Does it take an intellectual to knock God??

[SB_UK]

-> At@At
great set of posts


->@ At
morality is the key

~*~

what is faith?
what is morality?

True science has the answer
True morality arises as a consequence of True faith.

[Mikal]

hi SB
No, I don't think that I am suggesting the above. Although it has felt rather like what I can imagine the beating of a dead horse might feel like I think that if you or any one were able to read, without the bias of emotion, what I have written, my original proposition i.e. the stupidity or the sadness of those who give lip service to their concern for human life and yet who try to destroy that which they themselves are dependent upon, could not possibly not have been recognised.

Sadly only one person of the very few involved in this thread seems to have recognised the horrors that will result (and which are currently resulting and which are increasing in scale as global economic pressures increase and which will imminently adversely affect all concerned including you and I ) from, for example, Dawkins, his ilk and their acolytes succeeding in exacerbating the efforts of those who do not just give lip service like the majority but those who claim to be Christian who willingly for no personal gain actually get their hands dirty with the shit and grime of the poor and disadvantaged world wide - as opposed to, only for example, the medical researcher/scientist who enjoys the intellectual challenges of research and who receives a salary which could feed and keep alive thousands of innocent starving babies and mothers and who does just give lip service to his pharmaceutical company employers claim that his research into, e.g. gene splicing, is for the benefit of mankind. Or, that the amount of human and global degradation resulting from the desire of an infinitesimal number of mostly pompous egocentric intellectuals who title themselves as 'scientist' who manage to persuade power hungry politicians and military enterprises that it is important enough for mankind to use up immeasurable quantities of global resources' and to produce immeasurable amounts of global pollution to, for example, build a particle accelerator, space research, cloning, blah, blah, in fact the madcap race to learn how to control and manipulate absolutely every aspect of all of life with no regards to the consequences is all for the benefit of mankind.
In the above, if blame is required, one does not blame the meek, the mild, the immature, but if one wants to attribute culpability for virtually all the woes of the world it would have to be MEN per se.
(for I have heard it said, that left to their own devices they couldn’t organise a brew-up in a pissoir)
SB, I don’t know if you or if any one has understood what all of this really means, I don't know if any one has even gleaned an inkling from it that the whole world is truly on the brink of utter economic, political and societal chaos which even a world war will not resolve. Other than by an act of God Sophisticated Civilised Societies as you or I have ever known them have almost reached their demise and its not science fiction and it will not be reversed by that thing called science.


But anyway all of that stuff is much too emotive and not really suitable for discussion in this "science" forum. SB all of my contentions can be judged by pragmatic empirical observations of one's self by ones self, (but, and here is the rub, it will require integrity otherwise any judgement will be worthless) AND, not by spurious supposed "scientific" anthropological theories, the logic of which can only be supported by other spurious and usually not understood theories, or by snippets from the web which are assumed by many to actually be science, including by some members in this forum. So I suggest that unless one is able to view this whole concept with out emotion just keep your fingers crossed and hope.


arthur….

Don't knock researchers! Without research and study this entire mess could not be understood. If one did not study social movements and monitor their affects on the mass of society we could barely understand the forces that are pushing and pulling at the masses.
Without examining social engineers actively manipulating and changing the social fabric of society we could barely understand the changes we are moving through.

To understand a snake you have to visit the snakes ecosystem. This is no different Arthur!!

Might I remind you that "ignoring" me is your ignorance. The word itself derives from IGNORANCE.
I suggest you move the thread to one particular subject which can be discussed by all, that suggestion can be ignored also but it might be to the peril of the thread if you would like something meaningful and useful to come out of the thread...


Regards Mikal

[arthur]

Regards Mikal[/QUOTE]

Mikal I am honestly not ignoring you and I will post to you later
arthur...

[Mikal]

Thank you Arthur...consideration for posters is duly noted as I am particularly interested in this thread. If the wind ignored the storm, there would be no storm...all culminates from interactions!


Mikal

[SB_UK]

... desire of an infinitesimal number of mostly pompous egocentric intellectuals who title themselves as 'scientist' who manage to persuade power hungry politicians ...

bad scientists

versus

bad priests

~*~

Better to understand why scientists and priests behave poorly rather than to counter the observation that religion has not served us well with
'neither has science'.

The commonality between bad scientist and bad priest is bad person.

With education -
- both priest and scientist can become better.

If both priest and scientist become better, then we'll observe the benefits which good science and good religion can bring to good people.

Otherwise
... ... we'll remain in the mess we're
in.

People killing for religion using the latest in technologically advanced weaponry.

... ... and military enterprises ... ...

In a couple of years, I expect to see a complete elimination of soldiers (at least the ones which kill people -
as opposed to the ones which rescue cats from uppa' trees).

We won't need armed forces when people are better.

One~World

[SB_UK]

... Christian who willingly for no personal gain actually get their hands dirty with the shit and grime of the poor and disadvantaged world wide ...

Change not Charity.

It's too easy to be charitable -
to donate 1% of one's salary to 99% of ridiculous excesses -

- the only solution to the problems which people face
lies in us all (together) - reaching an understanding of how they arose.

Science is one method for acquiring understanding -
science provides us with the tools to separate fact from fiction.

There isn't any real way to intuit the nature of reality without science -
geology'd be just a buncha' coloured rocks,
chemistry - alchemy
and
physics - sorcery

If we want to identify why some suffer more than others -
we need to work out a hierarchy for the key factors in play - and then work out a mechanism to alter them.

It turns out (after we do the math) - that all of our problems will be traceable to an aspect of human nature -
- an aspect which is eminently treatable

- treatable with education -

- a proper education which opens the eyes of people to the reality of what it is to be human.

~*~

The world around us is surprising simple to understand; any superficial considerations that it might not be just so -
should be passed off as the unfortunate side-effect of having to 'grow' knowledge.

To grow from diverged to convergent.

~*~

... ... ... and datsa' ToE
(also).

[SB_UK]

... to view this whole concept with out emotion ...

To communicate with another about any subject -
one must be sufficiently skilled in communication to understand how to make one's point.

Emotion arises and destroys debate and is easily elicited.

The impression which one gains from reading your post (above) - is that you're suggesting that a failure for others to agree whole-heartedly will quite possibly be due to the reader's emotional reaction clouding his/her judgement.

The problem here then, though, being that it's not the ideas themselves (per se) (on this thread) which elicit an obstructive emotional reaction (from the perspective of level-headed debate)
- it's the nuance which is being delivered
- the suggestion that failure to {agree to,understand} the nature of the argument
(as presented) -
is to be considered the fault of the reader and not the fault of the author (who's trying quite hard enough
- Thankyou) in explaining himself sufficiently clearly.

The problem we may have here is that you may be too close to your ideas -
- and may be incapable of expressing them
(as others would require) -
- since much of what others need -
you cannot see -
perhaps thinking it potentially patronising to include what (to your mind)
is trivial.

With this in mind, and with the amount of confusion on this thread as is -
- perhaps you might simplify the question which you'd like to have answered.

If the question is -

'How dare scientists such as Dawkins refute God ?'

- then you've an answer to that question

Simply and once again -
Dawkins simply pushed people who claim to be religious to explore what it is to be religious -
- and in the process
will
be {shown,seen} to have helped to strengthen the faith of those who listened to his case.

I'm pretty sure that this is the question which you're asking - my re-wording matches your chosen title -

Does it take an intellectual to knock God??

and so with all of this in mind -
is there any other part of the subject which need be discussed in order to arrive at a conclusion on this, your initial proposition?

~*~

An alternative question -

Is it possible for others to read more deeply into the set of words which an author chooses -
in more depth than the author himself sees?

I think it is -
- and that this basic idea explains away poetry.

Subconsciously delivered text with deeper meaning potentially hidden from the author himself.

[labelwench]

Communication styles appear to me to be one part of the challenge arising on this thread.

Perhaps another, may be, that the originator of this thread has the whole picture of what they are trying to convey, while the audience is still at the threshold, trying to catch up.

This in no way demeans the value or knowledge of any of the posters, merely my attempt to explain that the device is not yet in synch with the mainframe, and I've likely botched that metaphor, but one of you computer clever sorts can help me with that, lol.

One last example to illustrate: Someone once explained to me that, "No. It's not obvious to everyone what that horse is going to do next. Did it ever occur to you that not everyone has the benefit of your years of observing horses in their natural state?"

We are each the sum of our life experiences and no two set of experiences are identical. Our frames of reference, though similar, do not interface completely.

Therein lies most of the difficulty.

Respectfully,

Labelwench

[SB_UK]

one God (or ...?... as ...?... likes to be known) of multiple valid metaphors.

and datsa' Tao.

Fundamentally, Tao is undefinable, unlimited, and unnamable.

[Max™]

I haven't really read more than a quote or two of Dawkin's arguments, but he makes a really good point.


Why is it if you start questioning the validity of science, not only is there no taboo tied to that, but people would think it strange if I got enraged by it?

You can toss around statements that scientists are making the world bad, by making themselves into some elite intellectual cadre if you wish, but as a scientist, I honestly am trying to improve the sum of human knowledge so we can all enjoy a better quality of life by applying that understanding to the Universe.

You can not assume that just because someone is not religious, they can not be a good person, I love babies, I nurse sick animals, I delight in making anyone I meet laugh uproariously, on some level I love everyone on Earth... stupid as we may be, we're pretty interesting.

I consider what it would be like to be in the other persons shoes when I do something, I try to avoid impairing anyones ability to live comfortably and happily.

I like to think I'm a good person, yet I am completely without faith.

I do not believe in anything. I developed these ideas from observing social interactions and understanding that other people are peering out from their own little boxes of bone just like I am.

Setting aside the silly remarks about scientists being bad people, I have to ask the same question Dawkin's asked.

Why is it not ok for me to question your faith?
Do you not question it?
Does it not disturb you to accept something unquestionably, with no observable reason to do so?

You can question my faith, though I have none, so it will be a short discussion, why is this not reciprocal?

People mention a feeling of being at one with all things, of a deep sense of truth and beauty behind all things, as what they get from religion.

I get that feeling from understanding deep truths about the Universe.