Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Clarifying the contention of Intelligent Design being bad science
O.K.
I'll be watching for it.
posted by
telemachus
on March 15, 2005 at 6:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus -- this will take a posting to reply to so thatsa whata
Ima gonna do.
posted by
gomedome
on March 15, 2005 at 6:06 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome
I’m sorry, but the “smack with condescension” that you refer to is unintentional. You misinterpret my genuine attempts to understand you. If English is not your first language I can certainly understand the issue with the word choice. I must commend you on your command of the language, if it is your second. What is your first language?
I clearly understood what you meant by “reverse bias” but the use of the word “resolve” made me think that it was something you had to work at. I’m presently understanding your response to be that you essentially have a double bias. Because you believe in the non-existence of God (or disagree with Christianity), you say you are biased in that regard.
But then I also here you say that you still find yourself fighting against the influence of integrated cultural bias from Christianity? Is this true? If so, this is what I’m interested in knowing more about. How does this Christian bias affect you? How does it manifest itself in your psyche or personality? Could it be that your attacks upon Christianity are a subconscious response to rid yourself of the Christian bias? Did you have a staunch Christian upbringing?
Also, by the way, I agree with you that there are a lot of doctrinal flaws associated with many denominations of Christianity. I would think our discussion concerning the existence or non-existence of God could occur outside of the realm of any specific religion because I would prefer to have a non-biased discussion with you concerning my factual knowledge of the existence of God.
posted by
telemachus
on March 14, 2005 at 8:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus -- you are talking yourself in circles while nit picking on
certain words and phrases. No need to drop one of your postings in my comment section thanx. I have read your attempts to define mindsets that you have no comprehension of. I don't mean that to be as insulting as it may sound but clearly your insights into the non believing mind always smack with condescention and very little notion of what actually transpires in a thinking process completely foreign to you. Resolve was used for lack of a better word but again you try to turn it into a lack of certainty. I do know that English is your first language, though I cannot make the same claim, a "reverse bias" means exactly that. A believer would be trying to prove the existence of God where I may find myself doing the opposite or the reverse in trying to prove the non existence of God. This bias would be compounded by the Christian influence society has provided me with through my lifetime. In my case as I view Christianity as a fallacy built on a house of cards while demanding it's adherants believe in magic and all other sorts of impossible nonsense, I would be an unlikely candidate to deliver an unbiased verdict. But at least I recognize my own bias.
posted by
gomedome
on March 14, 2005 at 4:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome
Well, I’m not really suggesting so much that your resolve waivers as I am questioning why “resolve” is necessary to actually maintain your beliefs. Your use of the term “resolve” to me would imply a concerted intent of pushing against something, perhaps a natural inclination. If this is the case, then I would be curious to explore with you the nature of the inclination that you have and see if it is perhaps the same one that I like to refer to as the conscience, only mislabeled in your psyche. It could be that you’ve given yourself over to an anorexia against God, which was the subject matter of a post I had written sometime ago to Kooka. I would be happy to re-post it in your comments if you like. – I also have a difficult time understanding how you could think that you harbor a “reverse bias”. That is very interesting to me because it would seem that the bias must stem from cultural involvement, which I would expect to be mostly Christian. Were you raised up as agnostic? - Also, if you grow tired of this discussion just let me know and I will stop quizzing you. It just seems to me there is something inside of you that I have yet to fully understand. Something that seems to be pressing you into your beliefs that perhaps is private and you may not wish to share with me and, if so, I certainly understand.
posted by
telemachus
on March 14, 2005 at 3:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus -- You are putting me on now aren't you?
My bias would be the reverse of trying to prove the existence of a creator but still a true bias nonetheless. The only reason that I can claim that a bias held by myself towards proving there is no creator would be less pronounced is that I have far less emotional attachment to the outcome than some believers. Either way, pro or con, an inherent bias takes a mental discipline to overcome and that will only ever be to the best of the person's ability, never completely overcome. As for the rest of your comment, you should know better than to suggest that my resolve waivers. Some day one can only hope that you will understand that whatever certainty you hold in your beliefs I hold in mine as well.
posted by
gomedome
on March 11, 2005 at 4:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome
So, let me make sure that I’m understanding you correctly and please correct me if I’m wrong (not that I need to ask you to do that). Are you confirming that your (Gome’s) thought processes are conditioned with bias toward the existence of a superior being even though you (Gome) openly reject the idea? Am I correct in concluding there is some inner struggle that you have with the maintenance of your agnosticism or atheism? Is it that you sometimes catch yourself leaning toward the idea of the supreme being and then you have to say, wait a second, got to get control of myself? Is it like that for you? If not, how is it that you recognize the bias or how does the bias manifest itself in your person?
