WrongPlanet.net an anti-christian site?

Post Reply New Topic

I agree Lee.

To me the most important thing has always been to get at the truth even if I found it unpalatable. So on that basis I argue from where my perspective and knowledge is. I don't seek to "vanquish an opponent" but to exchange ideas and see if the other people I talk to have something I can learn from. Something new. Personally I'm not in the least bit interested in debating from a "fighting" angle. There is no such thing as a winner or a loser of the debates, only those seeking the truth. That is why I seldom participate in PPR because it is often just a battle of rhetoric, a battle of wits. Who cares? I have spent many years passionately being involved with these sorts of issues both from a formal scientific point of view and as a spiritual seeker.

Understood, sensible, reasonable and rational ... but then why do so many people then seem to believe those facts somehow quite rationally justify their specific, categorical and/or vehement exclusion of even the mere thought of any kind of God and/or their bashing of the alleged "idiots" who might be but merely willing to at least consider the possibility of "God"? Any alleged "science" speculating the complete absence of "God" and/or then even presenting that mere speculation as actual "fact" is no science at all -- that is religion!



I prefer the term/title "Divine Sovereign" over "Divine Dictator".

For many years, I was "blessed" with an inability to "run with the big dogs" in places like PPR ... but then that left me with a lot of time available for sorting through all kinds of things and doing some serious culling!

Or, just try telling Christians the Muslims and Jews are all talking about even their very own "God"!

There is but one God, of course, but we all misunderstand Him/Her/It differently.

Last edited by leejosepho on 21 Apr 2011, 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

God is irrelevant to science from a technical point of view rather than a religious point of view. I'm trying to think of an analogy...

OK. Suppose I gave you a pile of coins for you to deduce facts about. You could weigh them. Count them. Divide them into groups. Note the shapes of them. See what bias (if any) they have when tossed to landing heads or tails. See if you could stand them on their edge. Catalogue all the dates stamped on them. However, at no point in this research does the question arise about what a car salesman in Texas called George ate for his breakfast a week last Thursday. George is to the research of coins what God is to science.

Then let science say nothing at all either way about "God".

Science is rational and God is irrelevant to science, but that does not mean rational people are therefore idiots for believing God might still be relevant to people.

This macro freaks me out. I want to run over there and pick up that baby before he falls off the couch!! !

Science can say nothing about God. However, science shows that the Earth is not six thousand years old and it shows that life evolved over millions of years. This is where the confrontation begins. The same thing happened when science pointed out that the Earth wasn't at the centre of the solar system. The problem is that religious people over the centuries and specifically their religious books were assumed to hold the answers to such things. As time passes it is shown that the books / religious teachings were in error about these things or that those teachings were metaphorical. The Catholic religion has had the intelligence to acknowledge the mistakes/discrepancies and now accept that the Sun is at the centre of the solar system, that the Earth is several billion years old and that life evolved. However, some religions seem incapable of accepting these facts without it breaking their doctrine and they either put their head in the sand and pretend the facts don't exist or generate pseudo-scientific rubbish to try (very badly) to make the science fit to their doctrines.

Going back to your second point. Belief in God may be relevant to many people, simply from a perspective that it gives their lives a sense of meaning and purpose. Maybe they are having a crap life and they believe in a heaven where they will be happy or be reunited with deceased loved ones. Maybe this is one of the reasons why religion still persists. Some people have a need to believe in a "higher power" whether one exists or not. If such a belief makes their life worth living then they cannot be called "idiots" as such. The term is more likely to be used when they deny scientific facts that disagree with their doctrine. Something I gather that the Texas education board is prone to do as well as many Islamic countries where knowledge about evolution is restricted or outright forbidden.

Not within the context of this thread where the question has been asked about a "site bias" of some kind. That confrontation begins when this ...


... ends up being mis-used as some kind of alleged evidence that all religious folks are idiots and "science" has somehow proved them so.


Yes, some religious folks certainly do make that grave error from within their superstitious fear/s.


I would see that as belief in religion rather than as belief (faith) in God.


Ah yes, that "great reunion in the sky" placebo!


I suspect you might be addressing/referencing some modern-day-AA rhetoric there, but I would nevertheless suggest a reason for that alleged "need":

"... deep down in every man, woman, and child, is the fundamental idea of God. It may be obscured by calamity, by pomp, by worship of other things, but in some form or other it is there. For faith in a Power greater than ourselves, and miraculous demonstrations of that power in human lives, are facts as old as man himself.
"We finally saw that faith in some kind of God was a part of our make-up, just as much as the feeling we have for a friend. Sometimes we had to search fearlessly, but He was there. He was as much a fact as we were. We found the Great Reality deep down within us. In the last analysis it is only there that He may be found. It was so with us."
("A.A.", the book, page 55)


Like you have mentioned and as we completely agree, people need to be willing to re-think their own beliefs as new facts come along.

I was actually thinking the same thing! He looks so precariously balanced!



I was thinking of the irony of this in terms of the 'long view'. I think that comic is rather apropos

Sounds like we are more or less on the same page - or at least a different version of it!

I think one issue we differ on is the issue of "faith" itself. To me the words "faith" and "belief" are almost swear words. I don't know if you know much about the Hindu religion? They have the principle that there are many ways to "God". Two of the ways are known as Bhakti Yoga and Jnana Yoga. You are the former I am the latter. The former seeks God through faith and devotion. The latter denies everything and has no belief or faith in anything, "God is not this", "God is not this". Eventually through his sharp intellect and meditation he perceives the nature of reality by rejecting the unreal. If such a thing as God actually exists in any sense of the words who is to say what is his/her/its nature? From your perspective God is more of an anthropomorphic being. From mine "Consciousness" itself. However, I do not like to use the word "God" - the word has too many associations. The Hindu word is Satchitananda which translates as "Existence, knowledge, bliss". The Buddhist equivalent is the void of Nirvana. All just words trying to grasp the ungraspable. If indeed there is even such a "thing"!

Little more than what you have just told me, but the man who helped me take the Twelve Steps was/is Hindu.


Same here, but I have recently relented just a bit for the sake of simplicity.

It has been great talking with you ... and you can have the final word for now, if you wish!

Seems to me the best final words are: I enjoyed talking with you too.

Understood, and I am actually a bit pleased to see that wrongly-worshiped cross being broken!

I assume you mean its odd that the instrument of Jesus' death is the symbol of his worship? I have always wondered about that. Then again, there is that fish symbol, so I guess there is some choice in the matter

...No. It's not a symbol of his death but of the ultimate sacrifice. There's a difference to those of us who believe.