Christian Adoption

[Evil Goblin]

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.

On the basis that religions, one way or another, exist to provide Man with a framework for living and helping make sense of his environment, religions have generally served a useful purpose. This is not to say that they have not also been responsible for some horrendous things as well. As knowledge grows, so religious beliefs will change, although they may be slow to do so as people are often very reluctant to revise deeply held beliefs.

 

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.

I agree.

 

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.

I agree with this also.

 

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

As I said to LDV, if you believe then He will manifest himself to you in the World. If you don't, He won't.

 

I find the imaginings of our religions fatally lacking.

It depends on what you think religion is for - if you think it can explain the physical universe then it is sadly lacking. But if it helps Man in creating a framework for organising his life and his relationships with others, given his then current level of ignorance, it can serve a very useful purpose.

 

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

Prayer sometimes works because of you really believe then the process of prayer seems to be able to set in motion as yet not understood physical and psychological events. We don't know enough about these yet to be able to say whether prayer is any more efficacious than random chance.

 

man's limited attempts to fill the void based on OUR understanding.

What other sort of understanding can we, as human beings, possibly have?

 

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

By and large, faith.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am not saying that reality is what manifests irrespective of science. Not at all. When I referring to what 'REALLY exists', I was trying to understand what you meant by the term.

 

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.

Again, I am trying to understand what particular way you are looking at this subject when you refer to what something really is. If you want to dispense with chair analogy, we can talk about proton, quarks, leptons, etc.

 

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

But it isn't the same as colour though, the vast majority of a species will see colour in a very specific and particular way as a result of their biology. The vast majority of humans will be able to recognise reds and blues. And we can determine, through science, that those who cannot have a biological reason for their inability to see in the same way.

More importantly, however, through science we can determine how light works and why we see colour.

 

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.

But the difference is that theists are filling in the gaps when they have evidence behind their claims.

With colour, there is something that manifests to us and which we can test to determine why it manifests to us: due to our biology and the effect of light.

 

Theist beliefs are idea and concepts that give rise to a difference understanding. It's an explanation without anything to 'back it up'. A theist makes a claim about there being an intelligence but nothing is given as evidence to give weight to such a claim.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

On the basis that religions, one way or another, exist to provide Man with a framework for living and helping make sense of his environment, religions have generally served a useful purpose. This is not to say that they have not also been responsible for some horrendous things as well. As knowledge grows, so religious beliefs will change, although they may be slow to do so as people are often very reluctant to revise deeply held beliefs.

I personally think you are leaning too much on an explanation for religion that relates to people finding them useful, rather than recognising the processes by which such ideas proliferate.

 

It seems as if you are saying that religion is largely a result of a process by which humans try and understand their world, yet the issue of indoctrination of children and 'peer pressure' has to be taken into account.

Were there not to be this brainwashing of the vulnerable, I do think far fewer people would believe. Religious beliefs as seen with Christianity and Islam are specific concepts that are passed on or learned - most certainly not pragmatic and rational responses to understanding the world.

 

It depends on what you think religion is for - if you think it can explain the physical universe then it is sadly lacking. But if it helps Man in creating a framework for organising his life and his relationships with others, given his then current level of ignorance, it can serve a very useful purpose.

I disagree with this, because is no indication that the consequences of having a religion can not be attained through non-belief.

Can other ways of thinking be developed to help organise life and relationship? And ways that do not rely on filling in the gaps of our ignorance?

 

By and large, faith.

Which, of course, simply means a guess.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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.

Don't understand what you mean.

 

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

How would you feel if you woke up tomorrow to find everyone than you started believing in the Hindu Gods, for no good reason? Wouldn't you find it pretty disturbing that people were convinced that these Gods existed and had instuction for them in terms of how they should live their life, but they have no good reason for believing in any of it?

 

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

Erm...beliefs are not the same as an identity based on one's sexuality. As with any other belief, people have a justification and evidence to back up their beliefs.

 

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.

Maybe you don't have to prove it, but just provide some evidence for why they are true.

[Evil Goblin]

I was trying to understand what you meant by the term.

I do not BELIEVE in any particular reality, rather I have understandings of reality and the nature of the understanding depends on context. For example, I understand from science that the overwhelming volume within an atom is empty space and that the apparent solidity of physical objects is solely due to the effects of electromagnetic forces. However, in everyday life I have a conventional view of things - if an object appears solid then I accept it is solid and proceed accordingly.

 

Again, I am trying to understand what particular way you are looking at this subject when you refer to what something really is. If you want to dispense with chair analogy, we can talk about proton, quarks, leptons, etc.

I do not know what a quark or a lepton actually is - possibly all we can ever know about it will be in terms of how we observe it to interact with other things and what we can know is limited by the nature of our minds and sensory apparatus.

 

But it isn't the same as colour though, the vast majority of a species will see colour in a very specific and particular way as a result of their biology. The vast majority of humans will be able to recognise reds and blues. And we can determine, through science, that those who cannot have a biological reason for their inability to see in the same way.

But the principle is just the same - what we perceive and base our everyday lives on is not necessarily the same as what we know from science is actually the case.

 

More importantly, however, through science we can determine how light works and why we see colour.

But what we can explain by means of science is a forever increasing - at any particular time there is a level of ignorance. At any given time people make assumptions about the world based on their perceptions and beliefs about it, not on what detailed scientific enquiry may say about it. These (scientifically unfounded) assumptions are often necessary if we are to make pragmatic decisions about our lives - in our lives what is true is what works for us.

 

But the difference is that theists are filling in the gaps when they have evidence behind their claims.

With colour, there is something that manifests to us and which we can test to determine why it manifests to us: due to our biology and the effect of light.

There is room for argument - perhaps all we are doing with science is filling in the gaps in a different and more internally consistent way?

 

Theist beliefs are idea and concepts that give rise to a difference understanding. It's an explanation without anything to 'back it up'. A theist makes a claim about there being an intelligence but nothing is given as evidence to give weight to such a claim.

It is worth pondering the fact that science often proceeds on the basis of a hypothesis with no evidence to support it, followed by investigation and, if the hypothesis leads to a succesful way of describing some aspects of the world, the hypothesis becomes a theory. The postulate that there is a God may be a hypothesis where the relevant evidence has not yet been discovered, hence the proposition that agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But the principle is just the same - what we perceive and base our everyday lives on is not necessarily the same as what we know from science is actually the case.

I agree in respect of perception and agree somewhat in respect of what we base our lives on.

We do not need to have awareness of scientific knowledge of reality when making many decisions and interacting with things.

Some decisions and understanding have to come from scientific knowledge, however.

 

But what we can explain by means of science is a forever increasing - at any particular time there is a level of ignorance. At any given time people make assumptions about the world based on their perceptions and beliefs about it, not on what detailed scientific enquiry may say about it. These (scientifically unfounded) assumptions are often necessary if we are to make pragmatic decisions about our lives - in our lives what is true is what works for us.

Not quite sure what you mean by assumptions in connection with what you were saying before about colour.

 

I agree, at any time people are making many decisions and interacting with the manifesting world without any need for scientific enquiry or knowledge. You don't need to know about atoms to know that a mug can rest of a table, mantlepiece, etc. Nor do we need to know about why we can distinguish colours.

 

But it is foolish for people to make assumptions and then form beliefs (about what is true or not) on the basis of not knowing. And people tend not to do so, except when it comes religious claims.

 

There is room for argument - perhaps all we are doing with science is filling in the gaps in a different and more internally consistent way?

Yes, science is filling in the gaps in our knowledge. But religion does this without any evidence to support the claims. What is filling the gaps is therefore no better than a guess.

 

It is worth pondering the fact that science often proceeds on the basis of a hypothesis with no evidence to support it, followed by investigation and, if the hypothesis leads to a succesful way of describing some aspects of the world, the hypothesis becomes a theory. The postulate that there is a God may be a hypothesis where the relevant evidence has not yet been discovered, hence the proposition that agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take.

 

Are we going round in circles again. I am an agnostic atheist in respect of general theist claims. I do not take it as true that Gods exists (I reserve judgement) but I do not know that any Gods exist. (Though quite certain the Christian God is bogus).

On the basis of not knowing, the term agnosticism is of limited use to the discussion. It is the position on belief on that is important.

I still think you're treating agnosticism as some halfway position between atheism and theism or you may think atheism is stating that Gods do NOT exists.

 

But in terms of your hypothesis, there is no good reason to believe theist claims.

 

Although we have discussed reality and perception, what we have not discussed are theist claims in respect of explanations of how God manifests and the definitions of the God. I mean, you make the claim that your God has an intelligence and you have explained that such a belief is like a comfort blanket when you don't know but need some answer - but what makes you think it is intelligent? And what about Christian claims that their God is loving, intervenes with events and lives in the world, etc.

[ScotsAlan]

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?

 

 

Scientifically, or statistically at least, there is more evidence of the existence of aliens than there is of the existence of God.

 

So why should I worry myself about other people believing in what science pretty much says is true? If someone chooses to worship aliens..... hey, they are probably right..

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Sorry, but you have very strange thinking processes regarding this subject.

 

The issue is about evidence. When there is none or it is lacking there is no good reason to believe something is the true or false. That goes for aliens, of which there is no evidence of their existence.

[ScotsAlan]

 

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.

Maybe you don't have to prove it, but just provide some evidence for why they are true.

 

Don't have to prove it.....but need to provide evidence......??????

 

ok. The evidence I present is the amount of people around the world who have faith.

 

So, yes, much of it is indoctrinated faith. But, much of it is a genuine heart felt faith.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Erm...all faith means is that you believe something without evidence.

 

So if billions have beliefs that are based on no evidence whatsoever, because they are faith based beliefs, you think the sheer number of them is evidence of the existence of all-powerful beings?

 

It doesn't matter if its indoctrinated or whether people have come to it on their own.

 

Don't have to prove it.....but need to provide evidence......??????

You don't have to demonstrate that something must exist. Just provide evidence that supports your claim for why you think he does.

 

But I don't even know what God you're talking about. Do you believe in the all-powerful and all-knowing creator type?

[ScotsAlan]

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?

 

 

 

Yup. That is what I am saying.

 

And it does not just apply to Christianity.

 

Love and charity are the two basic building blocks of a good society.

 

Can anyone suggest a better philosophy?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think most Christians would disagree with you entirely if you thought Christianity was just about charity and love. I think they might mention Jesus for starters.

Besides, if love and charity is what you think is all that is needed then you don't religion.

[ScotsAlan]

Sorry, but you have very strange thinking processes regarding this subject.

 

The issue is about evidence. When there is none or it is lacking there is no good reason to believe something is the true or false. That goes for aliens, of which there is no evidence of their existence.

 

 

Nop. The universe is infinite. It's really really really big.

 

Aliens do exist.... But our closest neighbours may be a few million light years away.

 

The evidence is in the statistics of how big infinity is.....

 

So you say there is no aliens.....Evidence please ?

 

:-)

 

Edited for spelling

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You are just talking nonsense now. Nobody knows if the universe is infinite. And there are no goods statistics that indicate that aliens will exist. And I never said they do not exist, only that there is no evidence for me to think that they do.

[ScotsAlan]

[

It is worth pondering the fact that science often proceeds on the basis of a hypothesis with no evidence to support it, followed by investigation and, if the hypothesis leads to a succesful way of describing some aspects of the world, the hypothesis becomes a theory. The postulate that there is a God may be a hypothesis where the relevant evidence has not yet been discovered, hence the proposition that agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take.

 

I think this is the best statement of the entire thread.

 

But instead of "agnosticisim", I would substitute "free will". Then it would be a perfect statement I think.