Maybe First Baptist Church is not so powerful...

[PeeJayEss]

Still, this is deductive reasoning.

Its just as possible that Shakespeare's collected works are simply the unwinding of a genetic program and not really the result of any imagination on the part of the elizabethan playwrite.

The point is that you cant measure it, hold it, see it, hear it, bottle it, contain it, weigh it or even prove that any product of your personal 'imagination' isnt simply the stolen idea of someone else'e process....

We believe that is something more than simply a chemical interaction within the brain, and it is more than simply an electrical sequence of some complexity.

In order to 'prove' imagination, you have to use exactly the same kinds of arguments that are used to 'prove' religious beliefs.

Which brings us back to the point.  There is evidence.  Just because it is deductive evidence mean that it should be discounted, since we do not discount deductive evidence in the examples I mentioned.

How are we defining imagination here? Seems like this same argument could apply to personality, dreams, thought, etc. Is the assertion that 'imagination' pops things into your head that are utterly unique and have no basis in your collected experiences? Is imagination simply any imagery you perceive that is not coming from sensory input?

Zero and infinity are not "scientific beliefs." They are mathematical tools. As a descriptor of quantity, they have very intuitive definitions, but they are simply definitions to assist us in using the tool. Zero is either a integer amount/count point below 1, or it is defined arbitrarily (in the case of temperature, decibels, etc). Talking about proving "zero" exists is like trying to prove "pretty" exists. Its simply a name for an idea. Infinity just simplifies the math for us in the place of 'really large number.'

[ronchamblin]

You guys are getting too complex.  The argument becomes fuzzy for my old brain.

We are comparing two entirely different things, money and religion, the former being necessary and practical in order to exchange goods and services, the latter being an imagined fiction from the minds of men, and unnecessary for the growing number of us who, being enlightened as the absurdity of it all, have no need for it. 

Whereas, with rational thinking, we can eliminate religions, as they are not necessary, we cannot eliminate money, as it is a practical thing, needed to exchange goods and services.  Money, if used in a reasonable way, and acquired without placing others in the poorhouse, is necessary and works very well in our economy.  Those who attempt to accumulate obscene amounts of it, even at the expense of destroying the economy, or placing hard working folk in the poorhouse, should be guillotined or shot, as should be the case with the certain high rollers in banking, corporate, or wall street who, not being satisfied with being worth 15 million, strive to be worth 15 billion by relentlessly, aggressively, and without conscience, monetarily rape the working folks of the lower and middle classes.  BTW, if just sentences were judged against individuals of this type, I would volunteer my trigger finger or my hand to drop the blade in order to carry out the sentences.

Our consciousness and our imaginations are the consequences of the electrochemical activity within our brains.  We can imagine all kinds of images and scenarios, and we can speak about these.  This cerebral activity is not necessarily evidence that there is something greater; that is, outside of our world, or in the existence of a god.  It only shows how well our brains have evolved so that our imaginations can roam through all kinds of possibilities.  Sure, anything is possible, even the existence of gods and fairies and unicorns.  But how probable are these possibilities?  Why do some of us have difficulty assigning reasonable probabilities to what is possible?  It seems that the people inclined to avoid critical thought about probabilities, which is a quality enhanced by one’s knowledge of the sciences, are the ones who are inclined to believe the stuff of churches and gods.  But…. all is good.  According to statistics, we are slowly making headway toward having a more non-believing, or secular, society; and this, probably because certain individuals and events have shown too often the absurdities of it all.

ah.  so money used in a reasonable way makes it beneficial?

well ok.

thats not the tune you were singing earlier about religion.

More folks are miserable because of money than any of the gods, goddesses or deities combined.

And a lot more people die either from a lack of it or out of competition for it.

I just think you should have the courage of your convictions Ron.  You know,....if your right eye offends you, etc.

Give up the money.  Its evil and causes suffering for millions of people.

That would put you really ahead of the game.

Again Stephen.... money is very necessary and practical for our economies. And yes, people have fought over it, but we cannot get rid of money because it is necessary for our society to function.  All we can hope for is that people gain in character so that they don't kill for money, or take by theft by whatever means.  Religions and gods are different.  We can get rid of these things in good time simply because they are not necessary for society to function.  We must accept the wars caused by money simply because money is necessary for societal function, whereas we do not have to accept the wars caused by gods and religions simply because they are not really necessary for societal function.

In other words, we can do something about the religion problem, but little about the money problem.

"Chuck Norris frequently donates blood to the Red Cross.  Just never his own." 

[PeeJayEss]

More folks are miserable because of money than any of the gods, goddesses or deities combined.

To Ron's point of view, this would of course be logical, since misery cannot be caused by something which does not exist.

I believe Freud would argue that a lack of sex is the only true cause of misery, in which case money would be a very strong factor in alleviating misery (oldest profession and all). The guilt brought on by most major religions, being generally anti-sexuality, would then be a leading cause of misery. James Joyce (and I) would probably have something to say about that.

[Cheshire Cat]

^Ron, you do realize that your arguments for science are just as narrow as those for individuals with firm religious beliefs don't you?  You again speak to probabilities and understandings as you think science recognizes them while taking the great leap to state that statistics of any sort are a firm indicator of the direction humanity will ultimately take with regard to how they view themselves in this universe.  I again take issue when you speak to "enlightenment" as you see it and to what degree those who have views different from yours are themselves  "enlightened or not" using your own standard which it appears is science.   Your view that you are among the ones who have it right intellectually is simply pure ego talking and does not translate to truth, just opinion. 

There are a great many individuals well versed in the disciplines of science, including doctors and physicists who actually believe in a divine presence.  There are many more who do study all things probable according to what science has proven fact through experiment and theory and understand those rules apply to "reality and universe" as science knows it.  However our science can only measure with the tools it has so far developed as they relate to what is currently understood to be our universe.  Our understanding of what exists beyond this universe or after death cannot yet be measured, no tools exist to do so.  Even nothing is something, as is dark matter in this universe.  Science knows it is there, can prove it is,  but does not yet understand what it is. 

Your argument also discounts the value of myth and legend which is necessary to cultural evolution.  I do not care for or embrace organized religion myself for many reasons, but it does not mean I am unaware that we live a great mystery that even science has yet to understand and may never understand. 

[PeeJayEss]

you seem to be all over the place here.

So can you prove that 'zero' exists? or is it a scientific belief?

Not sure where you are going here.

It is not a belief, nor can you prove it. It is a definition either of a null count or some arbitrary, discrete point of measure. It is a tool, not an item whose existence can be questioned.

Where I am going: Your argument is basically that science is as faith-based as religion because "zero" and "infinity" have not been 'proven' to your liking. What does that even mean?
I equated this position to saying that "pretty" has not been proven because, while you can say it, it doesn't make sense.

Regardless, zero and infinity have nothing to do with whether or not there is evidence of deities.

Also, First Baptist Church discussion...

[PeeJayEss]

Well if they dont exist then they cause no harm whatsoever.

Which would remove the underpinning of his argument.

Why? His argument was about religion, not deities.

[ronchamblin]

I'm overwhelmed.  I'm going to become a member of the First Baptist Church.  And I'm going to close both stores and live on my little social security check.  Thanks all for getting me on the right track.

"Chuck Norris once got 100 percent on a calculus exam by writing violence for every question.  Chuck Norris solves all problems with violence." 

[If_I_Loved_you]

[andyfk]

This appears to have turned into a discussion about religion rather than abuse of power and the concentration thereof in FBC. I'll just mention FBCJaxWatchdog as the most recent egregious example.

[Adam W]

We have evidence of imagination?

How so?

I'd say the entire collected works of William Shakespeare, for example, would be a pretty decent example. Or the simple fact that you can think of something that doesn't exist or picture something that isn't in the room with you or in your line of sight.

Still, this is deductive reasoning.

Its just as possible that Shakespeare's collected works are simply the unwinding of a genetic program and not really the result of any imagination on the part of the elizabethan playwrite.

The point is that you cant measure it, hold it, see it, hear it, bottle it, contain it, weigh it or even prove that any product of your personal 'imagination' isnt simply the stolen idea of someone else'e process....

We believe that is something more than simply a chemical interaction within the brain, and it is more than simply an electrical sequence of some complexity.

In order to 'prove' imagination, you have to use exactly the same kinds of arguments that are used to 'prove' religious beliefs.

Which brings us back to the point.  There is evidence.  Just because it is deductive evidence mean that it should be discounted, since we do not discount deductive evidence in the examples I mentioned.

It's still imagination, though. We may not know the mechanism by which it works, but we are observing a process and attempting to understand it. It is something we can measure and work to figure out - we can test it. We know it exists and we can try to get to the bottom of it.

That's actually the exact opposite of a god. When it comes to a god, we don't have anything. People see things (things they call "evidence") and ascribe their existence to a god. But there is nothing that can link this evidence to a god - no evidence, so to speak.

So the analogy you offer is flawed. If we had something we actually knew existed - and we called it "god" - and we were trying to get to the bottom of how it worked and what it consisted of, etc. then it would be a similar situation.

But we don't have anything. We have people telling stories or chalking things up to a higher power, etc - that's why we talk in terms of "faith" when we talk about religion. There is no need to talk about faith when you talk about imagination, because we know it exists. It may all be hardwired into our brains or it may be something we get from our ancestors or it may even be something we get from god - or viruses or whatever. But we know it happens. We have proof that people imagine, even if we aren't 100% certain of how it is happening.

We can test it. We can study it. And I bet we're learning more and more about it every year.

[andyfk]

This appears to have turned into a discussion about religion rather than abuse of power and the concentration thereof in FBC. I'll just mention FBCJaxWatchdog as the most recent egregious example.

what would you mention about that, andy?

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html

[Adam W]

This appears to have turned into a discussion about religion rather than abuse of power and the concentration thereof in FBC. I'll just mention FBCJaxWatchdog as the most recent egregious example.

what would you mention about that, andy?

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html

^Oh yeah - I remember that. What ever happened?

[edjax]

Perhaps we spend too much time worrying about FBC agenda than pushing our own agendas for downtown.

[carpnter]

This appears to have turned into a discussion about religion rather than abuse of power and the concentration thereof in FBC. I'll just mention FBCJaxWatchdog as the most recent egregious example.

what would you mention about that, andy?

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html

^Oh yeah - I remember that. What ever happened?

It was settled confidentially, I believe part of the agreement was that no one can discuss the terms.  It is somewhere on the blog. 

IMO most normal people would simply find another church to attend instead of spending time attacking its pastor and staff in a blog when they didn't like what the church was doing (i.e. starting a school, starting a satellite campus).

[Adam W]

This appears to have turned into a discussion about religion rather than abuse of power and the concentration thereof in FBC. I'll just mention FBCJaxWatchdog as the most recent egregious example.

what would you mention about that, andy?

http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/2009/03/readers-in-this-post-im-simply-going-to.html

^Oh yeah - I remember that. What ever happened?

invasion of privacy etc.

The thing about it though is that the first baptist blogger is a Jerry Vines (who announced nationally that "Muhammed was a demon posessed pedophile") partisan, and thinks that the current pastorship is too liberal.

Im not sure most here would like to see the church becoming more far right wing and xenophobic.  But whatever floats your boat.

That's crazy (that the blogger was pro-Vines). I remember this getting a bit of press, but it kind of disappeared. But then again, it was a number of years ago, so it's hardly surprising that it's not really making headlines anymore.