JW's, Sccientologists, Moonies.. when does a cult become a religion?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

A brain is a tool. Is there a tool that is conscious of itself? Is there a tool that uses itself?

But not just any old tool you'l have to admit. No other tool we know of is so complex, multi-purpose and adaptable. It may suit you point of view to try to diminish that which positively does exist and function in order to ( just for you Snoopy) reify self important notions that have no proof to support them.

You call false what you also claim to have never seen. Does science call theory false without proof? Does justice call someone false without evidence? You are neither scientific, nor just in your judgment.

Since I have never seen, and nobody else has ever been able to prove that they have seen any evidence to the contrary then my claim is indeed scientifically valid. There is no evidence that anyone can present to prove God exists. In that statement one can infer given the huge number of people who proclaim to know God that at least one would be able to prove it. Since none can then the only logical assumption or theory that can be concluded is that God does not exist but many people share a mass hysteria or delusion. So stick that in yer pipe n smoke it.

The rest of what you said is to a suspicious person very slippery. You wont tell me who you are... fine... be Mr secretive.


Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

But not just any old tool you'l have to admit. No other tool we know of is so complex, multi-purpose and adaptable. It may suit you point of view to try to diminish that which positively does exist and function in order to ( just for you Snoopy) reify self important notions that have no proof to support them.

A pen is a complicated tool.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Since I have never seen, and nobody else has ever been able to prove that they have seen any evidence to the contrary then my claim is indeed scientifically valid.

False. If you read every science book you have no proof until you start repeating the experiments. You have figuratively performed a couple of experiments and then denounced science because you still can't see an atom.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

There is no evidence that anyone can present to prove God exists.

False. You and God can provide the evidence that proves to you that God exists.

I think that you reify a misguided notion of 'prove' or 'proof'. It will mislead you in every avenue of life.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You wont tell me who you are... fine... be Mr secretive.

What do you wish to know?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

But not just any old tool you'l have to admit. No other tool we know of is so complex, multi-purpose and adaptable. It may suit you point of view to try to diminish that which positively does exist and function in order to ( just for you Snoopy) reify self important notions that have no proof to support them.

Since I have never seen, and nobody else has ever been able to prove that they have seen any evidence to the contrary then my claim is indeed scientifically valid. There is no evidence that anyone can present to prove God exists. In that statement one can infer given the huge number of people who proclaim to know God that at least one would be able to prove it. Since none can then the only logical assumption or theory that can be concluded is that God does not exist but many people share a mass hysteria or delusion. So stick that in yer pipe n smoke it.

The rest of what you said is to a suspicious person very slippery. You wont tell me who you are... fine... be Mr secretive.


Tao

The evidence of the existence of God is everywhere. And if it isn't God, then it is an extremely intelligent and imaginative intellect. What is so amazing is the sublteness of the signature, the complexity of the design, and absolute, but flexible laws governing the whole of this existence.

Science without faith is lame. Faith without science is blind...

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

A pen is a complicated tool.

perhaps you find a pen is a complicated tool, maybe you are too used to wrenching with bigger tools?

False. If you read every science book you have no proof until you start repeating the experiments. You have figuratively performed a couple of experiments and then denounced science because you still can't see an atom.

False. You and God can provide the evidence that proves to you that God exists.

I think that you reify a misguided notion of 'prove' or 'proof'. It will mislead you in every avenue of life.

poppycock! The assertion I made is infinitely repeatable. Ask a billion people to provide proof God exists you will get a billion people unable to do so. Only one of us is guilty of reification here and its not me.

What do you wish to know?

Just a basic idea of your affiliations and positions within any religious group would be a good thing.

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The evidence of the existence of God is everywhere. And if it isn't God, then it is an extremely intelligent and imaginative intellect. What is so amazing is the sublteness of the signature, the complexity of the design, and absolute, but flexible laws governing the whole of this existence.

Science without faith is lame. Faith without science is blind...

