hi everybody
Offline I thought before starting to post i´d stop a moment and introduce myself. First of all english is not my fist language so sorry if my formulations or spellings is sometimes a bit weired. I will try to use a dictionary if necessary but sometimes you get carried away by your thoughts and their just isnt time for secondary things like spelling, punctuation or grammar for that matter ^^
Now a bit about me, i am 33 years old, i would consider myself a theist with a pretty strong belief and i am here to discuss certain aspects about belief itself, the theist vs atheist debate, creationism, science in generall, organized religion, fundamentalism ........... short whatever i find interesting.
I am scientifically quite educated, so it allways stuns me a bit that many atheist beliefe science and beliefe are contradicting themselves, because they really dont, thats just fundamentalist bullshit (there is a reason why the word fundamentalist contains the word mental you know). If you look many great scientists where beliefers, like einstein, from which we know many quotes concerning god like :"gott würfelt nicht" (allthough i must admit that his view of god is as far away from my own as you possibly can, but thats another story).
Generally i think that the discussion has reached a point where it has gone far beyond reasonable arguments, and that has to stop. We need a fruitful discussion again, if we want to get anywhere, and thats why i am here. I hope i can get a bit of heat out of the discussion with a bit of common sence, at least i will try.
Be patient: English is not my first language.
- Login to post comments
What exactly do you mean by fruitful?
Edit: I'll be more specific. If you accomplished everything you wanted on this site how would things be different?
i mean a discusion that not mainly consists of insulting the others persons standpoints without getting anywhere, but a rational exchange of ideas from which both sides canv learn something
Be patient: English is not my first language.
That is a fairly difficult thing to accomplish when neither side respects the other. I know that I don't really have any respect for most religions, and most religious people don't really have any respect for me.
It is even harder to accomplish when you take into account that most of the people on this site feel that religions is harmful to the the modern world.
Edit: Well, I'll try my best to talk to you without being insulting if you do me the same courtesy.
Welcome to the forum, feyn.
Do you want to discuss a subject that we disagree on?
I am an agnostic atheist and scientific naturalist. I think many religious beliefs contradict well established science, including Creationism. I do not think there is enough evidence to establish the existence any popular God concept, except for the pantheistic God=universe, without also asserting that the universe possesses some sort of consciousness. I consider myself a moral subjectivist.
I think you might be having some trouble with English here, but I will respond under the assumption that you mean what you have written here.
Science, the body of information, can certainly contradict itself. In this sense, it would simply be a bunch of data collected by fallible human beings.
Beliefs can contradict each other. A single belief cannot "contradict;" you need to make more than one claim to have a contradiction.
Science and beliefs can contradict each other. Someone just needs to believe something that contradicts the current science.
I'm not sure what your point is. Smart people can be theists? Of course, but that's just an appeal to authority.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
first of all i have respect for others, even if they dont share my beliefs. I think that so many people arent able to respect someone else simply because they have different opinions/beliefs is one of humanities biggest problem. So its about time we work on this.
Also i dont beliefe that religion is the problem, its fundamentalism. I have no problem with science for instance, i belief that things like creationism are really harmful for humanity, but thats not religion, thats fundamentalism. And there i am absolutely with the ateheist, we must get rid of all kinds of fundamentalism. But on the other hand you must also accept/see that fighting all forms of religion is just another form of fundamentalism, and is harmful in itself. There are many good things that can come from religion. For instance religious people do a lot of good for handicaped people, why fight them ? Why not let them do their job ?
Also atheists often talk abozt all the bad things religion did, but at a closer look its allways not really religion, its fundamentalism, be it the holy wars, inquisition or whatever.
my pouint abput enstein was that theism and science dont exclude each other, like many atheists claim
Be patient: English is not my first language.
first of all, we can agree that creationism is just a dumb idea, as are many other fundamentalist beliefs like that the bilbe has to be taken literally. The bilbe is a boook full of wonderful philosophical and ethical ideas, that tries to teach you something about life and how to live it. To take it literally doesnt make sence. Many stories are allegorical or metaphorical ..... Its a guideline and we have to take it a such, and see what we can lear n for our lives from it, without letting others tell us what it has to mean. If you truly open to it you will find out forn yourself what it has to teach you, and that can be a lot. But fundamentalistsb try to use the bilbe to tell others how they should live, what a folly idea indeed, in that i can understand atheists. Since the human society changes, religion will have to change as well.
Now lets talk a bit about evidence. If i look at nature itself, at its beauty, thats evidence enough for me, but thats only me. I dont think an ultimate proof in gods existence would make sence. Its belief, not science. Science needs proof, belief doesnt. You try to imply rules fromn one concept to another, that cant work. You could ask as well why the rules of mathematics dont aply to religion
Be patient: English is not my first language.
I agree, to a pretty limited extent. It might depend on how you define religion.
Fundamentalism is strict adherence to certain principles and beliefs. We also tend to describe fundamentalists as intolerant to outsiders and being closed to reason; they will refuse to question their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence against them.
Given this definition, how can religions survive without fundamentalism? What is the baby that is left if you throw out the bathwater? Popular religions, whether it be Christianity, Islam, Scientology, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc., thrive on what can be described as a kind of centralized, group fundamentalism. They each have some core beliefs and practices that should be followed unquestioningly. Most of the popular religions hold absolutely ludicrous beliefs that have absolutely zero supporting evidence or have even been long debunked, and they may ask their respective flocks to subscribe to those beliefs on "faith," a complete intellectual cop-out.
I wouldn't fight that. I'll praise and encourage whatever I like, but I still won't respect their beliefs.
Nobody would claim that theists can't be scientists. What they claim is that religious beliefs often contradict science. Your statement about Einstein is a red herring.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
@feyn
In order to live together with other people it is necessary to share certain beliefs (or at least pretend to). One of the most obvious believes people in large groups must share is that it is wrong to kill other people without reason. If some guy goes around killing random people because he feels that that killing is alright people are not going to respect his belief because his belief is harmful to society as a whole.
In order to live together with other people it is necessary to respect certain differences of belief. People are all different, and if people can't accept those differences and learn to live together it is impossible for them to all function together as a society.
the point I'm trying to make is that for society to function certain beliefs and the actions they lead to should not be respected, and other beliefs should be respected (or at the very least tolerated).
The question is which beliefs deserve respect, which beliefs deserve tolerance and which beliefs should be fought against.
Most people seem to agree that there are problems with the world the way it is. What most people disagree about is what needs to be done to fix those problems. You seem to feel that fundamentalism is what is wrong with the world. You also seem to want to convince other people that the problem is not religion.
So let hear your argument. Here are some questions I have. What is fundamentalism in your words? What is religion in your words? Why is being anti-religious bad? If fighting against religion makes you a fundamentalism does fighting against fundamentalism make you a fundamentalist?
