Christian Adoption

[La_Dolce_Vita]

So you say the religious couple should not be able to foster kids, because they will attempt to brainwash them with silly ideas of love and charity.

I never said that. Besides, what are you saying about love and charity? You think that's all Christianity is?

 

I would much rather see foster kids in a loving home, rather than an extreamist atheist home.

Not sure if you are being a bit of a crank here.

 

I would rather see them in a loving home, which could come from being brought up in a Christian or atheist home.

But wouldn't you have concerns if a couple brought up their children to worship aliens, where the child came to spend their Sunday dedicating their time to such worship more so on other days. Where the parents imposed rules on the child based on the teachings of these (supposedly real) aliens, etc?

Would you not think the parents are abusing their poor child's mind by filling their head with such stuff?

[Evil Goblin]

I would say not. There are just terms used to reflect how our eyes perceive light coming off objects.

But colours do evidence themselves in the world as far as humans are concerned. We perceive colours as existing and often take decisions based on them - yet science tells us that the "reality" is that they do not "really" exist. Colours are part of reality for humans. Similarly, what is believed can, and often does, become a reality for people and determines how they lead their lives, no matter what diligent scientific enquiry may say about the matter. The point is that there are things which evidence themselves to us in the world but do not actually exist in nature itself. Our brains create our reality.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

To put my twopenn'orth in on prayer - it can (but doesn't necessarily) work. The important factor is belief - if you truly believe then you may get a positive outcome. Faith healers have what success they get because the people "cured" believe they will be cured. The success of prayer doesn't come from God but rather than the psychological effects and subsequent actions in the body. So, if you do not truly believe prayer won't do much good.

There is certainly some evidence that people who have a positive mindset when afflicted by disease or have a condition have an improved health or recover faster than others.

If that is what people are praying for then there might be scope to test the utility of a limited (restricted to hopes on one's health) form of prayer. But then of course, if it is all down to positive attitude and hope then prayer is not itself required, i.e. talking to oneself could be replaced by other actions or mentalities.

[Evil Goblin]

[i.e. talking to oneself could be replaced by other actions or mentalities.

Agreed - prayer does not need to be vocalised to be effective. "Your Father in Heaven knows what you need before you ask".

[ScotsAlan]

But, while you probably think of me as a nutter , a fanatic, a bible basher, a sheep following the heard......... so on and so on.....

 

I think you are also a radical. An anti religious extremist even. A person unwilling to accept the beliefs and opinion of others.

Not saying I am always logical, but in respect of this matter, I think you have a poor sense of logic and muddled thinking if you think a recourse to prayer indicates a good reason to believe.

 

I would suppose my political views are politically radical. But when you talk about religion, I am not so sure you can apply the term radical. Maybe extremist is the proper term, but only because most people have some sort of belief in the supernatural.

 

But do you consider yourself to be extreme because you don't believe in vampires, Father Christmas, or Manx Little People, for example?

 

Also, I am unwilling to accept beliefs in the sense of agreeing that they make sense, when they don't. But I can agree that people HAVE such beliefs.

As for accepting others opinions, I presume you mean something else, as I have to recognise someone's elses opinions. I don't have to agree with them though, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

 

...myself and my friends are united in our belief that there is only one God.

But presumably without a good reason to believe this, judging from your answer. You don't need reference books or wikipedia. Just recognise that to think something is true, you need to have something that indicates that this is the case.

 

Sorry, I can't do that split quote thing you do. So, in order ..

 

I never said you were logical. I never said I was logical. Why bring the Vulcans into it?

 

I don't consider myself extreme. Given that the dollar bill has the words "In God we trust", how can I possibly be considered extreme?

 

Are you an anti religious extremist. Well yup. Of course you are. But that's not wrong.

 

But here comes another paradox. Poverty breeds religious extremism. People turn to religion when they have nothing else. Your an Anarchist LDV, should you not be travelling the world, bringing revolution and freedom to oppressed people, to free them from religion? Is Maoism not a psuedo religion?

 

China invaded Tibet, to free the people from religion. Should you not be doing the same? ( not personally of course, but in spirit :-) )

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

But colours do evidence themselves in the world as far as humans are concerned. We perceive colours as existing and often take decisions based on them - yet science tells us that the "reality" is that they do not "really" exist. Colours are part of reality for humans.

They are just a term we put on how we perceive light and the variations have named. It's really a matter of how objects manifest as a result of receiving information from them from light. They do form part of our reality.

Similarly, what is believed can, and often does, become a reality for people

I absolutely accept that.

and determines how they lead their lives

...and unfortunately, that's the case.

no matter what diligent scientific enquiry may say about the matter.