I love the what can seem the almost impossible complexity that makes our universe possible. From the Quantum world, through atomic structure to the great swirling clusters of galaxies what we are able to observe always leaves us with more questions that we struggle to find answers for. But ignorance of facts does not make God real. Confusing wonder, awe and love of the great mystery of creation it is easy to slip into this "there must be a creator" mode of thinking. But in truth there is no evidence for such thinking. Discomfort with the fact we are utterly powerless, impotent inconsequentials adrift a watery lump of rock in the vast expanse of space causes us to demand we are the centre of it all. Galileo was sorely threatened for suggesting we are not, and attitudes have barely shifted from then.
The universe is beautiful. It is wondrous, complicated and even improbable, given our ignorance, but there is no logical support for any "creator" to be found in anything mankind has studied. God only exists in our wishful thinking, self-centrist, ego based cultures because like children needing a teddy bear, we do not like to sleep in the dark alone.

Tao

[Taosaur]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The evidence of the existence of God is everywhere. And if it isn't God, then it is an extremely intelligent and imaginative intellect. What is so amazing is the sublteness of the signature, the complexity of the design, and absolute, but flexible laws governing the whole of this existence.

Science without faith is lame. Faith without science is blind...

It's equally evident to me that phenomena, particularly life on earth, are strictly emergent. Natural structures and systems are so distinct from things designed by intelligences that we hold to two as opposites: the natural and the artificial.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

perhaps you find a pen is a complicated tool, maybe you are too used to wrenching with bigger tools?

If a person is unable to use a small tool, then he is unable to use a big tool.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

poppycock! The assertion I made is infinitely repeatable.

The assertion you made was that it is finite. Dead, capute, au revoir, no longer ticking, hasta la vista. What you have claimed is that death is infinite.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Ask a billion people to provide proof God exists you will get a billion people unable to do so.

Ask a billion people for proof that you had a mother who loved you... you will get a billion people unable to do so.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Only one of us is guilty of reification here and its not me.

What scientist says 'proved' without performing the experiment?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Just a basic idea of your affiliations and positions within any religious group would be a good thing.

I mostly attend mosques and churches. My immediate family attends a Presbyterian church the most. Some extended family considers themselves Catholic and attends there. I did join the Freemasons just to see what it was about. Really though I speak from my personal life and relationships. Every group I have seen I have found a bit of truth, a bit of love, a bit of faith, etc... and a bit of other things.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Taosaur

It's equally evident to me that phenomena, particularly life on earth, are strictly emergent. Natural structures and systems are so distinct from things designed by intelligences that we hold to two as opposites: the natural and the artificial.

Ah, but could it be the "perfect" and the "clumsy"?

as in God's construct is perfect, while man's construct is crude and clumsy? Might go to show the level of intelligence between the two beings...don't you think?

[Taosaur]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Ah, but could it be the "perfect" and the "clumsy"?

as in God's construct is perfect, while man's construct is crude and clumsy? Might go to show the level of intelligence between the two beings...don't you think?

Um...wouldn't humans and all their constructs be *part of* Sky Daddy's construct? And what's so perfect about nature? The sheer variety and complexity belies any kind of design--there are seventeen solutions for any given problem, and not all of them elegant. Most of the species that have lived are extinct. Positing that someone designed it all strikes me as absurd--just as absurd as you likely find the notion that it all arose naturally and organically (funny what words mean, isn't it?)

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Um...wouldn't humans and all their constructs be *part of* Sky Daddy's construct? And what's so perfect about nature? The sheer variety and complexity belies any kind of design--there are seventeen solutions for any given problem, and not all of them elegant. Most of the species that have lived are extinct. Positing that someone designed it all strikes me as absurd--just as absurd as you likely find the notion that it all arose naturally and organically (funny what words mean, isn't it?)

Man is, yes. But is man at par with the parent? I think hardly. "Look at me daddy and what I have done..." comes to mind when comparing man to God. As far as nature, the earth could care less what nature does. It cleans house, scowers the platform and reseeds itself. It is perfect in its design and function. Man is in the way because man thinks nature is wrong. Animals without man's sense of "justice", could care less. They simply adapt.

