gods do tend to have the characteristics given them by their worshippers.

Did I expect this to pass as reasonable? ....Sure did. It is afterall the Bible the source of the faith in question. I'm not likely to quote Stalin on this.
I think it pretty well sums it up, from both of our perspectives.
You argue faith comes from thin air, just a conjuring of mythology, that its an illusion of assurances based on no evidence.
On the other hand, I see it as promises of the Christ of a place in the Kingdom of Heaven, based on His death, burial and resurrection, witnessed by thousands and recorded in the Gospels. .... So what's the problem?

Why is it not reasonable to compare Scientific speculation of absurd phenomena, and subsequent belief by the scientific community as satisfying a criteria for religion, to your supposition that religion is speculation of absurd phenomena and subsequent belief by a church community?
It took no resourcefulness to draw the comparisons. Do you really not see the obvious parallel?