I wont state the reason why i wont become a theist because it'd probably offend you. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'll just say that the holiest of books is usually the most blood-soaked one.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 13 2003, 03:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 13 2003, 03:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My point was not to get all scientific and technical, I was trying to point out that you rely just as much on a premise based on faith - that your senses do not lie - as I do in believing in the existence of God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just stated why senses do not lie, and my justification did not include faith. Unless you want to refute that statement, don't keep stating the opposite.
<!--QuoteBegin--Frikk+Oct 13 2003, 09:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Frikk @ Oct 13 2003, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 13 2003, 07:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 13 2003, 07:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Menix+Oct 13 2003, 06:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Menix @ Oct 13 2003, 06:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 13 2003, 12:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 13 2003, 12:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what if your senses are lying? It has been said that nobody sees the same colour (ie, what i see as blue, you may call green) We only call them the same colour because that is what we have been brought up to think. So, who sees the <i>actual</i> colour blue? Who is to say that he is right and everyone else is wrong when everybody is just as in the dark as everyone else? When your senses fail you, what are you left with? You cannot reason anything, and your premise is based on something you cannot trust, it is just blind faith that what your sense are telling you is true. Your premise is just as illogical as mine.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Senses do not lie, they transmit electronic pulses. How these pulses are interpreted is up to the mind, but there is not such thing as a "false pulse". A sense never tell you that "there is a house over there". Instead, you receive impulses from your eyes and come to the conclusion that there is a house over there. That conclusion may be false as it could be a mirage or an illusion. However, the mistake is not due to any fault in the senses, it is due to the mind's inability to differentiate between a true house and an illusion.
What you state is that we have nothing to base our lives upon and that we should just guess what's right and what's not. That is false, as we have sensory input to base our lives upon. We do not HAVE to conclude a house exists just because we can see it with our eyes and it looks like a house. But we can, with inductive logic, conclude that it is most likely a house.
Now tell me, what sensory input have you had that you used to come to the conclusion that there is a supernatural entity? What do you base your belief of a god upon? If you say faith, then you have given up logic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My point was not to get all scientific and technical, I was trying to point out that you rely just as much on a premise based on faith - that your senses do not lie - as I do in believing in the existence of God. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you don't believe your senses you have no point of reference for anything. I fail to see how one can operate in any life in such a fashion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I never said that i didnt trust my senses
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not so much faith in my senses as I cannot operate without them. It's a necessary part of life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, in that case,
It's not so much faith in God as I cannot live without him. He's a necessary part of my life.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 13 2003, 04:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 13 2003, 04:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not so much faith in God as I cannot live without him. He's a necessary part of my life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Senses are linked to our consciousness, it is a direct feed from your body to your consciousness and thus the only access to the outside world. We know senses "are" because we can see the world outside of our consciousness.
Senses are necessary for me because otherwise I would not be able to interact with the world. They are signals received by my consciousness. I know they are because I receive them.
Now it is your turn.
Tell me, why is "God" a necessary part of your life, what "God" is, and how do you know that "God" is?
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Menix+Oct 13 2003, 12:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Menix @ Oct 13 2003, 12:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 13 2003, 12:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 13 2003, 12:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what if your senses are lying? It has been said that nobody sees the same colour (ie, what i see as blue, you may call green) We only call them the same colour because that is what we have been brought up to think. So, who sees the <i>actual</i> colour blue? Who is to say that he is right and everyone else is wrong when everybody is just as in the dark as everyone else? When your senses fail you, what are you left with? You cannot reason anything, and your premise is based on something you cannot trust, it is just blind faith that what your sense are telling you is true. Your premise is just as illogical as mine.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Senses do not lie, they transmit electronic pulses. How these pulses are interpreted is up to the mind, but there is not such thing as a "false pulse". A sense never tell you that "there is a house over there". Instead, you receive impulses from your eyes and come to the conclusion that there is a house over there. That conclusion may be false as it could be a mirage or an illusion. However, the mistake is not due to any fault in the senses, it is due to the mind's inability to differentiate between a true house and an illusion.
What you state is that we have nothing to base our lives upon and that we should just guess what's right and what's not. That is false, as we have sensory input to base our lives upon. We do not HAVE to conclude a house exists just because we can see it with our eyes and it looks like a house. But we can, with inductive logic, conclude that it is most likely a house.
Now tell me, what sensory input have you had that you used to come to the conclusion that there is a supernatural entity? What do you base your belief of a god upon? If you say faith, then you have given up logic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're absolutely right, there isnt such thing as a false impulse, because one is not more false than the other. We are all genetic coded with human DNA, we are buildt around a specific way to see things. I have yet to see some sort of proof of why the human brain couldnt read the pulses "wrong" nor yet have I seen a proof that proofs that these electronic pulses is infact the same despite a mind reading it different.