1. Most the Bible is not allegorical or metaphorical. Does it make sense to take those parts literally?
2. How do you determine which parts are literal or metaphorical?
Appealing to beauty is a logical fallacy.
If the beauty of nature is good evidence, then it is good evidence for everybody. It cannot be evidence for only you. That is complete nonsense.
The scientific method is not just some mystical process that rocket scientists use to calculate the trajectory of a spaceship traveling to the moon. It is the process by how we learn and solve problems everyday. We observe reality. We devise experiments to check if reality matches our hypothesis. We use the results from our experiments to form our conclusions. All scientific knowledge is supported by evidence. If it is not supported by evidence, then it simply isn't scientific knowledge, by definition. I'm not sure what you could mean by "science needs proof" other than that.
See here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/science_dummies
Similarly, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that belief doesn't "need proof." Obviously, people can believe whatever they want because people can choose. But, beliefs need evidence to be justified. All claims need evidence to be justified, and all meaningful claims are subject to scrutiny by the scientific method.
So, yes, you can believe in God without any evidence. But, you need evidence in order for your belief in God to be justified. Otherwise, you are believing without any good reason.
I'm not sure what you're saying here either. Mathematics does apply to virtually everything in religion. You simply don't typically apply it.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
First off welcome.
Just a word of warning, nothing we post here should be taken as a personal attack on you. We will however, knock your claims around. We can like you the person as an individual, but not the claims you make. Always keep in mind that there IS a difference.
Now having said that, you said in your OP
Yes they really do.
Science is not based on belief, but observation and testing and falsification and independent peer review.
Belief itself does not have that rigid standard of quality control.
Science requires the tires to be kicked, belief only requires believing.
The concept of a in invisible being with no body or brain or neurons or cerebellum or physical material, that has magical super powers, is absurd.
What makes sense in all of our species history is the abundant evidence that humans make up and believe in gods, not because gods are real, but because a placebo is much easier to swallow than actually testing something to insure it's reality.
If you can accept that no one was around 4 billion years ago to claim Allah, what makes you think any god claim will exist 10 billion years from now long after our species goes extinct?
People make up gods, and that is the reality. There is no such thing as a brain with no brain.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Welcome to the asylum and no, I'm not a doctor.
Cheers
I believe that religion might help some people as far as having something to turn to when everything in their life is wrong. Other than that I think it causes a lot of problems. As far as your example of Christians doing things for handicap people....so? Atheists do too. I have a son who is handicap. There are nurses who are Atheist. Also as long as I have the funding and I know it goes to the actual purpose I donate money to help people. As long as you understand that Christians aren't the only people that do good for society you can actually say you are respectful towards people no matter what there beliefs are.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Hi.
1. Please tell us what exactly you believe in that makes you a theist.
2. If you can, please do not refer to Einstein as a theist, better use Faraday if you need a scientist who was a theist.
3. You say that creationism is a dumb fundamentalist idea. So, you do not believe in god the creator, is this correct? Again, please answer #1.
Thanks.
100%
Edit: Also, science and religion may or may not contradict each other. IPU does not contradict the material existence of your computer, for example. If you say that organized religion does not make problems for science, this is wrong. If you want to blame all bad about religion on fundamentalists, then I will claim that the idea of national socialism is a great idea, it is just Hitler and a few others who were bad guys.
In my town, at one of the museums, there is an exhibit all summer about Einstein. I have been to the exhibit. There are original letters and notebooks displayed that he wrote. About politics, science and religion.
Einstein was an ethnic Jew. That is why he came to the US in the 1930s - to leave Germany and Nazism. He never went back. He was not a practicing Jew. And he never wanted to become christian. Religion was not important to him, he was driven by science and increasing our knowledge about our universe.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I would add that Einstein was a pacifist and wrote a lot of anti-war pieces, but he hated the NAZI's so much he helped come up with the "Atomic bomb".
He was disappointed it was used on the Japanese instead.
He was appalled it was used at all on anyone. The only input he had to the development of the atomic bomb was a letter he wrote to the president, suggesting that research be funded. He was never on the Manhattan Project team as he was considered a security risk because of his pacifist views. Again, my source is the actual letter written to President Roosevelt, redacted documents from the FBI, subsequent interviews with Einstein in various publications, and an interview published in a Japanese magazine years after the war ended. All currently on display at OMSI.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Sorry, cj.
Very true, cj.
Here is a link to some info: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace/manhattan.php
Welcome Feyn! I hope you enjoy yourself here. Don't worry about language so much. First, your English is quite good. Second, what's important are the ideas, not necessarily the words that are used to express them. Most of us here are mostly concerned with ideas.
The atmosphere here can become quite adversarial. If it becomes too much a problem for you, there is a special forum here called "Kill 'em with Kindness", where you can post and the rules are that the we must keep the discussion civil and polite.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I agree strongly with you on this point, and I'd also like to see humanity move towards basic respect for humans as humans, while keeping ideas separate from the notion of respect.
A big problem is when people, who have their ideas criticized, react as if they themselves have been personally disrespected. Would you agree?
It depends on what you are calling 'religion' and what you're calling 'fundamentalism'. For me, the big big problem is 'faith', which I characterize as 'believing things strongly without good reason or evidence.' Faith can be religious or non-religious, but in my experience, nearly all religions involve some component of faith. Only certain extremely liberal versions of Buddhism have passed the no-faith test, as far as I know.
Do you have faith in your religious beliefs? E.g. if you are Christian, do you believe Jesus was born of a virgin or was resurrected?
Here you are using two different meanings for the word 'fundamentalism' and conflating the two meanings. Opposing religious beliefs based on faith is in no way similar to *holding* strict religious beliefs *because of* strong religious faith.
So, I disagree with your point here. There are many very good reasons for opposing faith-based religions, even those which are not 'fundamentalist'. For example, Catholicism is not usually considered 'fundamentalist', but there are many many good reasons for opposing Catholicism. What is your religious background and belief? What do you believe on faith?
What does religion (specifically, faith-based belief) have to do with doing good things like helping the handicapped? Non-believers are just as helpful as religious people. We don't oppose religious people helping the handicapped. We oppose religious people believing silly ideas by faith, and by committing dangerous and harmful actions based on those beliefs.
As I said, the real problem is faith-based belief. It just so happens that religion happens to be the single largest promoter of faith-based belief. Simply by prioritizing our list of offenders brings religion to the top of the list. It's that simple.
Science rules out faith-based claims. Faith-based religions rule out scientific findings that contradict their beliefs. Hence, faith-based religion is often in conflict with science, and vice versa.
Whether religious people can compartmentalize their religious beliefs from the light of scientific evidence is not the important question. People can believe contradictory things. So what? That doesn't make science and religious faith compatible.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Welcome feyn!
