What's happened? What can we do?

[Black Dog]

examples or instances? You refuse to answer my most basic of questions then, since I have asked countless times for you to explain how energy was created. That is an example of a contradiction, which you wont answer. Another contradiction I pointed out was how did matter that didn't exist suddenly exist? How did an explosion (if you believe in the ridiculous theory of the big bang) create such a meticulous universe (hey didn't you hear about that nuke that was dropped on Hiroshima creating a Ferrari

That's not a contradiction, that's a question. A contradiction would indicate two incompatible premises.

QUOTE 

No where did I claim science was infallible. I have explicitly stated that science, through the scientific methods of experimentation, evaluation and duplication, is open to changes and revisions to existing theories.

Beep beep backpeddling detected. Never did I say you claimed it, I said you 'believed' it. Which you just admitted yet again, so my point remains.

Nope. I've beem consistent on this point throughout. Certainly, my statement above and throughout this thread to the effect that science is open to new ideas contradicts your statement that I "believe" science to be infallible. You'll have to find another way to score cheap points.

Since science can't at this point explain anything about how we got here we might as well all believe blindly that we popped into existance somehow scientifically and laugh at those religious people for their blind faith' rofl, hypocrisy anyone?

Let's see: base our ideas on how the universe came about on the scientific method, which has done more to advance humankind's knowledge than anything else...or base it on the blind, unquestioning belief in an invisible superhero in the sky with magical powers.

Only difference is that your religion makes less sense than mine, people have no purpose, have no point, have no beginning, and have no soul according to the religion you defend... so tell me, if we have no beginning and no point and purpose and no soul, then how and why are we here? =)

Why does here have to be a "reason" for everything? Is it too hard on your ego to believe that we have no purpose?

I have scientifically proven religion as superior to evolution and self-creation, your failure to rebuttal any of my arguments and continually avoid the issues while simultaneously throwing around your own 'scientific dogma' (which you seem to have in spades) shows how you even realize this.

You've "proven" nothing (and certainly not scientifically). You've given ZERO proof, ZERO evidence for your statements. That's to be expected, as there is no evidence of the supernatural to exhibit. You can try to poke holes in science, but, at the end of the day, it is a far superior means of explaining the universe than your hokum.

No you couldn't because using logic its impossible, you aren't old enough, you also are bound by laws of physics same as the rest of the physical universe. You lack the logic required to understand the concepts I put forward, I have debated with professors and they understand what I am saying and many admit that evolution and atheism take more blind faith and are blatantly illogical, but they refuse to admit the existance of a supernatural being. That is simply stubborn ignorance, especially since they just admitted none of the other explanations work xD

Professors of what? Clown college?

A shoddy plea to authority if there ever was one. As I pointed out in the other thread on this subject, logic demands reason, reason demands proof. There is no proof of the supernatural, therefore, belief in the supernatural is illogical. It's blind faith, nothing more.

Also, since you can't prove the existance of the universe and your the one attacking the existance of God the burden of proof is on you. Not me  So far by simple logical deduction you are fighting a losing battle, you have no proof, only dogma and unproven theories.

You cannot prove a negative. So, since you propose the existence of God, the burden of proof is on you. I'll be waiting.

Since Evolution thinks it is ok to take a pigs jawbone and use it as proof for a missing link I am rather pleased that they are uncomfortable with Creation Science. At least we dont intentionally lie for a paycheck

Uh...what? That's the flimisiest assault on evolution ever.

Here is my theory, a supernatural being created the universe since it couldn't create itself. Now, disprive me using the scientifc process =)

Simple. Your premise that "the universe cannot create itself" is wrong. Not everything that begins has a cause.

Well its about time you fled from your sinking evolutionist defence =) But your new defence of aliens is flawed as well, because you are still thinking in terms of a post-creation universe. Who created the 'aliens'? You see, my logic and thought patterns aren't constricted to Darwinism and his obsession with the Evolutionary process (which can be proven no more than the creation of the universe coincidently

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Evolution has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as true.

