Jump to content


Photo

America's Changing Religious Landscape

religion atheism christianity secular

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#1 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 12 May 2015 - 12:41 PM

A recent poll by the Pew organization shows there are some big shifts taking place in the religious beliefs of Americans.

 

The poll shows the numbers of Catholics and "mainline" Protestants have declined from 42.0 to 35.5% of the population; Evangelical Protestants have dropped from 26.3 to 25.4%; while "Unaffiliated" have increased from 16.1 to 22.8%.

 

"To be sure, the United States remains home to more Christians than any other country in the world, and a large majority of Americans – roughly seven-in-ten – continue to identify with some branch of the Christian faith.1 But the major new survey of more than 35,000 Americans by the Pew Research Center finds that the percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated – describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – has jumped more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%."

Source: http://www.pewforum....ious-landscape/



#2 nmp9463

nmp9463

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 15 May 2015 - 09:11 PM

Christian parents have a blame. Many Christian parents have a don't-care let-the-child-do-as-he-pleases attitude. Parents think that they shouldn't force their beliefs on their children. The child sees the Bible as nothing but a book of rules. His desires come first, not God's.

 

Before atheists pump their chests, the percentage of atheists has only increased by a percent or 2. The largest percent increase came from 'nothing in particular.' What does this mean? Maybe people aren't sure. Maybe they don't care. They're not leaning one way or the other because it's hard to rule out God and they're not buying the evolution either. 

 

Non-Christian faiths saw a slight increase. Why? Immigration is one reason. A desire for an open religion like Buddhism is probably a big one too. It's up to Christians to show people that Christianity isn't the condemning religion it's been made out to be. 

 

Finally, while religious affiliation may be shifting away from Christianity in the US, it is rising in other countries like China. Current projections have atheism declining over the next 50 years worldwide, actually.


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#3 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 16 May 2015 - 04:06 PM

Christian parents have a blame. Many Christian parents have a don't-care let-the-child-do-as-he-pleases attitude. Parents think that they shouldn't force their beliefs on their children.


Parents absolutely shouldn't force their beliefs on children. I'm atheist but I don't try to impose that on my two kids. Religion persists in part because of parents threatening hell to their children if they don't follow the same God as they do, which is horrible. Hopefully the changing religious landscape in the US reflects a more open attitude by parents.



#4 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 May 2015 - 03:26 AM

Christian parents have a blame. Many Christian parents have a don't-care let-the-child-do-as-he-pleases attitude. Parents think that they shouldn't force their beliefs on their children. The child sees the Bible as nothing but a book of rules. His desires come first, not God's.

The lack of parental involvement goes far beyond only Christian parents.

 

In some ways, I'm not too sure I blame the parents either.  For example, small children need immediate and certain corrective action.  I realize this is really "old school," but there is nothing like a quick swat on the behind to correct the 3 or 4 year old who is misbehaving in the checkout line.  Do that to your child today and the next thing you know...  the police will be called; your child will be taken away; you will have weeks to months of expensive legal fights; and you will be listed as a possible or potential child abuser.

 

 

Before atheists pump their chests, the percentage of atheists has only increased by a percent or 2. The largest percent increase came from 'nothing in particular.' What does this mean? Maybe people aren't sure. Maybe they don't care. They're not leaning one way or the other because it's hard to rule out God and they're not buying the evolution either. .

This study didn't even mention evolution.  A frequently cited Gallup poll here http://www.gallup.co...an-origins.aspx shows over the period covered by the Pew study, the total believing in evolution has remained fairly constant (58-61%), those believing in non-theistic evolution have increased from 14% to 19%.

 

My reading is that the trend is toward non-denominational beliefs.


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#5 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 17 May 2015 - 03:40 AM

Parents absolutely shouldn't force their beliefs on children. I'm atheist but I don't try to impose that on my two kids. Religion persists in part because of parents threatening hell to their children if they don't follow the same God as they do, which is horrible. Hopefully the changing religious landscape in the US reflects a more open attitude by parents.

The responsibility of parents to educate their children goes to spiritual as well as temporal matters.  It is reasonable to expect parents will pass on their own religious beliefs to their children.  That has been done in virtually all societies since the beginning of history.


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#6 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 795 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 17 May 2015 - 03:12 PM

The responsibility of parents to educate their children goes to spiritual as well as temporal matters.  It is reasonable to expect parents will pass on their own religious beliefs to their children.  That has been done in virtually all societies since the beginning of history.

 

I'm sure it has but I don't really see passing on religious belief to children as 'educating' but rather indoctrination. Educating would be to give awareness of all religions and allow for the possibility that none are true, then let the child decide for his/herself. Having said that I'm not really that bothered about children passively absorbing the beliefs of their parents, but forcing a particular belief on the child (using hell as a scare tool ) is obviously distasteful.



#7 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 18 May 2015 - 01:54 AM

I'm sure it has but I don't really see passing on religious belief to children as 'educating' but rather indoctrination. Educating would be to give awareness of all religions and allow for the possibility that none are true, then let the child decide for his/herself. Having said that I'm not really that bothered about children passively absorbing the beliefs of their parents, but forcing a particular belief on the child (using hell as a scare tool ) is obviously distasteful.

That would be in our belief. :) However if questioning your faith is evil, you definitely do not wish your children to "be aware of all religions and allow for the possibility that none are true".

 

I agree with Piasan. If someone would raise his children, he would obviously like to pass on all of his good values and none of his bad. However, people cannot distinguish themselves which of their values are harmful or not. If you would teach your children "these core values I have are good" and "these core values are questionable", than you undermine your entire education. You can't give mixed messages (well, I don't have any children yet, but that what I heard. :P )

 

Also, I disagree that passing on religious beliefs to children automatically counts as indoctrination. There's a difference between inviting the children to church each week and forcing them to go.



#8 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 18 May 2015 - 07:45 AM

Also, I disagree that passing on religious beliefs to children automatically counts as indoctrination. There's a difference between inviting the children to church each week and forcing them to go.