God is a necessary part of my life because He brings meaning to everything. I see all these famous philosophers and scientists muddling about in the dark, searching for the question, when I, an ordinary teenager have the answer. I believe that without a base for morals, there can be no morals. Absolutisim is the way to go, but you need something or someone to base those morals on. That someone is God. There are many people in this world who are searching for something, something to fill the gap in thier lives. Some turn to drugs, some turn to crime, some others turn to dangerous sports. God makes me feel good. I know that he loves me, and will never leave me, so even in my worst times, i know he is there for me, and that he can comfort me. He is the best freind, parent and listener you could ever have. I know that God "is" because of the bible. Life's handbook is the word of God directed to anybody who reads it. I know that what i believe is true, because dispite all the attcks on the existance of God, the faith of his people and the christian religion in general, it still stands. Christianity has influenced so many aspects of our lives, it is impossible to say that it is a whole load of stories. God gives me something to live for and something to look forward to. Without him, i would be lost.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
That was beautiful <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> But do you realize that it is only in your own mind, you created the god, not the other way around. (sorry)
ah right. i see. So people have been having exactly the same experiences hundreds and thousands of years before me because... what? i went back in time and told them all about some big idea i had dreamed up during a boring french lesson? People i have never met before and i dont even know they exist know about my big idea because the piece of paper i was writing it down on got blown out of the window to a deep corner of the amazonian rainforest?
Many people have been tortured and have died for thier faith. Even the founding bloke, Jesus was whipped and crucified for it. Do you honestly think that if it had all been in his head, that he was making it up to confuze people, that he would have <i>dies</i> for it? <i>Died</i> for nothing more than an elaborate practical joke?
[edit] i see aegeri is reading this thread. Things are about to get interesting...[/edit]
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited October 2003
But Bogglestein, all had their unique interprention of god.
EDIT. Ok, perhaps I'm threading on thin ice here but. I'm not saying what you feel cant be felt, but you created the feeling yourself, by your belief. And that my friends is the reason to be theist <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 13 2003, 03:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 13 2003, 03:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ah right. i see. So people have been having exactly the same experiences hundreds and thousands of years before me because... what? i went back in time and told them all about some big idea i had dreamed up during a boring french lesson? People i have never met before and i dont even know they exist know about my big idea because the piece of paper i was writing it down on got blown out of the window to a deep corner of the amazonian rainforest?
Many people have been tortured and have died for thier faith. Even the founding bloke, Jesus was whipped and crucified for it. Do you honestly think that if it had all been in his head, that he was making it up to confuze people, that he would have <i>dies</i> for it? <i>Died</i> for nothing more than an elaborate practical joke?
[edit] i see aegeri is reading this thread. Things are about to get interesting...[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's called a security blanket. The general populace can't accept the fact that there is nothing more to their lives then to live and die, most people are followers and can't rely on their own judgement to make most descisions so they turn to a god. And the fact that it has been happening for thousands of years just reinforces that idea because human insecurity is a constant force. We as a people have evolved to a point where there is nothing to threaten our species and nothing to tie us to the world and it understandably leaves some people doubting the validity of such an existence, and that is where relegion comes in. Relegion has only been used for two purposes, as a system of control by goverments, or as a security measure by people troubled by a seemingly meaningless existence. Saying that relegion sets forth a moral code people follow is silly, becuase every country has laws that are enforced by very real world punishments that wouldn't be necessary if this was true.
Also your semi-arogant idea that not beleiving in something takes faith is also more than slightly off base. Logical arguments are always structured around proving something, and then counter-arguments are structured around disproving something. If I were to say that the crab nebula has a planet made out of marshmellows there would be nothing that could scientifically disprove that statement, but I would have no logical way of proving it and any sane person could dismiss it off hand. So saying that our counter argument is invalid when you don't even have a logical argument in the first place is a bit pompus.
The oddest thing is (and why I find that semi offensive) is I do actually believe in God. Simply because I study genetics and the like does not inherently make me an atheist. I happen to believe in God simply because I want too (and like the idea of a Deity in general). I've also within the past 2-3 years decided that I even like the new Testament and the general ideas that are conveyed by it. It doesn't particularly matter to me what science says about such things, it's a personal choice if you accept that God and Jesus existed or not. Having strong convictions that we evolved (based on what evidence is available) does not mean I'm instantly going to disregard God. Some would tell you that it was simply a mechanism for how God made things in the end (some form of unkown experiment, why God does things in whatever way he has is something nobody can answer).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Blinded by faith, a lot of Christians will force their principles down your neck. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, what is so weird is that my friends (oddly, I seem to have a lot of Christian friends) never ever try that stuff with me. Perhaps it's because they are afraid I'll nick my gamecube back <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps, scientific evidence would help? This has been talked a lot, especially in the evolution threads. Or maybe a personal visit from God? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Long ago I said such things, but now even with my stronger basis in biology than I've ever had, I see why that idea is so absurd. For God to prove his existence would defy the point in having faith. If God proves his existence then there is no choice really, you know he exists so why would anyway take the choice to or not? It would be like pretending the professor lecturing you doesn't exist (which I'm sure must be a good strategy for some), it doesn't really make a lot of sense. It must surely be up to the person in question to make up their own mind on God and his particular nature.