Also everything that exists obviously must have a beginning, and your claim that counting backwards has a limit is pointless simply because there is no way for us to determine the finite value of infinity =p That is the whole reason it is called 'infinite', and I would also like to point out that your argument worked against itself seeing as how you yourself just admitted that a timeline has a beginning  Here is a challenge, point out one thing in the known universe that doesn't have a beginning. Just one, come on with all that scientific knowledge of yours and all those imaculate evolutionist scientists of yours should be able to tell me one thing that has no beginning

Circular logic. Your argument boils down to "Everything that exists must have a beginning because everything exists must have a beginning".

They do have 'cause' they are part of nuclear radiation, stop thinking post-creation for justification of pre-creation self-creation =p .

I don't think I will, sicne the fact that, in the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously, without a cause, torpedos your whole argument. Boom.

I would also like to point out that the Quantum theory is a THEORY, as I have been pointing out your reliance on theories is yet again self-evident.

So why is my reliance on well-substantiated explanations that incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses worse than your reliance on illogical absoutes?

Oh yeah, completely possible for something that doesn't exist to create a reaction on the atomic level (which doesn't exist) which would in turn spontaneously form a singularity (which couldn't exist) which would then somehow miraculously create enough power to explode (which would be impossible) an entire next-to-endless universe that we still are unable to fathom (with all our extremely 'wise' scientists)

The atomic level doesn't exist? Holy s**t. I thought you were out to lunch before, but that proves it.

Actually the Quantum theory is mathematically challenging (and next to pointless), however that is about it. Observation is impossible since our microscopes as you said can't model what is happening and we dont know what is happening, kind of hard to find physical supporting evidence when you can't figure out why stuff is happening.

The existance of God is obvious in my mind and in the minds of alot of scientists as well, simply because, as I have stated and supported, all other avenues of explanation have GLARING problems and contradictions. No matter how many scientific theories you make wont change the fact that scientifically the universe couldn't have created itself

Here you go again: we have, on one side, the vast and complex body of scientific knowledge that is attemopting to demonstrate the naturalistic orgigns of the univeres. On the other: a supreme being that no one can see, hear, touch or in any other way show to exist. I'm afraid that, of these two optons, your is the least credible.

This is totally up to the individual, the FACT of the matter is that a supernatural being must exist... its up to you to decide which one is real. Personally I believe the Christian God, I have studied alot of the other major religions and found them pathetically lacking, sometimes moreso than science-based religions, in important areas but the Christian God makes sense and sounds the most authentic

Again with the faulty logic. Why "must" a supernatural being exist? Even if we were, for a moment to accept that "the universe could not have created itself", why does that necessarily require a supreme being?

[Tawasakm]

This is my first post here. Since I'm still becoming orientated I hope you'll all be gentle with my first post (and rip into everything thereafter)

Obviously the question of religion has become a burning topic of debate here. While I find myself drawn to the logic of the Terrible Sweal and Blackdog I do feel there are aspects of faith which aren't being addressed here. I spent some time volunteering at a Salvation Army drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre. Every single person who remained successfully rehabilitated after a length of time (say at least five years) credited their success to faith in God and Gods intervention. I realise this is my anecdotal evidence from speaking with participants and I'll try to dig up some sources over the next few days to support this claim.

Wether or not the existence of God is supported logically or empirically I can see evidence that faith in God can mend lives and families. I'm throwing this in as one instance where I have seen religion and nothing else have an effect on such a negative situation.

