The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.

[Dids]

Paluka just said this

"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one."

Which made me think of this:

Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best.

Thoughts?

[[censored]]

I see it as the complete opposite.

its the desire of mankind to explain the things that we do not know which has driven us towards science, exploring space, understanding how the human body works,creating great pieces of art and yes creating religion.

I also don't agree that people who are religious have grasped for the explanation that makes them feel the best.

[MaxxDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
Paluka just said this

"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one."

Which made me think of this:

Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I literally just posted about this in the other thread. I absolutely agree with you, but to a point, which I'll get to in a bit. I also agree with [censored] in that science has strived to come up with explanations for these things we don't fully understand. But as [censored] also said, the fact that people take religion as the explanation that makes them feel best is likely not enitrely true. I'm sure for many people, the fear of not knowing some of life's eternal, or not so eternal, questions may lead them to God as a way for comforting them. For others, faith is likely instilled in them at a young age by their parents, or they just happen to align with a particular religion's beliefs. However, if the beliefs happen to be of a moral nature, then you can refer back to the God thread about my thoughts on that.

[Dids]

But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.

[Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
Paluka just said this

"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one."


[/ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.


The one thing about those who believe in God is that they tend to realize that they are making a leap of faith... the same can't often be said about those that believe in anything other than God (and everyone believes in something).

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.

[/ QUOTE ]


Science cannot rationalize how we got here. There are plenty of people who believe in god that have no trouble rationalizing thier existence. You say they believe in a big Unicorn, but most of them, while in your opinion may be ignorant, are probably much more happy and at peace with things (ecspecially near the end of thier days). If ignorance is bliss, i have no trouble being happy.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Science cannot rationalize how we got here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not inclined to say that this is completely true, but suppose that it were. To me, this is pretty much saying that it is impossible to rationalize how we got here at all. There's not really a strictly rational way to introduce God to the conversation. In that case, why try to rationalize? Why does there need to be a reason at all? I've never really understood the "Why are we here? What is the meaning of life?" style questions.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]


Some people would rather put thier own feeling of intellectual superiority over other humans, in front of anything else.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]


Some people would rather put thier own feeling of intellectual superiority over other humans, in front of anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that many people do that, but I still find it hard to belive they genuinely don't want there to be a benevolent God.

[Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paluka just said this

"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one."


[/ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly, to be frank.

I don't believe in God becuse I have no reason to, as there's nothing that I've seen that has convinced me. To suggest that I feel that way simply because I choose not to believe is pushing on insulting. (for the record, I think Paluka's line is insulting as well).

EDIT-

Also, we have one thread for talking about God, let's focus more on the topic in the op.

[Farfenugen]

How about we go one further and say our biggest flaw is the mind's ability to decieve itself, which the inability to accept the unknown can be lumped in with.

[Boomhauer]

[ QUOTE ]
And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote has an implicit assumption that athiests are not moral, which is simply not true.

Which is better, acting moral because it is the correct thing to do, or acting moral soley because something is watching your every step and placing judgement on your actions?

[MaxxDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need. To get back to the original quote, what's in it for atheists if there is no God? Well, basically what guids wrote, and that we'd be "right" and everyone else would be "wrong." The true question is, how important is it to be right? This is where intellectual superiority creeps in. You can get into a whole other thread about the merits of being right over wrong.

[Aloysius]

Quids - well put. And a very real reason why people out-of-hand dismiss religion / religiosity / "God" etc. For fear of intellectual ridicule.

[ QUOTE ]
We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know many very thoughtful, religious people who are not only torn about their faiths (one in particular is a Phd at MIT, quantum physics) but constantly re-investigating and questioning their belief system.

As someone else mentioned believing in a God is a leap of faith: in many ways, the thoughtful religious person is giving up control of his life and putting it in the hands of their God and this belief system without empirical intellectual underpinnings (ie based on faith). Some might see this as cowardly and stupid (acceding agency), others as a courageous act.

-Al

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need. To get back to the original quote, what's in it for atheists if there is no God? Well, basically what guids wrote, and that we'd be "right" and everyone else would be "wrong." The true question is, how important is it to be right? This is where intellectual superiority creeps in. You can get into a whole other thread about the merits of being right over wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, basically what guids wrote, and that we'd be "right" and everyone else would be "wrong." The true question is, how important is it to be right?

Yes, exactly! With a question as big as this, and the implications surrounding it, we may never know the answer! And if we ever do find out (ie when we die), it may be too late. So whats the point in risking being "wrong"??? Ill tell you what the risk is, the risk is that you wont be able to tell people how right you are.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, exactly! With a question as big as this, and the implications surrounding it, we may never know the answer! And if we ever do find out (ie when we die), it may be too late. So whats the point in risking being "wrong"??? Ill tell you what the risk is, the risk is that you wont be able to tell people how right you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think that saying that you believe in God and believing the God is the same thing. I honestly don't believe in God. Going around telling people I do isn't going to get me into heaven.

[Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.




[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true, and to be honest it is a pretty stupid thing to say. Why would anyone not want there to be a God? Every atheist I know would love to have a shot at eternal bliss in heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

The statement is no more or less true or stupid than yours.

Perhaps all the atheists you know would love that shot at eternal bliss in heaven... but ultimately they preferred to make a different leap of faith.

We all make a leap of faith, suggesting that someone else's leap of faith is desperate or ridiculous (effectively mocking or criticizing that leap) while completely ignoring one's own leap is silly (though predictable) and is a large part of what makes these types of discussions somewhat useless.

