Who's really right?

[Beaudreaux]

That's funny.

The universe is nothing but a giant surprise party and full of things that CAN'T be predicted.


Or maybe it is, but not recognized.

Yeah! ANd maybe monkeys will come flying out of my butt!

--- "Maybe". Keeping bad arguments alive for thousands of years.

 

[Riverwolf]

There is not an animal on the planet that can begin to compete with the machines we have built to augment our senses. SONAR, Telescopes, Microscopes, olefactory machines that check for explosives, seismographs, etc., etc. And do you know what NONE of these machines has EVER found?......

Those machines project what we cannot sense, changing them so that we can sense them.

In the end, we still cannot know what infrared actually looks like, or what bats' echolocation actually sounds like. The human senses can never know.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yeah! ANd maybe monkeys will come flying out of my butt!

--- "Maybe". Keeping bad arguments alive for thousands of years.

Bruce Almighty FTW!!!!!

God is sensed by everybody. However, God is not recognized by everybody. (I believe, anyway.)

 

[OmarKhayyam]

That's funny.

The universe is nothing but a giant surprise party and full of things that CAN'T be predicted.



Or maybe it is, but not recognized.

Of course. How dull of me to fail to grasp this simple fact. Our inability to predict the motion of planets has prevented us making any successful space exploration. Obviously no rhyme nor reason in evidence there.

And of course anything NOT recognized is REALLY there.

Like those things that go bump in the nite.

The just plain old STUPIDITY of religious mythology is sickening.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Those machines project what we cannot sense, changing them so that we can sense them.

In the end, we still cannot know what infrared actually looks like, or what bats' echolocation actually sounds like. The human senses can never know.

Untrue. Radar does not change the objects it detects. Neither does sound amplification change the vibrations in the air that it detects. These mechanical devices operate in precicely the same way that animal senses do, only much, MUCH better.

But this is digression. Please get back to the senses you say that animals have that we do not.

 

[Willamena]

Radar does not change the objects it detects.

I think he meant changing their status.

 

[Storm]

There is not an animal on the planet that can begin to compete with the machines we have built to augment our senses. SONAR, Telescopes, Microscopes, olefactory machines that check for explosives, seismographs, etc., etc.

How does the fact that we have technology change the fact that our natural senses are inferior to other species'?

And do you know what NONE of these machines has EVER found?......

What they were never intended to look for?

 

[Beaudreaux]

How does the fact that we have technology change the fact that our natural senses are inferior to other species'?

It doesn't. But it does show that we have better sensory capability than any other species on earth. Who cares if it's not natural? Pragmatism rules here.

This is akin to saying that tigers are better evolved for survival than humans because they have FAR better natural weapons than us. Yet somehow most of humanity lives out their lives without ever having to worry about being eaten by a tiger. That's because such comparisons ignore the weapon we have evolved that puts us on top of the food chain: our brain.

What they were never intended to look for?

I was told that there is empirical evidence for God. Not your everythingGod, but the kind of God that is spiritual and seperate. I am saying that the finest senses in existence have never picked up on this.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I think he meant changing their status.

Nothing whatsoever changes about the phenomena sensed by human technology.

 

[Storm]

It doesn't. But it does show that we have better sensory capability than any other species on earth. Who cares if it's not natural? Pragmatism rules here.

This is akin to saying that tigers are better evolved for survival than humans because they have FAR better natural weapons than us. Yet somehow most of humanity lives out their lives without ever having to worry about being eaten by a tiger. That's because such comparisons ignore the weapon we have evolved that puts us on top of the food chain: our brain.


I was told that there is empirical evidence for God. Not your everythingGod, but the kind of God that is spiritual and seperate. I am saying that the finest senses in existence have never picked up on this.

Apologies, I only reviewed the last couple of pages of the thread. :sorry1: I completely missed the claim of empirical evidence for God (which is of course ridiculous, no matter what concept you're talking about), and I thought your point on senses was an attempt to refute Dunemeister's argument for a divine sense.

 

[Riverwolf]

Of course. How dull of me to fail to grasp this simple fact. Our inability to predict the motion of planets has prevented us making any successful space exploration. Obviously no rhyme nor reason in evidence there.

That was predictable.

What WASN'T was the fact that the entire galaxy orbits its core at the same speed, when the inner stars, etc. should orbit faster than the outer ones.

EDIT: THIS JUST IN!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8093005.stm

Highlight for this argument:

Astronomers had thought that the orbits of the planets were predictable. But 20 years ago, researchers showed that there were slight fluctuations in their paths

And of course anything NOT recognized is REALLY there.

Like those things that go bump in the nite.

Haven't you ever gone mad searching for something only to find that you've been holding it in your hand the entire time?

The just plain old STUPIDITY of religious mythology is sickening.

I never referenced mythology once.

 

[Riverwolf]

Untrue. Radar does not change the objects it detects. Neither does sound amplification change the vibrations in the air that it detects. These mechanical devices operate in precicely the same way that animal senses do, only much, MUCH better.

But this is digression. Please get back to the senses you say that animals have that we do not.

Can you tell me how sea turtles are able to coordinate their nesting habits?

 

[Riverwolf]

I think he meant changing their status.

Not quite. I really meant how our minds can perceive them.

