God? Don't be silly!

[Ch3tan]

I read the above, its not an argument though, or an explanation. It may as well be a brainstorm or spider diagram of thoughts floating around your head. They may make sense to you, but they do not to anyone else reading, and you wonder why we make assumptions about what you are trying to say?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I read the above, its not an argument though, or an explanation. It may as well be a brainstorm or spider diagram of thoughts floating around your head. They may make sense to you, but they do not to anyone else reading, and you wonder why we make assumptions about what you are trying to say?

But it IS an argument as we're arguing MY comment on how I think religions and atheism is same/similar/alike

Get it?

I'm not trying to preach people or tell them "atheism is wrong", but that assumption ofcourse stems from one thing; people on the internet think that everything is personal.

Also eveyrone still compares my opinions and comments on that "one god" thing, which is a problem as well.

Reaad through the tread from a neutral point of view and you'll see.

 

[ECA]

Tohtori why are you avoiding my arguments about Bacon and Garlic Bread.

 

[inactionman]

There is no neutral point of view, you either have a faith (not meaning any insult here, but it's the best word to use; irrational) based point of view or a non-faith one (rational). There is no middle ground. That's the problem and why these discussions never work, there can be no constructive argument. You have to make the jump yourself.

I have to agree with Scouse here, debating atheism to anyone with faith is like debating colours with a blind man, and the frustration that ensues is why is I stopped it a long time ago.

 

[Scouse]

there can be no constructive argument.

I'm gonna have one more stab at it, maybe using maths again if I can.

When I get back from the pub.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Tohtori why are you avoiding my arguments about Bacon and Garlic Bread.

There's nothing to argue, great lords of Bacon and Garlic Bread rule everything. It's like saying "why aren't you arguing my gun", it's pointless. Everyone knows, even with the lack of proof on god, that even he ho thus walk on heaven, eats bacon and garlic bread.

I have to agree with Scouse here, debating atheism to anyone with faith is like debating colours with a blind man, and the frustration that ensues is why is I stopped it a long time ago.

Quite true on the debate thing, but this i quoted, goes both ways.

I got frustrated with atheists too, i guess it all depends on who you meet, a reasonable or a brick wall.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm going to give a "scouse" shot at it;

While i understand the antipathy towards comparing atheism to religion, due to my own view of religion being more of a way of life, i often compare two people with such "beliefs"(not meant that atheism is a belief system) in the same light. Own way of life, own beliefs and i like to discuss them to learn more.

I find that religion in my case does no harm, so it doesn't hurt to believe in what i think is the right path. This doesn't effect my life, but more my life is effected by the people who lived in that time, their way of life, and the belief stems from that those people believed in the same things.

I can also see the desire to educate someone if you yourself see a problem with someones thinking, from an atheist point of view god and religion is like that, but i also think that it should be done in moderation and with as little judgement as possible. Challenging it should be done via means of polite conversation.

So in essence, in my eyes an atheist(with "lack" of belief) and a christian(example religion, with belief) are quite the same with only a few defining factors in play. In good and bad, with all the flaws and own positive sides.

The positive side in atheism i can see is that you live your life as it was your only one, make the best of it. Positive sides of religion or belief, are different, such as feeling part of a community or a reason to live good. This doesn't mean that atheists can't live good, it simply stems from a wider then usual circle of "tribal" sense. So while a religious person is more inclined to help those near first, an atheist might help every person on earth on equal ground.

Good and bad in those two help formulas too.

Hopefully this is clear enough

 

[mr.Blacky]

I have to agree with Scouse here, debating atheism to anyone with faith is like debating colours with a blind man, and the frustration that ensues is why is I stopped it a long time ago.

which might be the same as a person who has faith debating faith with an atheist

in most cases an atheist and a theist will never agree. one will say the other person is a irrational and the other might say that the other person is closed minded.


The thing about what kind of annoys me is that atheists claim that science is on their side. Yet looking at it most scientist actually have faith with the exception of philosophers or psychiatrist. Who I feel are not really scientists.
The most well known atheist are afterall Sigmund Freud & Freidrich Nietzsche who either claimed that you wanted to sleep with some family member or was anti democracy (or in other words a pre-nazi)
most other "atheist" are often misquoted or used by atheists. Just look at Galileo Galilei who actually believed in a god. His trial was for insulting the pope (who he was friends with but who thought he should not have been compared with a monkey )

In all science doesn't give an answer.

Personally I think a quote of Thomas Jefferson states it the best

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

 

[DaGaffer]

which might be the same as a person who has faith debating faith with an atheist

in most cases an atheist and a theist will never agree. one will say the other person is a irrational and the other might say that the other person is closed minded.

True, except most (almost all) atheists have usually abandoned faith after thinking it through; how many people who call themselves religious have really dissected their beliefs? A few decades from now, when atheists represent a significant portion of society, it will be interesting to see how many children of atheists turn to religion. The problem of course is that atheists don't teach their kids not to believe.

The thing about what kind of annoys me is that atheists claim that science is on their side. Yet looking at it most scientist actually have faith with the exception of philosophers or psychiatrist. Who I feel are not really scientists.
The most well known atheist are afterall Sigmund Freud & Freidrich Nietzsche who either claimed that you wanted to sleep with some family member or was anti democracy (or in other words a pre-nazi)
most other "atheist" are often misquoted or used by atheists. Just look at Galileo Galilei who actually believed in a god. His trial was for insulting the pope (who he was friends with but who thought he should not have been compared with a monkey )

Except its not really true. Most scientists, when pressed, are at best agnostic. Sure there are scientists with faith, even some high profile ones. As for Galileo, so what? It was nearly 400 years ago and he was a man of his time. And since you could get burned at the stake for being a heretic, I'm pretty sure he'd have kept his gob shut even if didn't believe in God (and I'm certain he did believe, just like Newton and many others). I think you'd be extremely hard pressed to find an atheist who did quote scientists prior to the 20th century as atheists. And by the way, using Nietzsche as an athiest example is like meat-eaters pointing out Hitler (a catholic) was vegetarian; a cheap and irrelevant point.

In all science doesn't give an answer.

No one said it does. That doesn't mean the void can be filled with made up stuff.

Personally I think a quote of Thomas Jefferson states it the best

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Except if that neighbour decides he doesn't like the cut of your religious jib and issues a fatwah.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Without getting too much into it...

True, except most (almost all) atheists have usually abandoned faith after thinking it through; how many people who call themselves religious have really dissected their beliefs? A few decades from now, when atheists represent a significant portion of society, it will be interesting to see how many children of atheists turn to religion. The problem of course is that atheists don't teach their kids not to believe.

Except if that neighbour decides he doesn't like the cut of your religious jib and issues a fatwah.

Not all parents teach their kids religion stuff either, and people of strong religious beliefs DO question their own beliefs on almost a daily basis. Even if something can't be proven, doesn't mean it's a given. People think religion through too, just with a dash of faith in the mix.

It will indeed be interesting to see the first war on religion, started by atheists. And finally...

...don't compare ALL religions on chrtian crusades or the extreme muslims. It's insulting

All meant as a point to reflect on ofcouse, not as a "you're wrong".

 

[Panda On Smack]

Ok, so some have read it. Did you understand the bit about God not actually being the ruler of the world at the moment due to the challenge of his sovereignty and therefore has left man to see if he can rule himself?

 

[DaGaffer]

Ok, so some have read it. Did you understand the bit about God not actually being the ruler of the world at the moment due to the challenge of his sovereignty and therefore has left man to see if he can rule himself?

how convienient....

 

[old.Tohtori]

Ok, so some have read it. Did you understand the bit about God not actually being the ruler of the world at the moment due to the challenge of his sovereignty and therefore has left man to see if he can rule himself?

I remember reading something like that, to be honest, i added it to my theory of "gods are aliens", which makes sense in a lot of writings.

Bloody galactic war, these monkeys can take care of themselves.

Bible also talks about egyptian demi-gods, which is rather nicely forgotten

Demi gods yada yada, and then, "though shalt not have other gods". Ofcourse not, if you're ruler supreme, i wouldn't want to share either.

 

[nath]

Ok, so some have read it. Did you understand the bit about God not actually being the ruler of the world at the moment due to the challenge of his sovereignty and therefore has left man to see if he can rule himself?

I don't understand - how does that in any way make believing in a God any more valid?

Toht, throughout this entire discussion it has never been my intention to discuss religious groups or any actions associated with them. That's been done to death. My point has always been related to the thought process that allows for belief in God/spirituality. Not an idea, or a thought, but belief - it's such a strong word.

When we're born, we have 0 information, we gradually learn and pick up things - science has helped us form a way of thinking that allows us to analyse the physical world so that we can understand it. There are, and probably always will be, loads of unanswered questions but religious folk will take that and fill in the gaps with fairy tales.