posted by
telemachus
on March 11, 2005 at 2:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus - I actually did answer your question
When you said "Surely, such communications must emanate from a “superior” being." I simply do not buy it. I use the word influences and do not agree that they are communications emanating from one solitary source. As for my having a bias, certainly I do, as all humans will hold a bias or prejudices based on what they believe to be true. In using science to prove or solidify a contention of a creator however, my personal bias would be much less profound as I am not out to make the findings fit a particular idea, where some clearly are.
posted by
gomedome
on March 10, 2005 at 10:09 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome
So it seems your contention that amazing revelations may be dismissed as the mere results of whatever interaction and experience a person happens to encounter in daily life. Sorry, but I can’t buy that. And I suppose it must be your desire to avoid answering my question as to whether or not you believe you are affected by the bias. Why would you prefer not to answer this question? Again, I’m not trying to set a trap for you. I’m just curious.
posted by
telemachus
on March 10, 2005 at 6:13 AM
| link to this | reply
Jesus never said to deny nonbelievers. You are right about that. He said
to love them.
posted by
Amanda__
on March 9, 2005 at 2:44 PM
| link to this | reply
MandaLee -- I cannot agree that there is no other way to explain
how and why the Earth and our universe has evolved or developed the way it has. We learn more about this every day but our knowledge base is admittedly inadequate, there is simply too much we do not know. If we are ever to advance our collective knowledge on this subject however, creationism has and does quite often act as an impediment to this advancement.
What is so wrong with giving Jesus a try? Nothing really if people could only stick to the core message. What seems to transpire instead is that anything but the core messge is put forth by his fan club. I can't find one example in any of Christ's teachings where he instructed his followers to deny non believers business contracts or deny gays basic human rights or institutionalize ostracism, discrimination and prejudice through propoganda. This is ultimately what the world is like for anyone who believes that Jesus is not the son of God but simply a great man.
posted by
gomedome
on March 9, 2005 at 9:03 AM
| link to this | reply
There is no other way to explain the detail and beauty of Earth besides
Creationism. What's so wrong with giving Jesus a try?
posted by
Amanda__
on March 9, 2005 at 7:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus -- again the example you give illustrates a bias in thought
There are many reasons the human mind receives the types of influences that you are referring to as communication. I do not feel it is communication at all but simply subliminal influence of the subconscious. The awakening with a solution to a problem example that you give is hardly suggestive of a superior being trying to communicate with someone unless one is biased to think that it is and wants desperately to prove that it is so. Lucidity and clarity of thought have many influencing factors, from fatigue and rest acting as inhibitor and catalyst respectively to what our minds pick up and abosrb subconsciously in our day to day activities. This should answer your question in where I think these "communications" come from but to summarize: there are countless numbers of stimulae in our daily lives that can influence our thought patterns and lucidity.
The attempt to identify this "communication" as originating from a superior being is to me, merely a believer's wishful thinking. It is also a bit disconcerting as it can be and has been another excuse for the deflection of personal responsibility. The notion of God talking to people as they are sleeping just ain't a healthy idea to proliferate.
posted by
gomedome
on March 9, 2005 at 6:25 AM
| link to this | reply
Sure Gome,
I think of God as supreme and superior, but in my initial statement I was quizzing you broadly concerning the ability to produce the type of communications that we were discussing. If you agree that these types of communications exist you have to also agree that they must originate from an entity that is “superior” to ourselves, at least in the respect that such entity can do this communicating, while we can only receive it. The statement in your post that says “this is true for non-believers, as it is for believers” made me ask you if you felt you were similarly affected. Don’t worry; I’m not here to shed your atheist blood, only to comment briefly and then depart.
posted by
telemachus
on March 8, 2005 at 8:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus --that is the typical back pedaling I have come to expect from you
Now you are trying to tell me that you do not refer to a supreme or superior being as God. "Surely, such communications must emanate from a “superior” being." These are your words, if you were not referring to God who or what supreme beings were you talking about? The Vulcans, the Ferengi?
posted by
gomedome
on March 8, 2005 at 4:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome
Actually, you are the one to first use the word "God" here. I simply asked you where "YOU" thought they came from. Do you think you are similarly affected?
