[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Silent One

I try to ignore the fact, because although on a personal level its usually harmless and gives people hope in the future, it can be a scary virtue when applied on a larger scale.

It takes place all the time on every level. The mere fact that you did not for a moment suspect I might be serial killer trying to stalk you proves it. You have a basic level of trust in people you encounter on CGR. There's is absolutely no proof or reason or logic for you to believe that I'm not a serial killer. It's just something you accept by faith. There are better examples, but... that's the idea.

[Silent One]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

It takes place all the time on every level. The mere fact that you did not for a moment suspect I might be serial killer trying to stalk you proves it. You have a basic level of trust in people you encounter on CGR. There's is absolutely no proof or reason or logic for you to believe that I'm not a serial killer. It's just something you accept by faith. There are better examples, but... that's the idea.

Well, there isn't absolute proof in my possession that you aren't a serial killer, but it is very likely that you aren't, using reasoning. On a daily basis I accept that most of the people I encounter by default are not serial killers, otherwise I might not leave my house, although the moment I get a logical piece of evidence pointing to the fact that they may just be, then I will considerably take that into account. The fault here is that the burden of proof lies in proving the claim that is less likely. It's not my job to prove God exists, it's your claim, therefore prove his existence to me, using the scientific method, or actual facts and evidence. If that is not presented to me, then why should I believe it? Why should I default to believing in God, and only change my stance once evidence is presented against the more unlikely case? Its not logical thinking, which is why religion puts faith up there as a virtue, because without faith, everyone would look at the existence of God, and the claims of the Bible very critically, which is what I'm choosing to do. As well as all supernatural claims that are all equally as unsubstantiated, which are many.

[Silent One]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

So you believe that anarchy is the best natural goverance for man? People decide for themselves and we end up with rape, murder, theft, robbery, etc. Every civilised nation imposes its ideology on its citizen by law. What you are truly saying here, is that I should have the right to make my own decisions, period. Now if I happen to be a psychopath and have this right, nobody has the right to stop me. The flaw here is that it sounds nice, but just plain cannot work.

You've got me wrong, by having personal freedom, you also have to recognize the personal freedom of others, and not infringe on it. Rape and murder are obviously causing physical harm, and death to other people, which isn't letting them live their lives the way they want. But a person choosing to find love with a member of the same sex, how does that affect your freedom? You can say it goes against what YOU find personally moral, but it doesn't infringe on your right to practice a heterosexual relationship, it causes you no physical harm, and no suffering. In fact, most Christians should recognize that fact, but sadly dont, only because the Word of God, pretty unjustifiably, claims that it is a sin. Well you can choose to not sin any way you want, but when you extend those moral obligations to the rest of the world, when it doesn't even affect you, its overstepping that boundary of personal freedom. So no, I am NOT saying you should have the right to make your own personal decisions period. I was merely pointing out that the thoughts in this blog are my personal ideas on subjects that I've thought about, and rationalized, and used my reasoning brain to come to a conclusion on, although a very changeable conclusion. For you, Biblical morals are never changeable, even if you do recognize the fact that some of them are flat out silly in practice.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Silent One

You've got me wrong, by having personal freedom, you also have to recognize the personal freedom of others, and not infringe on it. Rape and murder are obviously causing physical harm, and death to other people, which isn't letting them live their lives the way they want. But a person choosing to find love with a member of the same sex, how does that affect your freedom? You can say it goes against what YOU find personally moral, but it doesn't infringe on your right to practice a heterosexual relationship, it causes you no physical harm, and no suffering. In fact, most Christians should recognize that fact, but sadly dont, only because the Word of God, pretty unjustifiably, claims that it is a sin. Well you can choose to not sin any way you want, but when you extend those moral obligations to the rest of the world, when it doesn't even affect you, its overstepping that boundary of personal freedom. So no, I am NOT saying you should have the right to make your own personal decisions period. I was merely pointing out that the thoughts in this blog are my personal ideas on subjects that I've thought about, and rationalized, and used my reasoning brain to come to a conclusion on, although a very changeable conclusion. For you, Biblical morals are never changeable, even if you do recognize the fact that some of them are flat out silly in practice.

Why? freedoms interact. What is your basis that one persons freedom should not interfere with another. By what arbitrariness do you make this claim? You have no scientific basis for your moral standards. What if I believe that de Sade was right in his philosophy, that "what is, is right?"

Where do your arbitrary standards of moralism of personal decision come from?

I do not say that biblical morals are silly in practice, the sheer random baselessness of yours... now thats silly.

[Silent One]

You think its random and baseless for me to recognize that it is immoral to kill someone? To take the life of another organism is something I understand is wrong, because I have one myself and I see that I enjoy it daily. The fact is morals like those are ingrained in the human brain, an Evolutionary product, one of many which has resulted in the success of the human species. To claim that thou shalt not kill, only because a good book tells you so, that's scary. You claim to derive your morals from a holy book written thousands of years ago, upon the threat of eternal hellfire, and the promise of eternal life, to please an invisible sky-daddy. Are you saying that you WOULD murder, rape, and steal if you didn't believe in God and the Bible? The fact is, everyone gets there morals from the same place, and its not the Bible, its not religion. There is a lot in the Bible that isn't pretty, which is why so much is put into the interpretation, to get the most out of it as each individual can, so they only see the good stuff, and can disregard the things that would seem sick in a society today.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Silent One

but it is very likely that you aren't, using reasoning.

