Another question for science.

Tomatoman

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2010
1,338
51
✟1,829.00
Faith
Anglican
No, of course not.

Heaven forbid we would ever answer you guys' questions.

Then you would have to at least empathize with us.

I don't know where to start with this bizarre outburst. I ask you a simple question and you get all sulky. It would be much easier if you explained why you were reluctant to answer and why you imagine that we can't empathise with you whilst disagreeing with you. It is only by understanding your point of view that we can point out its problems.

There does, however, appear to be another issue here. You said once before that you get a bit petulant when you are told you are a homo sapien. This would be understandable if you were a giraffe or a baboon, but you aren't. You seem to take it as a personal insult that you are related to the rest of the animal kingdom. This, I'm afraid, points with depressing predictability towards an ego/vanity/self-importance problem again. Until you get it through that thick primate skull of yours that your are just one of 6.7 billion examples of the species homo sapiens on this planet, which is one of about 5 and a half thousand species of mammal on planet earth in one solar system out of 100 billion stars in our galaxy called the milky way, which is just one galaxy out of more than 100 billion in the universe. Until that information penetrates, you are going to have problems coming to terms with the fact that you aren't special.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orogeny
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,672
51,419
Guam
✟4,896,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Until that information penetrates, you are going to have problems coming to terms with the fact that you aren't special.
Don't count on it.

I might not be so special outside of Christ, but now that He saved me, I don't share your pessimism.

Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
 
Upvote 0

Tomatoman

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2010
1,338
51
✟1,829.00
Faith
Anglican
Don't count on it.

I might not be so special outside of Christ, but now that He saved me, I don't share your pessimism.

Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

How did he save you exactly?
 
Upvote 0

Tomatoman

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2010
1,338
51
✟1,829.00
Faith
Anglican
It's a mystery.

1 Timothy 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

I don't think it's a mystery at all. I think you don't want us tearing apart what you think happened when jesus broke off whatever he was doing to save you. I strongly suspect you don't want us to rationally explain what happened to you. I don't think you want that discussion at all.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
@ OWG:

Not if the knowledge gained through 'revelation' is demonstrably false or fictitious, as much of the bible is. For example, a man who is educated in science yet accepts the Noachian Flood as fact via revelation in the Bible is certainly less knowledgeable than a man of equal scientific education who accepts the vast evidence contradicting the Noachian flood.

Actually if the believer and nonbeliever have all the same information regarding the flood (or the non-flood) their knowledge is equal. It is their conclusion that is different. Scientific 'conclusions' often change with new discoveries. I have complete faith that science will eventually find evidence for a global flood, just as they have for many other biblical events.
 
Upvote 0

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat
Apr 11, 2006
3,015
164
Bath
✟11,638.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
Originally Posted by Orogeny
@ OWG:

Not if the knowledge gained through 'revelation' is demonstrably false or fictitious, as much of the bible is. For example, a man who is educated in science yet accepts the Noachian Flood as fact via revelation in the Bible is certainly less knowledgeable than a man of equal scientific education who accepts the vast evidence contradicting the Noachian flood.
Actually if the believer and nonbeliever have all the same information regarding the flood (or the non-flood) their knowledge is equal. It is their conclusion that is different. Scientific 'conclusions' often change with new discoveries. I have complete faith that science will eventually find evidence for a global flood, just as they have for many other biblical events.

If there was a global flood, why didn't those civilisations existing at the time notice? Why do they continue unbroken through a time when they were all supposed to be drowned? Why is it all through the geological column there are marks that could not have happened during the flood - imprints of footprints, raindrops, wavelets, burrows etc. It's not just that we have no evidence for the flood; we have a whole load of evidence that could not possibly have happened during a flood, but yet there it is.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Actually if the believer and nonbeliever have all the same information regarding the flood (or the non-flood) their knowledge is equal. It is their conclusion that is different. Scientific 'conclusions' often change with new discoveries. I have complete faith that science will eventually find evidence for a global flood, just as they have for many other biblical events.

I think the order of events is also different as theists usually claim to hold the absolutely correct conclusion and merely accept or reject evidence based on whether it agrees with what they already know to be 'The Truth.'

Those who understand science and reality form their beliefs BASED ON what they can demonstrate and verify.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Now, having said all that, I think the best kind of education is one that can be verified and/or demonstrated but that's just my preference.

We are on the same page. God says, 'Prove ALL things, hold fast to that which is TRUE.'
 
Upvote 0

LifeToTheFullest!

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
5,069
155
✟6,295.00
Faith
Agnostic
I've seen this argument before. Why it it acceptable for atheist organisations to 'deprogram' people into rejecting belief, but it is not OK for theist organisations to encourage belief? Why is one form brainwashing and the other is education?



Because knowledge - including God's message - should not be confined to society's elite. It applies to everyone, including (indeed especially) the common man. Giving it only to people deemed 'good enough' is what leads to dictatorships, including theocracies.

----

To answer OPs question: one theory is that we are programmed for belief because we have an uncanny ability to 'recognise' human features in innanimate objects, to anthropomorphize almost anything. Because of this, so many things seem humanised it gives the impression that the world and everything in it was created by some kind of 'super-human'. The world looks designed, so somebody must have designed it.

