First the new numbers from the Pew Center. Of course this is skewed in the wrong direction, but I can fix that:
two-thirds of adults ages 65 and older say religion is very important to them, compared with just over half of those ages 30 to 49 and just 44% of those ages 18 to 29.
Translation: 56% of the younger generation thinks religion is not very important. That’s more than half, folks!
Read More
Here’s the Catholic Review’s report on the report, which seems to have been pulled out of thin air, unless the report I found is not the one they cited.
Here’s my View: We’re growing AGAIN, they are shrinking AGAIN, and they are panicking AGAIN. Hah.
Maybe because the Bible is completely man-made… and made up? Maybe artifacts like the 1600-year-old Bible, which is dramatically different from the ones currently used, will highlight the fact that the Bible is at very least, changeable, flexible, and subject to man-made decisions? A little proof of fallibility?
LONDON, England (CNN) — The world’s oldest known Christian Bible goes online Monday — but the 1,600-year-old text doesn’t match the one you’ll find in churches today.
Discovered over 160 years ago, the Bible includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament. The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections — some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online.
The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences. Very important passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, scholars said.
“Very important passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, scholars said.”
Apparently that part of the fairy tale had not been invented yet,
They needed a new chapter to keep the story “fresh.”
Why did you choose not to believe in God and the Bible?
Please, be honest.
We are being honest. That’s why.
The story has been around for more than 2,000 years and still standing strong whether you like it or not.
(Chuckle) The writings of Hebrews, the Aramaics, by the Gnostics, the Maccabees, and the Essenes. This post proposes that there are two documents missing. Hilarious. There are thousands missing, and it was King James and his staff of clerics that decided what would be included in the publicly published bible. The goal was to support the divine right of kings.
The real library of the bible is enormous, even what was not burned by King James’ clergy, is an even larger story of infinite contradictions.
NeoWolfe
Neo
Nice post.
Tell us more about the thousands of missing documents. Since I am not one to have delved into the details of xian mythology and its history you have the opportunity to teach me something. Please do! But not too much detail please. It’s a bit like being a Treky.
I concur, although it’s my opinion that the bible has always been designed to support monarchy. It’s the true function of religion, if you ask me.
Israel’s King David was chosen by god, as they like to say, not to mention it was an emperor of the Roman Empire who had the Old Testament put together.
Council of Niacea, anyone?
Ratbastid : you are correct. The Council of Nicea “culled” some texts while including others. It was also the first time that je-zeus’ EQUALITY to YHVH was decreed.Up til that time there was a raging debate among nascent xtianity whether jesus, being “the son of god’ was inferior to YHVH or whether he was ALWAYS–at conception a,t birth, at 13 at 33—one and the same with YHVH.
The Nicene Creed decide je-zeus was ALWAYS one and the same as YHVH and those who profesed otherwise were anathema to the church and ostracized, defrocked and ex communicated if they did NOT renounce their then determined errant positions.
The first creed so named was adopted at the first Council of Nicaea in ad325 to settle a controversy concerning the persons of the Trinity. It was intended to cover debated questions as to the divinity of Christ, and it introduced the word homoousios (Greek, “of the same substance”) to correct the error of the homoiousian (“of like substance”) party. To it were added several clauses against Arianism.
A later creed that is popularly known as the Nicene Creed is more properly called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan or Constantinopolitan Creed. It is based on a 4th-century creed that was made under the influence of the bishop of Jerusalem, St. Cyril, and edited in a Nicene sense. It is contained in the Ancoratus of St. Epiphanius of Salamis and is traditionally but erroneously attributed to the first Council of Constantinople, which met in 381. Of the 178 words in the original of this second “Nicene Creed,” only 33 are positively taken from the creed of ad325. The second creed is received as ecumenical by the Eastern and Roman communions and by the majority of the Reformed churches. It employs the singular form of the words used for expressing assent, “I believe,” “I hope,” “I confess.” At the Council of Toledo (589), the Western church added the filioque clause and inserted the preposition “in” before the words “one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” In the Book of Common Prayer, the preposition “in” is omitted, and by an accident the word “holy” does not appear; the phrase reads there “I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
——————————————————————————–
theology….its almost a 50 % joke now….
Of course when that question is asked, they never ask *why* or *how* religion is important to the individual. I’m an atheist and religion is important to me. It’s important because it’s constantly used against myself and my family. So, religion is important in that I would like to see much less of it.
Yes, we don’t need religion but what we need is a personal relationship with Jesus the Christ.
So much for the unchangeable, literal word of God.
If Jcc and Phreedm — and others like them — claim the word of God (the bible) is infallible, then how is it His word can be altered by human beings? Doesn’t the fact we can change His word make it fallible?
The word of God is always infallible but our transalations are exposed to errors because we are humans and we make mistakes.
vladimir says:
Then what the hell is this infallible “word of God”?