Personally I'm undecided on wether a higher being exists. If such a being does exist I would be even more unsure as to it's exact characteristics. Even if God IS a lie then it is a very powerful lie. What I'm wondering (and fishing for comment on) is wether or not an underpinning this powerful can be removed from society. What can we replace it with? It might be primitive to cover ignorance (gaps in scientific knowledge) with belief but can that not be a viable solution? It's something that allows people solid guidelines. It is also something that does evolve slowly and changes with the times - at the same time acting as an anchor to slow down change. Or, in other words, may prevent upheaval and even make change more palatable across generations. (I'm looking forward to arguments contradicting this)

The primary social function of religion is the maintenance of social stability. Like the flywheel in an engine, it is normally a conservative force that inhibits social change by lending its support to traditions and the status quo. This is why, in times of gradual social change in society at large, religions tend to teach values that may be perceived by many as more adapted to the previous generation's needs then to their own under current circumstances. With time, though, most religions will adjust to the new status quo and give their support to the current way of doing things rather then continuing to support the old value system.

(Crapo, Anthropology of Religion: The Unity and Diversity of Religion, Chapter 10)

I guess my point is that religion can be dismissed on logical and scientific terms but doing so does not replace it's many (and perhaps necessary) functions in society. Perhaps it is this growing void that needs to be addressed when considering social problems - such as family structure. If we can't replace religion should we try to dismiss it? What should it be replaced with?

[August1991]

Every single person who remained successfully rehabilitated after a length of time (say at least five years) credited their success to faith in God and Gods intervention.

I think this is just evidence that people need to have someone sympathetic to talk to - even if the someone is imaginary.

As to the argument between BD and Hawk, one might as well argue about the number of angels dancing on a pin. I am more intrigued about the consequences of their argument in the world in which we live.

[Tawasakm]

I think this is just evidence that people need to have someone sympathetic to talk to - even if the someone is imaginary.

I'm sorry but I think thats a little oversimplified. The people who were in the program had lots of people to talk to - counsellors (trained professionals), others in the program, friends, family etc. What I did not make clear is that those people who were crediting God for their rehabilitation were specifically crediting a power higher then themselves. They believed this was the key to success - that in accepting something greater then themselves into their being they were gaining that beings strength to combat problems they had not the strength to face.

While I can't argue logically for the existence of God I do believe that the positive affects of believing in a higher power CAN be measured (also the negative affects of such belief). So even if God can not be proven that does nothing to counteract the effects of said belief. Therefore religous belief must have an impact on society (perhaps in ways we are no longer even really aware of). Which is why I question whether or not religion can be dismissed so quickly. Logic aside it underpins the value systems of many people. What would replace it? If people have already dismissed religion, in part or in whole, then the implications can be subtle and far reaching.

It is my opinion, and just an opinion, that the rapid development of science has caused a shift in belief systems. While this is a good thing I do think there has been something of a vacuum left behind which has yet to be filled. Perhaps we need to consider religion in the context of the measurable effects on human lives and families. Part of the answer to what is best for families may well lie there.

On the other hand do you think that religion may need to be excised? Is it the dichotomy between science and religion that is creating social conflict and impeding our discovery of the answers?

[Tawasakm]

I read my post again. I don't think I'm making sense. Let me try and tackle this again.

The question is:

  The traditional family's are on the drop, and I'd like to know 2 things. Why? What can we do about it?

In answering this question the point of religion and it's validity has been raised. My point is this:

1) Traditionally religion has been a major force in determining family structures and right and wrong etc.

2) Religion is being displaced as a valid source of knowledge.

so...

Blackdog and The Terrible Sweal rightly question the validity of using religion as a basis for, well anything, in a logical world.

I concede the point. In fact I have undergone the process. What I found was that the same science which abolished my belief in my religion did not provide answers or knowledge for such things as; what should be a family structure, what is right and wrong etc. So I believe that to answer this question fully one needs to be able to fully measure the effects of religion and to provide adequately for it's removal.

I thought that the debate over religion had strayed off the point of it's effects on family. I would really appreciate views on how the vacuum left by the diminishing influence of religion should be addressed and on how this impacts on family structures.

