BobSpence1 wrote:

Fonzie wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Anything that cannot be addressed by the scientific method, ie independent evidence, does not warrant being taken as more than speculation.

My wife loves me.

Can this statement be tested using truly scientific methods? If it cannot, then does that mean it should be mere speculation?

Why wouldn't this be subject to scrutiny?  Just define what you mean by love and I bet we could test it.  We can anylyze brain chemistry and MRI type stuff when she thinks about you or sees pictures of you.  We could build a case study of her behavior in relation to you.

Why would love be outside of science?  Love happens inside brains and brains are real things covered by science.

Right. Science only requires that something be independently observable, at least in principle.

Thanks to modern techniques, such emotional states are being measured and inferred all the time, both by observation of behaviour and by brain scanning techniques.

If you love your wife, but never mention it or change your behaviour in any way based on it, we may indeed need a brain scanner, but can you really imagine you would actually behave that way, and could you accurately be described as being in love if you never expressed it in any way??

BobSpence1,

 

So is your science bible: 1 & 2 Chemistry, 1,2 & 3 Physics, General Science, Reason, 1. 2 and 3 Math, Electronics, Computer, Hydraulics, Kinesiology, etc? 

What would be your equivalent to Genesis and Revelation? 

Is there a savior or, if not, what is the focus point of the god of science? 

What is the end hope of science? 

Are there different churches of science?  If so are they in harmony with each other? 

Science works precisely because it does NOT have any equivalents of those things. There is no prime document which must be deferred to at all times. All scientific documents are open to continual revision in the light of new discoveries.

The ongoing hope of Science is to progressively gain ever more accurate knowledge and insight into ever more aspects of "Life, the Universe, and Everything".

People and groups are free to pursue different approaches to investigate things, and scientific institutions provide mechanisms for the findings of these different groups to be compared, with as many people as practical, who know something about the particular subject, to offer their assessment.  Scientists in then try to work toward a consensus which may eventually endorse one theory as clearly the one best supported by the experimental and observational data. If one theory cannot be seen as clearly the best, they then try and devise further tests to see which one works best, which bets fits the results of experiments or new observations, and if possible makes predictions which turn out to be accurate.

People who produce ideas that provide much better explanations by completely overturning established ideas are celebrated as heroes, not condemned as heretics.

We have no equivalent of Genesis or Revelation, which are probably the most mistaken chapters in the Bible. If anyone produced any theory remotely resembling those chapters, it would be laughed out of the room as everyone pointed out how nonsensical it was. They would require a vast amount of evidence, unlike those Bible chapters, which simply state things as truths with no attempt to justify the statements.

 

BobSpence1,

Thanks for your reasonable answer.  I know the metaphor was pretty weak. 

I really enjoy science too and the fruits of it.  This computer is a great and powerful tool, I love using the laser tools, but  I also enjoy a lot of things that I don't see as coming from science - does science write songs, paint pictures?   

I sat through several Physics, Chemistry, Math, etc classes but  find no application from those in a large part of my life.  While science, money, food, skill, beauty are all good things in and of themselves to make any of them into a god makes them bad - it's a misuse of them.   Plus, I think what will happen is you will be put in a position such that you will see your false god fall off the shelf before your eyes.  You will have big problems that you will see your false god can't deliver you from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 

Science is the open pursuit of knowledge and truth in every possible context. Art and music is the pursuit of beauty and ways to express feelings and emotions, and so on. Art can be inspired by the discoveries of Science about the nature of the Universe. 

It reveals the falseness of all Gods, the pathetic error of imagining that a magical figment of our limited imaginations could 'explain' anything about existence, and how utterly mistaken were the writers of the Holy Books about the nature and origin of both Man and the Universe we inhabit. Science draws its inspiration from a diligent study of reality, which is the only source of true revelation.

The images of the Universe taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, revealing its awesome vastness and grandeur, surely push into the domain of art. They reveal that the Universe is infinitely more wondrous and awesome than the writers of Genesis could imagine, and we are so utterly insignificant in comparison. I was reduced to tears in contemplation of the implications of images revealing hundreds of distant galaxies in even apparently empty patches of sky, once we allow time for the faint light to form a perceptible image.