For example, objects on radar appear to our eyes as dots or irregular shapes. (Unless there's some new form of radar that can accurately conceptualize a picture of what it's tracking; I wouldn't be too surprised if there was.)

 

[Riverwolf]

I was told that there is empirical evidence for God. Not your everythingGod, but the kind of God that is spiritual and seperate. I am saying that the finest senses in existence have never picked up on this.

In my opinion, a God separate from us is not possible.

But if such a God existed, then there's NO WAY our material senses or sensors would be able to pick Him up, because they are meant to sense things in this world.

 

[opuntia]

It is ludicrous to see these rantings from religious adherents of various sects of religion.

It should be understood that no religion possesses all truths and all things. Perfect religion is practiced by God and we only receive only a portion of the things of God. Like children, God will only give us what we can handle and no more. If you as an individual are able to receive more than the average person, then it is good for you.

"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deuteronomy 29:29; KJV).

 

[Vile Atheist]

Some Christians persecute and harass Muslims.
Some Muslims persecute and harass Christians.
Some Jews persecute and harass Christians.
Some Christians persecute and harass Jews.
Some Jews persecute and harass Muslims.
Some Muslims persecute and harass Jews.

The key word is "some". Most do not.

Your point is?

Check out the Middle East some time.


Edit: To add -

It seems a lot of arguments on these forums are basically "X religion has fanatical followers, but I can point to a handful who are not and therefore this proves that not all religion is bad." The problem with this is while you may have, say, gay Muslims or Catholics, or Jews who support abortion and euthanasia, etc, etc...these people have to violate the teachings of their very own religion in order to arrive at these more moral alternatives.

Sure, I'll agree that there are moral theists. But whether they are a minority or majority isn't really the point when the teachings they claim to subscribe to actively prohibit non-crimes like homosexuality, for example. Or the institutions they follow have been at the hands of abuses or are currently at the hands of abuses. Yet, they claim that institution to be moral.

These moral theists should be lauded. Their actual position is irrational, but at least they do not subscribe themselves to ideologies that willingly or not devalue humanity. And if they do, they oppose these teachings, even if not explicitly. When people are willing to kill or persecute based on a position they cannot themselves prove against one they also cannot disprove, we must question underlying motives and objectively examine them. We must not be afraid to voice our opposition for fears of being labelled "intolerant".

The irrational beliefs are harmless until people feel justified to kill and do harm to each other based on them. Then we must oppose them.

 

[Breathe]

Check out the Middle East some time.

What about it?

A friend of mine in Egypt lives next door to some Christians and goes shopping for the lady from time to time. His best friend is Christian. They have hung out since they were 6.
Another one of my friends, in Algeria, is married to a Christian.

In places where there is discrimination, it mostly comes from the government or ruling elite, or the extremists, usually manipulating religious doctrine to their purpose (which is why I like secular governments).

Generally, (where other religions are allowed, Saudi is the prominent example of where this example fails, as well as war-torn areas where the minorities get picked on because of a mistaken belief they're 'siding with the enemy') the people are nice to their neighbours.

I know things don't always go well though - I'm close to a Christian, Assyrian asylum seeker in the Netherlands.

 

[Vile Atheist]

What about it?

A friend of mine in Egypt lives next door to some Christians and goes shopping for the lady from time to time. His best friend is Christian. They have hung out since they were 6.
Another one of my friends, in Algeria, is married to a Christian.

In places where there is discrimination, it mostly comes from the government or ruling elite, or the extremists, usually manipulating religious doctrine to their purpose (which is why I like secular governments).

Generally, (where other religions are allowed, Saudi is the prominent example of where this example fails, as well as war-torn areas where the minorities get picked on because of a mistaken belief they're 'siding with the enemy') the people are nice to their neighbours.

I know things don't always go well though - I'm close to a Christian, Assyrian asylum seeker in the Netherlands.

I don't know if you missed the "Edit" portion that I added. Perhaps you might have. Re-read that. It answers exactly that.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sure, I'll agree that there are moral theists. But whether they are a minority or majority isn't really the point when the teachings they claim to subscribe to actively prohibit non-crimes like homosexuality, for example. Or the institutions they follow have been at the hands of abuses or are currently at the hands of abuses. Yet, they claim that institution to be moral.

This is why I like to consider them schools with certain trains of thought based on select Scripture, rather than institutions with ground rules that cannot be broken.

 

[richardlowellt]

"In hell". That's funny. As John Calvin and St. Thomas suggested, it's through the sensus divinitatus, a sort of naturally inherent faculty for perceiving the divine (and probably moral truths). On a Christian understanding, this faculty is aided and abetted by God himself through the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit impressing the truths on the heart of the believer.

So it appears that your saying, you know of this imaginary God by Mumbo Jumbo Magic!!! Can you somehow prove such a thing as "natural inherent faculty for perceiving the divine" actually exists? What are moral truths? Do you as a Christian know of moral truths that I, an ATHEISTS am unaware of? Do you have further proof of a Holy Spirit, whatever that may be, impressing the truths, of which I guess I'm not aware of, on the heart of the believer? If you would be so kind as to define the following:

Divine
holy spirit
spirit
truths
heart

Thanks!!