[The Terrible Sweal]

...Obviously the question of religion has become a burning topic of debate here. While I find myself drawn to the logic of the Terrible Sweal and Blackdog I do feel there are aspects of faith which aren't being addressed here. I spent some time volunteering at a Salvation Army drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre. Every single person who remained successfully rehabilitated after a length of time (say at least five years) credited their success to faith in God and Gods intervention. I realise this is my anecdotal evidence from speaking with participants and I'll try to dig up some sources over the next few days to support this claim.

Wether or not the existence of God is supported logically or empirically I can see evidence that faith in God can mend lives and families. I'm throwing this in as one instance where I have seen religion and nothing else have an effect on such a negative situation.

But remember, the Salvation Army is a religious organization. They use religious faith for accomplishing the help they provide people. That's good, but it means that when people are helped by the Salvation Army, it is not surprising that they will credit God with that help.

When you say you have seen only religion work this benefit, I must ask, have you worked in any secular anti-addiction services to serve as a basis for you to draw a comparison?

[Tawasakm]

When you say you have seen only religion work this benefit, I must ask, have you worked in any secular anti-addiction services to serve as a basis for you to draw a comparison?

Guilty as charged. I have never worked in a secular equivalent.

My point, which I have failed to make clear, is that religion has a measurable effect on individuals, families and society at large. As religion diminishes as a credible foundation to lives then what is the effect of that removal? Are we removing more then we know and building on a hollowed foundation?

If we must discredit religion then can we find another basis for a value system? Is the fact that we have not adequately addressed this issue imapcting negatively on families. I'm trying to say that an argument about the validity of religion as a foundation should perhaps include debate on what exactly replaces that foundation in entirety - not merely in arguments over creation.

Hope I'm finally beginning to express myself clearly here.

[The Terrible Sweal]

A very interesting point. The diminishing influence of religion is occuring because of a long running pattern of social change (let's call it 'progress'). One of the key elements of progress is to examine and discard archaic belief systems which are found to be wanting (either in terms of their 'true-ness' or their utility (noting that those two are interconnected as well)). This includes more than just religion, of course -- fairies and sea-monsters fall into this category.

Seen in these term, I would agree that the rapidity of these changes are leaving a vaccuum of sorts. What seems to be missing is difficult to specify. A combination of shared norms, effective institutions, respected principles, something else? With religion withering because it no longer provides these things well, what is to provide them now?

Some 'instrumental' theist will argue that we should return to having a religious society (seemingly despite any scientific invalidation) simply because society needs to avoid this vaccuum. Sort of like plugging everyone back into 'the Matrix'. (It's a position not even worth deploying argument against, obviously, so I won't bother here.)

Barring one or another religion finally being somehow proven right after all, the only other option to deal with the vaccuum seems to be difficult work uncertain of success. That is to actively and deliberately conceive the principles, build the institutions, and propagate

the norms we need based on clear-eyed reason. Some thinkers have begun this process. Epicureanism, Bentham-Mill utilitarianism, humanism, certain varieties of environmentalism, even.

[KrustyKidd]

I can see evidence that faith in God can mend lives and families.

It was already addressed but I thought I would try and mention something in another way. Would not a cultural disipline do the same thing? Something like a martial art or a common project such as building an object larger than your present society? May not get you to heaven but it sure takes your mind off day to day problems.

One of the key elements of progress is to examine and discard archaic belief systems which are found to be wanting (either in terms of their 'true-ness' or their utility (noting that those two are interconnected as well)). This includes more than just religion, of course -- fairies and sea-monsters fall into this category.