By what reasoning is it unlikely?

The fault here is that the burden of proof lies in proving the claim that is less likely. It's not my job to prove God exists, it's your claim, therefore prove his existence to me, using the scientific method, or actual facts and evidence.

How can you possibly calculate the probability of God's existence or non-existence?

[Silent One]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

By what reasoning is it unlikely?

How can you possibly calculate the probability of God's existence or non-existence?

Well, I don't honestly see the relevance, but I'll answer still. By the reasoning that the number of convicted murderers or reported murders is quite a small fraction compared to the population as a whole, I can with a fairly safe guess assume you aren't. The fault with this is although you can be a non-murderer all your life, it only takes one action, dependent on your own choice and actions, to make you one. With the existence of God, his likeliness never changes, in fact his existence never changes. Obviously he either does or doesn't, and most people would agree that he can't just pop into existence. There is quite a good case made against the existence of God, using scientific probabilities, in a book by the Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins. His arguments to me are simple and obvious. Although for someone already with their mind set on a belief in God, it can be hard to see with intellectual honesty the reasoning of Dawkins, but I was convinced. If you are truly interested in the answer to your second question, read The God Delusion. It makes a pretty good case against the existence of a God using sound reasoning and logic, as well as science. If you don't believe in logic or science, then it is hard to see the plausibility of his arguments, and quite easy to convince oneself of anything existing beyond the natural world, without actual evidence.

[bobthecockroach]

I don't really have time to read a non-school-related book. Sad but true.

[Silent One]

Completely understood, when I'm in school I barely have time to read school-related books. It's a fairly quick read though if you get a chance. Under 400 pages, and the first half is really the guts of the arguments against the existence of a God.

[Silent One]

This is a response to a thread in the Theology section, where the original poster asked "what kind of faith does it take for prayer to be effective" ... below is one of the responses, and my personal response to that.

Originally Posted by comitatus1

The kind that is prepared to accept "no" for an answer.

Chris

Basically this boils down to just accepting that *whatever* happens, is in fact an answer from God.

If I look into my bowl of cereal and sincerely ask it to grant me a raise at my job, but accept both the fact that I may get the raise, or may not, is the cereal really answering my prayer? Because I most certainly will or will not get the raise, logically one of the two has to occur.

It's also illogical to say that "God didn't answer your prayer because you did not have the correct faith, it wasn't strong enough, you didn't truly believe"

[Godslilrosebud]

Hey, I just thought I'd let you know that I am WORKING on a nice long post to you. It's taking me awhile though; I have so much school. But one of these days I'll get it to you.

[Silent One]

Oh cool rosebud I look forward to it, though it's no rush. School is important!

[Godslilrosebud]

Yeah, no kidding.

Got a question for you. If I understand you correctly, you basicly believe that science is the source of all truth, right?

[Silent One]

Science is a process of inquiry and investigation by use of the scientific method. Usually in middle school or high school biology the scientific method is taught, and applied in practice by way of the science fair, or classroom experiments.

I was thinking about typing out an example of the scientific method in practice, so as to illustrate the simplicity and beauty of the method in acquiring new knowledge, not just in the physical & life sciences, but in all fields of study. In fact my opinion is that every individual should practice at least a rudimentary form of the scientific method on a daily basis, which in fact many people do unknowingly. Particularly skepticism, which placing a period of doubt or criticism on things before claiming certainty in its truth. This is what science does, and it has a whole community of other scientists skeptically judging and testing eachothers hypothesis and results of experimentation.

So, "science" as you probably were asking, of course does not contain the absolute truth, but the method of investigation employed by scientists and professionals in other fields, the Scientific Method, is a reliable means of acquiring knowledge about previous uncertainties.

Some people have the unfortunate idea that science itself is this entity of knowledge, making claims about areas of life that are better left to Religion, questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" and "Why are we here?". I'm sure some people even view science as this evil force trying to delude the minds of youth and claim supreme knowledge in what is all just lies. Science is simply just the system of acquiring knowledge through the Scientific method. According to wikipedia science can also describe the "organized body of knowledge gained through research", which basically would just encompass the sum of all the results of the application of the scientific method.

In short, science is applying critical thinking on a standardized and thorough level of practice. So, I can trust with assurance that what the scientific community releases is honest and accurate. This is not saying that I find all my truth IN science though.

[Silent One]

Just a passing thought.

If you were raised without religion, so you had no previous influence of a supernatural nature from a young age, and were introduced to a strange book later in your adult life, making claims that seemed contradictory to a lot of what you knew and observed daily, and it made claims about something you couldn't see, or test yourself .. you would be critical of it I would imagine. But suppose you read it, and found out that what it said was everything you needed, and it filled a gap in your life, such that you *knew* in your heart it was true. You didn't need proof of its divine inspiration. Should it matter that it was written thousands of years ago, by a mixture of people, sometimes even making contradictory claims. Should it matter that is was translated over and over, and translations made of those translations. Should you define your life around this book because you "feel" the truth of it rather than logically see evidential proof of it? I don't think anyone should.