Now, not surprisingly perhaps, I don't agree with this theory. We still seem to have this presumption that everything - including belief - is something physical which if necessary be can be cut out, removed from life. Once we know what it is we can get rid of it. The idea does not only apply to religion. The Soviet Union misused psychiatry to label anybody with 'outlandish' ideas as mentally ill.
Because "God's message" is demonstrably man made. And, if God's message is for 'everyone,' why have the worlds biggest religions always gone to great lengths to suppress that knowledge from the common folk? Instead, knowing "God's message" is used to control and manipulate people and justify all kinds of atrocities. Nope, instead, a secular humanist approach is the most moral and least superstitious.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hillard

Active Member
Oct 24, 2010
327
8
✟533.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Can science explain the persistant worldwide belief in the supernatural by civilizations both modern and primitive, in spite of their best efforts of 'educating' these beliefs away?
I'm sure psychiatrists or historians might have a good idea why, having said that there is no getting away from death,
fear has a way of concentrating the mind, in the face of death the irrational becomes the rational like clutching at twigs and leaves when we are about to drown.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
LifeToTheFullest said:
Because "God's message" is demonstrably man made. And, if God's message is for 'everyone,' why have the worlds biggest religions always gone to great lengths to suppress that knowledge from the common folk? Instead, knowing "God's message" is used to control and manipulate people and justify all kinds of atrocities. Nope, instead, a secular humanist approach is the most moral and least superstitious.

Nonsense. Jesus (and other religious figures such as Buddha) spent much of their time criticising the religious leaders of their day, which was one of the reasons he was killed - and the 20th century proved that secular causes can be just as violent and intolerant as religious ones.
 
Upvote 0

LifeToTheFullest!

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
5,069
155
✟6,295.00
Faith
Agnostic
Nonsense. Jesus (and other religious figures such as Buddha) spent much of their time criticising the religious leaders of their day, which was one of the reasons he was killed - and the 20th century proved that secular causes can be just as violent and intolerant as religious ones.
Again, evidence that religions and belief systems are cobbled together works of man.
 
Upvote 0

matthewgar

Newbie
Jun 18, 2010
699
25
powell river BC. Canada.
✟15,965.00
Faith
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Others
The problems with revelations and Exgenesis *sp?* forms of learning things is while maybe they are right some times, but how do we discern them? How do we decide wich are right and wich arn't? Look at bible code, or Hal Linsay's*right one?* every decade predictions, they are supposedly all from the same source and sure some things are correct, But before the fact how do we tell wich are? Historicly these things are far from reliable, even if we accept that some revelations and such are from god, how do we know the guy isn't wrong, charleton, liar, scammer from the start? Should we consider all revelations as truth untill proven wrong?

This is the problem that comes back to alot of what goes on in these boards, revelations has become something closer to, "If I can think of it it must be true." take AV's method of debunking evolution wich usually ends up being ad hoc explanations for things that have little to no evidence and in many cases are false or impossible.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
LifeToTheFullest said:
notedstrangeperson said:
Nonsense. Jesus (and other religious figures such as Buddha) spent much of their time criticising the religious leaders of their day, which was one of the reasons he was killed - and the 20th century proved that secular causes can be just as violent and intolerant as religious ones.
Again, evidence that religions and belief systems are cobbled together works of man.

How?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
35
✟12,024.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
LifeToTheFullest said:
Every religion and belief system throughout time has all the earmarks of human origins. Every belief system was developed to reflect the struggle and needs of whatever culture they had their genesis.

Again, how? Also - if all belief systems are man-made, what makes secular humanism any less prone to misuse than religion?
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,262
6,943
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟371,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Can science explain the persistant worldwide belief in the supernatural by civilizations both modern and primitive, in spite of their best efforts of 'educating' these beliefs away?


To rephrase what others have said, supernatural thinking persists because it serves a purpose. I do suspect that it is an evolutionary adaptation in our cognitive processes that provides answers and a sense of certainty in an uncertain world. And for many, if not most people, that's very important .

But even though supernatural beliefs may be part of our evolutionary heritage, that doesn't mean that such beliefs accurately represent the real world. Such beliefs vary widely among cultures, and often give markedly different explanations for the same phenomenon. In the Judeo-Christian Genesis story, God (Yahweh) creates the universe ex nihilo, in 6 days. In Hindu legends, universes are created repeatedly, as emanations from Lord Vishnu. In one Native American myth I've heard, people existed in the underworld in a kind of shapeless, embryonic state, then emerged on the earth in human form. Why should I think that any one of these more correct than the other? Just because all societies have supernatual beliefs is not an argument that supernatural events have really occurred.
 
Upvote 0

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟11,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Can science explain the persistant worldwide belief in the supernatural by civilizations both modern and primitive, in spite of their best efforts of 'educating' these beliefs away?
At the present moment, no. In general, there is a stigma attached to the competence of the ancients as being sublimely inferior. And a completely linear path from man's beginning up to this point in terms of advancements. This is where the "education" factor comes in. And Darwinism exhales. I would contend though, that an ancient Egyptian adept in his respected field of "supernaturality", would wipe the floor with a modern day physician.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
At the present moment, no. In general, there is a stigma attached to the competence of the ancients as being sublimely inferior.
It always strikes me as hypocritical when you're saying this on computer over the internet. Why not use the wisdom of 'the ancients' to converse and pass on your wisdom instead, Greg?

I would contend though, that an ancient Egyptian adept in his respected field of "supernaturality", would wipe the floor with a modern day physician.

I agree. I don't think modern day physicians claim to know anything about the supernatural.
 
Upvote 0