What do you believe, and why?

[Line]

It's pointless to even debate on this topic..

Why? There's been some pretty good, civil discussions transpiring here.

 

[Anabolicus]

''Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the Lord will be put to death, and the sword will be drawn upon their town so it becomes a permanent mound of ruins.'' (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

You believers okay with this?

 

[SerbMarko]

Why? There's been some pretty good, civil discussions transpiring here.

Because it will never end, just look at the thread I created years ago, where did that go? people just end up getting offended and throwing around ridiculous and insulting comments, I think discussing religion is great and fun but I rather do it in person, people do not present themselves the same way on a keyboard where they can hide behind their computer screen as they would in person.. its just a topic that will never end and I find this board has way too many young members that throw insults around way too easily and I just choose not to take part in that at this given time, but you are right, as of right now the discussion has been civil, if someone were to post a legitimate question about something specific about Christianity I would be glad to give my opinion and answer to the best of my ability.

You believers okay with this?

Yes, first and foremost, you must interpret this in its context, if you were to judge this statement on its own it seems rather harsh, when you put it in context and realize that this was written in the time of Moses ( the old testament which was a very hard time to live, a person was judged by his works almost instantly, where now we live in a time of Grace) anyways, im totally fine with this statement, whats the problem with it? Is God not Just by judging evil? Plus, the fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom.

You believers okay with this?

you have chosen one of the worst biblical translations this world has.. if you want an accurate translation you should stick to the Englsih Standard Version

Deuteronomy 17:12 (English Standard Version)

12The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.

 

[Deathmaggot]

You personalize an attack based on information that is no longer true. I would say I have a general agnosticism about every theory of human knowledge. You are trying to discredit my argument by attacking me personally. I do not believe in god. Where are you coming from with this post? You assumed I am defending religion b.c i pointed out flaws in science? That is wrong. You are making errors and misrepresenting me and my beliefs. I suggest you reread my posts b.c you have not understood the points I am making and further more you could not more incorrect about my belief system.

*movies doesnt count*

you didnt answer, you defended yourself from a non existing attack, and you tell me to read other posts, where i wont find the answer i was looking
you only use lot of vain and hollow words to reply, but your empty words just distract the attention but dont center on the problem. poor.



on the other hand, Serbmarko is right, this debate wont end, so, move on.

 

[Line]

you didnt answer, you defended yourself from a non existing attack, and you tell me to read other posts, where i wont find the answer i was looking
you only use lot of vain and hollow words to reply, but your empty words just distract the attention but dont center on the problem. poor.

Just so this thread doesn't derail: Ben said he doesn't believe in organized religion or, for that matter, any concept of god as previously described by humanity. Ergo your question is irrelevant, as the crux of it was the belief that Ben is currently religious. He's not defending a belief in a deity, just commenting on mankind's finite ability to perceive the world around us. This isn't to say I agree with his remarks, but he was hardly avoiding the question you proposed.

on the other hand, Serbmarko is right, this debate wont end, so, move on.

Eh, I agree with him about the animosity that this topic has bred in the past, but our members, at least those who post, are older now; their life experience and bases of knowledge more facilitative to discussing such a topic. As I've said and Serb acknowledged, things have been, for the most part, civil. No reason to not let such a topic continue, for it allows our members to better understand where each other are coming from.

 

[MrChewiebitums]

but our members, at least those who post, are older now; their life experience and bases of knowledge more facilitative to discussing such a topic.

lol

 

[SerbMarko]

Thanks to whoever put my posts together, i have no clue how to do that..

 

[dilatedmuscle]

Thanks to whoever put my posts together, i have no clue how to do that..

No clue how to put your posts together or no clue how to multi quote?

 

[SerbMarko]

No clue how to put your posts together or no clue how to multi quote?

correct, I dont know how to multi-quote so i can just reply once and not waste space.

 

[Pioneer]

Just want to start by saying along with the majority of people posting in this this thread so far, I am a non-believer.

This thread has been a real good read so far, BigBen I thought Post#36 you made in this thread was a good read and I would in a way agree with you and see what your saying but then in a way I wouldnt and I think Tim stated something that shows why it might not be such a good thing to completley think the way you are.

You would have us believe that we cannot understand anything at all.

I read through this thread and see that Tim seemed to have initially mis-understood what you were saying but I think reading though everything the above quote makes me not want to fully follow your line of thinking. I'm not saying your wrong and I think its good and interesting what you have said but I think real scientists take what you have stated into consideration when doing real science and real science does work and I think Tim has explained this decently in his replies to you, although I do agree he hasnt always fairly addressed what you have stated in some instances.

Anyway...

Moving back to what Anabolicus posted and some of the other arguements in this thread in regard to people putting faith in "God" because they dont intially understand something. I think this below video gives some good examples of this.

 

[mvsf1]

It's VERY VERY difficult to understand for an human being "facts" like:

- At the moment of BigBang, all phisical dimensions started, like time. This is kinda confusing.
- The universe is expanding. Expanding where? X,y,Z axis are infinite? Really hard to understand.

These two questions I have doesn't mean God exists/doesn't exist.

They are two topics science will not resolve in my lifetime... sad story.


I don't believe God is an old, gray haired man. I believe God is the goodness all good man have inside.

 

[lifterdead]

Good discussion here!


For the sake of my argument, I'm going to return to your original point, Bigben.

I could be wrong, but it seems like your overall argument is our knowledge of reality cannot be objective. If I'm right about this, reply "Yes" and I'll continue that discussion with my reasons for disagreeing.

