When Christians use Science to prove Atheist wrong.

124

Replies

  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The definition does not change and the point is, happiness can be observed within human beings. Don't believe me, look it up. Stay on topic.
  • alissowackalissowack Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭
    edited April 2012
    The definition does not change and the point is, happiness can be observed within human beings. Don't believe me, look it up. Stay on topic.

    I'm trying my best to stay on topic but...I find something very wrong if you think that being hooked on drugs is a form of happiness. I don't see those who observe this going..."Oh, they must be happy...let them be". It's like...there is really no standard for happiness according to you. I think what you are trying to do is downplay the subject. Scientist can do whatever they want, but they can't say they know what happiness ultimately is. Funny...I remember in a Yahoo! article how Steven Hawkins found women to be a great mystery...I think that was off topic (if not everything else to you).
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    You're trying to label something you assume a drug addict may experience that may or may not be happiness as happiness and then dispute that it isn't. Drug addicts may experience a lot of different feelings and emotions while chasing a high. But still, happiness is happiness no matter where or how you find it.

    Anyway, happiness is observable. We're talking about a god being observable. God is not observable. You cannot compare the two
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    alissowack wrote: »
    they can't say they know what happiness ultimately is.

    you can't tell me what a house ultimately is

  • alissowackalissowack Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭
    alissowack wrote: »
    they can't say they know what happiness ultimately is.

    you can't tell me what a house ultimately is

    Well, I probably can't, sir. But, home is where the heart is.
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2012
    alissowack wrote: »

    Well, I probably can't, sir.

    Still, a house is obviously observable.

    A house comes in many different forms, colors, sizes, and styles. You can describe one house that may not fit the description of the next house down the street. Regardless, the definition of a house remains the same. A house can hold one individual or an entire family or group of friends; and we can SEE these people living in their homes

    Happiness is the same way.
  • alissowackalissowack Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭
    edited April 2012
    You're trying to label something you assume a drug addict may experience that may or may not be happiness as happiness and then dispute that it isn't. Drug addicts may experience a lot of different feelings and emotions while chasing a high. But still, happiness is happiness no matter where or how you find it.

    Anyway, happiness is observable. We're talking about a god being observable. God is not observable. You cannot compare the two

    You right, they could be going through a lot of things...but you are suggesting that happiness can be observed in anything and everything. So, I decided to see what you thought about happiness being found in the things that may be dangerous or life threatening. Maybe it is just me, but maybe only interested in what happiness means to just the emotions than what happiness means to all of life.
  • alissowackalissowack Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭
    edited April 2012
    alissowack wrote: »

    Well, I probably can't, sir.

    Still, a house is obviously observable.

    A house comes in many different forms, colors, sizes, and styles. You can describe one house that may not fit the description of the next house down the street. Regardless, the definition of a house remains the same. A house can hold one individual or an entire family or group of friends; and we can SEE these people living in their homes

    Happiness is the same way.

    No...it is not the same way. You are suggesting that in observing a house, that it doesn't have any value other than it being a construction. People want more than a house. They want a home. People don't just want to feel the emotions of happiness...they want happiness; they want a happiness that supersedes the petty forms of it.
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2012
    alissowack wrote: »

    No...it is not the same way. You are suggesting that in observing a house, that it doesn't have any value other than it being a construction.


    you're going too deep. The analogy fits. Just let it go.

    You even made the analogy stronger by saying some people dont JUST want a house -- they want a home.
    Some people don't JUST want happiness -- they want some type of "richness" or "relationship" for lack of a better word.

    Thanks.
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2012
    alissowack wrote: »
    you are suggesting that happiness can be observed in anything and everything.

    No I'm not. Happiness can't be observed in a cloud.. or a rock. But it can in a human being.

    alissowack wrote: »

    So, I decided to see what you thought about happiness being found in the things that may be dangerous or life threatening. .

    Doesn't matter if it's life threatening or not. People die happy. For example, an overtly obese person may be HAPPY with a diet that may not be healthy for her; happy with a diet that may be LIFE-THREATENING. But eating still makes this person HAPPY. Just accept it.
  • alissowackalissowack Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭
    alissowack wrote: »
    you are suggesting that happiness can be observed in anything and everything.

    No I'm not. Happiness can't be observed in a cloud.. or a rock. But it can in a human being.

    alissowack wrote: »

    So, I decided to see what you thought about happiness being found in the things that may be dangerous or life threatening. .

    Doesn't matter if it's life threatening or not. People die happy. For example, an overtly obese person may be HAPPY with a diet that may not be healthy for her; happy with a diet that may be LIFE-THREATENING. But eating still makes this person HAPPY. Just accept it.

    Maybe I should have clarified what "anything and everything" was for that was not what I meant by it. I'm not trying to say that people can't be happy and express that. People can't say what happiness ultimately is.
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    And you can't tell me what a house ultimately is. But a house is observable, just like happiness is, except for the fact that one is physical and the other is mental. That was my point. Now, I would like for you to show me where we can oberve a supernatural being acting according to his will or either this debate is over.
  • alissowackalissowack Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭
    edited April 2012
    And you can't tell me what a house ultimately is. But a house is observable, just like happiness is, except for the fact that one is physical and the other is mental. That was my point. Now, I would like for you to show me where we can oberve a supernatural being acting according to his will or either this debate is over.

    ...I keep wondering...what gives you the idea that I said that God can be observed? The whole time, I've been trying to stress that there is more to it than that and yet you can't get past that...like I can't seem to get past the happiness thing. You've already satisfied me by suggesting that I am going too deep. That's where I'm trying to go with this...to a place where we no longer have a say or have control.
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    alissowack wrote: »
    I've been trying to stress that there is more to it than that
    alissowack wrote: »
    That's where I'm trying to go with this...to a place where we no longer have a say or have control.
    Then go ahead, tell me about it.

  • alissowackalissowack Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭
    alissowack wrote: »
    I've been trying to stress that there is more to it than that
    alissowack wrote: »
    That's where I'm trying to go with this...to a place where we no longer have a say or have control.
    Then go ahead, tell me about it.

    OK...though I can only assume, but I have a feeling that this invitation is not coming from a good place. But, I go along with the gag. What does discovering this mysterious deity truly mean? I don't particular see anything great or spectacular about the discovery of a deity if there is no reason to think that maybe "God" has something to do with why there is life. People believe in "God" because they believe He is the reason for everything (or whatever people believe God represents). It is the hope that if God exists, it is not merely as a display of cosmic proportions. It is the hope that it shines some light on the questions we have in respect to good and evil, right and wrong, and life after death (and there is probably other stuff I didn't mention); that if God is revealed, we get "the Truth" and whatever that is...it is going to affect everybody whether people believe it or not.
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    alissowack wrote: »
    It is the hope that it shines some light on the questions we have in respect to good and evil, right and wrong, and life after death (and there is probably other stuff I didn't mention); that if God is revealed, we get "the Truth" and whatever that is...it is going to affect everybody whether people believe it or not.

    But the existance of a supernatural creator being reveals nothing new to us as far as a better understanding of physics, biology, mathematics.. anything, really. My thing is, what do we gain out of belief in such a being? What becomes clearer to us? And I know you said that it's not all about gain, but I'm not looking for material gain here; just understanding.. answers. IMO, removing theism from the equation generates better understanding of the world around us. Without our heads in the clouds, we can take life and the universe for what it truly is, and not what we would like for it to be
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    alissowack wrote: »
    if God is revealed, we get "the Truth" and whatever that is...it is going to affect everybody whether people believe it or not.

    We have both come to an agreement that god is never going to "reveal" himself because he is simply not observable. When is this "truth" going to be revealed? IMO, we should not waste our lives waiting for the "truth" to drop out of the sky, especially not knowing what this "truth" is. How will it affect people? In what ways? This line of thought brings more unanswered questions to our lives rather than solving the ones that are brought up because of natural, observable phenomena. The truth is right in front of our eyes. All we have to do is open them.


  • CynicalAndEbertCynicalAndEbert Posts: 10,229 ✭✭✭✭✭
    You can observe happiness to the same extent you can observe the wind.
  • alissowackalissowack Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭
    @JadeRighteousness There have been a couple of instances where you echo some of the same things I post which makes me wonder if you even read my posts. I've have suggested a insignificance of discovering God (if it was possible to discover). That was not my concern. My concern was with that we associate this deity with. Of all of the "magic" associated with the Bible, it means nothing if all it is for is for entertainment or some boasting of power and might. But, if there is a glimpse into the answers of life, then may
    alissowack wrote: »
    It is the hope that it shines some light on the questions we have in respect to good and evil, right and wrong, and life after death (and there is probably other stuff I didn't mention); that if God is revealed, we get "the Truth" and whatever that is...it is going to affect everybody whether people believe it or not.

    But the existance of a supernatural creator being reveals nothing new to us as far as a better understanding of physics, biology, mathematics.. anything, really. My thing is, what do we gain out of belief in such a being? What becomes clearer to us? And I know you said that it's not all about gain, but I'm not looking for material gain here; just understanding.. answers. IMO, removing theism from the equation generates better understanding of the world around us. Without our heads in the clouds, we can take life and the universe for what it truly is, and not what we would like for it to be

    I disagree. Removing theism is actually not going to change anything for the better or for the worse. The struggles of life will still remain. If anything, it's going to force people to have to accept what is...instead of wanting more than that. It's going to make people have to say injustice, poverty, disease,...and whatever else is something that just happens and not whether there is something (or someone) outside of "what is" that will give an answer to it all.
  • alissowackalissowack Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭
    alissowack wrote: »
    It is the hope that it shines some light on the questions we have in respect to good and evil, right and wrong, and life after death (and there is probably other stuff I didn't mention); that if God is revealed, we get "the Truth" and whatever that is...it is going to affect everybody whether people believe it or not.

    But the existance of a supernatural creator being reveals nothing new to us as far as a better understanding of physics, biology, mathematics.. anything, really. My thing is, what do we gain out of belief in such a being? What becomes clearer to us? And I know you said that it's not all about gain, but I'm not looking for material gain here; just understanding.. answers. IMO, removing theism from the equation generates better understanding of the world around us. Without our heads in the clouds, we can take life and the universe for what it truly is, and not what we would like for it to be

    I disagree. Removing theism isn't going to make things better...or make things worse. The struggles of life will still remain. What it's going to do is force people to accept what is even if it may be wrong to accept it or not; to not think that maybe there is an answer outside of themselves...that there isn't a final say in the matters of life.
  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2012
    alissowack wrote: »
    It's going to make people have to say injustice, poverty, disease,...and whatever else is something that just happens and not whether there is something (or someone) outside of "what is" that will give an answer to it all.

    Anything outside of what is, is what isn't. We can't expect something that ISN'T to solve what IS. Sounds like you're happy with fairy tales and false hope. How could accepting what is, be wrong? Accepting what is not, is delusion and only leads to more suffering. Accepting what IS does not mean that you have to give up on life. Accepting what IS, is being in tune with reality. Suffering is "what is". The answer to suffering is also found in "what is". Maybe you should read and study the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism.

  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2012
    alissowack wrote: »
    @JadeRighteousness There have been a couple of instances where you echo some of the same things I post which makes me wonder if you even read my posts.

    No intention to be offensive, but your posts don't show a lot of focused thought. Most of them aren't easy to read. I'll examine your last post as an example. You stated that removing theism doesn't make anything better or worse.. then you proceed to claim that removing theism would make things worse, which contradicts what you said a sentence or two earlier. But had you not contradicted yourself with that second claim, you still would have contradicted your entire argument by stating that removing theism doesn't have any effect on our lives. When you say that, you infer that theism has no effect on us at all, which really means that belief in god has no effect on us at all, which really means that god has no effect on us at all, which really means that god doesn't exist.

    Still, I give you chances to correct your mistakes because I'm a nice person. Don't mistake this as not reading your posts. I'm reading. I only bring it to your attention because you asked.

    And then you say things like this, that I chalk up as errors/typos and disregard them.
    alissowack wrote: »
    But, if there is a glimpse into the answers of life, then may

    Try reading what you've wrote before you post.
  • alissowackalissowack Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭
    alissowack wrote: »
    It's going to make people have to say injustice, poverty, disease,...and whatever else is something that just happens and not whether there is something (or someone) outside of "what is" that will give an answer to it all.

    Anything outside of what is, is what isn't. We can't expect something that ISN'T to solve what IS. Sounds like you're happy with fairy tales and false hope. How could accepting what is, be wrong? Accepting what is not, is delusion and only leads to more suffering. Accepting what IS does not mean that you have to give up on life. Accepting what IS, is being in tune with reality. Suffering is "what is". The answer to suffering is also found in "what is". Maybe you should read and study the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism.

    I had a weird moment where I was between trying to post on my laptop and what was on my phone...and for some reason I lost a post with the intentions of doing the usual proof reads and stuff. My bad. My thing is this...why do you insist that when someone is thinking about "what isn't" that they are trying to live out a fairy tale or confide in false hopes. Sure, there are people who do try to do this, but there is this sense that...because someone believe in God, that they are trying to have this out-of-body experience. I'm not dreaming of what Heaven will be like and wanting to see my first unicorn...or whatever. But, I do think a day when everything will made right; that justice will prevail; that the choice to do good is not without compromise; that the essential things that we enjoy about life can live on beyond ourselves.

    The danger of accepting "what is" is that people may desensitize themselves to the feelings they suppose to have about something. If I'm struggling...I don't want to like it. I want to hate it; feel what is associated with lost, pain, injustice, rage...so I know how much I don't want to feel that way. I want to see injustice and say...that is wrong. I want see my faults...and want to seek forgiveness. I want to someone to trust me...and I can place my trust in them. I want to love...and I get it back. If anything, accepting "what is" may do exactly what you are say that accepting "what isn't" will do. It may make people think...that maybe they are meant to live poor, or meant to be abused, or meant to be discriminated against and try to find a way to be happy about it.



  • BodhiBodhi Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2012
    What is not = Things that do not exist; things that are not there. WHAT IS NOT is the opposite of WHAT IS.

    There is no danger in accepting what exists. You're focusing on the fact that suffering exists and is a part of what is. This is true but do not forget that the solution, the answer, the end of suffering is also WHAT IS, simply because it exists.

    For example, an illness is WHAT IS. It affects people -- it exists; it is there. The doctor who prescribes a cure for that illness is WHAT IS -- he exists. The cure itself is also WHAT IS. The cure is effective in that it terminates the illness within the affected person. There was no danger in this scenario. The affected person recognized his symptoms and accepted WHAT IS by being proactive. Had anyone in this scenario attemped to live by WHAT IS NOT, foolishness and denial would have followed. The doctor believing in WHAT IS NOT would not have prescribed a cure for the patient. He could believe the illness is not there at all. The patient refusing to accept WHAT IS may not have seen the doctor in the first place. Therefore, acccepting WHAT IS NOT is very dangerous. It is delusion, the gateway to suffering, and not the cure for it. Accepting WHAT IS does not mean that you have to enjoy suffering. Accepting WHAT IS means that you are realistic about any situation.
    I'll use another example..
    Let's say a woman is being abused by her boyfriend.
    She has two options:
    1. To accept WHAT IS, or
    2. To accept WHAT IS NOT
    If she accepts WHAT IS, she sees the situation for what is is; she realizes that she is being abused and that she is in danger. She is therefore able to realize the solution because realizing suffering will always help you to realize its end.
    If she accepts WHAT IS NOT, she will refuse to see the situation for what it truly is. She will go into denial and believe that the abuse is love and that her boyfriend cares about her health. Accepting WHAT IS NOT is delusion. She is then unable to see a solution because her denial keeps her from first realizing the problem.
  • alissowackalissowack Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭
    @JadeRighteousness. Accepting "what is" can be dangerous. I'm not suggesting that it's all doom and gloom. I'm saying "what is" is at the mercy of man. Someone may perceive "what is" to be whatever they want it to be and use "what is" as a front for their own selfishness. A gun is a gun. But, to a murderer, it's something more. To an enthusiast it is something more. And when man is in control of the intentions of "what is", then who is to say what is right or wrong about "what is". It may be "delusional" to think of "what is not", but what position are you in tell somebody what is right or wrong? What is going to govern people from being delusional?
Sign In or Register to comment.