posted by
telemachus
on March 8, 2005 at 12:23 PM
| link to this | reply
thanks
it's good to hear your feedback. i've been around some people who were very hard not to attack, due to their outrageous behavior. it helps for me to remember that what i am giving i will experience myself. have a great day and see you again soon.
posted by
avant-garde
on March 8, 2005 at 9:49 AM
| link to this | reply
avant-garde - I'm following you on that last point and agree to a certain
extent. However, instead of trying to show a love to people that I feel are sometimes undeserving by virtue of their atrocious behaviour I set my sights a little lower. If I can merely demonstrate proper civilized behaviour, at the end of the day I'm a winner.
posted by
gomedome
on March 8, 2005 at 6:16 AM
| link to this | reply
apology
i wanted to thank you for the lesson you enabled me to experience. i made a mistake in thinking that you were at fault by what you wrote today. i was projecting my guilt onto you and instead of feeling better, i became more guilty and afraid of attack myself. you see, i attacked fundamental christianity for several years and laughed about it. when i read your post, it resurrected the guilt i harbored about such behavior. i now realize that anything other than a loving response is not a true response. God bless you, sir.
posted by
avant-garde
on March 8, 2005 at 6:01 AM
| link to this | reply
intelligent design
I have worked as a medic for ten years. I have never met an objective hom detective. It is impossible not to be influenced by what you see. I would have never questioned this if I hadn't seen it firsthand. As far as intelligent design, it is unimportant to me. The problem is the lack of love for one another, not who is right and who is wrong. That just increases the division extant. Good writing.
posted by
avant-garde
on March 8, 2005 at 3:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariala -- I'm the first person to understand why someone would feel
that way. But it is likely we will never know in our lifetime as we know so little.
posted by
gomedome
on March 7, 2005 at 8:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Until a piano falls down a flight of stairs and comes out with Beethoven's
5th symphony, I cannot be convinced there's not an intelligent design behind the creation of this world.
posted by
Ariala
on March 7, 2005 at 7:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus -- in your attempt to illustrate an example you inadvertantly
depict another scenario where a biased attitude comes to a disconnected and illogical conclusion. When you ask where do these things come from? ...there is no specific point of origin or proper answer as the human mind can be influenced and induced into lucid thought patterns in any number of ways. Your attempt to suggest that as it cannot be in many cases adequately explained it must be from God is exactly what I am suggesting is bad science. Your propensity to jump to this conclusion with absolute ease without consideration for another explanation is exactly the point I am trying to make in this posting.
posted by
gomedome
on March 7, 2005 at 7:04 PM
| link to this | reply
empty_handed_painter -- I couldn't agree more
The universe is an ever evolving thing as portions of it expire, renew itself, grow, mature and change from a myriad of natural influences. This in itself suggests that there is not a plan nor a grand design.
posted by
gomedome
on March 7, 2005 at 6:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome
Do we even have full control of what we are thinking? I mean, are there not times when things just “pop” into your head? You might think, “Wow, why didn’t I think of that before?” Or, haven’t you ever just awakened in the middle of the night with the answer to some problem you have been working on? Where do these things come from? Could they not be communications meant specifically for a distinctive aura, a certain vibratory signature, a unique heat signature or a special ambient electrical charge? Could such communications not also include the full realm of conscience influence? Is any normal human capable of conveying communications in this manner? Surely, such communications must emanate from a “superior” being. From where else do you think they could come Gome?
posted by
telemachus
on March 7, 2005 at 3:45 PM
| link to this | reply
depends pon what you mean
people want to believe in design
only ting is
much flies in the face of "intelligent design"
lots of imperfections all around us, including in our own bodies.
too much for there to be an intelligent designer
however
if we were accept the Universe as an evolving thing -- and in this evolving, "getting better" -- the old concept of trial and error and coming up with something with fewer errors -- then maybe . . .
but the only place we can observe this is on this Earth -- all around us.
What we see in the rest of the Universe, from telescopes and other observation techiques, is something that continues much as it has from time immemorial.
certain principles apply -- gravity, etc. -- these are natural things -- and it shows that when we stop to attempt to explain the Universe, we can't.
and if we try to insinuate intelligence, as in a singular being that sat down to a celestial drawing board and drew up the plans for the universe and all that it is and all that it will be, then we've really got a problem.
we should admit that this thing is bigger than all of us. we try to understand what we experience and stand in awe of the magnificant Universe that unfolds all around us, near and far away.
posted by
Xeno-x
on March 7, 2005 at 1:59 PM
| link to this | reply