God? Don't be silly!

[SawTooTH]

This is a pointless exercise of rational people trying to reason with an irrational point of view, cyas

 

[Turamber]

This is a pointless exercise of rational people trying to reason with an irrational point of view

Glad somebody agrees with me!

Did some research on Wikipedia (yes, I know but I'm late for work) :

Publication and subsequent editions
On the Origin of Species was first published on 24 November 1859, at a price of fifteen shillings. The book had been offered to booksellers at Murray's autumn sale on 22 November, and all available copies had been taken up immediately. In total 1,250 copies were printed, but after deducting presentation and review copies, and five for Stationers' Hall copyright, around 1,170 copies were available for sale.[35] The second edition of 3,000 copies was quickly brought out on 7 January 1860,[36] and added "by the Creator" into the closing sentence, so that from then on it read "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."[37] While some commentators, such as Richard Dawkins, have taken this as an indication that Darwin was bowing to pressure to make concessions to religion,[38] biographer James Moore describes Darwin's vision as being of God creating life through the laws of nature.[39] Even in the first edition the term Creator appears several times, and at the start of the previous paragraph Darwin contrasts his idea "with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species#Publication_and_subsequent_editions


It is very hard to get to the truth of anything as the subject causes such hostility. Heck even in this thread people have jumped all over me for a use of humour and for offering an olive branch of saying how amazing existence is.

 

[old.Tohtori]

What is it with you guys and word definitions? Do you take tehsauraus at every debate?

First it's the word faith, belief, then "choose", now even miracle isn't an ok word....for a bunch of people who claim god and infact all religion is bollocks, you do are a pedantic bunch.

Everything i said not even commented on, before i say one wrong word. Hell at one point one of you disbuted the word "atheist", which kind of takes the piss already.

If you don't have an opinion on anything else but bloody terminology, which isn't ACTUALLY bloody, then you might as well find a hobo at your local petrol station and disbute the word "is".

 

[DaGaffer]

What is it with you guys and word definitions? Do you take tehsauraus at every debate?

First it's the word faith, belief, then "choose", now even miracle isn't an ok word....for a bunch of people who claim god and infact all religion is bollocks, you do are a pedantic bunch.

Everything i said not even commented on, before i say one wrong word. Hell at one point one of you disbuted the word "atheist", which kind of takes the piss already.

If you don't have an opinion on anything else but bloody terminology, which isn't ACTUALLY bloody, then you might as well find a hobo at your local petrol station and disbute the word "is".

You started it. You keep using words that give you wiggle room to claim all kinds of stuff, particularly the way you keep trying to claim atheism is just another kind of religion (which, for about the billionth time, IT ISN'T) by applying terms like "faith", "belief" and "choice" to it. If you can't even get the terminology right, you can't have a proper discussion. Every dispute over the form of words you've used has been for a reason relevant to the discussion. Just because it pisses you off doesn't make it any less valid.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You started it. You keep using words that give you wiggle room to claim all kinds of stuff, particularly the way you keep trying to claim atheism is just another kind of religion (which, for about the billionth time, IT ISN'T) by applying terms like "faith", "belief" and "choice" to it. If you can't even get the terminology right, you can't have a proper discussion. Every dispute over the form of words you've used has been for a reason relevant to the discussion. Just because it pisses you off doesn't make it any less valid.

For the billioth time, didn't claim that.

It was explained, billion times, how about THIS time you listen?

The reason the terminology isn't "right", is because you take a problem with words and those problems had no relevance to discussion.

And also, never used terms to "claim" anything. You just assume i WOULD because you think all people of faith/religion/belief are the same. Paranoid.

 

[Ch3tan]

Toht it is very difficult to understand what point you are making at times, because of your posting style. People nitpick your wording to try and understand just what it is you are trying to say. It is not an attack or an obsession with semantics, it is just an attempt to understand your point of view.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Toht it is very difficult to understand what point you are making at times, because of your posting style. People nitpick your wording to try and understand just what it is you are trying to say. It is not an attack or an obsession with semantics, it is just an attempt to understand your point of view.

I can understand that at times i might not word things like a harvard graduate, but come on, nitpicking over a word like "miracle" and then to ignore the whole posts meaning?

Even you have to admit that at times, the word nitpicking is derailing the point more then my perhaps vague analogy.

 

[Ch3tan]

But incorrect use of a word changes the meaning of what you are saying, maybe not for you, but for those reading it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

But incorrect use of a word changes the meaning of what you are saying, maybe not for you, but for those reading it.

We just have to agree to disagree on that, in my opinion the whole text gives the meaning, not some particular word.

If i say "It's a miracle we're here" or i say "It's quite astonoshing we're here", the meaning is quite clear, even with different use of words and EVERYONE knows what that means.

If i said "It's gods gift we're here", then the meaning would change.

But, it's useles to bang head --> wall over it, let's not get into another silly discussion

Perhpas partly the problem with atheist and theist dicussions is that while atheists are more clinical talking, theist are more "loose" talking. In good and bad.

 

[DaGaffer]

We just have to agree to disagree on that, in my opinion the whole text gives the meaning, not some particular word.

No, we don't have to agree to disagree. You're wrong. This isn't up for debate; words used incorrectly or out of context change the meaning of a sentence; Hell, punctuation marks in the wrong place change the meaning of a sentence. It may be pedantic, but whole theologies and religious schisms have revolved around similar levels of detail.

If i say "It's a miracle we're here" or i say "It's quite astonoshing we're here", the meaning is quite clear, even with different use of words and EVERYONE knows what that means.
If i said "It's gods gift we're here", then the meaning would change.

But, it's useles to bang head --> wall over it, let's not get into another silly discussion

Using the term "miracle" in the context of a religious debate has a pretty specific meaning. If you didn't mean miracle, don't say miracle. A least, not in this thread, where you've taken a pro-religion position.

Perhpas partly the problem with atheist and theist dicussions is that while atheists are more clinical talking, theist are more "loose" talking. In good and bad.

There's no good and bad about it; vagueness and imprecision is a good way to cover your arse.

Oh, and

For the billioth time, didn't claim that.

Yes you did:

Your god is science.

And that's just one quote from many.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Using the term "miracle" in the context of a religious debate has a pretty specific meaning. If you didn't mean miracle, don't say miracle. A least, not in this thread, where you've taken a pro-religion position.

So this time it's a religious debate? Last time it was a scientific debate by inactionman.

Make up your mind first.

If atheism has nothing to do with religion, how is it a religious discussion?

Also, i use terms i bloody well like, miracle doesn't mean a religious miracle alone in modern day speech.

Oh and;

Oh, and

Yes you did: And that's just one quote from many.

Completely out of context and still not saying atheism is another religion. Don't try to twist my words.

Try again.

 

[DaGaffer]

You're doing it again.

 

[MYstIC G]

Indeed, enough now. Seriously.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You're doing it again.

I'm not, but i said my final piece n the discussion a few posts ago, so i dn't really care explaining it to you again.

 

[MYstIC G]

If you've said your peace, then stop posting on this thread.

 

[Sar]

TBH you're all wrong.


I'm God and an athiest.


It's just self-doubt talking.

 

[nath]

If i say "It's a miracle we're here" or i say "It's quite astonoshing we're here", the meaning is quite clear, even with different use of words and EVERYONE knows what that means.

Toht, you're getting incredibly defensive when all that anyone is doing is trying to work out exactly what your point is. A very poor argumentative technique is to chuck out vague statements and hope people won't call you on them. I'm not saying that's been your intention but your statements HAVE been vague. Nitpicking at what your saying really ties in with an atheist perspective - actually trying to understand things rather than accepting them at face value.

You said that everyone knows what you meant about your miracle comment, and have got ratty that we've read in to it something you didn't mean. What the hell did you expect? We're in a thread discussing religion and atheism and you mention miracle. That word is LOADED with religious meaning, so it's totally fair enough that we call you on it. If you didn't mean it then don't get wound up with us for your poor choice of words.

 

[old.Tohtori]

How about taking into consideration my other posts, what you've learned of my perspective of things? If you indeed read and tried to see it from my perspective.

People still insist i call atheism another religion, when it was explained eons ago that it's not the case. Just as an example.

I'm betting you can see why it's frustrating, especially when one person says it's a scientific discussion, other that it's religious, third that it's not about atheism and fourth that it is. I do exaplin my views, like explaining what i meant by word "religion", yet it's not enough. You can see it yourself from the evidence.

I bet this would be a lot simpler discussing in private nath, but talking almost solely on one side, and having four to six people talking the other side, with each having their own views and definitions of the discussion, but taking bits of my answers to THOSE individuals into a discussion with themselves, gets a bit confusing at least.

To explain that last bit more;

I tell you "green is blue".
You tell "No, blue is blue."
We discuss that and i say something like "colorscheme is like that regarding our discussion"
Third party comes in and says "no it's actually this colorscheme".
I reply THAT person that "yes, in that context it is"
You then take from THAT reply, "so you're saying it IS blue?"

And we get into trouble.

I've not done anything BUT try and understand, ask questions etc, but when the reply to one misplaced word is aline of "That's bullshit", without any "what do you mean by that definition", it becomes as it is.

 

[nath]

This sort of discussion would be much more straightforward in person than in text, regardless of who is involved. However - I'm still finding it difficult to see exactly what you're trying to say.

Regarding what we're discussing, I can't see what your issue is, we're discussing atheism, scientific and religious thinking. All those things you mentioned are being discussed, I started this thread to discuss the style of thinking that allows for religious belief but obviously this will involved discussing atheist and scientific thinking too.

Also, you mention context but that doesn't help when you say something like "your God is science". You told Gaff that he took it out of context, but when I read it IN context I still found it hard to read it any other way. I don't think you can say something like that without fully explaining what you mean. Otherwise there's no other way to take it than how it reads on the face of it - that atheists treat science as religious folk treat God - we then argued against that point.

I don't mean to insult you as this thread has been very civil, but I honestly think you don't explain your position very well and as a result people argue against the points that it seems you are making and then you say that's not what you meant. It's very difficult to see what you're actually trying to say when you put vague and suggestive comments like "your God is science" and "it's a miracle we're here" and as I said, context isn't helping.

 

[rynnor]

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

My personal theory is that the universe continues to expand until the momentum of the big bang is used up then starts contracting until everything is so closely packed (called 'the big crunch') that another big bang occurs and so on - a continuous cycle that goes on forever.

Another possibility is that time is circular and that the big bang is actually caused by the big crunch at the other end of time - that makes the whole system a sealed system with no need for any creation myths.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Nath:

Just trying to give perspective so others might change their posting style too, for common civility to continue later on.

Balancing blame if you will.

All anyone would have to do is ask "what do you mean by it", not "that's bull".

You've been great to discuss with, when you don't take other elements from answers to other people into the discussion.

If i take one single line from anyone elses posts, i could make it sound bad too if i didn't consider what your stance is or what you've explained before. Like you took "your god is science", which means(if you don't mind) "your belief is science", which again means "in science you trust"...as corny as it sounds.

If people did read what i write and not just nitpick on something, they wouldn't say things like "you're saying atheism is a religion", now would they?

I can accept you saying i don't explain myself enough, but i hope you accept that you(general you) judge too fast without even considering or confirming the meaning if it is unclear.

 

[Sar]

If God exists, then he's a scientist and he's laughing his lordly bollocks off at humanity for arguing over all this sort of shit, when all that really matters is to enjoy life and make someone else happy.

I'm going for Dr Manhattan myself.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If God exists, then he's a scientist and he's laughing his lordly bollocks off at humanity for arguing over all this sort of shit, when all that really matters is to enjoy life and make someone else happy.

I was just thinking that if god exists, and we're all part of god(like christians say), then god is one unsecure motherf*cker

But, to shift the conversation out of pickering and semantics...

Nath, question about atheist way;

What would prove to you that something was a god?

What would it take if you will.

Dr Manhattan style superhero? Just curious.

 

[nath]

I was just thinking that if god exists, and we're all part of god(like christians say), then god is one unsecure motherf*cker

But, to shift the conversation out of pickering and semantics...

Nath, question about atheist way;

What would prove to you that something was a god?

What would it take if you will.

Dr Manhattan style superhero? Just curious.

Honestly? I can't think of a single thing that would prove to me the existence of a deity - the reason for this is that anything I can think of that would appear to be super duper could have a much more straightforward solution. The idea of a God always skips a load of steps when it comes to deductive reasoning. After all, if crazy shit starts happening it makes more sense to question our own interpretation of events rather than assuming something is a God. After all, Dr Manhattan had God-like powers, so to speak, and yet he got them from a science experiment fuckup (unless there's more to it, I've only read halfway through the comi...graphic novel). I've no doubt lots of people would praise someone like Dr Manhattan as a God but that wouldn't make him one, it just means his powers are sufficiently strange and amazing that people would think he was one.


Back to your "your God is science thing" even with the clarifications you just made, I'd still argue against that so rather than doing that, I'll do as you ask. Can you clarify it even more? I'm still not quite seeing what your point is and how it relates to the original comment.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Honestly? I can't think of a single thing that would prove to me the existence of a deity - the reason for this is that anything I can think of that would appear to be super duper could have a much more straightforward solution. The idea of a God always skips a load of steps when it comes to deductive reasoning. After all, if crazy shit starts happening it makes more sense to question our own interpretation of events rather than assuming something is a God. After all, Dr Manhattan had God-like powers, so to speak, and yet he got them from a science experiment fuckup (unless there's more to it, I've only read halfway through the comi...graphic novel). I've no doubt lots of people would praise someone like Dr Manhattan as a God but that wouldn't make him one, it just means his powers are sufficiently strange and amazing that people would think he was one.

Back to your "your God is science thing" even with the clarifications you just made, I'd still argue against that so rather than doing that, I'll do as you ask. Can you clarify it even more? I'm still not quite seeing what your point is and how it relates to the original comment.

Then what would? Something must be in the realm of "not possible" that it would tell you "yup, that's god alright". Otherwise there's no discussing religion or god, if there's not even a possibility of it being true in your mind.

You can't claim to try and understand, or other such things, if you're not willing to admit that there is something that would(no matter how ridicilous) make you believe something as god.

I'll try to explain the "your god is science" as simply as i can, not condesending, just to keep it clearer what my words meant;

For a religious person, god is allknowing, god is answers, god is the ultimate truth in truths.
For atheist, that is science. Science is, afterall, "ultimate truth" in that context.

So, while everything might lead t god with a religious person, everything leads to science, or proof, with an atheist.

While a religious person might view a sunset as a "beautiful thing creted by god", an atheist would view it as "beautiful thing created by particles reflecting from the multispectral atmosphere(aka science)".

Where a theist leans on god, atheist leans on science.

As such, if one would ask a theist "what is the ultimate", the answer would be god, but with an atheist the most likely answer would be "science".

Ok..maybe not simple..but do ask if you need mroe definition.

 

[nath]

"Everything leads to god, everything leads to science". What do you mean by everything leads to? The sunset thing is fine, yes a religious person might say beautiful God made thing, atheist would say beautiful thing and brought about by the following factors.

Theist leans on God and atheist leans on science? Explain.

"What is the ultimate" what does that mean - it's vague. Ultimate what?

The thing is, I don't believe that it's possible to prove God, there will always be an explanation that is more likely. That in itself does not disprove God (as that's not possible). It's the zebra thing. If I hear a clippety clop and see hoofprints, I'm going to think "horse" because it's far more likely. It doesn't mean it's not a zebra, but in all likelihood it's a horse (well, in countries where zebras are rare outside of zoos).

Anyway, what would prove God to you - think of the most amazingly wild and superduper scenario that would prove God to you and I'll tell you what a more likely explanation for that would be. It doesn't mean that it *wouldn't* be God, it just means I feel you'd be jumping to conclusions.

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Scouse]

Just thought of this. It's a different angle and quite enlightening IMHO:

Like you took "your god is science", which means(if you don't mind) "your belief is science", which again means "in science you trust"...as corny as it sounds.

Yep, "Your God is Science", "your belief is science" and "in science you trust" is all the same sentence - but all incorrect as far as I'm concerned.

Trust is a concept that implies a level of faith. I have no such faith in science.

I use science as a tool when I want to understand something, much in the same way as I use a knife and fork to eat. However, I've no idea either way if it will somehow fail me. If it does then I'll have to find another method of reasoning...

...do you find another "god" when he fails you? God fails people all the time, yet they stick with it, because of belief.

If science failed us, we'd ditch it, because we don't believe in it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

"Everything leads to god, everything leads to science". What do you mean by everything leads to?

Thought processes, ideas, end of the day etc.

The ultimate answer is science(every time) in an atheist mind, where the ultimate answer will lead to god in a theist mind.

42, answer to life universe and everything.

Theist leans on God and atheist leans on science? Explain.

Not 100% of the time, but when all else fails, that's the "leaning post". Theist might pray, atheist might dissolve the issue via elimination.

The thing is, I don't believe that it's possible to prove God, there will always be an explanation that is more likely. That in itself does not disprove God (as that's not possible). It's the zebra thing. If I hear a clippety clop and see hoofprints, I'm going to think "horse" because it's far more likely. It doesn't mean it's not a zebra, but in all likelihood it's a horse (well, in countries where zebras are rare outside of zoos).

That's the problem, you can't see ANY possibility, even if you claim "something can't be said to be impossible". That's like saying "i know it could be a zebra, but it most definetaly 100% is not."

That's why, like i said, atheism isn't "open" as it claims to be, it's anything but if there's no possible way of proving god, no matter what.

Anyway, what would prove God to you - think of the most amazingly wild and superduper scenario that would prove God to you and I'll tell you what a more likely explanation for that would be. It doesn't mean that it *wouldn't* be God, it just means I feel you'd be jumping to conclusions.

Ok, let's throw one in there. Some dead relative of yours, comes as a spectral image and talks with you, everyone can see it, it can be recorded and you know for sure it's not done via some "trick" and that your mind is not altered by outside effects.

Trust is a concept that implies a level of faith. I have no such faith in science.

But...isn't science always based on faith of some sort, when you've proven something, there's faith that the data is enough for it to be true, even IF there's a chance it's not. What do you call trusting that "mayb" to not be true?

 

[nath]

Thought processes, ideas, end of the day etc.

The ultimate answer is science(every time) in an atheist mind, where the ultimate answer will lead to god in a theist mind.

42, answer to life universe and everything.

You're still just chucking out statements that don't have a great deal of meaning - you need to be incredibly specific or we'll fall in to the same traps of arguing different points.

Not 100% of the time, but when all else fails, that's the "leaning post". Theist might pray, atheist might dissolve the issue via elimination.

Same as above - leaning post? Be specific.

Ok, let's throw one in there. Some dead relative of yours, comes as a spectral image and talks with you, everyone can see it, it can be recorded and you know for sure it's not done via some "trick" and that your mind is not altered by outside effects.

It strikes me the only reason that would suggest God is because our society has had religion for so long that it's ingrained in our conciousness. That doesn't make it any less of a flawed conclusion.

Nothing that you've said doesn't rule out the possibility that I've lost my mind and am living in some fantasy world. That's a more likely scenario than God but that wouldn't necessarily be the most likely result. It could genuinely mean we discover a new aspect of science - something about conciousness having to do with more than just our physical body, something about time being malleable, alternate dimensions. Don't get me wrong, if your scenario happened it would be an astonishing discovery and would pose an awful lot of questions but when it comes to theories to explain them God is at the end of a very long list of ideas. Not because I don't want to believe in God but because it assumes so much.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I can't explain it any more, you just have to assume i guess, i'll tell you if you're wrong. You can't explain it in "detailed specifics". I've given enough info on it for you to atleast assume or get an idea, otherwise, you never will. You've ignored almsot everything i've said to define it, simply due to not reading anything mroe, between the lines, etc. Scientist problem. ALL can't be explained in mathematical formulas, especially not meaning.

Now you have to be more specific though; what about god assuems so much?

If some being, that is defined in the bible, all seeing, all knowing, omnipotent, would come along, wouldn't it be the god the bible talks about?

Or odin, loki, thor etc.