Rugby Australia: A Cautionary Tale

[Chip and Chase]

Interesting article in today's SMH. Very amusing.

He's had a few goes at settling on the "truth" has Izzy. I love how each iteration is "the one" in his mind, I guess that's the definition of blind faith. I find it a bit sad really.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/why-the-pm-and-most-christians-are-going-to-hell-20190719-p528xx.html

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Interesting article in today's SMH. Very amusing.

He's had a few goes at settling on the "truth" has Izzy. I love how each iteration is "the one" in his mind, I guess that's the definition of blind faith. I find it a bit sad really.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/why-the-pm-and-most-christians-are-going-to-hell-20190719-p528xx.html

There is some really interesting reading on the origins of the assemblies of God church; scams involving claims of alchemy through the divine, deaths caused by brutal exorcisms and the general character of its founders. But I guess it can all be claimed as propoganda and persecution made up by those who don't understand the faith.
I think Israel and those wanting to protect his religious ideas are confusing the idea of free speech with religious protection. And the idea of protecting thoughts and actions because of religion is a very dangerous idea, just ask someone who ask escaped Scientology or joho.

 

[ricardo]

We are gods as only we can create the idea of His existence in our holy brains. Source:

 

[eaglebuzz]

You asserted that because we cannot prove a hypothesis that it is just as likely a reality as any other.
There is no incontrovertible proof for the existence of any religion's God. If there was we would all follow that one religion. So again, why is your chosen faith more valid than any other religion or abstract idea?
Many societies of the past would consider themselves civilised but carried out things such as slavery and the disempowerment of women. This was most often done through the idea that some people are worth less in the eyes of God to justify these actions.

No I didn't assert that for myself, because I am not labouring under the delusion that science is the only mode of human knowledge, what I said is a necessary consequence of the idea that you only believe testable scientific evidence.

My questions remain before I can answer yours.

 

[eaglebuzz]

That has little to do with my point about Izzy's hell.
In this physical reality I am living in there is no testable evidence of hell, just story's.
If there was it would not be a matter of faith.

When I sit in a chair it is not faith I use but a physical test to see if the chair is there.

When you sit in a chair you have faith it will support your weight, for all you know it could be broken in an imperceptible way and will collapse the moment you put weight on it, but you sit anyway. That sitting is an act of faith. When you get in your car you have faith that it will actually start.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

When you sit in a chair you have faith it will support your weight, for all you know it could be broken in an imperceptible way and will collapse the moment you put weight on it, but you sit anyway. That sitting is an act of faith. When you get in your car you have faith that it will actually start.

Before I sit on a chair I can observe it's construction and structural integrity and then make an informed decision about whether it will hold my weight. I can then use these observations along with experience of sitting on stable and unstable chairs of which ones will hold my weight and I can test my theories by actually sitting on the chair to determine the result. (As for cars, I've had plenty where I had very little belief that it would start based on my past experiences and mechanical knowledge of its engine.) I don't have faith in a chair, I have confidence in my ability to assess it.
There is no observable evidence to support the idea of God. If you are stating that everything could simply be a delusion or similar based on the idea that reality and consciousness can't be proved then how can you possibly state that one idea or religion is more valid than any other. By that logic I can believe whatever I choose now matter how ridiculous (or harmful to others) and it would be just as valid as any organised or traditional religion, but that should not grant me protection from others.

 

[47MVEagle]

Interesting article in today's SMH. Very amusing.

He's had a few goes at settling on the "truth" has Izzy. I love how each iteration is "the one" in his mind, I guess that's the definition of blind faith. I find it a bit sad really.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/why-the-pm-and-most-christians-are-going-to-hell-20190719-p528xx.html

Can anyone spell "brainwashed"?

