110 replies to this topic

[Reflectionist]

Miller-Urey:

Yes, it's true they didn't know what prions were back then. My paraphrase was expressed with the much more articulate modern vocabulary than the older, more period-correct language. It's about like expressing volumetric geometry of curves with the language of integral calculus: if you share the language, it is MUCH faster and more efficient to do things this way. On that note, if they ever DID make prions in a similar experiment, it would be immediately called a self-replicating molecule. Oh, sure, it needs a virtually identical protein to re-fold, but that's beside the point. We've had so-called "self-replicating molecules" come from a variation of PCR in a genetic base soup.

This also brings up an interesting point: we're talking about an experiment 50 YEARS OLD. Why is the furthest we've gotten in 50 years pre-engineered molecules in alphabet soup?

Also, I didn't take all my information from the creationist page Wolf mentioned. I knew before-hand that about 80% +- of the experiment's results were a pseudo-proteinacious low-density plastic/tar. I searched repeatedly for more info...but only found genetic bases. When I found the said creationist page that DID mention this, I copied their name for the substance assuming that if they were willing to write a 4000 word essay with visuals, they cared enough to spell things right.

Regardless, the idea that whatever you call it could do basic UV photosynthesis is ridiculous. The environment is already intensely reduced. Any life processes would have involved oxidizing things to provide energy to make a basic metabolism, not further reducing already highly-reduced chemicals...which effectively shuffles electrons up pointlessly. We're looking to process energy that's already there, not make more energy when there's still no metabolism to use it.


Radiometric Dating:

I'm glad Wolf brought up Radio-carbon dating and calibration-curves. Radio-Carbon dating is the one and ONLY dating method we can verify to be inaccurate. Moreso, we've known this for THIRTY YEARS. You hear this? I thought not.

One of the early attempts to calibrate carbon-dating was to match it to tree anual rings of known ages. The result was that even though carbon dating OFFICIALLY can date things up to 60,000 years old (in theory) the tree-rings showed that it is only truly accurate for up to 12,000. (The 12,000 years is from memory, not the cited abstract.)

Source

Attempts to produce a calibration curve for the radiocarbon timescale by analysis of known age materials have highlighted the inaccuracies of conventional radiocarbon dating methods. The resulting ambiguities have caused a loss of confidence in radiocarbon dating particularly among European pre-historians.

If memory serves, the problem is insoluble. Meaning that one of the assumptions of Radio-Carbon-dating is a constant input of C-14 into the environment and that apparently, 12,000 years ago, that rate changed, so you wind up with multiple dates from one sample when you try to calibrate it to the shift. Even if you could calibrate it, the computation to do the calibration would erase any evidence of another C-14 rate-shift and you just wind up with bad numbers with no way to possibly re-calibrate them.

Don't quote me on that. That's from memory.

Chances are, other dating methods have similar problems. In fact, I'm rather certain that C-14 dating was used to calibrate other dating methods....

iaradrunk'

Edited by Reflectionist, 16 July 2009 - 11:07 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Miller-Urey:

Yes, it's true they didn't know what prions were back then. My paraphrase was expressed with the much more articulate modern vocabulary than the older, more period-correct language. It's about like expressing volumetric geometry of curves with the language of integral calculus: if you share the language, it is MUCH faster and more efficient to do things this way. On that note, if they ever DID make prions in a similar experiment, it would be immediately called a self-replicating molecule. Oh, sure, it needs a virtually identical protein to re-fold, but that's beside the point. We've had so-called "self-replicating molecules" come from a variation of PCR in a genetic base soup.

Well, if I remember the courses I did correctly I think there's something wrong with what you've just said. A prion is a very specific form of protein. I highly doubt that Miller-Urey's experiment was designed to find prion proteins. Prion proteins have a very specific alpha-helical structure (unlike the infectious form, which has a normally beta-sheet structure) and are about 200 odd amino acids long. Seeing as Miller-Urey must have known this and must have known that anything they created was a simple structure, they couldn't possibly have created an experiment to look for prion proteins. So I'm going to have to ask you to back up your comments by providing a source for this little tidbit that you mentioned in a previous post.

I'm going to come back to the rest of your post regarding Miller-Urey in a later post because I've just realised I may have taken the wrong tack in my previous argument. I should have focused less on the melanoids and more on the fact that Jeffrey Bada found far more amino acids of a far more reactive nature than was originally thought. Care to explain that away?

Radiometric Dating:

I'm glad Wolf brought up Radio-carbon dating and calibration-curves. Radio-Carbon dating is the one and ONLY dating method we can verify to be inaccurate. Moreso, we've known this for THIRTY YEARS. You hear this? I thought not.

One of the early attempts to calibrate carbon-dating was to match it to tree anual rings of known ages. The result was that even though carbon dating OFFICIALLY can date things up to 60,000 years old (in theory) the tree-rings showed that it is only truly accurate for up to 12,000. (The 12,000 years is from memory, not the cited abstract.)

Source

Attempts to produce a calibration curve for the radiocarbon timescale by analysis of known age materials have highlighted the inaccuracies of conventional radiocarbon dating methods. The resulting ambiguities have caused a loss of confidence in radiocarbon dating particularly among European pre-historians.

Yeah, except the rest of the abstract says:

We describe here an absolute radiometric dating technique involving the investigation of all probable sources of error. Accurate measurements were made with an overall precision of less than 25 yr standard deviation, on a floating North of Ireland tree-ring chronology.

That doesn't exactly make the problem sound insoluble. This is a 1977 research paper and it states they found a more accurate method in the same abstract you quoted. Granted, they have a standard deviation of 25 years, which means the younger the object is, the more out of whack their measurements are. However, the older the object is, the more accurate their measurements as a 25 year SD does not affect dates of thousands of years too much. Also, I'd like to point out that this was a 1977 research paper.

I really think it's time to bring out a website I found.

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

In fact, let me quote from the page:

6. Decay rates can be affected by the physical surroundings.

This is not true in the context of dating rocks. Radioactive atoms used for dating have been subjected to extremes of heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and strong chemical reactions far beyond anything experienced by rocks, without any significant change. The only exceptions, which are not relevant to dating rocks, are discussed under the section, "Doubters Still Try", above.

You may have noticed that the quality of my arguments has decreased as of late. Perhaps I should leave off trying to argue against you using facts, as the research is starting to kill me.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 18 July 2009 - 07:43 AM.

[Arturo]

I didn't want to answer the first question on Miller's experiment, because I sincerely hate PubMed (because it hates me) and I don't want to cite Wikipedia... But I want to add a few things to what Wolf said.

To Egann.