Reality is so much grander and more mysterious than the God imagined by those squabbling tribesmen in the ancient Middle East....

If you haven't really grasped the nature of the Universe as revealed by Science, you can obviously still find comfort in the more limited world of the Bible. Beliefs don't have to be true to be comforting.

 

I can say from my personal experience over more than 50 years, that I do not need a Gospel, a Religion.

Science and Art work for me.

 

 

BobSpence1,

I believe you are telling it like it is for you.  It is interesting to me how totally different your perspective is from mine - almost negative to developed.  We wouldn't agree even on where our different perspective splits I'm sure, but you have said yourself you don't believe in God or Jesus.  I do.  That seems to take us to two totally different views.  I am totally satisfied and secure in my view and you are the same in yours. 

You gave me your view of my faith perspective at least in a general way - I don't take it personally and I don't think you meant it that way except in principle if it applies apply it.  My view of your purpose of life is like the Greeks Paul confronted spending the day exploring something new.  That is an enjoyable thing.  I like to do things a different way, try a different tool, learn a different technique.  But that pursuit to me has a emptiness about it to me.  It goes nowhere, though it's interesting all the way....to you.  It quickly bores me.  It's nothing compared to walking by faith in and with the Living Christ.  I don't expect you to accept that but that's the honest truth as you say - for me.

 

I spent a lot of youth exploring things like you mention with great interest.  I could compare your being caught up in science pursuits with my excitement getting a BB gun.  It no longer interests me.  But living in the presence of Christ and God and exploring the hidden jewels in the Scriptures is a pile of wheat I can thresh and winnow every day and come away with the greatest food and substance.  With respect I view you as being in your life stuck in the second chapter of Ecclesiastes (without all the wives, ha).  Again I'm not intentionally attacking you personally rather  your world view and no-faith in God or Christ or the unseen eternal reality.  But you have no eyes of faith to see the unseen.  And I have no way of igniting that in you.  I wish I did.

Also Bob, your beliefs do not require that your way is the only way to achieve happiness.

By default, Fonzie *must* believe his way is the only way because a central point of his dogma is that there is only one way to achieve happiness, and it is his way.

Fonzie wrote:

 

BobSpence1,

I believe you are telling it like it is for you.  It is interesting to me how totally different your perspective is from mine - almost negative to developed.  We wouldn't agree even on where our different perspective splits I'm sure, but you have said yourself you don't believe in God or Jesus.  I do.  That seems to take us to two totally different views.  I am totally satisfied and secure in my view and you are the same in yours. 

You gave me your view of my faith perspective at least in a general way - I don't take it personally and I don't think you meant it that way except in principle if it applies apply it.  My view of your purpose of life is like the Greeks Paul confronted spending the day exploring something new.  That is an enjoyable thing.  I like to do things a different way, try a different tool, learn a different technique.  But that pursuit to me has a emptiness about it to me.  It goes nowhere, though it's interesting all the way....to you.  It quickly bores me.  It's nothing compared to walking by faith in and with the Living Christ.  I don't expect you to accept that but that's the honest truth as you say - for me.

You cannot know that the experience you describe as "walking by faith in and with the Living Christ" is "as nothing" compared to what I feel during the peak moments I described, because you have not lived my life. You are being presumptive, but I will take your account more seriously than you seem prepared to take mine. I will not claim to know how my experiences compare to yours. I am fully accepting that it is an intense, deep and inspiring experience for you. Why can you not accept even the possibility that non-religious world-views can also inspire similarly intense and sublime experiences, with reference to other subjects of course. It is a basic aspect of human psychology, not something unique to the religious world-view. It is not unrelated to the feelings that can be triggered by various psycho-active drugs, which energize the same parts of the brain.

We have people on this board who have been thru both kinds of 'peak' experience, and will testify that they are comparable, and they are in a real position to judge, unlike you.