You seem like one of those theists who will be open minded enough to learn quite a bit here! I hope you stick around for a long time
I think you'll enjoy it here.
I'll keep an eye out for your posts.
Have a great day,
Wow, so many questions, so little time ^^
For now i will try to give a quick definition on fundamentalism. Its only a first draft and wont be perfect/complete :
- people who try to force their belief on others, sometimes with quite radical methods. What has allways puzzled me about this behaviour is that they dont see that someone who is forced into another belief system isnt really a beliefer usually. So why do they bother at all ? It doesnt really make sence.
- People who take the bible/koran/whatever literally and really belief taht every word is from god himself, allthough their is evidence to the contrary.
- People who believe just everything that is in the bible/koran/whatever, even if it is against common sence
- People who think their holy books are scientifically correct in every respect, and even if science has proven something in there to be false than science is wrong not their book
- Peope who will try every trick to sneak their belief in parts of society where belief is not wanted, not allowed etc like creationism in biology, sharia in lawbooks etc.
- people who really belief that their prophets/holy men/popes where never wrong. I mean come on, they where human. Only god is perfect by definition.
I think the first point is the most important one, and the most dangerous one. Note that You dont have to fit every point to be a fundamentalist.
Now someone asked if i believe that god created the universe, yes i do. But I shure as hell do not believe in creationism, at least not what i define as creationism, the movement, that believes the world is 6000 years old. Thats just daft, but typical for a fundamentalist to ignore all evidence an common sence because the bible says otherwise.
Then came the obvious question what i believe in. I am not a "participant" in one of the major religions, i am part of a so far pretty small movement, but which is growing fast. Since the name wont ring a bell for most i think its best to describe our belief. For now only in a nutshell, i think i will later either open a thread for it, to discuss about it, or perhaps i use this thread, we will see. So, our belief in a nutshell:
- we belief in 1 god, that is male and female, an who can appear in many forms to the believers. We belief that all gods in every religion are really him.
- we belief that every religion was given to humanity by this god in 1 form or another Though we doubt that the prophets just got them dictated, we think it was more like a feeling what is right and what not, which is why no text can be taken literally. They where inspired by god, not written by him, thats what prophets are for
. Every society needs a religion that fits this society, with rules that make sence in that particular environment, and that particular time. So in a way practically every religion is right, or better was right. But since humanity evolves so must religion. But there is still a lot of wisdom in the old texts, so its a good idea to study them. If you study them you will be surprised how much they have in common. After all they are all the same religion with adaptions to the time, the environment etc.
- another important point is that not every religion fits everybody. For 1 islam might be the right choice, for another christianity, but they both beleive in the same god, and in a way they are both right. Its all the same, with adaptions, but the same. But in a point in the far future all religions will become united. But even then everybody will have his belief, that fits him.
- since everything basic in the universe has a counterpart (you just have to look at elementary particle physics to know that thats true) there is also something evil in the universe, some call it shaitan, satan, demon, whatever. Like go it takes many forms. It is a mockery of god, and tries to trick us and lure us away from god. It has managed to influence every religion, some more, some less. But god gave as a weapon gainst it, our conscience. With it we can see which parts of a religion are inspired by whom. It is also the reason why often very evil things happen right in the heart of a religion and its priests like the child molesting priests, or things like inquisition. He tries to pervert the religions, to reverse them, to turn them inside out.
- we believe that doing is much more important than saying. Sure god likes if you visit a temple from time to time, but he will like it even better if you do something to show your belief. Why not help someone who is less lucky than you ? Since we belief so stronglöy in doing we belief tht even an atheist can go to paradise , if he wants to after he dies. God will much more how you where as a person, than how you where as a believer. After all he is god, he doesnt need your belief, he just likes it. But he also knows how complicated live can become, and that there may have been a good reason to loose your faith, so why should he punish you for it ?
- god does want respect from us and love, but he doesnt want submission. He has given us free will for a reason, so use it. Your conscience will tell you if you screw up to bad. But better to screw up every once in a while than being afraid of trying something new. Since we talk about screwing up, god is forgiving, and so should be you. BUT just screwing up all the time and saying you are sorry afterwards wont do. Its like with other people, gods want to see that you learned from that experience and try not to do the same stupid mistake twice. Sometimes just being sorry isnt enough, and you have to do something to make up for your mistake. Your conscience will tell you when thats the case and how to make it right. Just open your heart. Their may come a point in your life when you think you srewed up so bad you can never make up for it. That may be the case with humans, but god never gives up on you.
- at the very core of our belief are certain cosmic principles. I allready named 1, that everything basic has a counterpart. The others need more explanation, so i will leave them out for now except for balance to which i will come in a short while
- life is a gift, so use it. Make something out of it. Use your talents. At the very least you should aquire some wisdom, experience some love and do something crazy every once in a while. Life is important, so if you have kids, you have to be sure about it (but some doubts are allowed, even important. If you dont have any doubts at all you should wait because there is something you have overloooked. Wait untill you have found out what, otherwise you wont find out untill its too late). Kids are biggest gift you can get, but also the biggest responsability and challenge. So do the best you can. Kids have to be your decision. Dont have them if you feel you cant take the challenge. Its even better to abort a child than bring a child into the world that wont be loved and taken care of. Oh and having time for them and love for them is more important than anything else. A kid can take a day without food better than a day without love.
- Another of the cosmic principles is balance (as i have allready mentioned). Dont let any part of your life totally consume the others, thats the surest way to get unhappy. You should work, but you shouldnt live only for work. You should have fun, but you shouldnt live only for it. Same goes for everything else in life. Its a good thing to help other people and be there for them, but leave time for yourself as well. You may feel its egoistic to think about yourself, but you need that. It will give you the strenght you need to be there for others. Only in a balanced life you will find true happyness. You may find having as much fun as possible the way to go, but after some time you will feel an emptyness that wont fill up untill you find your balance again. No matter what it is, and how good it is, have too much of it in your life and your screwed. Simple truth really, but too many people just dont get it.
Thats it for now, feel free to ask anything you like. Many of those things seem like simple truths, but look around in the world and you will see how many people have trouble with them and how many problems arise out of them. Sometimes wisdom can be in pretty obvious truths, the trick is not to know them but to implement them in your life.
One more thing, a question i hear oh so often from theists and atheists alike. If there is a god, how can he let things happen to us, and not guard and protect us from everything ? To really understand why you have to be parrents, but i will try to explain it. If you had kids, would you let them drive a bike ? I mean there are all kinds of things that can happen to them, so why not forbid them to drive a bike ? Why let them outside at ll, with everything that can happen out there ?