First: prions are nothing like self-replicating molecules. There's no similarity between a protein and a self-replicating molecule, no-one considers prions to be self-replicating, please shut up.

Second: it's IMPOSSIBLE that they were looking for self-replicating proteins because the notion of their existence goes against the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology.

Third: Miller's experiment was just the first successful (and famous) experiment on abiogenesis, not the only.

Fourth: RNA has been synthesized, although with low efficiency, (nearly) autoreplicative RNA has been synthesized as well.

Fifth: Your arguments prove you know much less philosophy than you think you know.

Edited by Arturo, 17 July 2009 - 04:37 PM.

[Poore]

@Everyone:

Ignore how, and ask 'why'?

It is a question science cannot answer. Either admit that free will and your own opinions are merely a chemically-induced illusion, or admit their are elements of your klife that cannot be evaluated and explained via the scientific method. Otherwise, you're fooling youselves.

[Arturo]

Our opinions are chemical reactions. But that has very little to do with free will...

Edited by Arturo, 20 July 2009 - 03:49 AM.

[SOAP]

@Everyone:

Ignore how, and ask 'why'?

It is a question science cannot answer. Either admit that free will and your own opinions are merely a chemically-induced illusion, or admit their are elements of your klife that cannot be evaluated and explained via the scientific method. Otherwise, you're fooling yourselves.

Like Arturo said, opinions are chemically based, but I'd hardly call that an illusion. I mean you tell some idiot to stand in a street and if photon bouncing off an large fast-moving object into their retinas, which sends a chemical response to their brain telling them there's a truck heading their way, you can tell them "Nah, that's just an illusion" but they can stand they and believe that truck is an illusion all they want, they're still getting hit by that truck if they don't move out of the way. There's no practical reason to start questioning reality itself just because some parts of our lives cannot be empirically evaluated. Even if there's a ton that we don't know (yet) we know enough about how the brain works to know we can trust our senses and our own thoughts. We wouldn't be fit to survive as a species if we couldn't.

Saying all thoughts are chemically induced actually goes against the argument for God's existence because we know the chemicals and biological processes involved in things such as love, creation, morality, altruism, ect. While these things are powerful and amazing, they're hardly supernatural. They're natural and explainable but if people rather give supernatural meaning to something and call it "God" then that's their choice. The chemicals processes involved in that are explainable as well and mostly have to do with your mind only willing to accept the reality you were raised in. I could turn that question back at you. Maybe science is right and religion is wrong but the the way your brain is wired won't allow you to accept what it has to offer even though you use the fruits of scientific endeavors in your everyday life.

Edited by SOAP, 20 July 2009 - 04:39 AM.

[Poore]

@Everyone:

Ignore how, and ask 'why'?

It is a question science cannot answer. Either admit that free will and your own opinions are merely a chemically-induced illusion, or admit their are elements of your klife that cannot be evaluated and explained via the scientific method. Otherwise, you're fooling yourselves.

Like Arturo said, opinions are chemically based, but I'd hardly call that an illusion. I mean you tell some idiot to stand in a street and if photon bouncing off an large fast-moving object into their retinas, which sends a chemical response to their brain telling them there's a truck heading their way, you can tell them "Nah, that's just an illusion" but they can stand they and believe that truck is an illusion all they want, they're still getting hit by that truck if they don't move out of the way. There's no practical reason to start questioning reality itself just because some parts of our lives cannot be empirically evaluated. Even if there's a ton that we don't know (yet) we know enough about how the brain works to know we can trust our senses and our own thoughts. We wouldn't be fit to survive as a species if we couldn't.

Saying all thoughts are chemically induced actually goes against the argument for God's existence because we know the chemicals and biological processes involved in things such as love, creation, morality, altruism, ect. While these things are powerful and amazing, they're hardly supernatural. They're natural and explainable but if people rather give supernatural meaning to something and call it "God" then that's their choice. The chemicals processes involved in that are explainable as well and mostly have to do with your mind only willing to accept the reality you were raised in. I could turn that question back at you. Maybe science is right and religion is wrong but the the way your brain is wired won't allow you to accept what it has to offer even though you use the fruits of scientific endeavors in your everyday life.

...and until you can empirically show that, it isn't science. I'm not arguing that science is not useful, beneficial, and a wonderful system for explaining the observable Universe - I just want materialists to buckle down and admit that they ignore the bleak realizations of carrying their philosophy to its logical conclusion.

FWIW, I never mentioned God once in my post. The anti-theistic bias and pseudo-intellectual anti-religion bias is pretty staggering. You assume that I'm doing this to try to prove that religion is "right", but really I'm just trying to point out that, in terms of the human condition, we're all on equal ground - we don't really understand that much about the metaphysical aspects (or, if you have faith that at some unspecified point in the future we will know everything about how the mind works, the "apparently metaphysical aspects") of our own existence.

[Arturo]

...and until you can empirically show that, it isn't science. I'm not arguing that science is not useful, beneficial, and a wonderful system for explaining the observable Universe - I just want materialists to buckle down and admit that they ignore the bleak realizations of carrying their philosophy to its logical conclusion.

There are clear indications in favor of what I said, and none against it. We know very little about how conscious brain works, but it seems very clear it's chemical reactions. That's how antidepressants, for example, work. And it's the way the rest of the cells work.

[Poore]

...and until you can empirically show that, it isn't science. I'm not arguing that science is not useful, beneficial, and a wonderful system for explaining the observable Universe - I just want materialists to buckle down and admit that they ignore the bleak realizations of carrying their philosophy to its logical conclusion.

There are clear indications in favor of what I said, and none against it. We know very little about how conscious brain works, but it seems very clear it's chemical reactions. That's how antidepressants, for example, work. And it's the way the rest of the cells work.

If antidepressants are your shining example of how well humans understand brain chemistry, you might want to check your facts.

Antidepressants are only in widespread use because of graft and lobbying by pharmaceutical companies. If only the psychiatric community would listen to Peter Breggin (fyi, he's the guy who campaigned against using lobotomies as a legitimate medical procedure back in 70's, so any of you with psychiatric problems, be sure to thank him the next time your therapist doesn't jam an icepick into your eye socket).

What I read your post as is, "Well, we sort of know it, but we can't definitively prove anything, so let's just assume it's good enough for now and pray that the proof arrives in the future and no conflicting information arises before I die." Which is no different to me than a Christian saying that they'll be proven right when Jesus returns for the Rapture, or a Zoroastrian claiming that everyone will see the light when Ahura Mazda triumphs. I have no problem with you believing that, but when you hold it up as some sort of proof that there's no such thing as the soul, well...that's a whole 'nother ballgame.