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
We all make a leap of faith, suggesting that someone else's leap of faith is desperate or ridiculous (effectively mocking or criticizing that leap) while completely ignoring one's own leap is silly (though predictable) and is a large part of what makes these types of discussions somewhat useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Religious people happen to make a leap of faith that is well-defined therefore much more open to questions / possible ridicule.

-Al

[Paluka]

I just don't agree that atheists are making any sort of leap of faith. I guess this is like the difference between guilty until proven innocent vs innocent until proven guilty. Everything I know about the world makes says that I should not believe in God until it is proven beyond reasonable doubt. I would feel the same way about any supernatural or far-fetched fact or concept.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, exactly! With a question as big as this, and the implications surrounding it, we may never know the answer! And if we ever do find out (ie when we die), it may be too late. So whats the point in risking being "wrong"??? Ill tell you what the risk is, the risk is that you wont be able to tell people how right you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think that saying that you believe in God and believing the God is the same thing. I honestly don't believe in God. Going around telling people I do isn't going to get me into heaven.
And this is cleary not a competition. I know people who "believe" that the Bears are definitely going to win the Super Bowl. They are retards, I don't care whether or not they end up being right.

[/ QUOTE ]


I can see that. Scienctifically, no, Im not 100% there is a God, spiritually/philisophically, yes, Im 100% certain.

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't agree that atheists are making any sort of leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Everything I know about the world

[/ QUOTE ]

It's fine if you don't believe in the metaphysical (I happen to believe in a metaphysical state from a philsophic standpoint) but the fact that you need to be shown empirical proof of the metaphysical, before considering it a possiblity, is very much your leap of faith. (Unless you actually know mostly everything in the world in which case I retract my statement.)

-Al

[danzasmack]

[ QUOTE ]
I see it as the complete opposite.

its the desire of mankind to explain the things that we do not know which has driven us towards science, exploring space, understanding how the human body works,creating great pieces of art and yes creating religion.

I also don't agree that people who are religious have grasped for the explanation that makes them feel the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this 100%. I would say then that the "flaw" would be accepting solutions to questions you have about life, etc. without questioning them to some degree, as well as failing to understand someone else's point of view on the same situation. I think that encompasses crazy religious people.

Being stubborn is, in some cases, a level of dangerous ignorance.

Also, I'm not saying "question everything" but simply take the time to understand it.

[Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who believes there is a God has a faith and someone who believes there is no God doesn't have a faith?

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't agree that atheists are making any sort of leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Everything I know about the world

[/ QUOTE ]

It's fine if you don't believe in the metaphysical (I happen to believe in a metaphysical state from a philsophic standpoint) but the fact that you need to be shown empirical proof of the metaphysical, before considering it a possiblity, is very much your leap of faith. (Unless you actually know mostly everything in the world in which case I retract my statement.)

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe that supernatural or whatever that is fine. Most Christians I know do not believe in these things. They make an exception for God.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who believes there is a God has a faith and someone who believes there is not God doesn't have a faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe that earth has been visited by martians? If not, would you say that this belief requires faith on your part?

[MaxxDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't agree that atheists are making any sort of leap of faith

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Everything I know about the world

[/ QUOTE ]

It's fine if you don't believe in the metaphysical (I happen to believe in a metaphysical state from a philsophic standpoint) but the fact that you need to be shown empirical proof of the metaphysical, before considering it a possiblity, is very much your leap of faith. (Unless you actually know mostly everything in the world in which case I retract my statement.)

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all relative (yay cliches!). It seems that we're placing some sort of quantitative value on our respective "leaps of faith" in one direction of the other. Sure, the metaphysical at this point in time seems to some of us to be a high statistical improbability, but people that choose a side are taking a leap, or a hop, depending on how you look at it.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.

[/ QUOTE ]



IMO, if science and scientfically minded people, start getting comfortable with an end result of "dunno" when things start to brick out, I think humans as a whole, are going to start to suffer. I personally believe that science has progressed due to the simple fact that there are certain people who refuse to accept the "dunno".

[MaxxDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who believes there is a God has a faith and someone who believes there is not God doesn't have a faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to be vague, but the faith I referred to is specifically the faith in there being a metaphysical being. As you'll see in my post above this one, I clarify this matter.

Edit: terminology

[Aloysius]

Paluka - sorry not meaning to stray from your original point with possible diction issues: I'm defining "metaphyiscal" as anything beyond the physical world (anything spiritual that cannot, to-date, be proven with empirical, human measurements). This is an umbrella term and includes any "God". Not meant as "supernatural" - like ghosts or something.

So yes - Christians believe in a metaphysical state / presence and it is the underpinning of their faith. They don't make an exception for their God existence of the metaphysical is intergral to their worldview.

-Al

[cnfuzzd]

[ QUOTE ]
Paluka just said this

"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one."

Which made me think of this:

Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dids,


to get your thread back on track (the god vs no-god debate is stupid)

I would contend that its not mankind's inability to accept the unknowable and integrate it into his daily life which is most detrimental to his "progress" through the ages, for that desire to know, his creative drive, his need to *know* is perhaps one of hes most profound attributes, one of the very few distinctions that can be made between us and other animals. I would posit that it is man inability to critically examine why he knows what he knows. He simply accepts that his knowledge is truth, and refuses to consider what benefit is being served by knowing any particular fact. Man's base of knowledge has always been a self-serving instrument, meant to not only improve his life, but to help him adjust to his surroundings, both environmental and cultural. This is fine, and in fact is part of what being human is all about. Once this knowledge becomes a tool for mans complacency, or worse his enslavement, whether to religious or social ideology, that mankind is at his worse. Then knowledge becomes a justification for "immoral' behavior, a tool for those who are most willing to exploit others for their own gain.