Because kids need to be outside to learn and to experience life. If they fall of the bike they will cry a bit, but then they will ride on, and they will have learned something. You cant and mustnt protect them from everything, it wont be good for them. To some kids even something really serious will happen, perhaps they will even land in a wheelchair, but nonetheless you have to take that risk, because not letting them out will hurt them even more, even if you cant see it. If we get hurt riding our bike god is not happy about it, but he knows he has to let us. Otherwise we would wither away.
I will try to answer the other questions next time ( i hope i find time this evening), i didnt have enough for everything, sorry for that. I answered the questions i felt most important for now, so dont be angry if you have asked your question earlier than other questions i have answered. I didnt think it would be useful to answer them in the order they where asked.
Be patient: English is not my first language.
I do not see WHY you need god in almost all you described. If you like reading bible and other religious books, fine, you don't need god to do right things.
Regarding creationism. I think that you understand it in a VERY narrow form. If you believe that a god have created the world and man then you are a creationist. 6000 years, or 6 billion years - makes no difference, there is no evidence for either date of creation.
Regarding one god for all religions.... You are probably talking exclusively about Abrahamic religions. How about ALL others? Would you say all they are wrong?
You have not mentioned afterlife and the way your god punishes people. Is it because your god is retired after creation?
Okay, that's good.
But, there is something else you can find in religion that I really don't like that you have not mentioned. It is believing things without evidence, faith. Faith is dangerous because, with faith, it is extremely easy for one to believe in things that are not true. Our beliefs influence our actions. If we believe things that are not true, we may do things that we consider immoral or unwise due to those beliefs. What do you think about faith as I've defined it?
What reasons do you have for believing what you believe?
I don't think that's a good analogy for the following reasons. Kids want to learn to ride a bike. It might help them in life to know how to ride a bike. Falling off a bike occurs as a side effect of kids trying to learn how to ride a bike. On the other hand, people having their homes destroyed by a hurricane does not occur as an acceptable side effect of them wanting to learn some life skill. I think a better analogy would be for the kid to be grabbed by kidnappers while the parent stands right next to them and does nothing, even though the parent has the full power to stop it. In this scenario, the kid is not kidnapped as a side effect of wanting to learn some life skill. It is simply completely against his will.
So yes, there are things that parents might allow their kids to do even though there is a element of risk because there are also benefits. However, there are also things that parents should not allow their kids to do and should not let happen to their kids. Parents should not let their kids get tortured by radical Muslims, starve to death, get run over by cars, drown in a swimming pool, etc. Do you think God only subjects his children to things in the former category and not the latter?
Btw, don't you believe that your God is omnipotent? If so, then he's not a regular parent. Why doesn't he just allow his kids to ride bikes, but catch them when they fall?
I see your belief system as similar to some popular versions of Hinduism. Do you think that's fairly accurate?
That's just semantics, then. Generally, when we call someone a Creationist, it includes a rejection of the theory of evolution and the belief that God created all organisms in their current form. If they think the universe is around 6000 years old, we call them a Young Earth Creationist.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Feyn,
Let me ask you something simple:
Is there any reason that you couldn't believe in all of those ethics if you took out the idea of a conscious cosmic deity and replaced it with a simple natural force?
I don't think there is.
But if there is a reason, do you mean to say that you would give up on ethics if we had proof that this god didn't exist, but instead it was a natural force?
I sure hope you wouldn't- and I think that can answer the first question most truthfully.
I never said i reject evolution, quite the contrary . I also belief in the big bang theory. To me those are the ways god created the universe and life. Creating organisms in a certain form without the possibility to change is a rather daft idea. The environment is in constant change, so only creatures that can keep up have a chance of survival. I cant see god would make such a major mistake. I believe evolution is a really clever way to create life without having to check on it constantly. Kinda like a computer programm that learns independantly. The programmer once tells the programm what to do and thn looks from time to time if its still working. If it is, why change anything ? Never change a winning concept ^^ I also dont beliefe that this is the only planet god gave life. Why make such a big universe and then only 1 single planet with live ? seems quite a waste to me, i dont think so.
Be patient: English is not my first language.
So, i found time to answer some more questions. Allthough the question is one of the last i first want to answer about the afterlife, because its a pretty important question and it was rather dumb of me to forget that one in the description.
If you die the first thing is an evaluation on how you have lived your life and what to do with you. Basically there are 3 possibilities.
1: You have been the scum of the earth. In that case that was it for you, you had your chance and didnt use it. Your journey ends here forever and you cease to exist. Some souls are damaged beyond repair, but thats seldom the case.
2: you have been a real arsehole but there is still hope. So you are sent down again on earth without remembering your past untill you die again. Hopefully your next time around will be better. Expect a life full of challenges but also opportunities.
3 You have lived a good life. Now its up to you what you want to do. You can stay for as long as you want, you can have another life on earth or another life somewhere else, try something new. After all living forever only rocks if there is enough change in your life so you won´t get bored. But as long as you live again you wont be able to remember your past expect perhaps sometimes a small glintm, a hint, when you need it, to help you make the right decisions. Some of them may be like a deja vue, others may be like a dream, none of them will be an ultimate proof, because thats not what they are there for.
Now some of you asked about proof for his existence, absolute and irrefutable proof. Well there will never be any and the reason is simple. God gave us free will, but that gave us also the possibility to be bad people. I am not talking about farting in the elevator and then leaving bad but real bad, the scum of the earth bad. Those people must be sorted out, they dont deserve eternity, and the would spoil it for the rest. How you sort them out is prettty easy, you look at how they lived their life.
Now lets see what would happen if there where proof of gods existence. Sudddenly everybody would try to act as good as possible, no matter what what they really think and how they really are. They would know that after only few years of living there would be the biggest, most awesome reward you can imagine. How do you find out the real good people now ?
God wants us to live a good life because we think it is the right thing to do, not because of the reward afterwards. He wants to find who and how we really are. That can only work if people dont feel observed and judged all the time Think about it, people start acting differently as soon as there is a camera around them or as soon as there are other people around them. Some people only let their true self show when they are alone and sometimes its not pretty how they really are.
But why then not hide totally ? Because many humans need god. Sometimes to help them in times of sorrow or need. To help them overcome an addiction. To deal with the death of a loved one. I could go on for pages but you get the picture. God doesnt need us, we need him, and he is there for us if we really open our hearts and believe. After all you are his children, and a good father is there for his kids when they need him, even if the ungratefull bastards didnt talk to himn in 30 years ^^ He might even answer your questions and give you advice. Not like a big booming voice or something, no ,very subtle, you dont really hear it its more like a feeling. But there will be no doubt in you that it was him, though it wont be anything with which you can proove it to others.
Then there was the question what holy texts are to be taken literally :
NONE OF THEM AND WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS A MORON
Many of the texts where first not written down but learned by heart and transported in human brains through the ages. So there MUST be mistakes in all of them. Even if they where written down right from the start there are things like print errors, misspellings, translation errors (try translating a text i 5 languages, one after the other, then the other way till you are back at the original language, each by a different translator, i bet there will be quite a lot of changes, even in the meaning) etc. So if you follow them letter for letter you follow the mistakes as well.
The other thing is that they dont mean the same to everybody. We are all different, so texts that shall help us with our lives cant be one size fits everybody. If you try you will find out pretty fast that its one size fits nobody, well you wont, but others will. Hopefully you listen to those others. The holy texts are a help, and nothing more. You can learn a lot out of them (your conciuosness will help you understand what they mean to you)but they are not essential. Otherwise it would be pretty unfair since many people cant even read. Not entering paradise because you where to poor to afford a bible, koran/whatever, or because the missionary was eaten by the neighbouring tribe ? I dont think so!!!
Sometimes i am being attacked because i use humor in my texts quite often, sometimes i am even a bit flappant about serious stuff. Some think i am not serious, but make no mistake I MEAN WHAT I SAY. Others say by using humor i make fun of god, do not take him seriously. Thats not true. But we believe that humor is one of the 5 big virtues god gave us (the others are love, compassion, curiosity and taking others more important than ourselves) and we should use them all. It makes our lives better.
It also makes my texts more pleasent to read. To write everything dead serious would make my texts boring, perhaps even deterring. Thats not the way to reach people . I want that people think about what i have to say, perhaps even show it to others. I cant achieve that with boring texts, can i ?
Now a biggie: what beliefs deserve to be respected or at least tolerated and which not. Well first of all everything that seriously harms people physically or mentally dont deserve any respect.
Beliefs that systematically opress parts of the society or the whole society must be changed. Religion isnt there to opress people, it should free them. Again in our belief god doesnt want devotion, he wants love and respect, nothing more, nothing less. Devotion without thinking is more satans thing, or however you call him. He loves to use belief for his own purposes to mock god.
All fundamental beliefs (for my deffinition of fundamental see some posts above)
All beliefs that seriously harm our development as a society. We have to move on and develop new things. Religion should have an eye on the development to ensure its ethical and doesnt harm our society, but if thats not the case it must not stand in the way. Even religion has to develop to keep up with the change. Not everything that was good and right for us a thousand years ago is still good and right. Practically nothing can be right forever.
Then i was asked if i would still have the same ethics without god. Sure i would. I have them because i think its the right thing to do, not because i expect a reward in my afterlife. But that doesnt mean i dont need god. Loosing god would be like loosing a loved one. Someone who has allways been there for you. Someone you could allway turn to if you need him and give you strenght and wisdom to help you with your life. God doesnt need us, we need him, dearly !
Now something that pissed me off a bit. Just because i am a theist doesnt mean i suck at science. Someone even implied i wouldnt believe in evolution just because i said i believe that god created the universe. I never said anything against evolution or against the big bang theory, but somehow nearly everybody seems to think here that all theist somehow are scientific illiterate. I know there are many of them in the US, but in europe even most priests laugh about creationists. The pope officially declared that he thinks the big bang theory is true, and so is evolution. You dont have to be am moron to be a theist, it doesnt even help. I could discuss physics on a level that would make it pretty hard to follow for people without a physics background(but i admit i suck at the math behind it ^^). I have sucscriptions to 3 montly science magazines (spektrum der wissenschaften which is the german version of scientific american, bild der wissenschaften and Geo), read www.arxiv.org and other websites on a regular basis and have about 2.5 bookshelves wfich are from the bottom to the top filled with books on science, mostly phsics, quantummechanics, relativity, standartmodell of particlephysics, stuff like that. The one half thats not science is everything from pratchett and a lot of other science fiction and fantasy.
I try to be openminded and without prejudices against you guys (even though you are godless heathens
) so please give me the same courtesy.
So, i am running out of time again, since i want to answer in some other threads as well so thats it for now. Sorry if i didnt answer your question. If its very important to you please say so then i will try to answer it next time i write here. I will try to answer all of your questions, but there wherte quite a lot and my secretary is on hollidays
1 more thing, thanks for all the wellcomes, i really appreciate that. Sorry i didnt mention that earlier, there where so many questions. BTW why do the moderators dont have those theist/atheist "stickers" under their nick ? It would be nice to know.
Be patient: English is not my first language.
But that's just it- you wouldn't be losing anything, because 'god' was never real to begin with. How could you be losing 'god' if it was never real?
In fact, all of that courage, all of that wisdom? That came from inside you!
It's like the magic luck potion that gave a student the strength and determination to pass a test, but it turns out it was only water. That knowledge, that strength, was inside you all along. You don't need to have faith in a 'god', you just need to have faith in yourself.
By learning that 'god' was not real, you wouldn't lose anything that you have- in fact, you'd gain the knowledge of your inner strength! You'd gain self-realization in the power of your will, and of your own conscience.
You don't need god, and you can't lose god, because you never really had it- that feeling; it was all in you, all from you all along. Learning that it's actually a part of you that you have discovered and not some"god" is knowledge that completes you. How could you mourn that discovery?
Well you think there is no god, but thats where you are wrong. I know he exists. If you open up your heart to him and really belief he will answer you, and you will know without any doubt whatsoever that he answered you. The other thing is your conscience, thats god talking to you. Did you never experience that your conciousness suddenly told not to do something you really wanted to do. Perhaps steal some sweets as a kid ? And suddenly there was that tiny voice whispering "dont do it" and then either you stopped, or you did it andyour conciousness gnawed on you for days ? Do you really think that was just part of your brain ? That was god trying to help you make the right decision.
Another thing if you look at nature, how molecules make up a tree , billions upon billions of molecules building this giant "machiene" that influences its surrounding in oh so many ways. The sheer beauty of it. If you look at the sky, this giant universe, the vast emptiness, and then there the stars, burning tons of hydrogen every second and still burning for billions of years, a very unfriendly invironment for life, and yet there is that blue/green speck, the planet earth, anle to support you and me. You are really telling me that doesnt make you belief in god ? Think of how sophisticated yet subtle the laws of nature work. Especially in cosmology. Do you know how exact the natural constants had to be coordinated to make the universe we know happen ? Lets see :
- the expansion rate of the universe. Had the universe a little mass more, it would have collapsed after just a few million years. Would the expansion rate have been higher there never would have been suns let alone planets. The mass would simply have expanded to quick. In a book i read, mark you not by some nutthead but by a famous german physicist, the author claimed the mass and expansion rate had to be coordinated so exact the maximumvariance for it to work still is 1: 10^57
Others are the ratio of the proton mass compared to the electron mass, the strenght of the electromagnetic force, the strenght of the strong force (is that the correct english term for it ??) and so on and so on. All fundamental physical constants are perfectly balanced to make life possible at all. Thats all just coincidence ? Even the physicists didnt feel well about just calling it coincidence and made many efforts to find a suitable explanation. So far they came up with the anthropic principle, in a strong and a weak form :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Another try was just assuming we live in a multiverse, and it just so happens that we live in on of the few universes in which life is possible. There is not even a shred of evidence for another universe, nonetheless it is claimed time and time again just to get rid of tht embaressing problem with the fine tuning. Why not just admit that god is a definite possibility, even if we will never be able to proof his existence (i explained further up why it is even important that there will never be any evidence)?
Be patient: English is not my first language.
No, I don't just think that there is no god; I know that there is no god. There is ample logical proof against such a being- this 'god' is impossible. If you think there is a god, you aren't thinking about it enough, or you are not thinking using logic.
You say you follow science, but this can all be explained in the context of pretty basic quantum physics. You have admitted that there is no proof- you have no grounds to claim affirmative knowledge of this 'god'.
No, you do not. You know a "feeling" you have exists- you do not know where that feeling comes from. As you said, you have no proof of this 'god'- you do not know.
What you just said is a statement of circular logic.
Of course: If you really believe in god, then you will believe in god.
That's all you said- if you believe it, then you will believe it.
Do you see where your mistake is there? You're arguing using a tautology. If you have already convinced yourself something is true, there's no point in anything beyond that. You don't need reason or evidence- you already believe it. Believing it was your precondition- that was your very premise.
No, it is not. I have already explained this.
Your conscience is a part of your mind, not part of a god.
Not only is this 'god' impossible, precluding that option, but there are mountains of evidence that conscience a very personal thing.
Different people's consciences say different things depending on the cultures they were raised in and numerous other factors- some lead those people to do quite nasty things. Conscience is a part of the mind, not a part of a god.
If the simple inconsistency was not enough, bear in mind that brain damage and certain operations and chemicals can alter these perceptions, indicating further that it is a very physical part.
Every single scrap of evidence overwhelmingly indicates that conscience is a part of the mind generated by a physical part (or parts) of the brain. If it were not so, we could easily test for this.
In Freudian terms, this is basic conflict between the Id and the Super Ego- 'god' has nothing to do with it. I suggest that you study human psychology- this is the very foundation of it, and if you don't understand that, you're very much out of the loop.
You said yourself that there is no proof of this 'god'- if you would follow your own advice, you would understand that conscience can be more easily explained as a part of the human mind, which is a trait evolved in us. Please review evolutionary psychology to understand this matter.
No, it doesn't, and I think you lied to all of us- and if you didn't lie, then this is at least an insult to us. Why? Because first you said that you understood science and evolution- and now you say that we should look at these things and thus believe in 'god'. This is deception, or at best an insult to our intelligence. If you understand the science, then you know that these things are not evidence of any god- they are not legitimate evidence.
I won't ask you to agree with everything we say right off, but I do ask you to at least be honest, and present honest arguments, instead of insulting us in bulk like this- I don't appreciate it, and I don't think anybody else reading appreciated it either. You asked us not to insult you by saying you don't believe in evolution? Well, please return the favor.
To answer your question- These things you mentioned can give one awe of the beauty of evolution, gravity, and all of the forces in the universe- they do not indicate a god in any way. These things can help us appreciate beauty, but beauty is a product of tandem development and evolution, not of a god.
This argument you just made is the kind that foolish "Intelligent design" creationist Christians make- they really don't know any better, because they don't believe in evolution- If you do indeed respect science (or have any respect for us), you will recognize that, and you won't present such an argument like this again.
First and foremost, we have no evidence that that's even a problem.
Because we do not have the unified field theorem yet, you are in no place to assume that these constants do not all cancel each-other out under the force of something more elegant and complete- no place whatsoever. Any hypothesis (not even a theory) that this particular configuration is one of few possible ones that could allow our kind of life is thus entirely baseless conjecture.
If you don't understand what I mean by that, I suggest you consider what would happen if the speed of light were locally changed- Can you figure that one out? Here's a hint: Time would likely have to change to account for it to obey relativity, and there would be no discernible difference from within the system.
There's currently no good reason (because we don't have the entire UFT) to speculate that changing any other significant constant would or even could make any difference from within the system, or that any could be changed independent of the rest.
So please, stop assuming you can dictate the final results of the UFT in complete ignorance of it- for every one of the examples you gave, I could give you a construct that nullifies it (and quite eloquently)- once we actually have the UFT, and if it's actually a problem (which is very unlikely, at the rate everything is showing interdependency) then, and only then can you propose something like this in any sense of intellectual honesty.
For another, even if we could demonstrate that changing these variables independently is possible (which seems highly unlikely), that's still not good science. Those hypothetical universes would be different in extreme ways and hostile to life from our universe, supposedly, but you can not suggest that the results of all of those variables would not yield a very different universe with equally different life- something suitable for living in that universe, at whatever rate it passes. Your baseless assumptions are far from proof against life.
Think about it- the context can easily extend beyond the single notion we have of our more terrestrial universe.
Excuse me? Another insult to scientists? You seem very full of disrespect...
Nobody claims that there are "multiple universes" in order to get rid of an embarrassing problem- at least no decent scientists, and that's a profound insult for you to issue to those involved, and I don't appreciate it at all. In fact, I think you owe an apology.
Please be at least respectful enough not to ascribe absurd motivations to legitimate science. You don't know why those things are postulated, and it wasn't because of this "problem" you suggest- at best this indicates serious ignorance of the subject and the history of the debate. Scientists DO NOT do things to cover up "embarrassing problems"- whenever they catch themselves coming up with something to to hack together a solution, it's the ad-hoc hypothesis that is the embarrassment, not the other way around (See 'Einstein's greatest blunder').
I will answer your accusation (which is flatly false in all regards):
That wasn't a "try", nor was it an assumption. The Many Worlds Interpretation is the only viable logical interpretation of quantum mechanics in light of our current understanding of relativity- nothing makes sense outside of that context. Local hidden variables fail due to Bell's, non-local ones fail due to simple relativity, and Copenhagen is wrong for a myriad of reasons to do with arbitrary reference frames and illogical human-centrism (which you, yourself, have denied).
The MWI is based, simply, on a consistent application of the uncertainty principle- no Bells or whistles, and no special exceptions. It is, simply, treating the principle as applying to all things without postulating absurdities like collapse. It passes Occam's razor like no other interpretation, doesn't violate relativity, and is neither arbitrary nor human centric.
It is the best and only functional explanation available, which completely explains the origin of the universe in a way that need not break symmetry or violate the conservation of information/energy. It is accepted because, in the context of all knowledge and evidence, it is correct.
First, because a 'god' is completely unnecessary to explain anything in our universe- it makes everything more complicated, not more simple. It doesn't explain anything at all, so it wouldn't even come into question.
Second, and very importantly, because this 'god' being, as described, is logically impossible- so it is not a "definite" possibility, and not even a "maybe" possibility. In order to call it a possibility, we would have to lie, or be ignorant of the faulty logic upon which it is constructed.
Third, because -as you yourself admitted- it is not a necessary postulate for human ethics. So, if we don't need to lie about a god in order for people to make ethical choices, then I believe it's better to be honest- particularly when false belief in god has fueled so much strife and resulted in fundamentalism when people take it to the extreme.
There are three reasons for you- I can provide more, but I ask you to please be a little more respectful. You've issued two strong insults to us (and me in particular) so far- one: an insult to our intelligence by presenting the non-reason of natural beauty (which you must know is not a reason), and two: a disrespectful accusation against scientists' motivations.
I would be happy to discuss this with you further if you will apologize for the grave insults you issued, and admit where you may have been mistaken.
Wow, now you are getting really ridiculous. You attack me without any reason whatsoever. Whats wrong with you, cant you have a civilized exchange of ideas, aka discussion ? Caling me a liar and everything ? I gave you no reason for this, its just your fucking prejudices which really start to get annoying. I was allways polite and open to you, and you start outof the blue heaviliy attacking and insulting me. To say that the beauty, the sophistication etc of nature is to mwe a proof of god is neither deception nor anything else of those wild accusations. Just because you dont see it the way i see it is by no means a reason to flip out like that, calm down. If that is no proof of god to you than thats ok, i was simply asking a question and telling how i see things. For instance when i saw first my nephew after his birth, andf thought about how this baby started 9 months ago to me that is a proof of god. If i would say otherwise it would be deception.
You are the one here who is totally disrespectfull, not me. not the other way around. To say i see the work of god in the wonders of nature is by NO means an insult to your intelligence, or to science. Its just your fucking prejudices again. You automatically imply if i say i see gods work in that i would mean he just magiked it here, without any explanation. But i never said that. I repeatedly said that i believe in evolution and so on, BUT i believe thats how god works, thats all. I see god in the laws of naturem, i believe that he is the one who created those laws at the beginning of time. And i find a god working through laws of nature which we can observe much more interesting, than a god who just did something by magic, without explanation. To calll that argument foolish just sjhows that you are a close minded person who puts all theist in a box and believes we are all the same, but we are not.
Now to the physics part, what you call baseless assumnptions is just the thopughts of some of the greatest minds we have at the moment. I dont know how your background in physics is, so looked up some popular sciencve texts about it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
And that is just the tip of the ice berg. So calling my claims baseless is just ridiculous. You say that we lack so far a GUT, so far you are right . But we are talking about natural constanrts here. They will nort all change so radical,that suddenly the problem ism gone. And the assumption that they all might cancel each other out in the end sounds to me more like wishing than an argument. THAT is just a baseless hypothesis, my claims arent. I mean you act as if I made those claims. They where made by leading physicists. Do you really believe they would have overseen such a solution to the problem ? You arte trying to dictate something here, that a problem that is called by many scientists very disturbing would just go away. I think you dont understand what the problem really is, so i suggest reading up on it, i am happy to help you with links etc.
I mean ok we dont know how the GUT will look in to many detail, BUT we allready know a lot of its properties, which is why we can mke predictions about certain things. They wont be too exact, but we know roundavbout what to expect in many cases.
Since we talk about GUT, what do you think is the hottest candidate for quantum gravity ?
I believe string theory is a collossal failure. roughly 25 years and countless manhours since the first superstring revolution and they are nowhere near making physics with it.
A really hot candidate i trippe dover roughly year ago in "spektrum der wissenschaften" a german science mag. Its called CDT (causal dynamic triangulation). The reasons i liked it right from the start are that it is simple (you can simulate the whole universe on a lap top with quite somne detail) and that the first simulations where just amazing. It automatically formed a functioning universe with roughly 3 space dimensions, that had an astonishing simularity with our universe. Here a few articles about it :
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0352
http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.2560
Now back to the discussion. I know about the hidden parameters (i mentioned them just today hereb on the board in discussion on free will) and on why the many worlds theory came into being. BTW its by no means the only interpretation of QM, just one of the most poular ones (the copenhagen interpretation has recently suffered a bit, but is still quite popular as well, to give just one example).
But come on, there are no proofs whatsoever that other universes even exist,. I must say i find it a bit unscientific, a makeshift solution. Butn hre we are again at the beauty of nature, to me that is a proof, to you its not. To you it is a proof to the multiverse, to me its not. We will simply have to agree to disagree. But to say that god is unlogic is jhust not true, you want it to be, because that fits your view of the world, but its really not. Again we have to agree to disagree.
Now for your last sentences, with which you start becoming pretty impudent again. Its you who should apologize for insulting me for no reason whatsoever other than your prejudices against theists and your automated assumptionsv instead of really trying to understand what i say. Again to see god in the beaty and laws of nature is by no means an insult, its just how i see the world. To call that insulting is a sridiculous as if i would say you insulted me by not seeing god in the lawsm of nature. Its just 2 different ways to look at things. You should really learn to tolerate and respect that nort everybody HAS to see the world like you do, other ways to see it or just as justified and logical. If youz are unable to do that and flip out on me again like that i will end any further talks with you. And i deserve and await an apology.
Be patient: English is not my first language.
Ah, your beliefs are definitely similar to Hinduism. You even have reincarnation.
I didn't ask for proof. I asked for evidence. Absolute proof either way is impossible for many God concepts; I just want to know what evidence you have observed or arguments you have analyzed that make God more likely to exist? Do you have any objective evidence for the existence of what you define as God? If not, what personal reasons do you have?
I have literally seen almost this exact explanation of personal beliefs from theists hundreds of times, so I'm going to be succinct and ask all the rhetorical questions that I think illustrate the flaws in your reasoning.
What do you mean when you say that we "need" him? What does that mean?
What does "open our hearts and believe" mean? You're saying I should just believe on faith? How can I know that I'm not just believing in something that doesn't exist?
How are we his children? What does that mean?
How will we know its him just from a feeling? Can't this just be explained by psychology, like emotional appeal and confirmation bias?
Define "devotion." Isn't faith just devotion without thinking?
All of the moderators, as far as I know, are atheists. Naturally, because the admins, particularly Sapient, are also atheists. There are a few theists that I would trust to be moderators; they're all non-religious theists, deists, pantheists, etc.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
How do I do this?
How? Will I receive irrefutable proof?
No, you can't just assert that. I don't agree.
Yes. You believe in evolution, don't you?
Humans are strong social animals, so evolution selects for the best adapted groups in addition to selecting for the best adapted individuals. Stealing from others undermines the overall well being and integrity of the in-group. Additionally, individuals who steal would tend to be shunned by the rest of the group. So, individuals who possess no instincts discouraging stealing would tend to be removed from the gene pool.
Beauty is subjective and irrelevant. Appealing to beauty is a red herring, logical fallacy.
Yes, that does not make me believe in God. It is not a sound argument for the existence of a God at all, even though that fact is quite counter-intuitive.
If a God created the universe for life, it would obviously be a universe that was well suited for life, and this universe obviously isn't. It is a universe comprising almost entirely of outer space, where it is virtually impossible for any organism to survive. This universe is what we would expect from a universe that was not designed or at least not designed with the intention of supporting life. Most planets are unsuitable for life. Only one planet in many, one that was a healthy distance from the star of its system, had an atmosphere, a decent gravitational field, etc., like the Earth, could allow life to emerge.
We are not fortunate to be on the only planet we know of that contains life because the chance of us living on a planet that contains life is 100%. We are life, so if there is no life, then we wouldn't be here. We are here because our planet is suitable for life; the planet does not become suitable for life because we are here. Your reasoning is backwards; it is akin to a rain puddle in the sidewalk declaring, "Look at this indentation in the sidewalk. It perfectly fits my shape. Furthermore, the bulk of the surface of the sidewalk does not allow puddles to form. So, clearly, someone sculpted this sidewalk to allow me to land here."
Yes, very exact. In fact, if you change our universe at all, ditto, it would not be our universe; it would be a different universe.
Yes, I've seen that article before.
You explained, via question begging, why there will never be irrefutable proof, not evidence. This is largely inconsequential because we aren't looking for irrefutable proof regardless.
You already appealed to our conscience, beauty, morality, the fine tuning argument as evidence for the existence of a God. You cannot turn around and claim that there will never any evidence. You cannot have your cake and eat it too, sorry.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Feyn, I doesnt look like you are going to try very hard to take the heat out the discussion, you get offended very easy. Too bad. I am 45 and a new Atheist, I was raised a "non-denominational born again christian", I went to many christian schools, studied the bible when I was younger. I choose now not to believe in god and I feel religion is more for the mentally weak that may have a hard time making good decisions in their lives and also have a hard time dealing with death. I have seen this personally in my own family and it is very sad. I feel very sorry for them. Hopefully they can be happy one day like I am now
~~Be Real~~
These are your popular science texts?!? Are you trying to be funny right now? These are wikipedia articles. They don't even support your position.
Shoving wikipedia articles in our faces tells me that you think you're by far the most knowledgeable person here, not that you "dont know how (our) background in physics is."
After reading this post, I'm not sure I want to continue this conversation. Maybe I should let Blake have more fun.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
So angry and a potty mouth too
everything Blake said and his delivery is just Blake. I actually thought he was being very civil about it, all things considered. Still Feyn seems a pleasant fellow and use of the odd fucken here and there is no great fucken crime. I think I mentioned elsewhere there's something about the godly who have sciencey leanings right up to the point they go over the edge into fantasy. Still, Feyn has decried the concept of hell and that means for all our disputes he's a moral dude by me.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
subtle Poe in all this. Is the spelling impediment consistent, has anyone noticed?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Realistic_Human,
Hi... umm... I hate to ask, and I mean no offense, but could you please change your avatar? It's cool and all, but I had to literally cover it to be able to read. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Thanks mate, and welcome to RRS!
I won't talk to this person, sorry. I was trying to have a civil conversation with him, but I think he has made the choice to be a jerk to me despite my efforts. I do hope that my counter-arguments were helpful to somebody who read them, though.
I know, right? Compare my posts to Feyn to anything else I've said in an argument with any other theist, and I was peaches and cream. I went out of my way to be polite to Feyn despite his insults- all I did was ask for an owed apology on two points of rudeness from him.
If he would just be willing to reconsider his words on those two matters and apologize, I would be happy to give him the benefit of the doubt and engage him in friendly discussion.
As it stands, he may not believe exactly what every other fundamentalist does, but he is behaving like them in his responses. I expected a bit more.
I'm just curious: Does anybody really disagree with me that those two points of his were insults in the context with which he represented himself?
Feyn,
May I ask what is YOUR background in physics? It's better be a PhD with concentration in field theory or theoretical cosmology. Generally, your statement that your superior knowledge allows you to talk at some level that a special physics background is required , but at the same time you have problems with math is quite embarrassing if by math you do not mean analytical solutions for complex multidimensional integrals at least. I am pretty sure that if you cannot explain what you have to say to a person with ANY science background, you'd better not make such statements about physics. cj, for instance, has enough background to understand any scientific concept provided it is described in a coherent manner, though her background is not in physics. I think the problem is that you simply cannot explain what you mean (no matter what is your background).
I know nothing (almost) about cosmology and general relativity, but I could not understand your point I think even if I know this field very well. From what I see, the cosmological constant is by no means a NATURAL constant as you stated.
So, again, tell me what is your background in physics so we can talk at an adequate level.
Thanks,
100%
Gee, again so many question, and i am not even ready with all the old ones. Since this obvioulsly needs some time to answer, it has to wait till the beginning of next week, since i am a bit low on sparetime atm, and I dont want to folow only this thread, since you have some other very interesting discussions as well. Just wanted to tell you that, not that anyopne thinks i dont want to persue thread one any longer because i dont answer.
Be patient: English is not my first language.
Lol. Yeah, relatively speaking, you were extremely nice and patient in this thread. You've been a much bigger jerk before in previous threads.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Hello ! I am a new member.
My name is Athur and I like to say thanks to the site owner for this great site and all the members of this forum for sharing good and useful information to all people.
I found this forum quite informative as well interested, it is really great!
Edited by butterbattle: No advertising.
That is very pessimistic and assumes that people cant separate a person from what a person claims. I think most people, INCLUDING believers, once you explain the difference, you don't have to respect a claim, NOR SHOULD ANYONE! Respecting a claim is called BLIND FAITH!
I respect questioning and blasphemy. I do not respect taboos. I think anyone is capable of understanding the human right of the ability to be free to speak freely, even those who hold beliefs I find to be absurd.
I think what you have done in this post by using the word "insult" is set the believer up to confuse criticism and blasphemy of a claim for an "insult". That is what shuts them down.
I have had plenty of conversations with believers, even face to face where I have said for example,
"I find the entire concept of an invisible friend absurd" and they didn't run away screaming.
That is because I warn people ahead of time that what I am criticizing is the claim, not the person.
It is pessimistic to always assume that believers cant stand the heat. The people who will never listen to us will never listen to us. But that does not always equate to all believers never listening to us.
If anything divides believers(even amongst other believers) is the attitude that we must placate the emotions of others in order to debate. No, what we can do is learn to separate the person from the claim.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog