Holy crap, I couldn't even make it past the first minute. Is she just reading what is put up there and trying to make an argument? Does she know how single celled organisms work?
Woman rages at science off and on for thirty minutes because she doesn't understand it. She does however think the fossils of fish and Dino... I mean fire breathing dragons they have on display are cool.
Woman rages at science off and on for thirty minutes because she doesn't understand it. She does however think the fossils of fish and Dino... I mean fire breathing dragons they have on display are cool.
Woman doesn't understand fairly plain English - the beginning of anti evolution rant that is pretty poor. That's about all we need to know.
Oh, human feet are so unique and are the reason that robotic specialists cannot get their creations to stand up or walk unaided.
Damn false advertising. I clicked the video expecting to see a vacuous hottie breaking some gak, instead I see some ignoramus ranting about things she is incapable of pronouncing much less understanding.
agnosto wrote: Damn false advertising. I clicked the video expecting to see a vacuous hottie breaking some gak, instead I see some ignoramus ranting about things she is incapable of pronouncing much less understanding.
Agreed.
I'm thinking about banning the OP from the OT for this obvious 'bait and switch' crap.
I got through about a minute. It seems as though evolution is proven to be the Lie of Satan by virtue of the fact that a two line sentence on a science exhibit made for children (containing words she admits to not being able to pronounce) seems to indicate that not all qualities of all things have changed in millions of years.
She was also being kind of an obnoxious donkey-cave in the making of the point, so I became intolerant.
agnosto wrote: Damn false advertising. I clicked the video expecting to see a vacuous hottie breaking some gak, instead I see some ignoramus ranting about things she is incapable of pronouncing much less understanding.
Agreed.
I'm thinking about banning the OP from the OT for this obvious 'bait and switch' crap.
agnosto wrote: Damn false advertising. I clicked the video expecting to see a vacuous hottie breaking some gak, instead I see some ignoramus ranting about things she is incapable of pronouncing much less understanding.
Agreed.
I'm thinking about banning the OP from the OT for this obvious 'bait and switch' crap.
Its not like exhibits like these are simplified so even common folks can understand the basics of it... ahem yes even common folks should be able to understand it.
agnosto wrote: I third the motion. Motion carries, he's baned from OT until such time as he can make amends.
By "make amends" I asume you mean provide a video of equal or higher amusement factor to the title? For example Emma Watson going crazy with a baseball bat in Ripleys Belive it or Not.
agnosto wrote: I third the motion. Motion carries, he's baned from OT until such time as he can make amends.
By "make amends" I asume you mean provide a video of equal or higher amusement factor to the title? For example Emma Watson going crazy with a baseball bat in Ripleys Belive it or Not.
jasper76 wrote: Does this help...even Kirk Cameron can't keep a straight face!
How about this?
Well thats obvious isnt it Cameron knew perfectly well bananas current shape is something humans have cultivated to fit perfectly in a mans hand, ignoring any inuendos.
Well thats obvious isnt it Cameron knew perfectly well bananas current shape is something humans have cultivated to fit perfectly in a mans hand, ignoriing any inuendos.
I'm terribly sorry , but I just can't watch that video without ignoring the innuendos, and I've tried.
This woman's arrogance is disgusting. She is so full of herself, she doesn't even bother to read the boards that she is supposed to be refuting. She walks up to an exhibit, reads the words "plants evolved from green algae", and then immediately starts prattling on sarcastically "They know the type of algae, it was green! How do they know that, did they have a video camera there?" -- While right underneath on the same board it actually says how they know. Plants inherited green chlorophyll from green algae. A quick google search reveals that this is corroborated by DNA analysis.
Why aren't these people so critical when it comes to bible stories? Where was the video camera for Noah's ark? How do you know Lazarus was really dead?
Why aren't these people so critical when it comes to bible stories? Where was the video camera for Noah's ark? How do you know Lazarus was really dead?
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Always best to not generalize! - Alpharius]
Why aren't these people so critical when it comes to bible stories? Where was the video camera for Noah's ark? How do you know Lazarus was really dead?
Even smart people shut off their brains when it comes to being critical of the Bible. One of my seemingly otherwise intelligent coworkers who happens to be painfully religious once told me that the "Bible proved itself." I couldn't keep the conversation friendly enough to find out what that meant, so I let it go.
Why aren't these people so critical when it comes to bible stories? Where was the video camera for Noah's ark? How do you know Lazarus was really dead?
I believe the game is, 1)start with the unbreakable notion that the Bible is true, and 2) disregard and attempt to discredit any evidence to the contrary.
I've known atheists that were completely lost when it came to science and I've known religious people that were scientists. I've seen religious people who were open minded and atheists that were as inflexible as any zealot. Thinking they are opposing ideologies shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both.
It's hasn't been too long ago but I don't remember what thread I posted it in, but in a nutshell:
There have been frequent instances where scientists that latch onto a particular theory will continue to defend that theory even when new evidence is found that proves their theory wrong. They displayed behavior that was very similar to religious people.
It's hasn't been too long ago but I don't remember what thread I posted it in, but in a nutshell:
There have been frequent instances where scientists that latch onto a particular theory will continue to defend that theory even when new evidence is found that proves their theory wrong. They displayed behavior that was very similar to religious people.
Exactly. Virtually everyone agrees that there is a problem and we're responsible for at least a big part of it, and yet a small minority of scientists will rabidly defend their claims that we have nothing to worry about. The evidence is there, but blind faith in conservative ideology and stubborn refusal to admit that their beliefs might be wrong (along with an occasional bribe) take priority.
Exactly. Virtually everyone agrees that there is a problem and we're responsible for at least a big part of it, and yet a small minority of scientists will rabidly defend their claims that we have nothing to worry about. The evidence is there, but blind faith in conservative ideology and stubborn refusal to admit that their beliefs might be wrong (along with an occasional bribe) take priority.
whembly wrote: 'scuse me, I got some coal strip mining to do.
This is also quite relevant. Anti-climate-change scientists often get a lot of money from industries that wish to avoid any profit-damaging regulations in exchange for parroting the company propaganda with their own credentials added. Similarly, many young-earth creationists make a lot of money from their public position and have a strong incentive to keep denying the obvious even when they personally don't believe what they're saying.
Exactly. Virtually everyone agrees that there is a problem and we're responsible for at least a big part of it, and yet a small minority of scientists will rabidly defend their claims that we have nothing to worry about. The evidence is there, but blind faith in conservative ideology and stubborn refusal to admit that their beliefs might be wrong (along with an occasional bribe) take priority.
'scuse me, I got some coal strip mining to do.
And I think I'll go in for a spot of oil sands reaping.
Nope...Science is a methodology for testing hypotheses. Look it up.
The formation of a hypothesis is part of the scientific method, which is distinct from science as a whole. This is why the scientific method is referred to as "the scientific method" and not just "science" in the course of serious conversation.
Back to Altman's point, there are indeed forms of religion that distinctly contradict what certain fields of science (namely astronomy, biology, geography, and probably others) have discovered about the universe. This woman in the video certainly seems to be a follower of one such religion, although which one I'm not sure as I don't think she ever mentions it.
That's not a requirement for something to be considered an ideology as the concept of ideologies predates the internet by many years.
Yes.
Your serious response seems to indicate though that you've mischaracterized my attempt at humor as a genuine belief that i think that ideology has not existed prior to the internet. I assure you, that is not the case. I agree entirely.
Back to Altman's point, there are indeed forms of religion that distinctly contradict what certain fields of science (namely astronomy, biology, geography, and probably others) have discovered about the universe. This woman in the video certainly seems to be a follower of one such religion, although which one I'm not sure as I don't think she ever mentions it.
Ahtman wrote: I've known atheists that were completely lost when it came to science and I've known religious people that were scientists. I've seen religious people who were open minded and atheists that were as inflexible as any zealot. Thinking they are opposing ideologies shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both.
Um, wasn't Altman's point that stupidity and zealotry are not restricted to religious people and science and logic is not restricted to atheists? Not that all religion is fact, or believes itself to have facts counter to mainstream scince?
This woman is to religion what conspiracy theorists are to science.
daedalus wrote: All of
Your serious response seems to indicate though that you've mischaracterized my attempt at humor as a genuine belief that i think that ideology has not existed prior to the internet. I assure you, that is not the case. I agree entirely.
All of my responses have been serious, I simply misinterpreted your attempt at humor. I apologize, but misinterpretation is not the same as mischaracterization.
I envy sociopaths. A lot of people are happy to lie and take advantage of other people's superstitions -- mediums are one particularly despicable example. Yet these people often make a good living, and are adored by the people they prey on. As much as I find other people's superstitions frustrating (even annoying), a huge part of that is because I actually care about people and don't want to see them taken advantage of by these kind of charlatans. Yet the only thanks you usually get for trying to educate people is their contempt. While still having to live at the mercy of their misinformed political lobbying.
While I agree that people should dislike sociopaths and con men, I don't see conflating religion with sociopaths and con men. Sociapathology isn't relegated just to the religious. On the other hand people also seem to use sociopath in just about any situation they dislike. I saw a paper that said that anyone that wasn't a vegetarian was a sociopath.
I think it is one thing genuinely believing in a higher power. But receiving money for something which can't be proven, or which is demonstrably untrue, I am more suspicious of.
Anywhoo, I had a coworker that I drove to work who was alot like this woman. He would run his moth the entire 30 minute trip, and the moment I made any sort of retort that had even the slightest scientific backing (dinosuars was a personal favorite), he would sit there in silence the rest of the trip. Premarital sex was a fun car talk as well
I had a coworker who asked me if I subscribed to any magazines. I told her I subscribed (at the time) to National Geographic. She said she liked the pictures, but then said something to the effect of "It's kind of one-sided though, don't you think". I didn't know what she meant, so asked. She said something like, "It presents evolution as though it were a fact." To which I said that the fossil record and DNA evidence pretty conclusively shows that evolution did occur. She rebutted with Genesis, and not knowing how to really have a nice conversation about it, and not wanting to destroy my relationship with her, I changed the subject.
The next day, she politely informed me that after discussions with her husband, she's decided it was best not to socialize with me anymore. True story. I got the "friend axe" from a personable, intelligent co-worker because I think biology is real and/or I subscribed to a magazine that accepted it as such.
I've had other atheists attack me and some not talk to me anymore for calling for understanding and tolerance between atheists and religious folk. We all have stories of people being donkey-caves on one side or another but this is because both sides have donkey-caves and idiots. The lesson isn't that one side* is somehow better than the other, but not to be an donkey-cave.
If you already think of religion and science as opposing sides you are already heading the wrong way, whether one is an atheist or religious. They do different things and have different functions.
Ahtman wrote: I've had other atheists attack me and some not talk to me anymore for calling for understanding and tolerance between atheists and religious folk. We all have stories of people being donkey-caves on one side or another but this is because both sides have donkey-caves and idiots. The lesson isn't that one side* is somehow better than the other, but not to be an donkey-cave.
If you already think of religion and science as opposing sides you are already heading the wrong way, whether one is an atheist or religious. They do different things and have different functions.
This! Exulted! There are donkey-caves on all sides, religious or not, left or right, rich or poor. These people would remain donkey-caves even if they change their beliefs.
I'm not bothered by religion (any stripe) one bit up to the point that it tries to impose itself on me. The short answer to this is, I've considered it, I don't want it as a part of my personal life, and I will do my little part to keep it out of my life and the lives of others who have also decided to give it a pass.
I view science as humanity's best known method to give us answers to the necessary and/or interesting questions in life.
I don't think they are necessarily opposing, I just think one is better than the other, because it makes more sense and produces verifiable, tangible results, ones that you don't even have to believe in, because they work.
For example, it doesn't matter whether someone believes electricity is real or fake...it will still turn the light bulb on when you flick the switch.
Ahtman wrote: I've had other atheists attack me and some not talk to me anymore for calling for understanding and tolerance between atheists and religious folk. We all have stories of people being donkey-caves on one side or another but this is because both sides have donkey-caves and idiots. The lesson isn't that one side* is somehow better than the other, but not to be an donkey-cave.
If you already think of religion and science as opposing sides you are already heading the wrong way, whether one is an atheist or religious. They do different things and have different functions.
This! Exulted! There are donkey-caves on all sides, religious or not, left or right, rich or poor. These people would remain donkey-caves even if they change their beliefs.
It's hasn't been too long ago but I don't remember what thread I posted it in, but in a nutshell:
There have been frequent instances where scientists that latch onto a particular theory will continue to defend that theory even when new evidence is found that proves their theory wrong. They displayed behavior that was very similar to religious people.
And yet somehow we have flown to the moon, eradicated smallpox, and made the internet.
I wish it was only militant-creationists who do this.
plenty of people do this with other things, including scientific theories as D-usa pointed out.
evolution and intelligent design dont conflict for most Christians so not sure what conclusions people want to draw from this unless they want to judge a whole group by its extremists/idiots
Ahtman wrote: I've had other atheists attack me and some not talk to me anymore for calling for understanding and tolerance between atheists and religious folk. We all have stories of people being donkey-caves on one side or another but this is because both sides have donkey-caves and idiots. The lesson isn't that one side* is somehow better than the other, but not to be an donkey-cave.
If you already think of religion and science as opposing sides you are already heading the wrong way, whether one is an atheist or religious. They do different things and have different functions.
This! Exulted! There are donkey-caves on all sides, religious or not, left or right, rich or poor. These people would remain donkey-caves even if they change their beliefs.
It's hasn't been too long ago but I don't remember what thread I posted it in, but in a nutshell:
There have been frequent instances where scientists that latch onto a particular theory will continue to defend that theory even when new evidence is found that proves their theory wrong. They displayed behavior that was very similar to religious people.
And yet somehow we have flown to the moon, eradicated smallpox, and made the internet.
Kilkrazy wrote: That "science" "works" despite the human foibles that individual scientists are prone to.
Science doesn't "work" when a scientist discards valid findings if they disagree with his personal dogma.
If a scientist sticks to theory A despite evidence that theory A is invalid and ignores all the evidence that theory B is correct then "science" won't work because it is based on faulty thinking.
And nothing in your statement counters the fact that there is documented evidence of dogmatic scientists clinging to outdated and wrong ideas, just like some non-scientists do.
The great thing about science though is that there are always people working to discover the truth, regardless of what either a minority or majority believe.
I don't dispute that at all. I was just pointing out they adherence to certain ideas despite evidence to the contrary is not something that is restricted to members of various religions.
Being a scientist doesn't mean you are free from that risk. Look at Mayim Bialik from the Big Bang Theory: PhD in neuroscience and still an anti-vaxxer.
People with closed minds can be found in all areas of life.
SilverMK2 wrote: The great thing about science though is that there are always people working to discover the truth, regardless of what either a minority or majority believe.
Ahtman wrote: If you already think of religion and science as opposing sides you are already heading the wrong way.
That's true, but people make them opposing sides when they try to get religious "theories" taught in school alongside evolution. I'd wager those people aren't scientists, but when it happens, I think people do need to stand up and defend the scientific method. That will inevitably include drawing comparisons between scientific theories -- which have been tested, peer reviewed, and corroborated, and which are based on evidence and often able to make predictions -- versus: religious "theories" which are either 'entirely made up fiction' or indistinguishable from 'entirely made up fiction' on account of the convenient "you can't see any proof until you're dead" clause.
If you already think of religion and science as opposing sides you are already heading the wrong way, whether one is an atheist or religious. They do different things and have different functions.
You are operating under three false assumptions here: (a) that all religions serve the same function, (b) that some of these functions are "right", while others are "wrong", and (c) there is no overlap between the explanatory function of science and the explanatory function of religion.
There are different religions. Some religions attempt to provide comfort to people for suffering. Some religions attempt to provide for survival of death. Some religions seek to placate nature for crop yields, calm seas, etc.. Some religions seek to provide explanations for why things are the way they are, how they came to be, how stuff works, etc. It is here that there is the most potential conflict with science, because science does the same thing, but in many cases provides very very different answers. This is on plain display with the subject of the OP video. Scientific findings clash with her religions explanation of how life came to be...in her case, religion wins, and she is attempting to discredit the findings of science, because they are at conflict.
There is really no "right" or "wrong" function for religion. I could come up with a religion tomorrow whereby devotees worship their own pinky toes in an effort to channel the energy of Xenob to bring peace to the Korean Peninsula. The function would not be "right" or "wrong", it just would be what it would be.
I'm a religious man who has no problem with science. I do believe "God did it" when it comes to the question of why is everything the way it is, but I don't think that anything in the Bible really tells me "how" God did it. Science is amazing to me, and I personally feel like I am more on awe the more we learn. For me my religion and my scientific worldview are perfectly compatible, the Bible is my blueprint for my relationship with God and not a blueprint that replaces science.
I don't understand how some people, like the woman in the OP, can latch onto something that isn't even in the Bible and block out actual evidence that wouldn't affect her religion anyway. Young Earth Creationism is just so weird to me as a Christian because nothing about our religion depends on earth being 6000 years old.
Twerkin turkeys and Miley Cyrus' tongue may not be compelling cases against a benevolent God when considered individually, but put together?...my position on the atheist meter just edged a little closer to a hard 7
agnosto wrote: Damn false advertising. I clicked the video expecting to see a vacuous hottie breaking some gak, instead I see some ignoramus ranting about things she is incapable of pronouncing much less understanding.
coming in late here , but i thought it was going to be some (now crusty) ex 80's hottie breaking up exhibits in a museum. So very angry right now ...
Jesus woman, pick up a damn book. "I dont know, therfor no one can". The stupidity just... I cant. I spent the whole 30 minutes just pounding my head against my desk and slowly tearing apart my plastic fork
The only thing that could make this worse is if it was THAT Megan Fox.
Kilkrazy wrote: That "science" "works" despite the human foibles that individual scientists are prone to.
Science doesn't "work" when a scientist discards valid findings if they disagree with his personal dogma.
If a scientist sticks to theory A despite evidence that theory A is invalid and ignores all the evidence that theory B is correct then "science" won't work because it is based on faulty thinking.
And nothing in your statement counters the fact that there is documented evidence of dogmatic scientists clinging to outdated and wrong ideas, just like some non-scientists do.
Smacks wrote: A lot of people are happy to lie and take advantage of other people's superstitions -- mediums are one particularly despicable example.
Having known several people who have worked as psychics or fortune tellers, I would hesitate to lump them all in one basket like that. Whether or not you or I believe that what they are doing is legit, at least some of them do.
Smacks wrote: A lot of people are happy to lie and take advantage of other people's superstitions -- mediums are one particularly despicable example.
Having known several people who have worked as psychics or fortune tellers, I would hesitate to lump them all in one basket like that. Whether or not you or I believe that what they are doing is legit, at least some of them do.
Most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones too, but that doesnt stop smacks stereotyping/judging them base on the outliers, so why not also judge mediums and psychics by their fringe members.
Simple fact is, most religious people dont go to their religious texts for scientific purposes, and dont go to science books for religious purposes.
But some people like to further the negative stereotype that religious=redneck conservatives who dont believe in evolution.
easysauce wrote: Most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones too
Poll numbers in the US disagree with you. As do a lot of politicians who keep trying to put creationist ideology into science classes, just as their voters want.
easysauce wrote: Most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones too
Poll numbers in the US disagree with you. As do a lot of politicians who keep trying to put creationist ideology into science classes, just as their voters want.
no they dont, you dont know what you are talking about, you are just ignorantly repeating and furthering offensive stereotypes which simply are not true. They are based on fringe evangelicals, of only one religion, and only one small sect of that branch at that.
what you and smacks are doing is no different then judging any other group by its extremists. Well aside from lots of people thinking its ok to stereotype certain groups and not others. Its just as bad to further that kind of stereotype against religious people as it is to further stereotypes against gays/trans and so on.
feel free to paint all religious people with the same brush though, religious people generally do believe in evolution.
easysauce wrote: no they dont, you dont know what you are talking about, you are just ignorantly repeating and furthering offensive stereotypes which simply are not true.
If they aren't true then why does your own poll support them? If you look at that chart you see that, even when you only consider people who accept that evolution of some kind is true, you still get a roughly 50/50 split between people who accept science as-is and people who insist that their religion is more important. If you consider polls of the population as a whole instead of just the people who accept some aspects of evolution you find that support for evolution is even lower and young-earth creationism is at least a significant minority.
Edit: this was in response to your previous chart. Your new one says the same things, and even explicitly states that the percentage of the population that accepts science is only 48%. More than half the population rejecting science when it conflicts with religion is NOT something that can be described as "most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones".
They are based on fringe evangelicals, what you and smacks are doing is no different then judging any other group by its extremists.
If they're "fringe evangelicals" then how are they winning elections often enough that putting creationism in textbooks, insisting that schools "teach the controversy", etc, are actually issues getting a lot of debate? A tiny minority doesn't have the power to do that.
Edit: and, again, your new chart says it explicitly. 52% of the population is not a fringe group.
insaniak wrote: Edit - never mind - you changed the chart to a different one...
yes while the other pew research chart does lend evidence to religious people in general being accepting of evolution, it left out a lot of non christian subsets, and Christianity isnt the only game in town, so i grabbed one that went over non christian religions, and included non religious people as well for comparison.
either way, its not acceptable to stereotype all religious people in general as mouth breathing backwards rednecks who dont believe in science/evolution, when they clearly do for the most part.
easysauce wrote: either way, its not acceptable to stereotype all religious people in general as mouth breathing backwards rednecks who dont believe in science/evolution, when they clearly do for the most part.
Less than 50% accepting evolution is not "for the most part".
evolution and intelligent design dont conflict for most Christians so not sure what conclusions people want to draw from this unless they want to judge a whole group by its extremists/idiots
In my experience most Christians simply don't care very much one way or the other, at least not most of the time. They go to Church because they find it comforting, and want to be a part of a community of like-minded individuals; but they don't put much thought into the specific nature of their spirituality or religious beliefs.
Though, saying that, I grew up in a very liberal Protestant denomination.
easysauce wrote: what you and smacks are doing is no different then judging any other group by its extremists.
I did no such thing, and that is not my opinion. There are plenty of moderate religious people who are mostly benign. The only brush I tarred them all with is believing in a god, which is true by definition. This in itself is dangerous enough, as irrational beliefs lead to irrational actions.
easysauce wrote: Most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones too.
Yes, religious people like to pick and choose the parts that suit them, and quietly ignore the parts that are completely incompatible with modern science and morality. Which just shows how irrational these belief systems are. Why believe is something so strongly, while also admitting that you made up and changed parts yourself?
insaniak wrote: Having known several people who have worked as psychics or fortune tellers, I would hesitate to lump them all in one basket like that. Whether or not you or I believe that what they are doing is legit, at least some of them do.
Several no less? It's a shame none of them ever opted to prove their abilities under laboratory conditions. That would have put to rest so many of our questions about life and death in one easy sitting. I think deep down these people know they are (at best) deluding themselves, and at worst taking advantage of other people's gullibility and need for closure. If I had any doubt (reasonable doubt) then I might give them the benefit of it -- but I don't, so I won't.
Edit: and, again, your new chart says it explicitly. 52% of the population is not a fringe group.
52% of all Americans. Not 52% of Christians, or religious people, but 52% of Americans. This is not a religious issue, but an American one. In Europe, that is no less christian, or religious, than the US, the results are rather diffrent:
easysauce wrote: Most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones too.
Yes, religious people like to pick and choose the parts that suit them, and quietly ignore the parts that are completely incompatible with modern science and morality. Which just shows how irrational these belief systems are. Why believe is something so strongly, while also admitting that you made up and changed parts yourself?
Fun fact for you. A fundamental principal of the Catholic Church has always been that Catholics should investigate and understand the nature of God and the universe he has created. Through an understanding of nature we gain a greater insight to the nature of God. That is why the Catholic church has an observatory, and has been a major patron of science for over a thousand years.
Pope John Paul II summarised the Catholic view of the relationship between faith and reason in the encyclical Fides et Ratio, saying "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves." The present Papal astronomer Brother Guy Consolmagno describes science as an "act of worship" and a way of "a way of getting intimate with the creator."
Catholics, at least, see a conflict between religion and science not to be an issue with the science but a misunderstanding of the religion, which must be reassessed to reconcile it with the facts that are presented. This is true for many mainstream Christian denominations.
Smacks wrote: Yes, religious people like to pick and choose the parts that suit them, and quietly ignore that parts that are completely incompatible with modern science and morality.
Anyone who creates a set of beliefs for themselves from those that already exist among others will generally pick and choose the specific beliefs that suit them, that's how generating such a set of beliefs works.
You seem to be conflating not excoriating the beliefs that you, personally, don't like with support for them; which is wrong. A Catholic person does not necessarily support the treatment of Galileo by the Catholic Church because he doesn't attack it when stating his own position anymore than an atheist who doesn't attack the God Delusion necessarily supports the beliefs of Richard Dawkins while acting the same way.
Steve steveson wrote: In Europe, that is no less christian, or religious, than the US.
Well that's not true. Your chart reads like a top list of countries where religious adherence is waning. All the more liberal Scandinavian and western European countries are at the top, with all the conservative and catholic countries towards the bottom.
EDIT:
dogma wrote: Anyone who creates a set of beliefs for themselves from those that already exist among others will generally pick and choose the specific beliefs that suit them, that's how generating such a set of beliefs works.
Which would involve an admission that at least part of the source text is irreconcilably false. And yet the rest is somehow definitely true? I think reason starts to break down at this point.
EDIT 2:
Steve steveson wrote: Catholics, at least, see a conflict between religion and science not to be an issue with the science but a misunderstanding of the religion, which must be reassessed to reconcile it with the facts that are presented. This is true for many mainstream Christian denominations.
Yes, they've come a long way since the days of Copernicus -- because they have been forced to. Scientific discoveries, and modern attitudes towards morality and civil rights, have undermined the Catholic church to such a degree that they have now been forced to adopt this position of perpetual back peddling.
I'm going to take a swing for the "other team" here. Just because a book isn't 100% true doesnt necessitate that it is 100% false. For example, Darwin wasn't 100% correct in the Origin of Species , but that doesn't invalidate his theory.
Similarly, some forms of Christianity just think alot of what Jesus said about helping poor people is good and worthwhile, while rejecting his ideas that are immoral in the current moral zeitgeist. Not every form of religion adheres to bibliolatry as a core tenant.
Everyone down to Greece is over 50%, with a number of highly Christian countries being high up. Italy, Ireland and Spain are all high up the list. The vast majority fall within 60% to 80% regardless of Religion. The defining difference is conservative vs liberal rather than religious vs not.
Steve steveson wrote: Catholics, at least, see a conflict between religion and science not to be an issue with the science but a misunderstanding of the religion, which must be reassessed to reconcile it with the facts that are presented. This is true for many mainstream Christian denominations.
Yes, they've come a long way since the days of Copernicus -- because they have been forced to. Scientific discoveries, and modern attitudes towards morality and civil rights, have undermined the Catholic church to such a degree that they have now been forced to adopt this position of perpetual back peddling.
Now I see where your coming from here. Anything that does not fit your world view of "Religion is bad" you chose to ignore. You chose to ignore the fundamental force that the Catholic church has been in science, and the fact that I stated this. The amount of research they have done, and the reasons why. You chose to paint all religion as being backwards and only changing in the face of overwhelming evidence. You chose to completely ignore where I explain to you the principals of the Catholic church, that scientific discovery informs our understanding of faith. But then this does not fit the dogmatic rejection of faith you have.
Steve steveson wrote: Everyone down to Greece is over 50%, with a number of highly Christian countries being high up. Italy, Ireland and Spain are all high up the list. The vast majority fall within 60% to 80% regardless of Religion. The defining difference is conservative vs liberal rather than religious vs not.
Sure, and that would be a relevant counter-argument if the claim was that religion inevitably leads to rejecting science. But the original argument was that you can't dismiss "religious people who reject science because of their religion" as an irrelevant minority of extremists.
I'm arguing that a conservative viewpoint is at fault here. Religion is merely a lens through which people focus this closed minded view. It is the same force that drives the anti-climate change lobby, but they focus their close mindedness mostly through a lens of greed and capitalist dogma. It is not faith that is at fault, but close mindedness. It is not "religious people who reject science because of their religion" but "religious people who reject science because of their conservative view". Being open to new people, new ideas and new facts is what is needed, and people of all faiths or non are guilty of being close minded. The arguments they come out with may be different, but the basis is the same, and it's not religion.
jasper76 wrote: I'm going to take a swing for the "other team" here. Just because a book isn't 100% true doesnt necessitate that it is 100% false. For example, Darwin wasn't 100% correct in the Origin of Species , but that doesn't invalidate his theory.
But, Darwin wasn't writing a bible, and his word was never meant to be taken on faith. He discovered a natural phenomenon (that can be demonstrated mathematically), and proposed hypotheses based on that discovery. Whether those hypotheses panned out or not is beside the point.
When we are asked to take someones word on faith (for example a witness in court) then credibility becomes an important factor. If it can be shown that part of a testimony is false then it casts doubt over the whole thing.
I guess my point is, some forms of Christianity don't take the Bible much more seriously than you or I would take any other work of fiction..the literal truth of it isn't as important as the "life lessons" or whatever that are sprinkled there in. I know people like this. Why they wouldn't pick a better book is another question altogether, but there you have it.
Steve steveson wrote: I'm arguing that a conservative viewpoint is at fault here. Religion is merely a lens through which people focus this closed minded view. It is the same force that drives the anti-climate change lobby, but they focus their close mindedness mostly through a lens of greed and capitalist dogma. It is not faith that is at fault, but close mindedness. It is not "religious people who reject science because of their religion" but "religious people who reject science because of their conservative view". Being open to new people, new ideas and new facts is what is needed, and people of all faiths or non are guilty of being close minded. The arguments they come out with may be different, but the basis is the same, and it's not religion.
I think there are probably religious ideas feeding back into conservative viewpoints. But what you suggest sounds plausible to me, and echos some of what was said earlier in the thread.
Its the same thing that holds back nuclear energy, gave us the paranoia about mobile cell towers, stopped people getting their kids vaccinated with the MMR, and means some people refuse to have the flu jab. Fear, fear through close mindedness. The reasoning they give is different, but the background is the same. People will look to find "facts" that back up their fear rather than base fears on facts, wherever those facts come from.
Steve steveson wrote: Its the same thing that holds back nuclear energy, gave us the paranoia about mobile cell towers, stopped people getting their kids vaccinated with the MMR, and means some people refuse to have the flu jab. Fear, fear through close mindedness. The reasoning they give is different, but the background is the same. People will look to find "facts" that back up their fear rather than base fears on facts, wherever those facts come from.
So riddle me this: Why is the woman in the OP afraid of evolution. Its a triviality. Its not as though anyone thinks the concept causes radiation, gets you sick, leads to disease or unemployment. What is she afraid of?
Steve steveson wrote: You chose to completely ignore where I explain to you the principals of the Catholic church, that scientific discovery informs our understanding of faith.
I don't even know what that means to be honest.
From my point of view, this stuff was never true in the first place, which is why scientific discovery continually "informs" us that stuff we were supposed to take on faith was actually untrue. Adapting the lie to make it fit the current society doesn't make it any less of a lie.
EDIT: I think it might actually make it more of a lie...
Steve steveson wrote: Its the same thing that holds back nuclear energy, gave us the paranoia about mobile cell towers, stopped people getting their kids vaccinated with the MMR, and means some people refuse to have the flu jab. Fear, fear through close mindedness. The reasoning they give is different, but the background is the same. People will look to find "facts" that back up their fear rather than base fears on facts, wherever those facts come from.
So riddle me this: Why is the woman in the OP afraid of evolution. Its a triviality. Its not as though anyone thinks the concept causes radiation, gets you sick, leads to disease or unemployment. What is she afraid of?
I'll answer my own question: religion has given her the extravagant promise of eternal life. She got this promise from a book that also lays out a theory of how life came to exist. The theory of evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the Gensis theory, therefore the promise of eternal life is also called into question. She is afraid of death. Armchair psychiatry session free of charge
Steve steveson wrote: You chose to completely ignore where I explain to you the principals of the Catholic church, that scientific discovery informs our understanding of faith.
Steve steveson wrote: Its the same thing that holds back nuclear energy, gave us the paranoia about mobile cell towers, stopped people getting their kids vaccinated with the MMR, and means some people refuse to have the flu jab. Fear, fear through close mindedness. The reasoning they give is different, but the background is the same. People will look to find "facts" that back up their fear rather than base fears on facts, wherever those facts come from.
So riddle me this: Why is the woman in the OP afraid of evolution. Its a triviality. Its not as though anyone thinks the concept causes radiation, gets you sick, leads to disease or unemployment. What is she afraid of?
I'll answer my own question: religion has given her the extravagant promise of eternal life. She got this promise from a book that also lays out a theory of how life came to exist. The theory of evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the Gensis theory, therefore the promise of eternal life is also called into question. She is afraid of death. Armchair psychiatry session free of charge
Which is really the stupidest conclusion possible on her part. The all or nothing interpretation of the Bible (that is, every single thing in the Bible must be literally true or else the whole thing is a pack of lies) is so weak it's embarrassing.
The degree to which people's belief in aspects of religion is fragile, and how that influences their behavior, is an interesting subject. Indeed, the degree to which anyone can believe (at least subconsciously) in things like God, eternal life, and other supernatural truth claims is also an interesting question.
Beliefs don't really require the kind of constant reinforcement that is frequently practiced in religions. I don't need to go to a community meeting on a weekly basis to reinforce my belief that fire is hot. I don't need to meditate daily on the hotness of fire. I certainly don't need to make youtube videos explaining to people that fire is hot. I just know its hot, its part of my operating system that I take for granted. I would imagine the people with the most deeply held, secure religious beliefs are the most quiet about it, and not the one's making angry youtube rant videos.
Steve steveson wrote: You chose to completely ignore where I explain to you the principals of the Catholic church, that scientific discovery informs our understanding of faith.
I don't even know what that means to be honest.
That's part of the problem.
No doubt I left myself open to that snappy quip. I'd be more impressed however if you were able to explain what it means, since you obviously understand it so well?
Steve steveson wrote: You chose to completely ignore where I explain to you the principals of the Catholic church, that scientific discovery informs our understanding of faith.
I don't even know what that means to be honest.
That's part of the problem.
No doubt I left myself open to that snappy quip. I'd be more impressed however if you were able to explain what it means, since you obviously understand it so well?
Also, what problem are you referring to?
Without trying to speak for Steve steveson, my take on it is that scientific discovery can help to further one's understanding of the divine. If you believe that God created the universe, and gave humans the gift of a mind to think and reason with, then really, it's kind of your responsibility to think and reason and try to figure things out as much as you can. Theistic belief can help to explain the why, science can help to understand the how. That doesn't mean we always get everything right, but it certainly doesn't mean that we should shy away from things like science and thinking. For an example, there really isn't anything in the Bible that contradicts the theory of evolution. The biggest part of the issue is that a lot of anti-evolution Christians don't really have a grasp of what the theory is about, and don't really want to. If there is something that science is clearly showing us to be true that you feel contradicts your interpretation of a text, perhaps it is time to revisit that text. Perhaps your original interpretation of that text was flawed, or too hasty, and science can help you to discover a more nuanced, accurate understanding of the text in question, particularly if you use it as a catalyst to revisit the text.
And the problem that I was referring to in the previous post is the chronic misunderstanding that seems to occur between many theists and atheists.
Hordini wrote: For an example, there really isn't anything in the Bible that contradicts the theory of evolution.
But there is, and you don't have to get very far. The Bool of Genesis states that God created Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human race. But DNA and fossil evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the progenitor(s) of the human race, indeed all life on Earth from trees to bacteria to humans, was not a human at all. You have to "metaphor that story away" almost entirely in order to reconcile it with modern biology.
Hordini wrote: For an example, there really isn't anything in the Bible that contradicts the theory of evolution.
But there is, and you don't have to get very far. The Bool of Genesis states that God created Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human race. But DNA and fossil evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the progenitor(s) of the human race, indeed all life on Earth from trees to bacteria to humans, was not a human at all. You have to "metaphor that story away" almost entirely in order to reconcile it with modern biology.
Adam and Eve are not even the first humans mentioned in the Bible, so your interpretation of what the Bible says about the origins of humans appears to be a bit shaky.
Edit:
And having to "metaphor stories" is somewhat of the point since the Bible is not a scientific text. I think myself and a few others have already explained that we don't have a problem with the Bible giving the "what" and science giving the "how". So it seems a bit silly for us to say "it's not a science book, so it doesn't conflit for us" and for you to reply "yes it conflicts, let me use it as a science book to show you".
Just speaking for myself here: Genesis 1 just says that everything that is was created by God, that includes a planet full of humans. It doesn't say how the humans were created and for me there is zero conflict to think that the first humans in Genesis were the first members of the evolved race we consider humans today.
Well, I'll leave the Biblical expertise to you. In any case, the Book of Genesis as a literal story would only make sense if it started with an abiogenis event, followed by millions of years of gradual evolution by natural selection, leading to a group of hominids in Africa and all the slpendid lifeforms everywhere else.
It clearly does not literally say that, and that was my only point. A literal interpretation of Genesis being compatible with modern biology is right out (and that's to say nothing whatsoever of geology or astronomy).
Anyway, I know most people take this as a metaphorical origin story. That's the problem. It's presented as fact (it is very recent in history that people took the story as a metaphor). Lots of other stuff (like Jesus' existence and the events that are said to have happened in his life) are presented as fact, as well. Where does one draw a line in the sand?
Not my problem, I don't believe in this stuff to begin with
Just speaking for myself here: Genesis 1 just says that everything that is was created by God, that includes a planet full of humans. It doesn't say how the humans were created and for me there is zero conflict to think that the first humans in Genesis were the first members of the evolved race we consider humans today.
For what its worth, through literary analysis it is well known that Genesis is the combination of 2 (maybe 3, I can't remember) sources. There are actually multiple stories that were bashed together, and there are contradictions between them. I don't remember what they are, but its actually a very interesting topic.
The second story begins with Chapter 2, where God clearly is said to have created man out of clay (wrong) before there was any grass on the planet (wrong).
And having to "metaphor stories" is somewhat of the point since the Bible is not a scientific text. I think myself and a few others have already explained that we don't have a problem with the Bible giving the "what" and science giving the "how". So it seems a bit silly for us to say "it's not a science book, so it doesn't conflit for us" and for you to reply "yes it conflicts, let me use it as a science book to show you".
I was just responding to the assertion that there was nothing in the Bible that contradicted evolution.
If the assertion was "There is nothing in the Bible, besides stuff that can be dismissed as metaphor and/or poetry, that contradicts evolution", then I would not have responded at all.
The second story begins with Chapter 2, where God clearly is said to have created man out of clay (wrong) before there was any grass on the planet (wrong).
Depending on the translation it could be dust, and we are now thinking that the basic amino acids that started evolution came on meteorites (cosmic dust!), which would have landed on earth before there was any grass
Hordini wrote: For an example, there really isn't anything in the Bible that contradicts the theory of evolution.
But there is, and you don't have to get very far. The Bool of Genesis states that God created Adam and Eve as progenitors of the human race. But DNA and fossil evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the progenitor(s) of the human race, indeed all life on Earth from trees to bacteria to humans, was not a human at all. You have to "metaphor that story away" almost entirely in order to reconcile it with modern biology.
Only if you think that it wasn't always a metaphor. There is plenty of evidence to support that interpretation. There are a lot of problems with a completely literal interpretation of Genesis, long before you ever bring modern biology into it.
jasper76 wrote: I was just responding to the assertion that there was nothing in the Bible that contradicted evolution.
If the assertion was "There is nothing in the Bible, besides stuff that can be dismissed as metaphor and/or poetry, that contradicts evolution", then I would not have responded at all.
The only reason that I said the former without the caveat you included in the latter is because, outside of extreme literalism (which is theologically unsupportable) anyone who has done any Bible study at all knows that significant portions of the Bible are metaphorical. I was giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, which seems to have been a mistake on my part.
Hordini wrote: my take on it is that scientific discovery can help to further one's understanding of the divine. If you believe that God created the universe, and gave humans the gift of a mind to think and reason with, then really, it's kind of your responsibility to think and reason and try to figure things out as much as you can. Theistic belief can help to explain the why, science can help to understand the how. That doesn't mean we always get everything right, but it certainly doesn't mean that we should shy away from things like science and thinking.
Well I think that is perfectly reasonable, science might even end up proving the existence of a god like creator one day (who knows?). I could agree with you 100% if we were just talking about believing in a god (any god). But Christians don't just believe in any god, they believe quite specific things about him, what he wants, how he operates, how we speak to him. This is the part that strains belief. The only basis for these aspects of belief is the bible. But why should the bible be any more true than the million other religious texts?
If there is something that science is clearly showing us to be true that you feel contradicts your interpretation of a text, perhaps it is time to revisit that text. Perhaps your original interpretation of that text was flawed.
Yes, perhaps. But then perhaps the text is flawed. A text that seems to require extensive retconning and reinterpretation in order to fit the facts, is exactly what I would expect from a text that wasn't based on facts in the first place. If it was a scientific theory like the flat Earth, then it would just be considered debunked by now. We wouldn't have millions of people trying to reinterpret the word "flat" to try and keep it alive. If people want to treat this religious text differently because it is important to them, then I would say that those people have lost their objectivity, and with it their ability to reason properly.
jasper76 wrote: So, out of mere curiosity, who decides which stories were meant to be metaphors, and which ones were meant to be actual accounts?
(to me, they don't work as metaphors or actual accounts, so I'm not asking you to convince me of anything, I'm just curious how this gets decided)
To a certain extent, it's up to the reader. You're welcome to come up with whatever interpretation you want (however strong or weak that interpretation may be). That said, there is loads and loads of scholarship on the matter, both by religious and non-religious scholars. If you do some research on the subject, figuring out, for the most part, which sections are metaphors and which ones are more likely to be close to actual accounts, is not that difficult.
Smacks wrote: Which would involve an admission that at least part of the source text is irreconcilably false. And yet the rest is somehow definitely true? I think reason starts to break down at this point.
No, actually, that's wrong. It would only necessarily involve the absence of belief in a part of the source text. To lack a belief in a claim is not to necessarily argue that claim is false.
Additionally, to insinuate that because one part of a text is demonstrably false, the rest of it cannot be definitely true is to commit the fallacy of composition. It also seems that you are mixing the positions of multiple religious people into a single position, thereby creating a false equivalence.
jasper76 wrote: So, out of mere curiosity, who decides which stories were meant to be metaphors, and which ones were meant to be actual accounts?
(to me, they don't work as metaphors or actual accounts, so I'm not asking you to convince me of anything, I'm just curious how this gets decided)
To a certain extent, it's up to the reader. You're welcome to come up with whatever interpretation you want (however strong or weak that interpretation may be). That said, there is loads and loads of scholarship on the matter, both by religious and non-religious scholars. If you do some research on the subject, figuring out, for the most part, which sections are metaphors and which ones are more likely to be close to actual accounts, is not that difficult.
Cool. Its not a terribly interesting subject to me (litwral vs. metaphorical interpretations), as I find the core premise of an intelligent creator of the universe to be highly improbable, but I'll take your word for it, and I'm glad your church or religion or whatever takes that approach.
The only basis for these aspects of belief is the bible
And various statements by important Christians throughout the years, as well devotees of other Abrhamic religions.
Smacks wrote: If people want to treat this religious text differently because it is important to them, then I would say that those people have lost their objectivity, and with it their ability to reason properly.
One can lack objectivity and still reason properly, they're not mutually exclusive concepts. They can't be unless to reason properly is to be a person who lacks all emotion.
But differently from what? There are plenty of translations of non-religious texts that have gone through repeated revisions through translation.
I came here to be click baited, not to have a religion vs science argument.
But on that subject, surely it's not the ideas and such these people follow that is at fault, it's the terrible people who take it and twist it (or focus exclusively on a part that can be taken out of context to say smite the unbelievers) into something it's not, that should be derided.
dogma wrote: Additionally, to insinuate that because one part of a text is demonstrably false, the rest of it cannot be definitely true is to commit the fallacy of composition.
The fallacy of composition is one of the dangers of inductive reasoning, yet inductive reasoning is still a very powerful (essential) tool for exploring and discovering the truth. Argument from fallacy is not.
d-usa wrote: I don't dispute that at all. I was just pointing out they adherence to certain ideas despite evidence to the contrary is not something that is restricted to members of various religions.
Being a scientist doesn't mean you are free from that risk. Look at Mayim Bialik from the Big Bang Theory: PhD in neuroscience and still an anti-vaxxer.
People with closed minds can be found in all areas of life.
This is true, although I feel compelled to point out that just because scientists are human and therefore flawed, it does not mean that science (or more properly the scientific method) is flawed. Nor does some of those flawed people treating it (however unwittingly) as an ideology make it one.
Also, I never understood anti-vaxxers. I mean, even on the (nonexistent) chance that there is a chance of vaccinations causing autism, I would much, much, much rather deal with a (only possibly) autistic child than with my baby boy dying of a perfectly preventable disease.
Bran Dawri wrote: just because scientists are human and therefore flawed, it does not mean that science (or more properly the scientific method) is flawed.
People are imperfect but the system is perfect sounds awfully familiar.
Kilkrazy wrote: That "science" "works" despite the human foibles that individual scientists are prone to.
Science doesn't "work" when a scientist discards valid findings if they disagree with his personal dogma.
If a scientist sticks to theory A despite evidence that theory A is invalid and ignores all the evidence that theory B is correct then "science" won't work because it is based on faulty thinking.
And nothing in your statement counters the fact that there is documented evidence of dogmatic scientists clinging to outdated and wrong ideas, just like some non-scientists do.
Of course there are scientists who cling to ideas that might be disproved. Scientists are human. Humans are not infallible, ego-free, nor immune to the foibles of our mental processes... The whole point of the rationale behind the scientific method, however, is that it provides a methodology for correcting and/or accounting for those foibles. Or as Richard Feynman quipped, "Science is what we do to keep from lying to ourselves".
More directly, I'd strongly suggest reading Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" . The "problem" of changing scientific paradigms is well-known in the historiography and philosophy of science...
It's also absolutely worth pointing out that many, if not all, of the scientific discoveries that are universally lauded as being "great", are discoveries that directly, or indirectly, refute the previous paradigm. Those shifts do not happen quickly, but science lauds those who advance knowledge, even if (especially if?) it destroys the pre-existing paradigm.
easysauce wrote: what you and smacks are doing is no different then judging any other group by its extremists.
I did no such thing, and that is not my opinion. There are plenty of moderate religious people who are mostly benign. The only brush I tarred them all with is believing in a god, which is true by definition. This in itself is dangerous enough, as irrational beliefs lead to irrational actions.
easysauce wrote: Most people who are religious have 0 issues reconciling a religious text with current scientific ones too.
Yes, religious people like to pick and choose the parts that suit them, and quietly ignore the parts that are completely incompatible with modern science and morality. Which just shows how irrational these belief systems are. Why believe is something so strongly, while also admitting that you made up and changed parts yourself?
there you go again, painting with the broad brush
choosing bits and pieces to believe is not a religious trait, its a *human* one...
non religious people pick and choose what to believe as well, in the exact same way...
ask any liberal/conservative and you see them picking and choosing all the flipping time.
we made up scientific theories ourselves too, and changed them ourselves too, doesnt invalidate them... thats how religion and science are supposed to work, they are not static things never to change.
Trans people pick and choose, they accept the "evidence" in their heads that they are one gender over the evidence in their pants/genes.ect, so dont act like its only religious people who do it. And yet I would never call them "dangerous" or irrational as you did with all religious people.
If you expect religious people to treat your beliefs with respect, then treat their beliefs with respect too.
Calling out believing in god as dangerous and irrational is not different then calling out trans people as dangerous and irrational either.
If you dont want to be held as irrational and dangerous for your beliefs/faith/ect, dont call out other groups as such for theirs.
YOu are more then welcome to believe all religions are poppy cock, but stop furthering incorrect stereotypes at least., its offensive even if religions are the de jour "its ok to stereotype" group.
Steve steveson wrote: Its the same thing that holds back nuclear energy, gave us the paranoia about mobile cell towers, stopped people getting their kids vaccinated with the MMR, and means some people refuse to have the flu jab. Fear, fear through close mindedness. The reasoning they give is different, but the background is the same. People will look to find "facts" that back up their fear rather than base fears on facts, wherever those facts come from.
So riddle me this: Why is the woman in the OP afraid of evolution. Its a triviality. Its not as though anyone thinks the concept causes radiation, gets you sick, leads to disease or unemployment. What is she afraid of?
I would surmise that it challenges her religious world-view.
Every time you are presented with facts that contradict your beliefs, it is frightening. This happens to atheists and scientists too. Some people are mentally or emotionally strong enough not to dismiss the frightening new facts out of hand. "When the facts change, I change my mind."
The other point is that disbelieving in evolution is in the developed western world a characteristic of minority sects. Another characteristic of minority choice groups is their psychological need to preserve their distinct identity from the majority. Thus mocking evolution is an important behaviour for people who are members of groups that disbelieve in evolution.
That may sound like circular logic but of course it isn't logic, it is psychological pressures at work.
easysauce wrote: there you go again, painting with the broad brush
I'm not painting with a broad brush. It is virtually impossible to follow the bible literally. So all Christians pick and choose.
choosing bits and pieces to believe is not a religious trait, its a *human* one...
There is noting wrong with picking and choosing, but there is certainly something wrong with saying "my religion is true" when you don't even believe large chunks of it yourself. "Reinterpreting" the bible to say things it doesn't say (for example including dinosaurs) is fairly dishonest. The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs for the simple reason that the people who wrote it didn't know about them. They also didn't know much about the nature of the planets and the galaxy so that stuff isn't in there either. Creative "reinterpretation" aside.
I'm not sure why anyone would believe these people knew anything about god either. Given that no supernatural phenomenon of any kind has ever been proven, I think there is a very good chance they didn't know any more than we do. However, if they did know about god, and people are sure of that, then why pick and choose? This is the fundamental contradiction of Christian belief.
If there is a divine creator, then the chances of him being the same as the god worshiped by modern Christians seems impossible extremely improbable.
Steve steveson wrote: Its the same thing that holds back nuclear energy, gave us the paranoia about mobile cell towers, stopped people getting their kids vaccinated with the MMR, and means some people refuse to have the flu jab. Fear, fear through close mindedness. The reasoning they give is different, but the background is the same. People will look to find "facts" that back up their fear rather than base fears on facts, wherever those facts come from.
So riddle me this: Why is the woman in the OP afraid of evolution. Its a triviality. Its not as though anyone thinks the concept causes radiation, gets you sick, leads to disease or unemployment. What is she afraid of?
I would surmise that it challenges her religious world-view.
Every time you are presented with facts that contradict your beliefs, it is frightening. This happens to atheists and scientists too. Some people are mentally or emotionally strong enough not to dismiss the frightening new facts out of hand. "When the facts change, I change my mind."
The other point is that disbelieving in evolution is in the developed western world a characteristic of minority sects. Another characteristic of minority choice groups is their psychological need to preserve their distinct identity from the majority. Thus mocking evolution is an important behaviour for people who are members of groups that disbelieve in evolution.
That may sound like circular logic but of course it isn't logic, it is psychological pressures at work.
I'd responded to my own question earlier. I think fear of evolution (as well as fear of the age of the earth and the universe) is at root fear of death. To some people, if Biblical accounts of the material universe are untrue, that means that the Biblical promise of surviving death could also be untrue, and some people use Christianity (as well as other religions) to ameliorate the common fear of death. The degree to which they are consciously aware of why these things frighten them is an interesting question to me.
When you're related to someone in a given profession, it's not unusual for them to know other people in a similar profession
It's a shame none of them ever opted to prove their abilities under laboratory conditions.
Yes, that is a shame. Of course, nobody I know who works in IT, or in retail, or driving busses has ever proven their abilities under laboratory conditions, either.
That would have put to rest so many of our questions about life and death in one easy sitting.
Given that laboratory testing of anything to do with psychic ability has always been somewhat fruitless, I'm not sure what you would expect from it.
I think deep down these people know they are (at best) deluding themselves, and at worst taking advantage of other people's gullibility and need for closure.
I think that deep down people who make baseless generalisations from their own prejudice about people they don't know realise that their behaviour is not particularly rational or polite, but unfortunately there's no laboratory test for that either.
..... I have just lost braincells to that. Someone please relocate a ballistic missile onto her head. Killing braincells via stupidity should be a major crime
It's a shame none of them ever opted to prove their abilities under laboratory conditions.
Yes, that is a shame. Of course, nobody I know who works in IT, or in retail, or driving busses has ever proven their abilities under laboratory conditions, either.
Bus drivers are not claiming to have supernatural abilities. I'm sure any of them would be happy to prove their ability to drive a bus is genuine for one million dollars.
Given that laboratory testing of anything to do with psychic ability has always been somewhat fruitless, I'm not sure what you would expect from it.
They have always been fruitless because psychic ability isn't a real thing. If it were then it would be solid proof of life after death, the human soul etc... I'd also expect more psychics to, y'know, win the lottery.
I think that deep down people who make baseless generalisations from their own prejudice about people they don't know realise that their behaviour is not particularly rational or polite, but unfortunately there's no laboratory test for that either.
Well it isn't baseless. What is baseless is the assertion that people have psychic powers. Saying that they categorically do not, is a perfectly rational conclusion based on the fact that no one has ever been able to prove they have powers under any kind of scrutiny.
Yes it is. Nobody is disputing the fact that "psychic powers" do not exist. The issue is that you're assuming that everyone who claims to have them is engaging in deliberate fraud, when this clearly isn't true. There are obviously a lot of frauds out there, but there are also people who sincerely believe that their "powers" are real. And there are ways to talk about those people being wrong without calling them frauds or other forum-rule-violating names.
I think it's likely that psychic powers don't exist, but we lack the scientific methods necessary to completely rule them out. Look at that allison dubois medium show - sure i know that 'based off a true story' probably means that only the name is true, but there's enough circumstancial evidence to merit the hypothesis that she may be precognitive in real life.
Science is the means, not the end. I agree with the person that said some people just hold (in their example conservative) views, and use them as justification for their behaviour. I always liked the south park episode where the atheists took over the world and were warring with each other because "its not enough to be right about something if you can't be a douche about it".
Torga_DW wrote: I think it's likely that psychic powers don't exist, but we lack the scientific methods necessary to completely rule them out. Look at that allison dubois medium show - sure i know that 'based off a true story' probably means that only the name is true, but there's enough circumstancial evidence to merit the hypothesis that she may be precognitive in real life.
Science is the means, not the end. I agree with the person that said some people just hold (in their example conservative) views, and use them as justification for their behaviour. I always liked the south park episode where the atheists took over the world and were warring with each other because "its not enough to be right about something if you can't be a douche about it".
As Smack alluded to, there is a million dollars up for grabs for someone who can pass James Randi's test. If I believed I had psychic powers, I would jump on it. Its been around for almost 20 years now, and no winners.
I never know what to make of these things. Don't have access to better journals until I get back to school so I'm not able to research it better.
From personal experience gained by working in the medical field for 13 years I have observed that prayer (at least for people who pray or know that they are being prayed for) can work. Even coworkers that are atheists agree that prayer can improve outcomes. Does that mean that it is proof of God doing something, that answer will depend on who you are asking. But it is well documented that people have improved outcomes from various placebo effects, and that patients with more positive views of what is happening often have better outcomes. So a person that prays might get better for the same reason that the person who gets the blue sugar pill gets better. But it means that prayer can work, even if it doesn't work the way the person praying thinks it does.
Positive thinking has a powerful effect on people.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that prayer, or knowing you are prayed for, would have a stress relieving effect on those who believe in its efficacy...hell, I think just knowing that people are thinking about you and care about you would have a healing effect. Being sick is quite worrisome!
Torga_DW wrote: I think it's likely that psychic powers don't exist, but we lack the scientific methods necessary to completely rule them out. Look at that allison dubois medium show - sure i know that 'based off a true story' probably means that only the name is true, but there's enough circumstancial evidence to merit the hypothesis that she may be precognitive in real life.
Science is the means, not the end. I agree with the person that said some people just hold (in their example conservative) views, and use them as justification for their behaviour. I always liked the south park episode where the atheists took over the world and were warring with each other because "its not enough to be right about something if you can't be a douche about it".
Of course science can't rule out psychic powers. Claiming that can be a goal shows a misunderstanding of how science works. Science can't prove that something doesn't exist... What science can do is make rigorous observations and generate theories, with falsifiable hypotheses, that best fit those observations.
What science can say in this case is that there are no rigorous observations that support a hypothesis that psychic powers are real. Moreover, based on all of the other, tested, hypotheses that currently make up our understanding of the wold, there is no, plausible, mechanism by which psychic powers could work. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim. Provide rigorous, repeatable, observations that psychic powers exist, then come up with a falsifiable hypothesis for how they work and, finally, survive the no-doubt very critical peer-review process, and you would convince the world that they're real. It's that simple. Heck, you could probably even get away with leaving the hypothesis part to someone else. Just provide the rigorous, repeatable, observations and you'd probably be golden...
That's it. But no one's surmounted that hurdle yet...
Smacks wrote: [Saying that they categorically do not, is a perfectly rational conclusion based on the fact that no one has ever been able to prove they have powers under any kind of scrutiny.
Smacks wrote: [Saying that they categorically do not, is a perfectly rational conclusion based on the fact that no one has ever been able to prove they have powers under any kind of scrutiny.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
This is true. I, however, am a "put your mouth where the money is" kind of guy. If you or someone you know believes they have psychic powers, take the Randi Challenge. Its worth a million friggin bucks! If I could do some crazy gak with my noggin, I'd be the first one to cash in!
At some point it starts to be. If there is an absence of proof (or even hints that proof might exist) despite vast amounts of effort invested into finding that proof then the most likely explanation is "nope, doesn't exist". It might not be 100% proof by the strictest dictionary definition of the word, but just like in a lot of other contexts it's reasonable to define "proof" as "evidence beyond any reasonable doubt".
Regardless, this seems to have missed the point somewhat. I didn't say I know people with genuine psychic ability. I said I know people who think they have that ability.
There is no scientific evidence of the existence of God. That doesn't mean that everyone who days they believe in God is lying. It just means they believe in something that has no empirical proof.
Same thing here. Smacks claimed to dislike psychics on the basis that they deliberately mislead people. My point was simply that this is a large claim to make, and from my personal experience is simply not true.
Whether out not you believe in psychic ability has no bearing on whether or not the people who claim to be psychic do.
insaniak wrote: Regardless, this seems to have missed the point somewhat. I didn't say I know people with genuine psychic ability. I said I know people who think they have that ability.
There is no scientific evidence of the existence of God. That doesn't mean that everyone who days they believe in God is lying. It just means they believe in something that has no empirical proof.
Same thing here. Smacks claimed to dislike psychics on the basis that they deliberately mislead people. My point was simply that this is a large claim to make, and from my personal experience is simply not true.
Whether out not you believe in psychic ability has no bearing on whether or not the people who claim to be psychic do.
For the record I already posted my agreement with this:
Nobody is disputing the fact that "psychic powers" do not exist. The issue is that you're assuming that everyone who claims to have them is engaging in deliberate fraud, when this clearly isn't true. There are obviously a lot of frauds out there, but there are also people who sincerely believe that their "powers" are real. And there are ways to talk about those people being wrong without calling them frauds or other forum-rule-violating names.
insaniak wrote: Regardless, this seems to have missed the point somewhat. I didn't say I know people with genuine psychic ability. I said I know people who think they have that ability.
There is no scientific evidence of the existence of God. That doesn't mean that everyone who days they believe in God is lying. It just means they believe in something that has no empirical proof.
Same thing here. Smacks claimed to dislike psychics on the basis that they deliberately mislead people. My point was simply that this is a large claim to make, and from my personal experience is simply not true.
Whether out not you believe in psychic ability has no bearing on whether or not the people who claim to be psychic do.
FWIW, I agree with you. I think there are people that are convinced (at least at a conscious level) that they do have psychich powers. I have met several such people who certainly seemed to have convinced themselves of such, and weren't trying to make a dime off of it.
Hordini wrote: my take on it is that scientific discovery can help to further one's understanding of the divine. If you believe that God created the universe, and gave humans the gift of a mind to think and reason with, then really, it's kind of your responsibility to think and reason and try to figure things out as much as you can. Theistic belief can help to explain the why, science can help to understand the how. That doesn't mean we always get everything right, but it certainly doesn't mean that we should shy away from things like science and thinking.
Well I think that is perfectly reasonable, science might even end up proving the existence of a god like creator one day (who knows?). I could agree with you 100% if we were just talking about believing in a god (any god). But Christians don't just believe in any god, they believe quite specific things about him, what he wants, how he operates, how we speak to him. This is the part that strains belief. The only basis for these aspects of belief is the bible. But why should the bible be any more true than the million other religious texts?
If there is something that science is clearly showing us to be true that you feel contradicts your interpretation of a text, perhaps it is time to revisit that text. Perhaps your original interpretation of that text was flawed.
Yes, perhaps. But then perhaps the text is flawed. A text that seems to require extensive retconning and reinterpretation in order to fit the facts, is exactly what I would expect from a text that wasn't based on facts in the first place. If it was a scientific theory like the flat Earth, then it would just be considered debunked by now. We wouldn't have millions of people trying to reinterpret the word "flat" to try and keep it alive. If people want to treat this religious text differently because it is important to them, then I would say that those people have lost their objectivity, and with it their ability to reason properly.
If I am wrong, please correct me, but I get the feeling that you are assuming that at one point, every part of the Bible was intended to be read literally. The reality is, however, that there are portions of the Bible that were never intended to be read literally. A lot of the extreme Bibilical literalism that we see today is actually, historically speaking, rather new, and not in line with how many Christians throughout history have viewed the text.
The woman doing this video is an ignorant buffoon. She keeps reading sonething and then saying 'how do they know? They don't say, no one knows because it's just a guess'.
Actually if she read the exhibition more closely there are explanations there. And if she went home and read a book there would be more in depth explanations there too. The fact she doesn't know something does not mean that no one in the world knows. How big headed is that? Can't she appreciate that there are people who know and study more than her.
Then she dismisses it all as 100 year old science we are still teaching our children. Presumably she prefers a 2000 year old story book.
All that is in the first minute or two. I skipped on a bit and its mostly the same. She reads a line and immediately says 'how can they know that? They're just guessing and making it up'. She doesn't actually try to engage with the exhibition which actually looks very good.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The woman doing this video is an ignorant buffoon. She keeps reading sonething and then saying 'how do they know? They don't say, no one knows because it's just a guess'.
Actually if she read the exhibition more closely there are explanations there. And if she went home and read a book there would be more in depth explanations there too. The fact she doesn't know something does not mean that no one in the world knows. How big headed is that? Can't she appreciate that there are people who know and study more than her.
Then she dismisses it all as 100 year old science we are still teaching our children. Presumably she prefers a 2000 year old story book.
All that is in the first minute or two. I skipped on a bit and its mostly the same. She reads a line and immediately says 'how can they know that? They're just guessing and making it up'. She doesn't actually try to engage with the exhibition which actually looks very good.
I don't think many people would disagree with you. It's pretty embarrassing to watch her, really.
I never know what to make of these things. Don't have access to better journals until I get back to school so I'm not able to research it better.
There was also a Harvard study (quite a large one IIIRC) where the people who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worst. It seems to be fairly random. Even in this study, the results are probably within the realms of chance. It's not very compelling.
Yes it is. Nobody is disputing the fact that "psychic powers" do not exist. The issue is that you're assuming that everyone who claims to have them is engaging in deliberate fraud
Well then there is no issue because I am not assuming that at all. Here is what I wrote:
"I think deep down these people know they are (at best) deluding themselves"
If you agree that psychic powers aren't real, then you must agree that someone who thinks they have them is deluding themselves. That is not baseless. I will admit that there is a bit of a contradiction in the idea of "knowing" you are deluding yourself, but it seems to me that it would be hard not to notice, and have some doubts. I said the worst of them were committing deliberate fraud and this is a fact, the television psychics even need a disclaimer for this reason. But I certainly do not assume all are frauds. Some are just delusional.
Which is a more compelling argument when something is difficult to test (such as the flying spaghetti monster). Psychic powers, however, are easy to test, and have always been demonstrably untrue.
Hordini wrote: If I am wrong, please correct me, but I get the feeling that you are assuming that at one point, every part of the Bible was intended to be read literally. The reality is, however, that there are portions of the Bible that were never intended to be read literally. A lot of the extreme Bibilical literalism that we see today is actually, historically speaking, rather new, and not in line with how many Christians throughout history have viewed the text.
I don't really want to get sidetracked, so I will say that my main assumption is that the people who wrote the Bible (the old testament at least), had no special knowledge of god, and that it was created mostly from imagination (or more accurately borrowed from Sumerian mythology). Evidence for this is their apparent lack of knowledge regarding the Solar system and its formation. There is also no evidence for a global flood, and the populations and timelines for Human and animal populations and dispersion does not fit. Many stories also bear a striking similarity to other ancient myths that would probably be considered blasphemous (containing other gods).
While the stories might be interesting and even informative, I see nothing that suggests they have any divine origin, and plenty which suggests they definitely do not (or it has at very least become distorted beyond all useful recognition).
Smacks wrote: If you agree the psychic powers aren't real, then you must agree that someone who thinks they have them is deluding themselves. That is not baseless.
It's baseless because your initial assumption (that psychic powers aren't real) has no basis other than your own belief.
Psychic powers, however, are easy to test, and have always been demonstrably untrue.
Which certainly might mean that they don't exist.
It might also just mean that we've been doing the wrong tests. Or doing them on the wrong people.
Testing whether or not a cookie has choc chips is also an easy test. If I perform that test on a million gingernuts, does that mean that choc chic cookies mustn't be real?
insaniak wrote: It's baseless because your initial assumption (that psychic powers aren't real) has no basis other than your own belief.
No that is incorrect. Just because it is not possible to disprove psychic abilities with 100% certainty (or anything else for that matter) does not mean an argument against them is 'baseless'. The argument against psychic abilities existing is strong. The argument for them is based only on anecdotal evidence and superstition.
Also the burden of proof is not on me. It is on the people who are making these extraordinary claims. Since none of them have ever been able to demonstrate their abilities in a controlled environment, despite hundreds of years of opportunity. It is difficult to take them seriously. Refusing to believe wild unsubstantiated claims is a rational response based in logic and reason (especially when it comes to something as worn out as psychic powers).
To quote some hitchhikers guide "it has been signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters." They do not exist.
Unless you have some 'new' evidence to put forward (which you don't), I suggest we move on.
Smacks wrote: [Saying that they categorically do not, is a perfectly rational conclusion based on the fact that no one has ever been able to prove they have powers under any kind of scrutiny.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
smacks doenst understand, that every single theory we have today that is now proven, was once unprovable.
electrons, microorganisms, ect, were all things were dismissed as crazy lunatic theories that were unprovable at the time.
right now, there is as much proof for collective unconscious information sharing (which could be proof that some people can see forward/back in time, which is a scientific possibility, though as of now unproven) as there is proof that someone with male genitals/genes/ect is a woman because they feel/think/say they are.
not to mention, despite the offensive stereotype that "religious people dont do science", many of our best achievements in science were done by people of one religion or another.
Einstein is smarter then smacks, he believed whole heartedly in god and science, as did many of the great thinkers of our time.
religion after, was just the first attempt to understand ourselves and the world we live it, while it may have fallen behind in being a scientific description of the world we live in, religions are still very good at theories on ourselves IE "do unto others what you want done to you" is still a correct moral statement., dont steal, dont cheat, dont lie, and so on.
easysauce wrote: every single theory we have today that is now proven, was once unprovable.
Well that's debatable seeing as they somehow found credibility anyway. And sorry, but that does not give you carte blanche to parade any and all unprovable nonsense as the more credible sounding "waiting to be proved". For every scientific theory we have today there are about a million nonsense ideas that never panned out.
Einstein is smarter then smacks, he believed whole heartedly in god and science, as did many of the great thinkers of our time.
And both are smarter than you. You don't seem to understand the difference between believing in a god and believing in the biblical god. Einstein's views on religion were complex, he rejected many common notions about god, and frequently referred to himself as agnostic. Baring in mind he was born 135 years ago in quite a different time. In any case, dragging Einstein into this is a fairly weak way to prop up your argument. Einstein wasn't infallible, nor was he an expert on god, or privy to any special information about god that we are not. His personal views though interesting are irrelevant.
This is worth pausing for thought on. It's not like psychics haven't been given a chance. James Randi spent decades investigating psychic claims, and offered huge sums of money to anyone who could display psychic abilities. He is not alone. The idea of psychic powers was not 'dismissed' they were given every opportunity, and were shown to be crazy lunatic theories anyway. Psychic abilities and payer are not "unprovable" they should be fairly easy to prove if they actually worked. The proof is in the pudding.
People who think they have psychic abilities are either knowingly deceptive or are delusional.
Psychics prey on the vulnerable and are no better than any other con artist.
As soon as somebody starts asking for money to give you comfort/tell you what you want to hear alarm bells should be ringing. "Your relative from beyond the grave says hello", "Those money worries will go away". Unless I can walk up to a psychic and they do a blind reading on me I will continue to hold this belief and take the conclusions of the various tests that have been done over the years, and the frauds exposed, to be true.
Giving them some kind of faux credibility on knowingly shaky ground is pretty sickening in my mind. I'm not sure whether it's because you think it's an easy jump to disprove psychics to your particular religion. Surely psychics have nothing today with major religions? Honest question.
Hive Fleet Cerberus wrote: The best bit would have to be when she said Dragons disprove evolution and prove that humans lived with dinosaurs.
She said that? Where?
It is towards the end of the video. Though in her defense the skull she is talking about really does look like a dragon!
Spoiler:
Though it's still really stupid because the dragons in films obviously aren't based on real dragons anyway. The artists use smaller lizards as a reference.
What is the movie in there where the woman is fighting Germans? And throws an Axe into the nice gentlemans chest?
Suckerpunch
Watched parts of the video, and it is amusing at points, it clearly is proof that evolution does not exist, such stupidity cannot be naturally evolved, or she must be an alien!
jasper76 wrote: It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that prayer, or knowing you are prayed for, would have a stress relieving effect on those who believe in its efficacy...hell, I think just knowing that people are thinking about you and care about you would have a healing effect. Being sick is quite worrisome!
Here are the results of the STEP project run by the Templeton Foundation;
jasper76 wrote: It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that prayer, or knowing you are prayed for, would have a stress relieving effect on those who believe in its efficacy...hell, I think just knowing that people are thinking about you and care about you would have a healing effect. Being sick is quite worrisome!
Here are the results of the STEP project run by the Templeton Foundation;
TLDR; Prayers didn't help at all. A slightly negative effect was seen in people who knew they were prayed for.
Ah, well...I was just wondering if preyer would act like meditation and have a calming effect that helped the body heal, and that other people's prayer might act in a way like Get Well cards or flowers, raising the person's spirits and what not, and having a positive effect. I wasn't ever talking about anything supernatural (the term itself is an oxymoron if I've ever seen one).
jasper76 wrote: It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that prayer, or knowing you are prayed for, would have a stress relieving effect on those who believe in its efficacy...hell, I think just knowing that people are thinking about you and care about you would have a healing effect. Being sick is quite worrisome!
Here are the results of the STEP project run by the Templeton Foundation;
TLDR; Prayers didn't help at all. A slightly negative effect was seen in people who knew they were prayed for.
Ah, well...I was just wondering if preyer would act like meditation and have a calming effect that helped the body heal, and that other people's prayer might act in a way like Get Well cards or flowers, raising the person's spirits and what not, and having a positive effect. I wasn't ever talking about anything supernatural (the term itself is an oxymoron if I've ever seen one).
Yeah, it seemed to have a (slight) effect in the opposite direction.
One could hypothesize that the knowledge of "things being in the hands of a greater power" made people "fight" less for themselves.
I agree with you on the concept of "supernatural".
Words like "supernatural", "magic" or "miracle" are vague and worthless terms.
Hordini wrote: my take on it is that scientific discovery can help to further one's understanding of the divine. If you believe that God created the universe, and gave humans the gift of a mind to think and reason with, then really, it's kind of your responsibility to think and reason and try to figure things out as much as you can. Theistic belief can help to explain the why, science can help to understand the how. That doesn't mean we always get everything right, but it certainly doesn't mean that we should shy away from things like science and thinking.
Well I think that is perfectly reasonable, science might even end up proving the existence of a god like creator one day (who knows?). I could agree with you 100% if we were just talking about believing in a god (any god). But Christians don't just believe in any god, they believe quite specific things about him, what he wants, how he operates, how we speak to him. This is the part that strains belief. The only basis for these aspects of belief is the bible. But why should the bible be any more true than the million other religious texts?
If there is something that science is clearly showing us to be true that you feel contradicts your interpretation of a text, perhaps it is time to revisit that text. Perhaps your original interpretation of that text was flawed.
Yes, perhaps. But then perhaps the text is flawed. A text that seems to require extensive retconning and reinterpretation in order to fit the facts, is exactly what I would expect from a text that wasn't based on facts in the first place. If it was a scientific theory like the flat Earth, then it would just be considered debunked by now. We wouldn't have millions of people trying to reinterpret the word "flat" to try and keep it alive. If people want to treat this religious text differently because it is important to them, then I would say that those people have lost their objectivity, and with it their ability to reason properly.
If I am wrong, please correct me, but I get the feeling that you are assuming that at one point, every part of the Bible was intended to be read literally. The reality is, however, that there are portions of the Bible that were never intended to be read literally. A lot of the extreme Bibilical literalism that we see today is actually, historically speaking, rather new, and not in line with how many Christians throughout history have viewed the text.
The bible does not contain reliable information. Then everything in it is dismissible unless supported by third parties...
"No creationist wakes up in the morning and says, 'I have really strong opinions about whether Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of modern birds,'" he said.* "Who are we as people? That’s the question that they think evolution is answering. What does it mean to be a person? What does it mean to be an animal?"
In other words, the cliche of pitting science against religion is a category error, to a certain extent: Evolutionary biology provides certain insights into the mechanisms of how human life has formed and changed over time, but it can't provide insight into the meaning behind those changes. Yet the meaning part is often what matters in vitriolic "debates" about the origins of life.
“The psychological need to see purpose, that is really interesting," said Jeffrey Hardin, a professor of zoology at the University of Wisconsin, at the Faith Angle Forum in Miami on Tuesday. “Many Christians consider Neo-Darwinian theory to be dysteleological, or lacking in purpose." Hardin is himself an evangelical Christian; he often speaks with church communities about evolution in his work with the BioLogos Foundation. In these conversations, he said, many evangelicals point to statements like that of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, who wrote in his 1967 book, The Meaning of Evolution, "Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned." When this is echoed by outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Hardin said, "Evangelicals look at it and go, ‘I can’t accept that, and therefore I cannot accept thinking at all about evolutionary biology.'"
Hardin said, "Evangelicals look at it and go, ‘I can’t accept that, and therefore I cannot accept thinking at all about evolutionary biology.'"
If true does this also argue for the corollary, i.e. that you can educate people into disbelieving in evolution?
Obviously there are people in the world who disbelieve in evolution and believe in the literal true of the Bible story. They did not assume that position from genetic causes, presumably.
In these conversations, he said, many evangelicals point to statements like that of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, who wrote in his 1967 book, The Meaning of Evolution, "Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned." When this is echoed by outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Hardin said, "Evangelicals look at it and go, ‘I can’t accept that, and therefore I cannot accept thinking at all about evolutionary biology.
Thanks for sharing this d-usa. It is interesting to see what motivates people on the other side of an issue. I have heard Richard Dawkins say in interviews that he believes evolution is incompatible with the idea of god. I haven't heard all his arguments for why he thinks that, but I can see how it certainly rocks some of the foundations. The concept of 'design' gets changed to 'guided evolution', which sounds fine at first "evolution is god's tool for designing life" right? But I think cracks start to appear in this idea. Evolution doesn't need guiding, it works fine on its own. In fact that's the whole idea. If god wanted to pilot, then why use a self guiding system -- and if he was 'guiding' evolution, then how much can we really say he has contributed? Surely not all the weird design mistakes. God just seems to end up being redundant in the whole process. He isn't needed to explain anything.
I can understand why this might not be what people wanted to hear, but to not be able to accept it at all seems quite messed up to me. For someone to basically say "I can only believe in a reality that was created for me, and which I am the centre of" seems sort of narcissistic. And it ends up as an argument from incredulity, which is of course no argument at all.
It is interesting to see what specifically the resistance is, but it still doesn't seem to be based on any kind of reason. It seems to just be an emotional response (which looks worryingly like denial if I'm honest).
Bishop F Gantry wrote: The bible does not contain reliable information. Then everything in it is dismissible unless supported by third parties...
This is demonstrably false.
Its actually demosntrably true. Still the best example of the unreliability in the Bible comes from Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason".
But the point can be made just by looking at Kings and then looking at Chronicles. (These are meant to be histories, and not metaphorical, by all accounts). It messes up the ages of kings when they started their reigns all over the place. One book says so and so was 8 years old, and reigned three months, the other says he was 18 and reigned three months. As factual information, the Bible is not to be trusted, because the accounts therein so frequently disagree with eachother. And this is all just within the Bible itself. No external resources are required.
For example,
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
And elsewhere
2KI 8:26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2CH 22:2: Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: The bible does not contain reliable information. Then everything in it is dismissible unless supported by third parties...
This is demonstrably false.
Correct.
The bible has many historical facts in it.
Infact on face value it is just a history of the world. Just highly romanticized.
Science is no stranger to unreliable information.
Theories can be disproven, (laws can as well, because they are created by human logic, which will always be flawed)
God cannot. There is no proof and there is nothing to disprove. Science does not deal with philisophy or ideals. It deals with science, physics, logic. Not thinking of the why.
Science is concerned with how is this made, not for why the sky is blue. (Meaning why is it blue, the philisophical why, not the scientific why.)
When I ask why is it blue, I am asking why is it blue and not green, why is snow white? I am not asking how is it blue, and then you go into detail telling me because of solar rays or something along those lines.
She has a few. *By a few I mean limited amount are actually right.*
easysauce wrote: Einstein is smarter then smacks, he believed whole heartedly in god and science, as did many of the great thinkers of our time.
True, Albert Einstein was not an atheist. However he was at best pantheistic, much in the same vein as Spinoza (who heavily influenced his religious views) but often preferred to call himself agnostic. He was skeptical of a personal and anthropomorphic god, and he dismissed belief in them as "childlike." He was also a humanist, and served on the board of First Humanist Society of New York. He wasn't religious at all, yet the religious have tried to paint him as such for years, probably because he wasn't an atheist and often wrote about "god." Those writings are taken out of context, and when combined with a general lack of understanding about the man, are easy to use as "proof" that the devout can count Einstein as one of their own.
His views were complex, though he was by his own admission a religious nonbeliever. I think one of my favorite quotes by him sums that up pretty well:
Albert Einstein wrote:“A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
In these conversations, he said, many evangelicals point to statements like that of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, who wrote in his 1967 book, The Meaning of Evolution, "Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned." When this is echoed by outspoken atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Hardin said, "Evangelicals look at it and go, ‘I can’t accept that, and therefore I cannot accept thinking at all about evolutionary biology.
Thanks for sharing this d-usa. It is interesting to see what motivates people on the other side of an issue. I have heard Richard Dawkins say in interviews that he believes evolution is incompatible with the idea of god. I haven't heard all his arguments for why he thinks that, but I can see how it certainly rocks some of the foundations.
I think the article does a good job at explaining my main view about evolution and my faith: Evolution and science answers "how", but it really doesn't answer the "why" and it doesn't really have any interest in answering it.
Biology cares about how evolution happens, the process that species undergo, how they adapt and develop. Biology couldn't care less if the process is guided with some secret strings behind the scenes by a magical sky-being and as far as the science is concerned evolution doesn't do anything to prove or disprove the magical sky being and it's completely neutral on the subject.
So when some people load evolution with emotional baggage claiming that evolution proves that God doesn't exist and everything about their faith is wrong then some people will naturally go on the defensive about that. Individuals on both sides are stupid for trying to make a scientific issue the burden of proof for the existence of God.
d-usa wrote: I think the article does a good job at explaining my main view about evolution and my faith: Evolution and science answers "how", but it really doesn't answer the "why" and it doesn't really have any interest in answering it.
That of course assumes that there is a 'why' (and I'm certainly not implying there isn't) ...
For myself though, I find "because god" quite unsatisfying. What is god? Where did he come from? Why did he want to make all this stuff? Why does he have human emotions such as 'wanting'? Has he made other universes? Why would he look like us? Why time and space? Why did he make maths? Why three dimensions and not four? Why can't we go faster than light? What's time dilation for? What's his plan for after the universe ends?
On the other hand, if there is no god and all this stuff exists for no reason, then I'm forced to wonder why there is any stuff at all? Why not just have nothing? This leads me to Lawrence Krausses idea that 'nothing' is essentially unstable. In many ways the universe is just an expression of nothing anyway (-1+1). Nothing is actually quite difficult to imagine, it always needs to be represented in my head by (at very least) some black, and would still be the philosophical counterpart to 'something'. Perhaps 'nothing' and everything are kind of the same. Like different sides of one chaotic coin. Not really able to truly exist or not exist. Perhaps we exist because everything that can exist must exist somewhere in the multiverse. Every mathematical possibility must be expressed. Creation doesn't just exist, it's inevitable.
Of course this doesn't rule out god, It might even make him inevitable too, and everything else that we can dream up, and everything that we can't. But that doesn't mean he is currently part of our universe. Our universe appears to be quite well ordered, which I could probably put down to the anthropic principle, or perhaps we just see it as ordered because we live here. A consciousness from another universe might find our universe mind bendingly crazy and chaotic.
d-usa wrote: Biology couldn't care less if the process is guided with some secret strings behind the scenes by a magical sky-being
Actually it does care, because biology works to provide a explanation that is complete without resorting to "divine guidance" as an explanation. In the ideal, complete, version of biology there is no room for that guidance, and talking about god's involvement is redundant in the same way that it doesn't make sense to say "1+1+X=2". Adding in a god requires claiming one of two things:
1) The theories and evidence of biology will never be adequate to explain what happened, since there is a guidance factor that works outside of genes/natural selection/etc. This might not be as blatantly anti-scientific as young-earth creationism, but it's still an attack on the fundamental concepts of how science works.
or
2) God had no involvement once life began, and evolution (or whatever other scientific theory replaces/supplements it) is sufficient to explain everything.
Now, it's certainly possible to believe in a "divine watchmaker" that created a universe with potential and then stepped back to watch what happened, but that's the exact opposite of proposing a god that provided guidance for evolution. And, in my experience, the "divine watchmaker" has very little to do with the gods that most people actually believe in and have in mind when they talk about god guiding the process of evolution.
d-usa wrote: Biology couldn't care less if the process is guided with some secret strings behind the scenes by a magical sky-being
Actually it does care, because biology works to provide a explanation that is complete without resorting to "divine guidance" as an explanation. In the ideal, complete, version of biology there is no room for that guidance, and talking about god's involvement is redundant in the same way that it doesn't make sense to say "1+1+X=2". Adding in a god requires claiming one of two things:
1) The theories and evidence of biology will never be adequate to explain what happened, since there is a guidance factor that works outside of genes/natural selection/etc. This might not be as blatantly anti-scientific as young-earth creationism, but it's still an attack on the fundamental concepts of how science works.
or
2) God had no involvement once life began, and evolution (or whatever other scientific theory replaces/supplements it) is sufficient to explain everything.
Now, it's certainly possible to believe in a "divine watchmaker" that created a universe with potential and then stepped back to watch what happened, but that's the exact opposite of proposing a god that provided guidance for evolution. And, in my experience, the "divine watchmaker" has very little to do with the gods that most people actually believe in and have in mind when they talk about god guiding the process of evolution.
Is evolution proof that there is a God?
Is evolution proof that there is no God?
Is our understanding of evolution hurt by any ability or inability to prove either?
d-usa wrote: I think the article does a good job at explaining my main view about evolution and my faith: Evolution and science answers "how", but it really doesn't answer the "why" and it doesn't really have any interest in answering it.
That of course assumes that there is a 'why' (and I'm certainly not implying there isn't) ...
For myself though, I find "because god" quite unsatisfying. What is god? Where did he come from? Why did he want to make all this stuff? Why does he have human emotions such as 'wanting'? Has he made other universes? Why would he look like us? Why time and space? Why did he make maths? Why three dimensions and not four? Why can't we go faster than light? What's time dilation for? What's his plan for after the universe ends?
On the other hand, if there is no god and all this stuff exists for no reason, then I'm forced to wonder why there is any stuff at all? Why not just have nothing? This leads me to Lawrence Krausses idea that 'nothing' is essentially unstable. In many ways the universe is just an expression of nothing anyway (-1+1). Nothing is actually quite difficult to imagine, it always needs to be represented in my head by (at very least) some black, and would still be the philosophical counterpart to 'something'. Perhaps 'nothing' and everything are kind of the same. Like different sides of one chaotic coin. Not really able to truly exist or not exist. Perhaps we exist because everything that can exist must exist somewhere in the multiverse. Every mathematical possibility must be expressed. Creation doesn't just exist, it's inevitable.
Of course this doesn't rule out god, It might even make him inevitable too, and everything else that we can dream up, and everything that we can't. But that doesn't mean he is currently part of our universe. Our universe appears to be quite well ordered, which I could probably put down to the anthropic principle, or perhaps we just see it as ordered because we live here. A consciousness from another universe might find our universe mind bendingly crazy and chaotic.
I think in the end there are a lot of philosophical questions that get mixed in with science questions and they muddy the water for both sides.
d-usa wrote: Is our understanding of evolution hurt by any ability or inability to prove either?
No, but that's not what you were talking about. You specifically mentioned a god that guides evolution, not belief in god in general. If you believe in god but keep that belief entirely separate from science, without ever saying anything about how that god might have been involved in things evolution deals with, then our understanding of evolution isn't harmed at all. But when you start inserting that god into evolution, even in a background role, you hurt your understanding of evolution. Obviously it's not as bad as the blatant anti-scientific idiocy of young-earth creationism, but that doesn't mean that it has no effect.
d-usa wrote: Is our understanding of evolution hurt by any ability or inability to prove either?
No, but that's not what you were talking about. You specifically mentioned a god that guides evolution, not belief in god in general. If you believe in god but keep that belief entirely separate from science, without ever saying anything about how that god might have been involved in things evolution deals with, then our understanding of evolution isn't harmed at all. But when you start inserting that god into evolution, even in a background role, you hurt your understanding of evolution. Obviously it's not as bad as the blatant anti-scientific idiocy of young-earth creationism, but that doesn't mean that it has no effect.
When Dawkins says that evolution is proof that there is no God, does he hurt his understanding of evolution?
When someone says that evolution happens without any influence from a divine being, does that hurt their understanding of evolution?
Evolution does not prove the existance or absence of a God. We cannot prove that the existance of absence of a God has any influence on evolution. They are two completely separate issues.
d-usa wrote: When Dawkins says that evolution is proof that there is no God, does he hurt his understanding of evolution?
When someone says that evolution happens without any influence from a divine being, does that hurt their understanding of evolution?
Again, these are two separate things. Dawkins is (incorrectly, IMO*) claiming that evolution disproves god. Your hypothetical second person is claiming that evolution doesn't include god. Dawkins rules out the possibility of a god that exists but has no involvement in evolution (the divine watchmaker, for example), the second person doesn't. Dawkins' attitude, ironically, hurts his understanding of evolution because it attributes greater explanatory power to the theory than it actually has. The second person's belief, on the other hand, reflects an accurate understanding of the theory. There is no "god" factor involved, and speculating about one is unjustified.
*Evolution certainly does a good job of eliminating a lot of previous arguments for god's existence, but it can't possibly address all of them.
We cannot prove that the existance of absence of a God has any influence on evolution. They are two completely separate issues.
They're only separate issues if you keep them that way. If you start talking about god guiding evolution (as you did in previous posts) then they are no longer separate.
They're only separate issues if you keep them that way. If you start talking about god guiding evolution (as you did in previous posts) then they are no longer separate.
They are separate as long as I don't let my "why" interfere with my knowledge and research of "how".
When someone says that evolution happens without any influence from a divine being, does that hurt their understanding of evolution?
The second person's belief, on the other hand, reflects an accurate understanding of the theory.
Can you point me to scientific basis of evolutionary theory that specifically rules out any influence from a divine being?
If you can't then your take on evolution is just as contaminated as mine.
Which brings us back to the main point: Biology doesn't concern itself with philosphical questions about the existence of lack of divine beings that cannot be proven by the theories and which are not something that the theories are even trying to address.
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
And elsewhere
2KI 8:26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2CH 22:2: Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
These cannot both be true, ...
Can't they?
Henry, son of Henry, reigned for 7 months.
Henry, son of Henry, reigned for 38 years.
Both true.
Edit- after a quick google, it appears the actual explanations for those are somewhat different to mine... They do -have- explanations, though.
d-usa wrote: They are separate as long as I don't let my "why" interfere with my knowledge and research of "how".
But that interference is exactly what you're doing. You're claiming that god guided the process, which implies that the scientific theory alone is insufficient to explain what happens. That's a "how" question, not a "why" question. You obviously aren't going to have the level of crippling problems that a young-earth creationist would, but you're still rejecting the fundamental premise of how science works.
Can you point me to scientific basis of evolutionary theory that specifically rules out any influence from a divine being?
It's simple: if X is a sufficient explanation of everything, then adding Y to the theory is redundant. By saying "the theory of evolution is sufficient" you're ruling out the redundant "god" factor, much like saying "1+1=2" rules out there being some (non-zero) X where 1+1+X=2.
Biology doesn't concern itself with philosphical questions about the existence of lack of divine beings that cannot be proven by the theories and which are not something that the theories are even trying to address.
Which is what I already said. The problem is that you're asking "how" questions by proposing that your god is involved in things which biology does concern itself with. Biology has no conflict with a "divine watchmaker" god that creates a universe with potential and then steps back to watch what happens without ever interfering. But that's not your god.
d-usa wrote: They are separate as long as I don't let my "why" interfere with my knowledge and research of "how".
But that interference is exactly what you're doing. You're claiming that god guided the process, which implies that the scientific theory alone is insufficient to explain what happens.
It doesn't imply that at all. Science manages to understand that, but apperantly you can't.
d-usa wrote: It doesn't imply that at all. Science manages to understand that, but apperantly you can't.
Yes, that's exactly what you're implying. You aren't just talking about how god gives meaning to life or similar philosophical issues, you're talking about god being actively involved in the process of evolution. If that doesn't imply that the scientific theory is insufficient then why is there any reason to talk about god? If the theory is enough to explain everything then god's involvement is nonexistent and it makes no sense to talk about it.
Also, I think you're just getting a bit confused by a political decision to say "ok, you can believe in god in the background" and get moderate religious people as an ally against the young-earth creationists and other anti-science extremists. There are a lot of scientists who try to minimize the importance of the conflict between religion and science, but it's for political reasons, not because the two are really compatible.
this is a stupid argument that will just go on and o and on. '
unfortunately, no matter how man times you explain something, there will always be those who refuse un-deniable fact. so, this conversation is pointless.
d-usa wrote: It doesn't imply that at all. Science manages to understand that, but apperantly you can't.
Yes, that's exactly what you're implying. You aren't just talking about how god gives meaning to life or similar philosophical issues, you're talking about god being actively involved in the process of evolution. If that doesn't imply that the scientific theory is insufficient then why is there any reason to talk about god? If the theory is enough to explain everything then god's involvement is nonexistent and it makes no sense to talk about it.
Again. Science manages to understand that even if you don't.
If the theory is enough to explain everything then god's involvement is nonexistent and it makes no sense to talk about it.
Are you now saying that the theory of evolution as we know it proves the nonexistent of a divine being or a lack of involvement of one?
d-usa wrote: I think the article does a good job at explaining my main view about evolution and my faith: Evolution and science answers "how", but it really doesn't answer the "why" and it doesn't really have any interest in answering it.
That of course assumes that there is a 'why' (and I'm certainly not implying there isn't) ...
What and there isn't ever a why?
Why is the grass green, why do I perfer brown over green? Why do I think this way instead of that way? Why is God even a question?
For myself though, I find "because god" quite unsatisfying.
Okay. Thats fine, you can.
What is god?
If you could answer that I would think you would be insane to think it.
I have no idea what is god. Or who is god, or what the hell is even a god. God is a divine being, if It wanted to it could annihilate us in a snap of its fingers.
By why the hell would care about us is the real question.
We are only specks compared to A God. Or hell anything for that matter.
Where did he come from?
Where did we come from? what are we made of?
Who cares where he comes from, or It comes from. Its god. Why question God?
Why did he want to make all this stuff?
Thats Philisophical. Maybe he was lonely with nothingness.
Why does he have human emotions such as 'wanting'?
He invented life and emotions and the universe. Try being alone for a trillion years and see how you feel.
Has he made other universes?
There are other universes O.o
Why would he look like us?
let me clarify something nowhere in the bible does it imply that God looks like us. That is extremely egosticial. God is God, God is divine and beyond our comprehension, he made us from dust. According to the bible. He made us from his image. Did it say as exact copies or exactly the same? No it said image.
:a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art.
Or the second meaning
A metaphor.
do we know which one it is. *shrug*
God doesn't play with dice, how the hell do I know I am not god.
Why time and space?
Why not? Time and Space is an idea, not an actual law in Science. There is no Law of Time, there is only time.
There is no Law of Space, there is only Space.
Why did he make maths?
Why did he? Because he likes angering idiots.
Why three dimensions and not four?
O.o There is fourth dimensional. Thats a Theory, but eh.
Thats a discussion for another time.
Why can't we go faster than light?
We can and we even have proof of it in nature. They call them black holes. Faster than light and more powerful. Problem is that going the speed of light would destroy everything in its vicinity.
What's time dilation for?
To make everything less confusing
What's his plan for after the universe ends?
No Idea. We aren't God. God knows, and Only God cares, who the hell cares about what we think? We are human beings, our life spans are a blink of an eye to the universe.
On the other hand, if there is no god and all this stuff exists for no reason, then I'm forced to wonder why there is any stuff at all?
Why are my bagels not sliced? Why do I have to cut my bread?
Things exist because they simply are. Life is simply is. It is here.
Why not just have nothing?
Because that would be extremely dull and boring, Life is not hindered by nothing.
This leads me to Lawrence Krausses idea that 'nothing' is essentially unstable. In many ways the universe is just an expression of nothing anyway (-1+1). Nothing is actually quite difficult to imagine, it always needs to be represented in my head by (at very least) some black, and would still be the philosophical counterpart to 'something'. Perhaps 'nothing' and everything are kind of the same. Like different sides of one chaotic coin. Not really able to truly exist or not exist. Perhaps we exist because everything that can exist must exist somewhere in the multiverse. Every mathematical possibility must be expressed. Creation doesn't just exist, it's inevitable.
interesting. I simply believe that the universe Exists because it is simply an endless cycle repeating itself over and over again. But how is it created? I have no idea. Who the hell knows how many times I have written this same bloody sentence.
Just imagine, there is another universe just like us talking about this same debate, and then think of another group exactly like us talking about the same thing in a different language, where life is different and we are ruled by Tentacle creatures from outer space.
Of course this doesn't rule out god, It might even make him inevitable too, and everything else that we can dream up, and everything that we can't. But that doesn't mean he is currently part of our universe. Our universe appears to be quite well ordered, which I could probably put down to the anthropic principle, or perhaps we just see it as ordered because we live here. A consciousness from another universe might find our universe mind bendingly crazy and chaotic.
Well God for all we know is just humanities belief created in the warp. Or hell God is what he claims to be a creator of all things, But I can't say he isn't. Because I have no idea. He probably is. But does he exist? If god revealed himself I would lose my trust in him, if he doesn't I have no proof to prove his existence.
We have no idea, because we are human beings. We are so short sighted its hilarious.
Grass is green because of the pigment chlorophyll, which is a biomolecule that is vital to photosynthesis. Chlorophyll absorbs blue light (short wavelength, high energy) better than anything other light, which is the reason why most plant life is green. Of course, it isn't the only pigment found in plants which is the reason why plants come in a variety of colors, but it is by far the most common.
Where did we come from? what are we made of?
We are the product of billions of years of evolution through natural selection and we're made primarily of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.
There are other universes O.o
Probably, but chances are we'll never interact with them.
O.o There is fourth dimensional. Thats a Theory, but eh.
Thats a discussion for another time.
We live in a four dimensional universe, three spatial dimensions and one of time: spacetime.
We can and we even have proof of it in nature. They call them black holes. Faster than light and more powerful. Problem is that going the speed of light would destroy everything in its vicinity.
There is nothing about that statement that is even close to being correct.
What's time dilation for?
To make everything less confusing
This is wrong on both of you. Time dilation doesn't serve a "purpose;" it is part of the nature of spacetime itself.
d-usa wrote: Are you now saying that the theory of evolution as we know it proves the nonexistent of a divine being or a lack of involvement of one?
No, I'm saying that it provides a very strong argument the nonexistence of a god that was involved in evolution. It doesn't conclusively prove the nonexistence of a god, even one involved in evolution, because theoretically one could exist in the gaps in current knowledge. This would be a very small and barely-relevant god, but I guess you could still call it a god. However, what evolution does do is make it unreasonable to believe in the existence of this hypothetical god. Based on everything we know now the theory of evolution seems to be sufficient to explain everything that needs to be explained, and the only reason to speculate about the possible "behind the scenes" involvement of a god is if you've decided that one exists and any theory of evolution must include one. And that's bad science.
Grass is green because of the pigment chlorophyll, which is a biomolecule that is vital to photosynthesis. Chlorophyll absorbs blue light (short wavelength, high energy) better than anything other light, which is the reason why most plant life is green. Of course, it isn't the only pigment found in plants which is the reason why plants come in a variety of colors, but it is by far the most common.
Where did we come from? what are we made of?
We are the product of billions of years of evolution through natural selection and we're made primarily of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.
There are other universes O.o
Probably, but chances are we'll never interact with them.
O.o There is fourth dimensional. Thats a Theory, but eh.
Thats a discussion for another time.
We live in a four dimensional universe, three spatial dimensions and one of time: spacetime.
We can and we even have proof of it in nature. They call them black holes. Faster than light and more powerful. Problem is that going the speed of light would destroy everything in its vicinity.
There is nothing about that statement that is even close to being correct.
What's time dilation for?
To make everything less confusing
This is wrong on both of you. Time dilation doesn't serve a "purpose;" it is part of the nature of spacetime itself.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: The bible does not contain reliable information. Then everything in it is dismissible unless supported by third parties...
This is demonstrably false.
Its actually demosntrably true. Still the best example of the unreliability in the Bible comes from Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason".
But the point can be made just by looking at Kings and then looking at Chronicles. (These are meant to be histories, and not metaphorical, by all accounts). It messes up the ages of kings when they started their reigns all over the place. One book says so and so was 8 years old, and reigned three months, the other says he was 18 and reigned three months. As factual information, the Bible is not to be trusted, because the accounts therein so frequently disagree with eachother. And this is all just within the Bible itself. No external resources are required.
For example,
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
And elsewhere
2KI 8:26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2CH 22:2: Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
These cannot both be true, and yet here we are.
I'm not saying that everything in the Bible is historically accurate as we understand it. However, the claim that the Bible contains no reliable information and that everything in it is able to be dismissed is false.
d-usa wrote: Are you now saying that the theory of evolution as we know it proves the nonexistent of a divine being or a lack of involvement of one?
No, I'm saying that it provides a very strong argument the nonexistence of a god that was involved in evolution. It doesn't conclusively prove the nonexistence of a god, even one involved in evolution, because theoretically one could exist in the gaps in current knowledge. This would be a very small and barely-relevant god, but I guess you could still call it a god. However, what evolution does do is make it unreasonable to believe in the existence of this hypothetical god. Based on everything we know now the theory of evolution seems to be sufficient to explain everything that needs to be explained, and the only reason to speculate about the possible "behind the scenes" involvement of a god is if you've decided that one exists and any theory of evolution must include one. And that's bad science.
No, politics disagrees with me. The fact that scientists refrain from saying "'god guided evolution' is not a reasonable belief" so they can keep moderate religious people as allies against the anti-science extremists does not make the belief reasonable.
d-usa wrote: Are you now saying that the theory of evolution as we know it proves the nonexistent of a divine being or a lack of involvement of one?
No, I'm saying that it provides a very strong argument the nonexistence of a god that was involved in evolution. It doesn't conclusively prove the nonexistence of a god, even one involved in evolution, because theoretically one could exist in the gaps in current knowledge. This would be a very small and barely-relevant god, but I guess you could still call it a god. However, what evolution does do is make it unreasonable to believe in the existence of this hypothetical god. Based on everything we know now the theory of evolution seems to be sufficient to explain everything that needs to be explained, and the only reason to speculate about the possible "behind the scenes" involvement of a god is if you've decided that one exists and any theory of evolution must include one. And that's bad science.
No, politics disagrees with me. The fact that scientists refrain from saying "'god guided evolution' is not a reasonable belief" so they can keep moderate religious people as allies against the anti-science extremists does not make the belief reasonable.
Maybe you should stop talking for science if you going to keep on getting this wrong.
d-usa wrote: Maybe you should stop talking for science if you going to keep on getting this wrong.
So are you going to address any arguments anymore, or are you just going to keep saying "science lets me have my god I REALLY WANT MY GOD" over and over again?
The thing about science is that it can only investigate and prove things that exist.
Since the nature of god has retreated from the provable universe as people looked behind the tree and found no spirit, climbed the mountain and found no home of the gods, sailed the seas and found no giant fish man with a beard and trident, it becomes impossible for science to investigate god, since it now resides in a special place which is essentially completely outside of the universe (Haha! Take that explorers who might accidentally disprove god by going to where we say it exists!).
Science can certainly investigate certain claims that religion has over the nature of reality, just as historians can look at the claims that religion makes over history. As historians and scientists, and indeed anyone advancing human knowledge, make progress in discovering more about the universe around us, religion constantly shifts the goalposts so as to try and maintain the ever shrinking vestiges of "truth" that they are left with.
In the current discussion, evolution, as it became more widely accepted, forced religion (as a whole - well, for the most part...) to change what it had been telling people in order to not blatantly contradict reality as revealed by science.
Science makes no comment on religion because it is fundamentally the antithesis of science - the absolute absence of evidence, investigation, experimentation and proof.
d-usa wrote: Maybe you should stop talking for science if you going to keep on getting this wrong.
So are you going to address any arguments anymore, or are you just going to keep saying "science lets me have my god I REALLY WANT MY GOD" over and over again?
Have you made any actual arguments other than "how and why are never separate and you do bad science"?
d-usa wrote: Is our understanding of evolution hurt by any ability or inability to prove either?
No, but that's not what you were talking about. You specifically mentioned a god that guides evolution, not belief in god in general. If you believe in god but keep that belief entirely separate from science, without ever saying anything about how that god might have been involved in things evolution deals with, then our understanding of evolution isn't harmed at all. But when you start inserting that god into evolution, even in a background role, you hurt your understanding of evolution. Obviously it's not as bad as the blatant anti-scientific idiocy of young-earth creationism, but that doesn't mean that it has no effect.
We cannot prove that the existance of absence of a God has any influence on evolution. They are two completely separate issues.
They're only separate issues if you keep them that way. If you start talking about god guiding evolution (as you did in previous posts) then they are no longer separate.
d-usa wrote: They are separate as long as I don't let my "why" interfere with my knowledge and research of "how".
But that interference is exactly what you're doing. You're claiming that god guided the process, which implies that the scientific theory alone is insufficient to explain what happens. That's a "how" question, not a "why" question. You obviously aren't going to have the level of crippling problems that a young-earth creationist would, but you're still rejecting the fundamental premise of how science works.
All statements that boil down to you repeating the same argument over and over again that the "why" is impossible to separate from the "how".
So to go back to the article I posted that started this:
In other words, the cliche of pitting science against religion is a category error, to a certain extent: Evolutionary biology provides certain insights into the mechanisms of how human life has formed and changed over time [aka: the how], but it can't provide insight into the meaning behind those changes [aka: the why]. Yet the meaning part is often what matters in vitriolic "debates" about the origins of life.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: The bible does not contain reliable information. Then everything in it is dismissible unless supported by third parties...
This is demonstrably false.
Its actually demosntrably true. Still the best example of the unreliability in the Bible comes from Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason".
But the point can be made just by looking at Kings and then looking at Chronicles. (These are meant to be histories, and not metaphorical, by all accounts). It messes up the ages of kings when they started their reigns all over the place. One book says so and so was 8 years old, and reigned three months, the other says he was 18 and reigned three months. As factual information, the Bible is not to be trusted, because the accounts therein so frequently disagree with eachother. And this is all just within the Bible itself. No external resources are required.
For example,
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
And elsewhere
2KI 8:26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2CH 22:2: Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
These cannot both be true, and yet here we are.
I'm not saying that everything in the Bible is historically accurate as we understand it. However, the claim that the Bible contains no reliable information and that everything in it is able to be dismissed is false.
Can you provide whats reliable and whats not reliable in the bible?
Science is pursuit of knowledge and truth any true religion would be fully compatible with science.
d-usa wrote: All statements that boil down to you repeating the same argument over and over again that the "why" is impossible to separate from the "how".
It only "boils down to that" if you feel compelled to turn my argument into a bizarre straw man that's easier to deal with instead of addressing the real one. Let me make it nice and clear for you:
"Why" and "how" are separate questions, and science does not address "why". I don't know why you think I'm claiming otherwise.
You claim to be asking "why" questions when you talk about god guiding evolution, but you're really asking "how" questions. God guiding the process of evolution is not just a philosophical discussion about the meaning of life, it's a factual claim about how the process of evolution works. The only reason to put it off in a separate "why" category is to shield religious beliefs from questioning, questioning that almost inevitably leads to "belief in this is about as reasonable as belief in mind control in the chemtrails". And that's what happens here: there isn't even the slightest bit of evidence for a god guiding the process of evolution, so the only reason to even propose that divine guidance is if you have already assumed that you really want to believe in god and need to find a place to put one.
In short: I don't reject the separation of "why" and "how" questions, I reject your attempts to disguise "how" questions as "why" questions to protect your religious beliefs.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: Can you provide whats reliable and whats not reliable in the bible?
Not much, but it does have some relevant information. For example, it's a good source of information about early Christian culture and beliefs. And it's potentially a source of historical information about the people and places in the background of the Jesus story, as long as you're careful to remember that some elements may have been edited to make a better story or because of translation issues. You only have to discard the bible entirely when you're talking about the supernatural aspects of the story, which are obviously absurd.
You claim to be asking "why" questions when you talk about god guiding evolution, but you're really asking "how" questions.
And here is where you are wrong. I'm sorry that you are simply not capable of separating the two, but plenty of people are.
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you here. If you state "god guides evolution" to "answer" the why of our existence, you also pose "how did god guide evolution", a how question which can be investigated by science.
I am not aware of anyone finding gods (the Christian god) fingerprints on any fossils or DNA yet. Or indeed the fingerprints of any other god, spirit, unicorn, or other mythical creature.
You claim to be asking "why" questions when you talk about god guiding evolution, but you're really asking "how" questions.
And here is where you are wrong. I'm sorry that you are simply not capable of separating the two, but plenty of people are.
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you here. If you state "god guides evolution" to "answer" the why of our existence, you also pose "how did god guide evolution", a how question which can be investigated by science.
It must be a good thing that I have not made that argument. The closest I have come to it was this:
Biology cares about how evolution happens, the process that species undergo, how they adapt and develop. Biology couldn't care less if the process is guided with some secret strings behind the scenes by a magical sky-being and as far as the science is concerned evolution doesn't do anything to prove or disprove the magical sky being and it's completely neutral on the subject.
My personal belief as to the "why" is that God knew the final outcome when everything started out, and the "how" is everything we know about science. I'm not using God to try to understand how evolution works or to understand how we evolved the way we did. Thinking "God knew what would happen" has the same impact on the science as "this is all pure cosmic coincidence": none.
The only time that "God has something to do with it" is when you accept that as the final explanation and quit looking for further scientific answers.
d-usa wrote: It must be a good thing that I have not made that argument. The closest I have come to it was this:
Biology cares about how evolution happens, the process that species undergo, how they adapt and develop. Biology couldn't care less if the process is guided with some secret strings behind the scenes by a magical sky-being and as far as the science is concerned evolution doesn't do anything to prove or disprove the magical sky being and it's completely neutral on the subject.
The how is implicit in the why. And you are correct, biology does not care if there is or is not a magic beard who kicked everything off in so far as biology is concerned about reality. If the reality is that some kind of magic was used to guide, shape or start life in the universe, that obviously has a massive impact on our understanding of not only biology, but the universe as a whole. This is mostly because it contradicts pretty much everything we have discovered about the universe.
Thinking "God knew what would happen" has the same impact on the science as "this is all pure cosmic coincidence": none.
Actually, assuming something without any evidence what so ever and claiming it as the truth runs against every principle of science.
The only time that "God has something to do with it" is when you accept that as the final explanation and quit looking for further scientific answers.
And the only time you accept "God has something to do with it" is when you completely disregard reality in favour of a comforting thought.
When Dawkins says that evolution is proof that there is no God, does he hurt his understanding of evolution?
As a side note, just so you know, I have read almost all of Dawkins books, and never once does he claim that evolution disproves God. Not once. His argument is that an intellgence behind the universe is highly improbable, because there is no good evidence for it, and also because positing a divine intelligence as the creator of the universe is introducing a theory that is much more complicated than the phenomenon it seeks to explain. He puts himself at a 6 on the following scale (as, indeed do most atheists).
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Bishop F Gantry wrote: The bible does not contain reliable information. Then everything in it is dismissible unless supported by third parties...
This is demonstrably false.
Its actually demosntrably true. Still the best example of the unreliability in the Bible comes from Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason".
But the point can be made just by looking at Kings and then looking at Chronicles. (These are meant to be histories, and not metaphorical, by all accounts). It messes up the ages of kings when they started their reigns all over the place. One book says so and so was 8 years old, and reigned three months, the other says he was 18 and reigned three months. As factual information, the Bible is not to be trusted, because the accounts therein so frequently disagree with eachother. And this is all just within the Bible itself. No external resources are required.
For example,
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
And elsewhere
2KI 8:26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2CH 22:2: Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
These cannot both be true, and yet here we are.
I'm not saying that everything in the Bible is historically accurate as we understand it. However, the claim that the Bible contains no reliable information and that everything in it is able to be dismissed is false.
Can you provide whats reliable and whats not reliable in the bible?
Science is pursuit of knowledge and truth any true religion would be fully compatible with science.
I could point you toward a few things if you really want, but I'm not a Biblical scholar, so I'm sure there are things I would miss. As I've mentioned before though, there is loads of legitimate scholarship out there on the subject that is easily accessible if you actually care about learning something on the subject.
This is wrong on both of you. Time dilation doesn't serve a "purpose;" it is part of the nature of spacetime itself.
I was not actually suggesting that time dilation did serve a purpose. I was just asking IF god did make the universe (and that's a big if), why did he make things the way they are? Given all the infinite possibilities of imagination, there seems to be lot missing from our universe. It's big, but it's really quite unambitious. The questions were somewhat rhetorical, though Asherian Command's responses that "god just is, why question it?" are quite telling, because you could just as easily say "the universe just is, why question it?". I guess I just like questions.
When answering these questions it's important not to mix up why and how. For example: plants are green (some plants) because of chlorophyll, that explains how, but the reason why is actually to do with the Sun's energy output. Green is the optimal colour for absorbing the Sun's energy that is needed for photosynthesis. So green is a survival adaptation. If the Sun was a bigger and brighter star, such as 'Sirius A' then plants would probably all be red to compensate (assuming they could develop there).
For more fundamental questions asking 'why' is more philosophical. I think it might actually be an argument against god, and not for him as is often suggested. It's comforting to think that god wanted us, and that is why he made us. But why did he want headlice? Why does he want planets to form into 3 dimensional circles and not 8 dimensional cubes? Why is Pi irrational? Why did he try so hard to make everything look like it happened by accident? To suppose that God gives us a reason 'why' is to suppose that god himself has a reason 'why'. "He just did it that way" isn't really a reason, that sounds like an accident. "He just wanted us" invites the question: "Why did he want us?". There is no meaning or explanation here, just another question.
Bishop F Gantry wrote: The bible does not contain reliable information. Then everything in it is dismissible unless supported by third parties...
This is demonstrably false.
Its actually demosntrably true. Still the best example of the unreliability in the Bible comes from Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason".
But the point can be made just by looking at Kings and then looking at Chronicles. (These are meant to be histories, and not metaphorical, by all accounts). It messes up the ages of kings when they started their reigns all over the place. One book says so and so was 8 years old, and reigned three months, the other says he was 18 and reigned three months. As factual information, the Bible is not to be trusted, because the accounts therein so frequently disagree with eachother. And this is all just within the Bible itself. No external resources are required.
For example,
2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
And elsewhere
2KI 8:26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2CH 22:2: Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
These cannot both be true, and yet here we are.
I'm not saying that everything in the Bible is historically accurate as we understand it. However, the claim that the Bible contains no reliable information and that everything in it is able to be dismissed is false.
Can you provide whats reliable and whats not reliable in the bible?
Science is pursuit of knowledge and truth any true religion would be fully compatible with science.
I could point you toward a few things if you really want, but I'm not a Biblical scholar, so I'm sure there are things I would miss. As I've mentioned before though, there is loads of legitimate scholarship out there on the subject that is easily accessible if you actually care about learning something on the subject.
On these particular issues, I have read how scholars and apologists have tried to wash them away, and I'm not impressed by their gymnastics. If you find their arguments convincing, more power to you.
It's all trivia to me. On the subject of God, to convince me, one would have to first produce evidence that there is a divine intelligence behind the universe, which I find highly improbable and its nothing to do with the Bible at all, as a starting point. Then one would have all his work ahead of him to try and convince me that this divine intelligence was in any way related to any religion produced by mankind.
Grass is green because of the pigment chlorophyll, which is a biomolecule that is vital to photosynthesis. Chlorophyll absorbs blue light (short wavelength, high energy) better than anything other light, which is the reason why most plant life is green. Of course, it isn't the only pigment found in plants which is the reason why plants come in a variety of colors, but it is by far the most common.
That is not what I was asking! That is how it was made, those are its subdivisions, not why is it green, that is not answering.
Where did we come from? what are we made of?
We are the product of billions of years of evolution through natural selection and we're made primarily of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.
Not what I was asking!
That is how we are made, Not the why
There are other universes O.o
Probably, but chances are we'll never interact with them.
O.o There is fourth dimensional. Thats a Theory, but eh.
Thats a discussion for another time.
We live in a four dimensional universe, three spatial dimensions and one of time: spacetime.
We can and we even have proof of it in nature. They call them black holes. Faster than light and more powerful. Problem is that going the speed of light would destroy everything in its vicinity.
There is nothing about that statement that is even close to being correct.
Black Holes do indeed travel faster than light :http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2853083/Scientists-lightning-sparking-supermassive-black-hole-appears-travel-faster-speed-light.html
Actually that is true about faster than light as well:
NASA researchers recently revisited the Alcubierre warp drive and concluded that its power requirements were not as impossible as once thought. However, a new analysis from the University of Sydney claims that using a warp drive of this design comes with a drawback. Specifically, it could cause cataclysmic explosions at your destination.
They would cause an explosion that would destroy anything basically.
What's time dilation for?
To make everything less confusing
This is wrong on both of you. Time dilation doesn't serve a "purpose;" it is part of the nature of spacetime itself.
It does serve a purpose, if you believe in god, If you don't then it doesn't.
The thing about science is that it can only investigate and prove things that exist.
Since the nature of god has retreated from the provable universe as people looked behind the tree and found no spirit, climbed the mountain and found no home of the gods, sailed the seas and found no giant fish man with a beard and trident, it becomes impossible for science to investigate god, since it now resides in a special place which is essentially completely outside of the universe (Haha! Take that explorers who might accidentally disprove god by going to where we say it exists!).
Science can certainly investigate certain claims that religion has over the nature of reality, just as historians can look at the claims that religion makes over history. As historians and scientists, and indeed anyone advancing human knowledge, make progress in discovering more about the universe around us, religion constantly shifts the goalposts so as to try and maintain the ever shrinking vestiges of "truth" that they are left with.
In the current discussion, evolution, as it became more widely accepted, forced religion (as a whole - well, for the most part...) to change what it had been telling people in order to not blatantly contradict reality as revealed by science.
Science makes no comment on religion because it is fundamentally the antithesis of science - the absolute absence of evidence, investigation, experimentation and proof.
Basically. Science cannot answer the why, Why is philosophical and idealistic. Science is not philosophical, it is concerned with hard facts and not idealistic plans of grandeur. Science is not the answer to all of lifes questions.
When I ask for why is the sky blue. I am not asking you about how it is made and the reason it is blue. I am asking why is the sky blue. Not because of scientific reasoning. I am asking you why is it blue. Then correct answer is. I have no idea. It just chooses to be blue.
Science types never get the difference, philosophers do.
I was not actually suggesting that time dilation did serve a purpose. I was just asking IF god did make the universe (and that's a big if), why did he make things the way they are? Given all the infinite possibilities of imagination, there seems to be lot missing from our universe. It's big, but it's really quite unambitious. The questions were somewhat rhetorical, though Asherian Command's responses that "god just is, why question it?" are quite telling, because you could just as easily say "the universe just is, why question it?". I guess I just like questions.
Mostly due to the fact I have no answer to most of them. Because I am not a god or God. It would be insane for me to try and answer the questions, as it would show my insanity.
For more fundamental questions asking 'why' is more philosophical. I think it might actually be an argument against god, and not for him as is often suggested. It's comforting to think that god wanted us, and that is why he made us. But why did he want headlice? Why does he want planets to form into 3 dimensional circles and not 8 dimensional cubes? Why is Pi irrational? Why did he try so hard to make everything look like it happened by accident? To suppose that God gives us a reason 'why' is to suppose that god himself has a reason 'why'. "He just did it that way" isn't really a reason, that sounds like an accident. "He just wanted us" invites the question: "Why did he want us?". There is no meaning or explanation here, just another question.
There are suggestions that all the bad things that happened in the world date back in the bible that is to When adam ate the apple, when he did in order to punish humanity, he gave all creatures the ability to harm humans.
There will always be more questions than answers when in regard to any debate on god.
Science answered why the sky is blue long ago. As to why the sky is blue instead of green, science answered that as well. You might not find the answers to be personally fulfilling, but they are there. Contrary to popular opinion, science does indeed broach the subject of both "how" and "why".
Of course, there are nonsensical questions that science can't answer, like "Why does Alpha Centauri make fruits smell itchy?" and "Why did giraffes choose to have a long neck?"
There are also questions that possibly may not have an answer at all. Like "What is the origin of existence?" and "What is the meaning of life?"
jasper76 wrote: Science answered why the sky is blue long ago. As to why the sky is blue instead of green, science answered that as well. You might not find the answers to be personally fulfilling, but they are there. Contrary to popular opinion, science does indeed broach the subject of both "how" and "why".
Of course, there are nonsensical questions that science can't answer, like "Why does Alpha Centauri make fruits smell itchy?" and "Why did giraffes choose to have a long neck?"
There are also questions that possibly may not have an answer at all. Like "What is the origin of existence?" and "What is the meaning of life?"
Alright humor me why is the sky blue? Why is it that choose to blue?
I am not asking you the how.
That is completely false and in many philosophical books they even detail that science still can't answer it correctly. Science does not concern itself with that type of questioning. It is always more concerned about the how, never the why. Why is philisophical. You just explained a common misconception and common idea that science does concern itself with the why. It doesn't and never will.
The sky is is not actually blue. The atmosphere reflects light in the "blue" section of the light spectrum or whatever its called. Your eyes pick up those lightwaves, send it via the optic nerve to your brain, which creates a model of it in your brain that looks "blue".
Its been a while, so some of this may be off.
If you're asking why does the brain do this, the answer is it has evolved to do this because at some period in time, a gene was introduced or modified that caused the brain to perceive "blue" that conferred a survival advantage (or perhaps no advantage or disadvantage whatsoever) over brains that could not do this.
jasper76 wrote: The sky is is not actually blue. The atmosphere reflects light in the "blue" section of the light spectrum or whatever its called. Your eyes pick up those lightwaves, send it via the optic nerve to your brain, which creates a model of it in your brain that looks "blue".
Its been a while, so some of this may be off.
If you're asking why does the brain do this, the answer is it has evolved to do this because at some period in time, a gene was introduced or modified that caused the brain to perceive "blue" that conferred a survival advantage (or perhaps no advantage or disadvantage whatsoever) over brains that could not do this.
You are still answering the how. Not the why. Shesh.
jasper76 wrote: The sky is is not actually blue. The atmosphere reflects light in the "blue" section of the light spectrum or whatever its called. Your eyes pick up those lightwaves, send it via the optic nerve to your brain, which creates a model of it in your brain that looks "blue".
Its been a while, so some of this may be off.
If you're asking why does the brain do this, the answer is it has evolved to do this because at some period in time, a gene was introduced or modified that caused the brain to perceive "blue" that conferred a survival advantage (or perhaps no advantage or disadvantage whatsoever) over brains that could not do this.
You are still answering the how. Not the why. Shesh.
Yes, I and everyone else is answering the question why. Maybe all you want to hear is "because a divine creator made it this way".
Perhaps you can enlighten us with an example of what would pass as a possible answer (not necessarily correct, but possible) to your own question, if you don't like the answers you are being provided.
OK...do all of your inquiries end with your own personal ignorance on the subject?
If the only answer you want is "I have no idea", than more power to you, but I wonder why you choose to ask the question in the first place.
Some of us prefer actual answers to self-imposed ignorance.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, you seem to be using an unusual personal definition of the word "Why". Perhaps it would help to rephrase your question not usng he word "Why" at all, since it seems you have a different usage of the word than the rest of us.
jasper76 wrote: OK...do all of your inquiries end with your own personal ignorance on the subject?
If the only answer you want is "I have no idea", than more power to you, but I wonder why you choose to ask the question in the first place.
Some of us prefer actual answers to self-imposed ignorance.
Because there is no correct answer. There is no single entity answer to any of the questions I have asked pertaining to why.
You are using science as a crutch to answer the questions and not your own mind and beliefs.
I am not using ignorance, I am asking for your opinion and your answer. Using your mind and rationality. Not someone elses supposed facts.
Fact is relative, just like everything here. Science isn't based on absolutes, it can't because humans are not immortal beings who have seen this universes creation, we do not know everything, so we know nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, you seem to be using an unusual personal definition of the word "Why". Perhaps it would help to rephrase your question not usng he word "Why" at all, since it seems you have a different usage of the word than the rest of us.
I was going to ask if there was some kind of language barrier problem but then I saw that both of you are American...
Why: for what cause, reason, or purpose (because your brain is built to create a model from optical input that includes the color blue, and your brain does this because at some point in our genetic ancestry, perceiving blue conferred a competitive survival advantage)
How: in what manner or way : by what means (look up "optic nerve")
What definition of "Why" are you using? Please rephrase the question without the word "Why".
That's exactly what you were asking, you just don't like the answer.
Black Holes do indeed travel faster than light :http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2853083/Scientists-lightning-sparking-supermassive-black-hole-appears-travel-faster-speed-light.html
Actually that is true about faster than light as well:
NASA researchers recently revisited the Alcubierre warp drive and concluded that its power requirements were not as impossible as once thought. However, a new analysis from the University of Sydney claims that using a warp drive of this design comes with a drawback. Specifically, it could cause cataclysmic explosions at your destination.
They would cause an explosion that would destroy anything basically.
Nope again. That article has nothing to do with black holes "moving," and instead is about an anomaly detected with gamma rays moving through an area of extremely high gravity. Here is the story with a less sensational headline and also the important addition where the research team says that their theory is weak due to insufficient evidence.
It does serve a purpose, if you believe in god, If you don't then it doesn't.
No, it still doesn't serve a "purpose," even in the context of believing in God.
Basically. Science cannot answer the why, Why is philosophical and idealistic. Science is not philosophical, it is concerned with hard facts and not idealistic plans of grandeur. Science is not the answer to all of lifes questions.
When I ask for why is the sky blue. I am not asking you about how it is made and the reason it is blue. I am asking why is the sky blue. Not because of scientific reasoning. I am asking you why is it blue. Then correct answer is. I have no idea. It just chooses to be blue.
Science types never get the difference, philosophers do.
I've already given you the why on just about every random question you've asked. You choose not to accept it and instead carry on with some pseudo-philosophical bull gak. Every time you refute an explanation with, "No, but why?" you aren't proving anything, you're just talking in circles.
No, that's not what is happening, I think what is happening is you are asking is why as a question of intent, everyone else is using why as a question of cause, both of which aren't wrong, well except intent is a human thing, there is no intent in natue, so really, it is you who is asking who is asking the wrong question.
Krellnus wrote: That doesn't even make sense since science is philosphopy, or a branch of it more precisely.
Uhm, no. There is a philosophy of science which draws on the different branches but it is not a branch of Philosophy itself. The branches of Philosophy are:
d-usa wrote: [So when some people load evolution with emotional baggage claiming that evolution proves that God doesn't exist and everything about their faith is wrong then some people will naturally go on the defensive about that. Individuals on both sides are stupid for trying to make a scientific issue the burden of proof for the existence of God.
Evolution might not, but quantum physics is taking a pretty good stab at it. At least at the omniscient, all-seeing aspect of God.
Heisenberg's Law states that it is physically impossible to know the vector and the position of a subatomic particle. An omniscient God, by definition, knows both. Which is impossible.
Another experiment is underway to detect gravity waves from the earliest preiods of the Universe. It uses a quantum-physical effect (I'm doing this off the top of my head, so any actual quantum physicists feel free to correct me) which says that a photon travels to its destination by all paths available to it until it is observed, at which point it picks one at random to have travelled (a variation of Schrodinger's Cat). In the experiment in question, the photon has two paths available to it via a mirror that randomly flips around. Then there is some gobbeldigook with a detector at the end of the path to measure any discrepancies in when the photon arrives to detect the gravity waves, but that is unimportant for the point I'm trying to make.
The important bit is the "uses all paths available until observed". If there is a God who sees everything, he therefore automatically observes which part the photon would take, and the effect ceases to exist because the quantum wave function is immediately collapsed due to the outside observer (ie, God). This works for every single quantum event, and therefore there should be no such thing as quantum physics. But quantum physics does exist, and it can be observed to work. Logically, one of our opening assumptions must be wrong. The only one that fits the bill is the all-seeing God.
The two combined also suggest that it is, if not outright impossible, astronomically unlikely for any hypothetical Creator God to have set up the universe so that evolution [i[could[/i] happen (based on random mutations which at any step along the way could have led to a completely different end result) and known beforehand what would come out of it (ie, us).
If God is then, not omniscient, and not all-seeing, in what way is he still, well, God?
Krellnus wrote: That doesn't even make sense since science is philosphopy, or a branch of it more precisely.
Uhm, no. There is a philosophy of science which draws on the different branches but it is not a branch of Philosophy itself. The branches of Philosophy are:
Metaphysics
Ethics
Logic
Aesthetics
Epistemology
Doesn't some of science's origins come from the work and ideas of Greek philosophers.
d-usa wrote: [So when some people load evolution with emotional baggage claiming that evolution proves that God doesn't exist and everything about their faith is wrong then some people will naturally go on the defensive about that. Individuals on both sides are stupid for trying to make a scientific issue the burden of proof for the existence of God.
Evolution might not, but quantum physics is taking a pretty good stab at it. At least at the omniscient, all-seeing aspect of God.
Heisenberg's Law states that it is physically impossible to know the vector and the position of a subatomic particle. An omniscient God, by definition, knows both. Which is impossible.
Another experiment is underway to detect gravity waves from the earliest preiods of the Universe. It uses a quantum-physical effect (I'm doing this off the top of my head, so any actual quantum physicists feel free to correct me) which says that a photon travels to its destination by all paths available to it until it is observed, at which point it picks one at random to have travelled (a variation of Schrodinger's Cat). In the experiment in question, the photon has two paths available to it via a mirror that randomly flips around. Then there is some gobbeldigook with a detector at the end of the path to measure any discrepancies in when the photon arrives to detect the gravity waves, but that is unimportant for the point I'm trying to make.
The important bit is the "uses all paths available until observed". If there is a God who sees everything, he therefore automatically observes which part the photon would take, and the effect ceases to exist because the quantum wave function is immediately collapsed due to the outside observer (ie, God). This works for every single quantum event, and therefore there should be no such thing as quantum physics. But quantum physics does exist, and it can be observed to work. Logically, one of our opening assumptions must be wrong. The only one that fits the bill is the all-seeing God.
The two combined also suggest that it is, if not outright impossible, astronomically unlikely for any hypothetical Creator God to have set up the universe so that evolution [i[could[/i] happen (based on random mutations which at any step along the way could have led to a completely different end result) and known beforehand what would come out of it (ie, us).
If God is then, not omniscient, and not all-seeing, in what way is he still, well, God?
Philosophically speaking; if God were to exist, it would exist outside all natural law, and be above/more powerful than anything in nature (inc. nature itself). Consequently it could ignore the impossibilities set up by quantum physics (and chaos theory and any apparent randomness of the universe), and be aware of the position of a photon without collapsing the wave function. Or at least is aware of which way it will collapse when observed.
Ofcourse a omnipresent and omnipotent god forces a deterministic universe, but that's it's own can of philosophical worms.
Cheesecat wrote: Doesn't some of science's origins come from the work and ideas of Greek philosophers.
Sure, because ideas beget ideas. Science, and especially the Philosophy of Science, draw from several different areas of thought. Still not one of the main branches of Philosophy, but it is its own area of study.
d-usa wrote: [So when some people load evolution with emotional baggage claiming that evolution proves that God doesn't exist and everything about their faith is wrong then some people will naturally go on the defensive about that. Individuals on both sides are stupid for trying to make a scientific issue the burden of proof for the existence of God.
Evolution might not, but quantum physics is taking a pretty good stab at it. At least at the omniscient, all-seeing aspect of God.
Heisenberg's Law states that it is physically impossible to know the vector and the position of a subatomic particle. An omniscient God, by definition, knows both. Which is impossible.
Another experiment is underway to detect gravity waves from the earliest preiods of the Universe. It uses a quantum-physical effect (I'm doing this off the top of my head, so any actual quantum physicists feel free to correct me) which says that a photon travels to its destination by all paths available to it until it is observed, at which point it picks one at random to have travelled (a variation of Schrodinger's Cat). In the experiment in question, the photon has two paths available to it via a mirror that randomly flips around. Then there is some gobbeldigook with a detector at the end of the path to measure any discrepancies in when the photon arrives to detect the gravity waves, but that is unimportant for the point I'm trying to make.
The important bit is the "uses all paths available until observed". If there is a God who sees everything, he therefore automatically observes which part the photon would take, and the effect ceases to exist because the quantum wave function is immediately collapsed due to the outside observer (ie, God). This works for every single quantum event, and therefore there should be no such thing as quantum physics. But quantum physics does exist, and it can be observed to work. Logically, one of our opening assumptions must be wrong. The only one that fits the bill is the all-seeing God.
The two combined also suggest that it is, if not outright impossible, astronomically unlikely for any hypothetical Creator God to have set up the universe so that evolution [i[could[/i] happen (based on random mutations which at any step along the way could have led to a completely different end result) and known beforehand what would come out of it (ie, us).
If God is then, not omniscient, and not all-seeing, in what way is he still, well, God?
Philosophically speaking; if God were to exist, it would exist outside all natural law, and be above/more powerful than anything in nature (inc. nature itself). Consequently it could ignore the impossibilities set up by quantum physics (and chaos theory and any apparent randomness of the universe), and be aware of the position of a photon without collapsing the wave function. Or at least is aware of which way it will collapse when observed.
Ofcourse a omnipresent and omnipotent god forces a deterministic universe, but that's it's own can of philosophical worms.
One of the reasons why you won't get serious people to answer your "why" question in the way that you like, is because of the baggage that term implies.
The "Why" questions implicitly sneaks in things like "intent" and "purpose". Those are things that most people engaging in an existential discussion will not grant without justification.
Not all questions are coherent, sensible or justified. I could ask; "what does the smell blue taste like?".
So in essence, i am asking you to shown why "Why" is even a coherent and/or sensible question to ask in this regard.
Philosophically speaking; if God were to exist, it would exist outside all natural law ...
Couldn't of said it any better!
Without wanting to get overly simplistic. If something as complex as the universe (or even a human) cannot exist without an intelligent creator (as some people claim). Then how come something as complex as god is just there, requiring no explanation? That seems to be a clear double standard in reasoning.
Who made god? and what does he exist for?
I would love to hear a solution to those questions that could not just be applied directly to a universe without god.
Philosophically speaking; if God were to exist, it would exist outside all natural law ...
Couldn't of said it any better!
Without wanting to get overly simplistic. If something as complex as the universe (or even a human) cannot exist without an intelligent creator (as some people claim). Then how come something as complex as god is just there, requiring no explanation? That seems to be a clear double standard in reasoning.
Who made god? and what does he exist for?
I would love to hear a solution to those questions that could not just be applied directly to a universe without god.
"God was created by turtles" ... "The universe was created by god by turtles"
This works fine. As improbable as your solution is, the logic is undamaged. You have just swapped a creator in the image of an ape, for a creator in the image of a turtle. Which leads us back to "who created the creator?".
Some people try to get around this with statement such as: "God, just is."
But surely if you can believe that, you should have no problem with; "God The universe, just is."
OR
"God The universe, is eternal." "God The universe, created himself itself."
I don't think there is any way around this, which just shows the futility of trying to invoke such a being.
dogma wrote: Any response to those questions would necessarily involve personification, and so could not apply to a universe without God.
Anything you can suggest can be applied directly to the universe. Try it yourself.
Smacks wrote: "God was created by turtles" ...
"The universe was created by god by turtles"
This works fine. As improbable as your solution is, the logic is undamaged. You have just swapped a creator in the image of an ape, for a creator in the image of a turtle. Which leads us back to "who created the creator?".
Some people try to get around this with statement such as:
"God, just is."
But surely if you can believe that, you should have no problem with;
"God The universe, just is."
OR
"God The universe, is eternal." "God The universe, created himself itself."
I don't think there is any way around this, which just shows the futility of trying to invoke such a being.
Theologians and Philosophers have been grappling with this question for a looooog time.
I think, that one of the proposed resolutions is much like what I posted above. God (if it exists) exists outside of the rules that universe follows. Be they chemistry, quantum physics, mathematics, and yes, even logic. If the internal logic of the universe requires it to be created by a sentient entity* God does not have the same requirement, as it does not follow the same rules of logic (or any rules for that matter - part of the paradox of omnipotence). Ergo, even if the universe needs a creator, God does not.
(*Personally; I reject this particular idea, but ymmv.)
Pendix wrote: I think, that one of the proposed resolutions is much like what I posted above. God (if it exists) exists outside of the rules that universe follows. Be they chemistry, quantum physics, mathematics, and yes, even logic. If the internal logic of the universe requires it to be created by a sentient entity* God does not have the same requirement, as it does not follow the same rules of logic (or any rules for that matter - part of the paradox of omnipotence). Ergo, even if the universe needs a creator, God does not.
All this does is restate the double standard. The universe doesn't need a creator. There are cosmologists such as Lawrence Krauss who have proposed creator-less hypotheses. The only people who seem to be claiming that it does need a creator are doing so from a position of incredulity.
I.e: "I can't believe the universe just happened, so god much have created it."
Yet, these same people are happy to believe that god 'just happened' and wasn't created, which contradicts their original incredulity regarding stuff just "popping" into existence.
Smacks wrote: All this does is restate the double standard. The universe doesn't need a creator. There are cosmologists such as Lawrence Krauss who have proposed creator-less hypotheses. The only people who seem to be claiming that it does need a creator are doing so from a position of incredulity.
I.e: "I can't believe the universe just happened, so god much have created it."
Yet, these same people are happy to believe that god 'just happened' and wasn't created, which contradicts their original incredulity regarding stuff just "popping" into existence.
That's the thing though, they define God in such a way that it accepts the contradiction. The rationales you apply to the universe, don't apply to God, the double standard is inherent to the idea. Pealing back the surface layer of Theology reveal a world of paradoxes and contradictions (ones with theologians of many faiths have spent hundreds of years wrestling with), that often arrives back at the idea that God is the exception (him, and the Monguls ). All the rules break down . . .why? Because God.
Which, you know, to me, is pretty weird way of thinking, but I don't live inside the head of a person who is a serious, hard thinking believer.
Anyway I think I'm going to step back here, and invite the believers among us to step forward at take a shot at this, they may well be in a better place to explain.
It seems to be an almost unavoidable consequence of the top-down approach of theologians.
No matter what arguments are presented or what evidence is shown, the end (start?) result must always be "God".
Steelmage99 wrote: It seems to be an almost unavoidable consequence of the top-down approach of theologians.
No matter what arguments are presented or what evidence is shown, the end (start?) result must always be "God".
That's not necessarily the case, seeing as there are some pretty well established agnostic theologians.
Philosophically speaking; if God were to exist, it would exist outside all natural law, and be above/more powerful than anything in nature (inc. nature itself). Consequently it could ignore the impossibilities set up by quantum physics (and chaos theory and any apparent randomness of the universe), and be aware of the position of a photon without collapsing the wave function. Or at least is aware of which way it will collapse when observed.
Ofcourse a omnipresent and omnipotent god forces a deterministic universe, but that's it's own can of philosophical worms.
If that "logic" and goal-post moving was applied to any other theory, its proponent would be laughed out of the room.
I mean, at first the Gods were on top of that really high mountain. That one, over there. Oh, there's not actually anyone there. Well, that's because they're actually only one God, and he lives in a magical city in the sky. What's that, Telescopes show no such city? Well, obviously, the city is a metaphor for the sun. What? That is literally a ball of hot flaming gas, and as far we can observe the universe, there is no actual divine hand needed anywhere? Obviously, God is outside the universe but can still observe and see (and therefore judge) everything. Yeah, but quantum physics debunks that, too. Oh, but he's outside, so he's obviously not subject to your silly rules. Ha! (But IIRC there are indications and theories that imply quantum physics applies outside of our own universe as well.)
So how much further do you want to take this? At what point does it just become a wishful thought that refuses to die? Or, if you're a cynic, certain people propagating with slight modifications a lie to stay in power?
Who in their right mind would take a reasoning like this seriously if it was applied to anything but religion? Yet somehow it gets a free pass when it comes to idiocies like this.
Philosophically speaking; if God were to exist, it would exist outside all natural law, and be above/more powerful than anything in nature (inc. nature itself). Consequently it could ignore the impossibilities set up by quantum physics (and chaos theory and any apparent randomness of the universe), and be aware of the position of a photon without collapsing the wave function. Or at least is aware of which way it will collapse when observed.
Ofcourse a omnipresent and omnipotent god forces a deterministic universe, but that's it's own can of philosophical worms.
If that "logic" and goal-post moving was applied to any other theory, its proponent would be laughed out of the room.
I mean, at first the Gods were on top of that really high mountain. That one, over there. Oh, there's not actually anyone there. Well, that's because they're actually only one God, and he lives in a magical city in the sky. What's that, Telescopes show no such city? Well, obviously, the city is a metaphor for the sun. What? That is literally a ball of hot flaming gas, and as far we can observe the universe, there is no actual divine hand needed anywhere? Obviously, God is outside the universe but can still observe and see (and therefore judge) everything. Yeah, but quantum physics debunks that, too. Oh, but he's outside, so he's obviously not subject to your silly rules. Ha! (But IIRC there are indications and theories that imply quantum physics applies outside of our own universe as well.)
So how much further do you want to take this? At what point does it just become a wishful thought that refuses to die? Or, if you're a cynic, certain people propagating with slight modifications a lie to stay in power?
Who in their right mind would take a reasoning like this seriously if it was applied to anything but religion? Yet somehow it gets a free pass when it comes to idiocies like this.
I agree with you.
In the end, claiming that their particular deity exists outside of space and time (a completely incoherent proposition in the first place) still gets them nothing. If their god interacts with the physical reality we can observe, we can measure that interaction. If it doesn't interact in any measurable way, how can we tell if it actually exists.
There is no relevant distinction between a god that doesn't interact with our reality and a god that doesn't exist.
Steelmage99 wrote: It seems to be an almost unavoidable consequence of the top-down approach of theologians. No matter what arguments are presented or what evidence is shown, the end (start?) result must always be "God".
That's not necessarily the case, seeing as there are some pretty well established agnostic theologians.
That's where the "almost" part comes in.
Also there is nothing inherent in agnostic theism that prevents the holder from adopting a top-down approach to the issue. It is almost implied that a top-down approach is necessary if one is the hold the belief that a god exists (theism) while proposing that the basis of said belief in unknown or unknowable (agnosticism).
How does one come to hold that belief without starting with the assumption that a god must exist (top-down approach)?
Steelmage99 wrote: It seems to be an almost unavoidable consequence of the top-down approach of theologians. No matter what arguments are presented or what evidence is shown, the end (start?) result must always be "God".
Not all Theologians are like that.
Theologians are Philisophers at heart.
So there always be differences in opinion on just about everything.
I agree with you.
In the end, claiming that their particular deity exists outside of space and time (a completely incoherent proposition in the first place) still gets them nothing. If their god interacts with the physical reality we can observe, we can measure that interaction. If it doesn't interact in any measurable way, how can we tell if it actually exists.
There is no relevant distinction between a god that doesn't interact with our reality and a god that doesn't exist.
but that is assuming that we haven't found anything to suggest that. Currently we have no idea. We have no idea how to quantify it. What the hell would we even look for?
If that "logic" and goal-post moving was applied to any other theory, its proponent would be laughed out of the room.
I would laugh at you for laughing at someone who has a different opinion.
I mean, at first the Gods were on top of that really high mountain. That one, over there. Oh, there's not actually anyone there. Well, that's because they're actually only one God, and he lives in a magical city in the sky. What's that, Telescopes show no such city? Well, obviously, the city is a metaphor for the sun. What? That is literally a ball of hot flaming gas, and as far we can observe the universe, there is no actual divine hand needed anywhere? Obviously, God is outside the universe but can still observe and see (and therefore judge) everything. Yeah, but quantum physics debunks that, too. Oh, but he's outside, so he's obviously not subject to your silly rules. Ha! (But IIRC there are indications and theories that imply quantum physics applies outside of our own universe as well.)
So how much further do you want to take this? At what point does it just become a wishful thought that refuses to die? Or, if you're a cynic, certain people propagating with slight modifications a lie to stay in power?
Who in their right mind would take a reasoning like this seriously if it was applied to anything but religion? Yet somehow it gets a free pass when it comes to idiocies like this.
Your ideas of the bible are extremely strange.
We infact have no idea where or what heaven even looks like. Nor do we know that we will even go to heaven.
The problem here is your insulting religion and what people believe in. There is nothing wrong with believing in god. You are saying there is something wrong, when there have been just as many people killed in the name of god as there has been in the name of science.
In the end, claiming that their particular deity exists outside of space and time (a completely incoherent proposition in the first place) still gets them nothing.
If their god interacts with the physical reality we can observe, we can measure that interaction.
If it doesn't interact in any measurable way, how can we tell if it actually exists.
There is no relevant distinction between a god that doesn't interact with our reality and a god that doesn't exist.
but that is assuming that we haven't found anything to suggest that. Currently we have no idea. We have no idea how to quantify it. What the hell would we even look for?
First, I don't know what part of my post you are addressing when you refer to "that".
Second, if we have no idea about X, no idea how to quantify X and no idea about how even to look for X.....is it then rational to believe in X or is it rational to withhold belief until X is shown to be justified and true?
If that "logic" and goal-post moving was applied to any other theory, its proponent would be laughed out of the room.
I would laugh at you for laughing at someone who has a different opinion.
He is not laughing at someone having a different opinion. He is rightfully mocking the way that that particular opinion is presented and the way it is being justified.
I mean, at first the Gods were on top of that really high mountain. That one, over there. Oh, there's not actually anyone there. Well, that's because they're actually only one God, and he lives in a magical city in the sky. What's that, Telescopes show no such city? Well, obviously, the city is a metaphor for the sun. What? That is literally a ball of hot flaming gas, and as far we can observe the universe, there is no actual divine hand needed anywhere? Obviously, God is outside the universe but can still observe and see (and therefore judge) everything. Yeah, but quantum physics debunks that, too. Oh, but he's outside, so he's obviously not subject to your silly rules. Ha! (But IIRC there are indications and theories that imply quantum physics applies outside of our own universe as well.)
So how much further do you want to take this? At what point does it just become a wishful thought that refuses to die? Or, if you're a cynic, certain people propagating with slight modifications a lie to stay in power?
Who in their right mind would take a reasoning like this seriously if it was applied to anything but religion? Yet somehow it gets a free pass when it comes to idiocies like this.
Your ideas of the bible are extremely strange.
He is not talking about the Bible. He is talking about theology and beliefs.
.
We infact have no idea where or what heaven even looks like. Nor do we know that we will even go to heaven.
The problem here is your insulting religion and what people believe in.
Why is that a problem? Why are religions somehow exempt from criticism?
The major mono-theistic religions are extremely insulting to any modern human.
Why is that a problem? Why are religions somehow exempt from criticism?
The major mono-theistic religions are extremely insulting to any modern human.
Criticism is constructive, Not insulting.
I could say the same about Atheism.
But I don't, because I do not lump a bunch of people together to stroke my own ego.
He is not talking about the Bible. He is talking about theology and beliefs.
He mentioned mountain, city in the sky. That is heaven. He is making a reference to it. Even though in the bible and theologians even agree, there is no clear answer as to why heaven even looks like. Other than the realm of god.
He is rightfully mocking the way that that particular opinion is presented and the way it is being justified.
No one has the right to openly mock anyone for their beliefs.
First, I don't know what part of my post you are addressing when you refer to "that".
Second, if we have no idea about X, no idea how to quantify X and no idea about how even to look for X.....is it then rational to believe in X or is it rational to withhold belief until X is shown to be justified and true?
I was answering the whole thing.
Its Called Faith. I believe that wormholes exist, yet I have no evidence to prove this. I believe that there is a possiblity of alien life in the gaxaly. I believe that there is such thing as faster than light. yet I have no evidence to support this.
Because I do not see it doesn't mean it is not real. Just because we don't have it now, does not mean in a thousand or a hundred years we will find something that will disprove it.
All Science is relative as I have stated. Facts change and science changes. God doesn't.
Science cannot answer if God Truly Exists. So stop looking for the answer. The answer is I don't know. Sometimes we have to accept that we as humans will never unlock all the mysteries of the universe and the only acceptable answer is I do not know. Science can't answer it because we have no idea what to look for, even if we did, where would we start looking for God? Are we even sure God wants to be found, or are we not sure god is the universe and we are its body. We have no idea. Maybe we are all connected like many believe we are.
Humanity will never become unknowing, as we use relatives, not absolutes to explain things. We do not see everything, we only have 5 senses. While some animals have 20 or 7 different senses. (Sharks have 8 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/faq/fishfaq8.html )
Sometimes we just have to believe in it. Because science is based on faith in instruments and ourselves. Is it so far removed to believe that there might be a divine being? Is it so wrong to take comfort in the idea in an afterlife, that through all your hardship, that you won't enter just darkness.
Is it so wrong to believe that human beings could be better?
Often times the atheists I have met have been selfish, ignorant and often only listen to their own beliefs/ideology, yet they hold their ideology so high that it reminds me of the religious folks I hate at my church. They are just replacing god with human thinkers. I find that incredibly selfish, and self serving. They Idolize them, they make them the most important out of every human being.
If we have no idea X exists then why are we so centered on the idea of the singularity. Why do we believe it might happen?
We cannot reasonably deny its existance, because reasonably we have to weigh all the options. It could exist, it could not exist. To say I have no idea, and cannot take a side, is probably the most reasonable thing. Taking a stance is unreasonable and illogical. (going to extremes out right declaring a yes or a no to a statement is not Logical or reasonable)
It isn't just about opinions. There is a logical (mathematical) contradiction that you must accept first in order to invoke god. I can make this into two syllogisms to show you.
Premise A: The universe is complex. Premise B: Complex things need a creator. Conclusion: The universe needs a creator.
A syllogism, such as this, is at the heart of logical reasoning. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. So moving on:
Premise B: Complex things need a creator. Premise C: God is complex. Conclusion: God needs a creator.
Here is the contradiction. There are only four possible ways around it: 1. You accept that God must also need a creator (Which ultimately makes him a stop-gap that doesn't explain anything). 2. You reject Premise B: complex things need a creator (Which again makes god moot, since it allows the universe to be created without him). 3. You reject Premise C: God is complex. (This would contradict any notion of god as an intelligent creative being). 4. You accept the contradiction, and concede that the belief is demonstrably irrational. (or you reject all reason. Ergo: you are unreasonable.)
So which one are you?
If that "logic" and goal-post moving was applied to any other theory, its proponent would be laughed out of the room.
I would laugh at you for laughing at someone who has a different opinion.
Not all opinions are equal. The goal posts appear to have been moved not only outside of the testable universe, but outside the realms of reason itself.
It isn't just about opinions. There is logical (mathematical) contradiction that you must accept first in order to invoke god. I can make this into two syllogisms to show you.
Premise A: The universe is complex.
Premise B: Complex things need a creator.
Conclusion: The universe needs a creator.
A syllogism, such as this, is at the heart of logical reasoning. If the premisses are true, then the conclusion must also be true. So moving on:
Premise B: Complex things need a creator.
Premise C: God is complex.
Conclusion: God needs a creator.
Here is the contradiction. There are only four possible ways around it:
1. You accept that God must also need a creator (Which ultimately makes him a stop gap that doesn't explain anything).
2. You reject Premise B: complex things need a creator (Which again makes god moot, since it allows the universe to be created without him).
3. You reject Premise C: God is complex. (This would contradict any notion of god as an intelligent creative being).
4. You accept the contradiction, and concede that the belief is demonstrably irrational. (or you reject all reason.)
So which one are you?
5. Its a Cycle and God is the Universe and all Universes. God is everything and everyone.
^ Option 5 thank you.
That is one thing you might be thinking wrongly.
God is a concept completely foreign to us. We are human beings we are thinking three dimensionally. We are thinking god is a man. A human being given powers. That is extremely self centered. God is not a man, or a woman, or human. God is whatever the hell it wants to be. God is the universe god is the stars. God is us, God is everything. God doesn't care.
You can say that I have limited options of choice, but I reject that and say no. there are other options, because there are always other options.
Saying we are on this path and only these questions are right sound exactly like Predetermination.
Not all opinions are equal. The goal post appear to have been moved not only outside of the testable universe, but outside the realms of reason itself.
Sometimes things that do exist are well outside the realms of reason. Insanity is the only true sanity.
If anyone knows who I am paraphrasing props to you.
But we cannot rule out things that are well outside reason. Many things have been found from those who are insane.
Criticism cannot always be that constructive, especially when criticising something like religion. When talking about what people believe, even genuinely constructive criticism can be considered by the believer to be insulting. Insults are a matter of opinion.
I could say the same about Atheism.
But I don't, because I do not lump a bunch of people together to stroke my own ego.
I think we would be quite happy for you to attempt to logically refute the non-existence of god based upon the scientific evidence.
He mentioned mountain, city in the sky. That is heaven. He is making a reference to it. Even though in the bible and theologians even agree, there is no clear answer as to why heaven even looks like. Other than the realm of god.
You claim something, despite having just said that no one knows what that something actually is... then immediately go on to repeat that no one knows what that something is, despite you having claimed it
And I believe he was referencing Olympus, the home of the gods. Or indeed any one of many mountains where gods were said to reside until people climbed them and found no gods and so had to invent new gods that could not be discovered...
No one has the right to openly mock anyone for their beliefs.
I believe that America has the first amendment which says otherwise. The rest of the world varies from totalitarian religious states where execution is a real possibility for disagreeing with the local religion, to more civilised places where religion is treated pretty much the same as anything else when it comes to being protected from people speaking about it (although generally it still maintains a certain level of extra protection in most countries).
Its Called Faith. I believe that wormholes exist, yet I have no evidence to prove this. I believe that there is a possiblity of alien life in the gaxaly. I believe that there is such thing as faster than light. yet I have no evidence to support this.
Except unlike god, observation of the universe and reality has shown such things to be possible, or indeed have been observed (except perhaps things being faster than light - though there is certainly a lot of possibility of there being things which are faster than light). So really everything you believe in, as written there, has plenty of evidence to support your belief in it... except god.
Because I do not see it doesn't mean it is not real. Just because we don't have it now, does not mean in a thousand or a hundred years we will find something that will disprove it.
You can't really disprove something that doesn't exist. You just find more and more evidence to suggest it doesn't exist.
All Science is relative as I have stated. Facts change and science changes. God doesn't.
God changes all the time
Science cannot answer if God Truly Exists. So stop looking for the answer.
As I have already said, you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist - you just find more evidence to suggest it doesn't exist. Given the utter lack of evidence for there being a god discovered to date, we can be pretty sure that it doesn't exist. But that is the nature of science; it will keep on investigating and sometimes discoveries will push back the "here be dragons" and give god even less room to exist in.
Science would be very happy for people to look for and find evidence of gods existence. The point is that to date that evidence doesn't exist...
Humanity will never become unknowing, as we use relatives, not absolutes to explain things. We do not see everything, we only have 5 senses. While some animals have 20 or 7 different senses. (Sharks have 8 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/faq/fishfaq8.html )
As an aside, humans have more than 5 senses.
Sometimes we just have to believe in it. Because science is based on faith in instruments and ourselves.
Faith in scientific method and the results obtained from it is a very different beast than religious faith.
Is it so far removed to believe that there might be a divine being? Is it so wrong to take comfort in the idea in an afterlife, that through all your hardship, that you won't enter just darkness.
It is pretty far removed given the evidence to the contrary. Personally I don't have a particular problem with people believing pretty much whatever they want. I do not appreciate it however when they try to pass it off as fact and make everyone live to their beliefs.
Is it so wrong to believe that human beings could be better?
Isn't the idea of your religion that humans are inherently bad?
They Idolize them, they make them the most important out of every human being.
I've yet to meet an atheist who idolises anyone except celebrities
We cannot reasonably deny its existance, because reasonably we have to weigh all the options. It could exist, it could not exist. To say I have no idea, and cannot take a side, is probably the most reasonable thing. Taking a stance is unreasonable and illogical. (going to extremes out right declaring a yes or a no to a statement is not Logical or reasonable)
Taking a stance is not unreasonable and illogical. Is water wet? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is and none to suggest it is not, therefore it is reasonable and logical to take a stance on water being wet, despite not being able to know for certain.
Criticism cannot always be that constructive, especially when criticising something like religion. When talking about what people believe, even genuinely constructive criticism can be considered by the believer to be insulting. Insults are a matter of opinion.
I could say the same about Atheism.
But I don't, because I do not lump a bunch of people together to stroke my own ego.
I think we would be quite happy for you to attempt to logically refute the non-existence of god based upon the scientific evidence.
He mentioned mountain, city in the sky. That is heaven. He is making a reference to it. Even though in the bible and theologians even agree, there is no clear answer as to why heaven even looks like. Other than the realm of god.
You claim something, despite having just said that no one knows what that something actually is... then immediately go on to repeat that no one knows what that something is, despite you having claimed it
And I believe he was referencing Olympus, the home of the gods. Or indeed any one of many mountains where gods were said to reside until people climbed them and found no gods and so had to invent new gods that could not be discovered...
No one has the right to openly mock anyone for their beliefs.
I believe that America has the first amendment which says otherwise. The rest of the world varies from totalitarian religious states where execution is a real possibility for disagreeing with the local religion, to more civilised places where religion is treated pretty much the same as anything else when it comes to being protected from people speaking about it (although generally it still maintains a certain level of extra protection in most countries).
Its Called Faith. I believe that wormholes exist, yet I have no evidence to prove this. I believe that there is a possiblity of alien life in the gaxaly. I believe that there is such thing as faster than light. yet I have no evidence to support this.
Except unlike god, observation of the universe and reality has shown such things to be possible, or indeed have been observed (except perhaps things being faster than light - though there is certainly a lot of possibility of there being things which are faster than light). So really everything you believe in, as written there, has plenty of evidence to support your belief in it... except god.
Because I do not see it doesn't mean it is not real. Just because we don't have it now, does not mean in a thousand or a hundred years we will find something that will disprove it.
You can't really disprove something that doesn't exist. You just find more and more evidence to suggest it doesn't exist.
All Science is relative as I have stated. Facts change and science changes. God doesn't.
God changes all the time
Science cannot answer if God Truly Exists. So stop looking for the answer.
As I have already said, you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist - you just find more evidence to suggest it doesn't exist. Given the utter lack of evidence for there being a god discovered to date, we can be pretty sure that it doesn't exist. But that is the nature of science; it will keep on investigating and sometimes discoveries will push back the "here be dragons" and give god even less room to exist in.
Science would be very happy for people to look for and find evidence of gods existence. The point is that to date that evidence doesn't exist...
Humanity will never become unknowing, as we use relatives, not absolutes to explain things. We do not see everything, we only have 5 senses. While some animals have 20 or 7 different senses. (Sharks have 8 http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/faq/fishfaq8.html )
As an aside, humans have more than 5 senses.
Sometimes we just have to believe in it. Because science is based on faith in instruments and ourselves.
Faith in scientific method and the results obtained from it is a very different beast than religious faith.
Is it so far removed to believe that there might be a divine being? Is it so wrong to take comfort in the idea in an afterlife, that through all your hardship, that you won't enter just darkness.
It is pretty far removed given the evidence to the contrary. Personally I don't have a particular problem with people believing pretty much whatever they want. I do not appreciate it however when they try to pass it off as fact and make everyone live to their beliefs.
Is it so wrong to believe that human beings could be better?
Isn't the idea of your religion that humans are inherently bad?
They Idolize them, they make them the most important out of every human being.
I've yet to meet an atheist who idolises anyone except celebrities
We cannot reasonably deny its existance, because reasonably we have to weigh all the options. It could exist, it could not exist. To say I have no idea, and cannot take a side, is probably the most reasonable thing. Taking a stance is unreasonable and illogical. (going to extremes out right declaring a yes or a no to a statement is not Logical or reasonable)
Taking a stance is not unreasonable and illogical. Is water wet? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it is and none to suggest it is not, therefore it is reasonable and logical to take a stance on water being wet, despite not being able to know for certain.
I can't really disagree. Some points I do agree with.
Alright let me respond to this bit.
I've yet to meet an atheist who idolises anyone except celebrities
Yes there is idolizing of certain people, like great thinkers, founding fathers and people in general.
Isn't the idea of your religion that humans are inherently bad?
Humans are inherently sinful, but that doesn't mean they don't have the capacity to do good. Otherwise god wouldn't waste time on us.
Humans have ability to do both good and bad. But doing evil is easier than doing good. We are taught that being a good person is hard, and you have to make sacrifices and that good doesn't always win. (That is for humans).
It is pretty far removed given the evidence to the contrary. Personally I don't have a particular problem with people believing pretty much whatever they want. I do not appreciate it however when they try to pass it off as fact and make everyone live to their beliefs.
WE don't have any evidence to support or to negate that a divine being exists. This is just going to become a circular argument though. One saying yes it does, and the other saying it does not.
As an aside, humans have more than 5 senses.
Yes, true, but we do not have as many senses as many animals do. We do not use them as much as the five major senses.
Criticism cannot always be that constructive, especially when criticising something like religion. When talking about what people believe, even genuinely constructive criticism can be considered by the believer to be insulting. Insults are a matter of opinion.
Thats where I actually disagree. I mean people talk and criticize my religion all the time, yet I listen to them. Yet it is not in my power to change that. They can criticize but often the religious types just ignore them. Not because they are being abrasive but because what could they do? They can't restructure the church. They are just a church goer.
As I have already said, you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist - you just find more evidence to suggest it doesn't exist. Given the utter lack of evidence for there being a god discovered to date, we can be pretty sure that it doesn't exist. But that is the nature of science; it will keep on investigating and sometimes discoveries will push back the "here be dragons" and give god even less room to exist in.
well the thing is we still have no idea. The nature of science is not to prove whether something exists it is to make change the human condition and trying to better humanity. It is not going to the replacement of religion. Religion has its place in society.
I believe that America has the first amendment which says otherwise. The rest of the world varies from totalitarian religious states where execution is a real possibility for disagreeing with the local religion, to more civilised places where religion is treated pretty much the same as anything else when it comes to being protected from people speaking about it (although generally it still maintains a certain level of extra protection in most countries).
Openly saying that All Priests are child molesters in the middle of a church service would probably get you arrested, so no. You aren't protected by the first amendment. You can disagree with it, but mocking it is childish.
You claim something, despite having just said that no one knows what that something actually is... then immediately go on to repeat that no one knows what that something is, despite you having claimed it
And I believe he was referencing Olympus, the home of the gods. Or indeed any one of many mountains where gods were said to reside until people climbed them and found no gods and so had to invent new gods that could not be discovered...
The Jewish-Christian-Mulism God has been in existence before the greeks O.o
Infact the only religion not to change texts has been the Bible, Korah and the Korran. There might be different word translations but the messages are all the same, just said differently.
Here is the contradiction. There are only four possible ways around it:
1. You accept that God must also need a creator (Which ultimately makes him a stop-gap that doesn't explain anything).
2. You reject Premise B: complex things need a creator (Which again makes god moot, since it allows the universe to be created without him).
3. You reject Premise C: God is complex. (This would contradict any notion of god as an intelligent creative being).
4. You accept the contradiction, and concede that the belief is demonstrably irrational. (or you reject all reason. Ergo: you are unreasonable.)
So which one are you?
Option 6: God, being almighty, created itself through time.
But I don't, because I do not lump a bunch of people together to stroke my own ego.
Please, do tell how a lack of beliefs in god(s) is insulting to modern humans.
He is not talking about the Bible. He is talking about theology and beliefs.
He mentioned mountain, city in the sky. That is heaven. He is making a reference to it. Even though in the bible and theologians even agree, there is no clear answer as to why heaven even looks like. Other than the realm of god.
Go an. Pull the other one. It's got bells on it.
He mentions a mountain and gods (plural) living there ....and you think he is talking specifically about Christianity? Greek and Roman mythology (what all religions eventually become, it seems) didn't enter your mind once?
Are you kidding me!?!
He is rightfully mocking the way that that particular opinion is presented and the way it is being justified.
No one has the right to openly mock anyone for their beliefs.
And he didn't! He mocked the way it was being presented (the logic) and the way it was being justified (the goal-post moving)
You do realize that the beliefs, the people holding them and the justifications used to hold said belief are three different things, right?
We can talk about those as separate things
First, I don't know what part of my post you are addressing when you refer to "that".
Second, if we have no idea about X, no idea how to quantify X and no idea about how even to look for X.....is it then rational to believe in X or is it rational to withhold belief until X is shown to be justified and true?
I was answering the whole thing.
That is of course no help at all, and I am simply amazed that you cannot see this.
its Called Faith.
"Faith" is the excuse people trot out when you have no evidence and no good reasons to believe a proposition
If those people had evidence, they wouldn't need to resurt to faith.
All Science is relative as I have stated. Facts change and science changes. God doesn't.
Except of course that God absolutely changes. He changes his nature (mono to trinity), he changes his mind (commandments and guidelines) and he changes the way we have to worship (sacrifice, deeds and works).
No, science does not change. The conclusions drawn by science does. And those conclusions change in the light of new observations or new evidence, not on a hunch, feeling or desire..
Science cannot answer if God Truly Exists.
Why not?
So stop looking for the answer. The answer is I don't know. Sometimes we have to accept that we as humans will never unlock all the mysteries of the universe and the only acceptable answer is I do not know. Science can't answer it because we have no idea what to look for, even if we did, where would we start looking for God? Are we even sure God wants to be found, or are we not sure god is the universe and we are its body. We have no idea. Maybe we are all connected like many believe we are.
Thank 'insert-deity-of-choice-here*, that most people don't think in the way you just described. We would still be living in caves while being afraid of thunder.
"I don't know (yet, but I am looking into it)" is the correct answer.
"We can never know (so we should completely stop looking for an answer)" is a horrible attitude.
Humanity will never become unknowing, as we use relatives, not absolutes to explain things. We do not see everything, we only have 5 senses.
I assume you meant "all-knowing" there, not "unknowing".
No, we don't use relatives. You should really look into how science uses terms like "proof" and "proven". Science do not deal in absolutes, as that would discourage looking further.
Again, are you kidding me?!? Humans have more than 5 senses. Examples included balance, temperature and proprioception (the sense that allows you to know where your arm or leg is without looking).
You looked up animal senses (and linked to it), but couldn't be bothered to do the same for human senses?
Sometimes we just have to believe in it.
No, we really don't.
Because science is based on faith in instruments and ourselves.
No, it isn't.
We have no faith in the instruments.
That is why we check and re-check them. That is why we constantly calibrate them.
We have no faith in ourselves.
That is why we go through peer-review and let others check our work.
You have no idea how science works, do you?
Is it so wrong to believe that human beings could be better?
No, it isn't. That is what the enlightenment is all about, and we don't need bronze-age mythology or a jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully to do it.
It would actually be rather easier without.
Taking a stance is unreasonable and illogical. (going to extremes out right declaring a yes or a no to a statement is not Logical or reasonable)
Here are two statements,
A. I believe that god(s) do not exist.
B. I believe that at least one god exists
Which one do you think that atheists agree with? Warning. this is a trick question.
Before you answer I'd like you to think of the difference between "I do not believe god(s) exists" and "I believe that god(s) do not exist".
Asherian Command wrote: You can say that I have limited options of choice, but I reject that and say no. there are other options, because there are always other options.
Sorry, but there are no other options that address the logical contradiction. You can reject it and say there are other options, but that is just 4: rejecting reason, being unreasonable.
That is actually okay with me. If I can get believers to agree that they are being unreasonable, I would consider that 'job done'.
5. Its a Cycle and God is the Universe and all Universes. God is everything and everyone.
^ Option 5 thank you.
There is no option 5, and this kind of mental slight of hand doesn't address the contradiction. If god and the universe are the same, then you must either accept that complex things do not need a creator, or that your notion of god is unreasonable.
That is one thing you might be thinking wrongly.
God is a concept completely foreign to us.
If by 'foreign' you mean defies reason and believability, then we are in agreement.
Insanity.
We seem to be saying a lot of the same things, but not quite able to find a connection
But we cannot rule out things that are well outside reason.
Actually, that's pretty much the only thing we can confidently rule out. To be outside reason is to be outside reality. You might say God is outside reality, and I would agree with that: he isn't real.
Complexity creating itself, would fall under Option 2, which makes god moot. If he can create himself, then so can the universe create itself without him in it.
There are only four logical options. If you want to make up nth illogical stuff then please choose 'number 4: rejecting reason'.
Asherian Command wrote: You can say that I have limited options of choice, but I reject that and say no. there are other options, because there are always other options.
Sorry, but there are no other options that address the logical contradiction. You can reject it and say there are other options, but that is just 4: rejecting reason, being unreasonable.
That is actually okay okay with me. If I can get believers to agree that they are being unreasonable, I would consider that 'job done'.
Thats not reason, thats insanity. Saying I am limited to a few options and basically tunneling me into a singular opinion is demoralizing and wrong.
There are more options not just 4.
Reasonable and logical people, keep their minds open to many possibilities.
There is no option 5, and this kind of mental slight of hand doesn't address the contradiction. If god and the universe are the same, then you must either accept that complex things do not need a creator, or that your notion of god is unreasonable.
I find it unreasonable as to why it couldn't be true. It is based on faith. I have no idea if God is real. But do I care? Yes. Because it is God.
If by 'foreign' you mean defies reason and believability, then we are in agreement.
Maybe because God isn't human, that god is beyond our logic and understanding. There are some creatures that we will meet one day that will transcend our understanding. That of which we will never truly understand.
We seem to be saying a lot of the same things, but not quite able to find a connection
Well to be honest insane people have discovered some pretty interesting things that a sane person haven't. Sometimes I envy people who are insane. Because all the barriers are down, and they can see truth.
Actually, that's pretty much the only thing we can confidently rule out. To be outside reason is to be outside reality. You might say God is outside reality, and I would agree with that: he isn't real.
But that would be saying that he could exist, he maybe outside our reality but he could still be in a different reality controlling ever factoid of life, creating as he wills it.
Complexity creating itself, would fall under Option 2, which makes god moot. If he can create himself, then so can the universe create itself without him in it.
There are only four logical options. If you want to make up nth illogical stuff then please choose 'number 4: rejecting reason'.
Can I just say it is illogical to demand that your logic is logical.
I've been warned by many of my Fellow Philisophers anyone saying they have the truth or logic above all else, are they themselves untruthful and untrustworthy.
Asherian Command wrote: You can say that I have limited options of choice, but I reject that and say no. there are other options, because there are always other options.
Sorry, but there are no other options that address the logical contradiction. You can reject it and say there are other options, but that is just 4: rejecting reason, being unreasonable.
That is actually okay with me. If I can get believers to agree that they are being unreasonable, I would consider that 'job done'.
5. Its a Cycle and God is the Universe and all Universes. God is everything and everyone.
^ Option 5 thank you.
There is no option 5, and this kind of mental slight of hand doesn't address the contradiction. If god and the universe are the same, then you must either accept that complex things do not need a creator, or that your notion of god is unreasonable.
That is one thing you might be thinking wrongly.
God is a concept completely foreign to us.
If by 'foreign' you mean defies reason and believability, then we are in agreement.
Insanity.
We seem to be saying a lot of the same things, but not quite able to find a connection
But we cannot rule out things that are well outside reason.
Actually, that's pretty much the only thing we can confidently rule out. To be outside reason is to be outside reality. You might say God is outside reality, and I would agree with that: he isn't real.
Complexity creating itself, would fall under Option 2, which makes god moot. If he can create himself, then so can the universe create itself without him in it.
There are only four logical options. If you want to make up nth illogical stuff then please choose 'number 4: rejecting reason'.
Saying all priests are doing bad things with children in the middle of a service would not be mocking religion. It may be considered (depending on where in the world you are) as something like causing a public disturbance. Same as if you stood up at a football match and shouted that all football players are rapists.
The idolisation of people is not unique to those who do not believe in god. Very few people take the idolisation of celebrities to the extent of some religious observances however
You say there is no evidence to support or disprove a divine being - as you say it is a circular discussionas you want to cling to there being a god. However, there is an equal amount of evidence for there being or not being a flying unicorn who farted the universe into being and guides evolution by waving its horn...
Science os all about proving things. A side effect of science os (generally) the betterment of mankind. Science is not there to make humanity better, it is simply the investigation of the universe.
Regards the mountain top gods - it is a metaphor for the changes seen in religion over time. Pf course belief systems linger on far past the time discoveries are made, partly because not all places discover the same rhings at the same time (common in ye olde times) and partly due to momentum.
The invention of the abrahamic god is useful for the jews of the time who had no fixed abode. A portable god was very handy and as it was "everywhere" it has helped it survive longer than others which were easy to disprove. The killing and conversion of anyone qho thought differently also helped
And yes, god of rhe abrahamic faith has changed over time... just look at the fact there are three very distinct sects who have all been happily killing each other for centuries. Within christianity there have been many revisions of the core texts and the very nature of god.
Even islam, which does actually claim an utterly unchanged religious text there are several versions of the koran and several sects all happily killing each other when they can't kill anyone else
Asherian Command wrote: Reasonable and logical people, keep their minds open to many possibilities.
Not when we're talking about mathematical true or false situations. Either the premises are false or the conclusions are true. There is no way around this.
Thats not reason, thats insanity. Saying I am limited to a few options and basically tunneling me into a singular opinion is demoralizing and wrong.
It is reason. I'm sorry if it is demoralizing. Maybe that's something to reflect on.
Since I'm nice I'll give you an out.
Option 2, allows god to logically exist. You just have to be willing to accept that he is awkwardly superfluous. Which is how we got into this "top down" discussion.
Asherian Command wrote: Reasonable and logical people, keep their minds open to many possibilities.
Not when we're talking about mathematical true or false situations. Either the premises are false or the conclusions are true. There is no way around this.
Thats not reason, thats insanity. Saying I am limited to a few options and basically tunneling me into a singular opinion is demoralizing and wrong.
It is reason. I'm sorry if it is demoralizing. Maybe that's something to reflect on.
Since I'm nice I'll give you an out.
Option 2, allows god to logically exist. You just have to be willing to accept that he is awkwardly superfluous. Which is how we got into this "top down" discussion.
Keeping options open is the only way to a healthy debate. Limiting things will only cause more debate. Keeping things open to interpretation and not being specific will lead to more interesting and more valid debates. Limiting it to a yes or no will only cause strife.
On my phone so not going to bother with quotes:
Saying all priests are doing bad things with children in the middle of a service would not be mocking religion. It may be considered (depending on where in the world you are) as something like causing a public disturbance. Same as if you stood up at a football match and shouted that all football players are rapists.
The idolisation of people is not unique to those who do not believe in god. Very few people take the idolisation of celebrities to the extent of some religious observances however
You say there is no evidence to support or disprove a divine being - as you say it is a circular discussionas you want to cling to there being a god. However, there is an equal amount of evidence for there being or not being a flying unicorn who farted the universe into being and guides evolution by waving its horn...
Science is all about proving things. A side effect of science is (generally) the betterment of mankind. Science is not there to make humanity better, it is simply the investigation of the universe.
Regards the mountain top gods - it is a metaphor for the changes seen in religion over time. Pf course belief systems linger on far past the time discoveries are made, partly because not all places discover the same rhings at the same time (common in ye olde times) and partly due to momentum.
The invention of the abrahamic god is useful for the jews of the time who had no fixed abode. A portable god was very handy and as it was "everywhere" it has helped it survive longer than others which were easy to disprove. The killing and conversion of anyone qho thought differently also helped
And yes, god of rhe abrahamic faith has changed over time... just look at the fact there are three very distinct sects who have all been happily killing each other for centuries. Within christianity there have been many revisions of the core texts and the very nature of god.
Even islam, which does actually claim an utterly unchanged religious text there are several versions of the koran and several sects all happily killing each other when they can't kill anyone else
Interesting, but I won't change my view on god. Because It doesn't make sense for me to do so. I believe in God, but it doesn't mean you have to, people kill each other in the name of god all the time, and it doesn't mean I agree with them, and who says they are fighting in his name and not for personal glory?
Science is not there to make humanity better, it is simply the investigation of the universe.
Its humanities way of trying to understand the universe.
Philosophy is about understanding ourselves and our thinking. And trying to create morality and trying to be moral. And what ought I to do.
Science will try to delve into it, but in the end we will never find all the answers. and I actually take comfort in that. Knowing all of lifes secrets is not something humanity should think as an end goal, but what we accomplish and do should be our priority.
Keeping options open is the only way to a healthy debate. Limiting things will only cause more debate. Keeping things open to interpretation and not being specific will lead to more interesting and more valid debates. Limiting it to a yes or no will only cause strife.
What? That doesn't make any sense.
Accepting illogical and irrational options in a discussion is absolutely no way to conduct any kind of debate, healthy or otherwise. That is just an argument used by someone that knows that he doesn't have any logical options left to defend his points.
Otherwise the option that the universe itself isn't real but instead just the figment of the imagination of a small cat named Mittens is equally as valid as an option in a "healthy" debate as the notion of the christian god.
Asherian Command wrote: Keeping things open to interpretation and not being specific will lead to more interesting and more valid debates.
No it doesn't. It just allows people who are presenting a logically invalid argument, to keep presenting it unhindered. This isn't really about god, it's about the argument from incredulity.
If you believe that the universe 'could' have formed on its own without god, then this doesn't really affect you. Although it does raise the question as to why you are complicating your own explanation of the universe by inserting elaborate and complex assumptions at the beginning that aren't needed to explain anything.
Keeping options open is the only way to a healthy debate. Limiting things will only cause more debate. Keeping things open to interpretation and not being specific will lead to more interesting and more valid debates. Limiting it to a yes or no will only cause strife.
What? That doesn't make any sense.
Accepting illogical and irrational options in a discussion is absolutely no way to conduct any kind of debate, healthy or otherwise. That is just an argument used by someone that knows that he doesn't have any logical options left to defend his points.
Otherwise the option that the universe itself isn't real but instead just the figment of the imagination of a small cat named Mittens is equally as valid as an option in a "healthy" debate as the notion of the christian god.
The only way to make someone happy is to agree to disagree. Just saying no your wrong doesn't help a debate.
Accepting illogicaland irrational opinions is all up to opinion.
Asherian Command wrote: Keeping things open to interpretation and not being specific will lead to more interesting and more valid debates.
No it doesn't. It just allows people who are presenting a logically invalid argument, to keep presenting it unhindered. This isn't really about god, it's about the argument from incredulity.
If you believe that the universe 'could' have formed on its own without god, then this doesn't really affect you. Although it does raise the question as to why you are complicating your own explanation of the universe by inserting elaborate and complex assumptions that aren't needed to explain anything.
The problem is that is the only way to invite the discussion to differing opinions. First rule of debate is to not to prove someone wrong, but to show someone their error.
Apropos to this discussion, several quotes from Dawkins...
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
With regard to 99+% of *all* gods humanity has ever believed in, we are all in agreement... They do not exist. So why do Christians (and others, to be fair) stop at that last one? There's no more proof for the existance of the Judeo-Christian god than there is for Buddha, Odin, Zeus, Saturn, Quetzelcoatl, Baal, Mazdamundi, or any other deity that's ever existed in the various religions of the world.
“Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it.”
When the Greeks didn't understand why earthquakes happened, they said that Posiedon caused them by moving the great ocean underground. But when science has an explanation, not so many people are left worshipping Poseidon. When the ancients didn't know why the sun moved across the sky, a great divine dung beetle pushed it. Or it was carried on a chariot. Or... Now that we have a scientiic explanation, god(s) need not be invoked.
The "god of the gaps" strategy of attributing anything which cannot, yet, be explained is -ultimately- futile. Even without a rigorious scientific method, knowledge builds upon itself reducing the gaps. The scientific method just hastens that. Today's knowledge builds on yesterday's, and tomorrow's will build on today's. Yesterday, it was earthquakes, weather, and speciation. Tomorrow, it will be abiogensis and the origin of the universe. God is left with an asymptotically shrinking realm. Science will never claim to close every single gap (Heisenberg and Godel provided sufficient proof of that), but even now the gaps that remain don't allow for the active, personal, god that's described in the bible. And the box will keep getting smaller...
I would laugh at you for laughing at someone who has a different opinion.
I'm not laughing at anyone. I certainly don't think it's funny. And nowhere did opinions enter into my argument; I'm criticing a line of reasoning. (And opinions are not holy. They can be and often are wrong.)
I wasn't talking (just) about the bible. The mountain was a referenct to Olympos. The city in the sky was a reference to Revelations, which gives literal measurements for said city. The rest were (sadly, only somewhat) satirical references to how religion or religious leaders have deflected fact-finders debunking their previous ideas of what and where god can be found by simply changing what they were saying.
Asherian Command wrote: The problem here is your insulting religion and what people believe in. There is nothing wrong with believing in god. You are saying there is something wrong, when there have been just as many people killed in the name of god as there has been in the name of science.
You're going to have to prove that last one pretty damn convincingly, because that is just flat-out wrong. Also, Criticizing. Harshly, perhaps, but "you're hurting my feelings with your logic" does not make for a good counter-argument. Yet, somehow, if a religious nutjob calls me a blasphemer (for the record, this is a hypothetical argument. I'm not pointing fingers t anyone here.), I'm not allowed to call him out on his ridiculous beliefs in my turn? Preposterous. Finally, constructive criticism only has merit if the idea being criticized has some merit or enough decent legs to stand on that removing the imperfections strengthens the structure, as it were. It's my opinion (and yes, I may be wrong) that there are very few meritorious aspects to religion in this day and age, and rather a lot of deleterious ones. Hence I also do not think that there is much point to constructive criticism of religion.
Also as an aside, science is actually based on destructive criticism, so there isn't even an inconsistency in my conduct here.
In summary, what Steelmage99 already said much shorter than I'm doing.
Asherian Command wrote: All Science is relative as I have stated. Facts change and science changes. God doesn't.
Science cannot answer if God Truly Exists.
Not if you keep changing what God is supposed to be every time the previous "definition"is proved wrong. Also, facts change? What part of the word "fact" escapes your comprehension?
Asherian Command wrote: Sometimes we just have to believe in it. Because science is based on faith in instruments and ourselves. Is it so far removed to believe that there might be a divine being? Is it so wrong to take comfort in the idea in an afterlife, that through all your hardship, that you won't enter just darkness.
Is it so wrong to believe that human beings could be better?
No, we don't. "Just believe it", is not, has never been, and will never be, a good enough argument. And that is why science is so much more reliable a tool for understanding the universe than religion or myth. Science does not rely on faith or instruments, it relies on falsifiable and testable predictions arrived at through some chain of reasoning. You can check it all yourself. It might require some (or a lot) of effort, time and money, but it is possible.
There's nothing wrong in taking comfort in an idea (well, depends on the idea), but human betterment is unlikely to come from any religious institution. Religion has been responsible for some of the worst excesses of violence and oppression human history. And the tally just keeps growing.
Asherian Command wrote: Yes there is idolizing of certain people, like great thinkers, founding fathers and people in general.
A real scientist would give his right arm to prove the established order wrong, especially great thinkers. And I'm not American, so I have no particular need to revere your founding fathers. Although I do think Freddy Mercury is one the best singers to have ever lived.
Asherian Command wrote: WE don't have any evidence to support or to negate that a divine being exists.
We have plenty of evidence. It's just that, every time one incarnation is proven false, religion changes what they say needs to be disproven. Like you said, it's running in circles.
Asherian Command wrote: The nature of science is not to prove whether something exists it is to make change the human condition and trying to better humanity.
Wrong. The whole point of science is to figure out ways to disprove a theory you have about why something you've observed happens. Increases in technology and comfort it creates are at best a desirable side effect to the real point. To figure out how and why things happen the way they do.
Asherian Command wrote: The Jewish-Christian-Mulism God has been in existence before the greeks O.o
Infact the only religion not to change texts has been the Bible, Korah and the Korran. There might be different word translations but the messages are all the same, just said differently.
Wrong. The Greek civilization can be traced back to at least 3000 BC. The Abrahamic one, if we start with Abraham, goes back no further than 1,800 BC. And that wasn't the point anyhow. The point was that the first polytheistic religions claimed that gods were somewhere just out of reach. Just like the current batch of monotheistic religions have been doing for the past two thousand years, except that "just out of reach" has shifted from "on top of that mountain" to "outside the universe and therefore unknowable".
Um, where did you get the idea that the Bible never changed? I'm pretty sure at least one Testament was added in the past two millennia, and it still reads as a bunch of added together more-or-less historical texts from before then if you stick to just the Old Testament.
Then there's the various translations like the King James version which all subtly alter the previous text for whatever reason. In fact, the Council of Nycaea was called together to put a stop to the many different version of the text floating around in the early Dark Ages and settle once and for all (for a given value of once and for all) which was the true Word of God. I don't know enough about the Torrah or the Koran to comment.
Bran Dawri wrote: Wrong. The Greek civilization can be traced back to at least 3000 BC. The Abrahamic one, if we start with Abraham, goes back no further than 1,800 BC. And that wasn't the point anyhow. The point was that the first polytheistic religions claimed that gods were somewhere just out of reach. Just like the current batch of monotheistic religions have been doing for the past two thousand years, except that "just out of reach" has shifted from "on top of that mountain" to "outside the universe and therefore unknowable".
Just an aside, but "Abraham" is thought to have been constructed at some time around 500-300 BC either as a "historic" justification for Jews in Judah holding the land that they claimed during the Babylonian captivity or as a means of justifying who would be included within the "Jewish people" and the priesthood/power structure, and inserted backwards in time.
)