Quote:

 

I spent a lot of youth exploring things like you mention with great interest.  I could compare your being caught up in science pursuits with my excitement getting a BB gun.  It no longer interests me.  But living in the presence of Christ and God and exploring the hidden jewels in the Scriptures is a pile of wheat I can thresh and winnow every day and come away with the greatest food and substance.  With respect I view you as being in your life stuck in the second chapter of Ecclesiastes (without all the wives, ha).  Again I'm not intentionally attacking you personally rather  your world view and no-faith in God or Christ or the unseen eternal reality.  But you have no eyes of faith to see the unseen.  And I have no way of igniting that in you.  I wish I did.

And you do not have a long and deep background in coming to grips with the continuing revelations of Science, so you are unlikely to ever begin to understand what I see, even if you tried. I see the "eyes of faith" as firmly fixed on a fantasy world of wishful thinking. Not meant to be insulting, but if you are happy to make gratuitous assertions about what you think my life experience is like, I will be honest about my opinion of things like faith.

I will not try to 'convert' you, you seem happy, and are probably incapable now of finding the time and motivation necessary to get anywhere near my position, which is also informed by seeing people of different faiths, in many countries, going about their lives, and observing the rituals of their various faiths, Buddhist, Islamic, Russian Orthodox... I think it has given me a perspective that has helped me understand humanity a little better than most.

I only wish I could demonstrate to you that yours is not the only path to profound and inspiring experiences and a feeling of meaning and purpose.

Fonzie wrote:

BobSpence1,

I wasn't stating anything as if I have lived your life or have a eye in the sky concerning you or know your personal experience.  If I had no faith in you as appears to be often displayed in conversation on this forum I could pick at your statement and say you don't KNOW how serious I took your account because you haven't lived my life.  I am just stating these things from my personal experience as I assume you are.  I'm not sitting in judgment on you, over you, whatever, but I am just sharing the truth as I see it. 

There's hardly any statement anyone can make that couldn't be miss-framed and then attacked if that is the goal, which I see as a desire fulfilled by some I have tried to have conversation with.  Empathy has its limits, and I am only relating my experience to yours realizing there is a great chasm between us.  It seems like there has to be some faith in your fellow human inhabitants to communicate at all and I regret to say that with some atheists I have tried to have conversation - invited I might add to come into this forum and do that - with some atheists their engines are so revved up that if I believe in God it seems that every move I make or word I say is to try to bring fire down from heaven on them and they are more driven than some cult pushers I've met.  There is this psychological principle that you become like what you hate and I wonder if that's what's happened.  I'm not applying that to you, I'm applying that to conversation.  There needs to be a little of suspension of pickiness in any conversation.  I am making an attempt to express my view but every syllable is imperfect I admit.

I can accept that people can live their life and be happy doing what they're doing and believing what they believe.  I have tried some of those other things and nothing compares to what I have walking in faith in Christ.  I have stated several times that I am not referring to a feeling as you characterized it, and I'm not trying to be picky on that point, but I think it's a major point because I understand the transient nature of feelings, also the blindness.  This is more like knowing when you have gone against your conscience.  I wouldn't call that a feeling - would you?  That I would call a spiritually discerned thing.  I'll wait until you respond to this question - that also brings up another question I had:  How do you use science to determine right and wrong?  

I will stand by my statement that "You cannot know that the experience you describe as "walking by faith in and with the Living Christ" is "as nothing" compared to what I feel during the peak moments I described, because you have not lived my life."

I use the word "feeling" in the broadest sense, to refer to those aspects of mental experience which are not mainly in the form of 'reasoning', but involve desires, emotions, guilt, spiritual feelings, empathy, conscience, even the conviction that you are in some sense communing with your God or Jesus, which can never be more than a strong feeling that you are indeed 'really' talking to God, or hearing Him. No matter how strongly you are convinced that the experience is 'real', that conviction itself remains a feeling, not a result of logical reasoning, which can always be 'conjured up' purely by your mind, unless you can point to some evidence beyond your personal internal experience to justify that conclusion.