I don't think it is the discarding of Archeic Belief Systems but rather the lack of time to believe in them. I know that when I get to bed at midnight or whatever after a full day of work and leisure I go straight to sleep. (even after getting a knuckle rapping from Black Dog) I am a believer though not very devout. I find that as the days get busier God gets further and further from my mind then ...... one a sleepless night, all the things I have done wrong come back to me and I wonder if they were really as bad as I imagine or am I over doing it in my imagination. I wonder if god will forgive me for them and all. Then, when I wake up and pur the first shot of bourbon into the coffee and set the big rig in motion to head for the 401 I forget all about it. A few phone calls from my admirers and waves from the populace cheers me up and it gets further from my mind.

I think he is just as relevent today as he was two thousand years ago, we just don't have time anymore.

[The Terrible Sweal]

But things with truly high relevancy get time made for them.

[Tawasakm]

It was already addressed but I thought I would try and mention something in another way. Would not a cultural disipline do the same thing? Something like a martial art or a common project such as building an object larger than your present society?

Thats a fair point. I can see I need to research this alot more. I will before I speak further on it. I didn't have my sources ready for which I apologise.

However my point was that religion has a measurable affect on lives. I was attempting to broaden the debate about the validity of religion so that it might centre a little more on the issue of family rather then the issue of creation. I realise that is central any debate regarding the validity of religion but so is the here and now. Here and now religion IS real. So if it is invalid what replaces it etc... I guess I've repeated this question ad nauseum by now.

I aim to be provide sources for you by Friday. In doing so I am hoping to demonstrate the very real power of religion (any religion) to make tangible differences to our world. I will also research and provide links for alternative rehab methods. Then perhaps we can debate how religion effects our lives and what, if anything, should replace it. (I'm personally of the view that the church is justifiably diminishing in influence and hope the process continues).

[Black Dog]

I'm sorry but I think thats a little oversimplified. The people who were in the program had lots of people to talk to - counsellors (trained professionals), others in the program, friends, family etc. What I did not make clear is that those people who were crediting God for their rehabilitation were specifically crediting a power higher then themselves. They believed this was the key to success - that in accepting something greater then themselves into their being they were gaining that beings strength to combat problems they had not the strength to face.

So it's not the higher power itself, but simply the belief in one that made the difference.

(Er..of course there's little actual evidence beyond the anecdotal variety to indicate that prayer actually has a positive effect on health.)

However my point was that religion has a measurable affect on lives. I was attempting to broaden the debate about the validity of religion so that it might centre a little more on the issue of family rather then the issue of creation. I realise that is central any debate regarding the validity of religion but so is the here and now. Here and now religion IS real. So if it is invalid what replaces it etc... I guess I've repeated this question ad nauseum by now.

Why not belief in oneself? In humanity? The ideals of secualr humanism mpre than adequately explain why we don't need religion to find fulfilment.

-A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

-Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

-A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

-A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

-A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

-A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

-A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

[willy]

Why not belief in oneself? In humanity? The ideals of secular humanism more than adequately explain why we don't need religion to find fulfillment.

Christianity is about a living God. Not one of words in a book. Those words are promised to be breathed to life by the holy sprit that is granted by faith in Christ.

Here is the supernatural relationship with God. As the centrality of the gospel I acknowledge that I am not sufficient, and that I am worthy of Gods displeasure, but that is okay because God loved me so much he sent his only and righteous son to die in my place. So I have been made right again with God and can live in his presence forever.

When Christ resurrected he left the sprit to guild and change us, because it is not about us keeping rules but a reliance and faith in God where the spirit changes our heart.

This humanity you talk of is a broken humanity that can be capable of great love but also capable of great evil. Humans are selfish and this humanity is a Star trek dream. I have seen no evidence of real progress in the human heart.

This concept to a none believer may seem absurd but to a believer who really doesn’t embrace the supernatural relationship with God, they are missing out the rock and foundational freedom Christianity provides. This is not an exclusive religion, as it is open to all nations but it is only granted through faith in Jesus.

Psalm 23

“Though I walk through the valley of death I shall fear no evil”

[Black Dog]

This humanity you talk of is a broken humanity that can be capable of great love but also capable of great evil. Humans are selfish and this humanity is a Star trek dream. I have seen no evidence of real progress in the human heart.

God offers nothing but the arbitrary fates of redemption or damnation. I prefer to think that, given just this one shot, we must do our utmost to overcome the baser parts of our nature and strive to better ourselves and the world around us.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I have seen no evidence of real progress in the human heart.

So why worship his Creator?

[DAC]

A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

Of course, you exclude search for objective truth that points to God.

[willy]

I have seen no evidence of real progress in the human heart.

So why worship his Creator?

Quite simple, I have witnessed God working on peoples harts including my own. I tried for many years to be a better person, and not continue to make the same mistakes. It was when I learned to rely on God for transformation that my hart changed.

I should note that I was an atheist until I was 26 years old. I am also university educated and specialize in the profession of human behaviour to this day.

The fruit of my faith is God working in me.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Then aren't you evidence of real progress in the human heart? Albeit, God-assisted in your view.

[willy]

The Terrible Sweal, lets put my comments back into the context. I was responding to:

Why not belief in oneself? In humanity? The ideals of secualr humanism mpre than adequately explain why we don't need religion to find fulfilment.

My statement was, based on contradicting that belief in oneself is an adequate religion for hart change.

That's all. Oh yea and that I do believe God is at work. Secular or not if this is the case people will continue to be converted regardless of debate. Let me tell you from where I was, to where I am, it is miraculous that I am now a Christian.

[Black Dog]

A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

Of course, you exclude search for objective truth that points to God.

Like?

If you have soem objective proof, by all means: give it up.

Quite simple, I have witnessed God working on peoples harts including my own. I tried for many years to be a better person, and not continue to make the same mistakes. It was when I learned to rely on God for transformation that my hart changed.

I expect whatever change you underwent was a lot of work. You weren't just sitting on the couch one day and then ZAP! I think in instances like these, "God" is a crutch, a concept which allows people to focus their energies on bettering themselves. Still, the strength is within us all. That, in my view, is far more miraculous than some kind of divine intervention.

[Tawasakm]

I wonder, Black Dog, (and I ask in the spirit of enquiry) how would a secular humanist approach the question of death?

If, hypothetically, I've been diagnosed with terminal cancer and given 6 months to live how would you deal with

1. My fears over what will happen to me when I die (call it existential dread perhaps)

2. The fears, pain and grief of my children (they are also hypothetical), wife, family and friends. If they can't believe in my continued eistence then what can be offered to them?

3. The need to provide comfort without the ability to provide answers.

I'm genuninely interesting in an answer. This is is another question based on a function of religion which affects family and society.

(I seem hell bent on making the debate practical as well as theoretical don't I?)

[The Terrible Sweal]

I wonder where you are taking those questions. It seems to me that if the answers humanism has for those questions are unsatisfactory, some might say that is a reason in favor of adopting religious answers. Unfortunately, of course, that won't make those religious answers correct, just useful, like a bandaid.

[Tawasakm]

If I may draw your attention back to this thread topic BlackDog I am still very much interested in an answer.

[lowly_caterpillar]

Wow, im trying to supress my frustration at your extremely apparent bias (i'm talking to you hugo).

Instead of simply stating that single parent families you should look at whats behind single parent families, you're generalizing too much booze and drugs are not the cut and dry reasons for the splitting of families, it is an unfortunate thing, I have been through it. Lack of proper education is what it boils down to. Even the mass media question, if we can somehow teach people how to judge media for themselves (and not get dragged along in puddles of corporately funded crap) we might be able to "cite" some improvements in society.

well as I write this i am realizing as the genius that I am that this post has 7 pages and not the assumed 2, so my appologies for this posts irrelevance, but i kinda wanted a poke a hugo (not to attack you or anything, but i felt attacked when you basically insinuated that i was to grow up a deranged criminal)

[theloniusfleabag]

TV dinners are the cause of the downfall of the family unit.