This is especially true considering that most systems of knowledge are actually just belief systems put into place to fill the gaps of what is, at present, unknowable. Consider, 500 years ago, most of the population of the world knew that the world was flat, and that there was no possible way that earth was actually ball shaped. This was considered the enlightened belief, and anyone who said otherwise was osctracized as being insane or idiotic. If one also considers the notion of a geo-centric universe, it becomes very easy to understand that the idea that the divine plan placed the earth at the center of the universe fit very nicely into the conceit of medieval humanity. To which conceits does our knowledge serve today?

For what its worth, i do side with the athiests in the ongoing debate about the existence of god. I think for too long the idea of god and divine providence has served to explain away the ills of the world, which for the most part are human in origin. Its time for us to leave behind the old language of good and evil and begin to conceptualize of a truly human-born morality, and, while i certainly believe its possible to reorganize religious thought to promote such beliefs, i think the overwhelming magority of practitioners are unwilling to alter their beliefs from thier archaic origins. So while i think that, given the immense nature of this universe, and its infinite possibilities and mysteries, any existence of a god is utterly irrelevent to humanity, i think humanity is better served, at least at this point, in having a very strong, rational, KIND, and UNDERSTANDING athiest movement.


pjn

[Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who believes there is a God has a faith and someone who believes there is not God doesn't have a faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to be vague, but the faith I referred to is specifically the faith in there being a metaphysical being. As you'll see in my post above this one, I clarify this matter.

Edit: terminology

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. However, the focus on such a limited meaning of the word faith is what makes it easier for some to ignore their own leap of faith. The notion that anyone who doesn't believe in the metaphysical or a metaphysical being doesn't have a faith is a convenient delusion.

[Aloysius]

Razor - we are on the same page.

-Al

[fish2plus2]

I envy people capable of believing in God.

[Go_Blue88]

OP--

your statement is too broad. a more clear argument might make this thread more interesting.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paluka just said this

"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one."


[/ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they desperately don't want there to be one.

[/ QUOTE ]

The one thing about those who believe in God is that they tend to realize that they are making a leap of faith... the same can't often be said about those that believe in anything other than God (and everyone believes in something).

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, it's not that simple. Being an atheist is not an act of faith.

I for one am quite comfortable not knowing. If I feel a need to believe in anything, it's logic and rationality. But I would not characterize such a belief as faith.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" -Socrates

Dids stop plagiarizing the founder of Western philosophy!

[Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
You know, it's not that simple. Being an atheist is not an act of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, it actually is that simple.

One can no more disprove the existence of God as prove His existance. Taking either position is an act of faith, to think otherwise is misguided. However, it is much more reassuring to convince oneself that one's own position is based on the logical and rational examination of the 'facts' while other positions are based on faith.

[Jack of Arcades]

A corollary to the first statement is people's inability to accept chance's role in life, and people scrambling to find patterns in randomness.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
A corollary to the first statement is people's inability to accept chance's role in life, and people scrambling to find patterns in randomness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard for me to see this as a flaw when I think it's so hugely essential to everything that we are. It has its downsides, sure, but without that urge I don't think humanity would be recognizable.

[dylan's alias]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.

[/ QUOTE ]



IMO, if science and scientfically minded people, start getting comfortable with an end result of "dunno" when things start to brick out, I think humans as a whole, are going to start to suffer. I personally believe that science has progressed due to the simple fact that there are certain people who refuse to accept the "dunno".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. Science can accept "dunno". It is critical to the process that there be an unknown or an unsatisfying answer to a question. This may drive them to probe the question further, think more deeply about it, and try to test their new concepts. Science does not allow unproven or unprovable concepts to become truth.

[CrayZee]

Psychologists have known for quite some time that people are often driven by emotions more than reason. You can easily wrap around "reason" to any unprovable conclusion you want, given enough motivation to do so.

I guess some would call this an "emotional bias" in human behavior/decision making.

"I don't know" doesn't "feel good," so it's easy to want to answer the question as yes or no regardless of facts, or lack thereof.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know, it's not that simple. Being an atheist is not an act of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, it actually is that simple.

One can no more disprove the existence of God as prove His existance. Taking either position is an act of faith, to think otherwise is misguided. However, it is much more reassuring to convince oneself that one's own position is based on the logical and rational examination of the 'facts' while other positions are based on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just can't believe this is really your position. You think that if something cannot be proven or disproven, then either opinion you have on it is based on "faith". I can't prove that all my high school teachers weren't androids that were secretly spying for a race of intergalactic warlords, but I do not believe that they were. I suppose some people would describe my belief in this scenario as having "faith" in my own understanding of the world, but I don't think anyone would categorize this faith as being similar to the faith that Christians claim to have in the belief in God. So even if you choose to describe all unprovable beliefs as being based on faith, these faiths are clearly not all equal in the eyes of most people.

[Aloysius]

Paluka:

[ QUOTE ]
but I don't think anyone would categorize this faith as being similar to the faith that Christians claim to have in the belief in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Because you can't see or touch it, or there isn't as much empirical evidence?