Anyone who knows their history knows that, had you lived not too long ago, you might have died confirmed in your beliefs that light propagated through the "luminiferous aether" and science would have backed you up. I'm not saying that I don't believe in science - far from it - but trying to claim that our limited observations of the Universe can be used to make any sort of gran claims about Universal truth is laughable. No one has that -not me, not you, not anyone - but whenever I debate people about this they either come off as flippant ("oh, you're just spouting that 'reality isn't real' crap" </ignore>) or arrogant/condescending ("oh, you just don't understand SCIENCE!"), and seem to assume that their belief in science is somehow right, or more correct, than people who believe in things other than science (note: I have tried not to be religion specific, but everyone in this thread seems to think I am debating for the existence of the Christian God, which I have yet to do, and this reveals an extremely strong anti-Christian bias in those of you who seem to worship at the golden altar of "impartial" Science).

Let me be frank - I love science. Technology is awesome. Medicine is cool as shit, and my father is alive today because of how much our medical practices have advanced. I believe in evolution and the Big Bang. I find physics fun and interesting (and even took it again in college even though I didn't have to). I think quantum mechanics is pretty fucking nifty. I am not a science hater. But here me when I say this: science cannot, and will not, ever be able to provide you with some sort of ultimate truth. You may be cool with that - fine. But getting up on you high horse and declaring that anyone who disagrees with that position is "wrong" is arrogant and annoying. I believe in science, but I also trust the personal truths I've discovered in my life that cannot be verified by science (note: once again, this is not specifically the Christian God, or even any God for that matter, and it doesn't even have to do with any religion, so please do not try to use any anti-religious dogma to gloss over them), because my subjective experience affects more strongly than it could ever affect you, and vice-versa. I'm sure that most of you feel the same way.

We're all just people here, and we're all on a level playing field. We have maybe a century (if we're lucky) to acquire knowledge and experiences to try to make sense out of the incredibly vast and ancient Universe we live in. None of us has a monopoly on the truth. The greatest scientific discoveries were made by men who questioned the status quo and railed against the blind acceptance of commonly-accepted theories. True science is ever questioning, never assuming, and always changing. Invoking it as some sort of infallible doctrine to rule out the most ethereal and poorly understood elements of the human experience is ridiculous.

tl;dr I'm tired, and rambling, and I'm sure that this post will be largely ignored, but I hope some glimmer of my true thoughts shines through in the end

[Arturo]

I read that yesterday night (3:30), and didn't have the energy to provide a logical response.

This is what I hate about debating in forums: I hardly ever say my complete arguments, but just tidbits, because I am that lazy. And those tidbits can get misunderstood, as they have just been. Ok, I'll try to get my argument as clear as possible.

First, I never used antidepressants as an argument about how well we know the way brain works. I used them as an example about how we know that chemical components can influence in those attributes we generally consider "of the soul". One can say the same about drugs: how is it possible that chemical drugs, with known mechanisms of action (many of them mimic endogenous molecules) to influence on something immaterial, like the soul? If your opinion wasn't regulated chemically, how can a drug make you want to kill yourself? (and that's one of the examples you gave about antidepressants). And getting to a more general level: we know quite a bit about molecular biology and cell biology. All their processes are regulated chemically. Neurons are in no way different to a normal cell (yes, I know, they have different structure, but more different is a red cell and no-one thinks they have soul). Basically they are just an extremely specialized kind of cell.

Apart from that, many animals have a nervous system: do you think Caenorhabditis elegans has got a soul? An animal with 302 neurons? Do flies have soul, then? Does a fish have soul? A dog? A monkey? A human being? What's the difference between all these animals? The number of neurons. Is there some critical number of neurons that makes you have a soul? Moreover, how do you detect, measure, weigh a soul?

What's then more logical to think? My opinion or your opinion?

I hope I have made my argument clear enough. If not, just ask

I am looking forward to hear of objective proofs in favor of the existence of soul


NOTE: There's no high horse, I sincerely don't care much about what people believe, as long as they respect other people's freedom.

[Steel Samurai]

That's exactly what Poore is saying. There is no objective proof of a soul, thus, neither can you objectively DISprove the soul. Science can have no say over the metaphysical, because it is outside it's capacity to measure. It's something you believe or experience, or don't. IF you do not believe in a soul, you must accept that your actions are governed solely by chemical reactions in your brain, which are influenced by external surroundings, your genes, and learned responses. That's it. If, however, you believe you have a soul, then you believe that there is something outside the realm of science which is influencing your actions. Personally, I think the soul is where your actual consciousness resides, and the neurons in your head are the means by which the soul interfaces with the human body. If a chemical imbalance happens, then the interface itself is unable to communicate with the soul properly. And animals are something more like robots, with more or less advanced "computers" to direct them. But that's just my opinion. Will science ever be able to prove it? Of course not. Can you disagree with it? Of course. Can you ever DISprove it? No.

[Poore]

What's then more logical to think? My opinion or your opinion?

...

I am looking forward to hear of objective proofs in favor of the existence of soul

*facepalm*

Apparently, nothing I said actually got through. I'm not saying I can objectively prove the soul, or even that I want you to believe in its existence. You can't objectively disprove it, either. Science cannot meaningfully evaluate it. Period. Chemicals can influence your decisions and emotions. Woo-hoo. Care to tell me how that invalidates personal experiences? Sure, we could somehow have a committee of objective observers constantly cataloging and evaluating everything we do in order to ensure we always maintain objectivity in every decision we make, but even then, you're relying on the subjective observations of people who know nothing of your internal thought processes (and self-report bias, if you're also feeding them information about what you're feeling/thinking) and calling that objectivity.

Science is great for understanding a lot of things - meaningful interactions with other human beings and your own emotions are not among these. If you can honestly tell me that you scientifically evaluate every decision you make, then I'll shut up.

(BTW, I would consider condescending rhteorical questions and smily faces sticking their tongues out as a definite "high horse" and the kind of attitude I talked about in my previous post that I often see from atheists who seem to think that someone who doesn't blindly ignore his own subjectivity is unscientific )

EDIT: Damn, SS beat me to it

Edited by Poore, 21 July 2009 - 08:51 AM.