If you know that, then why are you fooling with these translations?
religion for many does become more important with age.there is joy in fellowship with likeminded people.a house of worship is the center of a community that has the nature of an extended family.don’t scoff at the comfort people get from belonging to a group were people care about you and your family.we as atheists must not make the mistake of being blinded by all that we know is bad/wrong in religion.don’t forget for centuries atheists to survive have taken an active part in religion easing their discomfort by a firm belief in the golden rule repaying love and kindness with love and kindness.while supernatural religion may pass away i believe there will be somekind of religion that binds people together.
Lemme do a little picking apart of your comments here.
1. It is part of the human mentality that nearly everyone find comfort from belonging to a “like-minded” group, no matter what binds that group together. Witness the prevalence of gangs.
2. Do-godders are by no means the only ones who care for each other, and for others in their communities.
3.The earliest reference to the “golden rule” that I know of was Confucius, circa 500 a.d. Yet another good rule formulated by someone else, and pirated by xianity.
4. Enlightenment should cause all religion to “pass away”, because without belief in the supernatural, there is no religion.
Hold a minute. Reason has made a good point here. I think what he’s addressing in a form of conditioning that we non believers have experienced is a sort of exclusion from this central location that binds communities together. Our conditioning comes as part of our regection to faith and organized religion. It’s also how ostrasation works. Too many times I come on here and i see a bunch of otherwise like minded people entered into a pissing contest because we’ve all been conditioned to act as “loners” and are proud of it.
Count me as guilty. I grew up atheist, and I didn’t see how important most people think congregations were, or why. Sure, there’s the myth factor, but there’s also the community factor, and the social ladder that is formed within said community? Out of work? Ask the rich guy at church for a job. Need food? they have a food bank. need a shoulder to cry on? confession.
Want to get elected as mayor or councilman? Ask the pastor if you can speak on Sunday. Want to be a congressman? Call the bishop, archbishop, the synod, etc. And so on.
With the numbers of a community, you don’t need our inner strength or exceptional intelligence. you just use your crutch of community.
why can’t you have religion minus the supernatural.
doesn’t religion simply mean that which binds us together.therefore cannot communism,capitalism be religions.if you have faith in sceince is that not religious.why does a god have to be a supernatural being is not the sun whose light is needed for human life not our creator.
reason, no it doesn’t. At least not literally. I’m splitting hairs here, but if you follow the strict definition of the word, there’s no way we can have an “atheist religion”. It’s an oxymoron.
Religion: 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.
Do we have any devotional or ritual observances? No. How about those superhuman agencies? It would apply to Stan Lee for the inhabitants of the Marvel Universe, but those are just characters that he created.
You know, like the Jews and Christians.
I don’t claim to know how the big bang was set off, or what the purpose of the universe is. To even ask the purpose of the universe is kind of a silly question, if you ask me.
Nor do i have faith in science. Science is just a tool, one that can be abused just like anything else. It’s only as good as its’ practicioner.
Plus, I am not worshipping anything, be it an economic system or a large gaseous orb that’s responsible for life.
Worship:
1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.
5. (initial capital letter) British. a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually prec. by Your, His, or Her).
In short, the sun ain’t the boss of me.
This is not the case with scientists. Such beliefs decrease dramatically with age! See the new Pew poll (scroll to bottom of the page) at:
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549
There is lots of interesting stuff in this recent poll.
I was surprised by this, but when I thought about it, it makes perfect sense. Scientists start out relatively close to the normal population in terms of belief, but over time, the number of believers dwindles.
What I found the most interesting was this-
Not a big difference, but those conservatives seem to be attempting to hush up the scientists a bit.
what does it say about someone who retains a literal bible belief when it has been shown again and again that there is more than one version.what is the driving force that would make one keep such a view inspite of evidence contrary.
Good questions. What do you think?
What
i guess that atheists and theists have different brains with maybe the difference being so small we haven’t yet detected it .
That may be. I think that the detection of such differences will require the “holy grail” of noninvasive brain imaging systems – one that is capable of measuring brain electric current density on the millisecond temporal scale and millimeter spatial scale.
The human proclivity for belief in defiance of reason and evidence is staggering. For example, I am Utah-born and know a thing or two about the Mormons. When it was revealed that one of the LDS’ holy books, the Pearl of Great Price, that Joseph Smith claimed to translate from an Egyptian papyrus, was in fact, upon actual scholarly translation, nothing more than common Egyptian funerary texts, one would have expected mass defection from the LDS church. Never happened.
It was and remains the most compelling example of voluntary ignorance known to me.
It satys to me that their programming is so engrained that they don’t know how to deal with reality without it. it’s also part of the reason why there’s so much hostility toward any scientific evidence that shows the fallibility of faith.
You know, ignorance is bliss.
It says that everybody has choice whether to believe or not. Just like you believe in the wanna be theory of evolution.
[...] New Numbers, Old Bible « No God Blog [...]
Maybe they should have used version numbers and dated the old Bibles with expiration dates. You’d think God would be able to keep better track of these things.
