Spiritual but not religious?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: All men are mortal. I can go through life without a problem without knowing the answer to that ("Are there immortal men?"). Taking for granted that all men are mortal is not a requirement for Atheism. Epignosis wrote: Murder is evil. Humans have a collaboratively (and instinctively) developed system of moral values. The Bible is a direct result (at least some parts that aren't too tainted by ulterior motives). The question "what is evil" can not be answered by science like the question "does gravity exist". But somehow I find my explanation of how we arrive at an answer more plausible than the idea that a extra-dimensional being created our moral values.

Not surprisingly, you evade the bigger picture.  I don't care that something is a "requirement for atheism" or not.  You called my belief unfalsifiable and therefore unprovable.  I countered by saying that there are many things that are unfalsifiable that we take for granted everyday.

You find something more plausible, and I find something else more plausible.

James wrote: All Women are mortal too, Rob.  I'd query that Murder is always evil though.  Besides, what is evil?

You can question that statement if you like.  The point is that it is unfalsifiable, yet most people take it for granted.

All Women are mortal too, Rob. 

I'd query that Murder is always evil though.  Besides, what is evil?

Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: My point was that atheistic explanations for the universe's existence are just as unfalsifiable as theistic ones. Atheists don't claim to know why the universe exists, or how it was created. It is a common tactic of Theists to try to divert the discussion to topics which science has no answers for. Which doesn't make sense at all, because gaps in our knowledge aren't proof for the existence of the supernatural. Back in Jesus' days people could not explain lightning storms ... today we can, but we still can't explain some other things. Go figure. BTW: "I do not know" is much more honest than "Of course I know, Scripture says so". It's also a poor cop-out IMO to refer to God for anything that you can't explain. It's just the Theist version of  "I do not know". Of course both statements are unfalsifiable, but at least "I do not know" is honest. EDIT: And please, Atheism doesn't have anything to do with astrophysics. Epignosis wrote: And yet, there are plenty of unfalsifiable propositions we take for granted on a daily basis. Such as? I will gladly comment on specific examples. You confuse "I know" with "I believe."  You seem to have a problem with the latter as well. Are you really questioning that we take unfalsifiable statements for granted everyday?  I thought you understood how the scientific process works.  The scientific process proves theories wrong (which means those theories were falsifiable)- scientific theories are never proven; they just agree with current data as it is today.

I knew you wouldn't give examples.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: My point was that atheistic explanations for the universe's existence are just as unfalsifiable as theistic ones. Atheists don't claim to know why the universe exists, or how it was created. It is a common tactic of Theists to try to divert the discussion to topics which science has no answers for. Which doesn't make sense at all, because gaps in our knowledge aren't proof for the existence of the supernatural. Back in Jesus' days people could not explain lightning storms ... today we can, but we still can't explain some other things. Go figure. BTW: "I do not know" is much more honest than "Of course I know, Scripture says so". It's also a poor cop-out IMO to refer to God for anything that you can't explain. It's just the Theist version of  "I do not know". Of course both statements are unfalsifiable, but at least "I do not know" is honest. EDIT: And please, Atheism doesn't have anything to do with astrophysics. Epignosis wrote: And yet, there are plenty of unfalsifiable propositions we take for granted on a daily basis. Such as? I will gladly comment on specific examples.

You confuse "I know" with "I believe."  You seem to have a problem with the latter as well.

Are you really questioning that we take unfalsifiable statements for granted everyday?  I thought you understood how the scientific process works.  The scientific process proves theories wrong (which means those theories were falsifiable)- scientific theories are never proven; they just agree with current data as it is today.


Edited by Epignosis - June 10 2010 at 12:58

jampa17 wrote: You can't describe love, and you can't give an accurate description of it, I'm not saying that christianity is a "fact"... I'm saying that you believe in something that you can't describe or prove, like love, so, it's the same for me, I can't describe or prove God, that doesn't mean he/she/it doesn't exists... when mankind understands that there's somethings beyond us, you get it... you are too confident about science and tell me, what is different in mankind...? we are still haunting, killing, and destroying the world, do you think science has taken us to another level of life...?

