Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 3031323334 41> |
| Author | ||||||
Dean 
Special Collaborator 
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
 Posted: January 03 2010 at 12:32 |
|||||
Then you really are not looking close enough and only skimming the surface facts. The history of the pro-life terror campaign may have its basis in religion, it is also a band-waggon of the far-right. The Somali who tried to enter the house of the Danish cartoonist allegedly has links with al Qaeda, (which I maintain does not represent the Islamic faith and is a politically motivated organisation) - how and why a citizen of one of the oldest Islamic states in Africa would be allied to al Qaeda is open to conjecture (the recent civil war in Somalia was not a "holy" war). The history of Kashmir (like it's neighbour Afghanistan) is steeped in territorial war and conflict, that the combatants are Hindu and Muslim is (IMO) not the prime motivation however I will accept that religion is used to proliferate that conflict.
That still only makes some extremists in some religions wrong, not all believers in all religions. If we attack all causes for all violence we would have to outlaw any assembly of two or more people.
|
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
 |
||||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 12:51 |
|||||
|
^ I wonder why 32% of the Muslim population in the UK want to introduce Sharia law then. And what political motivation could lead someone to murder a Danish caricaturist?
Sorry, but it seems to me like you are trying to make the facts suit your explanation. Most of the Muslim countries of the world are dirt poor (with the exception of those who have oil), so you'll always be able to argue that these isolated extremists do these things because they are poor. I just find that very, very difficult to believe. Sure, it's just political. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 13:28 |
|||||
|
It's funny to see how people use Occam's Razor. Atheists say that it serves as an instrument to support their disbelieve, but they don't think that Occam Razor was created by a monk: William Occam, a Jesuit Friar in 1320 (more or less) proposed that if you "shave" (that's where the name razor comes), all the unnecessary explanations,you would probably reach the truth, but he considered that God was the only necessary entity. So his theory should not be used to deny the existence of God...But atheists don't mention this. Now, Ockham Razor's essentially says: One should not multiply entities beyond the necessary According to science an almost infinite number of circumstances had to happen in the correct order for life to exist, if one of them failed, no life On the other hand, we believe one single intelligence is behind creation a single intelligence that can solve any problem that could appear. Which is simpler to believe? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 13:43 |
|||||
|
^ I know who Occam was ... Hitchens is a fan and explains it in his book. Needless to say that I don't care what his beliefs were ... I'm more interested in what he actually said.
And as far as your question is concerned? You're simply making the argument from fine tuning. Of course you can apply Occam's Razor to that. But that leaves you with an even bigger problem: Who created this "single intelligence that can solve any problem that could appear"? Such an entity would be even more difficult to create than our universe, so you're essentially back where you started. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 13:48 |
|||||
What they want is Sharia courts and the right to apply Islamic law on inheritance, marriage and divorce as long as they do not conflict with or contravene existing British law. They are not asking for the right to cut off the hands of thieves or stone adulterers to death. Yes, it could be the thin edge of the wedge, but those courts have already been sanctioned and are in existance within the UK.
I never said the act itself was politically motivated, just the attacker had alleged links to al Qaeda and that organisation is political. The attempted attack was bigoted stupidity, as was the cartoon of the Islamic prophet Mohamed as a terrorist.
Not just political, not just socio-economic and not just religious. Life is not black and white, it is far more complicated, intricate and interwoven.
|
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 13:56 |
|||||
If I'm not wrong, both the Ontological Argument of Saint Anslem and Occam's Razor were used to prove the existence of God.......So ????
Step by step Mike, you are accepting that an infinite number of random events, is less likely than a single intelligence behind creation....That's an advance.
You say that divinity is unlikely, but IMO not less unlikely than millions of events happening in a precise order.................RANDOMLY!!!!
Do you know what are the odds that not a single event failed and there was no life?
Any expert in maths will probably give us a three pages number.
Iván
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 13:59 |
|||||
Well, let's hope you're right.
I must say, I doubt that you understand the concept of Islam, considering the wide spread support of suicide bombing even among moderate Muslims.
I just can't imagine people who are not mainly driven by religion blowing up innocent people while protecting their genitalia from the blast, so that they can enjoy the reward in the afterlife. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 14:05 |
|||||
So ... what? The existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved. You can only make more or less intelligent arguments and then people can decide whether they think they're plausible or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument Note the rather lengthy section of objections and criticisms. Anyone can make a pseudo-scientific claim that sounds impressive, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense.