I'm not sure if you have alot of Christian friends - I do (I'm Korean haha). And I've spoken in-depth with Christian friends and done study on Christian tradition, read the Bible a decent amount etc. etc. I also feel like I have a pretty good sense of what Christians believe, and what their "faith" is.

The fact that Christians truly believe that God is working in their lives everyday, guiding them, that God and Christ are a very *real* part of their day-to-day... puts their faith on par with yours, no?

Simply because you can't get inside a Christian's head, and understand their faith, or their experience, doesn't make it any less valid or make your bio-chemical empirical view any more valid (if that's what you're implying).

-Al

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
Paluka:

[ QUOTE ]
but I don't think anyone would categorize this faith as being similar to the faith that Christians claim to have in the belief in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Because you can't see or touch it, or there isn't as much empirical evidence?

I'm not sure if you have alot of Christian friends - I do (I'm Korean haha). And I've spoken in-depth with Christian friends and done study on Christian tradition, read the Bible a decent amount etc. etc. I also feel like I have a pretty good sense of what Christians believe, and what their "faith" is.

The fact that Christians truly believe that God is working in their lives everyday, guiding them, that God and Christ are a very *real* part of their day-to-day... puts their faith on par with yours, no?

Simply because you can't get inside a Christian's head, and understand their faith, or their experience, doesn't make it any less valid or make your bio-chemical empirical view any more valid (if that's what you're implying).

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't a question of validity. It is a question of how they came upon their belief. I really don't think that I have come upon any of my beliefs by the same process that Christians have used faith to come to the decision that they believe in God. To me, a believe based on faith implies that something beyond logic and rationality and facts were used to make this choice. Isn't this what most people mean when they say it is a faith based belief?

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think that I have come upon any of my beliefs by the same process that Christians have used faith to come to the decision that they believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that there are many things we accept as "fact" along the course of our lives that we build upon to come to "logical" conclusions... but haha yes, without being ridiculously reductive... I understand your point, and it's a very good one.

I think what Razor was getting at, that what non-religious people accept as "fact" is founded upon faith that the institutions, learnings, whatever, are conclusive findings - an empirical truth. That many of these empirical learnings are easily tested and proven to be true over many trials, helps establish a sense of reality.

In my view, how comprehensive this take on reality is depends alot on whether you believe in a metaphysical state or not. If you don't feel some visceral sense of a greater being / purpose whatever, this is prolly proof enough for you that this is the world - biochemical. Whatever it is inside people that needs assuaging about the world, and your place in it - atheists are OK.

If you are "agnostic" or something, there's more to it than that and people who believe in the metaphysical are not satisified, for whatever reason, with the current answers available to them.

So likely, I would guess because you're comfortable in your world view, you've never *needed* to come to a belief outside that which is founded in biochemical, empirical truths as we understand them. So you haven't.

I guess my main point is that faith is a very powerful thing - for the hard-core Christians I know - once they have the faith, their reality is "spiritual based", and God over repeated trials confirms to them a truth they believe in as much as non-religious folk believe in basic scientific principles.

-Al

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.

Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day.

[/ QUOTE ]



IMO, if science and scientfically minded people, start getting comfortable with an end result of "dunno" when things start to brick out, I think humans as a whole, are going to start to suffer. I personally believe that science has progressed due to the simple fact that there are certain people who refuse to accept the "dunno".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. Science can accept "dunno". It is critical to the process that there be an unknown or an unsatisfying answer to a question. This may drive them to probe the question further, think more deeply about it, and try to test their new concepts. Science does not allow unproven or unprovable concepts to become truth.

[/ QUOTE ]


By definition if you accept an end result of "dunno", there should be no more drive to probe the question further. I think what you guys are trying to say is that scientists can accept that they are wrong sometimes, or dont know the methods to find the answer yet, but the search will continue.

[7ontheline]

[ QUOTE ]


But I believe also, that this is what Razor is getting at, that what non-religious people accept as "fact" is founded upon faith that the institutions, learnings, whatever, are conclusive findings - an empirical truth. The fact that many of these empirical learnings are easily tested and proven to be true over many trials, helps establish a sense of reality.

Faith is a very powerful thing - for the hard-core Christians I know - once they have the faith, their reality is "spiritual based", and God over repeated trials confirms to them a truth they believe in as much as non-religious folk believe in basic scientific principles.

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point Al, but I still can't see the rational view as equivalent to the faith-based religious view. You say both their belief systems are validated by experiences. However, the scientific process should result in reproducible, predictable results that confirm the theories in question to anyone approaching an experiment in a similar way. However, the "spiritually-based" reality is pretty unlikely to produce predictable results to convince an objective observer. Certainly, a religious person may feel unequivocally that an experience in their life was influenced by some sort of spiritual or divine process, but how do they convince someone else?

This sort of gets at a question I have - I often (in this thread, and elsewhere) see religious folks claiming that their view is equivalent and just as valid as atheists/rationalists. Why do this? It almost feels to me like an inferiority complex - most people (outside of the truly nutty religious types) accept the basic tenets of science. Faith and religion do not stand up to the same kind of rigorous examination; they are much harder to prove. They are clearly different. This does not necessarrily mean that they are inferior, but to claim that they are the same appears to my eyes to be trying to claim a similar legitimacy without the same burden of proof. It seems to me that by definition faith should provide its own legitimacy - why look to outside sources for it? This leads to the nutjobs in Kansas trying to ban evolution and so forth.

Sorry if I didn't make my point well - I'm not very articulate, so if you are insulted by my post anywhere, it's probably not meant that way.

