Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (13962)	6/2/2007 2:22:00 AM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 14758

<<I don't it's a necessary condition to have good morals>> I don't think I ever said that having religious faith was necessary to have morals. However, what I find interesting is that the morals you claim are merely "common sense" actually, in many cases, are values that were initially teachings by various religions around the world. <<in fact, I think atheists, as a whole, are more moral than any religious group.>> Now is that "in fact" or is it "I think?" The two don't work together. I think you're giving an opinion. That said, I'm not sure how you come to your conclusion because I know of no quantitative way of proving your position. <<billions of people who claim to know the "truth". How did they get so smart>> Aren't you doing the same thing when you say atheists are more moral than any religious group? How did you get so smart? <<I think the majority believe because they are hedging their bets>> By saying that you're basically implying that the majority of people only attend religious services just in case there's a God. I haven't seen the multiple choice questionnaire that shows most people who believe or have faith selected the "Just in case" answer. Can I prove there's a God? No. Do I claim to know the truth? No. DO I have all the answers? No. <<Religion begins where reason ends>> Maybe. OTOH I've seen ZERO evidence that can conclusively prove we all grew out of some pit of primordial stew. So if science can't offer up 100% proof why is faith any less reasonable than a scientific guesstimate? The only fair answer to that question is "it's not." <<And how can a reasonable person think that there is an "eternal heater">> I guess I thought you'd pick up on the humor based on the combination of the context and the terminology I used to describe hell. <<any evidence of such? Satan? Angels? A human god?>> Well, there are the eyewitness accounts by 4 different people in the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Are they scientific proof? No. But science can't disprove them either. <<And btw, one does not "believe" in evolution.....you accept the scientific facts of evolution.>> Science has not proven evolution beyond the shadow of a doubt. It sure sounds logical but the 100% proof isn't in yet. <<They are not in the same arena>> You're 100% correct. Science requires proof where religion requires faith. Since we don't have 100% proof in either case who is to say which is right? I certainly don't have the answer. ___________________________________________________________________ So you tell me....am I a religious zealot or am I an Atheist? What I find surprising is that you would take a post as innocuous as this Message 23592002 and respond with such a charged reply. Don't be so entrenched in your position that it leaves no room for the possibility of an alternative view because the ONLY FACT is that neither you nor I know the exact answer.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (13962)	6/2/2007 4:31:39 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 14758

I think atheists, as a whole, are more moral than any religious group. I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't the selfimage of a majority of atheists. But that would be simple human pride that anyone can fall prey to. Economist Arthur Brooks wrote a book entitled Who Really Cares sometime back which reveals evidence that religious people are substantially more generous givers to charities (including to completely non-religioius causes): philanthropy.com Wouldn't this be legitimate evidence of morality being positively increased by religion? I think so. I don't know what started evolution or the universe, but what bothers me is the billions of people who claim to know the "truth". How did they get so smart Just based on scientific discoveries over the last century and using common sense, we can logically conclude that some extremely powerful being created our universe (including our time-space dimensions) from nothing, arranged the universe very particularly so that life could exist in a part of it, and brought life into being (life's profound complexity being impossible to spontaneously generate). So its utterly reasonable to think that the universe's creator/designer is profoundly interested in and involved in our world and the living things in it. Now with the appearance of human beings, life has achieved a level of consciousness and intelligence which enables living things (us) to wonder at, explore the universe, and figure out the universe's beginning. Surely a creator/designer concerned with life in general, would be especially concerned with the life forms who achieved such a level of development. Religion begins where reason ends.... Certainly not. You may have lots of questions for God when you die Heck yeah. ... but I think you will never know since you will not be going anywhere but in the dirt. That's a statement of faith. Given the miracle that is conscious life ... would a creator/designer go to such trouble to arrange for it to be brought into being only to see it evaporate into nothingness? Once you accept the idea that the existence of God is completely rational, other things flow from that. And how can a reasonable person think that there is an "eternal heater" Heater? .....any evidence of such? Satan? Angels? A human god? Bear in mind that our dimensions (3 spatial, 1 time - though our time dimension is quite different* and limited* compared to the spatial dimensions) are a part of the universe which was created some 14-16 B years ago*. Clearly the creator/designer of our universe and its dimensions exists independently and apart from those created dimensions. One of the implications of that is that we should be utterly unable to perceive things beyond our dimensions - including our creator-designer and the "world" or dimensions he resides in. As illustration, imagine a two-dimensional flat screen world with intelligent beings in it. We dwellers in 3 dimensions would be able to observe that 2 dimension world without the inhabitants of that world being at all aware of us. What I'm getting at is we don't have to assume that nothing exists other than that we can see and feel. Since we and our universe were brought into being by something beyond, we have a reason to believe that something other than what we can directly perceive exists. And btw, one does not "believe" in evolution.....you accept the scientific facts of evolution.* Exactly what the scientific facts are is in dispute. Evolution is not based on the same evidence as other sciences. You can't observe species coming into existence or evolving. While one can know that living things have changed over time, the cause of that change is hypothesized. There are certain facts which conflict with the standard Darwinian account - like the Cambrian explosion, when approximately 100 phyla (only 30 some odd of which still exist) came into existence in a relatively short time with few if any phyla coming into existence since. For example: We can only move in one direction in time and the speed of time's flow is relative to one's point of observation. *based on our perceptions of the flow of time.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (13962)	6/4/2007 1:47:44 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