If you're talking about evolution, then you haven't understood the concept, since it's not a random process ... random mutations are merely a part of it. BTW: There are billions of planets in the universe where there's probably no life at all. Some fine tuning, wouldn't you say? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 14:08 |
|||||
|
I agree with you Mike...I was only making a point and in your first post you accepted it.
Occam's Razor doesan't prove anything, that something is less likely is not a proof that it doesn't exist.
The same argument can be used to prove the existence or non existence of God...In other words, science has nothing to say about religion.
Iván
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 14:11 |
|||||
That isn't really application of Occam's Razor either since you cannot use it to differentiate between two opposing examples, only in the reduction of each example seperately.
In theology you could use Occam's razor to remove multiple intelligences from creation, to reduce a pantheon of gods (sun-god, moon-god, wind-god, water-god etc.) to a single god.
In science you could use it to remove any of the "almost infinite" to "definitely finite", since they are the ones that evidently did not fail...
|
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 14:20 |
|||||
The problem is that religion interferes with science. As very simple examples, the Bible says that the earth is flat, but science discovered that it is round. The Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth, but science has established that it's the other way round. The Bible says that God created all the creatures on one day, but science has determined that life on earth evolved over billions of years. The Bible says that humans are inherently different from all other animals, yet science has found that we are merely evolved apes. These assumptions that religions make are what makes them legitimate targets of scientific investigation. And what happens? We can see that over the last two millennia religion has been eroded by science. Little by little, step by step, piece by piece religious dogma has been dismantled and reduced. Science has nothing to say about religion? I beg to differ. What if we put it the other way round: Religion has nothing to say about science. Would you agree to that? Be careful though, because even as a moderate Catholic you're still required to believe in miracles. Edited by Mr ProgFreak - January 03 2010 at 14:21 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 14:45 |
|||||
Youa re talking about the past, already proved you that a Catholic Priest proposed the Big Bang theory, also proved you that in the Vatican Observatory is used to advance in science.
Two centuries ago, slavery was legal in all the world (almost) The Church has alao evolved.
Honestly, I don't see any dogma eroded, religion is healthier than ever, even among the young people who was the most reluctant to accept religion.
You are talking about the past, focus in today Mike, all institutions evolve.
Yes, I believe in miracles (not as common as some Churches believe), but there are cases in which miracles are proved beyond science, even doctors (some atheist) have accepted healings as beyond any scientific explanation.
If you check how a miracle is evaluated in the Catholic Church, maybe you would understand a bit more.
Iván Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 03 2010 at 18:25 |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 15:13 |
|||||
You say "evolved", I say "eroded". How much more time will it take for people like you to admit that it's much more likely that Christianity is, just like all the religions that existed before, just a myth based on a book written by men? Your position seems deeply schizophrenic to me, admitting all the previous errors, but still demanding respect for this belief. Even while we are having this civil discussion, people are dying and suffering in Africa because of the Catholic church.
They're so evolved that almost half of all the people in the USA believe in Creationism.
I know it perfectly well. You mean miracle healers such as Mother Teresa? Come on, it's simply fraud. Doctors have protested in many cases, but the Vatican simply proceeded anyway. Any miracle healing that could possibly impress me would be one that holds up to scientific evaluation. You're cleverly saying "beyond science" or "beyond any scientific explanation", since you know full well that no respected scientist agrees with the classification of any of these incidents as miracles. (A documentary by Dawkins, first aired on Channel 4 in the UK. This first part is about Lourdes, a place in France which has been visited by millions of sick people, but there are only 66 cases of reported miracles (!), none of which hold up to scientific investigation) Edited by Mr ProgFreak - January 03 2010 at 15:16 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 15:48 |
|||||
Who knows how much I understand of the concept of Islam, a little more than some people, a lot less than others. Of all the Muslims I have met, lived with (in Halls of Residence at Uni) and worked with, none displayed such tendancies.
|
||||||
|
What?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 15:51 |
|||||
|
^ I have met and worked with Muslims myself. It usually goes well *until* you mention religion. Ask them what they think about Jews, that should get the problems started.
Say what you want, but Islam is not a tolerant religion. (EDIT: by "Say what you want" I mean no disrespect, I just mean that I doubt that there's anything you could say to convince me that Islam is a tolerant religion) Edited by Mr ProgFreak - January 03 2010 at 16:57 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
klvin
Forum Groupie 
Joined: July 16 2008 Location: Hungary Status: Offline Points: 56 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 16:36 |
|||||
|
Ugh! What a great debate! All this kind of religions and philosophies are ment to divide people???