[Aloysius]

7ontheline - somewhat edited my post above, maybe it is clearer. FWIW I am not a particularly religious person at all.

-Al

[fluffpop62]

[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they haven't been properly trained. /images/graemlins/heart.gif God!


[/ QUOTE ]

[7ontheline]

Al, I think I understood your point before, and saw that you were trying to articulate the religious point of view and not necessarily state your own beliefs. I'm responding more to Razor's posts in this thread and his repeated statements that everyone is taking an equal leap of faith regardless of what their belief system is. I simply do not believe that all belief systems are equivalent for the reasons I stated above. Again, this isn't meant to denigrate those with faith - different does not mean worse, although I personally am an atheist and do not (can not?) understand fully the religious point of view because of what I see as some inherent contradictions.

[Aloysius]

7:

[ QUOTE ]
However, the scientific process should result in reproducible, predictable results that confirm the theories in question to anyone approaching an experiment in a similar way. However, the "spiritually-based" reality is pretty unlikely to produce predictable results to convince an objective observer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... yeah, hence the conundrum and the seeming "unreality" of faith-based reality. I was just trying to communicate a serious Christian person's perspective.

I imagine that empiricists are truly baffled by those who believe in a metaphysical state.

Actually - as an aside, for my more intelligent Christian friends - not one of them is 100% certain in their faith. (In the Bible, the Apostle Paul is testament to near 100% faith in God. Anyone in today's world claiming to be near that is prolly not even close to that, I mean this is based on the fact they believe Paul existed.) There are major moments of doubt and spiritual crisis. I mean, they're smart people - they get it - and see the opposing view because it's so... blatant.

-Al

[Paluka]

There is a fundamental flaw of most religions that once you believe in the religion, it becomes a very bad thing to not believe. Consequently your own beliefs scare you into acting like your doubts do not exist. So many people with doubts try to ignore them. This makes rational self-analysis of the belief itself impossible. This is the exact opposite of science, which actively encourages its believers to try to test its "facts".

[olliejen]

I'm not sure the scope of "our society" in this, but I'll just say "the world."

My $0.02, the biggest flaw in the world is peoples' inability to find practical coexistence with other people who do not share the same beliefs.

I also don't think that the flaw you've illustrated is a "bad" one in all cases. If you overheard a conversation where someone was comforting a parent who lost a child, telling them that their child is still loved by God, no longer suffering and in a better place, would you be shaking your head at "the flaw?" That parent is probably desperate and needing to believe in something that maybe he/she has no rationale basis for. But it doesn't seem terrible to me at all...it just seems human.

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a fundamental flaw of most religions that once you believe in the religion, it becomes a very bad thing to not believe. Consequently your own beliefs scare you into acting like your doubts do not exist. So many people with doubts try to ignore them. This makes rational self-analysis of the belief itself impossible. This is the exact opposite of science, which actively encourages its believers to try to test its "facts".

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well put - one can see how more science-minded religious people sometimes struggle mightily with their beliefs.

And the reason I'd imagine they don't dismiss it out of hand is because something in them still believes and has faith, for whatever reason (you may say it's fear, they may say it's because they're closer to a fuller truth and reality).

-Al

[Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, a believe based on faith implies that something beyond logic and rationality and facts were used to make this choice. Isn't this what most people mean when they say it is a faith based belief?

[/ QUOTE ]

But is it possible for logic, rationality and facts to exist outside of and be uninfluenced by faith? Does this not itself require a leap of faith?

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To me, a believe based on faith implies that something beyond logic and rationality and facts were used to make this choice. Isn't this what most people mean when they say it is a faith based belief?

[/ QUOTE ]

But is it possible for logic, rationality and facts to exist outside of and be uninfluenced by faith? Does this not itself require a leap of faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are asking, but I'm going to answer no.

[7ontheline]

[ QUOTE ]


But is it possible for logic, rationality and facts to exist outside of and be uninfluenced by faith? Does this not itself require a leap of faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep saying this and I just don't understand your point. I believe that what I see and hear and feel are real. I believe in what I have seen and learned regarding science and human knowledge. If this belief is what you call a leap of faith, then I don't see how any argument means anything. I understand that I have a limited perception and understanding of the world, but if you subscribe to the notion that all perception of reality is questionable, then you can make a case for basically anything. Sure, I see the mathematical logic of gravity, and I see things fall down towards the center of the Earth's mass, but maybe it's all not real? Maybe what I can see and prove with equations and experiments is merely an illusion, and only my faith in my own perception is what convinces me of its truth? If that's the case, then who cares what anybody believes? You can't prove anything. Please explain your argument, because it doesn't mean anything to me right now.

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know, it's not that simple. Being an atheist is not an act of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, it actually is that simple.

One can no more disprove the existence of God as prove His existance.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, being an atheist means I don't have to disprove a god-damned thing.

[Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
See, being an atheist means I don't have to disprove a god-damned thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being an atheist means you don't believe in the existence of God. If you can't prove God doesn't existence but believe he doesn't anyway you've made a leap of faith.