You would need at least half a lifetime to meaningfully 'try' my position and worldview.

Regarding 'right' and 'wrong', we don't so much use science to determine right and wrong, but it certainly helps determine whether some course of action is likely or not to cause harm and distress, or benefit and happiness, to other members of society, or society as a whole, which is the true core of morality. As well as that, it reveals the origin of our feelings about what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.

Our feelings of empathy, which science has demonstrated originate in certain parts of our brain, inform how we 'should' interact with other members of society, so as to maintain the smooth functioning of society, so that most members can feel secure and fulfilled. All those feelings are naturally evolved to maximize the success of a social species such as we are. Science reveals elements of these same drives which correspond to what we see as altruism and selfless assistance to other members in distress, as well as the feeling of 'fairness', in several of the more developed social species such as chimpanzees and dolphins and even elephants. It allows us to understand how such 'codes' arose and are of benefit to society.

It can also help us see how and why those drives can go wrong, such as when people feel morally justified in actually oppressing others, such as the irrational persecution of homosexuals.

IOW it helps us gain all kinds of insights into what and who we are, way beyond the relatively crude and simplistic early attempts to understand ourselves, as contained in many ancient writings.

Fear and ignorance and primitive beliefs still lead people, especially in less developed and educated societies to reject people for various disabilities which are no fault of their own. There is frequently a feeling that God must have afflicted these unfortunate people for a reason, so they are shunned in case the flaw is contagious in some way. This is an example of how non-scientific, intuitive beliefs, typically connected to religious ideas, can be harmful, like the nasty stuff in Leviticus.

Religion is a poor basis for moral law. It often enshrines in 'holy scriptures' primitive taboos and practices.

How to you judge which of the many nasty commandments in the OT are no longer applicable? And how do you judge that things like rape and torture are wrong, since they are not mentioned in major 'codes' such as the Ten Commandments?

Fonzie wrote:

BobSpence1,

I don't agree with your premise that the Law of Moses is anything but good; however, just like Moses only looked over at the promised land illustrating how easily you can blow it with the Law, then the purpose of the law was revealed in the only One who perfectly followed the Law, Who the Law had nothing on Whose dying was the Death of Death, Dying taking not His sins to the Cross but willingly the sins of all who believe in Him.

It is the same principle today.  The "law approach" to salvation only leads to frustration and misery, because no man can be saved by works - works of law or anything else.  So as the marriage isn't the end of the engagement Jesus was not the end of the Law but the fulfillment of it.  He pointed to the spiritual nature of the Law.  "You have heard it said, 'you shall not kill, but I say whoever is angry with his brother is a murderer"/ "you have heard it said, 'you shall not commit adultery but I say whoever lusts after a woman commits adultery in his heart". 

Concerning the foods, He "declared all foods clean". 

The Law had/has a purpose - that is to show us we can't save ourselves and point us to Christ. 

So to answer your question from my view, all the questions are put to rest by the principle of faith.  I totally trust and trust in Jesus - what He says, what He did lifted up on the Cross.  His atoning death totally satisfies my conscience.  As far as right and wrong, I listen and look to Him. 

He told the scribes and Pharisees that they search the scriptures because they think in them they will find salvation but "they speak of Me".  He showed His disciples after his resurrection how the prophecies all pointed to Him.  I totally believe in Him.  He is my standard.  When I was "born anew" of the water and the Spirit I was given the gift of the Holy Spirit, a portion of my inheritance.  I can't point to exactly what the Holy Spirit is or has done within me, but Jesus said He would guide me and I know He has.  He also spotlights Jesus.  So this is probably more than you asked but just trying to describe the spiritual furniture in my life - not yours. 

Through faith I have a living, burning connection to the Lord through His perfect sacrifice on the cross and His bringing me to life to be able to accept it and become a part of it.  It is all in harmony - the Word written, the Living Word, the Spirit of Jesus.  That's my focus.

How sad. I thought from your previous responses to me there was a hint of understanding showing thru from you.

However, here you just relapse back to little more that repeating a lot of Biblical nonsense and proselytising.