Sometimes, children.... especially the younger ones will be forced to do things.  They lack the capacity to make real decisions.  Example:  My son was about 4 and due to come visit me.  My ex didn't like the visits and told me I should ask him if he wanted to come for a visit.  E-X-C-U-S-E   M-E.   Ask a 4 year old ? ? ?    He's just going to say what his mother has been telling him for weeks or months.

 

Teach your children the religious beliefs you wish them to have.  Raise them in those beliefs.  Let them sort things out for themselves as they reach maturity.   Be assured, they will do that.

 

 

.... but forcing a particular belief on the child (using hell as a scare tool ) is obviously distasteful.

Well, I'm not much of one for "hellfire-and-damnation" preaching, so I largely agree with this particular point.  Teaching that God loves us should not mean we need to terrorize them.


  • gilbo12345 and Mike Summers like this

#9 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 28 September 2016 - 11:03 AM

I just saw this new poll today.  It's much more extensive than the previous study.  

 

The new evaluation shows Americans are becoming much less denominational in their beliefs.  "Blame" for the situation is laid largely on divorce.

 

Excerpts:

The American religious landscape has undergone substantial changes in recent years. However, one of the most consequential shifts in American religion has been the rise of religiously unaffiliated Americans. This trend emerged in the early 1990s. In 1991, only six percent of Americans identified their religious affiliation as “none,” and that number had not moved much since the early 1970s. By the end of the 1990s, 14% of the public claimed no religious affiliation. The rate of religious change accelerated further during the late 2000s and early 2010s, reaching 20% by 2012. Today, one-quarter (25%) of Americans claim no formal religious identity, making this group the single largest “religious group” in the U.S......The growth of the unaffiliated has been fed by an exodus of those who grew up with a religious identity.....One important reason why the unaffiliated are experiencing rising retention rates is because younger Americans raised in nonreligious homes are less apt to join a religious tradition or denomination than young adults in previous eras. .....Most Americans who leave their childhood religious identity to become unaffiliated generally do so before they reach their 18th birthday. .....Among the reasons Americans identified as important motivations in leaving their childhood religion are: they stopped believing in the religion’s teachings (60%), their family was never that religious when they were growing up (32%), and their experience of negative religious teachings about or treatment of G*y and lesbian people (29%)......Previous research has shown that family stability—or instability—can impact the transmission of religious identity. ....



#10 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 28 September 2016 - 05:39 PM

One thing I have anecdotally noticed is that among religious individuals there is a growing hostility towards organized denominations. For example I hear things like "I used to be fill-in-the-blank-denomination, but now I am non-denominational".



#11 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 September 2016 - 01:03 PM

Parents absolutely shouldn't force their beliefs on children. I'm atheist but I don't try to impose that on my two kids. Religion persists in part because of parents threatening hell to their children if they don't follow the same God as they do, which is horrible. Hopefully the changing religious landscape in the US reflects a more open attitude by parents.

Yip, let the state and its minions do that. Parents should just obey, pay their taxes, send the kids to a state school and take no interest in the well being or education of the kids. That's what the social engineers and progressive "expert" want and insist on for more then 100 years now. 

 

I don't think that parents have to be pushy with their belief. But they certainly should talk about beliefs, values, ethics, etc. with their children. Especially when they're Christians. There are certainly different ways to do that. It's also quite natural that children will start out with the belief system of their parents. But it's something that decreases in modern households. Both parents working full days, kids go to kindergarten, school and then spent excessive time watching TV. It's clear that there will be a shift in influence on kids.... This time by supposedly neutral sources like the education system, which in fact are nothing like that. 

 

It's a myth that non-Christian, more secular or liberal parents aren't pushy anyway. Some may be. But I know quite some atheist parents that would put any bible-pushing bigot to shame. So I don't think the "change in the religious landscape" is leading to a "more open attitude". It may be more a sign of a "I-don't-really-care-you-need-to-decide-yourself" attitude by the previous generation(s). Of course in the end it's everyone's responsibility to search for truth himself.  


  • piasan likes this

#12 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 October 2016 - 07:31 PM

Parents absolutely shouldn't force their beliefs on children. I'm atheist but I don't try to impose that on my two kids. Religion persists in part because of parents threatening hell to their children if they don't follow the same God as they do, which is horrible. Hopefully the changing religious landscape in the US reflects a more open attitude by parents.

Yip, let the state and its minions do that. Parents should just obey, pay their taxes, send the kids to a state school and take no interest in the well being or education of the kids. That's what the social engineers and progressive "expert" want and insist on for more then 100 years now.   

Parents cannot escape their responsibility for the education of their children.

 

Unfortunately, far too many parents abdicate their obligation to their offspring and put the burden on the schools for teaching all things from the "3R's" to s@x ed and morality.

 

Nothing requires that parents send their children to state-run schools.  In addition, if course material is being taught to which the parent objects on religious grounds, the parents can have their child "op-out" of the objectionable content and have their child take that subject home-school or their child can be given alternative assignments.

 

I don't think that parents have to be pushy with their belief. But they certainly should talk about beliefs, values, ethics, etc. with their children. Especially when they're Christians. There are certainly different ways to do that. It's also quite natural that children will start out with the belief system of their parents.

It is the responsibility of the parents, not the state, to teach beliefs, values, ethics, etc.  Children will start out with the belief system of parents because they are the primary influence in the child's life for the first 4-5 years.

 

But it's something that decreases in modern households. Both parents working full days, kids go to kindergarten, school and then spent excessive time watching TV. It's clear that there will be a shift in influence on kids.... This time by supposedly neutral sources like the education system, which in fact are nothing like that.   

I think it's important to point out that students (in the US) spend about 6 hours a day in class for a 180 day school year.  This is 1080 of 8760 hours per year.  Allowing for 8 hours of sleep per night (2920 hours), that still leaves 4760 hours for the parents to teach their children beliefs, values, ethics, etc.  TV time and parents choosing to work two jobs are not the responsibility of the school system. 

 

BTW, today, we spend about 20 days specifically preparing for state mandated tests in core subjects and another 10 days administering them.  Another 10 days or more will be spent in extra-curricular activity.  That reduces us to about 140 days of instruction.  At 6 hours a day, that amounts to about 840 hours of instruction with about 10% of that spent doing quizzes and tests.  Now we're down to 856 hours of actual teaching time.  Probably only 100-200 hours of that is spent in subjects religious parents would find objectionable such as evolution, s@x-ed, and morals/ethics.

 

 

It's a myth that non-Christian, more secular or liberal parents aren't pushy anyway. Some may be. But I know quite some atheist parents that would put any bible-pushing bigot to shame. So I don't think the "change in the religious landscape" is leading to a "more open attitude". It may be more a sign of a "I-don't-really-care-you-need-to-decide-yourself" attitude by the previous generation(s) 

That may be.  The bottom line is that responsibility for the failure to instill appropriate "beliefs, values, ethics, etc." must be laid exactly where it belongs .... on the parents.

 

Of course in the end it's everyone's responsibility to search for truth himself.  

Absolutely.



#13 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 29 October 2016 - 11:55 AM

One thing I have anecdotally noticed is that among religious individuals there is a growing hostility towards organized denominations. 

 

 

Christianity is NOT a 'Religion'.

 

Ya see, 'Religion's' quintessential attribute is Belief without Evidence.  The object of that 'Belief' is painfully Irrelevant.  But as Christian's, we are admonished to:

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

 

So pray tell, how can Christianity be a "religion", yet @ the same time... hold completely to the Antithetical Attribute and Foundation of the word?

 

Have you heard of the Law of Non-Contradiction, per adventure?

 

 

So your (and 99.9999% of society) feeble mindlessly "Parroted" appeal without the least bit of scrutiny Whatsoever... to couch then incoherently cast a negative shadow towards Christianity on the basis of assigning it WITHOUT Coherent WARRANT to a category 'religion' --- of which, it is antithetical to... by mere clumsy Ipse Dixit Fiat, strains ground squirrel level reasoning and credulity well WELL past Critical Mass !!!

 

 

 

 

Can we get to the ACTUAL Case ??  :gotcha: ...

 

 

Let's talk about your 'Religion' --- Materialism/Realism/Methodological Naturalism (Atheism). As a matter of fact, it's Blind/Deaf/Dumb and Scientifically Falsified...RELIGION !!!!

 
 
The ENTIRE foundation of which holds that Matter exists INDEPENDENT of Perception/ Consciousness.
 
 
Have you heard of Quantum Mechanics, per adventure?? You know, the most Experimentally Verified/Validated field of "Actual" Science in the history of man? The same that has sent Materialism/Realism (Atheism) into the Incoherent Oblivion !! ...
 
 
Cause Ahhh, you have some BIG Problems  :shock: :  Namely, being in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to Literally Thousands of EXPERIMENTS ("SCIENCE") !!!!!!!
 
 
"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness 
[Materialism/Realism --- aka: Atheism] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."--- 
Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151.
 
 
KaBooM !!!!
 
 
Have you seen these, Mr. Anecdotes (??) ...
 
 
1. Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5. 
The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of 'which-path' Information solely collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior when the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005.
 
 
2.  Gröblacher, S. et al. (2007): An experimental test of non-local realism. Nature 446, pp. 871-875. ( http://www.nature.co...ature05677.html )
In this Landmark Paper, the authors violate both Bell's Inequality (again) and Leggett's Inequality revealing that the concept of locality is not consistent with Quantum Experiments and that intuitive features of Realism should be abandoned. 
Physicsworld April 20 2007, speaking to this experiment, went as far as to claim that ‘quantum physics says goodbye to reality.’ New Scientist 'Reality Check' 23 June 2007..."There is no objective reality beyond what we observe".
 
 
3.  The Outcome Observed Reality depends on the Measurements @ that time and can't be predicted prior to that.
Confirmed by Validating the Kochen-Specker Theorem: 
Lapkiewicz, R; Zeilinger, A: Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system: Nature, 474, 490–493, June 2011.
 
Speaking to this experiment in...
Ananthaswamy, A: Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it; New Scientist, June 2011. 
(See Parent Paper Nature Paper Above)...
 
“There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality,” Zeilinger concludes."
 
"Kochen, now at Princeton University in New Jersey, is also happy. “Almost a half century after Specker and I proved our theorem, which was based on a [thought] experiment, real experiments now confirm our result,” he says.'
 
Steinberg [Quantum Physicist] is impressed: “This is a beautiful experiment.” If previous experiments testing entanglement shut the door on hidden variables theories, the latest work seals it tight. “It appears that you can’t even conceive of a theory where specific observables would have definite values that are independent of the other things you measure,” adds Steinberg.
Ananthaswamy, A: Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it; New Scientist, June 2011.
 
That Echo's from...
 
“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."  
Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160
 
“The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”
Prof. Anton Zeilinger (Particle Physicist)
 
 
 
4.  Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. 
The authors PUMMEL Naive Realism and take Local-Causality to the Woodshed (again). 
 
"The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."
[**Ergo, The LACK of 'which-path Information' anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!]
 
"No NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."
 
 

5.  Manning A.G et al. (2015): Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom; Nature Physics 11, 539–542, doi:10.1038/nphys3343."Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place".
 
 
 
6.  Hensen, B et al. (2015): Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres; Nature 526, 682–686, doi:10.1038/nature15759"Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis."   i.e., Goodbye Realism for the 1875th TIME!!!
 
 
Got another ~ 1875 Experiments that support these conclusions, Without Exception(!!) but they would be well beyond  :icon_deadhorse:
 
 
 
So, anymore 'Anecdotes' from among your religious circles?  Frankly @ this point, Phlogiston and 13th Century Alchemy look "Cutting Edge" compared to your trainwreck religion.
 
 
Hope it helps
 


#14 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 29 October 2016 - 06:03 PM

 

Christianity is NOT a 'Religion'.

 

Ya see, 'Religion's' quintessential attribute is Belief without Evidence

 

Oddly enough the only time I have ever heard of such a definition of religion is from you. I have not heard of such a definition after spending about two decades of my life entrenched in 'religion', nor when I took religious studies at university, nor in any reading I have done on the subject, nor in any dictionary definition I have ever found, nor in any dialogue with religious or non-religious individuals until you came along.

 

So forgive me if I look past your theatrical display of big fonts and colors, and recognize that this is simply your pet definition which is not concordant with reality.

 

You do realize that virtually every religion, or rather every religious person, says that what they believe has evidence to back it up, if not outright proof? As Mike the Wiz likes to say it is almost impossible not to have at least one piece of evidence for any given belief or idea, even if that evidence is weak or is overshadowed by other evidence falsifying said belief.

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness 

[Materialism/Realism --- aka: Atheism] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."--- 
Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151.

 

So, IOW, since God exists outside of human consciousness God does not exist - or rather God is a creation of the human mind. Are you sure this disproves atheism and not theism?

 

I know you like to conflate atheism with whatever you think is wrong, but you do realize that atheism proper doesn't say whether or not materialism/realism or whatever else is actually true, right? All it is is a belief that a magical, immortal, anthropomorphic entity that lives outside of space and time does not exist independent of human consciousness. 

 

If you believe nothing exists outside of human consciousness, then according to the law of non-contradiction theism cannot also be true.

 

So which is it, Enoch, is theism true (aka Yahweh is real), or is your version of QM true?



#15 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 30 October 2016 - 07:16 AM

Parents cannot escape their responsibility for the education of their children.
 
Unfortunately, far too many parents abdicate their obligation to their offspring and put the burden on the schools for teaching all things from the "3R's" to s@x ed and morality.
 
Nothing requires that parents send their children to state-run schools.  In addition, if course material is being taught to which the parent objects on religious grounds, the parents can have their child "op-out" of the objectionable content and have their child take that subject home-school or their child can be given alternative assignments.

 Having Responsibility and living up to it are unfortunately two different things. But first one needs of course realize having a certain responsibility in the first place. The concept isn't as self-evident as many people think it is, but it isn't just arbitrary neither. 

 

There may be no legal requirements for state-run schools in the US (and some other countries), but it's mandatory for at least primary education in most countries. Another question is the one of feasibility. How many parents still have the ability to teach their own children? And in case of sending them to a private school. How many could really afford that for all their children?

 

Concerning educating and training your own children, there is an multigenerational deskilling that has been taking place. From the introduction of mass-public-schooling to now each generation lost some of the skills they previously had to teach their children to master the rest of their life. Taken, some parents may not have had it neither in older days. Some history of public schooling would be interesting. There were ideologues, military, business, bureaucracy, politicians and others that had some interest in this. One argument was higher productivity, another supposedly better "morality", education as ex ducere (emancipation), standardization, industrialization,cultivation. Looking at it raw it always was about institutional power separated between ideological, political and economic interests. 

 

It is the responsibility of the parents, not the state, to teach beliefs, values, ethics, etc.  Children will start out with the belief system of parents because they are the primary influence in the child's life for the first 4-5 years.
 
....

 

Natural they will, and they'll always have something of that belief system in them, as the initial values are the ones that the later values are evaluated themselves. 

 

Of course there is an immediate conflict in the child, if the values at home are significantly different from those that are taught in school by the teachers. It's no surprise that supremacy over schooling was the ball various belief systems/ world views and their social carriers have fought about. 



#16 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 30 October 2016 - 09:26 AM

Oddly enough the only time I have ever heard of such a definition of religion is from you.  I have not heard of such a definition after spending about two decades of my life entrenched in 'religion', nor when I took religious studies at university, nor in any reading I have done on the subject, nor in any dictionary definition I have ever found, nor in any dialogue with religious or non-religious individuals until you came along.

 

Really??  Well go ahead and post the definition...?  

 

And the amount of TIME spent 'in something' doesn't offer any veracity whatsoever to your knowledge of it.  Heck, just look @ evolutionary biologists...they haven't the first clue what evolution even is!!  :gigglesmile:

 

 

You do realize that virtually every religion, or rather every religious person, says that what they believe has evidence to back it up, if not outright proof?

 

 

So?  People 'SAY' alot of different things.

 

 

 

So, IOW, since God exists outside of human consciousness God does not exist

 

 

:blink: What on Earth??  Ahhh, God is not an 'OBJECT'.

 

And there wouldn't be 'OBJECTS' EXISTING in the first place without a "KNOWER" First. 

 

 

I know you like to conflate atheism with whatever you think is wrong, but you do realize that atheism proper doesn't say whether or not materialism/realism or whatever else is actually true, right?

 

 

Well Atheism is a 'Belief'---"A Concept", so it doesn't SAY anything because 'Concepts' aren't alive and don't have Vocal Chords; Ergo...Reification Fallacy.

 

It's quite apodictic that the foundational tenet of Atheism is that the Physical/Material World is all that exists.  A Supernatural Atheist  :laugh_point:  rivals Married Bachelors.

 

 

or rather God is a creation of the human mind.

 

 

Sure.  Ahhh Begging The Question (Fallacy): where'd you get the Human; then, the Human Mind??  Can you please post the Chemical Structure of the "Mind"...?

 

 

If you believe nothing exists outside of human consciousness, then according to the law of non-contradiction theism cannot also be true.

 

 

That's why we LUV YA, your OCD like attention to excrutiating detail !! (And your Incessant Affinity to Straw Man Fallacy your opponents into Oblivian !!)

Gilligan, I never said or even remotely implied that "NOTHING" exists outside Human Counciousness.

 

I CITED this...

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness 

[Materialism/Realism --- aka: Atheism] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."--- 
Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151.

 

 

And as I said previously, God is not an OBJECT--- " MATTER ".  And my argument is " MATTER " doesn't exist without "A Knower"...

 

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."  
Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160

 

Sir Rudolph Peierls PhD Nuclear Physics....
 
"The moment at which you can throw away one possibility and keep only the other is when you finally become conscience of the fact that the experiment has given one result... You see, the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS." {emphasis mine}
The Ghost in the Atom, p. 73-74 

 

 

So when you decide to get to the ACTUAL ARGUMENT --- in lieu of the clumsy incoherent trainwrecks (Fallacies) you proffer, you make sure and let us know, mmm K?

 

 

Are you sure this disproves atheism and not theism?

 

 

Yes, with 100% Certitude.  And can SUPPORT it EMPIRICALLY till the cows come home.

 

 

 

So which is it, Enoch, is theism true (aka Yahweh is real), or is your version of QM true?

 

 

Both are TRUE, Mr. False Dichotomy Fallacy.

 

What is 'my version' of QM...? :laugh_point:   Then, your feeble appeal implies 'other' versions eh?  Post the 'other versions' --- And SUPPORTING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for each  ;)  --- to SUPPORT your ongoing --- @ Light Speed, trainwreck....?

 

 

 

regards



#17 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 30 October 2016 - 08:48 PM

Really??  Well go ahead and post the definition...?  

 

And the amount of TIME spent 'in something' doesn't offer any veracity whatsoever to your knowledge of it.  Heck, just look @ evolutionary biologists...they haven't the first clue what evolution even is!!  :gigglesmile:

 

"Religion" is one of those words that is ill defined from an ultra-technical standpoint, but for our purposes I think the definition given by Merriam-Webster is sufficient.

 

b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural - http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion

 

If you prefer, to paraphrase (since it is from memory) the definition I got at uni was, 'the belief in the supernatural or transcendent reality whereby you transform yourself to become in harmony with this supernatural/transcendent reality'.

 

Can you post the definition that religion is "belief without evidence"? - or are you saying the belief in God or the supernatural is "without evidence"?

 

:blink: What on Earth??  Ahhh, God is not an 'OBJECT'.

 

And there wouldn't be 'OBJECTS' EXISTING in the first place without a "KNOWER" First.

 

So how do we have QM in the first place if this 'knower' is comparable to the theistic concept of God? - i.e. all knowing and omnipresent?

What are the properties of this knower?

 

If this knower is not an object is it a concept? - how can a concept cause the formation of the universe?

 

Well Atheism is a 'Belief'---"A Concept", so it doesn't SAY anything because 'Concepts' aren't alive and don't have Vocal Chords; Ergo...Reification Fallacy.

 

It's quite apodictic that the foundational tenet of Atheism is that the Physical/Material World is all that exists.  A Supernatural Atheist  :laugh_point:  rivals Married Bachelors.

 

That's because, as has been clearly established in other threads, you have a warped view of what atheism actually is. Atheism is the disbelief in God/s, not necessarily disbelief in the supernatural as well. You are confusing philosophical naturalism with atheism, but at least that confusion is more understandable (as most outspoken atheists are philosophical naturalists) than your 'cosmology is atheism' misunderstanding in the other thread.

 

Sure.  Ahhh Begging The Question (Fallacy): where'd you get the Human; then, the Human Mind??  Can you please post the Chemical Structure of the "Mind"...?

 

What's to stop me from saying begging the question fallacy: where'd you get this "knower" from?

 

That's why we LUV YA, your OCD like attention to excrutiating detail !! (And your Incessant Affinity to Straw Man Fallacy your opponents into Oblivian !!)

Gilligan, I never said or even remotely implied that "NOTHING" exists outside Human Counciousness.

 

I CITED this...

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness 

[Materialism/Realism --- aka: Atheism] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."--- 
Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151.

 

 

And as I said previously, God is not an OBJECT--- " MATTER ".  And my argument is " MATTER " doesn't exist without "A Knower"...

 

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."  
Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160

 

Sir Rudolph Peierls PhD Nuclear Physics....
 
"The moment at which you can throw away one possibility and keep only the other is when you finally become conscience of the fact that the experiment has given one result... You see, the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS." {emphasis mine}
The Ghost in the Atom, p. 73-74 

 

 

So when you decide to get to the ACTUAL ARGUMENT --- in lieu of the clumsy incoherent trainwrecks (Fallacies) you proffer, you make sure and let us know, mmm K?

 

 

 

Yes, with 100% Certitude.  And can SUPPORT it EMPIRICALLY till the cows come home.

 

 

 

 

Both are TRUE, Mr. False Dichotomy Fallacy.

 

What is 'my version' of QM...? :laugh_point:   Then, your feeble appeal implies 'other' versions eh?  Post the 'other versions' --- And SUPPORTING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for each  ;)  --- to SUPPORT your ongoing --- @ Light Speed, trainwreck....?

 

 

 

regards

 

Lol, yes I know you mean the 'knower'. I find it amusing that you constantly nit pick everyone's post from minor spelling errors to clear figurative language irrespective of any context, yet you expect everyone to look past such hindering pedantry (which serves no actual purpose btw) when it comes to your posts and only respond to 'what you mean to say'. I will give you credit in that you do call out creationists on these things too from time to time.

 

So when you say no "object" exists, does that only mean a quantum state that has been collapsed or does it include the superposition states of an object as when it is defined by the wave function? Note the "you" part.



#18 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 31 October 2016 - 01:11 PM

"Religion" is one of those words that is ill defined from an ultra-technical standpoint, but for our purposes I think the definition given by Merriam-Webster is sufficient.

 

b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural - http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion

 

 

Why didn't you post 1 (a)  Mr. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy ??? : "the state of religious"http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion

 

:rotfl3: nothing like defining a Word with the Same Word!!  Kinda Circular dontcha think??

 

 

 

How bout: the service and worship of nature (??)  As mentioned, the Object of worship/service/adherence is quite irrelevant.

 

 

Or:

 

2.  "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices".  http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion

 

 Maybe because it has 'religious" in the definition of "Religion" AGAIN ?? (Laughingly Circular)

 

 

Or:

 

3.  "archaic : scrupulous conformity"http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion

 

kinda ambiguous ??

 

Or: 

 

 

4.  "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion

 

Why not this one??  Ha ha ha...

 

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: YE MUST HAVE FAITH. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." {emphasis mine}
Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics): WHERE IS SCIENCE GOING; 1932
 
 
Define "FAITH" (Please CITE a Reference) ...??
 

 

 

If you prefer, to paraphrase (since it is from memory) the definition I got at uni was, 'the belief in the supernatural or transcendent reality whereby you transform yourself to become in harmony with this supernatural/transcendent reality'.

 

 

I don't prefer, thanks.

 

 

Can you post the definition that religion is "belief without evidence"? 

 

 

I haven't come across any source that Explicitly States it; However, I really can't CITE a reference of a Physical Law that starts with: "Nature/Natural Phenomena" either...does that Ipso Facto mean Physical Laws aren't Natural Laws??

 

Ya SEE, it's IMPLIED.   

 

 

or are you saying the belief in God or the supernatural is "without evidence"?

 

 

Nope.  I'm saying that the "Secular Take/Narrative" of believing in God... is without evidence.  (You know, the: sticking the fingers in the ears, blindfolded, saying La La La over and over again motif.)  THEN...

 

They Frivolously and Fallaciously Juxtapose: "Science" and "Religion" ("Science vs Faith" motif) in a feeble clumsy attempt to somehow color the former with legitimacy; and hence... color the latter as mere faiytale "Belief".

 

Of course, the ones propagating the poorly contrived (and executed) False Dichotomy Fallacy Color Commentary Comparison along with the hordes of wanna be "wiki/google' scientist fairytale atheists...wouldn't know what either were if they landed on their head, spun around, and whistled dixie !!!!

 

But this Color Commentary False Dichotomy Fallacy Sign Post, along with the incoherent hordes propagating it INCESSANTLY in Shangri-La, muddies the water sufficiently...so that Joe Coffee and Betty Breadmaker --- if they can get their attention off of: Debt, Kids, Jobs, American Idol, Cheese Fries, 'My Vote Counts' et al (General Life Concerns) --- that might wonder into the fray of LIFE'S biggest questions, are suddenly met with the barrage of Pseudo-Scientific and Logical trainwrecks which most just don't have the time to ferret out The REAL TRUTH of the Matter from the background noise and/or are so overwhelmed with Peer Pressure and 'The Majority'... that they let themselves be convinced that:

 

Since transistors work; Therefore...evolution/something from nothing/multiverses/dark matter/big bangs/billion of years, ad nauseam, are Scientific FACTS and REALITY !!!! 

 

 

 

So how do we have QM in the first place if this 'knower' is comparable to the theistic concept of God? - i.e. all knowing and omnipresent?

 

 

Perhaps you should go back an actually READ the PUMMELING of your trainwreck appeal here that I systematically dismantled --- ad nauseam, to you personally...how many times??  (@ least 10)

 

 

What are the properties of this knower?

 

 

Scripture refers to HIM as Spirit...sure isn't 'Matter'.

 

 

If this knower is not an object is it a concept?

 

 

HE is most assuredly not "A Concept". You said you went to 'uni' for religious studies??  If so, you should immediately appeal to them for a FULL REFUND...you have an Open/Shut Case!

 

 

 

 how can a concept cause the formation of the universe?

 

 

Well he's not a "A Concept" Mr Straw Man Fallacy.  

 

A Better Question is:  How did "Matter" create itself ??  Did it pre-exist prior to it's existence...then Poofed Itself into reality?? 

 

 

That's because, as has been clearly established in other threads, you have a warped view of what atheism actually is.

 

 

Sir, you 'believe' that (Short List): 

 

Ink/Paper/Glue molecules can author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blue Prints and Something can come form Nothing, "Naturally".   :blink:

 

So your assessment of others "VIEWS" is kinda Inadmissible...it strains credulity well past critical mass. 

 

 

No I think I got it...

 

Atheism -- a Positive Claim concerning the absence of A Deity.

 

 

Atheism is the disbelief in God/s, not necessarily disbelief in the supernatural as well.

 

 

Really?? CITE it please...?

 

So you're a Supernatural Atheist ??

 

Define Supernatural and give a few examples...?

 

 

 

You are confusing philosophical naturalism with atheism

 

 

Actually, I'm not.

 

 

(as most outspoken atheists are philosophical naturalists)

 

 

Ya don't say??  Perhaps they want to stay somewhat logically consistent.

 

 

than your 'cosmology is atheism' misunderstanding

 

 

What on Earth sir??  I said Cosmology is Pseudo-Science.

 

Can you please "Quote Me" --- Date and Time Stamped, to SUPPORT your Nonsensical Buffoonery...?

 

 

What's to stop me from saying begging the question fallacy: where'd you get this "knower" from?

 

 

Logic.

 

And Dawkins just called, he wants his trainwreck "Who Created The Creator" argument back --- so he can bury that Pummeled Buffoonery, properly.

 

Ya see,

 

He is the CREATOR. The "CREATOR" can't be "created" or else, HE couldn't be the "CREATOR", by simple definition.  
Furthermore Logically....for finite things to exist (Universe, Us), there MUST be an Infinite/Eternal "Always Was" Source; it's a Contingent Necessity (Antecedent).  SEE: Aristotle (Prime/Unmoved Mover, First Cause).  To deny this, you are forced into a logical checkmate then reduced to introducing an Infinite Regress (like you just did in your query)...it's Fallacious.
 
Nothing can CREATE itself...... because that would mean: It Existed Prior To It's Existence.  Logical Seppuku

Also, there can be Only One "CREATOR"...considering more than one, even for a Planck Time, is Logical Seppuku.

 

 

 

I find it amusing that you constantly nit pick everyone's post from minor spelling errors to clear figurative language irrespective of any context, yet you expect everyone to look past such hindering pedantry

 

 

Sure.  Ahhh, You forgot to state what the "so-called" 'hindering pedantry' actually was   :gigglesmile:   

 

Is it common practice for you to charge people with a conjured 'Label' --- of whatever sways you @ the time, without giving Specific SUPPORT to Warrant that Label ??

Do you think you can hide/cloak your utter inability to coherently respond to points by conjuring ad hominems (Fallacies) ?? :consoling:

 

Ahhh, WE SEE YOU !! (duh) 

 

 

So when you say no "object" exists, does that only mean a quantum state that has been collapsed...

 

 

Object means "MATTER"---The Physical (Tangible).

 

 

 or does it include the superposition states of an object as when it is defined by the wave function?

 

 

Ahhh Gilligan, Matter (an Object)... doesn't EXIST in Superposition of itself   :crazyguy:

 

The Wave Function is a 'DESCRIPTION' of the Superposition "Concept", it's a mathematical construct that assists in 'Describing' Experimental Results...

 

 
Regarding The Wave Function: "This wave here is not a physical wave, it does not carry any energy.  And it's not even a property of a beam of photons, it's a property of one photon....The Wave is purely mathematical, it's a construct we use to determine what will happen in this experiment."
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. 
Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality.  (20:30 mark.)

  

 

regards



#19 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 October 2016 - 02:34 PM

 

Enoch: Nope.  I'm saying that the "Secular Take/Narrative" of believing in God... is without evidence.  (You know, the: sticking the fingers in the ears, blindfolded, saying La La La over and over again motif.)  THEN...

 

They Frivolously and Fallaciously Juxtapose: "Science" and "Religion" ("Science vs Faith" motif) in a feeble clumsy attempt to somehow color the former with legitimacy; and hence... color the latter as mere faiytale "Belief".

 

Of course, the ones propagating the poorly contrived (and executed) False Dichotomy Fallacy Color Commentary Comparison along with the hordes of wanna be "wiki/google' scientist fairytale atheists...wouldn't know what either were if they landed on their head, spun around, and whistled dixie !!!!

 

But this Color Commentary False Dichotomy Fallacy Sign Post, along with the incoherent hordes propagating it INCESSANTLY in Shangri-La, muddies the water sufficiently...so that Joe Coffee and Betty Breadmaker --- if they can get their attention off of: Debt, Kids, Jobs, American Idol, Cheese Fries, 'My Vote Counts' et al (General Life Concerns) --- that might wonder into the fray of LIFE'S biggest questions, are suddenly met with the barrage of Pseudo-Scientific and Logical trainwrecks which most just don't have the time to ferret out The REAL TRUTH of the Matter from the background noise and/or are so overwhelmed with Peer Pressure and 'The Majority'... that they let themselves be convinced that:

 

Since transistors work; Therefore...evolution/something from nothing/multiverses/dark matter/big bangs/billion of years, ad nauseam, are Scientific FACTS and REALITY !!!! 

 

This was absolutely brilliant. And so true. Even Goku must realise it surely, especially the bit about the science and religion epithet. Why can't we just be referred to as Christians? Because that wouldn't give much room for guilt-by-association, generalisation fallacies, which are Goku's favourite.



#20 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 02 November 2016 - 08:37 PM

Why didn't you post 1 (a)  Mr. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy ??? : "the state of religious"http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion

 

:rotfl3: nothing like defining a Word with the Same Word!!  Kinda Circular dontcha think??

 

 

 

How bout: the service and worship of nature (??)  As mentioned, the Object of worship/service/adherence is quite irrelevant.

 

 

Or:

 

2.  "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices".  http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion

 

 Maybe because it has 'religious" in the definition of "Religion" AGAIN ?? (Laughingly Circular)

 

 

Or:

 

3.  "archaic : scrupulous conformity"http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion

 

kinda ambiguous ??

 

Or: 

 

 

4.  "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". http://www.merriam-w...ionary/religion

 

Why not this one??  Ha ha ha...

 

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: YE MUST HAVE FAITH. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." {emphasis mine}
Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics): WHERE IS SCIENCE GOING; 1932
 
 
Define "FAITH" (Please CITE a Reference) ...??

 

I chose definition 1b because I thought it was the most appropriate one for this discussion.

 

I don't know where you are going with all this. Do you think we should use 'circular' definitions?

 

I noticed that instead of commenting on the two definitions I gave, which were not 'circular', you decide to obfuscate with this nonsense.
 

Do you think science is religion, and therefore science is "belief without evidence"? 

 

If we go with your revised definition of "the service and worship of X", then Christianity is a religion, oops.

 

4. Sure one definition of faith can be summed up as "belief without evidence", but of course many Christians (usually the ones posting on these types of forums) have a different definition of faith and if I use that definition the Christians all yell at me for equivocating and being ignorant because it isn't 'biblical faith'. In the overall context of defining religion in a non-biased way this dictionary definition falls short, and pragmatically this is not how the vast majority define their religion. Typically religious individuals will say that they have very good evidence or reasons for their overall belief while there may be a few specific doctrines within their religion that they say they take on faith.

 

I haven't come across any source that Explicitly States it; However, I really can't CITE a reference of a Physical Law that starts with: "Nature/Natural Phenomena" either...does that Ipso Facto mean Physical Laws aren't Natural Laws??

 

Ya SEE, it's IMPLIED.  

 

Yet if you look at how religious people, and those that academically study religion, define religion it doesn't imply "belief without evidence". Usually when people define religion in such a way they are highly biased, and often militant atheists lol. Is there something you're not telling us Enoch?

 

Nope.  I'm saying that the "Secular Take/Narrative" of believing in God... is without evidence.  (You know, the: sticking the fingers in the ears, blindfolded, saying La La La over and over again motif.)  THEN...

 

They Frivolously and Fallaciously Juxtapose: "Science" and "Religion" ("Science vs Faith" motif) in a feeble clumsy attempt to somehow color the former with legitimacy; and hence... color the latter as mere faiytale "Belief".

 

Of course, the ones propagating the poorly contrived (and executed) False Dichotomy Fallacy Color Commentary Comparison along with the hordes of wanna be "wiki/google' scientist fairytale atheists...wouldn't know what either were if they landed on their head, spun around, and whistled dixie !!!!

 

But this Color Commentary False Dichotomy Fallacy Sign Post, along with the incoherent hordes propagating it INCESSANTLY in Shangri-La, muddies the water sufficiently...so that Joe Coffee and Betty Breadmaker --- if they can get their attention off of: Debt, Kids, Jobs, American Idol, Cheese Fries, 'My Vote Counts' et al (General Life Concerns) --- that might wonder into the fray of LIFE'S biggest questions, are suddenly met with the barrage of Pseudo-Scientific and Logical trainwrecks which most just don't have the time to ferret out The REAL TRUTH of the Matter from the background noise and/or are so overwhelmed with Peer Pressure and 'The Majority'... that they let themselves be convinced that:

 

Since transistors work; Therefore...evolution/something from nothing/multiverses/dark matter/big bangs/billion of years, ad nauseam, are Scientific FACTS and REALITY !!!!

 

Besides specific religious beliefs/interpretations which directly contradict scientific findings (or verified knowledge in general), where have I engaged in the "science vs faith" motif?

 

Several times on EFF I have stated if you want to believe God is responsible for the big bang and such I have no problem with that beyond my own personal view, so long as you recognize that it is your personal belief and not a proven fact.

 

Perhaps you should go back an actually READ the PUMMELING of your trainwreck appeal here that I systematically dismantled --- ad nauseam, to you personally...how many times??  (@ least 10)

 

IOW you have no response for why we can observe QM at all if God is omniscient and omnipresent as defined in classical theism, and through God's 'knowing' the wave function collapsed giving us matter?

 

You can't have it both ways. You can't say this 'knower' collapsed the first wave function giving us the universe, and this same 'knower' is God who is omniscient and omnipresent yet doesn't collapse wave functions through his 'knowing'. It is a contradiction save the "magic" cop out.

 

Scripture refers to HIM as Spirit...sure isn't 'Matter'.

 

Okay..... What are the properties of "spirit"? How do you know "spirit" exists? What evidence you do have that spirit, whatever that is, is real and not simply an ad hoc for this proposed 'knower' that collapsed the wave function giving us the universe?

 

HE is most assuredly not "A Concept". You said you went to 'uni' for religious studies??  If so, you should immediately appeal to them for a FULL REFUND...you have an Open/Shut Case!

 

Well he's not a "A Concept" Mr Straw Man Fallacy.  

 

Lol, it's not a strawman if I simply ask you if God is a concept. I am trying to figure out exactly what it is you are proposing with this 'knower'.

 

Okay, so this 'knower' is not a concept and it is not matter, but it is "spirit", whatever that is. How do you know that "spirit" doesn't behave according to QM and does not require a 'knower' to form?

 

I said I took religious studies at uni, as in one course; it was to satisfy the world understanding requirement or something like that.

 

A Better Question is:  How did "Matter" create itself ??  Did it pre-exist prior to it's existence...then Poofed Itself into reality??

 

I don't agree with this guy's conclusion that God exists, but I use this video to demonstrate that this isn't some atheist conspiracy, and that it is sound science to say that it is possible for a universe like ours to come into existence from a state devoid of space, time, and matter, what he calls "nothing", provided you have the laws of nature.

 

 

No I think I got it...

 

Atheism -- a Positive Claim concerning the absence of A Deity.

 

 

 

Really?? CITE it please...?

 

So you're a Supernatural Atheist ??

 

Define Supernatural and give a few examples...?

 

 

 

 

Actually, I'm not.

 

 

 

Ya don't say??  Perhaps they want to stay somewhat logically consistent.

 

Yes, absence of a deity, not necessarily the supernatural in total. I know it is hard for many Christians to think outside of their world view even hypothetically, but it is possible and there are people out there who disbelieve in God yet still accept some supernatural realm or phenomena.

 

Perhaps this article will help clarify: http://atheism.about...uls-Spirits.htm

 

If you must know the single best label I identify as, without getting into minutia, is pantheism. Out of EFF's extremely limited choices I thought "atheism" best represented my views in the context of what this forum discusses.

 

What on Earth sir??  I said Cosmology is Pseudo-Science.

 

Can you please "Quote Me" --- Date and Time Stamped, to SUPPORT your Nonsensical Buffoonery...?

 

It was literally in the last dialogue we had in the new thread I made. You specifically said you were talking about cosmology, then started complaining about 'no God'. Either you are ignorant of the fact that science cannot use God as an explanation due to the nature of the God explanation (i.e. untestable), which honestly wouldn't surprise me at this point, or you were confusing cosmology with atheism.

 

Logic.

 

And Dawkins just called, he wants his trainwreck "Who Created The Creator" argument back --- so he can bury that Pummeled Buffoonery, properly.

 

Ya see,

 

He is the CREATOR. The "CREATOR" can't be "created" or else, HE couldn't be the "CREATOR", by simple definition.  
Furthermore Logically....for finite things to exist (Universe, Us), there MUST be an Infinite/Eternal "Always Was" Source; it's a Contingent Necessity (Antecedent).  SEE: Aristotle (Prime/Unmoved Mover, First Cause).  To deny this, you are forced into a logical checkmate then reduced to introducing an Infinite Regress (like you just did in your query)...it's Fallacious.
 
Nothing can CREATE itself...... because that would mean: It Existed Prior To It's Existence.  Logical Seppuku

Also, there can be Only One "CREATOR"...considering more than one, even for a Planck Time, is Logical Seppuku.

 

How do you know this proposed 'knower' is "THE CREATOR"? Sounds like a giant leap in logic to me.

 

Sure.  Ahhh, You forgot to state what the "so-called" 'hindering pedantry' actually was   :gigglesmile:   

 

Is it common practice for you to charge people with a conjured 'Label' --- of whatever sways you @ the time, without giving Specific SUPPORT to Warrant that Label ??

Do you think you can hide/cloak your utter inability to coherently respond to points by conjuring ad hominems (Fallacies) ?? :consoling:

 

Ahhh, WE SEE YOU !! (duh)

 

I actually gave two examples: minor spelling errors and taking clear figurative language literally. Is it common practice for you to just make up stuff?

 

Object means "MATTER"---The Physical (Tangible).

 

Ahhh Gilligan, Matter (an Object)... doesn't EXIST in Superposition of itself   :crazyguy:

 

The Wave Function is a 'DESCRIPTION' of the Superposition "Concept", it's a mathematical construct that assists in 'Describing' Experimental Results...

 

 
Regarding The Wave Function: "This wave here is not a physical wave, it does not carry any energy.  And it's not even a property of a beam of photons, it's a property of one photon....The Wave is purely mathematical, it's a construct we use to determine what will happen in this experiment."
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. 
Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality.  (20:30 mark.)

  

 

regards

 

Fair enough, let me rephrase. When an object is in a state of superposition the object itself doesn't exist, but do you think something (which we describe with the wave function) exists in reality?







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: religion, atheism, christianity, secular

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users