Otherwise, I'd just like to point out what I believe to be some rather lame points in your post.

Scientific method is heavily influenced by Aristotelian logic which gives us the idea that 'A' and 'not A' cannot exist at the same time. Physics and quantum physics tell us that any measurement we make is only relevant to the tools we use to make the measurement and the place we make it. Quantum mechanics also become inaccurate when they do not include the observer.

One of my biggest pet peeves is when non-physicists use quantum uncertainty to make BIG leaps in philosophy. I couldn't stand the movie What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k)πow!?. I don't know how to stress this more, but concepts behind quantum mechanics were developed to make accurate mathematical predications, which they do. I doubt anyone on this board, including me, understands quantum mechanics beyond its superficial, non-mathematical explanation used in popular science. I'm not attacking anyone's ignorance, but I know far to many people who take little pieces of knowledge and try to make big leaps with it.

Take these equations, for example.

Can anyone identify this equations off the top of their head? I couldn't. I'm not implying that people ignorant of the details aren't allowed to have an opinion, just that far too often a layman will read one or two popular science books and then walk away feeling he knows all there is on the subject.

We should approach these kinds of discussions with discretion, and keep in mind things like the uncertainty principle are not philosophies, but really just applied mathematics.

Next:

Although that idea is 'new' in the western mind it is over 2500 years old in the eastern mind.

This is bullshit. Did you just read The Tao of Physics or something? I did most of my undergrad work on non-dualism in Asian philosophy (mostly in Japanese Zen Buddhism and a lesser extent on Nagarjuna) and your statement paints too broad a picture. The kind of relativism you speak about certainly has been present in Western philosophy at various times, and more importantly, you're making the same mistake Capra did by mistaking Eastern mysticism with scientific discourse.

 

[tim290280]

One of my biggest pet peeves is when non-physicists use quantum uncertainty to make BIG leaps in philosophy. I couldn't stand the movie What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k)πow!?. I don't know how to stress this more, but concepts behind quantum mechanics were developed to make accurate mathematical predications, which they do. I doubt anyone on this board, including me, understands quantum mechanics beyond its superficial, non-mathematical explanation used in popular science. I'm not attacking anyone's ignorance, but I know far to many people who take little pieces of knowledge and try to make big leaps with it.

I agree. My maths is biometrics and modelling based so this stuff is just way out of my reach. But I really hate the way people want to make leaps with this stuff. When you deal with any modelling concept with maths you need to have an end point to direct the model. Essentially the equation has to equal Y at some point or you just have a non-functional string of calculations running into one another. Having an end point isn't about the observer being important but rather about what question you are asking, and like any decent maths you have to investigate the data and understand what question you need to ask. Quantum mechanics is still at theory level so they are still playing at the edges figuring out what data is there, let alone understanding what questions they are asking (as seen by the number of conundrums of physics they have arrived at).

 

[Line]

correct, I dont know how to multi-quote so i can just reply once and not waste space.

I merged them. The only real way to multiquote is to quote one post, copy it, go back, quote another post, and paste the original post above it.

 

[Anabolicus]

Edit:

Actually I'll take it back, the real thing is here:

 

[Deathmaggot]

Just so this thread doesn't derail: Ben said he doesn't believe in organized religion or, for that matter, any concept of god as previously described by humanity. Ergo your question is irrelevant, as the crux of it was the belief that Ben is currently religious. He's not defending a belief in a deity, just commenting on mankind's finite ability to perceive the world around us. This isn't to say I agree with his remarks, but he was hardly avoiding the question you proposed.

Eh, I agree with him about the animosity that this topic has bred in the past, but our members, at least those who post, are older now; their life experience and bases of knowledge more facilitative to discussing such a topic. As I've said and Serb acknowledged, things have been, for the most part, civil. No reason to not let such a topic continue, for it allows our members to better understand where each other are coming from.

huh, i still remember BigBen's sig about "a relationship with god is something between he and YOU" or something like that, which led to my post. Now he doesnt have it or never had it, maybe i was wrong. If so, you are right, my post wasnt needed.

Also i dont think age does really matter to this topic, religion arises hot discussions at all ages, maybe we dont throw personal insults around, but we wont find the truth, neither convince anyone, so we will argue for the sake of argue, which is the point of a forum, but this one wont be fun at all

 

[Line]

huh, i still remember BigBen's sig about "a relationship with god is something between he and YOU" or something like that, which led to my post. Now he doesnt have it or never had it, maybe i was wrong. If so, you are right, my post wasnt needed.

He was religious, very much so, just not any more.

Also i dont think age does really matter to this topic, religion arises hot discussions at all ages, maybe we dont throw personal insults around, but we wont find the truth, neither convince anyone, so we will argue for the sake of argue, which is the point of a forum, but this one wont be fun at all

Age matters in the sense that the more one experiences life the more informed, if you will, they become, especially as they break free from the generally dogmatic teachings used to orient younger individuals to the world. I'm not positing the idea that someone needs to be of a specific age to discuss religion or life with any type of civility, but I do subscribe to the notion that we become who we are over a period of time as a result of absorbing more and more phenomena. In other words: life changes who we are and the way we see the world, which is something that doesn't happen overnight.

 

[El Freako]

I can't believe I haven't posted in this thread yet...

Oh wait, I know why, too much damn maths!

 

[Braaq]

I believe in more than one on there.

 

[lifterdead]

Braaq, I haven't seen you on the forums much in awhile. What have you been up to?