But you do much more than simply believe in God. If I remember correctly, you're a Catholic. It doesn't matter which denomination it is, my point is that you also believe in an elaborate, man-made set of rules for daily life. You have faith in that this is the path to salvation and all others aren't. You are willing to make certain sacrifices in your life or at least in some ways have these rules influence decisions you make. You believe in an afterlife and expect to transcend death.

Even if I thought that there were "some things beyond us" (which I actually don't rule out as a possibility), your religious way of life goes far beyond that.

And if you really think that science hasn't done a lot to improve your life ... take away doctors, medicine, electricity, refrigerators, motors etc.. Science *and* humanism has taken us to another level of life *despite of* religion. If you think that in my opinion science is all that matters, you are mistaken. But science is the only way to understand how the world works. Religious ideas have proven time and time again to be grossly out of sync with the real world. It's the 21st century, and there are still millions of people who think that the earth is flat (It's written in the Ko'ran, and every word of it is true).  

Mr ProgFreak wrote: jampa17 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: jampa17 wrote: Hey Mike, do you believe in love...? I think that is fundamental to "Understand" why God exists... Yes I do, but I don't think that love is what the Christian God is all about. I'm sure that many Christians feel like love is the essence of Christianity, but God is also vindictive and cruel. Your loving father can send you right to hell without pity or remorse, should you choose to follow the wrong prophet. He will also let you suffer in this life, no matter how much you pray. I believe in love, but I also believe that it's a concept that's not tied to religion.   Oh... that wasn't my point... my point is that you believe in love, something that you can't explain or "prove" through science... just through emotions... which you can't explain as well... if you can prove your love (and all we here knows that love is not about chocolates, roses and chickflics) then I can prove you God... is something that exists, that you know is there and that you can't explain... Love is something that you feel. Now, you can say that it's the same with God, but *not* when it comes to Christianity. If I was to say "I feel God's presence", that would not be enough in order to call myself Christian. You also have to believe in Jesus, and that he was resurrected, and that through his sacrifice I'm saved ... at least according to the gospel of John that's an absolute requirement. That's where religious doctrine comes into play, which has nothing to do with any emotion like love or compassion ... or spirituality for that matter. jampa17 wrote:   Prove me the existence of love, and I'll prove you God... and as an outsider, you missed completely the gospel, is not that you have to know it... but God is not vindictive and cruel... there's a lot to do with his pitty, and his love for mankind... but that's a complex subject... I know what the Church said about it... it's just complicated to explain and to understand for an outsider... There's a difference between love and the "fact" that Jesus was resurrected. http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940 I'm currently reading this book - and I like it a lot. Mind you, the author is an accomplished scholar who has been teaching at respected universities for decades (respected also by Christians). I recommend it strongly to every Christian who may not yet be aware of the historic details of the new testament - who wrote the books, how do they differ in key aspects of Jesus' life and the core elements of the religion. The author is very careful when making claims, and he's also very respectful.

The very first particles were set into motion by Keith Richards.

James wrote: Oh I'm not saying that I know how the solar system was created either.  I was just asking Rob how his 2-Dimensional God was created. And no, Teo, I doubt it would have been formed the same way.  A 2-Dimensional God (or any God for that mattter unless your God is Mother Earth/Gaia) would have to go through evolution like everything else.  So initially, yes, it could have come from matter, just like we have. Rob, you'd probably enjoy Edwin Abbott Abbott's book Flatland.

Read it twice.  It was what got me thinking this way theologically.

I didn't say anything about a 2D God.    As to how God was created, the answer is "God is eternal," an idea beyond my comprehension.  I won't presume to understand it, let alone explain it.

James wrote: So how was your 2-Dimensional God created then, Rob?