[spunky-monkey]

That's exactly what Poore is saying. There is no objective proof of a soul, thus, neither can you objectively DISprove the soul. Science can have no say over the metaphysical, because it is outside it's capacity to measure. It's something you believe or experience, or don't. IF you do not believe in a soul, you must accept that your actions are governed solely by chemical reactions in your brain, which are influenced by external surroundings, your genes, and learned responses. That's it. If, however, you believe you have a soul, then you believe that there is something outside the realm of science which is influencing your actions. Personally, I think the soul is where your actual consciousness resides, and the neurons in your head are the means by which the soul interfaces with the human body. If a chemical imbalance happens, then the interface itself is unable to communicate with the soul properly. And animals are something more like robots, with more or less advanced "computers" to direct them. But that's just my opinion. Will science ever be able to prove it? Of course not. Can you disagree with it? Of course. Can you ever DISprove it? No.

Why bother? If the soul like pink unicorns cannot be proven or disproven science deems it to be utterly irrelevant. This is no boy who called wolf people, what can't be studied, observed, analysed through our senses and technology quite frankly doesn't exist to start with. It isn't necessary for Science to disprove such things, you give yourselves WAY too much credit: anything that is impossible to prove exists and falls outside reality and sensibility, like pink unicorns, becomes irrelevant, thus never spoken of in proper context again.

You Steel Samurai can swear that a ghost lives in your closet but you cannot accumulate any evidence so, like it or not, science has rendered it irrelevant, a product of myth and folklore.

Theists like Atheists can't just pass off their personal experiences as indisputable fact without criticism. However the burden of truth for souls, spirits and God lies with Theists, not Atheists.

[Poore]

That's exactly what Poore is saying. There is no objective proof of a soul, thus, neither can you objectively DISprove the soul. Science can have no say over the metaphysical, because it is outside it's capacity to measure. It's something you believe or experience, or don't. IF you do not believe in a soul, you must accept that your actions are governed solely by chemical reactions in your brain, which are influenced by external surroundings, your genes, and learned responses. That's it. If, however, you believe you have a soul, then you believe that there is something outside the realm of science which is influencing your actions. Personally, I think the soul is where your actual consciousness resides, and the neurons in your head are the means by which the soul interfaces with the human body. If a chemical imbalance happens, then the interface itself is unable to communicate with the soul properly. And animals are something more like robots, with more or less advanced "computers" to direct them. But that's just my opinion. Will science ever be able to prove it? Of course not. Can you disagree with it? Of course. Can you ever DISprove it? No.

Why bother? If the soul like pink unicorns cannot be proven or disproven science deems it to be utterly irrelevant. This is no boy who called wolf people, what can't be studied, observed, analysed through our senses and technology quite frankly doesn't exist to start with. It isn't necessary for Science to disprove such things, you give yourselves WAY too much credit: anything that is impossible to prove exists and falls outside reality and sensibility, like pink unicorns, becomes irrelevant, thus never spoken of in proper context again.

You Steel Samurai can swear that a ghost lives in your closet but you cannot accumulate any evidence so, like it or not, science has rendered it irrelevant, a product of myth and folklore.

Theists like Atheists can't just pass off their personal experiences as indisputable fact without criticism. However the burden of truth for souls, spirits and God lies with Theists, not Atheists.

Prove Science, please. Oh wait - it's a system that can't be proven. So I guess it's irrelevant. Prove math. Nope - another system which requires fundamental, unprovable assumptions. Irrelevant. Emotions? Irrelevant. Thought? Irrelevant.

Which raises an interesting question - if things that can't be proven are 'irrelevant', why do you get into such heated arguments about it? Shouldn't you be dispassionate about it? After all, our arguments are just products of chemicals in our brains, as are our opinions, beliefs, and feelings, so aren't arguments meaningless, then? It's all deterministic, so why bother? You can't change anything . You're not a rational agent, just another cog in the machine.

Except that quantum mechanics has demonstrated fairly reliably that true randomness exists in nature. Meaning that there are aspects of the physical universe which science cannot accurately predict or explain, even without invoking metaphysics. Who is giving themselves too much credit, now?

Not to mention that I'm not saying my beliefs relevant to you or anyone else, but that does not make it irrelevant to me. You may believe that only things that are relevant to everyone are truly relevant - that's fine. I just happen to think that personal relevance actually has some significance in my own life.

[Arturo]

*facepalm*

Apparently, nothing I said actually got through. I'm not saying I can objectively prove the soul, or even that I want you to believe in its existence. You can't objectively disprove it, either. Science cannot meaningfully evaluate it. Period. Chemicals can influence your decisions and emotions. Woo-hoo. Care to tell me how that invalidates personal experiences? Sure, we could somehow have a committee of objective observers constantly cataloging and evaluating everything we do in order to ensure we always maintain objectivity in every decision we make, but even then, you're relying on the subjective observations of people who know nothing of your internal thought processes (and self-report bias, if you're also feeding them information about what you're feeling/thinking) and calling that objectivity.

Science is great for understanding a lot of things - meaningful interactions with other human beings and your own emotions are not among these. If you can honestly tell me that you scientifically evaluate every decision you make, then I'll shut up.

(BTW, I would consider condescending rhteorical questions and smily faces sticking their tongues out as a definite "high horse" and the kind of attitude I talked about in my previous post that I often see from atheists who seem to think that someone who doesn't blindly ignore his own subjectivity is unscientific )

EDIT: Damn, SS beat me to it

Oh please, do I really express myself THAT badly?

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of soul, and I didn't try to, merely because soul, as I said, cannot be weighed, measured, or seen. I just gave a few ideas about which system is more logical: of course the soul can exist, but pink unicorns can as well. I cannot prove that they don't exist, but since there are no proofs of their existence, I assume they don't exist.

The only reason why you believe it is cultural bias. If not, why believing in the Christian concept of soul instead of the four dynameis (or whatever way they are written) or the Egyptian enormously complicated system of ba, ka, shadow, etc.?

Science has nothing to do with blindly ignoring your own subjectivity. I could find condescending that you think as atheists are emotionless robots, because that's what you imply. Knowing that falling in love is just hormones doesn't make you love less, the rainbow doesn't become less beautiful once you know how it's formed. Human nature is equally admirable with or without believing in soul: we have invented music, architecture sculpture and painting, philosophy and science. If our opinions are just some happy combination of molecules, does it make life any different?

It was two years ago that I wrote a project for philosophy class that was called "Can literature explain things that science can't?". Absolutely yes. Literature creates human beings, creates emotions, something science can't, at least at the moment. Literature can even create God. But does that make literature real? Objectively it's just a combination of ink and blank spaces on a paper.

Hope you understand my posture better now.

[spunky-monkey]

Prove Science, please. Oh wait - it's a system that can't be proven. So I guess it's irrelevant. Prove math. Nope - another system which requires fundamental, unprovable assumptions. Irrelevant. Emotions? Irrelevant. Thought? Irrelevant.