I strongly feel that if you value education then this fundamental flaw in critical thinking should be addressed, but religious folk can take their beliefs so personally that it's often outrageous to question them on it.

No doubt when early man saw lightning they could have thought it was caused by an angry God, or some such - we now know what causes it and can think of that as absurd. Yet here we are, in 2009 and educated people still believe in hocus pocus. You've mentioned that you believe because it feels right, but haven't you considered that that's just the way your mind works? I'm sure lightning Gods felt correct to early man so how can you be so trusting of your own feelings/emotions?

I can see the attraction to it but I just don't understand how someone can BELIEVE something that has absolutely no basis in reality.

 

[Wij]

When we're born, we have 0 information

I think that's a bit strong. There's plenty we think of as ourselves that comes wired-in. But as for any specific deity, no, blank slate.

 

[nath]

Fair point, I was thinking that as I wrote it, but I figured in this context...

 

[Scouse]

Toht. I'm going to have one more stab at this. Then I'm gonna leave well alone. Some stuff you're going to go "that's obvious" with. Some maybe not, but I'm not trying to patronise.

Either way, this is just as much an adventure for you as it is for me....

"Your god is science"

Through that oft-used soundbite religious people are trying to say that scientific people "believe" in science, in just the same way that religious people believe in a god.

Is it true? Has science replaced a belief in a deity? Is science something that can be "believed in like a god"?

Back from the pub, I'm hesitant to give this a mathematical basis. Not just because it's fucking hard.... Well, because it's fucking hard. And I'm pissed.

But it doesn't mean we can't address the problems in language that this argument gives rise to. So:

be⋅lief
   –noun
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief

We can commit the action of "believing" - which is having "confidence in the truth or existence of something" without proof...

I think we can all accept this.

sci⋅ence
  –noun
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Important thing here is that science is something that can be observed. We also hear about something else with science. That it must be falsifiable:

fal⋅si⋅fy
  –verb
to show or prove to be false; disprove: to falsify a theory

If we cannot falsify a theory, that is, attempt through experimentation or observation to disprove a theory then the theory cannot be said to be "scientific".

sci⋅en⋅tif⋅ic
–adjective
regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science

OK. We're all familiar, and hopefully in agreement, with the above.

Let's "define God"

Well, since I'm using language definitions (at this point) rather than maths, hopefully we can all agree with:

God
–noun
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Yep. For some strange reason, I've even put Him in bold.

However, this might help. You told me:

Your God is Science

Therefore, to me:

(God) = (Science)

Looking at the above, this quickly seems to not be the case. It looks like fantastic sentence structure - there's nothing wrong with "your God is Science" in language, as far as I can see. But is the English language capable of describing such an idea correctly?

I think not.

God, as a value, is a being, the existence of which is not not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

Science is a systematic knowledge gained through observation or experimentation. God does not fit this premise. Not for a second.


It's quite obvious that Tohtori is trying to "mix oil and water" with the assertion that "Science is your God".

It's not his fault. The inexactness of the English language is what gives rise to this fallacy. "Science is your God" fits all the rules of sentence structure but its use is inadequate to describe the very situation that it purports to.

pur·port
To have or present the often false appearance of being or intending

So, in a long and roundabout way (and I promise, if you don't understand the above you're not doing yourself any harm by just "trusting Scouse") I've found this:


When Toht says: "Science is your God", he is, in demonstrable fact, talking shit.

The sentence itself, whilst looking reasonable, is twaddle. Bunkum. Wank.



Soz Toht. I can't whack it into maths without a lot more effort than I'm willing to put in. But the above is an honest endeavour and not a joke.

Anyway. Bed for me. I'm sure I'll laugh in the morning!

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't understand - how does that in any way make believing in a God any more valid?

Toht, throughout this entire discussion it has never been my intention to discuss religious groups or any actions associated with them. That's been done to death. My point has always been related to the thought process that allows for belief in God/spirituality. Not an idea, or a thought, but belief - it's such a strong word.

When we're born, we have 0 information, we gradually learn and pick up things - science has helped us form a way of thinking that allows us to analyse the physical world so that we can understand it. There are, and probably always will be, loads of unanswered questions but religious folk will take that and fill in the gaps with fairy tales.

I strongly feel that if you value education then this fundamental flaw in critical thinking should be addressed, but religious folk can take their beliefs so personally that it's often outrageous to question them on it.

No doubt when early man saw lightning they could have thought it was caused by an angry God, or some such - we now know what causes it and can think of that as absurd. Yet here we are, in 2009 and educated people still believe in hocus pocus. You've mentioned that you believe because it feels right, but haven't you considered that that's just the way your mind works? I'm sure lightning Gods felt correct to early man so how can you be so trusting of your own feelings/emotions?

I can see the attraction to it but I just don't understand how someone can BELIEVE something that has absolutely no basis in reality.

I get that, i do, i get that it might bother you that someone can fill gaps with "fairy tales"(not going into it), but as long as there's no science there, it does no harm. When science rolls along and explains death as a "very long FEELING synaps flash in the brain,that feels like eternity", fine. But until then, there's no harm in believing.

By the way, personally, i don't think the god of thunder was meant as "god of all thunder". He could hurl an atmospheric discharge of electricity usually accompanied by thunder, sure, but otherwise mother nature would do most of the work. Modern science trunks some things, but not all things, until it does, i'll keep my bag od fairy dust thank you and it does NOT make me "limited". I'd appreciate you not saying it


Scouse, i'll forgive that blatant take of ONE silly thing and taking so much out of it

Nicely done though.

What i meant with "your god is science", that often an atheist won't believe anything that hasn't been proven, which can, in SOME cases, be a negative factor. You know, jump of faith etc. But that would be going into yada yada and this and that, natural or created etc...let's not

But technically, science ond god(s) don't mix. Aclhemy and church, magic and god, science and religion. They don't. That's why, atheists, while i think are similar en masse, have no place in the equation.

I'd surely be the first to admit i'd take an atheist scientist over an agnostic one, more effective, but it doesn't mean i'd dismiss one who was a jesus nut.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Hey, as a totally off-off-off-topic, don't take offense, no harm meant, for laughs question;

How does an atheist know he doesn't like gay sex?

Afterall, you'd pretty much have to prove it to be true

You could ask it from anyone, "how do you know if you don't try it", but, i'm kind of taking the piss out of the whole "proof or no go" thing

I want to hear the clause on that!

 

[SawTooTH]

I'd surely be the first to admit i'd take an atheist scientist over an agnostic one, more effective, but it doesn't mean i'd dismiss one who was a jesus nut.

I'm a scientist and have had the conversation about whether a true scientist can believe in god. The consensus was that it was the antithesis of being a scientist.

Science isn't a belief system, but is based on observation & experimentation, producing testable theory, hypotheses or conjecture. Its based in the physical world which can appear strange and produce results that many would believe is magical without real understanding. But the main point is that science continually strives to understand whereas religions offer a comfortable solution for everything for those unwilling to think for themselves.

I prefer to be uncomfortably ignorant with a desire to understand, but thats just me.

 

[MYstIC G]

Choose to accept, choose not to believe...why the HELL can't you grasp that it IS a choice.

Because to begin with its not.

If you correctly install a light switch, it comes in the off position. It will stay that way for eternity until someone CHOOSES to switch it on. Once it's on you can CHOOSE to switch it back.

That DOESN'T make it's initial natural state a choice, it is just the way it is.

 

[Turamber]

I'm a scientist and have had the conversation about whether a true scientist can believe in god. The consensus was that it was the antithesis of being a scientist.

Seriously? You do realise that even Darwin and Einstein believed in a God? It may not have been a personal God, but they didn't believe in a self creating universe.

Add to that list people like Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Faraday and Kelvin. And probably lots, lots more. You may attempt to argue that the theory of evolution didn't exist when half of those gentlemen lived but evolution is a very old idea, ancient Greek philosophers had a very similar belief system and there have always been people who don't believe.

Except it is "cool" now not to believe in a God.

But, frankly, saying that the only proper scientists are ones who don't believe is absurd and simply more evidence to assert that science, in some ways, has a belief system of its own.

Religious people look to God to sort things out, others have a hope that science will sort our problems out. Despite the fact that both science and religion have continually been misused by world leaders and ambitious individuals. Religion has been used to start wars, impress people into armies -- science has been used to design increasingly effective ways of killing each other.

 

[Ch3tan]

Turamber, you have to consider the time's when those scientists lived. Religion was central to their cultures. You cannot really compare people's beliefs and values from the past to today, things change.

Oh no one said it is "cool" to not believe in God. But it is definitely not cool to blindly accept what you are told, and ignore facts in favour of unprovable myth.

 

[SawTooTH]

Seriously? You do realise that even Darwin and Einstein believed in a God? It may not have been a personal God, but they didn't believe in a self creating universe.

Add to that list people like Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Faraday and Kelvin. And probably lots, lots more. You may attempt to argue that the theory of evolution didn't exist when half of those gentlemen lived but evolution is a very old idea, ancient Greek philosophers had a very similar belief system and there have always been people who don't believe.

Except it is "cool" now not to believe in a God.

But, frankly, saying that the only proper scientists are ones who don't believe is absurd and simply more evidence to assert that science, in some ways, has a belief system of its own.

Religious people look to God to sort things out, others have a hope that science will sort our problems out. Despite the fact that both science and religion have continually been misused by world leaders and ambitious individuals. Religion has been used to start wars, impress people into armies -- science has been used to design increasingly effective ways of killing each other.

Times they are a changing.

You missed the point I was making. There are indeed some scientists who used language that suggested they believed in god, Einstein is commonly misrepresented by believers as falling into this camp through his descriptions of the universe and the beauty of his theories. Others that you quote were great men but still flawed by the belief systems that existed back then.

I maintain the assertion that a true scientist can not accept blind faith. A scientist can not compartmentalise a rationale approach with an irrational belief that is unsubstantiated.

I'm not sure what you mean by cool. I think being a non-believer is a hard path to follow. I was babtised as a baby, confirmed as a child. Left with a religious childminder (who believed that satan was in a lemonade bottle if the gas expanded and the lemonade sprayed her...) You say its cool, I say its sane.

 

[old.Tohtori]

SawTooth, i have to disagree though. A brilliant scientist can be religious, if he keps those things separate.

If he doesn't apply religion to science and leaves science out of religion, those two things can co-exist.

Like i said, i'd RATHER take a scientist without beliefs 'cause there's not even a tiny chance of effect, but i won't dismiss a scientist theories and proof even if there is a magical fairy in his pocket telling it all.

 

[Scouse]

Seriously? You do realise that even Darwin and Einstein believed in a God?

Can't speak for Einstein, but Darwin did NOT believe in God. He would take his wife and child to church but would not go in, instead he would walk the grounds until the ceremony was over and then go home again.


As for my above post, jeesus I was pissed

 

[Turamber]

Can't speak for Einstein, but Darwin did NOT believe in God. He would take his wife and child to church but would not go in, instead he would walk the grounds until the ceremony was over and then go home again.

I'll have to look into that further. It was my understanding that the original forward to Origin of Species said that God had started the process ... admittedly the book was every bit as venemous and one sided in its view of the creation/evolution debate as some individuals are in their own view on this thread


There have been plenty of individuals down through the ages who didn't believe in God, it is not a new concept at all. It is easy to dismiss the great scientists I listed who believed in God as being dated, but easy rarely means correct.

 

[Ch3tan]

No one is dismissing them because they believed in a god, or were religious, you are missing the point being made. Many of the people you listed could not have been anything but religious given the times when they lived.

 

[inactionman]

I'll have to look into that further. It was my understanding that the original forward to Origin of Species said that God had started the process ... admittedly the book was every bit as venemous and one sided in its view of the creation/evolution debate as some individuals are in their own view on this thread

And this is one of the problems I have with debating with people of faith; you can't have a rational argument with them. They throw in crap that defies reason, as scouse said if you can't back it up with logic, and more importantly evidence, it doesn't belong in a scientific debate. There is no current explanation in science as to how life on earth started (there are however a number of hypothesis, which we cannot currently provide evidence via experimentation); however, as those with faith love filling any gaps, they claim a god/whatever did it, but of course they can offer no proof, or any theory that can stand up to scientific analysis. There is nothing scientific about creationism it has no place in any scientific debate, and therefore in a scientific paper!

There's been a lot of documentaries about Charles Darwin on tv recently, and from them it's apparent that the sheer amount of persecution he was under from those of faith was extreme, hence him taking so much time gathering scientific evidence to support his work. If there was anything about god in early editions of the origin of species, it would have only been due to the extreme religious pressures there were being placed on him at the time.

Anyway, this is why I stopped debating this stuff, those with faith lack a common frame of reference to do so; only those of us which previously had faith, but are now atheists can see both sides. Unfortunately it's a very personal thing and hearing it from another person won't change anything. So everyone ends up frustrated with each other, and bad feelings ensue.

 

[Wij]

Neither Darwin nor Einstein believed in God once they had moved beyond their early years. A few out of context quotes won't change that.