God? Don't be silly!

[Kryten]

I think the nearest thing to "God" I'm likely to agree may exist is something you often get in gooey films and TV - i.e. "god is in all of us" and "god is a feeling or faith" rather than an omnipresent being. I could then summise from that, that God in fact is faith alone. A system designed to help people mentally.

Other than that, as I said before, being unable to prove something exists also makes it impossible to prove it doesn't exist, so an open mind remains.

 

[old.Tohtori]

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.

HAve to say two things;

A: People of faith are not all alike.
B: Talking about difference in atheism and religion, or anything with religion thrown in the mix, not including "proove god" discussions which are pointless, it's not a scientific debate.

 

[Yoni]

And whilst you are all debating the virtues of religion I look out of my window and there are 100 or more happy people singing and dancing in the rain to the "WE LOVE GOD" stage. The downside are the people with leaflets but if you take one then no one else bothers you.

If loving god makes the population this happy it cant be all wrong.

 

[Wij]

If loving god makes the population this happy it cant be all wrong.

Smackheads can be quite jolly too.

 

[inactionman]

HAve to say two things;

A: People of faith are not all alike.
B: Talking about difference in atheism and religion, or anything with religion thrown in the mix, not including "proove god" discussions which are pointless, it's not a scientific debate.

I'm not going to get drawn any further into this, so this will probably be my last post on this thread.

I was commenting on Turamber and him saying that origin was one sided, of course it is it's a scientific paper! Religion has no place in science.

And people of faith are the same, in that they are all irrational to one extent or the other, and base their world view on something that they believe in, rather than self-determined logical conclusions.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm not going to get drawn any further into this, so this will probably be my last post on this thread.

I was commenting on Turamber and him saying that origin was one sided, of course it is it's a scientific paper! Religion has no place in science.

And people of faith are the same, in that they are all irrational to one extent or the other, and base their world view on something that they believe in, rather than self-determined logical conclusions.

Ah yeah, in a scientific discussion, religion has no place, but also other way around. Which is kind of why i always wonder why atheists so easily discuss religion. Or there insanity of.

But, have re-iterate, not all religious people live their life according to the religion completely, and as such, only those who base everything on religion and not at all in science, will..yes...be annoying to talk to

Take science as science and religion as religion and there's no problem.

 

[inactionman]

Take science as science and religion as religion and there's no problem.

Except religion (and I mean organised religion here, not personal faith) can't, because religion is all about power and control. So to ensure a secular society (where all faiths are considered equal, as long as they don't harm anyone or themselves, together with the absence of faith) atheists have to take a more... proactive stance.

Believe me when I talk about religion being about power and control, I used to be in an 'Xtian' (loosely based on christianity) cult when I was younger, and I still bear the psychological scars.

 

[rynnor]

Smackheads can be quite jolly too.

And drunks and people in the manic phase of manic depression and people used to be quite happy seeing hitler at his mass rallies...

 

[Turamber]

Many of the people you listed could not have been anything but religious given the times when they lived.

Hardly! Atheists and agnostics are not restricted to the 20th and 21st centuries, there have been plenty of them for centuries and probably longer.

You may wish to examine such gentlemen as Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Spinoza (1632-77), and Hume (1711-76).

Newton wrote "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."

Seriously, some of you would argue black was white and white was black, just for the sake of it.

 

[Turamber]

I was commenting on Turamber and him saying that origin was one sided, of course it is it's a scientific paper! Religion has no place in science.

Err no, I didn't say that at all. I said that I read in a creationist book that Origin of the Species originally contained a forward that mentioned God starting the process of evolution.

I also said that the creationist book was every bit as one sided as some of the atheists posting in this thread. It was my attempt to find a middle ground.

 

[nath]

Newton wrote "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."

Seriously, some of you would argue black was white and white was black, just for the sake of it.

That's a very silly attitude though. If the sun wasn't at the right distance, we wouldn't be here to question it. There are no doubt countless solar systems out there where the sun ISN'T at the right distance for the heat and light to stimulate life. That's the same sort of attitude that leads people to believe it's really weird when you're thinking about someone and they happen to call. "Oo, spooky, I wonder what it means". It means nothing. Same deal with our solar system - of the vast number of solar systems in the universe, this one happened to have the right conditions for life to emerge. That life developed fairly significant intelligence, and now some think that means something. It's absurd.

 

[Turamber]

That's a very silly attitude though.

You are disagreeing with England's (arguably) greatest ever scientist? Good luck with that argument!

My point was, though, that atheism is -not- new. So arguing only proper scientists are atheists is very silly.

 

[DaGaffer]

Hardly! Atheists and agnostics are not restricted to the 20th and 21st centuries, there have been plenty of them for centuries and probably longer.

You may wish to examine such gentlemen as Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Spinoza (1632-77), and Hume (1711-76).

Newton wrote "Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."

Seriously, some of you would argue black was white and white was black, just for the sake of it.

True, but the scientific method as it understood today only really kicked off in the late 1600s and the Enlightenment, so its hardly surprising you've picked three names from that period; even 50-100 years earlier they'd never have publicly announced their atheism, and even as it was, its interesting that all three of the names you mentioned were subjected to religious persecution; Hobbes needed the protection of Charles II to avoid being tried as a heretic, Spinoza was excommunicated (or whatever the jewish equivalent is) and avoided publishing some of his work until after his death, and David Hume was barred from a chair at Edinburgh University and tried for heresy. Of course there have always been atheists, but certainly during most of the Christian era its been the smart thing to do to keep your mouth shut about it; even when it no longer actually got you killed, it could still kill your career; and that was true in places even into the twentieth century.

Its also interesting that you used that Newton quote as David Hume was one of the (many) philosophers who've refuted the teleological argument! (e.g. the universe is perfect for us so it can't be an accident)

 

[nath]

You are disagreeing with England's (arguably) greatest ever scientist? Good luck with that argument!

Are you kidding me? You're saying that because Newton was a great scientist, EVERYTHING he said was true?

In addition to that can you really not see why it's a flawed statement?

 

[DaGaffer]

You are disagreeing with England's (arguably) greatest ever scientist? Good luck with that argument!

My point was, though, that atheism is -not- new. So arguing only proper scientists are atheists is very silly.

Yeeeeah...you may want to be careful holding up Newton as an example; the guy spent a big part of his life trying to make alchemy work.

 

[Turamber]

Are you kidding me? You're saying that because Newton was a great scientist, EVERYTHING he said was true?

It was a joke.


...

 

[Turamber]

its interesting that all three of the names you mentioned were subjected to religious persecution

Yes it maybe interesting but a judgement of whether people who believe in God or scientists are the nicer people doesn't really have any impact on whether God exists or not.

It simply tells us that people with a lot invested in the status quo will do their best to keep things the way they are.

My comments were also in response to the, with all due respect to the poster, rather naive claim that the only real scientists are atheists. Which claim was exacerbated by the subsequent claim that atheism is something new.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That life developed fairly significant intelligence, and now some think that means something. It's absurd.

While skipping a LOT of steps...

Needed the right planet, in the way of right asteroids, to get the right conditions and right atmosphere, for right cells to evolve into right kind of monkeys, to evolve and SURVIVE all those years, to again evolve into the leading race on the planet, DESPITE being the least survivable species, basically meat, and to THEN come up with religion and THEN come up with atheism and the whole while no other species does nothing of even remotely comparable...

In all, it is quite miracilous(not religion miracle, one in a billion gazillion chance miracle) how we're having this discussion right now and it IS hard to believe that nowhere along the line we weren't aided or nudged in the right direction.

 

[nath]

In all, it is quite miracilous(not religion miracle, one in a billion gazillion chance miracle) how we're having this discussion right now and it IS hard to believe that nowhere along the line we weren't aided or nudged in the right direction.

It's not even remotely hard to believe that we were NOT nudged.

There's a great quote from The Big Bang Theory (top sitcom, highly recommended)

Oh, well, this would be one of those circumstances that people unfamiliar with the law of large numbers would call a coincidence.

 

[Tom]

While skipping a LOT of steps...

Needed the right planet, in the way of right asteroids, to get the right conditions and right atmosphere, for right cells to evolve into right kind of monkeys, to evolve and SURVIVE all those years, to again evolve into the leading race on the planet, DESPITE being the least survivable species, basically meat, and to THEN come up with religion and THEN come up with atheism and the whole while no other species does nothing of even remotely comparable...

In all, it is quite miracilous(not religion miracle, one in a billion gazillion chance miracle) how we're having this discussion right now and it IS hard to believe that nowhere along the line we weren't aided or nudged in the right direction.

Is it bollocks miraculous. Have you seen just how large this universe is?

 

[Turamber]

Is it bollocks miraculous. Have you seen just how large this universe is?

Which, apparently, all came from nothing. Not sure how one measures the size of nothing but listening to a debate the other day on television one atheist scientist said all it would take was for something the size of an atom to appear out of nothing to start the big bang effect.

Since that day I've not touched the washing up, hoping that one day it will do itself.

 

[SawTooTH]

The Goldilocks theory is what you are talking about.

The fact that conditions exist that support life is a fact. However the fact that the universe is infinitely bigger than you can possibly imagine means that these conditions also exist elsewhere which is one reason that a lot of time and energy is being put into looking for solar systems with planets.

As for happy people, I have no problem with happy people or even deluded happy people (unlike Dawkins) as long as they don't bother me.

 

[nath]

Which, apparently, all came from nothing. Not sure how one measures the size of nothing but listening to a debate the other day on television one atheist scientist said all it would take was for something the size of an atom to appear out of nothing to start the big bang effect.

Since that day I've not touched the washing up, hoping that one day it will do itself.

So the fact that you can't get your head around something means it's bollocks?

Of course the idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent, invisible being that created everything is far more believable. What created him or did he appear out of nothing? Or has he always existed. Strikes me that the idea of the answer to everything being God poses far more questions than it answers.

 

[rynnor]

The fact that conditions exist that support life is a fact. However the fact that the universe is infinitely bigger than you can possibly imagine means that these conditions also exist elsewhere which is one reason that a lot of time and energy is being put into looking for solar systems with planets.

It will be interesting to see if religion would survive the discovery of other intelligent life - its not very likely in the short distance we can scan but imagine the repercussions.

 

[Panda On Smack]

This thread is like trying to make Liverpool/Everton fans switch sides

 

[Turamber]

So the fact that you can't get your head around something means it's bollocks?

It was just humour, take a chill pill.

But it is true that everything that I know has a beginning, a clear moment when it came into existence. I find the argument that the universe is huge so life had to exist somewhere spurious, as I do the idea that something can come from nothing.

You choose to believe the above, I choose to believe that there is a creator who has always existed. In many ways existence defies belief, it really is a miracle however it happened.

 

[rynnor]

In many ways existence defies belief, it really is a miracle however it happened.

Miracle: an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

So no - the religious mind see's unlikely things as miracles where the atheist see's probabilities.

Humanity would not have progressed very far if everyone confronted by something they cannot immediatly explain had just thrown up their arms and said "wow it must be a miracle!".

 

[nath]

It was just humour, take a chill pill.

But it is true that everything that I know has a beginning, a clear moment when it came into existence. I find the argument that the universe is huge so life had to exist somewhere spurious, as I do the idea that something can come from nothing.

You choose to believe the above, I choose to believe that there is a creator who has always existed. In many ways existence defies belief, it really is a miracle however it happened.

I assure you I'm completely chilled. My comment wasn't meant to be aggressive at all.

You find the idea that something can come from nothing spurious, yet you believe in a God? I don't see the logic there.

Also I don't choose to believe in the above - it's an interesting idea, and the more evidence there is the more I'll accept it. However, there is no evidence for God - choosing to believe that is akin to believing in Santa because you don't realise and indeed can't comprehend the fact that it's your parents that buy you the gifts. The fact that we don't have all the answers doesn't give validity to the idea of God at all. Also, as our understanding of the way the human mind works the idea of a God becomes less and less likely as we can see the invalid thought processes that lead us to superstitious thinking.

Of course we'll never be able to disprove God, but as I've said elsewhere on the thread, there are lots of things we can never disprove, it means nothing.

edit: Oh yeah, miracles. Simply things we don't understand and then assume it's some sort of magic. If we brought someone from a few hundred years ago to the future, countless things would seem like miracles. It's just a word for something that's impressive that we don't fully understand yet.

 

[Kryten]

Oddly enough, with the "creation" of things, we only ever hear two things.

"God did it" is the first line of blame for those of faith.

"The Big Bang" for most other people.

It's often, too often overlooked that it's entirely possible that "life" has *always* existed. Data about the age of The Earth, The Galaxy, The Sun etc are all entirely based on theory from a small amount of physical evidence. There's also absolutely no evidence that life didn't exist once on Mars, Mercury or even that 9th planet that's gone missing recently, Pluto. There's absolutely nothing to say that god knows how long ago there wasn't some cataclysmic change that wiped everything out and started again.
Absolutely all of "where everything started" is theory, and whilst some of the theory is based on small amounts of physical evidence, absolutely none of it is concrete. Therefore, dismissing any of it or swearing by any of it is absolute nonsense in it's own right.

 

[Wij]

I'd hardly say small amounts of physical evidence. There's plenty of evidence that a big-bang occurred. The background heat for instance.

Whether that was the first event ever is a different matter.