Well, if you want to lose all creditability, go right ahead and call all systems and methodologies irrelevant, you do have 'free will'.

Which raises an interesting question - if things that can't be proven are 'irrelevant', why do you get into such heated arguments about it? Shouldn't you be dispassionate about it? After all, our arguments are just products of chemicals in our brains, as are our opinions, beliefs, and feelings, so aren't arguments meaningless, then? It's all deterministic, so why bother? You can't change anything . You're not a rational agent, just another cog in the machine.

Science is not emo for starters and your suggestions are also counter-productive. Science is about understanding how the Universe and whatever is beyond that, works, so that ultimately for better (or for worse) mankind can benefit. It is not about spreading around beliefs which are irrelevant. And whoever said anything about a "heated argument" Poore? As far as I'm aware we’ve having an adult discussion. On the other hand if you're questioning my presence in this topic then you'll get berated for bringing deadweight to the debate, or worse, berated for trolling.

Except that quantum mechanics has demonstrated fairly reliably that true randomness exists in nature. Meaning that there are aspects of the physical universe which science cannot accurately predict or explain, even without invoking metaphysics. Who is giving themselves too much credit, now?

Well it's certainly not you Poore, you haven't nearly given yourself enough credit because you asserted that nothing's outside your private hidden circle of knowledge therefore you must be right. You're certain there's a soul, and we lesser beings are foolish to challenge your intellect by asking you to back up your claims with evidence. Now, occurrences and random events within nature that lie outside the full understanding of science, mean we've been wasting our whole time and we sillies should just give up instead actually trying to understand and/or predict them.

Not to mention that I'm not saying my beliefs relevant to you or anyone else, but that does not make it irrelevant to me. You may believe that only things that are relevant to everyone are truly relevant - that's fine. I just happen to think that personal relevance actually has some significance in my own life.

Good, I'm happy for you! I genuinely am happy for you Poore. You're entitled to believe whatever you want as much as anyone else is, and if it makes you thus happy, hopefully one day all this and more will be reality for you.

Where I draw the line is when you and others swagger about invincibly on this forum, laughing it up with that "science can't disprove the soul - therefore it must exist!" nonsense. You are playing The Argument to Ignorance, one of many reasoning and logical fallacies:

1. A states that claim X is true.
2. B states that claim X is not accepted as true.
3. A states that claim X is potentially true as B has not proved it false (wrongly shifting the burden of proof to B).

Somehow because you, not someone else, believed in it does that automatically make not irrelevant, but actually 'significant' to an entire field of study? That is supremacist-thinking friend, you haven't done anything to prove the soul exists either, and that is rather dire position to be in a debate.

A contradictory claim was basically made that has not yet been backed up with evidence, but it is still your responsibility to prove it nonetheless. Dragging a belief such as the soul into controversial at the same time refusing to comment on your personal experiences and thought-process that led you up to believing in said incorporeal force has opened you up to one metric arseload of criticism.

Edited by spunky-monkey, 21 July 2009 - 11:17 AM.

[Poore]

Oh please, do I really express myself THAT badly?

Apparently, yes, but I would blame that on the Internet being a terrible means of in-depth communication.

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of soul, and I didn't try to, merely because soul, as I said, cannot be weighed, measured, or seen. I just gave a few ideas about which system is more logical: of course the soul can exist, but pink unicorns can as well. I cannot prove that they don't exist, but since there are no proofs of their existence, I assume they don't exist.

But what if you saw a pink unicorn, but had no objective proof to back it up? You might chalk it up to a hallucination, or a dream, but it doesn't change the fact that the experience happened.

The only reason why you believe it is cultural bias. If not, why believing in the Christian concept of soul instead of the four dynameis (or whatever way they are written) or the Egyptian enormously complicated system of ba, ka, shadow, etc.?

...or I believe it because after spending some time as an atheist, and then an agnostic, I found that the truths that held the most relevance for my personal situation and led me to live a happier, more fulfilled lire happened to line up with the message of Christ, which, compounded with other experiences I've had, led me to believe in the existence of the soul. Not to sound like a jackass, but chalking up beliefs based on quite a bit of self-study and introspection to simple cultural bias is almost insulting.

Science has nothing to do with blindly ignoring your own subjectivity. I could find condescending that you think as atheists are emotionless robots, because that's what you imply. Knowing that falling in love is just hormones doesn't make you love less, the rainbow doesn't become less beautiful once you know how it's formed. Human nature is equally admirable with or without believing in soul: we have invented music, architecture sculpture and painting, philosophy and science. If our opinions are just some happy combination of molecules, does it make life any different?

To me, yes, because carrying that belief to it's logical conclusion leads me to believe that nothing I do has meaning, even to myself. I don't need cosmic validation. I don't need an afterlife. All I need is to know that I'm truly a rational agent, and not just a pawn on some Universal chessboard being moved by the hands of fate.

It was two years ago that I wrote a project for philosophy class that was called "Can literature explain things that science can't?". Absolutely yes. Literature creates human beings, creates emotions, something science can't, at least at the moment. Literature can even create God. But does that make literature real? Objectively it's just a combination of ink and blank spaces on a paper.

Hope you understand my posture better now.

I think we are actually pretty similar in this regard. It's just that I've experienced things you haven't, and vice-verse, so our subjective views do not totally reconcile with one another. As per usual, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Poore]

Science is not emo for starters and your suggestions are also counter-productive. Science is about understanding how the Universe and whatever is beyond that, works, so that ultimately for better (or for worse) mankind can benefit. It is not about spreading around beliefs which are irrelevant. And whoever said anything about a "heated argument" Poore? As far as I'm aware we’ve having an adult discussion. On the other hand if you're questioning my presence in this topic then you'll get berated for bringing deadweight to the debate, or worse, berated for trolling.

No, that is science as religion. If you are claiming you can observe things outside the known Universe (as observation is the fundamental step in developing any scientific theory), then you obviously do not have nay room to jump all over people for making outrageous assumptions about the unobservable. Pure science is involved with the observable Universe - anything else is metaphysics at best.

Well it's certainly not you Poore, you haven't nearly given yourself enough credit because you asserted that nothing's outside your private hidden circle of knowledge therefore you must be right. You're certain there's a soul, and we lesser beings are foolish to challenge your intellect by asking you to back up your claims with evidence.

Please point out where I claimed this. I claimed that personal experiences can have personal relevance, and things can be subjectively true when they fall outside the realms science is able to legitimately understand. This is a straw man.

Now, occurrences and random events within nature that lie outside the full understanding of science, mean we've been wasting our whole time and we sillies should just give up instead actually trying to understand and/or predict them.

...or you should stop your crusade to somehow disprove the soul and focus on ventures that are actually beneficial, and rely on pure science rather than metaphysical extrapolation?

Where I draw the line is when you and others swagger about invincibly on this forum, laughing it up with that "science can't disprove the soul - therefore it must exist!" nonsense. You are playing The Argument to Ignorance, one of many reasoning and logical fallacies:

1. A states that claim X is true.
2. B states that claim X is not accepted as true.
3. A states that claim X is potentially true as B has not proved it false (wrongly shifting the burden of proof to B).

Somehow because you, not someone else, believed in it does that automatically make not irrelevant, but actually 'significant' to an entire field of study? That is supremacist-thinking friend, you haven't done anything to prove the soul exists either, and that is rather dire position to be in a debate.

It's more like this:

1. A states that claim X is true.
2. B states that claim X is not accepted as true.
3. A states that claim X gives them a sense of personal truth, but does not expect it to do so for everyone.
4. B claims the A wants everyone to accept he has ultimate knowledge and ridicules A for this, asserting his/her own intellectual superiority

A contradictory claim was basically made that has not yet been backed up with evidence, but it is still your responsibility to prove it nonetheless. Dragging a belief such as the soul into controversial at the same time refusing to comment on your personal experiences and thought-process that led you up to believing in said incorporeal force has opened you up to one metric arseload of criticism.

I did in my last post.

[spunky-monkey]

No, that is science as religion. If you are claiming you can observe things outside the known Universe (as observation is the fundamental step in developing any scientific theory), then you obviously do not have nay room to jump all over people for making outrageous assumptions about the unobservable. Pure science is involved with the observable Universe - anything else is metaphysics at best.

LOL astronomy is a religion now is it? However a soul that every living being supposedly has, but not consciously aware of, is real? I suppose retrospectively its all too apparent to see just where I went astray.

Please point out where I claimed this. I claimed that personal experiences can have personal relevance, and things can be subjectively true when they fall outside the realms science is able to legitimately understand. This is a straw man.

Throughout the entire thread you behaved like this Poore, now I emplore you to stop and actually state why your personal experiences suggest there's a soul, because this game of 'counter-arguments' is getting tedious and that's bad for debating.

...or you should stop your crusade to somehow disprove the soul and focus on ventures that are actually beneficial, and rely on pure science rather than metaphysical extrapolation?

Once again another Argument to Ignorance. Need I remind you its your crusade Poore, your burden of truth, not mine. But do I look forward to hearing from the results of your research. Once you share your private experiences with us then perhaps it may even become a personal truth for me as well, or do personal truths not work that way?

It's more like this:

1. A states that claim X is true.
2. B states that claim X is not accepted as true.
3. A states that claim X gives them a sense of personal truth, but does not expect it to do so for everyone.
4. B claims the A wants everyone to accept he has ultimate knowledge and ridicules A for this, asserting his/her own intellectual superiority

If you honestly conclude that then your 'personal truth' is an interpretation, mere opinion, not fact and certainly never a truth Poore. At the very least you were mistaken in your definition of the term. I'm holding out on the hope that's not your 'conclusion' and you can actually bring something more sustainable and mature to the debate.

If you're involved in a car accident and a Police officer challenges you for your ID card they're not asserting their own intellectual superiority over you. Likewise if I ask you to provide evidence when you make a tangible claim as being truth/personal truth I'm not being elitist either. XD

I did in my last post.

I found that the truths that held the most relevance for my personal situation and led me to live a happier, more fulfilled lire happened to line up with the message of Christ, which, compounded with other experiences I've had, led me to believe in the existence of the soul. Not to sound like a jackass, but chalking up beliefs based on quite a bit of self-study and introspection to simple cultural bias is almost insulting.

Oh sure no rambling or mystification in there whatsoever, nope. This isn't a game show, kindly please EXPAND upon these experiences for ONCE.

[Goose]

If you're involved in a car accident and a Police officer challenges you for your ID card they're not asserting their own intellectual superiority over you. Likewise if I ask you to provide evidence when you make a tangible claim as being truth/personal truth I'm not being elitist either. XD

Lets say we have a conversation and I say that I saw a dog. You ask me for proof that I saw a dog. Am I able to provide evidence that I saw a dog? The best I can do is provide the name of a witness who may have also saw the dog in question. Can he provide evidence? A tape maybe? Say there was no way to provide physical evidence of that dog being there. But I still assert that there was a dog.

Do you trust me?

[spunky-monkey]

If you're involved in a car accident and a Police officer challenges you for your ID card they're not asserting their own intellectual superiority over you. Likewise if I ask you to provide evidence when you make a tangible claim as being truth/personal truth I'm not being elitist either. XD

Lets say we have a conversation and I say that I saw a dog. You ask me for proof that I saw a dog. Am I able to provide evidence that I saw a dog? The best I can do is provide the name of a witness who may have also saw the dog in question. Can he provide evidence? A tape maybe? Say there was no way to provide physical evidence of that dog being there. But I still assert that there was a dog.

Do you trust me?

Is that an analogy from Russell's teapot? ^^ Scientifically you haven't proven the existence of the dog. You claim to have an alibi, but this isn't criminal law Goose, you can't fix the degree of proof based on circumstances and proposition in this debate, or play with balance of probabilities deciding whether there was a dog or not. Poore doesn't have anything like the benefit of assumption/presumption of innocence to fall back upon, neither am I unfairly imposing a de jure on Poore, I just can't give him the benefit of the doubt here, skepticism doesn't work that way, especially not after the douchebag-like manner he's spoken to me thus far. A claim was made therefore the burden of proof lies with him. Also the Burden of Proof hasn't been set to an inappropriately high level, I'm simply asking him to clarify some of these 'life-changing experiences' he spoke of. If Poore refuses to tell me about his personal experiences I'd respect that, but it does raise the question why he ever bothered to mention it in the first place and risk criticism.

To adequately answer your question Goose I'll submit a hypothetical example of mine own: Let's say for argument's sake that I make the unfounded claim the human body has another working appendage and that we all have a third leg. You ask me for proof that we all have third functioning leg. Am I able to provide evidence to back up this bold claim without the use of blanket statements? The best I can manage is from my personal experiences (which by the way you aren't allowed to bear witness to) the third leg has become personal truth for me, and it doesn't matter what you think of it, because the third leg applies to my core beliefs, not yours. Oh, and no matter how far you pressure me I will continue the assertion on the forum we all have a third leg and make false claims you are an arrogant elitist if you ever dare question me.