You quote two of the most offensive and ridiculous statements ascribed to Jesus, making thoughts a crime. Whereas real crimes against others, such as rape and  torture are nowhere condemned. Indeed God seems to command his chosen people to inflict those on their enemies - what an evil God you believe in.

The whole idea of someone else 'dying for our sins' is primitive nonsense and a denial of true morality.

Even worse when it is taught that he didn't really die except maybe for little more than a day.

The alleged crucifixion, if it really occurred, was an ultimately meaningless and futile event. Certainly of no more ultimate significance to mankind that all the other crucifixions the Romans arranged.

The Ten Commandments are a deeply fl 

I am truly sorry for you.

 

Fonzie wrote:

BobSpence1,

Well we each have our own sorrow of heart - who else shares its joy or grief?  Like I said there is a great divide between us - we are truly in two different worlds.  From my view you don't understand the first thing about my world.  I might have thought the same about you - that there was a hint of understanding, but not after your statement about Jesus.  Truly He came to His own and they did not know Him.  You are a part of that blind state yet claiming to see.  You are a part of the astounding ignorance in the world yet claiming to be wise. 

You unknowingly reinforce the truth of Scripture.  I get the truth from Scripture and you accompany the joy of the lighted path with your blind groping.  I read about the endless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge and I meet it in your response to the gospel.  You look really silly rating statements of the One Who made you - the One Who holds all things together.

Don't feel sorry for me - save that for yourself. 

 

<Sigh> You of course have replied exactly as I expected. 

I have every much, if not more, justification to say that you are the blind, deluded one, but that becomes just a pointless "well so are you" childish exchange.

Certainly, we are in two different worlds.

You have nothing but the blind ignorance of faith to justify your position, and a personal conviction of the 'truth' of your position and the feelings it induces in you.

Your conviction and personal feelings count for nought, since I can validly claim to the equivalent level of personal conviction for myself, and despite your denial that I could possibly have anything equivalent, that can never be anything but an empty claim, which I will not throw back at you - I will never attempt to deny that you genuinely feel what you claim, just as I will never deny that "it works for you". I am granting you more acceptance of your personal claims and strength of conviction that you seem prepared or able to extend to us.

When it comes to actual meaningful demonstration or justification of our respective claims as to what is the objective truth, you really have nothing but one ancient inconsistent collection of writings, we have Science, a vast accumulation of highly verified knowledge, whose validity is demonstrated by facts like the existence of the very computer you have been using to preach at us throughout this long thread.

So sad.

zomg, this thread just needs to die and never come back.

As to the conflicts you point out you forget another in your reasoning - the Devil.  Anything good can be misused and misunderstood.  The Devil is the be all end all at that, yet he clothes it in an appearance of greater righteousness than the LORD Himself.  To the impure all things are corrupt - which reminds me of your rejection of the guilt of evil thoughts.  If you have polluted water in the water source or the tower the answer isn't changing the pipes or the faucets. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

The reasons you give for your faith, such as your absolutely firm conviction that you are 'walking with Jesus', your unshakable beliefs, re-inforced by the sublime feelings it brings you, are, in combination, what is wrong with religion, just as the 'high' that drugs give you is ultimately why drugs are a problem - they can lead to addiction.

IOW, the reasons that make religion 'work' so well for individuals, are often the reasons why it is bad for mankind. It devalues real knowledge, ie Science, and makes it hard for us to empathise with and understand people who do not share the Faith, as you have clearly demonstrated. I think I understand, to a degree, why you hold your views, but you clearly do not understand ours.

The conflicts between people of different faiths are almost inevitable, since a disagreement between people about such issues cannot be resolved by argument. If both sides hold so strongly to their beliefs, with no basis in objective reality, ie purely on the strength of their conviction, real conflict is pretty much inevitable when they find themselves competing for resources or living space or anything else. Exhibit A: The Middle East.

 

Even apart from conflict, the ability of religion to comfort people in deep poverty and distress in poor nations, which is a positive at that level, can reduce the ability and drive to actually do something about it at the broader level, especially if it requires restructuring the society.

 

 

 

 

 

BobSpence1,

 

You leave out the greatest part in your reasoning - God - which is in sync with your unbelief so again you are one with yourself but estranged from my experience of real fellowship with a gracious God Who knows all my faults yet lets me eat at His table and serves me Himself.

I don't see how you enjoy life without meaning - you are right about that.  It looks like I can get a subscription to Popular Science and have all you have plus the abundant life.  You have referred to helping out one's fellow man - to what?  To share meaninglessness.  If there is no reference for meaning - other than discovery - how can that fuel a residual joy?

As to the conflicts you point out you forget another in your reasoning - the Devil.  Anything good can be misused and misunderstood.  The Devil is the be all end all at that, yet he clothes it in an appearance of greater righteousness than the LORD Himself.  To the impure all things are corrupt - which reminds me of your rejection of the guilt of evil thoughts.  If you have polluted water in the water source or the tower the answer isn't changing the pipes or the faucets. 

 

 

 

 

Fonzie wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The reasons you give for your faith, such as your absolutely firm conviction that you are 'walking with Jesus', your unshakable beliefs, re-inforced by the sublime feelings it brings you, are, in combination, what is wrong with religion, just as the 'high' that drugs give you is ultimately why drugs are a problem - they can lead to addiction.

IOW, the reasons that make religion 'work' so well for individuals, are often the reasons why it is bad for mankind. It devalues real knowledge, ie Science, and makes it hard for us to empathise with and understand people who do not share the Faith, as you have clearly demonstrated. I think I understand, to a degree, why you hold your views, but you clearly do not understand ours.

The conflicts between people of different faiths are almost inevitable, since a disagreement between people about such issues cannot be resolved by argument. If both sides hold so strongly to their beliefs, with no basis in objective reality, ie purely on the strength of their conviction, real conflict is pretty much inevitable when they find themselves competing for resources or living space or anything else. Exhibit A: The Middle East.

Even apart from conflict, the ability of religion to comfort people in deep poverty and distress in poor nations, which is a positive at that level, can reduce the ability and drive to actually do something about it at the broader level, especially if it requires restructuring the society

BobSpence1,

You leave out the greatest part in your reasoning - God - which is in sync with your unbelief so again you are one with yourself but estranged from my experience of real fellowship with a gracious God Who knows all my faults yet lets me eat at His table and serves me Himself.

I don't see how you enjoy life without meaning - you are right about that.  It looks like I can get a subscription to Popular Science and have all you have plus the abundant life.  You have referred to helping out one's fellow man - to what?  To share meaninglessness.  If there is no reference for meaning - other than discovery - how can that fuel a residual joy?

As to the conflicts you point out you forget another in your reasoning - the Devil.  Anything good can be misused and misunderstood.  The Devil is the be all end all at that, yet he clothes it in an appearance of greater righteousness than the LORD Himself.  To the impure all things are corrupt - which reminds me of your rejection of the guilt of evil thoughts.  If you have polluted water in the water source or the tower the answer isn't changing the pipes or the faucets. 

Science is the method of gaining knowledge about the nature of reality, although it doesn't by itself address all aspects of our emotional and spiritual life. I am using the term 'spiritual' in the broader category beyond that sub-set which religion has tried to 'own'. 'Faith' is comforting self-deception, lying to yourself.

Meaning and purpose are best informed, IMHO, by whatever enhances the collective well-being of mankind, both now and that of future generations. If I can feel I have contributed to enhancing the life-experience of current and future generations, to at least some modest extent, that allows me to feel my life will not have not been totally irrelevant.

If you can't find or imagine purpose in helping others, that is sad. You are just further demonstrating the ultimate perversion of existence and morality that is Religion.

It is absurd to imagine that a being such as a God could 'need' or have His existence enhanced by anything as infinitely insignificant in comparison to Himself as Man. 

Directing our efforts to our fellow man and future generations is assisting those who can genuinely benefit from our efforts - the idea that we can gain meaning to our lives by obedience to some Being who can have no need of us is just absurd. It is more logically and emotionally valid to me that it would be your imaginary God who would be gaining meaning from us rather than vice versa.

'Evil' thoughts indicate some problems in one's life, but to treat them as to any degree on the same level as 'evil' actions is a nonsense, particularly if the same code does not bother with including real evils such as rape and torture, and slavery - anything which considers other persons as 'property'. 

You are deluded and ignorant. Virtually everything you claim here simply further demonstrates this.

Introducing the 'Devil' is yet another pathetic attempt to paper over all the holes in your world-view, all the things which the God concept fails to explain. This is the same course that pretty much all religious resort to - imagining more entities to make the story work, rather than honestly conceding that the 'supernatural' actually doesn't really explain the nature of existence.

Fonzie wrote:

I am having the same problems with some of your statements as I had with vector calculus where everything was to me meaningless definition.

So you're just lazy ?

Or is this yet another failed analogy ?

Also "I believe in christ and you don't" in no way acknowledges Bob's arguments.

Also Bob, your beliefs do not require that your way is the only way to achieve happiness.

By default, Fonzie *must* believe his way is the only way because a central point of his dogma is that there is only one way to achieve happiness, and it is his way.

Some interesting thoughts there, but they're predicated on an assumption though... that some physical manifestations are indicative of what love is itself; that love is nothing more than chemical. A better question may be, what is love? 

mellestad wrote:

Also Bob, your beliefs do not require that your way is the only way to achieve happiness.

By default, Fonzie *must* believe his way is the only way because a central point of his dogma is that there is only one way to achieve happiness, and it is his way.

Hi Melle,

I think you have a major misunderstanding of Christianity here though. Christ did not come to bring happiness to man, nor is Christ the only way to happiness.

 

Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah who brings reconciliation and peace between man and God. From this peace, certainly happiness, contentment and rest may and should come... but these things are not the reason for Christ, nor are they confined to those who follow Christ. Some Christians get a bit confused and try to say that only Christians can be 'happy' or 'good', but this is a misunderstandings of basic Biblical teachings. Hey... just because a person follows Christ doesn't mean they aren't still human!

Some interesting thoughts there, but they're predicated on an assumption though... that some physical manifestations are indicative of what love is itself; that love is nothing more than chemical. A better question may be, what is love?

Returning to the core issue though, even IF love is currently not addressed by science, does that make it mere speculation?

 

Bob, you comment that "the ongoing hope of Science is to progressively gain ever more accurate knowledge and insight into ever more aspects of "Life, the Universe, and Everything". Other than being a nice aside into the Hitchhikers Guide, if this is true, then isn't the question of God (whether such an entity exists, and what 'God' may be) rather central to it? I would also argue that there is no such thing as 'mere' speculation. Some of the greatest advances in science began with speculation. Take for example the question of mice and men...

 

I hope from Fonzie's last response that he has begun to appreciate that us non-believers maybe can have a more-than-adequate basis for morality, meaning, and purpose, and all the other things he thinks are what makes his belief 'work for him'. He has admitted that he still can't understand how that can 'work', that he cannot understand much of what I am saying.

That could be seen as some sort of progress, from his confident earlier assertions that without belief none of those things could possibly 'work' for us.

So it seems I have provided a firm answer to all of his claims, even he cannot grasp it.

EDIT: And I agree, it probably does frighten him a bit, that I could so confidently respond to his claims, in ways that he clearly did not expect.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I hope from Fonzie's last response that he has begun to appreciate that us non-believers maybe can have a more-than-adequate basis for morality, meaning, and purpose, and all the other things he thinks are what makes his belief 'work for him'. He has admitted that he still can't understand how that can 'work', that he cannot understand much of what I am saying.

That could be seen as some sort of progress, from his confident earlier assertions that without belief none of those things could possibly 'work' for us.

So it seems I have provided a firm answer to all of his claims, even he cannot grasp it.

EDIT: And I agree, it probably does frighten him a bit, that I could so confidently respond to his claims, in ways that he clearly did not expect.