You seem to be confusing religious dogma with faith in purposeful power, authority, eternity, and infinitude beyond temporal existence. "What sort of reasoning goes into their conclusions....what facts support their beliefs??? To some extent it is reasonable to conclude that moral goodness is self evident enough to say it is simply good in and of itself to be kind, charitable, compassionate, benevolent etc. It feels right and good to behave this way so you can figure out for yourself that it is morally good, as all people can. However, many things seem good in and of themselves that eventually turn out to be seductive traps that are harmful over the long term or when done in excess. "And how can a reasonable person think that there is an "eternal heater".....any evidence of such? Satan? Angels? A human god? And btw, one does not "believe" in evolution.....you accept the scientific facts of evolution." We really know nothing about evolution until we can explain how something comes from nothing. Nothing is highly underrated, since it is upon the canvas of nothingness that every thing may be depicted. So for a big bang you have to think of what nothing would be like even before you can imagine the something we call a universe to explode from it. The universe of space and matter is observable to us because the distinct parts are noticeable from sun to particle by their positions in space. As they collapse into something more uniform and therefore less distinct, we are less able to notice them as relative parts of the universe separated by space...driven apart by differences. Their movements away from uniformity or collapses into uniformity are noticeable as space/time events. Through entropy diversity is diminished and distinct parts disappear, as does their distinct position in space. In other words they become so much a part of the whole that they have no identity of their own... a sound blending in becomes no sound, a ripple in the lake eventually disappears, and becomes 'nothing', it no longer exists as a distinct piece of the universe. Absolute uniformity of the universe becomes a oneness that defies description. So a gumball state of the Universe preparing to bang represents a small very uniform view of existence bound in a tiny space. If the gumball achieves perfect uniformity 'singularity' it needs no space at all and its material parts are indistinguishable. Science has not way to describe this state of existence except to refer to it as nothing. We can also speculate that time must have a similar course that leads to an end. In order for this to occur material in space must become so uniform that it is no longer distinguishable. At such a time we can no longer notice it, or an occupying space. This is the premise behind black holes btw. So, for time to begin it must have an alpha state for which we have no mechanism of detection but we can allude to it as perfect and singular uniformity. For time to end material and space must return to this singular uniformity allowing for zero occupation in space. That would support a banging and collapsing claim. However it does not eliminate the possibility of repeated inflations toward the omega of existence and collapses to the alpha of existence. Neither possibility necessarily, obliterating the other, nor does it obliterate claims of an extra-temporal force. It is perfectly rational to accept the existence of influences in the universe that act unencumbered by laws of physics, and beyond the scope of scientific method. Physics is a set of laws created by us to help understand certain phenomenon that we are concerned about, no one but a lab cloak cleric would claim physics is the answer to all inquiry.