*sigh* At this exact moment in time an Occam's razor (argh) would at least be something, I'm desperate for stimuli, gee I dunno, A DEBATE, but I've just about given up on ever expecting anyone to back up their religious claims with some form of reasoning. It seems theists can announce whatever they think, whenever they like, much akin to Univeralists interpreting the Bible as their source whilst cropping out the parts they don't agree with.

Edited by spunky-monkey, 22 July 2009 - 10:13 AM.

[Poore]

If Poore refuses to tell me about his personal experiences I'd respect that, but it does raise the question why he ever bothered to mention it in the first place and risk criticism.

Or perhaps I think it's ridiculous for me to post the in-depth details of every meaningful experience I've had in my life and try to convey the personal feelings I have about them and expect such a wall of text to function as anything other than anecdotal evidence you've only asked for so you can promptly inform me has not convinced you of something that I never claimed I wanted you to accept as a personal truth for yourself in the first place?

I didn't mention them as some sort of proof - I was merely trying to say that something I hold to be a personal truth is not science. Something you hold to be a personal truth is not science. I don't mean the existence of the soul specifically - this can be any personal belief about the unobservable which cannot be scientifically evaluated.

As much as I hate Randall Munroe and the fucking terrible monstrosity that his comic has become, this xkcd states it rather succinctly: http://xkcd.com/55/

It seems theists can announce whatever they think, whenever they like

Yeah, it 's called freedom of speech.

[Arturo]

Although the belief in God is objectively absurd, from the point of view of personal experiences it may not be absurd. I can understand that someone can choose to believe on God just because of these experiences. But I am too rational to believe in God myself.

Edited by Arturo, 22 July 2009 - 09:15 PM.

[SOAP]

Which raises an interesting question - if things that can't be proven are 'irrelevant', why do you get into such heated arguments about it? Shouldn't you be dispassionate about it? After all, our arguments are just products of chemicals in our brains, as are our opinions, beliefs, and feelings, so aren't arguments meaningless, then? It's all deterministic, so why bother? You can't change anything . You're not a rational agent, just another cog in the machine.

As far as I can tell, no one's getting heated here though it seems toes are being stepped on. But that has more to do with no one here liking their intelligence called into question rather the topic at hand. I apologize if you feel like anyone here is asserting that you're dumb if you choose to be Christian.

That said, it's just as insulting to say I, as an atheist, shouldn't care about theism. For the most part, I don't care. If people want to believe in Jesus resurrecting from the dead and promising his followers a place in heaven when they die, that's their choice. The raeson i care though is when it stops being just about their beliefs and their choices. When we have laws based off the assumption that God exists and his laws must be followed, when wars are started in his name, that's when I start taking a serious interest in theism. I'm not going to sit idly by while people continue to subjugate and kill other human brings in God's name. I don't want to play the gay card here, but having been marginalized and demonized by churches for being homosexual, of course I'm not doing to be dispassionate about something that negatively effects the way I live my life. If anything I could flip that question back at you and every Christian out there: Why do you care so much about how non-Christian live their lives? As a former Christian I know you're supposed to share the "good news" and all but when did that mean making up laws that affect not only believers but non believers as well? When did that mean killing abortion doctors? When did that mean antagonize mourning families at funerals? When did theism became an excuse to defame or even harm people who disagreed with God's Word? If I'm going to hell for being gay and atheist anyways, why not just let me and others like me live in peace for whatever short time I have on Earth before I get skewered for all eternity? If you're going to heaven for your belief in God why does it matter if people scoff at your beliefs here on Earth?

Ultimately I care because all I don't know there's another life after this one so I can not stand to see the lives of others cut short or wasted over something that is ultimately, in your words, unprovable. You might think it's an even playing field but people actually die over this and the fact that the existence of God or human souls is unprovable makes it even more heinous. At least with invisible pink unicorns, no one's beheading anyone in her Holy Pinkness' name. When you start involving life or death, that's stakes far too high for me to turn a blind eye to. My concious won't let me. Excuse me for being wired to actually give a damn about other human beings. I don't have the luxury of believing their lives will be better in the afterlife.

If you're involved in a car accident and a Police officer challenges you for your ID card they're not asserting their own intellectual superiority over you. Likewise if I ask you to provide evidence when you make a tangible claim as being truth/personal truth I'm not being elitist either. XD

Lets say we have a conversation and I say that I saw a dog. You ask me for proof that I saw a dog. Am I able to provide evidence that I saw a dog? The best I can do is provide the name of a witness who may have also saw the dog in question. Can he provide evidence? A tape maybe? Say there was no way to provide physical evidence of that dog being there. But I still assert that there was a dog.

Do you trust me?

Not the same thing. I know what a dog is so I have raeson enough to give you a benefit of a doubt. I don't know what God is or what a soul is. No one does. Such abstract concepts are only explained vaguely at best. I mean how would you even know you saw God if he can't be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or perceived by any normal human senses? How would know you've felt God's presence and not just something you ate. I'm actually being serious here.

Although the belief in God is objectively absurd, from the point of view of personal experiences it may nt be absurd. I can understand that someone can choose to believe on God just because of these experiences. But I am too rational to believe on God myself.

Exactly. It would be nice if there was a higher being out there who had our best interest at heart but if experience has taught me anything, it's that what sounds nice and reality don't always coincide, no matter how much you wish for them to be the same thing. *shrug* I guess I'm too cynical to believe there's actually a God.

Edited by SOAP, 22 July 2009 - 08:58 PM.

[Poore]

That said, it's just as insulting to say I, as an atheist, shouldn't care about theism. For the most part, I don't care. If people want to believe in Jesus resurrecting from the dead and promising his followers a place in heaven when they die, that's their choice. The raeson i care though is when it stops being just about their beliefs and their choices. When we have laws based off the assumption that God exists and his laws must be followed, when wars are started in his name, that's when I start taking a serious interest in theism. I'm not going to sit idly by while people continue to subjugate and kill other human brings in God's name. I don't want to play the gay card here, but having been marginalized and demonized by churches for being homosexual, of course I'm not doing to be dispassionate about something that negatively effects the way I live my life. If anything I could flip that question back at you and every Christian out there: Why do you care so much about how non-Christian live their lives? As a former Christian I know you're supposed to share the "good news" and all but when did that mean making up laws that affect not only believers but non believers as well? When did that mean killing abortion doctors? When did that mean antagonize mourning families at funerals? When did theism became an excuse to defame or even harm people who disagreed with God's Word? If I'm going to hell for being gay and atheist anyways, why not just let me and others like me live in peace for whatever short time I have on Earth before I get skewered for all eternity? If you're going to heaven for your belief in God why does it matter if people scoff at your beliefs here on Earth?