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See, being an atheist means I don't have to disprove a god-damned thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being an atheist means you don't believe in the existence of God. If you can't prove God doesn't existence but believe he doesn't anyway you've made a leap of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems pretty common for people to confuse atheism and agnosticism. Saying you "don't believe in God and that it's not a leap of faith" is like saying you "believe in Heaven but not Hell" or something...unless you have a mono-polar religion that has only Heaven. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[7ontheline]

[ QUOTE ]


Being an atheist means you don't believe in the existence of God. If you can't prove God doesn't existence but believe he doesn't anyway you've made a leap of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument keeps more useless the more you repeat it. There is of course no scientific way to prove or disprove the existence of the divine. Assuming you believe in a benevolent deity (and if you believe in a random and capricious one then who gives a crap what's real anyway) then there are certainly a lot of injustices and problems in the world that are very difficult to rationalize with the existence of a god. There are a lot of contradictions between religious doctrines, and almost as many within single doctrines. How do you explain these things? If you are going to use the argument that God is beyond our knowing and our limited reasoning, then don't bother having a discussion in the first place because there's really no way to respond to that from any direction, whether you are for or against it.

It's not a leap of faith to not believe in God - it's a conclusion reached logically based on repeated observations of reality. Could my observations be faulty or misintrepreted? Of course. However, based upon my knowledge it seems the most reasonable conclusion. That's all scientific theory is anyway - the most likely answer based on experimentation and calculation. No one can be 100% certain there is no God (or of anything, really), but it sure seems plausible to me. To call that a "leap of faith" equivalent to that of believing in God is being obtuse. The burden of proof is on those who believe in God, not the other way around.

[7ontheline]

[ QUOTE ]

It seems pretty common for people to confuse atheism and agnosticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you could define any rational atheist as a sort of agnostic. I don't see how to prove things one way or another personally, but I tend to believe there isn't a God. Still, if I saw some proof or at least convincing circumstantial evidence my view would certainly be open to change.

Edit: You know, this thread has been totally hijacked. Sorry to Dids and anyone who was considering the original point of the OP. I'll shut up now.

[Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


But is it possible for logic, rationality and facts to exist outside of and be uninfluenced by faith? Does this not itself require a leap of faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep saying this and I just don't understand your point. I believe that what I see and hear and feel are real.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that the interpretation of facts is influenced by faith. The people's perception of reality is influenced by their faith and presuppositions. This doesn't necessarily mean that everything is relative, just that our perception of the world is relative. Nor does is mean everything is up for dispute.


One person looks at the world around him and believes there's a God.

Another person looks at the same world and determines there is no God.

That one believes it's possible to logically and rationally interpret facts unencumbered by the influence of faith and presuppositions requires a leap of faith.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't particularly think that any of this is true. First, it isn't our biggest flaw and second, it isn't true anyway. The only reason people believe this topic is important is because it is the ultimate question (existence, etc). For the most part the average human could not care less how things work or why they work/happen, etc. People don't care how the weather happens, or how televisions work, or anything else. In general, they only care about what affects them and usually what is affecting them at that moment. Which brings me to the other part: If it were true, it wouldn't be our worst flaw. Our worst flaw is that we are ultimately selfish and that will be the downfall of our society. It may have helped us get where we are, but it will kill us in the end.

[NoahSD]

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're way off here. I think a huge problem that mankind in general has is an obsession with things we can't describe that often leads us to find them where they aren't.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See, being an atheist means I don't have to disprove a god-damned thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being an atheist means you don't believe in the existence of God. If you can't prove God doesn't existence but believe he doesn't anyway you've made a leap of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence. Get what I'm saying? The burden of proof is on those who believe, not those who don't.

[CrayZee]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you could define any rational atheist as a sort of agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people that say they are atheists are really agnostics by a different name.

[Aloysius]

Dids:

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I was one of the primary hijackers... to your OP.

I am having a little trouble understanding your reasoning - at first blush, [censored] gave, imo, the correct answer early on in the thread:

[ QUOTE ]
I see it as the complete opposite.

its the desire of mankind to explain the things that we do not know which has driven us towards science, exploring space, understanding how the human body works,creating great pieces of art and yes creating religion.

I also don't agree that people who are religious have grasped for the explanation that makes them feel the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

For things we cannot possibly know or truly prove in an empirical sense (e.g. why are we here, is there a God etc., etc.) man has fashioned a solution evidenced in our philosophic heritage and creation of religion.

If you're arguing that this is bad - I would disagree in that many great thinkers, in attempting to wrap their minds around that which discomforts them, advance thought and create important cultural tradition.

Also - we need to address our individual discomforts - otherwise we as people are not functioning optimally if we're dragged down by our pain. So if one needs to invent a "Unicorn in the sky" to be a happy person, and lead a more productive life, and your net contribution to society is a net gain... that's prolly a good idea.

-Al

[Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not a leap of faith to not believe in God - it's a conclusion reached logically based on repeated observations of reality. Could my observations be faulty or misintrepreted? Of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

if it's not a leap of faith what is it?


[ QUOTE ]
Could my observations be faulty or misintrepreted? Of course. However, based upon my knowledge it seems the most reasonable conclusion. That's all scientific theory is anyway - the most likely answer based on experimentation and calculation. No one can be 100% certain there is no God (or of anything, really), but it sure seems plausible to me. To call that a "leap of faith" equivalent to that of believing in God is being obtuse. The burden of proof is on those who believe in God, not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

So since your conclusion seems most reasonable to you the burden of proof is on those who believe in God?

Consider that to believers the conclusion that there is a God seems most reasonable to them. They are looking at the same evidence as you. They see the beauty and design of nature, that day follows night follows day etc., that the seasons come and go, the birth of new life, they see someone come back from the brink of death. They see this and other evidence and can't come to any other conclusion that there is a God.

Yes your observations certainly do point to the non-existence of God. However, you have neglected to include any observations that point to the existence of God. Are these not that significant? Who decided what importance to attach to these observations? On what basis does one determine the importance of these observations?

[Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See, being an atheist means I don't have to disprove a god-damned thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being an atheist means you don't believe in the existence of God. If you can't prove God doesn't existence but believe he doesn't anyway you've made a leap of faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence. Get what I'm saying? The burden of proof is on those who believe, not those who don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't about burden of proof... it's about whether or not everyone makes a leap of faith.

[Aloysius]

7 - Just e-mailed my buddy (a biologist) - but if memory serves there were recently a rash of books written by microbiologists and geneticists railing against science's "reductionist, biochemical view of life". When he e-mails me back I'll provide a bunch of links (I don't remember any books off the top of my head, nor have I read them, maybe others can chime in on this).

The point is that even at a micro-cellular level, the life processes (according to people who actually know this stuff) involve unexplained phenomena that they can not explain with current science.

Meaning, to Razor's point - there is some leap of faith even at the highest levels of scientific understanding for life, what's binds us together, what makes things go... if it's purely biochemical great, and maybe we will get to a point where it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt - but if you say there is no metaphysical state, you are taking a leap of faith in believing it is 100% biochemical, and similar to a religious person, you are making this claim with incomplete information.

I understand your argument that there is much more empirical information to go on - but there is still a significant faith component for most people (cause frankly, most people don't know that much stuff).

There are many, many things in our day-to-day and in our overall belief system, whether we are religious or not, that we take on blind faith alone.

-Al

[7ontheline]

Al,

You're certainly right about that - the deeper you get, the more unknown concepts you find. My contention is that the scientific process continues to discover more and more, explaining the physical world further with each day. Shouldn't that count for something? In the end, we're probably limited in our understanding regardless of whether we believe in the metaphysical or not, but the scientific method keeps getting closer to a better explanation for how things work that is not really open to argument.

Razor, I'm not going to respond to you anymore. I like El D's forum and his rules. I think we're just going to have to disagree. We're probably too far apart to approach the question in the same way anyway. The other thread is probably a better place for this discussion anyway.

[Razor]

[ QUOTE ]
In the end, we're probably limited in our understanding regardless of whether we believe in the metaphysical or not

[/ QUOTE ]

Given this we are probably not that far apart.


All,

I guess I did hijack this thread (first time for everything I guess) my apologies to Dids.

However, in a weak effort to retroactively save myself. I would make the argument that the inability of humans to understand the influence and scope of faith (broadly defined) on their thoughts and actions contributes significantly to human [censored]-upery.

[NajdorfDefense]

Agree with OP. According to scientists, 90% of the universe - dark matter - is missing. Oh, and the universal constant may not, in fact, be constant.
Of course there are things we do not know, and perhaps even cannot know.
Neither of which sheds any light on whether or not God exists. Only that if you have faith in physicists and cosmologists when they tell you that 90% of the Universe is missing, you are no different than any religious person who takes the existence of God/Allah/YHWH on faith. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a fundamental flaw of most religions that once you believe in ... Consequently your own beliefs scare you into acting like your doubts do not exist. .. This is the exact opposite of science, which actively encourages its believers to try to test its "facts".

[/ QUOTE ]

Paluka, do you believe the standard model of physics?

"The standard model of subatomic physics builds up everything out of a few basic elementary particles: the electron, the muon, and the tau; the electron-neutrino, the muon-neutrino, and the tau-neutrino; the up and down quarks; the charm and strange quarks; the top and bottom quarks; all the antiparticles of these; the gluon bosons; the weak-electromagnetic bosons W, Z, and the photon; and the Higgs boson.

So far we have found, in our particle accelerators, direct evidence of the existence of everything but the Higgs boson."

Do you believe in the Higgs boson? If so, why? There's no evidence of it that anyone's ever found.

If not, what do you replace for the standard model of physics in your belief system of how things work? Doesn't there have to be a system/model that is reproducible and testable a la the scientific method? How long should we accept the non-existence of the Higgs boson from physicists? 10 years? 1000 years? More?

If you're not sure either way, aren't you the same as any religious believer who can't prove anything but decides to have faith in whatever belief system they choose?

[Potvaliant]

[ QUOTE ]

We all make a leap of faith, suggesting that someone else's leap of faith is desperate or ridiculous (effectively mocking or criticizing that leap) while completely ignoring one's own leap is silly (though predictable) and is a large part of what makes these types of discussions somewhat useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know if someone has mentioned this already, but agnostics do not make a leap of faith. From what I personally have experienced, people of faith are unable to recognize or accept the basic philosophical difference between atheists and agnostics. IMO this is what makes these types of discussions difficult.

[Big Poppa Smurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason anyone believes there is no God is because they haven't been properly trained. /images/graemlins/heart.gif God!


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see the point in believing in God if you had to be "trained" to do so, that just sounds like brainwashing to me.

Dids,

[ QUOTE ]
is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can think of organized religion as an answer to your question - generally accepted and agreed upon answers for some of our most pressing (and still unanswered) questions: what happens when to me when I die? how did we come to be?

Your question assumes that many people find religion comforting. Religion isn't always comforting. Many religions have destroyer gods and apocolyptic ends to the world - the Norse religion held that the side of good would lose at the final battle. Additionally, much of Christianity is centered around what can be viewed almost as threats - behave in this way or suffer punishment (this is more true of the Old Testament God, but Hell is still Hell right?)