But there are reasons why this is the case. Why people are so religious.

 

The point is that there are things which evidence themselves to us in the world but do not actually exist in nature itself. Our brains create our reality.

Our brains do create our reality. But you're on poor grounding when you make an analogy with colour.

Colour evidences itself, as a contrast in how we perceived different objects. And of this shared recognition of colour, we know colour to be a product of light hitting the surface of whatever material it comes into contact with. We can run tests that show that colours (we perceive) can be created and recognise that it is a product of manifesting physical things that exist in the world outside our mind.

Religious/supernatural belief does not have this. They are the result of concept that have been formed about how to interpret the same information. In constrast to colour which refers to light, they is no evidence behind such supernatural interpretations. Nothing to back-up the claims.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I never said you were logical. I never said I was logical. Why bring the Vulcans into it?

Watch some Star Trek and you'll work out why.

 

I don't consider myself extreme. Given that the dollar bill has the words "In God we trust", how can I possibly be considered extreme?

It's not about extremes. It's about atheists simply being in a minority. That's all there is to it. I am questioning how you use the term. Because simply because belief in Gods is a majority 'position', the issue isn't about extremem and middle-grounds. Just one of number.

 

But here comes another paradox. Poverty breeds religious extremism. People turn to religion when they have nothing else. Your an Anarchist LDV, should you not be travelling the world, bringing revolution and freedom to oppressed people, to free them from religion?

Should I? I don't call myself an anarchist, but where do you get this idea from?

Is Maoism not a psuedo religion?

Could be said to be the case. What's Maoism got to do with anything?

 

China invaded Tibet, to free the people from religion. Should you not be doing the same? ( not personally of course, but in spirit :-) )

That's not a serious question, really? You are talking about a communist government invading a neighbouring region and you think it is about religion? And you think I am a Maoist? Weird.

[ScotsAlan]

Yup very weird. I mention the Vulcans, in the context of their extreme logical thinking..... and you advise me to watch Startrek.........

 

 

Erm, yup. your logic is.... well... not logical :-)

 

So your not Maoist LDV?

[ScotsAlan]

To put my twopenn'orth in on prayer - it can (but doesn't necessarily) work. The important factor is belief - if you truly believe then you may get a positive outcome. Faith healers have what success they get because the people "cured" believe they will be cured. The success of prayer doesn't come from God but rather than the psychological effects and subsequent actions in the body. So, if you do not truly believe prayer won't do much good.

 

I agree EG

 

If we have no belief, then why are we here? Why are we given this power of reasoning, why are we given this ability to love?

 

If you had a child or partner with a terminal illness, why would we pray for them to be spared and us taken instead?

 

Logic would say the strong survive. But our hearts say otherwise.

 

Maybe, to pray wholeheartedly, for yourself to be taken instead of a loved one is the ultimate self sacrifice.But unfortunately, those prayers are seldom answered.

 

Edit to add, very very very seldom..

[Evil Goblin]

They are just a term we put on how we perceive light and the variations have named. It's really a matter of how objects manifest as a result of receiving information from them from light. They do form part of our reality.

LDV - the point I was making was that what we perceive about the world is not necessarily what "really" exists. Colour is a good example of this. In fact, due to the limitations of our perceptive systems there are many aspects of the physical universe that we cannot directly see, but which we have learned to "see" or infer via interactions between things with the effects being converted into some form capable of registering with our perceptive systems. As I have previously indicated, "reality" is a nebulous concept. For example, we might say that a photon is a physical particle, but what exactly IS a photon? To merely say it is an oscillating electromagnetic field or to describe its' interactions with other particles doesn't answer the question as to what it really is.

 

 

And of this shared recognition of colour, we know colour to be a product of light hitting the surface of whatever material it comes into contact with. We can run tests that show that colours (we perceive) can be created and recognise that it is a product of manifesting physical things that exist in the world outside our mind.

But at one time we didn't know enough to realise this -we believed that colour existed - full stop- and in everyday life we still think this way. Who is to say what further research and investigation may reveal to us about our Universe? It is wise to not be too sure we know everything and reach categoric conclusions based on that belief.

 

Religious/supernatural belief does not have this. They are the result of concept that have been formed about how to interpret the same information. In constrast to colour which refers to light, they is no evidence behind such supernatural interpretations. Nothing to back-up the claims.

Bear in mind that, using perception of light as an example, we do not know if we interpret colours the same way. For all I know, what I see and refer to as Red is what you agree is Red but where you are actually seeing a colour which I would call Green. We do not necessarily perceive/interpret the same things in the same way. As to evidence, bear in mind what I have said above about our level of ignorance at any given time.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV - the point I was making was that what we perceive about the world is not necessarily what "really" exists. Colour is a good example of this. In fact, due to the limitations of our perceptive systems there are many aspects of the physical universe that we cannot directly see, but which we have learned to "see" or infer via interactions between things with the effects being converted into some form capable of registering with our perceptive systems. As I have previously indicated, "reality" is a nebulous concept. For example, we might say that a photon is a physical particle, but what exactly IS a photon? To merely say it is an oscillating electromagnetic field or to describe its' interactions with other particles doesn't answer the question as to what it really is.

But the term 'existence' has only useful meaning in referring to those things that manifest in what we call reality and such things define that reality.

There is no 'what REALLY exists', except for what does manifest but which we have not discovered or not determined.

 

In regard to photons, certainly, we might discover new properties of photons or come to understand them in a different way in view of a new framework of understanding.

But when you say, "what exactly IS a photon?", I could ask what exactly is a chair or a dog or even you. But ultimately we have just ascribed names to things based on how they manifest in what we term reality.

 

 

But at one time we didn't know enough to realise this -we believed that colour existed - full stop- and in everyday life we still think this way. Who is to say what further research and investigation may reveal to us about our Universe? It is wise to not be too sure we know everything and reach categoric conclusions based on that belief.

And for the purposes of talking about colour, we do discuss it as a something that manifests, as in a sense it does in our reality, although you and I know it to be a perception of light.

There may be a fundamental reassessment of our reality based on some new information, who knows.

 

Bear in mind that, using perception of light as an example, we do not know if we interpret colours the same way. For all I know, what I see and refer to as Red is what you agree is Red but where you are actually seeing a colour which I would call Green. We do not necessarily perceive/interpret the same things in the same way. As to evidence, bear in mind what I have said above about our level of ignorance at any given time.

We don't all interpret colour the same way. Some people are colour blind. And we can tell that animals and insects have different abilities to visualise colour.

 

In any case, what point do you wish to make. I apologise if it comes across as rude, I don't mean to be, but I don't see the relevance in relation to theist claims.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If we have no belief, then why are we here?

How do you think you have come to believe in a God?

Why are we given this power of reasoning

Why do you presume it has been given to you?

why are we given this ability to love?

Same question, and love is just an emotional response.

If you had a child or partner with a terminal illness, why would we pray for them to be spared and us taken instead?

You wouldn't see much point if you didn't believe in a God.

Logic would say the strong survive. But our hearts say otherwise.

What? What has that got to do with anything either way?

 

You say you believe, but believe in what? What is this God you believe in? Can you describe him/it?

[Chinahand]

I don't know what to make of the current back and forth.

 

ScotsAlan, firstly greetings, I don't think we've cross posted before. I am afraid I'm not particularly convinced of your arguments about all faiths believing in an underlying God and how this belief gives the idea some legitimacy.

 

My own feeling is that there are huge areas we simply don't understand, and when faced with that we should accept our ignorance and try to make do the best way we can. Science, slowly, patiently tries to see if it can illuminate this darkness, but is silent where evidence and conjecture cannot produce ideas to be tested.

 

When faced with the unknown a good scientist will say I don't know, but religions attempt to fill that void. You basically seem to be saying that what fills the void is God. Well I don't think that is particularly helpful or useful.

 

People may attempt to call what they are filling the void with God (and even that is very debateable with Buddhists, Daoists, and even Hindus) but the fact remains these are humans attempting to mask our ignorance with a word and attempting to gain legitimacy from the power of that word. But when you look at the claims all these people make about their God(s) what you find is very little commanality of belief or consistency.

 

Saying all of it is God is as meaningless as saying none of it is God. And the question neither you or Evil Goblin are answering is HOW you know any of these claims are right.

 

I feel man has constructed this concept of God or Gods and that the interpretations of what it is and what it does are so diverse as to be meaningless. There is simply no agreement and no basis to justify one persons theology over anothers. And as a result all the faithful are left with is tradition and blind faith to justify their beliefs.

 

What is God, how does it, if at all, manefest itself in our world, how are we connected to it?

 

These questions are simply unanswerable with evidence - and the Imans, Priests, Rabbis, and theologians cannot justify their claims with anything other than blind, evidence-less faith. It seems clear to me, that as there is no evidence then the claims of religion have to be man made, and cannot fill the void of our ignorance. That void is so huge, and so all encompassing, I find the imaginings of our religions fatally lacking. They truly show their primative origins in their human centred, death fearing, afterlife dominated, judgemental attitudes.

 

Do you rally think these myths tell us anything about the world? Other than our fears, our attitudes, our ignorance and our desire to fill it with something we understand. What a paultry vision to fill up the unending realms of time and space science has shown us exists.

 

You seem to think that "sometimes" prayer works - please justify this - how do you know this - beyond random chance?

 

We've had a bit of a to and fro about the definition of athiest and agnostic. I don't think they are mutally exclusive - the evidence for the existence of XXX is insufficent for me to take it seriously - I therefore do not take it into account in the way I live my life. XXX can be the Loch Ness monster, ghosts, angels, Dinosaurs still existing in Congolese jungles and God!

 

Most people admit such views are contingent and can change - they can't with absolute certainty say their views are correct. Saying you disbelieve in something is not the same as saying you are certain it does not exist - this is where agnosticism and atheism are perfectly happy fellow travellers.

 

We are ignorant - we do not know. When the religious go - how can an atheist be so arrogant as to insist the religous are wrong, I simply ask on what basis should I believe you - demanding people must believe on blind faith is a far greater arrogance than finding youself unconvinced and hence unable to believe.

 

Colours are a human construction - something we lay onto a physical world to help us make sense of it.

 

That construct can be deeply flawed and can sometimes have very little to do with the frequency of the light the eye is recieving. [the brown and "orange" squares are really the exact same colour of brown as is apparant when the rest of the image is tuned down]

 

 

That for me is a perfect analogy for theology - man's limited attempts to fill the void based on OUR understanding. Any insights these give come from us and not from a voice from the void - it would be wonderful if there was such a voice, but in my view nothing can be heard which is distingishable from the echoes of our shouting for answers.

 

Again I ask - how do religions know what they claim.

[ScotsAlan]

Ok. I have absolutely no problem with being beaten in this arguement. Because the simple fact is, it is much easier to prove God does not exist, rather than prove he does.

 

But, it's not so long ago that people were trying to find a "cure" for being gay. Not a good example I know, because it was mainly religion that was leading the quest to find the "cure" .....erm :-{

 

Most people these days accept some people are Gay and other people are not. Why can we not do the same with religion?

 

Mainstream thought these days, does not require gay folk to give a scientific reason for being gay. It is just accepted (quite right too ). But in our local society, us God believers have to somehow find proof to justify our beliefs.

 

I know this is a really bad example to use, but hey, it's an example.

 

Back on thread... I think it is wrong to deny people the chance to be foster parents because they are Gay. A person's sexuality has nothing to do with their ability to give a child a loving home. So why should people who believe in God be treated different? Why do we need to prove to society that God exists.

[Evil Goblin]

But the term 'existence' has only useful meaning in referring to those things that manifest in what we call reality and such things define that reality.

There is no 'what REALLY exists', except for what does manifest but which we have not discovered or not determined.

You seem to be adopting an operational definition that reality is that which manifests itself to us, irrespective of what science may tell us of an underlying reality. So, the fact that colour does not exist in the physical world is irrelevant - it manifests itself to us in our minds so it exists. This is pretty much saying that because we perceive colour we believe it exists (when it only exists inside our heads). On the same basis, if someone believes God exists and sees evidence of that in what they perceive, then He exists because they perceive him to exist - He is just as real to them as are colours - and they will live their lives accordingly.

 

In regard to photons, certainly, we might discover new properties of photons or come to understand them in a different way in view of a new framework of understanding.

But when you say, "what exactly IS a photon?", I could ask what exactly is a chair or a dog or even you. But ultimately we have just ascribed names to things based on how they manifest in what we term reality.

Not quite the same thing, LDV. A chair can be described as a particlular construct of physical items, a dog as something which meets a particular set of criteria. But, as far as we can tell, a photon is an elementary particle/wave with no internal constituents. I happen to agree that we will only ever understand what a photon is by means of a particular framework of understanding. Personally, I suspect that if we ever really understand a photon we will understand the construction of the Universe at it's most basic level.

 

We don't all interpret colour the same way. Some people are colour blind. And we can tell that animals and insects have different abilities to visualise colour.

Exactly. We can all interpret "reality" in different ways. The Theist will interpret it one way, the Atheist another.

 

In any case, what point do you wish to make. I apologise if it comes across as rude, I don't mean to be, but I don't see the relevance in relation to theist claims.

I think I've made my point above - no matter what an underlying reality may be we all have a reality based on what we believe about the World. Seeing is believing. Thus the Theist can see evidence for God where the Atheist cannot.