I've never really been Atheist, I hated God for a while and to some degree I still do. I never really talk about my beliefs though and most people who know me (outside of the internet) don't have a clue what I think. In general however, I just think everyone can make up their own damn mind.
Boggle:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It has been said that nobody sees the same colour (ie, what i see as blue, you may call green) We only call them the same colour because that is what we have been brought up to think. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is relatively absurd from a psychological point of view, because most people DO see things the same colour as everyone else. This is because an object (no matter what it is) happens to emit a particular wavelength of light that is responsible for. Some people can see a slightly different shade, but nearly everyone will agree that A: Sky is blue and B: The grass is green. If you are implying that someone (without a disorder such as colourblindness) will see yellow as purple then that is absurd.
Only two kinds of people will argue the sky isn't blue. People who are colourblind (including myself, I have utter hell when it comes to colour based staining techniques D:) and physicists, who actually know the sky is really violet, just that wavelength is scattered far too much for us to see it, so blue is seen instead. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 13 2003, 04:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 13 2003, 04:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The same wavelength reaches everybodies eyes, but that is interpreted differently for everyone <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No, not at all.
Again, I challenge you to find anyone who says the sky is red.
In addition to this, if that is the case, the whole field of colourmetric based chemistry is REALLY down the shitter.
<!--QuoteBegin--Aegeri+Oct 13 2003, 10:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Oct 13 2003, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 13 2003, 04:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 13 2003, 04:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The same wavelength reaches everybodies eyes, but that is interpreted differently for everyone <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, not at all.
Again, I challenge you to find anyone who says the sky is red.
In addition to this, if that is the case, the whole field of colourmetric based chemistry is REALLY down the shitter. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats my point
They dont say the sky is red because they have been brought up to see that colour and call it blue. There is no-one with normal vision who would say the sky is not blue because that is what they have been taught
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 13 2003, 04:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 13 2003, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Aegeri+Oct 13 2003, 10:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Oct 13 2003, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 13 2003, 04:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 13 2003, 04:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The same wavelength reaches everybodies eyes, but that is interpreted differently for everyone <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, not at all.
Again, I challenge you to find anyone who says the sky is red.
In addition to this, if that is the case, the whole field of colourmetric based chemistry is REALLY down the shitter. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats my point
They dont say the sky is red because they have been brought up to see that colour and call it blue. There is no-one with normal vision who would say the sky is not blue because that is what they have been taught <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, you can argue the senses are wrong, but you do not get taught something about colour other than your senses are telling you
Yes, dogs only have a limited spectrum of colours they can see (greyscale) as far as I know. Someone might have proved that wrong but I'm not sure.
Insects like bees actually see the UV spectrum, and it turns out flowers are really good at reflecting light in that range so they stand out like a sore thumb to the insect.
Boggle.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They dont say the sky is red because they have been brought up to see that colour and call it blue. There is no-one with normal vision who would say the sky is not blue because that is what they have been taught <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is just daft. What else would they call it? Schmoo? Orangium? We're taught that particular piece of wavelength corresponding to 480nm is green because that is what it is. If you had a picture with 3 colours on it, and showed it to 40 children asking them which colour is 'blue' they would all pick the same colour (unless some were colourblind, probably boys in that case). Even if they had no idea of what any colour was, if you showed them a colour, and asked them to pick the same colour out in a similar experiment, they would all pick that colour.
This is the basis for many basic psychological tests for abnormalities in various things, that in fact we do see similar things (and feel similar things) in many cases. Genetics is usually what decides if we can/cannot determine something. I have difficulty distinguishing shades of blue for example and some reds I can't even see at all, but that is genetics.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Genetics is usually what decides if we can/cannot determine something. I have difficulty distinguishing shades of blue for example and some reds I can't even see at all, but that is genetics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As I said earlier in a post, DNA decides how we are buildt, how our brains interacts with the impulses we get from the senses. It's a construction plan really. But is it more true than the grey-visioned dog? How can we deny the way we see things is wrong? Your difficulty with seeing red is genetic, but so is everything we see, hardcoded into the DNA and your problem was just a slight stray from the construction plan (but not less true)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But is it more true than the grey-visioned dog? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That has to do with how the dogs eyes are actually made up, not in their brains if I remember correctly. It actually has to do with the rod/cone system that is responsible for seeing colour in the eye. I found most of that rather boring at the time so dumped it from my memory <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> It's really a biochemistry thing, even though a dogs eyes LOOK similar to ours, they don't behave/aren't similar on a biochemical level.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited October 2003
/Off topic alarms beeps hysterically
Anyway, wonder if we were the dog? How would we know other than the grey world? How would we know other than we are currently seeing? Hopes it explains the point I've been trying to make <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 13 2003, 05:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 13 2003, 05:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The same wavelength reaches everybodies eyes, but that is interpreted differently for everyone<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What do you mean by "interpreted"? Once a signal is received it can only be interpreted according to what it is.
The color vision of the eye is based on receptors called "cones" which send signals to the brain.
<!--QuoteBegin--http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vision.html#Cone_Vision+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vision.html#Cone_Vision)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The three types of cones provide us the basis of color vision. Cones are "tuned" to different portions of the visible spectrum.
red absorbing cones; those that absorb best at the relatively long wavelengths peaking at 565 nm green absorbing cones with a peak absorption at 535 nm blue absorbing cones with a peak absorption at 440 nm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So to answer your question, everyone DOES see the same blue color, and as has been stated before, blue is simply a name for part of the spectrum. Color blindness is covered in the quoted page if you want to read up on it.
I just got back form homework and skimmed this thread. Hoo boy, it's going to be a long night.
So far, there have been two main arguments for religion. One is the Pascal's Wager, which states, for those not up one the concept, that since nothing happens if there is no God, but our place in eternity is determined by our belief in him should He exist, we should make efforts to get into a relationship with Him.
The riposte to this argument is, "which religion?"
I fence foil with my local Salle. After a few weeks of fencing, you can usually see the new people making good ripostes, extending their points to the target, but rarely any follow through on them, and use their right-of-way to score a point. That seems to be the attitude here.
The idea of Pascal's Wager is not refuted when countered with the concept of multiple relgions, it is merely put out of sight for a while. If Pascal was rational in making his wager, then it is irrational to refuse to search for God, on the premise that there are many claims on how to get to Him.
First of all, Buddhism does not believe in a God, it believes you are re-incarnated and placed in society somewhere else, based on how you lived your life. Ignoring the suspension of disbelief that we are reincarnated without a being to actually reincarnate us, we can reason out that should Buddhism actually be the correct way to non-existance (paradise) we can effectively wait on it forever, until we have tried out all the other religions. Hinduism is basically the same thing, with reincarnation making Hinduism taking a backseat to other religions.
Then, we have the big 3 monotheists. <b>These three all draw their roots from the bible.</b>
The mere fact that half the world's population draws it's creed, ultimately, from the OT of the bible, and 3/5ths of all those who practice religion, should give it some credibility.
The old testament contains a number of prophecies which point to a specific person as the Christ of God.<a href='http://bbie.org/english/Study07OriginofJesus/0701OTPropheciesOfJesus.html' target='_blank'>Here is a list of a few of them.</a>
Logically, If we can wait to embrace Eastern religion, but belief in one of the monotheistic religions is imperitive, and all three monotheistic religions draw from the Old Testament, which points to Jesus Christ as the savior, which religion seems the most credible, the one we should "cast our bets" on?
Anyway, it's tiem for dinner, then lots and lots of homework.
Just because I feel nitpicky today, Leggy, those three monotheistic religions don't draw from the Bible - they draw from the same theistic concept, but not the same book, as the Koran is a compliation of Mohammeds writing.
Also, If anything, all three draw from the Thora <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Legionnaired+Oct 13 2003, 07:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Oct 13 2003, 07:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The idea of Pascal's Wager is not refuted when countered with the concept of multiple relgions, it is merely put out of sight for a while. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I introduce the a possibility of a god that would only reward rational thinking and punish those who believe in him based solely on faith. This possibility alone is enough to counter Pascal's Wager.
Actually, Islam draws from many of the OT characters, IE. Ishmael. Obviously Judaism shares the largest portion, but a large foundation of the perspective of Islam can be found in the same period of the OT times.
I <i>think</i> Islam starts to deviate around the time of the Patriarchs, I think they believe that Ishmael was supposed to be one, but it was given to..Isaac I believe. I think then it started a seperation from Judaism starting with Ishmael, and it's kinda worked it's way to where it is today. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please. I'm pretty sure about this, but not 100%.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 13 2003, 08:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 13 2003, 08:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> how on earth did incest come into this?
please, lets not turn this into a topic on evolution, i can see it heading there already. If you have questions, use the many other threads on that topic <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Adam and Eve. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Not So 'Bright' Atheists aren't as rational as they think.
BY DINESH D'SOUZA Sunday, October 12, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT
"We have always had atheists among us," the philosopher Edmund Burke wrote in his "Reflections on the Revolution in France," "but now they have grown turbulent and seditious." It seems that in our own day some prominent atheists are agitating for greater political and social influence. In this connection, leading atheist thinkers have been writing articles declaring that they should no longer be called "atheists." Rather, they want to be called "brights."
Yes, "brights," as in "I am a bright." In a recent article in the New York Times, philosopher Daniel Dennett defined a bright as "a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view." Mr. Dennett added that "we brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter bunny or God." His implication was clear: Brights are the smart people who don't fall for silly superstitions.
Mr. Dennett, like many atheists, is confident that atheists are simply brighter--more rational--than religious believers. Their assumption is: We nonbelievers employ critical reason while the theists rely on blind faith. But Mr. Dennett and his fellow "brights," for all their credentials and learning, have been duped by a fallacy. This may be called the Fallacy of the Enlightenment, and it was first pointed out by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know, and that limit is reality itself. In this view, widely held by atheists, agnostics and other self-styled rationalists, human beings can continually find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover. The Enlightenment Fallacy holds that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality.
In his "Critique of Pure Reason," Kant showed that this premise is false. In fact, he argued, there is a much greater limit to what human beings can know. The only way that we apprehend reality is through our five senses. But why should we believe, Kant asked, that our five-mode instrument for apprehending reality is sufficient for capturing all of reality? What makes us think that there is no reality that goes beyond, one that simply cannot be apprehended by our five senses?
Kant persuasively noted that there is no reason whatsoever for us to believe that we can know everything that exists. Indeed what we do know, Kant said, we know only through the refracted filter of our experience. Kant argued that we cannot even be sure that our experience of a thing is the same as the thing-in-itself. After all, we see in pretty much the same way that a camera does, and yet who would argue that a picture of a boat is the same thing as a boat?
Kant isn't arguing against the validity of perception or science or reason. He is simply showing their significant limits. These limits cannot be erased by the passage of time or by further investigation and experimentation. Rather, the limits on reason are intrinsic to the kind of beings that humans are, and to the kind of apparatus that we possess for perceiving reality. The implication of Kant's argument is that reality as a whole is, in principle, inaccessible to human beings. Put another way, there is a great deal that human beings simply will never know.
Notice that Kant's argument is entirely secular: It does not employ any religious vocabulary, nor does it rely on any kind of faith. But in showing the limits of reason, Kant's philosophy "opens the door to faith," as the philosopher himself noted. If Mr. Dennett and the rest of the so-called brights have produced refutations of Kant that have eluded the philosophical community, they should share them with the rest of us. But until then, they should refrain from the ignorant boast that atheism operates on a higher intellectual plane than theism. Rather, as Kant showed, reason must know its limits in order to be truly reasonable. The atheist foolishly presumes that reason is in principle capable of figuring out all that there is, while the theist at least knows that there is a reality greater than, and beyond, that which our senses and our minds can ever apprehend.
Mr. D'Souza, a scholar at the Hoover Institution, is the author, most recently, of "What's So Great About America" (Regnery, 2002).
Comments
I'll just say that the holiest of books is usually the most blood-soaked one.
I just stated why senses do not lie, and my justification did not include faith. Unless you want to refute that statement, don't keep stating the opposite.
Senses do not lie, they transmit electronic pulses. How these pulses are interpreted is up to the mind, but there is not such thing as a "false pulse". A sense never tell you that "there is a house over there". Instead, you receive impulses from your eyes and come to the conclusion that there is a house over there. That conclusion may be false as it could be a mirage or an illusion. However, the mistake is not due to any fault in the senses, it is due to the mind's inability to differentiate between a true house and an illusion.
What you state is that we have nothing to base our lives upon and that we should just guess what's right and what's not. That is false, as we have sensory input to base our lives upon. We do not HAVE to conclude a house exists just because we can see it with our eyes and it looks like a house. But we can, with inductive logic, conclude that it is most likely a house.
Now tell me, what sensory input have you had that you used to come to the conclusion that there is a supernatural entity? What do you base your belief of a god upon? If you say faith, then you have given up logic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point was not to get all scientific and technical, I was trying to point out that you rely just as much on a premise based on faith - that your senses do not lie - as I do in believing in the existence of God. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't believe your senses you have no point of reference for anything. I fail to see how one can operate in any life in such a fashion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said that i didnt trust my senses
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not so much faith in my senses as I cannot operate without them. It's a necessary part of life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, in that case,
It's not so much faith in God as I cannot live without him. He's a necessary part of my life.
Senses are linked to our consciousness, it is a direct feed from your body to your consciousness and thus the only access to the outside world. We know senses "are" because we can see the world outside of our consciousness.
Senses are necessary for me because otherwise I would not be able to interact with the world. They are signals received by my consciousness. I know they are because I receive them.
Now it is your turn.
Tell me, why is "God" a necessary part of your life, what "God" is, and how do you know that "God" is?
Senses do not lie, they transmit electronic pulses. How these pulses are interpreted is up to the mind, but there is not such thing as a "false pulse". A sense never tell you that "there is a house over there". Instead, you receive impulses from your eyes and come to the conclusion that there is a house over there. That conclusion may be false as it could be a mirage or an illusion. However, the mistake is not due to any fault in the senses, it is due to the mind's inability to differentiate between a true house and an illusion.
What you state is that we have nothing to base our lives upon and that we should just guess what's right and what's not. That is false, as we have sensory input to base our lives upon. We do not HAVE to conclude a house exists just because we can see it with our eyes and it looks like a house. But we can, with inductive logic, conclude that it is most likely a house.
Now tell me, what sensory input have you had that you used to come to the conclusion that there is a supernatural entity? What do you base your belief of a god upon? If you say faith, then you have given up logic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're absolutely right, there isnt such thing as a false impulse, because one is not more false than the other. We are all genetic coded with human DNA, we are buildt around a specific way to see things. I have yet to see some sort of proof of why the human brain couldnt read the pulses "wrong" nor yet have I seen a proof that proofs that these electronic pulses is infact the same despite a mind reading it different.
But do you realize that it is only in your own mind, you created the god, not the other way around. (sorry)
Many people have been tortured and have died for thier faith. Even the founding bloke, Jesus was whipped and crucified for it. Do you honestly think that if it had all been in his head, that he was making it up to confuze people, that he would have <i>dies</i> for it? <i>Died</i> for nothing more than an elaborate practical joke?
[edit] i see aegeri is reading this thread. Things are about to get interesting...[/edit]
EDIT. Ok, perhaps I'm threading on thin ice here but.
I'm not saying what you feel cant be felt, but you created the feeling yourself, by your belief. And that my friends is the reason to be theist <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Many people have been tortured and have died for thier faith. Even the founding bloke, Jesus was whipped and crucified for it. Do you honestly think that if it had all been in his head, that he was making it up to confuze people, that he would have <i>dies</i> for it? <i>Died</i> for nothing more than an elaborate practical joke?
[edit] i see aegeri is reading this thread. Things are about to get interesting...[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's called a security blanket. The general populace can't accept the fact that there is nothing more to their lives then to live and die, most people are followers and can't rely on their own judgement to make most descisions so they turn to a god. And the fact that it has been happening for thousands of years just reinforces that idea because human insecurity is a constant force. We as a people have evolved to a point where there is nothing to threaten our species and nothing to tie us to the world and it understandably leaves some people doubting the validity of such an existence, and that is where relegion comes in. Relegion has only been used for two purposes, as a system of control by goverments, or as a security measure by people troubled by a seemingly meaningless existence. Saying that relegion sets forth a moral code people follow is silly, becuase every country has laws that are enforced by very real world punishments that wouldn't be necessary if this was true.
Also your semi-arogant idea that not beleiving in something takes faith is also more than slightly off base. Logical arguments are always structured around proving something, and then counter-arguments are structured around disproving something. If I were to say that the crab nebula has a planet made out of marshmellows there would be nothing that could scientifically disprove that statement, but I would have no logical way of proving it and any sane person could dismiss it off hand. So saying that our counter argument is invalid when you don't even have a logical argument in the first place is a bit pompus.
The oddest thing is (and why I find that semi offensive) is I do actually believe in God. Simply because I study genetics and the like does not inherently make me an atheist. I happen to believe in God simply because I want too (and like the idea of a Deity in general). I've also within the past 2-3 years decided that I even like the new Testament and the general ideas that are conveyed by it. It doesn't particularly matter to me what science says about such things, it's a personal choice if you accept that God and Jesus existed or not. Having strong convictions that we evolved (based on what evidence is available) does not mean I'm instantly going to disregard God. Some would tell you that it was simply a mechanism for how God made things in the end (some form of unkown experiment, why God does things in whatever way he has is something nobody can answer).
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Blinded by faith, a lot of Christians will force their principles down your neck. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, what is so weird is that my friends (oddly, I seem to have a lot of Christian friends) never ever try that stuff with me. Perhaps it's because they are afraid I'll nick my gamecube back <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps, scientific evidence would help? This has been talked a lot, especially in the evolution threads. Or maybe a personal visit from God? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Long ago I said such things, but now even with my stronger basis in biology than I've ever had, I see why that idea is so absurd. For God to prove his existence would defy the point in having faith. If God proves his existence then there is no choice really, you know he exists so why would anyway take the choice to or not? It would be like pretending the professor lecturing you doesn't exist (which I'm sure must be a good strategy for some), it doesn't really make a lot of sense. It must surely be up to the person in question to make up their own mind on God and his particular nature.
I've never really been Atheist, I hated God for a while and to some degree I still do. I never really talk about my beliefs though and most people who know me (outside of the internet) don't have a clue what I think. In general however, I just think everyone can make up their own damn mind.
Boggle:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It has been said that nobody sees the same colour (ie, what i see as blue, you may call green) We only call them the same colour because that is what we have been brought up to think. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is relatively absurd from a psychological point of view, because most people DO see things the same colour as everyone else. This is because an object (no matter what it is) happens to emit a particular wavelength of light that is responsible for. Some people can see a slightly different shade, but nearly everyone will agree that A: Sky is blue and B: The grass is green. If you are implying that someone (without a disorder such as colourblindness) will see yellow as purple then that is absurd.
Only two kinds of people will argue the sky isn't blue. People who are colourblind (including myself, I have utter hell when it comes to colour based staining techniques D:) and physicists, who actually know the sky is really violet, just that wavelength is scattered far too much for us to see it, so blue is seen instead. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
No, not at all.
Again, I challenge you to find anyone who says the sky is red.
In addition to this, if that is the case, the whole field of colourmetric based chemistry is REALLY down the shitter.
So it would see your sky grey ( we are just talking about a different colour from blue?)?
No, not at all.
Again, I challenge you to find anyone who says the sky is red.
In addition to this, if that is the case, the whole field of colourmetric based chemistry is REALLY down the shitter. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats my point
They dont say the sky is red because they have been brought up to see that colour and call it blue. There is no-one with normal vision who would say the sky is not blue because that is what they have been taught
No, not at all.
Again, I challenge you to find anyone who says the sky is red.
In addition to this, if that is the case, the whole field of colourmetric based chemistry is REALLY down the shitter. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats my point
They dont say the sky is red because they have been brought up to see that colour and call it blue. There is no-one with normal vision who would say the sky is not blue because that is what they have been taught <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, you can argue the senses are wrong, but you do not get taught something about colour other than your senses are telling you
Insects like bees actually see the UV spectrum, and it turns out flowers are really good at reflecting light in that range so they stand out like a sore thumb to the insect.
Boggle.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They dont say the sky is red because they have been brought up to see that colour and call it blue. There is no-one with normal vision who would say the sky is not blue because that is what they have been taught <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is just daft. What else would they call it? Schmoo? Orangium? We're taught that particular piece of wavelength corresponding to 480nm is green because that is what it is. If you had a picture with 3 colours on it, and showed it to 40 children asking them which colour is 'blue' they would all pick the same colour (unless some were colourblind, probably boys in that case). Even if they had no idea of what any colour was, if you showed them a colour, and asked them to pick the same colour out in a similar experiment, they would all pick that colour.
This is the basis for many basic psychological tests for abnormalities in various things, that in fact we do see similar things (and feel similar things) in many cases. Genetics is usually what decides if we can/cannot determine something. I have difficulty distinguishing shades of blue for example and some reds I can't even see at all, but that is genetics.
That has to do with how the dogs eyes are actually made up, not in their brains if I remember correctly. It actually has to do with the rod/cone system that is responsible for seeing colour in the eye. I found most of that rather boring at the time so dumped it from my memory <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> It's really a biochemistry thing, even though a dogs eyes LOOK similar to ours, they don't behave/aren't similar on a biochemical level.
Anyway, wonder if we were the dog? How would we know other than the grey world? How would we know other than we are currently seeing?
Hopes it explains the point I've been trying to make <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT: Spelling
What do you mean by "interpreted"? Once a signal is received it can only be interpreted according to what it is.
The color vision of the eye is based on receptors called "cones" which send signals to the brain.
<!--QuoteBegin--http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vision.html#Cone_Vision+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vision.html#Cone_Vision)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The three types of cones provide us the basis of color vision. Cones are "tuned" to different portions of the visible spectrum.
red absorbing cones; those that absorb best at the relatively long wavelengths peaking at 565 nm
green absorbing cones with a peak absorption at 535 nm
blue absorbing cones with a peak absorption at 440 nm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So to answer your question, everyone DOES see the same blue color, and as has been stated before, blue is simply a name for part of the spectrum. Color blindness is covered in the quoted page if you want to read up on it.
So far, there have been two main arguments for religion. One is the Pascal's Wager, which states, for those not up one the concept, that since nothing happens if there is no God, but our place in eternity is determined by our belief in him should He exist, we should make efforts to get into a relationship with Him.
The riposte to this argument is, "which religion?"
I fence foil with my local Salle. After a few weeks of fencing, you can usually see the new people making good ripostes, extending their points to the target, but rarely any follow through on them, and use their right-of-way to score a point. That seems to be the attitude here.
The idea of Pascal's Wager is not refuted when countered with the concept of multiple relgions, it is merely put out of sight for a while. If Pascal was rational in making his wager, then it is irrational to refuse to search for God, on the premise that there are many claims on how to get to Him.
First of all, Buddhism does not believe in a God, it believes you are re-incarnated and placed in society somewhere else, based on how you lived your life. Ignoring the suspension of disbelief that we are reincarnated without a being to actually reincarnate us, we can reason out that should Buddhism actually be the correct way to non-existance (paradise) we can effectively wait on it forever, until we have tried out all the other religions. Hinduism is basically the same thing, with reincarnation making Hinduism taking a backseat to other religions.
Then, we have the big 3 monotheists. <b>These three all draw their roots from the bible.</b>
The mere fact that half the world's population draws it's creed, ultimately, from the OT of the bible, and 3/5ths of all those who practice religion, should give it some credibility.
The old testament contains a number of prophecies which point to a specific person as the Christ of God.<a href='http://bbie.org/english/Study07OriginofJesus/0701OTPropheciesOfJesus.html' target='_blank'>Here is a list of a few of them.</a>
Logically, If we can wait to embrace Eastern religion, but belief in one of the monotheistic religions is imperitive, and all three monotheistic religions draw from the Old Testament, which points to Jesus Christ as the savior, which religion seems the most credible, the one we should "cast our bets" on?
Anyway, it's tiem for dinner, then lots and lots of homework.
Also, If anything, all three draw from the Thora <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I introduce the a possibility of a god that would only reward rational thinking and punish those who believe in him based solely on faith. This possibility alone is enough to counter Pascal's Wager.
I <i>think</i> Islam starts to deviate around the time of the Patriarchs, I think they believe that Ishmael was supposed to be one, but it was given to..Isaac I believe. I think then it started a seperation from Judaism starting with Ishmael, and it's kinda worked it's way to where it is today. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please. I'm pretty sure about this, but not 100%.
please, lets not turn this into a topic on evolution, i can see it heading there already. If you have questions, use the many other threads on that topic <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Adam and Eve. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ok commence back on topic.
Not So 'Bright'
Atheists aren't as rational as they think.
BY DINESH D'SOUZA
Sunday, October 12, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT
"We have always had atheists among us," the philosopher Edmund Burke wrote in his "Reflections on the Revolution in France," "but now they have grown turbulent and seditious." It seems that in our own day some prominent atheists are agitating for greater political and social influence. In this connection, leading atheist thinkers have been writing articles declaring that they should no longer be called "atheists." Rather, they want to be called "brights."
Yes, "brights," as in "I am a bright." In a recent article in the New York Times, philosopher Daniel Dennett defined a bright as "a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view." Mr. Dennett added that "we brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter bunny or God." His implication was clear: Brights are the smart people who don't fall for silly superstitions.
Mr. Dennett, like many atheists, is confident that atheists are simply brighter--more rational--than religious believers. Their assumption is: We nonbelievers employ critical reason while the theists rely on blind faith. But Mr. Dennett and his fellow "brights," for all their credentials and learning, have been duped by a fallacy. This may be called the Fallacy of the Enlightenment, and it was first pointed out by the philosopher Immanuel Kant.
The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know, and that limit is reality itself. In this view, widely held by atheists, agnostics and other self-styled rationalists, human beings can continually find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover. The Enlightenment Fallacy holds that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality.
In his "Critique of Pure Reason," Kant showed that this premise is false. In fact, he argued, there is a much greater limit to what human beings can know. The only way that we apprehend reality is through our five senses. But why should we believe, Kant asked, that our five-mode instrument for apprehending reality is sufficient for capturing all of reality? What makes us think that there is no reality that goes beyond, one that simply cannot be apprehended by our five senses?
Kant persuasively noted that there is no reason whatsoever for us to believe that we can know everything that exists. Indeed what we do know, Kant said, we know only through the refracted filter of our experience. Kant argued that we cannot even be sure that our experience of a thing is the same as the thing-in-itself. After all, we see in pretty much the same way that a camera does, and yet who would argue that a picture of a boat is the same thing as a boat?
Kant isn't arguing against the validity of perception or science or reason. He is simply showing their significant limits. These limits cannot be erased by the passage of time or by further investigation and experimentation. Rather, the limits on reason are intrinsic to the kind of beings that humans are, and to the kind of apparatus that we possess for perceiving reality. The implication of Kant's argument is that reality as a whole is, in principle, inaccessible to human beings. Put another way, there is a great deal that human beings simply will never know.
Notice that Kant's argument is entirely secular: It does not employ any religious vocabulary, nor does it rely on any kind of faith. But in showing the limits of reason, Kant's philosophy "opens the door to faith," as the philosopher himself noted.
If Mr. Dennett and the rest of the so-called brights have produced refutations of Kant that have eluded the philosophical community, they should share them with the rest of us. But until then, they should refrain from the ignorant boast that atheism operates on a higher intellectual plane than theism. Rather, as Kant showed, reason must know its limits in order to be truly reasonable. The atheist foolishly presumes that reason is in principle capable of figuring out all that there is, while the theist at least knows that there is a reality greater than, and beyond, that which our senses and our minds can ever apprehend.
Mr. D'Souza, a scholar at the Hoover Institution, is the author, most recently, of "What's So Great About America" (Regnery, 2002).