Well, I decided not to decide, but to take an observing standpoint. Let's suppose that you don't believe in God. But then what do you believe in? Do you believe in nature? Well, there must be something you accept. Even atheists accept the physical, chemical, biological etc. principles, and those are relevant to everyone, with no exception. These together form a power, ruling the whole universe our lives. Like a God. What's the big debate about? Can't see any... at the moment. (sorry if i'm not understandable, i'm tired at the moment and not so good in english) There is the transcendental question. What's it all about. After Atheism, there is no transcendental, there is no soul, then we are not individual persons, just a couple of atoms... Therefore the "personal question" does not exist. But if I does not exist, then who am I? No-one. That claim the believers as well, that God is the only reality. "I do not exist" said Paul. There we are. No difference. Is it right? Well, I don't claim I know anything, and the existence of God can't be proved in any way. Probably I'm wrong, but I think the Atheist-Theist difference is an illusion. Nothing is what it seems. Everything illusion. Anyone agree? Well, there is one difference. Atheists believe, they know. And Theists know that they believe. I know what I know, and I believe what I believe. That's the best for me. I often hesitate to believe, but what is the reason. And one more thing: if you are interested in the topic, see a full analysis of Close to the Edge by Yes. I think it's relevant. |
||||||
|
Close to the Edge analized!!!
http://www.yhwh.com/ctte.htm |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 16:48 |
|||||
|
^ Are you sure you're from Hungary? It's not exactly a hot-bed of YHWH followers ...
BTW: Modern Atheists don't "believe they know" ... contrarily, they're sure that they don't know.  |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19535 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 19:20 |
|||||
You insist with your aggressive position each time you don't have an answer sand start to attack. You say we are schizophrenic because we accept that Church had mistakes...Well everybody had mistakes, and people forget them. The USA Government had slaves, racism, but people still trust in them, Germany killed 6'000,000 Jews in a lapse of 5 years, but Germans demand respect as a nation....In the same way Catholic Church made terrible mistakes and the Pope asked pardon for them, despite he wasn't responsible for them, and we demand respect for our beliefs in the same way. People are dying in Africa because of an epidemic which was not caused by Catholic Church, I don't agree with the position of the Church towards the condom, but every person is free to decide if they follow it.
I believe this people are going beyond reason, most of the churches accept evolution, there are 50,000 Christian churches, but Catholics represent more than 2/3 of the Christian (1.7 billion) and we believe in evolution, most Christian churches believe in evolution, only small groups deny it.
And at the end..What's your problem, they are free to believe in whatever they want, it's not your problem, it's their problem.
You don't know a bit about the process of admitting a miracle, What you say is false,there has been more than a thousand miracles claimed in Lourdes, only 67 have been sanctioned by the Church, and only after independent institutions have certified them...It's not the Church who says there is no explanation, hospitals and doctors have witnessed and testified, some of them atheists.
Of course, some atheist "experts" won't accept a miracle classification, I seen them on TV say "Hey we can't explain it, but we are sure it's not a miracle"  That's a very comfortable position. .
I couldn't expect anything else from Dawkis, The Medical committee at Lourdes is totally independent of the Church.has CERTIFIED several miracles.
It's easy to say "No one is proved", but he doesn't explain each one, he doesn't dare to talk with experts who certified the miracle, would love to see him discussing with an expert who supports the miracles....But he won't do that, I'm sure he will say "You are delusional and I'm nort discussing with you", even if medical charts and X rays are presented. Iván
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 19:29 |
|||||
Happy new year to Iván the not so terrible and Mr. Mike. Keep up the good work. |
||||||
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005 Location: NE Indiana Status: Offline Points: 28057 |
Posted: January 03 2010 at 19:43 |
|||||
|
Ivan:
Ivan, suppose someone is healed without a good scientific reason. How are we supposed to react to that? What if he didn't go to worship at an icon or anything? What if there's no connection to any religion, but he is healed without an attributable cause? In the opposite situation, what if a person is healed in the same way, but had recently prayed or made a religious pilgrimage or something. What should we believe out of this scenario? Should we take it then that all the tenets of his religion are true? Or should we take it that God exists? Well then, what specifically could this God do, besides apparently healing someone? I'm sure there are many instances of people from all different religions and maybe even no religion being healed without scientific explanation. I think this is almost meaningless, though, even supposing there was a Godly explanation for it. If someone was healed through religion, we have no way of knowing what to do or what to believe out of those circumstances.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 3031323334 41> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll
Topic Options
Mr ProgFreak wrote: