Atheists, Stop Insulting Theists

[Borodog]

I posted this in another thread, but the more I thought about it the more I think it might deserve a thread of its own.

I agree with what Sklansky and Dawkins have both said, that several hundred years ago the idea of the existence of a God or Gods was the most parsimonious assumption to make. During the rise of the scientific method the plausibility of a meddling/participatory God or Gods waned, and Deism gained popularity. As science has explained complexity without design even the need for a watchmaker has fallen by the wayside.

But it takes a lot of time and thought to understand difficult and complex areas of science, like cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, paleontology, geophysics, biology, evolutionary theory. People quite naturally still make what they believe is the parsimonious choice, as believing in a creator God or Gods seems "simpler" than understanding the complexities of natural explanations. This is why I really can't be as worked up or militant about theism. Theists are not "stupid" or "deluded" or any other pejorative term. They believe they are making the common sense, parsimonious, Occam's Razor decision. The only problem is that the decision is uninformed, and it is extremely difficult and time consuming to become informed, and our educational system doesn't help in the slightest.

Discuss.

[Triumph36]

What?

First of all, I'm not sure how you're using the word parsimonious - unless it has taken on a philosophical meaning due to some book I don't know about, its use is incorrect here.

Second - While this *might* explain some 'rational' forms of faith, it hardly accounts for faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ, or faith in religious works in general.

Third - Science will never answer the large, simple questions made manifest by Kant's Antinomies of Pure Reason. It comes close to answering whether there is a beginning in time and space, or whether there is an uncaused cause, but cannot answer them absolutely, for the reasons he sets out. Understanding complex science gets us answers to our complicated questions, but the simple questions still remain either partially answered or unanswerable.

Fourth - A shot at the education system, naturally. I think that has very little to do with anything here - unless one thinks that faith is arrived at rationally. Philosophers can often construct systems that make it appear so, but I do not think this is the case.

And for the record, I am not a theist.

[xorbie]

well said. however, parsimony isn't really a logical argument.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
well said. however, parsimony isn't really a logical argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, it isn't. However, since no scientific theory can ever be proven, all decisions about what theories to support and how strongly to support them are all essentially informed, however subconsciously, by parsimony.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well said. however, parsimony isn't really a logical argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, it isn't. However, since no scientific theory can ever be proven, all decisions about what theories to support and how strongly to support them are all essentially informed, however subconsciously, by parsimony.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is correct, i was just pointing out that parsimony doesn't really have to be used to justify god, although i agree that it often is.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
What?

First of all, I'm not sure how you're using the word parsimonious - unless it has taken on a philosophical meaning due to some book I don't know about, its use is incorrect here.

[/ QUOTE ]

par·si·mo·ni·ous: adj. Excessively sparing or frugal.

For example, as a scientist, I try to be sparing or frugal with the assumptions that I make in trying to understand and explain physical phenomena. I think it's pretty clear that to a person several centuries ago who gave the matter any thought but had no concept of science, the scientific method, and modern (complex) scientific explanations, the parsimonious decision was to believe in a Creator God or Gods who had created all of the complex design they saw around them and could provide a cause for all of the effects they saw in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
Second - While this *might* explain some 'rational' forms of faith, it hardly accounts for faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ, or faith in religious works in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're trying to expand the concept beyond its scope. Clearly belief in any particular faith is almost entirely meme-based. Search for the "Viruses of the Mind" thread I started. The point is that modern people have meme-based beliefs largely for the same reason they speak the language they do, and that these beliefs seem parsimonious and common sensical, and that the effort required to learn complex scientific natural explanations for things is daunting. This does not make the average believer "stupid" or "irrational." In fact I'm pretty sure for the average believer it's a quite rational decision to not waste their time on such matters, which will, by default, leave them in whatever state of belief they were brought up with.

[ QUOTE ]
Third - Science will never answer the large, simple questions made manifest by Kant's Antinomies of Pure Reason. It comes close to answering whether there is a beginning in time and space, or whether there is an uncaused cause, but cannot answer them absolutely, for the reasons he sets out. Understanding complex science gets us answers to our complicated questions, but the simple questions still remain either partially answered or unanswerable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't claim that it did. I merely said that modern science has made unnecessary any assumptions about a participatory Creator God or Gods to explain Earthly complexity or events. Hence, the parsimonsious choice is to not make such assumptions. "My theory does not require that hypothesis."

[ QUOTE ]
Fourth - A shot at the education system, naturally. I think that has very little to do with anything here - unless one thinks that faith is arrived at rationally. Philosophers can often construct systems that make it appear so, but I do not think this is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The shot at the educational system has everything to do with the discussion here. How can the average citizen even attempt to think about their beliefs rationally if their education does not provide them with the tools to think logically, critically, and rationally?

[ QUOTE ]
And for the record, I am not a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither am I. But nor am I an athiest.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well said. however, parsimony isn't really a logical argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, it isn't. However, since no scientific theory can ever be proven, all decisions about what theories to support and how strongly to support them are all essentially informed, however subconsciously, by parsimony.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is correct, i was just pointing out that parsimony doesn't really have to be used to justify god, although i agree that it often is.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that parsimony is an excellent rule of thumb. It only becomes deceptive when the person using it does not have enough information, and that information can be complex, difficult, and time consuming to get.

[soon2bepro]

determinism has been around since the 19th century, and still remains pretty much unaltered (and correct /images/graemlins/smile.gif) after all the scientific breakthrough we've been through

it's a matter of applying logic properly. faith is some kind of twisted way for feelings to override reason. science helps, sure, but it's not necessary.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
The only problem is that the decision is uninformed, and it is extremely difficult and time consuming to become informed, and our educational system doesn't help in the slightest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have found it time consuming (but not necessarily difficult) to become informed about Christianity too. There might possibly be exceptions here, but I know many atheists... they are mostly uninformed about both faith and science.

It seems to me that many people’s starting point is their faith, or lack thereof... and then look for validation, which you can easily find from either viewpoint. Simply put, people like to be right.

What I don’t understand, is why atheists get so angry about the subject in the first place. From another thread: [ QUOTE ]
If religion is simply superstition, why the anger? Certainly real knowledge and reality itself would easily override it, would they not? No one is furious that some refuse to walk under a ladder. It is laughed off and tolerated. Nor is it "religion" that seems to provoke many to this kind of ire, but rather Christianity itself. I don't think fantasy is threatening these people.

[/ QUOTE ] I’m not talking about the fanatical “godhatesfags.com” Christians... all I did was show a little gratitude towards God, & it resulted in 8 pages of flaming. And it still gets brought up (which is sincerely funny to me). Even in the political thread that you participated in, someone took a shot at me for having faith. I really don’t mind it, to be honest... it is just something I don’t get. Explain?

I’m not a scientist, as you are... But why would science & God be mutually exclusive anyway? I know people from both sides like to say they are, but is that just the nature of debate? That’s always been the way I took it... “I’m 100% right, so you must be 100% wrong.” It seems to be that way on any topic.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only problem is that the decision is uninformed, and it is extremely difficult and time consuming to become informed, and our educational system doesn't help in the slightest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have found it time consuming (but not necessarily difficult) to become informed about Christianity too. There might possibly be exceptions here, but I know many atheists... they are mostly uninformed about both faith and science.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am quite certain this is true.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that many people’s starting point is their faith, or lack thereof... and then look for validation, which you can easily find from either viewpoint. Simply put, people like to be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I am certain you are correct (that people like to be right and often times only selectively see what they want to see), there is a fundamental difference between science and faith. In empirical sciences we can never prove our theories to be true (as I said, we only weight them ever more heavily because they have not yet been proven false), whereas with faith there are an entire class of beliefs that cannot be proven false. Hence empirical science acts to assymptotically approach "truth" by discarding that which can be proven false. Many fundamental religious beliefs cannot do this (although others can be tested and discarded; for example Young Earth Creationism makes many testable predictions and fails them all). For example the hypothesis that "God exists." This cannot be tested. There is no test that can be designed to falsify this hypothesis, therefore we can never get closer the "truth" about it. By the way, this does not say anything about personal "miraculous" or "supernatural" events that an individual experiences. Since these can be neither predicted nor repeated, they might be utterly convincing to the individual (which is fine as far as I'm concerned; who am I to tell anyone they haven't literally Seen the Light), but are utterly useless for convincing the skeptical.

[ QUOTE ]
What I don’t understand, is why atheists get so angry about the subject in the first place. From another thread: [ QUOTE ]
If religion is simply superstition, why the anger? Certainly real knowledge and reality itself would easily override it, would they not? No one is furious that some refuse to walk under a ladder. It is laughed off and tolerated. Nor is it "religion" that seems to provoke many to this kind of ire, but rather Christianity itself. I don't think fantasy is threatening these people.

[/ QUOTE ] I’m not talking about the fanatical “godhatesfags.com” Christians... all I did was show a little gratitude towards God, & it resulted in 8 pages of flaming. And it still gets brought up (which is sincerely funny to me). Even in the political thread that you participated in, someone took a shot at me for having faith. I really don’t mind it, to be honest... it is just something I don’t get. Explain?

I’m not a scientist, as you are... But why would science & God be mutually exclusive anyway? I know people from both sides like to say they are, but is that just the nature of debate? That’s always been the way I took it... “I’m 100% right, so you must be 100% wrong.” It seems to be that way on any topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never said that science and God are mutually exclusive, as I do not believe they are. But I also haven't seen any evidence that the existence of such an entity is required to explain anything.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never said that science and God are mutually exclusive,

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you did. It was more a general observation. Thanks for the response. Do you have any theories about why many (not implying “you”) atheists get so angry over someone else having faith?
Being devil’s advocate to my own question... the only thing I can think of is the smugness of many Christians. You know... “We’ll see who’s burning in hell for eternity” kind of thing. I think that attitude is a bit misguided myself, but it does seem to come out sometimes when the Christian feels backed into a corner. I can’t think of anything else... you?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
The only problem is that the decision is uninformed, and it is extremely difficult and time consuming to become informed, and our educational system doesn't help in the slightest.


[/ QUOTE ] Boro, how is this anything more than a well disguised insult. Uninfromed is that much better than deluded. And unable to grasp the extremly difficult is less insulting than stupid?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have never said that science and God are mutually exclusive,

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you did. It was more a general observation. Thanks for the response. Do you have any theories about why many (not implying “you”) atheists get so angry over someone else having faith?
Being devil’s advocate to my own question... the only thing I can think of is the smugness of many Christians. You know... “We’ll see who’s burning in hell for eternity” kind of thing. I think that attitude is a bit misguided myself, but it does seem to come out sometimes when the Christian feels backed into a corner. I can’t think of anything else... you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've identified the source already. The "smugness" of many Christians is no different than the smugness of many athiests, and I think the rancor you've noticed from many athiests is no different from the rancor of many theists. They're all just people.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only problem is that the decision is uninformed, and it is extremely difficult and time consuming to become informed, and our educational system doesn't help in the slightest.


[/ QUOTE ] Boro, how is this anything more than a well disguised insult. Uninfromed is that much better than deluded. And unable to grasp the extremly difficult is less insulting than stupid?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uninformed is infinitely better than deluded. I'm uninformed about lots of things, but that doesn't make me deluded. And I never said "unable to grasp", I said that it is difficult and time consuming to learn, and has little effect on the average person's daily life, and that the rational decision is often to not waste the time and effort required to learn it.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
since no scientific theory can ever be proven ...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been awhile since I was in the science arena (left Biochem to pursue a legal career) but I am pretty sure that scientific theories can proven and when they do, they become known as "laws"

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you've identified the source already. The "smugness" of many Christians is no different than the smugness of many athiests, and I think the rancor you've noticed from many athiests is no different from the rancor of many theists. They're all just people.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don’t have this “smug” attitude... yet I get the full wrath for only “believing” in God. There must be more to it.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
since no scientific theory can ever be proven ...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been awhile since I was in the science arena (left Biochem to pursue a legal career) but I am pretty sure that scientific theories can proven and when they do, they become known as "laws"

[/ QUOTE ]

Not in the empirical sciences, like physics. In physics, if it has never been falsified, it will eventually get called a law. And often things that are refered to as "laws" are incomplete and downright wrong under certain circumstances (like Newton's Laws).

In fact, I'm pretty sure that the use of the term "law" in the emprical sciences is archaic. For instance we don't refer to quantum Laws or the Laws of relativity, rather we refer to quantum theory and relativistic theory. I think all of the "law" terminolgy is tradition, Newton's laws, the laws of thermodynamics, Ohm's "law" etc., but I could be mistaken.

[AvivaSimplex]

Boro, the answer to this is obvious. We should let the free market decide. If theists don't like being insulted by atheists, they can pay the atheists to stop. Then everyone can sell their babies on the open market.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
since no scientific theory can ever be proven ...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been awhile since I was in the science arena (left Biochem to pursue a legal career) but I am pretty sure that scientific theories can proven and when they do, they become known as "laws"

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, certain propositions can be proven true or false, but that doesn't turn them into a law. The proposition "Continents move realtive to each other" can be proven to be true, but that doesn't make it a law. At some distant time in the future when the core of the Earth is cool and solid, the continents will stop moving relative to each other, but the "laws" of physics will not have changed.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you've identified the source already. The "smugness" of many Christians is no different than the smugness of many athiests, and I think the rancor you've noticed from many athiests is no different from the rancor of many theists. They're all just people.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I don’t have this “smug” attitude... yet I get the full wrath for only “believing” in God. There must be more to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you've noticed it, but non-smug athiests or agnostics get "the full wrath" often for only not believing in God. NotReady seems to think that I'm an idiot for not agreeing that everything is "random" and "pointless" in the absence of a specific kind of God.

It may be that the proportion of dis-believers to believers on this board sometimes hides this fact, but I honestly don't think one side or the other has a claim to a higher batting average in manners in these sorts of discussions.

[chezlaw]

I agre there's no reason to insult just because someone is a theist. Sadly some of the theists either aren't very honest or misunderstand logic so badly that its hard to communicate with them and remain polite. This is also true of some of the athiests.

The stuff about an understanding of modern science being required to prevent reasonable belief in god is silly. All the logical arguments (and their refutations) that suuport belief in god are independent of modern science.

chez

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I agre there's no reason to insult just because someone is a theist. Sadly some of the theists either aren't very honest or misunderstand logic so badly that its hard to communicate with them and remain polite. This is also true of some of the athiests.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur.

[ QUOTE ]
The stuff about an understanding of modern science being required to prevent reasonable belief in god is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I said. I said that an understanding of modern scientific explanations changes what is the parsimonious assumption about whether or not certain kinds of Gods (specifically special creator-participatory Gods) might exist.

[ QUOTE ]
All the logical arguments (and their refutations) that suuport belief in god are independent of modern science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I didn't address them.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
It takes a lot of time and thought to understand ... cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, paleontology, geophysics, biology, evolutionary theory.

[/ QUOTE ]Don't forget astrology.

[ QUOTE ]
Theists ... believe they are making the common-sense, parsimonious, Occam's Razor decision.

[/ QUOTE ]They're certainly not using Occam's Razor ! Looks more like Maxwell's Silver Hammer.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if you've noticed it, but non-smug athiests or agnostics get "the full wrath" often for only not believing in God. NotReady seems to think that I'm an idiot for not agreeing that everything is "random" and "pointless" in the absence of a specific kind of God.

It may be that the proportion of dis-believers to believers on this board sometimes hides this fact, but I honestly don't think one side or the other has a claim to a higher batting average in manners in these sorts of discussions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I haven’t noticed others taking the kind of lashing out that Christians endure. One guy thinking you’re an idiot does not even compare. (I don't think you're an idiot, btw... nor seemingly hateful either) I guess I just have to respectfully disagree with your batting average analogy. Christians are held to a much higher standard of accountability, and rightfully so. For example just look at the title of the “Bluffthis’s Christian views on nuclear holocaust” thread... if an atheist had those same views, it wouldn’t make it’s way into the title of the thread. It just wouldn’t have the shock value, or imply hypocrisy, or whatever, as when a Christian feels that way. Perhaps you can point me to a board dominated by Christians and we’ll see if they are as hateful?

[Borodog]

Try a board dedicated to the evolution-creation debate and you'll see some hateful Christians.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Do you have any theories about why many (not implying “you”) atheists get so angry over someone else having faith? </font>

I'll jump in just to give my two cents, because I've been called everything from angry to a Christian hater, mocker, basher, etc.

I don't think it's so much anger as it is frustration and then maybe with some people frustration turns to anger.

I'm for people's right to believe and worship however they want, but that doesn't mean I won't get frustrated when someone tries to tell me how it's all very logical to believe in astrology. Here's a good example:

There's a post in the probability section where someone asks advice on how to convince his friend who thinks he's found a system to beat the roulette wheel. Now this is different because you should be able to sit the guy down and show him on paper why he shouldn't believe in such a system. But to me, the concept of religion is very similar.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Try a board dedicated to the evolution-creation debate and you'll see some hateful Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya know... Upon further thought, I’m sure there are lots of Christians filled with hate. It is sad. I would suggest to them to read their scripture. There are lots of places that address this, but I particularly like Galatians 5:22 “But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.”

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try a board dedicated to the evolution-creation debate and you'll see some hateful Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya know... Upon further thought, I’m sure there are lots of Christians filled with hate. It is sad. I would suggest to them to read their scripture. There are lots of places that address this, but I particularly like Galatians 5:22 “But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.”

[/ QUOTE ]
That also gets at one of my biggest "problems" if you will with religious people. At their core, just about all religions are filled with very good advice and suggestions for living what I would say is a "good" life. Unfortunately, it seems often that someone will only take out of their scripture what they want to in order to justify whatever they want justified.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Try a board dedicated to the evolution-creation debate and you'll see some hateful Christians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya know... Upon further thought, I’m sure there are lots of Christians filled with hate. It is sad. I would suggest to them to read their scripture. There are lots of places that address this, but I particularly like Galatians 5:22 “But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.”

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife is a Christian and she makes a damn good case that Jesus' teachings are fundamentally libertarian. You should check into it.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's so much anger as it is frustration and then maybe with some people frustration turns to anger.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m still not following you, but I’m glad you’re back... Why would it frustrate you that I have a belief system that brings me “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control”, even if that belief system was astrology?

[Mr_J]

I don't think theists are 'stupid', just misguided. I may know why they believe what they believe, I just don't understand how they can.

There is a chance that a god exists, but it's unlikely. If one did exist, then it is probally an alien who's controlling a primitive species for egotistical reasons, or we are his experiment for science class.

Kinda OT, I find it silly how some people believe in god but no aliens. God is a real longshot, but they seem to think that of all the billions of stars and planets out there, not one has some type of lifeform.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
My wife is a Christian and she makes a damn good case that Jesus' teachings are fundamentally libertarian. You should check into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will do... eventually. I have just been introduced to libertarianism, as you know.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think theists are 'stupid', just misguided. I may know why they believe what they believe, I just don't understand how they can.

There is a chance that a god exists, but it's unlikely. If one did exist, then it is probally an alien who's controlling a primitive species for egotistical reasons, or we are his experiment for science class.

Kinda OT, I find it silly how some people believe in god but no aliens. God is a real longshot, but they seem to think that of all the billions of stars and planets out there, not one has some type of lifeform.

[/ QUOTE ]

This kind of post causes an example of the frustration (that I believe Borodog) mentioned earlier in the thread. I see these type of posts all the time. The statement, presented as a logical fact, that the existence of God is "highly unlikely", is what is tiresome. I have never seen any type of evidence that can possibly assign a "probability" for the existence of God. I'm fairly certain that to start stating "likelihood" of existence is ridiculous. I'll retract this statement if proven otherwise.

Maybe when people say this they are referring to an *exact* model of the God referred to in the Bible? It seems more reasonable to say, "It's highly likely THIS God does not exist." Hell, I'm a Catholic and I can agree to something like this. When you start placing definite characteristics on an abstract infinite being, and claim these to be fact, then you can start to say that such a possibility is unlikely. (Note that I don't interpret the Bible literally, so I don't have a problem with this). Is this what everyone means by it is "highly unlikely" God exists?

If you don't mean it this way -- then you're statement simply looks like "theists, regardless of how they view God, are illogical", when there is no concrete logical argument one way or the other. Hence the source of my frustration. I typically won't go out of my way to even respond to such posts -- but I can see why posts like this by an atheist could lead to the attitude Borodog speaks of.

[Mr_J]

Evidence supports that gods do not exist (at least not in the way we perceive them). The evidence being that there is no evidence (for the general population) that they do exist. So yes, it is not logical to believe in a god. This does not mean believing in god is wrong or silly, just means it requires faith that defies logic. Ok, we can't assign a probability, but that doesn't mean the probabilities don't exist. Given the lack of evidence (to the general population) that a god does exist, it seems logical to conclude that that it is unlikely that a god exists.

My arguement is partially your 2nd paragraph, partially your 3rd. While there is no evidence one way or the other, I think that says something in itself.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Evidence supports that gods do not exist (at least not in the way we perceive them).

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "the way we perceive them", you mean the big old man in the sky with the long white beard that hurls lightning bolts (or whatever) at the non-believers, and regularly performs miracles, I agree. But if you mean a more abstract entity, I disagree. There is simply no evidence one way or the other. I think you may mean the former. If that's the case, feel free to ignore the rest of my post.

[ QUOTE ]
The evidence being that there is no evidence (for the general population) that they do exist

[/ QUOTE ]

Similar to above (assuming you mean a more abstract God). Lacking evidence for something to exist does not equal having evidence that it does not exist. Therefore believing in God does not defy logic in any way, until there is evidence provided in support of some argument against it. As an analogy, consider a subject such as theoretical physics. There is no direct experimental evidence one way or the other at the moment regarding the attempts at unified theories. Thus there is no evidence that any particular one is right. Does this mean that none of them are right? Of course not, it's just not testable at the moment. So, if you want to be technical, agnosticism is the only reasonable "scientific" viewpoint as far as religious belief is concerned. I am a theist simply because I was raised that way, and I think that it is logically more sound to believe that our reality was created rather than came into existence randomly. I attribute the creation to what most would refer to as God -- again, this is perfectly reasonable to me. I've yet to hear any arguments that would sway this view.

[Lestat]

It is not at all frustrating to me that you have found peace, love, and joy. On the contrary, I'm happy for you and support you practicing whatever faith that brings these things into your life. However...

I have also found peace, love, and joy in my life and have done so without holding the beliefs that you or other religious people have. If there is anger it stems from any insinuation that I cannot truly know love, or morality, unless I believe in the same invisible beings or religions that they do.

The frustration comes from arguments which are inevitably reduced to: "Well, let's see you prove there is no god, loch ness monsters, or ghosts in my attic". Believe what you will. I have no problem with faith. But what's so wrong with calling it that which it is? F-A-I-T-H. It's nothing more or less. And some people don't need "faith" in a god, to give their lives meaning or explain things that don't yet have an answer.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any theories about why many (not implying “you”) atheists get so angry over someone else having faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are missing the point here. Anger, if anger it is, comes into play at the moment that the"faithful" try to tell me how to run my life.

However ridiculous and in my opinion however immoral the belief in a god is, I, like most atheists, do not call for legislation that would restrict prayers to the privacy of your bedroom. And on sunday there are always some channels on TV that show something else that mass induced hysteria, altough there is a distinct drop in programs of value on those days. I am in favour of the free exchange of ideas and resent those that would prevent me watching a movie on religious grounds. I don't ask them to watch those movies.

Worse of all, is when religion is justifying murder by the state (wars etc..).


Anyway, no anger from this dude, as long as you keep to your lane, as bigdaddydvo so well said.

All that being said, I think it is important for all of atheist humanity to always stand up against religion, mostly by showing its immorality. This is the best insurance against a take-over that would definitely be a step back for human beings.

[Matt R.]

Good post Lestat. I am just as much against the hardcore "you have to believe what I believe" theist as you are. But, there are also the hardcore atheists with this attitude as well. I'm pretty sure the numbers of this type of atheists are skewed on this board -- I haven't really encountered too many IRL. Regardless, the attitude is still annoying.

As a side point (and an extension to your post), it takes as much "faith" to be 100% hardcore atheist as it does to be on the opposite end of the spectrum. If anyone thinks this is ludicrous, find a full-proof argument or evidence that says otherwise. And I don't mean lack of evidence for God, as Mr. J suggested above. I think you would have to acknowledge at least being partially agnostic if you're being honest with yourself. Even if it's just a tiny fraction of your true beliefs.

[yzerman18]

My personal favorite

Romans 2:24
"As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'"

It's sad the damage such a small percentage can cause.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post Lestat. I am just as much against the hardcore "you have to believe what I believe" theist as you are. But, there are also the hardcore atheists with this attitude as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think this is the case? Or is it similar to the flaming which would result if someone said they didn't raise JJ pre-flop, because they "believe" it's a marginal hand and loses a lot of the time?

I'm not trying to be funny... I agree that even the JJ limper shouldn't be subjected to hatred flames, but...

[ QUOTE ]
As a side point (and an extension to your post), it takes as much "faith" to be 100% hardcore atheist as it does to be on the opposite end of the spectrum. If anyone thinks this is ludicrous, find a full-proof argument or evidence that says otherwise. And I don't mean lack of evidence for God, as Mr. J suggested above. I think you would have to acknowledge at least being partially agnostic if you're being honest with yourself. Even if it's just a tiny fraction of your true beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this intersting because I'm not sure I agree. I don't want to have a closed mind about this, but I think you'd accuse me of just that. So help me out if you can...

I used to call myself agnostic, because I didn't know for SURE that God didn't exist. But after a while, it sunk in that there are a LOT of things I'm not SURE of. I'm not sure if ghosts exist, but I think to believe in them is silly. I don't know for a fact there aren't extra terrestrial aliens living among us, but I do think it's safe to completely dismiss such a notion. And I have come to the same stance on religion.

Hardcore? I'm not sure what you mean. I completely dismiss the notion of any gods. Is that hardcore? Why do I need a full-proof argument or evidence that says otherwise?

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
My personal favorite

Romans 2:24
"As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.'"

It's sad the damage such a small percentage can cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. As with my quote, it is best read in context. I just read all of Romans 2, just to see where you were coming from. Good quote.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think this is the case?

[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to see a lot of posts that imply a theist is unable to think rationally. Some people directly state this. I don't see it as much in real life. But essentially they're saying, "you're stupid if you don't think as I do, even though I don't have persuasive evidence to back my claims up.". To be fair, I think there are more crazy religious types who have to preach at every opportunity. But I definitely think there are atheists with this poor attitude as well.


And by "hardcore" I mean those that say it is a 100% impossibility for any type of God to exist. Maybe you fit into this category? I don't know.

As far as comparing theism to belief in ghosts, aliens, etc. I don't dismiss these other claims either. But I think the likelihood of them being true is very very tiny. But I wouldn't argue with those that believe in these things either -- there's not much point because I don't have evidence to support my opinion. This isn't really the case with theism/atheism; arguments break out over this all the time.

So, why do I believe in God, but don't believe in something such as ghosts? i.e., why do I think there's a &gt;50% likelihood that God exists, but &lt;50% for the other things you mentioned. The simplest explanation I can think of is that God has a purpose. If God does not exist, the universe is truly random -- i.e. somehow our physical laws got set in place by pure chance. The more I learn about science, the more in awe I become about how complex our universe is. Without making this post 10 pages long, I'll just state that when I see a complex system such as our universe, I see "intent" (for lack of a better word). Yes, I realize evolution isn't random, but I'm not really talking about evolution. I suppose what I'm getting at is the laws of physics didn't evolve, and I can't imagine our universe coming into existence from "nothingness". Thus God provides an explanation for why our universe isn't some random gobs of matter and energy -- or why this matter and energy even exists in the first place. The difference between this and ghosts/aliens is that ghosts/aliens don't really provide any explanatory framework for the unknown. Thus there's really no point for me to even consider their existence. And, here's the kicker, I completely see why a "weak atheist" thinks the same thing about God. This is why I respect a weak atheists beliefs. A strong atheist (one that says God is logically impossible), I don't understand.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
and I can't imagine

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't use this to persuade yourself of anything. It's probably the most egregious fallacy there is.

But I highly respect your position and particularly this:

[ QUOTE ]
And, here's the kicker, I completely see why a "weak atheist" thinks the same thing about God. This is why I respect a weak atheists beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Matt R.]

Also, here is an analogy that may help you understand the way I think.

Suppose I showed you a little glass sphere -- imagine one of those glass orb things that you turn upside down and shake and it looks like it's snowing. The difference is, this one has a tiny universe inside. It's really old, on the order of the age of our universe. Life has evolved inside it and everything -- tiny humans are running around on a tiny planet somewhere in there. Let's assume for arguments sake that I was as old as this orb and I've always had it. You of course ask, "Who made this?" If I answer, "Nobody made this.", you would probably think this unreasonable. Of course SOMETHING made this. Not all of this matter and energy could come to be from nothingness, and not all of this matter and energy would come to have the form that it has without some kind of intervention. Thus you would probably conclude that some kind of force made this, and made it with "intent".

Of course you will say that this glass orb is an impossibility. Well, what I said existed inside this glass orb is precisely our current universe. And of course, it is impossible for a being such as ourselves to create something like I described above. It would probably have to be a being with a vast (infinite?) amount of power. A theist would ascribe the name "God" to such a being. This is where the logical part of my belief comes from.

Of course there's plenty unknown about the beginnings of the universe, and there is plenty I and no one else understands. Which, again, is why I respect the ideas of a weak atheist.

[Matt R.]

I don't know, I feel like I can imagine just about anything. But if I consider a vacuum, pure nothingness, I simply do not see how something can pop into existence without interaction from an outside system. But, you're right, "I can't imagine" was a poor way to phrase it. What I mean is that it is truly in contradiction with all the evidence regarding our universe that I have seen thus far. This is why I consider it fairly unreasonable (and is what I meant by, "I can't imagine").

Maybe quantum mechanics allows for this in a way? I don't know enough about QM to say at the moment.

[IronUnkind]

And it is more often used to justify disbelief in god.

[IronUnkind]

Could you construct in your imagination an hypothetical religion which was moral?

[MaxWeiss]

I mean, like my new favorite author Sam Harris said "I don't wake up every morning and call myself 'not an astrologer.'" Or not a mystic. Ad infinitum. The fact that there is a name for non-thiests is bad enough!!!

[Lestat]

It sounds to me that I am a "weak atheist" by your description even though I think the possibility for a god is very, very remote. I think about gods the way you do about ghosts. Particularily when you say:


[ QUOTE ]
Thus there's really no point for me to even consider their existence.

[/ QUOTE ]



It seems our thinking may even be very similar, with the main difference being:

However bad I might WANT an explanation, I don't NEED one. I'm willing to accept there are things we may never know.
I think some people have a compelling need not just to ask, but to have a definite answer for the question: "What does it all mean and where did it come from?", and they insert God as an answer. I completely understand that. I just happen to think it's more of a psychological belief than a logical one. Is it possible for me to say I don't understand your rationale without being insulting?

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible for me to say I don't understand your rationale without being insulting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, definitely. You may want to look up definitions for "weak" vs. "strong" atheists -- a post on here prompted me to google it. I didn't even make the distinction until a few weeks ago.

I think my "need" for an explanation is simply my nature. This is also the reason why I'm studying physics at the moment; I want to understand as much about the universe as possible. A vast majority of people dismiss physics as useless for their daily activities. Which it is in a sense, to those that don't care to know or discover truth (or at least the truth behind really difficult subjects to grasp).

Theism is vastly different than science in the sense that you can't experiment to confirm/deny theism. But I still like to concoct a solution to the problem for myself, which is why I think about it. After all, surely there is truth to the God/no God argument regardless of whether we can definitively answer it (there's really no third option). And I completely understand why someone wouldn't want to think about a problem that is essentially unsolvable. I just prefer to take a stab at it /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[LadyWrestler]

Hi! I cannot intelligently discuss your statement because your premise is flawed. Many theists do have a reasonable understanding of cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, paleontology, geophysics, biology, and evolutionary theory, and many athiests do not. Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not what I said. I said that an understanding of modern scientific explanations changes what is the parsimonious assumption about whether or not certain kinds of Gods (specifically special creator-participatory Gods) might exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, that not so silly /images/graemlins/smile.gif but isn't that equivalent to saying an understanding of statistics changes what is the parsimonious assumptions about whether or not lucky seats/hats/streaks/... exist.

The whole idea is mistaken imo.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the lack of evidence (to the general population) that a god does exist, it seems logical to conclude that that it is unlikely that a god exists.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure what 'seems logical' means but the only conclusions that logicaly follow are about the nature of god if one exists. There's no logical conclusion about how likely it is that god exists.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you construct in your imagination an hypothetical religion which was moral?

[/ QUOTE ]I think christianity is moral, sadly many christians disagree with me.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if you've noticed it, but non-smug athiests or agnostics get "the full wrath" often for only not believing in God. NotReady seems to think that I'm an idiot for not agreeing that everything is "random" and "pointless" in the absence of a specific kind of God.

It may be that the proportion of dis-believers to believers on this board sometimes hides this fact, but I honestly don't think one side or the other has a claim to a higher batting average in manners in these sorts of discussions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I haven’t noticed others taking the kind of lashing out that Christians endure. One guy thinking you’re an idiot does not even compare. (I don't think you're an idiot, btw... nor seemingly hateful either) I guess I just have to respectfully disagree with your batting average analogy. Christians are held to a much higher standard of accountability, and rightfully so. For example just look at the title of the “Bluffthis’s Christian views on nuclear holocaust” thread... if an atheist had those same views, it wouldn’t make it’s way into the title of the thread. It just wouldn’t have the shock value, or imply hypocrisy, or whatever, as when a Christian feels that way. Perhaps you can point me to a board dominated by Christians and we’ll see if they are as hateful?

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Mike

I think I saw that thread very differently to you. The point I (and some other atheists) were making was a compliment to christianity as we see christ's message as fundementally opposed to an atrocious course of action.

Maybe we're wrong about christ's message and he would have also support this atrocity but it seems unlikely. In any case the point of interest was the contradiction between genuinely being christian and the proposed course of action. If an atheists argued for the same atrocity then that would be pure politics as there's obviously no contradiction between being an atheists and any political view.

chez

[Darryl_P]

I agree there is no need for either side to insult the other, but I can't agree with science (as of 2006) affecting which is the most reasonable (never heard of "parsimonious", but I'll assume "reasonable" is a good synonym) assumption to make.

The reason is that science, for the most part, deals with making various conclusions, using the various laws as a starting point. Theism OTOH deals with how those laws came to be in the first place and what is the grand plan behind them. I see very little overlap and no contradictions or conflicts whatsoever.

While it's true that a number of theists (probably even the majority) incorrectly assume there is significant overlap and that there are contradictions, and otherwise demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of science and its principles, that does not mean those contradictions and conflicts actually exist.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
In any case the point of interest was the contradiction between genuinely being christian and the proposed course of action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was saying the same thing. It was an implication of hypocrisy. I’m not saying it was necessarily wrong for the OP to point that out either, if it were truly hypocrisy (didn’t really follow the thread). Just saying that we are held to a higher standard, and should be. My only point with bringing that up was to dispute the “batting average” analogy, because we are supposed to have a better batting average, and I truly try to have a better batting average. I later kinda backpedaled a little... sighting that it is true than many Christians don’t follow God’s word. They will be judged by God way harder than any atheist judges them, as it is written.

[MidGe]

Very harsh!

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Very harsh!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, very harsh. Does it make you feel all warm and cozy inside? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post Lestat. I am just as much against the hardcore "you have to believe what I believe" theist as you are. But, there are also the hardcore atheists with this attitude as well. I'm pretty sure the numbers of this type of atheists are skewed on this board -- I haven't really encountered too many IRL. Regardless, the attitude is still annoying.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am one of those 'hardcore' atheists. I am personally absolutely certain that god does not exist and that there is no doubt in my mind what-so-ever (god being defined as some supernatural being outside of time and space that created the Universe). However, I never try and force someone to believe what I do. I will debate the topic freely here or anywhere if the occasion arises but I never force my views on others. I do however, find it hard to logically understand how someone can believe in god and I have a hard time being friends with someone who does. Most of my friends are atheists or agnostic (surprising how many there are) but I do have a few theist friends. But deep down, I do 'look' at them differently.

[morphball]

Okay, I see your point and am as always impressed with your ability to argue persuasively.

As to your topic, why should we? If we persecute them, they will see themselves as martyrs, and become all the more zealous. Education, so far, does not work against the zealous. What else is left?

The only thing left is ridicule. If we are of the opinion that God does not exist, and believe that those who do harbor such beliefs do so to the detriment of society at large, then we have the duty and obligation to take measures against this problem. Seems ridicule is the best tool. Over time, insults will end religion while things like nooses will not.

I think a good example is the Amish. They are repeatedly ostracized, and every year, more and more young adults are leaving the communes.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a hard time being friends with someone who does

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? My wife and I are practicing catholics and our best friends are filthy heathens.
Why do you have difficulties in this regard? I disagree strongly with many of my friends' views but enjoy debating with them. Hell, if I lived in NC I'd probably be yelling at Borodog in some bar a couple of times a week.

To the original question, I would imagine that because most atheist I know were raised Christian so I'd guess a lot of the hostility stems from that.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a chance that a god exists, but it's unlikely…God is a real longshot…

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone agree with this as a statement (rather than opinion)? If one does agree, shouldn’t there be a mathematical equation to show this to be the case?

RJT

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
I do however, find it hard to logically understand how someone can believe in god and I have a hard time being friends with someone who does.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a hardcore atheist. My wife is a lutheran christian and my best friend is a fundamentalist christian.

They know that I think they are both disabled in this regard--I think they were raised to have a great emotional attachment to their beliefs that is possibly too strong for them to get away from.

Lucky for me, they both forgive me for thinking this about them.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Over time, insults will end religion

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you as sure of this as you are that there is no God? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[morphball]

Yep...

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not at all frustrating to me that you have found peace, love, and joy. On the contrary, I'm happy for you and support you practicing whatever faith that brings these things into your life.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you. I’ll take that at face value.
[ QUOTE ]
I have also found peace, love, and joy in my life and have done so without holding the beliefs that you or other religious people have.

[/ QUOTE ]
That’s wonderful. I mean that... so sarcasm intended.
[ QUOTE ]
If there is anger it stems from any insinuation that I cannot truly know love, or morality, unless I believe in the same invisible beings or religions that they do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure I ever done that... Gotta link? Ohhhh, you said “they”... I see. So am I to be held accountable for any Christian who has ever insinuated that? People seem to think I should also be held accountable for the crusades. It is quite silly, really. Will you be held responsible for the 6 church arson’s that I heard about on the radio this morning?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a hard time being friends with someone who does

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? My wife and I are practicing catholics and our best friends are filthy heathens.
Why do you have difficulties in this regard? I disagree strongly with many of my friends' views but enjoy debating with them. Hell, if I lived in NC I'd probably be yelling at Borodog in some bar a couple of times a week.

To the original question, I would imagine that because most atheist I know were raised Christian so I'd guess a lot of the hostility stems from that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said I have a hard time but it is not impossible. If we become friends before I find out their religious views then it usually works out. If I find out they believe strongly before we are friends, then we are starting out the wrong foot and it is harder for me to accept them as an equal.

I tend to gyrate towards very intelligent people ( I graduated 2nd in my class) and I just find it hard to consider someone truly intelligent if they believe. None of this means there are not very intelligent and good theists out there - just my own personal view of things.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
If I find out they believe strongly before we are friends, then we are starting out the wrong foot and it is harder for me to accept them as an equal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems weird that you need your friends to be your intellectual peer and will discard people you see as unfit.

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to gyrate towards very intelligent people

[/ QUOTE ]
That's just funny.

[ QUOTE ]
I just find it hard to consider someone truly intelligent if they believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what to make of this. You seem to be stereotyping people away. Do you find yourself lonely at times? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I find out they believe strongly before we are friends, then we are starting out the wrong foot and it is harder for me to accept them as an equal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems weird that you need your friends to be your intellectual peer and will discard people you see as unfit.

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to gyrate towards very intelligent people

[/ QUOTE ]
That's just funny.

<font color="blue">Why? </font>

[ QUOTE ]
I just find it hard to consider someone truly intelligent if they believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what to make of this. You seem to be stereotyping people away. Do you find yourself lonely at times? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue"> Yes, I do sterotype but generally am not lonely. I have a lot of intelligent atheist and agnostic friends. And the occasional theist thrown in for good measure. </font>

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to gyrate towards very intelligent people

[/ QUOTE ]
That's just funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue">Why? </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it made a mental image of some guy in a polyester suit rolling his hips while walking towards a bunch of guys with pocket protectors. I guess you could have meant that you circle around them but that would seem like you're a smart people groupie, but I guess you don't want to us to think of you as one.
Most people would say "gravitate" where you said "gyrate"

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it made a mental image of some guy in a polyester suit rolling his hips while walking towards a bunch of guys with pocket protectors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very rarely do i actually lol, but I did here. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because it made a mental image of some guy in a polyester suit rolling his hips while walking towards a bunch of guys with pocket protectors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very rarely do i actually lol, but I did here. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand corrected - and I agree it would be a funny image /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Over time, insults will end religion

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you as sure of this as you are that there is no God? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
Yep...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think even your fellow atheists would think that is delusional. I don’t mean to sound insulting. Really, I don’t. But where do you see any evidence or reason to think that insulting me (or anyone) would change my beliefs about God? And you think it will happen on a global scale? That is mighty silly thinking.

[J.A.K.]

[ QUOTE ]
Evidence supports that gods do not exist (at least not in the way we perceive them). The evidence being that there is no evidence (for the general population) that they do exist. So yes, it is not logical to believe in a god. This does not mean believing in god is wrong or silly, just means it requires faith that defies logic. Ok, we can't assign a probability, but that doesn't mean the probabilities don't exist. Given the lack of evidence (to the general population) that a god does exist, it seems logical to conclude that that it is unlikely that a god exists.

My arguement is partially your 2nd paragraph, partially your 3rd. While there is no evidence one way or the other, I think that says something in itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "believer" must argue backwards (from the point of faith) at least empirically. It is the initial step of faith (i.e. believing when there is no scientific evidentuary support) that allows Christians to interpret scientific findings in light of creation and an omnipotent God. It seems that a "choice" to believe in God based on some incalcuable yearning would hold more value than God "having" to be believed in as a matter of scientific fact. God is not dead at the point which Christians fail to scientifically explain logical conundrums and the details of science and nature. God is not diminished by new scientific discoveries, since to the believer all of these fall under His omniscience whether we grasp the concepts or not. It is the underlying tone that all scientific findings could not possibly allow for the idea of God, that causes frustration. Belief in God does not abandon "reason", it simply realizes its limitations.

[Lestat]

I wouldn't put it quite the way morphball does, but I'm kinda of the same opinion.

People gravitate towards the masses. Let's face it. The reason you believe in religion is because so many of those around you did (or still do). If no one was there telling you about an invisible being in the sky, you never would've got caught up in religion.

As it is, many societies are moving more and more away from religion every day. And yes... It is because religion is being ostracized as scientific explanations for biblical tales and events become widely accepted. Take the UK, Australia, Japan... I suspect many among those populations would laugh and ridicule any serious discussion about religion. At the very least, talk about God this, and God that, is not present (tolerated?) among day to day common speech as it is here in the U.S.

So ridicule sounds harsh and I'm not sure it's the right word. I made an ill-advised comment about religion being outlawed, which I now regret. A very poor choice of words by me. But I do think something has to give. I can't put my finger on it, but I do feel religion is detrimental to society as a whole. Not individual worship (the kind that give you peace, love, and happiness), but the kind that makes men fly planes into skycrapers killing thousands of innocents with no regret because he will be awarded however many virgins when he dies.

[morphball]

I mentioned the Amish. Also, you may not be swayed by insults and ridicule, but can you say the same for your children (or future children, I don't know your situation). Children care a lot more about what their peers in school (especially peers outside of their homes and church think), and they will be swayed whereas punching them in the face will probably isolate them from society and make them seek refuge in their homes and church. Ridicule will be the unraveling of religion.

[J.A.K.]

The "believer" must argue backwards (from the point of faith) at least empirically. It is the initial step of faith (i.e. believing when there is no scientific evidentuary support) that allows Christians to interpret scientific findings in light of creation and an omnipotent God. It seems that a "choice" to believe in God based on some incalcuable yearning would hold more value than God "having" to be believed in as a matter of scientific fact. God is not dead at the point which Christians fail to scientifically explain logical conundrums and the details of science and nature. God is not diminished by new scientific discoveries, since to the believer all of these fall under His omniscience whether we grasp the concepts or not. It is the underlying tone that all scientific findings could not possibly allow for the idea of God, that causes frustration. Belief in God does not abandon "reason", it simply realizes its limitations.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
determinism has been around since the 19th century, and still remains pretty much unaltered (and correct /images/graemlins/smile.gif) after all the scientific breakthrough we've been through

it's a matter of applying logic properly. faith is some kind of twisted way for feelings to override reason. science helps, sure, but it's not necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the path that led me to faith. I choose /images/graemlins/laugh.gif free will, which is impossible without invoking the supernatural. I can't make any logical argument for faith - I'm following my heart. I don't want to believe I'm an automaton. You are correct in saying that faith is essentially feelings overriding reason. So be it.

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to believe I'm an automaton. You are correct in saying that faith is essentially feelings overriding reason. So be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I don't want to believe there isn't an enormous diamond buried in my back yard. But if I spent every Sunday with my kids digging for it, you'd think I was mentally unstable.

*That particular example is taken from http://www.truthdig.com/dig/print/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to believe I'm an automaton. You are correct in saying that faith is essentially feelings overriding reason. So be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I don't want to believe there isn't an enormous diamond buried in my back yard. But if I spent every Sunday with my kids digging for it, you'd think I was mentally unstable.

*That particular example is taken from http://www.truthdig.com/dig/print/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent link! Thanks!

[Lestat]

Exellent essay. Why can't everyone read that and find the sense in it? Thanks for the link!

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I choose free will, which is impossible without invoking the supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]Why do you say that? We can debate the substance and extent of the freedom of free will but, until proven otherwise, this is not immaterial.

Pun intended.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't make any logical argument for faith - I'm following my heart. I don't want to believe I'm an automaton. You are correct in saying that faith is essentially feelings overriding reason. So be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not an automaton. You are an animal which knows it is living - and will die. To accept this leads to ultimate heroism. But there is no obligation for anyone to be a hero.

one path (http://faculty.washington.edu/nelgee/index.html)

[Zygote]

Bluffthis and others can't use these excuses.

Plus, this forum's goal is to attack issues from their intellectual perspective, so, anyone attempting to defend God, should expect a lot of scrutiny.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Bluffthis . . . can't use these excuses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, this forum's goal is to attack issues from their intellectual perspective, so, anyone attempting to defend God, should expect a lot of scrutiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. The hardcore apologist goes to great lengths to (apprently) deliberately mis-learn and/or mis-apply complex scientific theories. Thay're not who I'm concerned with.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
I mentioned the Amish. Also, you may not be swayed by insults and ridicule, but can you say the same for your children (or future children, I don't know your situation). Children care a lot more about what their peers in school (especially peers outside of their homes and church think), and they will be swayed whereas punching them in the face will probably isolate them from society and make them seek refuge in their homes and church. Ridicule will be the unraveling of religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that you spend your time ridiculing children? Your words are truly windows to your heart! My daughters will be brought up to be leaders, not followers... They will be kind, not cruel. Most people gravitate towards kind people, so your numbers of ridiculers will never be strong. But there will be some, of coarse. Proverbs 20:7 says “The just man walketh in his integrity: his children are blessed after him.” In other words, our children are like mirrors - they reflect our attitudes in life.

[LadyWrestler]

Borodog:

You are asking me (a theist) to believe that you (obviously an athiest) DO understand these complex scientific theories better than I do. And are you also asking me to believe that you could fully explain them to me, with no major errors (and no "mis-learn"ings as we dumb theists have...the ones you referred to in your words: "Thay're not who I'm concerned with.")?

Okaaayyy...I am just trying to get my small Christian brain wrapped around your astonishing atheist intellect. Any help would be appreciated.

Have a great day!

[hmkpoker]

The comeback to this one should be priceless.

[UnitBubble]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there's a &gt;50% likelihood that God exists, but &lt;50% for the other things you mentioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a couple things I wanted to share...

Matt R., I am an agnostic whose best guess is that there is no creator, some here would call me a soft atheist. I routinely defend theists in arguments, however, especially when the other side is being argued by hard atheists. I recently made the comment that while I agreed that strict Christians were misguided and either brainwashed or plain stupid, many non-Christian theists, and even theists who claim to be Christian are very intelligent people. They wanted an example and I will show them your posts.

The thing that my atheist friends do not understand is that they themselves are very similar to many non-strict theists (by non-strict, by the way, I mean theists not believing that their scriptures are totally accurate or technical). My atheist friends and these "non-stricts" all agree that we, as humans, cannot discern the truth. From this point, atheists (and many agnostics like myself) and non-strict theists simply "believe" in something. This can be equated to assigning probabilities on what one thinks is most plausible. Why anyone has a problem with this is beyond me.

Another thing I have to add to this thread is that many theists are saying "OK, it is a given that once there was nothing and now there is something". They then claim there are only 2 possible explanations. Something must have created the universe, or the universe randomly appeared. This, however, is not the case. I mean, the original hypothethis of "OK, it is a given that once there was nothing and now there is something" is not known to be correct. You are thinking of time in a linear sense. To do this, you require a beginning, which brings you to your belief in God. What if time was not linear? I do not see how your claim that there is a being outside of our linear-timed universe has any more merit then the idea that we, beings inside the universe, just can not fully comprehend how time works?

In case that was not clear, I simply meant that if we start at "OK, it is a given that once there was nothing and now there is something", then I agree that there is most likely a God. I just don't think it is fair to start at that assumption.

[MidGe]

I don't think there are any insults intended. What is happening is that in their understandable incsecurity, theists resort to an attempt at using rationality to justify their beliefs.

Should they say, that they have faith and that would not be questionned (how could it be) there would be no answers form atheists. However as soon as theists use rationality or science to justify their beliefs they will rightfully be attacked by atheists trying to protect the highest achievement of mankind, rationality. Never should the irrational be allowed to impinge on the rational. You want to believe in god, do, don't force it on me, and especially don't force your pseudo morals on me or don't use rationality to make up for your lack of faith.

The insult is the other way around... irrationality pretending to be rational.


Btw, I carry/see no prejudice or disparagement in the word "irrational"

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog:

You are asking me (a theist) to believe that you (obviously an athiest) DO understand these complex scientific theories better than I do. And are you also asking me to believe that you could fully explain them to me, with no major errors (and no "mis-learn"ings as we dumb theists have...the ones you referred to in your words: "Thay're not who I'm concerned with.")?

Okaaayyy...I am just trying to get my small Christian brain wrapped around your astonishing atheist intellect. Any help would be appreciated.

Have a great day!

[/ QUOTE ]

While he and I disagree on a lot of subjects (politics, ethics, fashion) Boro is a trained scientist and I take his info on astronomy and physics as reputable.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog:

You are asking me (a theist) to believe that you (obviously an athiest) DO understand these complex scientific theories better than I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

A) I'm an agnostic, since I think it impossible to prove that a God or Gods do not exist. B) It is quite possible that you are more well versed in all of those topics than I am. What I said is that a detailed knowledge (and understanding) of complex natural explanations for events and the existence of complexity alleviate the need to postulate a special creator-participatory God or Gods. This does not constitute any sort of "proof" that a God or Gods do not exist, not does it imply that someone well versed in all of these topics will not still choose to believe in a God or Gods.

[ QUOTE ]
And are you also asking me to believe that you could fully explain them to me, with no major errors (and no "mis-learn"ings as we dumb theists have...the ones you referred to in your words: "Thay're not who I'm concerned with.")? Okaaayyy...I am just trying to get my small Christian brain wrapped around your astonishing atheist intellect. Any help would be appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. No, I could not explain them all to you in detail, with no major errors. But that doesn't mean that such complex natural explanations don't exist or are meaningless. I have studied them to a depth, some more deeply than others, that convinces me that I have yet to observe anything that requires a supernatual explanation. Hence the parsimonious course is not to hypothesize the existence of the supernatural. It's pretty much that simple.

And I have repeatedly said that the run-of-the-mill theist is not "dumb", so it's a bit disingenuous of you to act like I did. My wife and her whole family are theists, and I dare say she is probably smarter than you, her brothers have Ph.D.s in chemistry and biomedical engineering, and her father is a surgeon. But they were all raised to be devoutly religious, and have rarely, if ever, brought their considerable analytical skills to bear on their faith. Something I think they definitely choose not to do on purpose, because they don't need to, and also because I think deep down, they know they wouldn't like the results.

Certain militant theists seem to deliberately misapply logic in order to try to necessitate the existence of a God. BluffThis, for example. They have all the access to the data, and rather than just taking belief in a God as an article of Faith (which I have no problem with at all), they twist logic and misapply science in an effort to demonstrate the existence of a God is a requirement for the Universe to even exist, not be "random," or be anything other than "meaningless." I find this tiresome and often offensive.

[Lestat]

Good post!

<font color="blue"> From this point, atheists (and many agnostics like myself) and non-strict theists simply "believe" in something. This can be equated to assigning probabilities on what one thinks is most plausible. Why anyone has a problem with this is beyond me. </font>

I do have a slight problem with this in that I don't see why you must attribute a "belief" to an atheist. I for one, do not "believe" God doesn't exist any more than I "believe" there isn't a polar bear rumaging through my sock drawer right now (I live on the 6th floor of a condominium). I recently read (and strongly agree), that the term "athiest" shouldn't even exist. You shouldn't need any specific term for defining a belief in no God any more than you need a specific term defining somebody who believes there is no polar bear rumaging through their sock drawer right now.

*I think your comment about the universe needing a beginning an end is very intuitive. We would think so, because we are trapped in a 3 dimensional world, but this isn't necessarily the case. In fact, I think it is most likely NOT the case.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
While he and I disagree on a lot of subjects (politics, ethics, fashion) . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that cracked me up.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While he and I disagree on a lot of subjects (politics, ethics, fashion) . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that cracked me up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and your sweater vests. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
From this point, atheists (and many agnostics like myself) and non-strict theists simply "believe" in something. This can be equated to assigning probabilities on what one thinks is most plausible. Why anyone has a problem with this is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't despair, I'm sure its not beyond you /images/graemlins/grin.gif

The impossibilities of meaningfully assigning probabilities demonstrates how meaningless it is to claim reasonable beliefs about the existence of god (and other metaphysical questions). Thats why its purely a matter of faith.

chez

[miketurner]

Borodog, I really respect your method of debate, although I did sense a subtle 'dig' at Christians in your OP. I often like to make statements like “my ‘current’ understanding...” as it leaves room for growth. So I ask this earnestly and not as some kind of an attempt to give you a loaded question... Where did the matter that created the universe come from? ie: where did oxygen come from, etc? Also, (I’m not quite sure how to put this) where did the laws of science come from? ie: why does oxygen combine with hydrogen at a 2 to 1 ratio to create water, etc? I know I’m doing a crappy job at expressing my 2nd thought here. I hope you can figure out what I’m getting at. I look forward to your response, but try to keep it as simple as possible... remember, I am not a scientist.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While he and I disagree on a lot of subjects (politics, ethics, fashion) . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that cracked me up.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and your sweater vests. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing wrong with a good sweater vest.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c153/Borodog/250px-ClintEastwood.jpg

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
I recently made the comment that while I agreed that strict Christians were misguided and either brainwashed or plain stupid, many non-Christian theists, and even theists who claim to be Christian are very intelligent people.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your definition of a Christian? Mine is basically anyone who claims to be one.

[ QUOTE ]
This can be equated to assigning probabilities on what one thinks is most plausible. Why anyone has a problem with this is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's dangerous to assign ridiculous probabilities to things, and harmful to society to make decisions based on them.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog, I really respect your method of debate, although I did sense a subtle 'dig' at Christians in your OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was unintentional. I don't think I specifically mentioned CHristians or Christianity in the OP. In fact, of all the religions, I like Christianity the best, because the teachings of Jesus are fundamentally libertarian in nature, and there is a decidedly libertarian bent to the entire story.

[ QUOTE ]
I often like to make statements like “my ‘current’ understanding...” as it leaves room for growth. So I ask this earnestly and not as some kind of an attempt to give you a loaded question... Where did the matter that created the universe come from? ie: where did oxygen come from, etc? Also, (I’m not quite sure how to put this) where did the laws of science come from? ie: why does oxygen combine with hydrogen at a 2 to 1 ratio to create water, etc? I know I’m doing a crappy job at expressing my 2nd thought here. I hope you can figure out what I’m getting at. I look forward to your response, but try to keep it as simple as possible... remember, I am not a scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a crappy job at all, I know exactly what you're asking, and it's a good question. The simple, straightforward answer is that I don't know. But not knowing the answer does not give me license to postulate infinitely complex, omnipotent, omniscient intelligent beings that cannot be observed.

Think about it this way. The laws of physics are still not completely described; gravity theory is distinct and disjoint from the theory that describes the other forces, and the descriptions of spacetime implicit in QED and relativity are fundamentally incompatible. Something is wrong somewhere. But once the difficulty is resolved, I am quite certain that the "laws" that govern the workings of the Universe will fit quite tidily on a page or two of paper. The idea that I should postulate the existence of an infinitely complex intelligence to explain "who" "wrote" two pages of "laws" not only seems to be making the problem worse (if I need to explain where two pages of simple rules come from, don't I need to explain where an infinitely complex intelligence comes from?), it's not even explanatory. How does "God did it" explain anything? How did this entity create the Universe? How did it "write" the physical laws that the Universe obeys? It's not an explanation at all.

Furthermore, the idea that because there is a "law," someone needs to have "written" it is an anthropomorphism. Most people seem to believe that "laws" or "rules" must be supplied top down, from a central planner, a lawgiver. This isn't even the case for human laws, much less natural laws. Complexity and order arise without central planning, and the "laws" that govern these processes were not written by anyone or anything, they just are. If the theist can have no problem believing that God just is, I have no problem believing that the laws that govern the Universe just are, without the need to hypothesize infinitely complex unobservable beings.

[protoverus]

Who cares if atheists insult theists? At least from the Christian theist perspective, we expect it.

Jesus was called 'Beelzebub' and stated that if He was called that how much more so his followers. He said to expect trouble in this world (in the context of unbelievers giving them trouble). He said that if He was scorned, mocked, and dismissed why would His followers expect any different? We are told to rejoice in these sufferings because Jesus Himself was subjected to the same...

The wisdom of the world and that Jesus' kingdom are at odds with one another and each considers the other to be foolishness. So, I say again, who cares?

[Borodog]

If you don't care, why post?

[protoverus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't care, why post?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I was pointing out that you might as well ask the sun not to come up tommorrow.

[Borodog]

I hardly think asking people not to be jerks is equivalent to asking the sun not to rise. Unless you think they have no choice in being rude. Don't you believe in free will?

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
It was unintentional. I don't think I specifically mentioned CHristians or Christianity in the OP. In fact, of all the religions, I like Christianity the best, because the teachings of Jesus are fundamentally libertarian in nature, and there is a decidedly libertarian bent to the entire story.

[/ QUOTE ]
My bad. I spoke out of turn there. I actually haven’t read the OP since the first time, almost 2 weeks ago.
[ QUOTE ]
The simple, straightforward answer is that I don't know.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is all you had to say. Like I said, it wasn’t a loaded question.
[ QUOTE ]
anthropomorphism

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/smile.gifWhat the hell? I ask you to keep it simple and you throw this at me? In the future, “keep it simple” means don’t make me go to dictionary.com. Thanks. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[protoverus]

[ QUOTE ]
I hardly think asking people not to be jerks is equivalent to asking the sun not to rise. Unless you think they have no choice in being rude. Don't you believe in free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think it's pretty close...asking people not to act according to their nature. But in typing this I realize that you have to agree with the assumptions of my faith to agree with these conclusions. So, I'll bow out by saying as a theist it doesn't surprise or bother me that we are insulted.

As to free will, I'm certaintly no expert and probably will never understand it, but I believe our free will is constrained within the bounds of being slaves to sin or slaves to Christ. Sin being the operative concept here, I wouldn't expect non-(christian)theists to agree in any way, but you asked.

Anyway, your call to civility is appreciated and needed on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Be well.

(I got a rise out of this topic because I'm tired of Christians looking for or expecting respect from the world and it probably wasn't appropriate to this thread.)

[UnitBubble]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post!

<font color="blue"> From this point, atheists (and many agnostics like myself) and non-strict theists simply "believe" in something. This can be equated to assigning probabilities on what one thinks is most plausible. Why anyone has a problem with this is beyond me. </font>

I do have a slight problem with this in that I don't see why you must attribute a "belief" to an atheist. I for one, do not "believe" God doesn't exist any more than I "believe" there isn't a polar bear rumaging through my sock drawer right now (I live on the 6th floor of a condominium). I recently read (and strongly agree), that the term "athiest" shouldn't even exist. You shouldn't need any specific term for defining a belief in no God any more than you need a specific term defining somebody who believes there is no polar bear rumaging through their sock drawer right now.

*I think your comment about the universe needing a beginning an end is very intuitive. We would think so, because we are trapped in a 3 dimensional world, but this isn't necessarily the case. In fact, I think it is most likely NOT the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well perhaps this is just a wording mistake then. My definition of atheist is someone who actively believes in there not being a god. Someone who simply doesnt believe in a god I would call an agnostic.

[UnitBubble]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I recently made the comment that while I agreed that strict Christians were misguided and either brainwashed or plain stupid, many non-Christian theists, and even theists who claim to be Christian are very intelligent people.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your definition of a Christian? Mine is basically anyone who claims to be one.

[ QUOTE ]
This can be equated to assigning probabilities on what one thinks is most plausible. Why anyone has a problem with this is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's dangerous to assign ridiculous probabilities to things, and harmful to society to make decisions based on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "people who claim to be Christians" here, I meant "people who call themselves Christian but don't believe that the Bible is literal and have views that are in blatant contradiction with what the Bible says.


The only danger I can see in an individual making a guess and assigning probabilities to stuff like this is that society would make decisions based on them, which like you say could be very harmful. If society did not do this, it would be fine. And even if they do do this, people could make these guesses and keep them to themselves.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Boro is a trained scientist

[/ QUOTE ]

I never understood what the "trained" part means.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Boro is a trained scientist

[/ QUOTE ]

I never understood what the "trained" part means.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wife can get me to sit, lay down, roll over, and beg. But she's pretty [censored] hot.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
My daughters will be brought up to be leaders, not followers...

[/ QUOTE ]

Fat chance of that, they are being led like sheep to believe in the invisible man, their future incomes will be drained to tithes or whatever (two tax systems instead of one..), enriching a man (or group of men) who are not the invisible man, have never met him, and never will. Leaders simply don't believe things people say without evidence, nice try though...

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that you spend your time ridiculing children?

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally do not, but then again, I am not around children that much. However, when I have children of my own, I will teach them to be leaders by not believing in make-believe.

Also, I meant to say that the other children, who have enlightened, thoughtful and intelligent parents, will be the ones doing the ridicule.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
However, when I have children of my own, I will teach them to be leaders by not believing in make-believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?

[morphball]

No to both of them, why is it cute for parents to lie to their children? I have never understood this.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
No to both of them, why is it cute for parents to lie to their children? I have never understood this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. As soon as they start talking explain to them the secrets of life. Toil and death.
And no, Fluffy isn't at disneyland, she's rotting in the ground and being eaten by maggots. Why are you crying honey? That's the way it goes. Pretty soon mommy and daddy will be dead and rotting too and you'll be all alone in this cruel, hard world. You'll eventually go to college where you'll have to take some time off for financial reasons and the next thing you know -BAM!- it's 15 years later, you never went back to school, you're stuck in a dead-end job that you hate, and you drink yourself silly on box wine every night alone in your studio apartment while trying to figure out how to land a man before the rest of your looks and figure finally succumb to the inevitable onslaught of age, alcohol, and despair. You could call Gary from accounts payable but you don't know if you can stand his awful breath panting in your face during coitus - oh, that's the special way mommies and daddies hug each other - his wiry back hair, and his terrible hairplugs. And you'll sit there, drinking your wine wondering how painful it is to cut your wrists, or should you just take those pills that Deborah left?
Finally, you'll just pass out on your futon watching people who have better lives than you on Leno. Then your alarm will go off, you'll get up, vomit, try to keep a pop-tart down, and get in your used Toyota to start what seems like the same day all over again. You'll repeat the cycle over and over again until you get diagnosed with bone cancer, go through months of excruciatingly painful treatment and finally expire miserable and alone in a sterile hospital room.

G'night sweetheart. Don't let the bed bugs bite.

Seriously, they carry disease.

[morphball]

Rduke - that was awesome! I really enjoyed that.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right. As soon as they start talking explain to them the secrets of life. Toil and death.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those are not the secrets of my life. If they are the secrets of yours then your life sucks.
[ QUOTE ]
And no, Fluffy isn't at disneyland, she's rotting in the ground and being eaten by maggots. Why are you crying honey? That's the way it goes. Pretty soon mommy and daddy will be dead and rotting too and you'll be all alone in this cruel, hard world.

[/ QUOTE ]
Life is finite and unfair; we should all make the best of it while we have it.
[ QUOTE ]
You'll eventually go to college where you'll have to take some time off for financial reasons and the next thing you know -BAM!- it's 15 years later, you never went back to school, you're stuck in a dead-end job that you hate, and you drink yourself silly on box wine every night alone in your studio apartment while trying to figure out how to land a man before the rest of your looks and figure finally succumb to the inevitable onslaught of age, alcohol, and despair. You could call Gary from accounts payable but you don't know if you can stand his awful breath panting in your face during coitus - oh, that's the special way mommies and daddies hug each other - his wiry back hair, and his terrible hairplugs. And you'll sit there, drinking your wine wondering how painful it is to cut your wrists, or should you just take those pills that Deborah left?
Finally, you'll just pass out on your futon watching people who have better lives than you on Leno. Then your alarm will go off, you'll get up, vomit, try to keep a pop-tart down, and get in your used Toyota to start what seems like the same day all over again. You'll repeat the cycle over and over again until you get diagnosed with bone cancer, go through months of excruciatingly painful treatment and finally expire miserable and alone in a sterile hospital room.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your life definitely sucks. If you look at life without lying about it this is what you think of it ?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're right. As soon as they start talking explain to them the secrets of life. Toil and death.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those are not the secrets of my life. If they are the secrets of yours then your life sucks.
[ QUOTE ]
And no, Fluffy isn't at disneyland, she's rotting in the ground and being eaten by maggots. Why are you crying honey? That's the way it goes. Pretty soon mommy and daddy will be dead and rotting too and you'll be all alone in this cruel, hard world.

[/ QUOTE ]
Life is finite and unfair; we should all make the best of it while we have it.
[ QUOTE ]
You'll eventually go to college where you'll have to take some time off for financial reasons and the next thing you know -BAM!- it's 15 years later, you never went back to school, you're stuck in a dead-end job that you hate, and you drink yourself silly on box wine every night alone in your studio apartment while trying to figure out how to land a man before the rest of your looks and figure finally succumb to the inevitable onslaught of age, alcohol, and despair. You could call Gary from accounts payable but you don't know if you can stand his awful breath panting in your face during coitus - oh, that's the special way mommies and daddies hug each other - his wiry back hair, and his terrible hairplugs. And you'll sit there, drinking your wine wondering how painful it is to cut your wrists, or should you just take those pills that Deborah left?
Finally, you'll just pass out on your futon watching people who have better lives than you on Leno. Then your alarm will go off, you'll get up, vomit, try to keep a pop-tart down, and get in your used Toyota to start what seems like the same day all over again. You'll repeat the cycle over and over again until you get diagnosed with bone cancer, go through months of excruciatingly painful treatment and finally expire miserable and alone in a sterile hospital room.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your life definitely sucks. If you look at life without lying about it this is what you think of it ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a) you missed my point and b) you're devoid of humor.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I meant to say that the other children, who have enlightened, thoughtful and intelligent parents, will be the ones doing the ridicule.


[/ QUOTE ]

IMO the children of enlightened, thoughtful people are the least likely to ridicule others, since they don't learn it at home. Also, ridicule is not a useful leadership skill. In fact, it is anathema to effective leadership.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a) you missed my point and b) you're devoid of humor.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. What is your point ?

[madnak]

He believes in lying to your children.

[LadyWrestler]

My belief in God is sooo much more than simply an article of faith, and I also know the universe (or universes?) would not exist unless it was God's will. I am sorry you find that tiresome and offensive.

My point was, and still is, that your original post made it seem that you believe religious people are somehow all dumber than non-religious people, and wished to spread that belief around. I disagreed and said so. I am glad to see that you have softened your former apparent position in later posts.

Have a great day!

[tyrus72]

[ QUOTE ]
I also know the universe (or universes?) would not exist unless it was God's will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you some kind of wizard?

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
... when I have children of my own, I will teach them to be leaders by not believing in make-believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this statement were stand alone, I would have little worries about your children. They will have to come to their own conclusions anyway, as will mine.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I meant to say that the other children, who have enlightened, thoughtful and intelligent parents, will be the ones doing the ridicule.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote, however, is much more telling of the person you really are. You view teaching your children to ridicule others as enlightening, thoughtful, and intelligent? No one ever ridicules with joy and love in their heart. You would choose to break the good spirit of your own children only for the hope of a trickle down effect to break the spirit of other children. I’m not talking about faith here, I’m talking about the nature of ridicule itself. As I said, no one ever ridicules with joy and love in their heart.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
This quote, however, is much more telling of the person you really are. You view teaching your children to ridicule others as enlightening, thoughtful, and intelligent? No one ever ridicules with joy and love in their heart. You would choose to break the good spirit of your own children only for the hope of a trickle down effect to break the spirit of other children. I’m not talking about faith here, I’m talking about the nature of ridicule itself. As I said, no one ever ridicules with joy and love in their heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got me here, Mike. You are absolutely right. I should have thought it through a little more before I wrote it. As I was picked on in school for smelling like cow [censored] (I grew up on a farm), I certainly hope my children do not make fun of others.

Maybe George Carlin's ridicule will be enough...

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
He believes in lying to your children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[LadyWrestler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also know the universe (or universes?) would not exist unless it was God's will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you some kind of wizard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nooo...but I know something about the history of mankind and science. First the earth was the ultimate only, and was found to be only one of many planets...then the solar system...then the galaxy...then the universe. The Bible, on the other hand, says "...worlds without end", which I agree with. Science may catch up eventually...

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This quote, however, is much more telling of the person you really are. You view teaching your children to ridicule others as enlightening, thoughtful, and intelligent? No one ever ridicules with joy and love in their heart. You would choose to break the good spirit of your own children only for the hope of a trickle down effect to break the spirit of other children. I’m not talking about faith here, I’m talking about the nature of ridicule itself. As I said, no one ever ridicules with joy and love in their heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got me here, Mike. You are absolutely right. I should have thought it through a little more before I wrote it. As I was picked on in school for smelling like cow [censored] (I grew up on a farm), I certainly hope my children do not make fun of others.

Maybe George Carlin's ridicule will be enough...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Carlin’s pretty good at it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif I’m sorry you got picked on in school. I thought you might just be talking [censored] about the “joy” of ridiculing children... but you never really know *shrug* , so I had to take you at face value.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible, on the other hand, says "...worlds without end", which I agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Book &amp; location please?

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
I’m sorry you got picked on in school.

[/ QUOTE ]

No need to feel sorry, being slightly insane does have benefits /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[LadyWrestler]

Hi!

I should have said "world without end" (as it appears in the KJV, in Ephesians 3:21) to avoid confusion. My mistake. Sorry.

In the older Greek manuscripts that we have available, the sense of the term translated "world" by the KJV translation is plural, and can mean worlds, ages, or even age of the ages. Those who accomplished the KJV translation may or may not have had those manuscripts available to them. No more modern translation that I know of uses the plural either, because the sense is the same either way: God's power is endless. He deserves all the glory. He is not limited by time, 3 dimensional laws, or our definitions of the known universe; and He could have (and can) create as many things as He wants without diminishing His power in any way.

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know, I feel like I can imagine just about anything. But if I consider a vacuum, pure nothingness, I simply do not see how something can pop into existence without interaction from an outside system. But, you're right, "I can't imagine" was a poor way to phrase it. What I mean is that it is truly in contradiction with all the evidence regarding our universe that I have seen thus far. This is why I consider it fairly unreasonable (and is what I meant by, "I can't imagine").

Maybe quantum mechanics allows for this in a way? I don't know enough about QM to say at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is shown in the laboratory quite often now when a particle and its anti-particle appear out of "nothing".

It is hard for a child to understand that "white" is all colors when it looks like the absence of color, and that black is the absence of color (or light more precisely) when it looks like its the darkest color.

Yet you can take that white light that appears to be "nothing" and separate it into its constituent colors.

I have no problem with the universe arising out of a simplistic concept of "nothing".

[Ben Young]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi!

I should have said "world without end" (as it appears in the KJV, in Ephesians 3:21) to avoid confusion. My mistake. Sorry.

In the older Greek manuscripts that we have available, the sense of the term translated "world" by the KJV translation is plural, and can mean worlds, ages, or even age of the ages. Those who accomplished the KJV translation may or may not have had those manuscripts available to them. No more modern translation that I know of uses the plural either, because the sense is the same either way: God's power is endless. He deserves all the glory. He is not limited by time, 3 dimensional laws, or our definitions of the known universe; and He could have (and can) create as many things as He wants without diminishing His power in any way.

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

please present proof.

thanks!

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]



This is the path that led me to faith. I choose /images/graemlins/laugh.gif free will, which is impossible without invoking the supernatural. I can't make any logical argument for faith - I'm following my heart. I don't want to believe I'm an automaton. You are correct in saying that faith is essentially feelings overriding reason. So be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont follow this at all. Why does free will require invoking the supernatural? I am an atheist and believer in the scientific method, but believe in free will. I dont see any conflict whatsoever.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont follow this at all. Why does free will require invoking the supernatural? I am an atheist and believer in the scientific method, but believe in free will. I dont see any conflict whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all events are the result of prior events (a la determinism), then, in the absense of a soul (spirit, heart, etc), you are a machine. Your actions are determined by the chemical reactions within your nervous system, and thus the emergent property that you think of as your mind (or whatever you call that which chooses a course of action) is not free- it is constrained to act according to physical law. Free will cannot be understood in a scientific context- it is an illusion, or it is supernatural.

[madnak]

Free will is generally distinguished from "normal" will in that it is not based on causal mechanics or on probability. In other words, it isn't "pre-ordained" and neither is it "random."

If your actions are determined by something other than random factors or by physical mechanics, then how are they determined?

Whatever this "other" thing is that determines your actions, how is it responsible for the measurable physical effects that extend from your actions? Of course, there can be no actual mechanism, or your will wouldn't be free.

Based on current science the only room for "free will" would be quantum randomness that isn't "really" random. The brain functions according to clear chemical mechanics, and seems to be the source of our actions.

[Rduke55]

"Based on current science the only room for "free will" would be quantum randomness that isn't "really" random. The brain functions according to clear chemical mechanics, and seems to be the source of our actions."

There's a lot of noise in some neurons.

[madnak]

But the individual signals are generated through causal mechanics.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog, I really respect your method of debate, although I did sense a subtle 'dig' at Christians in your OP. I often like to make statements like “my ‘current’ understanding...” as it leaves room for growth. So I ask this earnestly and not as some kind of an attempt to give you a loaded question... Where did the matter that created the universe come from? ie: where did oxygen come from, etc? Also, (I’m not quite sure how to put this) where did the laws of science come from? ie: why does oxygen combine with hydrogen at a 2 to 1 ratio to create water, etc? I know I’m doing a crappy job at expressing my 2nd thought here. I hope you can figure out what I’m getting at. I look forward to your response, but try to keep it as simple as possible... remember, I am not a scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know if this has been responded to in such a long thread, but one basic answer (the anthromorphic approach) is that it doesnt matter WHY. The laws of physics explain what is, at increasingly deeper levels, but can never explain why. However, if the laws of physics were different than they are, then carbon wouldnt so easily combine with other elements to produce organic compounds that led to life as we know it, and we wouldnt be here to do science and discover the "what". So there doesnt need to be a why...the "if not" overpowers it.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I also know the universe (or universes?) would not exist unless it was God's will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you some kind of wizard?

[/ QUOTE ]


Nooo...but I know something about the history of mankind and science. First the earth was the ultimate only, and was found to be only one of many planets...then the solar system...then the galaxy...then the universe. The Bible, on the other hand, says "...worlds without end", which I agree with. Science may catch up eventually...

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the Bible I have (courtesy of the Gideons) says "world without end" (at least in Ephesians), not "worlds", echoing Ecclesiastes "The earth remains forever". This is not a prophecy of the existence of other solar systems, planets etc, just a belief (hope?) that the earth will continue ad infinitum..something I have less and less faith in every time I read or watch the news.

If you a referring to a different passage without the "s", please let me know.

Edit: I see you responded (or anticipated) this objection. Your response goes on to ignore the obvious interpretation of the world (singular) being infinite and mangle it into a prediction of other planets. These are the kinds of stretches that Bible literalists frequently make in an attempt to show the relevance and "factual" basis of the Bible.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont follow this at all. Why does free will require invoking the supernatural? I am an atheist and believer in the scientific method, but believe in free will. I dont see any conflict whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all events are the result of prior events (a la determinism), then, in the absense of a soul (spirit, heart, etc), you are a machine. Your actions are determined by the chemical reactions within your nervous system, and thus the emergent property that you think of as your mind (or whatever you call that which chooses a course of action) is not free- it is constrained to act according to physical law. Free will cannot be understood in a scientific context- it is an illusion, or it is supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

But all events are NOT determined by prior events. You can't invoke a false premise to explain anything, natural or supernatural.

If you believe that all actions are determined by the prior state, then you have to believe you can "run the film backwards" to the beginning of life. To believe that is to believe that the earliest form of life, which evolved into today's species, was "programmed" to produce everything that man has created, down to the smallest detail, including the avatars on PokerStars.

Sorry, but free will need not invoke anything supernatural. Determinism requires that more than free will.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
But all events are NOT determined by prior events. You can't invoke a false premise to explain anything, natural or supernatural.

If you believe that all actions are determined by the prior state, then you have to believe you can "run the film backwards" to the beginning of life. To believe that is to believe that the earliest form of life, which evolved into today's species, was "programmed" to produce everything that man has created, down to the smallest detail, including the avatars on PokerStars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quantum randomness takes care of this objection.



[ QUOTE ]
Free will is generally distinguished from "normal" will in that it is not based on causal mechanics or on probability. In other words, it isn't "pre-ordained" and neither is it "random."

If your actions are determined by something other than random factors or by physical mechanics, then how are they determined?

Whatever this "other" thing is that determines your actions, how is it responsible for the measurable physical effects that extend from your actions? Of course, there can be no actual mechanism, or your will wouldn't be free.

Based on current science the only room for "free will" would be quantum randomness that isn't "really" random. The brain functions according to clear chemical mechanics, and seems to be the source of our actions. (madnak)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put, IMO.

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Borodog, I really respect your method of debate, although I did sense a subtle 'dig' at Christians in your OP. I often like to make statements like “my ‘current’ understanding...” as it leaves room for growth. So I ask this earnestly and not as some kind of an attempt to give you a loaded question... Where did the matter that created the universe come from? ie: where did oxygen come from, etc? Also, (I’m not quite sure how to put this) where did the laws of science come from? ie: why does oxygen combine with hydrogen at a 2 to 1 ratio to create water, etc? I know I’m doing a crappy job at expressing my 2nd thought here. I hope you can figure out what I’m getting at. I look forward to your response, but try to keep it as simple as possible... remember, I am not a scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know if this has been responded to in such a long thread, but one basic answer (the anthromorphic approach) is that it doesnt matter WHY. The laws of physics explain what is, at increasingly deeper levels, but can never explain why. However, if the laws of physics were different than they are, then carbon wouldnt so easily combine with other elements to produce organic compounds that led to life as we know it, and we wouldnt be here to do science and discover the "what". So there doesnt need to be a why...the "if not" overpowers it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just a lame cop-out of a non-answer. Just because you (science) can not answer the question does not make the question irrelevant. Borodog did a much better job answering the question by simply saying “we don’t know.” I thought that was a fine answer. You don’t have to know everything. Perhaps science will figure out the “why” someday, perhaps they won’t. If they do, is your position still that it doesn’t matter?

I’m not just picking on you. I think some Christians feel pressure to “know everything” too, sometimes doing more harm than good imo. “I don’t know” is a fine answer. It doesn’t make you “wrong” about anything (as Boro pointed out if I remember right), it just proves that you have room to grow. It also proves that you are not gonna make [censored] up to try to be “right”... a fine quality in a person imo.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Borodog, I really respect your method of debate, although I did sense a subtle 'dig' at Christians in your OP. I often like to make statements like “my ‘current’ understanding...” as it leaves room for growth. So I ask this earnestly and not as some kind of an attempt to give you a loaded question... Where did the matter that created the universe come from? ie: where did oxygen come from, etc? Also, (I’m not quite sure how to put this) where did the laws of science come from? ie: why does oxygen combine with hydrogen at a 2 to 1 ratio to create water, etc? I know I’m doing a crappy job at expressing my 2nd thought here. I hope you can figure out what I’m getting at. I look forward to your response, but try to keep it as simple as possible... remember, I am not a scientist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know if this has been responded to in such a long thread, but one basic answer (the anthromorphic approach) is that it doesnt matter WHY. The laws of physics explain what is, at increasingly deeper levels, but can never explain why. However, if the laws of physics were different than they are, then carbon wouldnt so easily combine with other elements to produce organic compounds that led to life as we know it, and we wouldnt be here to do science and discover the "what". So there doesnt need to be a why...the "if not" overpowers it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just a lame cop-out of a non-answer. Just because you (science) can not answer the question does not make the question irrelevant. Borodog did a much better job answering the question by simply saying “we don’t know.” I thought that was a fine answer. You don’t have to know everything. Perhaps science will figure out the “why” someday, perhaps they won’t. If they do, is your position still that it doesn’t matter?

I’m not just picking on you. I think some Christians feel pressure to “know everything” too, sometimes doing more harm than good imo. “I don’t know” is a fine answer. It doesn’t make you “wrong” about anything (as Boro pointed out if I remember right), it just proves that you have room to grow. It also proves that you are not gonna make [censored] up to try to be “right”... a fine quality in a person imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldnt only be picking on me, you would be picking on a large number of physicists and cosmologists who ascribe to the anthromorphic (sometimes called anthropic) principle. In fact it is used by Glynn in his book as a basis for reconciling faith and science.

Perhaps a more precise definition, presented not coincidentally on the birthday of Copernicus by its coiner, Brandon Carter, would make it sound less like a "cop out answer".

"what we can expect to observe [in the universe] must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers".

Glynn stretches this imo:

"all the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common-these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life...In essence the anthropic principle came down to the observation that all the myriad laws of physics were fine-tuned from the very beginning of the universe for the creation of man-that the universe we inhabit appeared to expressly designed for the emergence of human beings."

It was not evidence for design, it is an observation that the observed laws of physics are both necessary and sufficient for us to exist and do science in the first place, however they came to be.

It harkens back to "I think, therefore I am".
"I exist, therefore the conditions for me to exist must be present." It doesnt matter how they got to be that way.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
But the individual signals are generated through causal mechanics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but often people have the misinterpretation that the brain works "perfectly" every time - give the exact same imput and get the exact same output. This is not neccessarily the case.

[madnak]

I'm aware of that. I don't think we're anywhere near fully understanding the brain. At the same time I'm not entirely convinced that the "noise" doesn't serve some purpose.

But I don't think any of that really bears on free will.

[Borodog]

"I exist, therefore the conditions for me to exist must be present."

I always like to explain it like this:

There's a reason there are no penguins in Egypt or camels in Antarctica.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
"I exist, therefore the conditions for me to exist must be present."

I always like to explain it like this:

There's a reason there are no penguins in Egypt or camels in Antarctica.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there is... each has evolved to suit/fit its environment! So?

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
You wouldnt only be picking on me, you would be picking on a large number of physicists and cosmologists who ascribe to the anthromorphic (sometimes called anthropic) principle. In fact it is used by Glynn in his book as a basis for reconciling faith and science.

Perhaps a more precise definition, presented not coincidentally on the birthday of Copernicus by its coiner, Brandon Carter, would make it sound less like a "cop out answer".

"what we can expect to observe [in the universe] must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers".

Glynn stretches this imo:

"all the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common-these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life...In essence the anthropic principle came down to the observation that all the myriad laws of physics were fine-tuned from the very beginning of the universe for the creation of man-that the universe we inhabit appeared to expressly designed for the emergence of human beings."

It was not evidence for design, it is an observation that the observed laws of physics are both necessary and sufficient for us to exist and do science in the first place, however they came to be.

It harkens back to "I think, therefore I am".
"I exist, therefore the conditions for me to exist must be present." It doesnt matter how they got to be that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You lost me. You are saying that a large number of physicists and cosmologists think that if they can’t answer a question, the question itself is irrelevant? I don’t believe that for a second. Science, itself, would not exist in any form if this were their stance.

Then, you seem to be quoting an author that uses phrases like “creation of man” and “universe we inhabit appeared to (be) expressly designed ” and claim that he is not saying it was “designed”?

I’m not trying to turn this into a “creation/evolution” thread. You’re the one who brought that up. I just think that no self respecting scientists would agree that “if we can’t answer the question, the question doesn’t matter.”

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You wouldnt only be picking on me, you would be picking on a large number of physicists and cosmologists who ascribe to the anthromorphic (sometimes called anthropic) principle. In fact it is used by Glynn in his book as a basis for reconciling faith and science.

Perhaps a more precise definition, presented not coincidentally on the birthday of Copernicus by its coiner, Brandon Carter, would make it sound less like a "cop out answer".

"what we can expect to observe [in the universe] must be restricted by the conditions necessary for our presence as observers".

Glynn stretches this imo:

"all the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common-these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life...In essence the anthropic principle came down to the observation that all the myriad laws of physics were fine-tuned from the very beginning of the universe for the creation of man-that the universe we inhabit appeared to expressly designed for the emergence of human beings."

It was not evidence for design, it is an observation that the observed laws of physics are both necessary and sufficient for us to exist and do science in the first place, however they came to be.

It harkens back to "I think, therefore I am".
"I exist, therefore the conditions for me to exist must be present." It doesnt matter how they got to be that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

You lost me. You are saying that a large number of physicists and cosmologists think that if they can’t answer a question, the question itself is irrelevant? I don’t believe that for a second. Science, itself, would not exist in any form if this were their stance. No, because the question is currently (and may always be) unanswerable they are not concerned about the "why" they are still discovering the "what". Perhaps irrelevant isnt the correct word, but at least in the late 90s "it is because it has to be" was the position of a large number, if not the majority of cosmologists.

Then, you seem to be quoting an author that uses phrases like “creation of man” and “universe we inhabit appeared to (be) expressly designed ” and claim that he is not saying it was “designed”? No, I was saying his conclusion that it was designed is not supported by any evidence. That was outside the quotes.

I’m not trying to turn this into a “creation/evolution” thread. You’re the one who brought that up. I just think that no self respecting scientists would agree that “if we can’t answer the question, the question doesn’t matter.”

[/ QUOTE ]

[LadyWrestler]

Yes. I sometimes confuse my understanding of Greek with common English translations of the Bible. I apologized in the post you mentioned, and since it seems to concern you, also, I will apologize to you here as well: Sorry for the confusion.

Have a great day! /images/graemlins/smile.gif