So let me get this straight…the group who treats science as their new religion, will take one piece of evidence and apply it to an entire subject…?
Yes…as I’ve stated over and over again…atheism is “anti-science”. The last thing an atheist wants to discover is the truth about anything…that is except fragments of history that support their closed minded approach to life…
Now, if you want to start a thread to include ALL examples of early manuscripts…fine. But we all know that would crush your biased reporting of the Codex Sinaiticus…
Actually you’ve got it backwards. Religion is close-minded, science is open-minded. Religion is about dogma, science is about discovery.
I realize some people in this thread on both sides of the issue are dogmatic. Science wants no part of them.
I think the most important point to this thread is this: if the lynchpin of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, why does not the earliest known rendition of the Bible mention it? As you are the claimant the burden of proof rests with you.
thx: You are correct, and , as usual, phreeDUMBfrom thought errs again!
Ah no…I’ve proven it over and over again. Atheists are the only group I know of that put shackles on those scientists who happen to believe differently…give me a break. I’ll say it again. Atheists are CLOSED MINDED simply by their definition. You can believe what you want to…
Funny how you dodged my central point, phreedm. I guess you’re afraid. You do this kind of thing a lot.
JCC
I am simply trying to determine what your assertion means if possible. If you want to use the word that’s fine. Now you must provide operational definitions of the words “immaterial reality” and “metaphyiscal”. If you need to need to know what is meant by operational then google “operational definition”. As you have stated these two words/phrases are “mysterious”. So remove the mysteriousness if you can. Otherwise the meaning of your assertion will remain mysterious.
Phreedm – So let me get this straight…the group who treats science as their new religion, will take one piece of evidence and apply it to an entire subject…?
How many times must you be told? science does not equal religion.. all I have to say is that the statements made above just show how IGNORANT you are and if you can’t see how silly you sound then I feel sorry for you.
Also says – Now, if you want to start a thread to include ALL examples of early manuscripts…fine. But we all know that would crush your biased reporting of the Codex Sinaiticus…
PLease, include ALL manuscripts, all that will do is reveal more contradictions withing the fairytale.
Of course the knuckle dragger chimed in. He’s just repeating what his right wing overlords have spoon fed him over the years. He’s a parrot. He’s incapable of independent thought. Zero criticasl thinking skills. If Rush, Newt, or Huckabee told him to take anthrax because it’s the ticket to heaven, he’d do it. He’s barely a step up from Applewhite and the Heavens Gate cult. All he needs is a jumpsuit.
Shodan06 says:
Really…tell me one thing an atheist believes in that cannot be proven by science…
I’m glad you’re acknowledging that atheists beliefs have all been proven. It’s about time.
Nothing times nothing is still nothing…
Please explain that one. Are you now trying to say science is worthless?
Really?
Exactly what does an atheist believe in? Atheism is “materialistic”. By it’s very definition it has faith in nothing. The only thing an atheist believes in is the “materialistic” world around them. Science does or will have all of the answers for them. If science can’t prove it, then it doesn’t exist…
You could also use the word “Scientism”…The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.
http://www.answers.com/topic/scientism
Pure atheism (which does not exist) does not allow the concepts of intuition or 6th sense to name a few. Atheists MUST close their minds to the idea that ANYTHING is possible…bringing us back around to my original statement…
Atheists are anti-science (in both the scientific world and in education). They may claim that they are, but a few short questions would prove my point…
And he can still type!
Anything within reason is possible- there is zero scientific or reasonable evidence pointing to your God or any other gods, so we ignore them. You said it yourself, your idea of pure atheism does not exist- all atheists believe in subjective ideas such as love, intuition (although it’s often just educated guesswork), and morality.
Essentially your reasoning here is that atheists aren’t gullible, and this is why you’re much more open minded than us- despite the thousands of gods you don’t believe in either.
Half the time you seem to bash science, and then you turn around and attempt to claim its findings for your side. Let’s go ahead and hear these questions that will prove me to be anti-science.
Within reason? Who decides what’s “within reason”? You simply prove my point. Either one believes ANYTHING is possible or they don’t. Your statement proves you’ve closed your mind to “anything is possible”…
There was zero scientific evidence for many things we understand now. Simply because we haven’t discovered the evidence does not mean something doesn’t exist…that is a closed minded approach to science…
Would you support a scientist who set out to prove the following statement?(hypothesis?)
Show Me Some PROOF:
To pick up on what phreedm was getting at, how can you prove that reason itself exists? You can’t use the scientific method because it presupposes that reason exists. What you have here is a tautology; a metaphysical axiom that is self-evident to a conscious being yet unprovable within the realm of science. It’s a concept, that if we’re to have confidence in it’s veracity, then we must rely on a higher, transcendent truth that cannot be fully described and understood in this existence.
phreedm says – Atheists are CLOSED MINDED simply by their definition. and – Atheism is “materialistic”. By it’s very definition it has faith in nothing. The only thing an atheist believes in is the “materialistic” world around them.
So how do you define atheism? there is a link on this site to inform ingnoran peeps such as yourself as to what it means. I figured by now you would have figured out that it’s simply a lack of belief in a supernatural being / force / entity, whatever. How is it materialistic? You’re damn right I have faith in nothing, or is it, I don’t have faith in anything? Same difference. Thats the point, faith “by definition” is to believe in something without evidence, (that’s why it’s called faith and not theory / evidence / testable, whatever..
Also says – You could also use the word “Scientism”…The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.
You could also use the word moron. I don’t buy into the scientism thing. It’s a way for society to put a label on something to further polarize the situation. Just because I’m a scientist dosn’t mean I believe in scientism..
phreedm also says – Pure atheism (which does not exist) does not allow the concepts of intuition or 6th sense to name a few. Atheists MUST close their minds to the idea that ANYTHING is possible…bringing us back around to my original statement…
6th sense may be going a bit far however, I’m not opposed to the idea that some people have hightened senses and perceive the world differently than I do. It’s called diversity, maybe you’ve heard of it. Each one of us is a roll of the genetic dice. Some are attactive, athletic, coordinated extroverts (likely to reproduce) and some are slow, overweight, stay at home introverts. Most not by choice, but it’s who they are.. A slow metabolism is genetic. So are conditions like autism, and physical and mental retadation (the latter can be cause by severe head trauma, but that’s not the point here). Do you think people that are severely physically disabled or mentally retarded are LIKELY to reproduce? Some do, but it’s not likely. Diversity is the key to the survival of a species and that’s where a lot of people get stummped. We think about the survival of the individual while natural selection is “concerend” (for lack of a better word) with the survival of the species as a whole.
So to my point, it is likely that some people are naturally going to have slightly more / less sensitive senses than some others. The senses of people that are blind typically are hightened because their brain is compensating for the lack of sight. Again, your statements further your lack of understanding of Evolution through natural selection.
Shodan06…there’s an absolute rule in discussion of debating. If your opponent needs to resort to personal attacks or name calling, they are speaking from the weaker position. Ignore them and move on…
Phreedm -there’s an absolute rule in discussion of debating. If your opponent needs to resort to personal attacks or name calling, they are speaking from the weaker position. Ignore them and move on…
I agree phreedm, I should’ve said moronic (lacking good judgement). I wasn’t calling you a name.. The definition of “scientism” is moronic. should’ve made that clearer.
Ah, no, because all of our concepts are based in the material 1st.
So this is just gods-of-the gaps, no matter how finely worded.
So here’s the breakdown:
A. Empirical method is grounded in physical existence.
B. Actual thoughts, emotions, etc. are clearly not physical.
C. If processes B are not physical, then ergo, A is now N/A.
D. If B, then GAWD!
The problem w/this formula, is that all items under B can be measured using method A. There are actual chemical responses that can measure thoughts as well as emotions – EKG, EEG, MRI, catscans, etc.
For an evidential apologist, it’s a weak formula.
Really? The concept of mathematics is “based in the material?” Please provide a material example of it. The concept of morality is “based in the material?” Please provide a material example of that as well.
Uh, no. It’s the immaterial reality that every conscious being experiences. A reality that exists independently of the physical senses.
WRONG! Using the empirical method only on physical entities, please provide a proof of the Law of Non-contradiction. Or, using only physical entities, please empirically prove that Hitler was evil, or that rape, or stealing, or pedophilia is wrong.
So? You said it yourself: they’re responses to thoughts—you have yet to demonstrate that they are not, in and of themselves, their own cause.
Only to someone unwilling to acknowledge all aspects of this concept. On the contrary, this is an enormously powerful argument for the existence of the immaterial soul, ergo, GOD.
JCC
Your entire last post makes no sense unless you can operationally define the phrase “immaterial reality”? So what does that mean to you?
JCC
and this
Does your question have meaning to you? I can’t understand it.
Phree-
I apologize, I tried to save words by saying within reason. What I meant was that anything that cannot be proven false is, by definition, possible. I obviously cannot prove God to be 100% false, so if you want to be technical, I should be open minded to your God. However, by this same logic, you should be “open minded” to thousands of other gods including Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Zeus- unless you’d care to take a stab at completely disproving them. I’d also like to assert that their are fairies in the garden and infinitely small unicorns drinking tea in your hair.
I think, wishfully think that is, that you will see the absurdity here. This is why we demand evidence in order to even consider opening our minds towards these things. Don’t forget that Zeus and Allah has plenty of ancient texts written about him, and the FSM has a Gospel as well as a promise of heaven that is much more appealing than yours (And many claims of miracles involving noodlely appendages), so you’re going to need to do better than your Bible or otherwise explainable cures of cancer.
I did, but you obviously missed it: A reality that exists independently of the physical senses.
It wasn’t a question, but it was poorly worded. Try this: you have yet to demonstrate that a physical response to a thought is all that constitutes a thought.
JCC
That isn’t an operational definition. Tell me what operations one must perform to distinguish between that which exists independently of the physical senses and that which does not.
Your revised statement is not much better. Your statement assumes that there exist independently things called thoughts and things called responses to thoughts.
Sure it is.
Uh, thinking of immaterial concepts such as mathematical operations or the moral implications of actions—these are real concepts that are not subject to the five senses. Your petty insistence on “operational definitions” is a pretty transparent dodge.
So sue me.
Yeah, it does—because it strongly supports, and is consistent with, my experience of reality.
Agreed. Exactly why I say atheism is closed minded. With all sincerity, it says a lot about your character for you to make such a public statement here…
Great point! Once one realizes that atheism is a closed minded approach to discovering the secrets of the universe, then one must open their minds to all possibilities. Once one truly asks “Show me the Proof”, then the responsibility of analyzing the answers falls upon the the one asking the question…the real test is being able to look at the evidence without the shackles of atheism.
And it may come as a surprise, but disproving the “thousands of other gods including Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Zeus” is not as difficult as you may think….
http://tinyurl.com/lg4hrc
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/skm30804.htm
JCC
So what you are saying is that you can’t provide the operational definition. Therefore you have no way of discerning that which exists independently of the physical senses and that which does not. You do realize that this puts an end to your argument, right?
Now you have changed the language you are using. What does “subject to the five senses” mean? Come on man, clear the cobwebs out!
Really! Then it should be easy for you to tell us how to distinguish between that which is a thought and that which is a response to a thought. So do it.
No, I’m not saying that at all. You’re either ignoring what I’ve said or your reading comprehension is deficient. For the last time, the “operational” definition of immaterial reality: A reality that exists independently of the physical senses (i.e. one that cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt; yet is self-evidently apparent to, and readily perceived by, the conscious mind which can cogitate on it.
This is like trying to argue with a brick wall. I’ve given two examples that flatly dispute that assertion.
Wrong. My argument is sound; you’re the one who’s been backed into a corner and is denying that it exists.
Uh, no. I started out using English, and I continue to do so. You’re the one who’s squirming here.
Exactly what it says—something that cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt.
There are none on my side of this discussion.
Ok. I see someone eating ice cream which initiates an “urge to eat some” thought (which is actually a response to stimulus impulse) in my brain. But I have the ability to either indulge that impulse or stifle it—that’s called my will. I can use it to override what you deterministic materialists believe is a hardwired response. People like Krys (and possibly you too) actually believe that the act of suicide is, in many cases, physically unavoidable—that the perpetrator had no choice in the matter… what a crock.
JCC
I am not confident that you even know what your argument is at this point. Instead of continuing a argument with you which is comprised of changing definitions (none of which are operational) and new assumptions why don’t you, as clearly as you can, make the assertion you want to make – complete with operational definitions. Then I can respond to your assertion in a manner that will not fall victim to diversion.
This is insane. Haven’t you been paying attention? How much clearer can I be? I’m systematically destroying Krys’ assertion that: all of our concepts are based in the material 1st.
…And I’m not confident that you’re capable of admitting that you’re wrong.
Excuse me? I’ve satisfied that request, multiple times, but since you cannot refute it, you try to move the goal posts instead.
So are you telling me that you refuse to state clearly your assertion? It is certainly not clear what your assertion is from reading the above!
Ok, I assert that an immaterial, metaphysical reality exists; that it is perceptible to conscious minds, and as such, is only comprehensible within the domain of consciousness. And, given the existence of such an immaterial reality, it is reasonable to lend credence to the evidences for an immaterial mind (or soul) and thereby conclude that it exists as well.
JCC
OK so you have made an assertion. But the meaning in your words is elusive. So. What does immaterial mean to you. Are electromagnetic fields immaterial by your operational definition? Should we just delete the word “immaterial” in your assertion and have you give an operational definition of “metaphysical” instead?
Then the problem exists with you—I don’t know how much plainer I could’ve made it.
Lacking, or unassociated with, particulate matter; having no mass.
No, they’re always associated with matter.
No, given that one is as mysterious as the other, I see the two as equally interchangeable.
JCC
But it is precisely the mysteriousness of the words that you use that makes the meaning of you assertions so difficult to decipher.
Since you are saying that the words are interchangeable (and I will not object) then can we drop the word immaterial from your assertion (actually multiple assertions but we will get to that) and write your assertion as:
Agreed?
Given that it was specifically used by Krys at the outset and the fact that it accurately describes a crucial aspect of my assertion, no, I cannot agree to that.
JCC
I simply removed a redundant word and now you object to the restatement of your assertion? Huh?
When did I ever use/say that? I didn’t.
I wasn’t redundant. Again, it accurately describes a crucial aspect of my assertion. You’re clearly attempting to manipulate me into agreeing to drop it in order for you to exploit what you perceive to be a weakness in it being described as metaphysical alone. Sorry, immaterial is essential and germane to my point and I stand by it.
You did. Your words exactly: “all of our concepts are based in the material 1st.”
JCC
I am simply trying to determine what your assertion means if possible. If you want to use the word that’s fine. Now you must provide operational definitions of the words “immaterial reality” and “metaphyiscal”. If you need to need to know what is meant by operational then google “operational definition”. As you have stated these two words/phrases are “mysterious”. So remove the mysteriousness if you can. Otherwise the meaning of your assertion will remain mysterious.
Did that here: http://tinyurl.com/lvatrr
Since that one’s so well know around here, I’ll trust your definition.
Your link did not provide an operational definition. I have asked you twice to provide one and I have asked you to consult the web if you don’t know what an operational definition is. Please do your homework.
I do not have a meaningful definition of the word metaphysical. So if you think one exists then you will have to provide it.
It did, you just continually refuse to acknowledge it as such.
And this is why it’s pointless trying to engage you in any kind of discussion. You’re completely unwilling to make even the smallest effort in trying to understand the other person’s point of view. Maybe when you do your homework and realize that your opinion is just that—and not God’s gift to humanity, then maybe we can have a productive discussion.
I’m done (again).
Interesting. I tried to understand JCC’s assertion by asking for clarification. He was done before he started.
JCC
It is obvious that do not understand nor do you care to understand what an operational definition is. In the most sincere manner possible I have tried to understand your assertion. I have demonstrated my curiosity and sincerity by asking you questions intended to clarify the meaning of your assertion. Your failure to respond to rudimentary questions about your assertion coupled with your invalid claims that you already have is to be expected of someone disinterested in sincere discussion. It is clear to me that you are such a person. I will therefore respond in a manner befitting such a person. Ridicule is what you have asked for implicitly and ridicule is what you shall receive.
xtianity as it exists today was “created” by Councils or synods of political religious leaders of the First centuries A.d.
It would be as if in the 21 century Bill Clinton, Tony Blair,Benj Netanyahu, the Dalai Lama, the Pope, LRon Hubbard’s “successor”, Ayatollah Khamenie, Rick Warren, Kim Jung Il,Christopher Hitchens,Richard Dwakins, Jimmy Swaggart, George W Bush, The Head of the UN,and other such”liminaries” got together and decided what was “holy” and what was anathema.
Who(in their right mind) would adhere to any such edict?
Answer: the same type “ists” who adhere to extant theisms!
Now Yahweh, I do believe Dawkins and Hitchens would be burned at the stake, don’t you? I’ll give you the rest, and I don’t agree with Hitchens on many things, but c’mon.
“luminaries”
the gull only deserve ridicule…
jcc:
Sure. 1 stone plus 1 stone = 2 stones.
More unprovable insistences.
What cultural definition do we use?
Define ‘empirically’. Because obviously you use a different yardstick, & there are multiple definitions.
Obviously, humanity’s not inclined towards that behavior. Of course, we differ as to why that is.
I don’t have to. They’re sourced & solidly connected to the physical (i.e., chemical) responses.
Let’s examine this:
It’s a concept, that if we’re to have confidence in it’s veracity, then we must rely on a higher, transcendent truth that cannot be fully described and understood in this existence.
If that last part is as you say it is, then why are you wasting your time & ours?
We’re supposed to rely on something indescribable, that we are unable to understand in this existence? How is that not special pleading? It’s ridiculous.
“On the contrary, this is an enormously powerful argument for the existence of the immaterial soul, ergo, GOD.”
There is NO powerful argument for the “‘existence’ of the immaterial soul…”
To speak of an “immaterial soul” is to speak of “nothingness”; and nothingness has NO existence.
“To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart.”
Jefferson 1820 Letter to John Adams.
I concur with Jefferson re immaterialism—it is mere NOTHINGNESS!
in the absence of “matter”, in the absence of “materialism” there is NOTHING and NO ONE to add or subtract.
Krys:
Oh dear. How ’bout you come up with a material proof of the concept of addition?—you know, like a repeatable chemical reaction that yields the same same results every time it’s tried, but instead of getting them to react, you use them to demonstrate the validity of the immaterial concept of addition?
My (as well as yours, and everyone else’s) demonstrated ability to cogitate on a concept that has no physical attributes (i.e. mathematics) is an “unprovable insistence?”
The one that’s universal to all: It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context.
Oh dear (again). Ok: empirical: originating in or based on observation or experience.
You’re squirming.
Oh please! Now you’re really squiriming.
Oh? And under what license do you claim exemption?
Psssst. Hey buddy, we live in a cause-and-effect universe; if there are measurable chemical responses, then something caused them.
Because you had the audacity to make the false assertion of: “all of our concepts are based in the material 1st.”
That’s a deliberate distortion of what I said. My words exactly were: we must rely on a higher, transcendent truth that cannot be fully described and understood in this existence. We don’t fully understand magnetism, yet we’re able to partially describe it and make practical use of it.
It’s not. Se my magnetism analogy.
Ah, no, why don’t you come up w/some proof that concepts originate outside the physical body? The science is on my side, last I checked.
No, work on comprehension.
Exact wording is: A reality that exists independently of the physical senses.
Unless you can provide real evidence that there is a ‘reality’ that exists that’s not on this plane (provided you & I agree on the term ‘reality’), then yes, unprovable insistence.
Kantian or Aristotelian?
Definition:
1.
A. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
B. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
http://www.answers.com/topic/empirical
You’re imagining things.
Self-flattery will get you somewhere, where, I don’t know.
Uh…reality? Can you prove that they originate from anywhere else than the human brain? Extravagant claim, ball’s in your court.
See above.
Which you have yet to disprove, outside of some limp Lewisian rhetoric.
Analogical arguments aren’t demonstrative proofs.
See above.
I have. The fact that the concept of mathematics can be applied by separate individuals with the same results despite the fact that it (the concept of mathematics) possesses no physical [material] attributes proves that it is an immaterial reality—a metaphysical reality—that exists outside [our] bodies.
That’s funny, last I checked, science was useless within the domain of metaphysics.
Obviously, the only work needed is on your side of the argument…
I just did. See my description of mathematics above.
What? My definition wasn’t good enough for ya?
I didn’t say that they did. Who’s to say that the immaterial mind doesn’t occupy the same physical space as the brain? String “theory” relies heavily on multiple, spatially coincident, dimensions.
It’s a poor debater who blames his opponent for his own lack of comprehension.
This is like trying to argue with What… back ‘em into a corner, then they deny the corner exists…
Reality as in:
Reality, in everyday usage, means “the state of things as they actually exist”. In a sense it is what is real. The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense includes being and sometimes is considered to include nothingness, where existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature).
& so – no, I disagree. Math is a methodology by which we interpret actual material items. It’s strictly related as a tool that people use.
Funnier still, is that you’re wrong again:
Metaphysics investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world. Someone who studies metaphysics can be called either a “metaphysician” or a “metaphysicist”.
& there is such a thing as metaphysical materialism, but being a Lewisian, you tend to skip the details that detract from your argument.
Sticks & stones – oh, hey wait, Lewis used to pull that shit on his opponents too. Whenever the going got rough, he started to call names & insults.
Already debunked it. Unless you know about dolphins using an abacus…
Demonstrating there was more than 1 definition. Another Lewisian tactic.
Back to this? I don’t cotton to string theory. Our resident physicist What doesn’t either.
Who’s to say they do? Show your work.
No, it’s a poor teacher who tells the ‘student’ they’re too stupid to understand. Oh but wait…Lewis did this too. Hmmm….
Good ole JCC – whenever the going gets tough, he starts w/the insults.
Really, how plebian of you. Nice double-standard ya got there.
jcc: How many comets does Jove say the solar system has after subtracting Shoemaker-Levy Nine that collided with jupiter?
First, your own definition covers mathematics: “it is what is real”—which I demonstrated earlier—it also happens to be an immaterial concept that only exists within the domain of consciousness. Second, perhaps I should have clarified at the outset that the concepts of mathematics and morality are not separate realities, but are very real immaterial aspects of this reality.
…and like atheism, it too is a flawed philosophy.
No abacus, but a lot of higher mammals (elephants, monkeys, etc.) have a rudimentary concept of math.
…and neither do I, but the fact remains that the concept of higher, spatially coincident dimensions is not a fringe idea in physics.
My apologies for the not-so-subtle jabs. They add nothing to the conversation and serve only to sully my character. My reflexive response would be to say that you bring out the worst in me, but that is a pathetic excuse, not a reason. From now on, I will make every effort to address only the issues you raise and nothing more.
in the absence of “matter”, in the absence of “materialism” there is NOTHING and NO ONE to add or subtract.
Agreeable.
But only w/in the domain of consciousness.
Materialism (or physicalism) can signify either a broad metaphysical view, or, more narrowly, a type of theory of mind. Metaphysical materialism is a specific kind of naturalism which contends that everything that exists is either physical or dependent upon the physical. Broadly understood, reductionist materialism maintains that everything is strictly physical; more narrowly, it maintains that the mind (at least) is purely physical. Nonreductive materialism also allows the existence of nonphysical properties that inhere in, or emerge from, a physical substrate. Consequently, it is sometimes called emergent materialism or property dualism. In the broad sense, nonreductive materialism holds that everything is physical or at least dependent upon the physical; and in the narrower sense it holds that the mind can have both physical and nonphysical aspects even though it must be instantiated in a physical system like the brain.
I’m pretty much a non-reductionist materialist. @ this juncture, it seems there’s likely no evidence you can provide me to disprove this, as said evidence would entail a grounding in the physical world.
Rudimentary, but as to actual grasp of base math concepts, algebra, calculus, jury’s still out, so don’t know if that can be factored in.
& neither is it a proven 1.
An actual & somewhat graceful apology.