 

BobSpence1,

I've been sort of busy, but yes, you have begun to convince me:  that you and others are convinced you are totally satisfied without God. 

The fact that you are satisfied in this state is hard for me to understand - like the vector calculus I mentioned where everything was by definition. I couldn't envision or diagram it.  Neither can I envision accepting the vanity of science as life - it totally bores me as a God.  It's a tool yes, but no more.

You might share with me the science "thought of the day" that inspires you, lifts you up and leads you on.  I'll consider it. 

BTW your unbelief doesn't frighten me.  I have a lot about that in my Text Book.  The comparison there is the war between light and dark.  The light isn't frightened or overcome.  It's verifiable.

 

 

 
 

 

mellestad wrote:

Fonzie wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I hope from Fonzie's last response that he has begun to appreciate that us non-believers maybe can have a more-than-adequate basis for morality, meaning, and purpose, and all the other things he thinks are what makes his belief 'work for him'. He has admitted that he still can't understand how that can 'work', that he cannot understand much of what I am saying.

That could be seen as some sort of progress, from his confident earlier assertions that without belief none of those things could possibly 'work' for us.

So it seems I have provided a firm answer to all of his claims, even he cannot grasp it.

EDIT: And I agree, it probably does frighten him a bit, that I could so confidently respond to his claims, in ways that he clearly did not expect.

 

BobSpence1,

I've been sort of busy, but yes, you have begun to convince me:  that you and others are convinced you are totally satisfied without God. 

The fact that you are satisfied in this state is hard for me to understand - like the vector calculus I mentioned where everything was by definition. I couldn't envision or diagram it.  Neither can I envision accepting the vanity of science as life - it totally bores me as a God.  It's a tool yes, but no more.

You might share with me the science "thought of the day" that inspires you, lifts you up and leads you on.  I'll consider it. 

BTW your unbelief doesn't frighten me.  I have a lot about that in my Text Book.  The comparison there is the war between light and dark.  The light isn't frightened or overcome.  It's verifiable.

 

 

 
 

 

I don't think science is a god for most of us...I think science and reason are the tools that we turn to when most theists turn to god.  Science doesn't make me content (although I enjoy it), my family, friends, hobbies and personal development make me so.  The world around me provides awe.

We really aren't that different, we just choose to skip a step in our thinking, a step we consider superfluous and sometimes even damaging.

My thought for today was pushing my daughter up an enclosed slide at a park by our house, so my wife could grab her hand and pull her up to the top.  Listening to her laugh and getting that oxytocin rush   Or maybe the melancholy remembrance I felt while I was helping to clean up my dead grandfathers property so it could be sold.  The space I used to have for god has been filled nicely by my life.  Now I look back and see my past religion as an unhelpful intrusion...the idea of god never helped me with pain, and it never gave me a sense of wonder that I didn't have on my own.  Actually, I can confidently state that my sense of wonder has improved because my sense of importance in the universe has diminished to something tiny.

God trivialized my humanity.

 

Mellestad,

That was a nice thought and I enjoyed that.  It reminded me of my wife recently coming down the big rocket slide with my 4 year old granddaughter, and the first time my then 12 year old second grandson tried our wax paper suggestion and flew out 10 feet. 

You reminded me of a memory I had as a youth painting posts at the school in the summer.  The brush my dad gave me was stiff as a board.  The oil base paint had a 1/2 inch thick skin on the top and the posts had dirt on them.  I saw that experience of painting as an unhelpful intrusion.  The brush didn't help me with application and it never gave me satisfaction of accomplishing anything.  I joined the chorus of "painting is no fun" for many years until I learned something about it.  The same thing happened with the idea of God.

Like you say we are a tiny speck in the universe (our solar system), and we are a tiny speck in a speck in a speck.  I'm reading now about a wise man I'm pretty sure you would acknowledge existed - Solomon - and his search in this universe for what is important - Ecclesiastes.  It seems efficient to let him do the searching.  You might find yourself in chapter 2.