 

[eaglebuzz]

Before I sit on a chair I can observe it's construction and structural integrity and then make an informed decision about whether it will hold my weight. I can then use these observations along with experience of sitting on stable and unstable chairs of which ones will hold my weight and I can test my theories by actually sitting on the chair to determine the result. (As for cars, I've had plenty where I had very little belief that it would start based on my past experiences and mechanical knowledge of its engine.) I don't have faith in a chair, I have confidence in my ability to assess it.
There is no observable evidence to support the idea of God. If you are stating that everything could simply be a delusion or similar based on the idea that reality and consciousness can't be proved then how can you possibly state that one idea or religion is more valid than any other. By that logic I can believe whatever I choose now matter how ridiculous (or harmful to others) and it would be just as valid as any organised or traditional religion, but that should not grant me protection from others.

You're not catching my point. Not everything that you "know" comes from observable evidence. I don't think that reality and consciousness are delusions, but from a purely scientistic worldview that has to be the conclusion, because your only means of certainty is outside of yourself.

That is to say nothing of ethics, which is even more impossible to navigate if the only thing you believe is "observable, testable evidence".

 

[MuzztheEagle]

You're not catching my point. Not everything that you "know" comes from observable evidence. I don't think that reality and consciousness are delusions, but from a purely scientistic worldview that has to be the conclusion, because your only means of certainty is outside of yourself.

That is to say nothing of ethics, which is even more impossible to navigate if the only thing you believe is "observable, testable evidence".

So please enlighten me: how do you "know" your beliefs are the correct ones, given how many other options are available? Personally I don't claim to know anything I cannot prove but if I choose to believe something I make sure I have significant evidence to support it.

 

[Kevinward777]

I find it interesting in all the debate concerning Folau's comments .... that the one point continually missed or ignored ... is the contention that his comments were .... in his mind .... not meant to castigate, or demonise ... but made from a place of love ... it is his love of gays and other sinning members of society that compels him to try and save their souls ... repentance and redemtion are his stated objectives .... praise the lord.

You may believe or say you think he is misguided .... but does any evil or sinister intent exist ..... should we be praising Folau for his committment to his "fallen" fellow man ..?

Before I sit on a chair I can observe it's construction and structural integrity and then make an informed decision about whether it will hold my weight. I can then use these observations along with experience of sitting on stable and unstable chairs of which ones will hold my weight and I can test my theories by actually sitting on the chair to determine the result. (As for cars, I've had plenty where I had very little belief that it would start based on my past experiences and mechanical knowledge of its engine.) I don't have faith in a chair, I have confidence in my ability to assess it.
There is no observable evidence to support the idea of God. If you are stating that everything could simply be a delusion or similar based on the idea that reality and consciousness can't be proved then how can you possibly state that one idea or religion is more valid than any other. By that logic I can believe whatever I choose now matter how ridiculous (or harmful to others) and it would be just as valid as any organised or traditional religion, but that should not grant me protection from others.

Just out of interest Muzz... how do you think the world... universe... life etc came into existence?

 

[eaglebuzz]

There's too much to say to answer that, that it's not really possible to do so in a satisfactory way on here. But in brief:

Arguments for general theism:
- There is something rather than nothing, and yet that "something" has not existed eternally, meaning that it came into existence, and yet the universe is an impersonal and materially contingent reality so it is an unsatisfactory explanation for its own existence.
- The laws of physics and chemistry are regular and predictable, yet there is no obvious reason why they should be.
- The laws of physics just happen to exist within perfect ranges for supporting life (the probability that the universe should be just one big hydrogen cloud or one massive black hole is incomprehensibly high, the odds that even elements should exist are minuscule).
- Even though there are approximately 10^60 planets in the universe, the odds that any single planet could support life, when multiplied by the number of planets in the universe, are still vanishingly small.
- Biological molecules are the most complex entities in the universe and yet they all somehow managed to develop together, with increasing, mutually supportive quantum leaps in complexity, to be able to not only encode information, but also self-replicate, sanitise information errors, build proteins based on those DNA templates, and do so within protective casings, all in conditions that are incredibly hostile to life.
- Human beings have the ability to appreciate truth, beauty, and goodness on a level that most would describe as spiritual, that does not have a satisfactory explanation in pure biological terms.
- Human beings across all of history have believed in a God or gods, and that propensity towards belief in higher powers at the very least requires a reasonable explanation.
- Human societies function best when they are religious, and fall apart when they arent.
- We have never been more materially prosperous than we are right now, and yet as we abandon religion our society is getting less happy.

Arguments for Judeo-Christian theism:
- The Bible was written across an approximately 1500 year period by several different authors and yet the central theological themes are unchanged, in fact they develop and enrich as the revelation unfolds. Prophecies from books written from the period of 1200 BC to 300 BC are intricately fulfilled in the life of Jesus.
- The above point would be most adequately explained by Jesus being a complete work of fiction, but this does not gel with the historical evidence. There is ample evidence that Jesus was not only a real person, living in a real place, at a real time, but the evidence of the mark that he made on the people around him is observable in the historical record.
- The earliest followers of Jesus were best placed to know if it was a lie, and yet they lived lives of poverty and persecution to share their faith.
- The best explanation for the fact that Christianity exists at all is that it is true, if it is false the key people (plural - as opposed to say Mohammed who was just one guy) would have had no incentive to continue and every incentive to abandon it.
- Christianity's rise has coincided with remarkable good fortune across history, both in how the religion itself survived and spread but also the prosperity it brought with it to the places where it took root.
- Those who read the Bible with an open heart have experiences unlike the reading of any other book.
- The teachings of Christianity make sense of the human condition and following the moral code of the Bible makes individuals and communities better places.

There's literally a whole library worth to say on this issue, and each of the points that I have made above is a book in its own right... but there's a start.

 

[BOZO]

So please enlighten me: how do you "know" your beliefs are the correct ones, given how many other options are available? Personally I don't claim to know anything I cannot prove but if I choose to believe something I make sure I have significant evidence to support it.

Fact no one has conclusive evidence . Not all Scientis are Athiests many are Christians as they have evidence to support their belief

No one has conclusive evidence about the after life and we all put our faith in our own evidence that we have to support our belief .

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Just out of interest Muzz... how do you think the world... universe... life etc came into existence?

I DON'T KNOW!!!!
Does that fact make me less right than you?

 

[BOZO]

The moral of the story .....
We are all in the faith business

 

[manlyfan76]

 

[BOZO]

Can anyone spell "brainwashed"?

I will try to spell it this way but it is going to be a very long spelling list .......


23 Famous Scientists Who Are Not Atheists

23 Scientists who are not atheists

1. Professor Christian Anfinsen* (Nobel Prize for Chemistry, biochemistry of RNA, Johns Hopkins University): “I think that only an idiot can be an atheist! We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.”
2. Professor Werner Archer (Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine, restriction enzymes and molecular genetics, University of Basel): “I do not think our civilization has succeeded in discovering and explaining all the principles acting in the universe. I include the concept of God among these principles. I am happy to accept the concept without trying to define it precisely. I know that the concept of God helped me to master many questions in life; it guides me in critical situations and I see it confirmed in many deep insights into the beauty of the functioning of the living world.”
3. Professor D.H.R. Barton*** (Nobel Prize for Chemistry, conformational analysis in organic chemistry, Texas A&M University): “God is Truth. There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth.”
4. Professor Ulrich Becker** (High energy particle physics, MIT): “How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any answer ever given.”
5. Professor Steven Bernasek (Solid state chemistry, Princeton University): “I believe in the existence of God. His existence is apparent to me in everything around me, especially in my work as a scientist. On the other hand I cannot prove the existence of God the way I might prove or disprove a (scientific) hypothesis.”
6. Dr. Francis Collins* (Medicine, former Director of the Human Genome Project, Director, National Institutes of Health, author of “The Language of God”): “Freeing God from the burden of special acts of creation does not remove Him as the source of the things that make humanity special, and of the universe itself. It merely shows us something of how He operates.”
7. Professor Freeman Dyson*,*** (Theoretical physics, Princeton Institute for Advanced Study): “I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God may have minds that differ in degree but not in kind.”
8. Sir John Eccles*** (Nobel Prize, neurochemistry): “If I consider reality as I experience it, the primary experience I have is of my own existence as a self-conscious being, which I believe is God-created.”
9. Professor Manfred Eigen (Nobel Prize for Chemistry, fast reaction kinetics, Director Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, Gottingen): “…religion and science neither exclude nor prove one another.”
10. Professor John Fornaess* (Mathematics, Princeton Univ.): “I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the universe at all levels from elementary particles to human being to superclusters of galaxies.“
11. Professor P.C.C. Garnham*** (Medical protozoology, University of London): “God originated the universe or universes… At some stage in evolution when proto-humans were sufficiently advanced, God created the human soul… By faith and by appreciation of scientific necessity, God must exist.”
12. Professor Conyers Herring* (Solid state physics, Princeton University): “We live in a hard, real universe, to which we have to adapt. God is a characteristic of that universe—indeed a miraculous characteristic—that makes that adaption possible. Things such as truth, goodness, even happiness, are achievable, by virtue of a force that is always present, in the here and now and available to me personally.”
13. Professor Vera Kistiakowsky* (Experimental Nuclear Physics, MIT and Mount Holyoke College): “I am satisfied with the existence of an unknowable source of divine order and purpose and do not find this in conflict with being a practicing Christian.”
14. Professor Sir Neville Mott*** (Nobel Prize for physics, solid state physics, Cambridge University): “...we can and must ask God which way we ought to go, what we ought to do, how we ought to behave.”
15. Professor Robert Neumann* (nuclear and isotope chemistry and physics, Princeton University): “The existence of the universe requires me to conclude that God exists.”
16. Professor Edward Nelson* (Mathematics, Princeton University): “I believe in, pray to, and worship God.”
17. Dr. Arno Penzias* (Nobel Prize for physics for first observation of the universal microwave background radiation, Vice-President for Research, AT&T Bell Laboratories): “…by looking at the order in the world, we can infer purpose and from purpose we begin to get some knowledge of the Creator, the Planner of all this. This is, then, how I look at God. I look at God through the works of God’s hands and from those works imply intentions. From these intentions, I receive an impression of the Almighty.”
18. Rev. Professor John Polkinghorne*** (Theoretical elementary particle physics, President, Queens College, Cambridge University): “I take God very seriously indeed. I am a Christian believer (indeed, an ordained Anglican priest), and I believe that God exists and has made Himself known in Jesus Christ.”
19. Professor Abdus Salam*** (Nobel Prize for physics (elementary particle theory), Director, International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste): “Now this sense of wonder leads most scientists to a Superior Being—der Alte, the Old One, as Einstein affectionately called the Deity—a Superior Intelligence, the Lord of all Creation and Natural Law.”
20. Professor Arthur Schawlow* (Nobel Prize for Physics [laser physics], Stanford University): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious… I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”
21. Professor Wolfgang Smith (Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics, Oregon State University. His theoretical work provided the key for solving the re-entry problem in space flight): “If the physics of the last century prompted atheism, the physics of today is inciting at least the most thoughtful of its votaries to re-examine ‘the question of God.'”
22. Professor Charles Townes* (Nobel Prize for physics, development of the MASER/LASER, University of California, Berkeley): “I believe in the concept of God and in His existence.”
23. Professor Eugene Wigner* (Nobel Prize for physics, applications of symmetry principles—group theory to quantum mechanics—Princeton University): “The concept of God is a wonderful one—it also helps us makes decisions in the right direction. We would be very different, I fear, if we did not have that concept.”

 

[MuzztheEagle]

There's too much to say to answer that, that it's not really possible to do so in a satisfactory way on here. But in brief:

Arguments for general theism:
- There is something rather than nothing, and yet that "something" has not existed eternally, meaning that it came into existence, and yet the universe is an impersonal and materially contingent reality so it is an unsatisfactory explanation for its own existence.
- The laws of physics and chemistry are regular and predictable, yet there is no obvious reason why they should be.
- The laws of physics just happen to exist within perfect ranges for supporting life (the probability that the universe should be just one big hydrogen cloud or one massive black hole is incomprehensibly high, the odds that even elements should exist are minuscule).
- Even though there are approximately 10^60 planets in the universe, the odds that any single planet could support life, when multiplied by the number of planets in the universe, are still vanishingly small.
- Biological molecules are the most complex entities in the universe and yet they all somehow managed to develop together, with increasing, mutually supportive quantum leaps in complexity, to be able to not only encode information, but also self-replicate, sanitise information errors, build proteins based on those DNA templates, and do so within protective casings, all in conditions that are incredibly hostile to life.
- Human beings have the ability to appreciate truth, beauty, and goodness on a level that most would describe as spiritual, that does not have a satisfactory explanation in pure biological terms.
- Human beings across all of history have believed in a God or gods, and that propensity towards belief in higher powers at the very least requires a reasonable explanation.
- Human societies function best when they are religious, and fall apart when they arent.
- We have never been more materially prosperous than we are right now, and yet as we abandon religion our society is getting less happy.

Arguments for Judeo-Christian theism:
- The Bible was written across an approximately 1500 year period by several different authors and yet the central theological themes are unchanged, in fact they develop and enrich as the revelation unfolds. Prophecies from books written from the period of 1200 BC to 300 BC are intricately fulfilled in the life of Jesus.
- The above point would be most adequately explained by Jesus being a complete work of fiction, but this does not gel with the historical evidence. There is ample evidence that Jesus was not only a real person, living in a real place, at a real time, but the evidence of the mark that he made on the people around him is observable in the historical record.
- The earliest followers of Jesus were best placed to know if it was a lie, and yet they lived lives of poverty and persecution to share their faith.
- The best explanation for the fact that Christianity exists at all is that it is true, if it is false the key people (plural - as opposed to say Mohammed who was just one guy) would have had no incentive to continue and every incentive to abandon it.
- Christianity's rise has coincided with remarkable good fortune across history, both in how the religion itself survived and spread but also the prosperity it brought with it to the places where it took root.
- Those who read the Bible with an open heart have experiences unlike the reading of any other book.
- The teachings of Christianity make sense of the human condition and following the moral code of the Bible makes individuals and communities better places.

There's literally a whole library worth to say on this issue, and each of the points that I have made above is a book in its own right... but there's a start.

....and you will get similar arguments from Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hidu etc, etc. Yet there is no conclusive evidence or argument that makes people choose one over the other - it is all simply down to your birth area and social circle.
As for the idea of general theism - I could easily create any number of solutions to the problem posed - this is all just a story, we are heads in jars somewhere, it's a computer simulation, the Great Green Arkleseizure etc.
But why would I? It doesn't give me any greater insight into my life or the mysteries of the universe it just lets me avoid saying that I don't know the answer to something. But hey, I'm happy to say that (even when I'm an expert on the field) are you?

 

[eaglebuzz]

....and you will get similar arguments from Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Hidu etc, etc. Yet there is no conclusive evidence or argument that makes people choose one over the other - it is all simply down to your birth area and social circle.
As for the idea of general theism - I could easily create any number of solutions to the problem posed - this is all just a story, we are heads in jars somewhere, it's a computer simulation, the Great Green Arkleseizure etc.
But why would I? It doesn't give me any greater insight into my life or the mysteries of the universe it just lets me avoid saying that I don't know the answer to something. But hey, I'm happy to say that (even when I'm an expert on the field) are you?

Yes and many of those arguments are further support for theism. Where they differ needs to be weighed up.

Out of curiousity, expert in what, exactly?

 

[BOZO]

Song of the day ...

George Michael ....
You gotta have faith

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Yes and many of those arguments are further support for theism. Where they differ needs to be weighed up.

Out of curiousity, expert in what, exactly?

No they aren't, they support the idea of people's fear of the unknown.
I would consider myself an expert on several subjects; from beer to skiing and geography. But if you are asking my profession, then I work on data and software solutions for a range of treatment and manufacturing processes.