You are forgiven, my son.
Phreedm,
Nevermind that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Science are atheists.
For every truth, there exists an infinite number of lies. To be “open-minded” as you claim then you can’t reject anything out of hand. If you haven’t worshipped an eggplant, then you are close-minded.
nonsense! being open minded does NOT require “worshipping” ANYTHING!
That was my point to Phreedm, who has a unique take on what “open minded” means. His definition of “open minded” is the very definition of close minded.
Phree-
My form of atheism, along with many others here, is essentially a blank slate towards the worlds religions. My views on many issues have changed in the past year, but all of those changes have been based on evidence that I have viewed with the most “open mind” possible. This doesn’t mean I don’t bring my bullshit-o-meter with me wherever I go, because as someone touched on earlier- for every truth there is an infinite number of lies.
How can you sit there and claim to have a more open mind than all atheists when your mind is already made up. You KNOW there is only one God, and this God of yours demands that you have no other gods than him. This essentially makes Christianity incompatible with an open mind. Let’s be real, no Christians want people walking around with an open mind- they want people to open their hearts ( and I discovered after a few years that all that meant was love God).
Phree-
I’ll be expecting your book to be in stores this fall.
Your attempt to shoot down Allah was nowhere near the level of evidence that many others have brought here against your God, yet you think it has disproven him? The first link is like an infomercial telling you that the only way you’ll ever be happy is to try their product. “Just trust us”
The second link was perhaps a bit better, however it simply made Allah look stupid and disproves a few aspects claimed by his followers. We can poke fun at your God all day and point out his hypocrisy and falsities time and time again, but it does not prove his non existence.
The God many Christians describe- one that answers prayers, created the universe 6,000 years ago, and “wrote” the Bible- whichever version that may be- can be disproven. God has many forms however, so he will just mold to fit the gaps of what we cannot produce evidence against- such as being everywhere at all times but in an “undetectable” way, so sure, I’m open to the idea that a worthless god created the universe billions of years ago and has done nothing since. But I’m going to be a doubting Thomas about that fact until you give me a good reason.
Show Me Some PROOF says:
Stay on topic PROOF. Both of my examples not only gave a positive result to the bible, but it also proved that Allah is man-made. You tell me where there would be any doubt in your mind that Allah isn’t real…
I know it’s coming but I’m absolutely amazed every time you disregard Allah as obviously false but can’t do the same for Jesus.
[...] because the Bible is completely man-made… and made up? New Numbers, Old Bible « No God Blog « That one ranks right up there with “Is breathing really a good idea?” and [...]
PROOF…ok, now which one of our comments is true?
or
Something tells me that you’re merely asking questions to be argumentative…proving my last statement of…..
the real test is being able to look at the evidence without the shackles of atheism.
A deity that doesn’t mingle in every day life cannot be disproven, many aspects of the Christian God are indeed false, just like many aspects of Allah and Zeus.
PROOF…
How about showing some “PROOF” instead of merely making an emotional response…?
Let’s take the Christian God. What is false? And if you know it’s false, then you have to know the truth. Please prove the truth…?
God Created the world 6000 years ago- Terribly wrong, and very provable- I’m sure you’ll disregard the evidence however.
Give me a concrete statement about your God and it is more than likely to be disprovable.
Which is of course why such concrete statements are never made.
And because “God is love” just sounds so much better to the untrained ear.
Phreeky can not tell us what operations to perform to distinguish that which is Gawd and that which is not. Game over.
The number of assertions that can not be proved false are only limited by one’s imagination. Phreeky will apparently believe them all.
AR…can you please provide the actual study that validates your claim? Not simply a news site…
Open minded? OK…Would you support a scientist who set out to prove the following statement?(hypothesis?)
It seems probab1e to me that God formed matter in the beginning
I wouldn’t. Your “scientist’s” question contains a presupposition. How about first establishing the existence and function of said supernatural deity before posing questions about what it created?
phreedm,
Sure thing pardner. Here is a link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp
They are an organization known as Answers in Genesis, perhaps you’ve heard of them.
/all to easy.
What a dreamer.
All to easy? Now that’s funny…
And what do you provide? A news site and not an actual study…
If you’re going to quote numbers in an attempt to back up your claim, would you at least quote them accurately?
That’s Answers in Genesis, it doesn’t get any better than that. Those are YOUR people whining about all the atheists in the NAS. Take it up with them.
Hmmmm…no. It’s your responsibility to back up your claims. You clearly embellished the numbers. Obviously you don’t have a clue as to what you’re claiming so we’ll end the conversation here…that is unless you can actually provide proof for your claims…
Just be thankful that this conversation took place on a thread 5 days old…
That statistic (93% of members of NAS are either atheists or agnostics) is from a 1998 report in the journal Nature. If you’re so interested in it, go to your local library and look it up and stop with the condescending, smug B.S.
phreedm,
Way to charge up Mt. Suribachi and impale your foot with the flag while declaring victory.