Ultimately I care because all I don't know there's another life after this one so I can not stand to see the lives of others cut short or wasted over something that is ultimately, in your words, unprovable. You might think it's an even playing field but people actually die over this and the fact that the existence of God or human souls is unprovable makes it even more heinous. At least with invisible pink unicorns, no one's beheading anyone in her Holy Pinkness' name. When you start involving life or death, that's stakes far too high for me to turn a blind eye to. My concious won't let me. Excuse me for being wired to actually give a damn about other human beings. I don't have the luxury of believing their lives will be better in the afterlife.

What you are arguing against is people using religion as a scapegoat, which is something I find offensive as well. I've stated it time and time again, but I'm not arguing for proof of the Judeo-Christian God, or defending evil actions committed in the name of a deity. People commit terrible acts in the name of all sorts of things (racism, political ideologies, etc.), and I agree that it's terrible. I don't think the government should be able to legislate morality.

How does me believing in the soul because, during a near-death experience after a car accident, I experienced a powerful separation of my consciousness from my physical being and thus have come to believe that there is more to existence than what we can observe scientifically, equate to me supporting any of this, or to not caring for other people?

I tried to bring up this point earlier - I think a lot of atheists are specifically more anti-Christian than anything else, and they equate any sort of spiritual discussion to be 'Christian' and therefor attack it. I have never stated that I believe that we should make laws based on the Bible. Hell, I'm practically a minarchist - I don't believe the government should pass any laws concerning victimless crimes, personal choices, marriage, etc. etc. etc., and should only intervene if their is direct infringement of personal liberty (i.e. theft, assault, murder).

If I insulted you, I'm sorry, but understand that when there's a knee-jerk 'hate on organized Christian fundamentalism' whenever anyone mentions anything even resembling a Judeo-Christian belief, Iit iritates me to no end. I believe that organized religion, and specifically what it's become in the modern age, is downright wrong, both in idea and in implementation. Originally, believers would meet in small groups to have in-depth discussions about their faith, and the teachings of Christ. Instead, it's become, 'let some guy talk at you once a week so you can feel good,' and anyone who believe that this is true Christianity is dead wrong, including about 90% of people who claim to be Christians.

[Selena]

This thread had promise, but if it's going to become a generic "Is Christianity Correct or Not?" debate, I'm closing it for the sake of not beating a long dead horse.

I'd think you people would get bored of these discussions already. It's the same damn thread over and over, nothing new brought to the table. The same stubbornness, the same refusal to acknowledge the opposition's viewpoint, the same demand to prove that you're right and everyone else is clearly wrong, rather than discussing why people think the way they do in an effort to understand your fellow man rather than condemn him for not agreeing with you.

I tried to bring up this point earlier - I think a lot of atheists are specifically more anti-Christian than anything else, and they equate any sort of spiritual discussion to be 'Christian' and therefor attack it.

Also, this. Lots of people on this forum, really.

[SOAP]

The anti-Christian sentiment is probably due to the fact that Christianity is the most influential religion in western culture. There's others too, but they're not as vocal. Maybe in other countries things are different. I debate mostly about Christianity because that's the only religion I've been a part of and that's who I'm debating with. Maybe if there were Muslims here I'd talk about Islam but for the most part I stick with what I know.

I'm sorry too if I'm picking on your religion but I have beef with it. That's my burden to bear. It has nothing to with you as a person.

For the record, I don't want Christianity to disappear or anything. Or for to even change. But that doesn't change the fact that Christianity is the majority right now (whether it should be regarded as true Christianity doesn't matter it, it still affects things), and as long as Christianity has major influence on politics that affect my life, you bet I will keep a keen eye on it.

Poore, feel free to pm me. I'm not comfortable continuing this conversation publicly.

Edited by SOAP, 23 July 2009 - 12:55 AM.

[Goose]

I'm sorry too if I'm picking on your religion but I have beef with it. That's my burden to bear. It has nothing to with you as a person.

I understand your point of view, belive me I do, but then if I said that about your homosexuality, which for the record I dont have anything against, I'd be clasified as a biggot. (Rightfully so.) Heres the thing, as a Christian I take my beliefs seriously, and treat them as a part of myself, just as you treat the right to your own sexuality as your own, (which it is) but when people constantly berate me and call me stupid for believing in what I believe, isn't that a form of biggotry gone the other way? I wasn't trying to shove my way of life down your throat, nor was I saying that the way you live is wrong (It isn't).

I just get sick of being treated like I'm a lepper because I'm a Christian.

Maybe its good, because then those who do claim to be christian, yet treat those who think differently to them as diseased can get a taste of what its like.

But man it sucks for those that just want to get on with living their lives.

[SOAP]

I'm sorry too if I'm picking on your religion but I have beef with it. That's my burden to bear. It has nothing to with you as a person.

I understand your point of view, believe me I do, but then if I said that about your homosexuality, which for the record I dont have anything against, I'd be clasified as a biggot.

Which happens. I get the same thing from my own family. But whether being gay is a choice or not, Christianity is a choice so it's easier for me to separate a person from their religion then it is from their sexuality. What would make it bigotry is if I claimed that all Christians are stupid or crazy for choosing that religion. I don't. I can see why people would chose Christianity or find solace in any religion for that matter. Like I said, it would be nice if their is a God so I can see why people would prefer to be religious than be an atheist in a world were flawed humans can backstab you in a heartbeat. The reality for me though is that you're just as likely to be hurt by those who are claiming to be Men and Women of God, so I don't bother.

Having people disagree with your religion, or having a strong dislike for your belief, or even tell you flat out how wrong you are is not the same as being treated as lepper. Which is another reason I don't the religion. If this was the East or Middleeast where Christians actually are martyred for their beliefs, I feel some sympathy for them. But in the West, no one marginalize you, or criminalizes your religious practices, or denies you your human rights. The worst a Christian gets here is being called a bigot, and most times it's deserved (in which case it's not because they're Christian but how they chose to express their beliefs).

[Goose]

The worst a Christian gets here is being called a bigot, and most times it's deserved (in which case it's not because they're Christian but how they chose to express their beliefs).

I'm taking issue with the small things here, because I agree with you on the other things. Its the little things that bug me. Sure, there are a lot of biggoted Christians, in your country and mine, and often times they do deserve the title, but the majority of people just have their faith without the side of biggotry, and I know we've been through it before, that its the loud ones that should just shut up.

From what I've seen, the majority of any group of people just want to get on with living. When you talk with that attitude, its creating the "other" and allowing yourselves to do to others what you hate done to you. Labeling and Libeling.