90 percent of man's problems begin with man. Nature is ahead of the game here. Don't you think?

[Taosaur]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Man is, yes. But is man at par with the parent? I think hardly. "Look at me daddy and what I have done..." comes to mind when comparing man to God. As far as nature, the earth could care less what nature does. It cleans house, scowers the platform and reseeds itself. It is perfect in its design and function. Man is in the way because man thinks nature is wrong. Animals without man's sense of "justice", could care less. They simply adapt.

90 percent of man's problems begin with man. Nature is ahead of the game here. Don't you think?

I think we're slowly coming around to working with natural systems rather than trying to control them, and that's wise, but it's us adapting just like any natural critter. Nature in all its variety is magnificent--personifying it or ascribing it to some source only cheapens it, for me. Feeling awe and gratitude are wonderful, but nature (or more broadly, all of being) doesn't beg explanation; it doesn't need a creator.

What's more, the origins of the Sky Daddy are all too apparent; one's real dad, once worshiped, proves fallible in childhood, so one must find a higher, infallible Sky Daddy to feel safe. From there on, the answer to every problem is, "Sky Daddy knows best." So, we have this notion of God which is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain nature but does fill a psychological gap opened by false belief (Daddy is infallible). What's the simplest explanation?

[China Cat Sunflower]

The simplest explanation is that there is no simple explanation. Gotta hate that!

Chris

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I think we're slowly coming around to working with natural systems rather than trying to control them, and that's wise, but it's us adapting just like any natural critter. Nature in all its variety is magnificent--personifying it or ascribing it to some source only cheapens it, for me. Feeling awe and gratitude are wonderful, but nature (or more broadly, all of being) doesn't beg explanation; it doesn't need a creator.

What's more, the origins of the Sky Daddy are all too apparent; one's real dad, once worshiped, proves fallible in childhood, so one must find a higher, infallible Sky Daddy to feel safe. From there on, the answer to every problem is, "Sky Daddy knows best." So, we have this notion of God which is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain nature but does fill a psychological gap opened by false belief (Daddy is infallible). What's the simplest explanation?

Man will never "adapt" Adjust, yes. But we will bend nature to our will, eventually. That is "our" nature.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If a person is unable to use a small tool, then he is unable to use a big tool.

Well dont fret buddy, you can always buy some viagra.

The assertion you made was that it is finite. Dead, capute, au revoir, no longer ticking, hasta la vista. What you have claimed is that death is infinite.

Ask a billion people for proof that you had a mother who loved you... you will get a billion people unable to do so.

What scientist says 'proved' without performing the experiment?

Again all you are really doing here is playing with words in avoidance of the tenet of what I am saying. But in your final statement the experiment has been my life to date. All I have seen, experienced and debated on is my experiment. I suggest that you wish to demean that in order to prop up what you find in faith because it suggests that your faith is futile. I do not say that out of any malice or need to score a point but because it is my belief given the evidence, or lack of it.

I mostly attend mosques and churches. My immediate family attends a Presbyterian church the most. Some extended family considers themselves Catholic and attends there. I did join the Freemasons just to see what it was about. Really though I speak from my personal life and relationships. Every group I have seen I have found a bit of truth, a bit of love, a bit of faith, etc... and a bit of other things.

Why do i have the feeling that what you do not say here is what I really want to know?

Tao

[Taosaur]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

The simplest explanation is that there is no simple explanation. Gotta hate that!

Chris

True enough, and plenty of people have concepts of deity that don't violate the natural world or their neighbors' peace of mind. It's just whenever I hear the "Just look at it!" argument for Creationism, I like to point out that I'm looking at the same world and drawing quite different, equally evident (if not more so ) conclusions.

For that matter, Quahom and I would probably have pretty similar feelings looking at a spectacular sunset, just Q would be thinking "God made this," and I would be thinking "This just happens."