OK I lost my train of thought here, I think it was that these aspects of religion aren't very comforting, but then I realized that to some they may still be more comforting than not knowing.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
Agree with OP. According to scientists, 90% of the universe - dark matter - is missing. Oh, and the universal constant may not, in fact, be constant.
Of course there are things we do not know, and perhaps even cannot know.
Neither of which sheds any light on whether or not God exists. Only that if you have faith in physicists and cosmologists when they tell you that 90% of the Universe is missing, you are no different than any religious person who takes the existence of God/Allah/YHWH on faith. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite the same. The 90% "missing" is not because of faith but because of the actions of the universe and galaxies. They have logical explanations that are easily explained on why dark matter most likely exists, and they have evidence. There is no evidence of a higher being, even though some people will try to use the argument "just look at the beauty in the world", etc.

[cnfuzzd]

I WILL NOT GET DRAWN IN, I WILL NOT GET DRAWN IN,

since no one else has mentioned it, though, i will comment.

people who make the arguments about things like dark matter/energy, or undiscovered yet predicted quantum particles as proof that scientists believe in non-provable facts are being utterly stupid. Both of these ideas are scientific theories, which, while perhaps considered by many scientists to be accurate, are not yet considered proven statements of fact. More relevently, many scientists are working very diligently to test these theories, so that they can either be validated, or discarded in favor of newer, better theories.

To go further, the analogy continues to fall apart when you consider that both dark matter and the higgs bosun are considered such likely theories because they fit well in accordance to what other, already proven theories or equations say about the universe. These theories replaced older, outdated theories based on new empirical data and/or theoretical deduction. While two thousand years ago christianity did graft itself onto contemporary religious thought, its hardly the same thing.

Its also fairly shortsighted to claim that belief is enough to justify itself. Merely believing in something does not make it okay to hold that belief. White supremecists "believe" they are the superiour race, some people believe that one should pay ones taxes, and some in the current administration believe their war in iraq is justified. None of these beliefs are validated simply because they are held by someone. It is critical in our society that we hold up all beliefs to a very thorough examination, and determine what, if any, potential benefit they hold for humanity, and how we can morph these beliefs into something more appropriate for our culture. Organized religion not only fails to make these changes, its utterly refuses to be held up for any sort of examination at all.


damn, i done got drawn in.



pjn

[rwesty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed with Paluka, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a stupid thing to say, more like ignorant. I'd actually like to believe there is a God, but the biggest difference between atheists and religious people is faith. For some people, faith doesn't cut it, for others it's all they need.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who believes there is a God has a faith and someone who believes there is no God doesn't have a faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone who believes there is (or isn't) a God has faith. Personally, I have no reason to believe there is or isn't and I'm fine with saying that I don't know. This may also be what Paluka was saying but I cannot speak for him.

In my experience people who are extremely negative towards religion (insulting the intelligence of those who believe in a god) are just as bad as the super religious that try to stop anyone from doing anything that might contradict their beliefs. Both of these type of people take a leap of faith to act like they know everything and others are dumb for not agreeing.

[Dids]

I just wanted to say that based on the conversation in this thread that related specifically to my point, that I do think my original thought was incorrect in a way. I mean, I still think that it's a problem, but it needs to be rephrased to account for the amazing drive for discovery that we do have.

[NajdorfDefense]

How many years will you believe in the Higgs boson without evidence? 10 years? 50? Until your death?

You are correct in that the older theories were proven wrong and discredited, my original query stands, how long will you believe in the Higgs boson with no evidence? How long will you believe that 90% of the universe is {mega-handwaving} dark matter without proof and verification? What if scientists tell us that dark matter never be empirically verified [unlike electrons, etc]?

If not for 2000 years, as you say, then for how long? A straight answer if you please.

[cnfuzzd]

[ QUOTE ]
How many years will you believe in the Higgs boson without evidence? 10 years? 50? Until your death?

You are correct in that the older theories were proven wrong and discredited, my original query stands, how long will you believe in the Higgs boson with no evidence? How long will you believe that 90% of the universe is {mega-handwaving} dark matter without proof and verification? What if scientists tell us that dark matter never be empirically verified [unlike electrons, etc]?

If not for 2000 years, as you say, then for how long? A straight answer if you please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.


I do not belive in the higgs bosun particle. Im told exists, and that many people are trying to prove that, but in no way do i allow my life to be influenced by the existence, or lack thereof, of a higgs bosun particle. So while i understand the point you are trying to make, you must conceed that the differing "beliefs" that each of us hold have extremely differing influences in our lives.

While i understand the point you are trying to make, i feel i must point out the differing nature of the two beliefs. The *idea* (and thats all it is, an idea) of the higgs bosun arose out of some serious critical examination of what at the time were proven theories. Its not like someone decided on some sunny tuesday that "HEY, THE HIGGS BOSUN IS WHY EVERYTHING IS HERE AND ALSO PROVIDES A REASON FOR THE MERE EXISTENCE OF ALL". Instead, the higgs bosun fits into some fairly well-tested scientific theories, and certainly is, and this is particularly key, *STILL BEING TESTED BY HUMANITY TODAY*. When you look at most religious phenoms, the critical examination ended long ago, if it ever began.


To simplify, i have never once given a charitable donation to the higgs bosun pariticle. How many donations have been made to your theoretical material.


pjn

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
How many years will you believe in the Higgs boson without evidence? 10 years? 50? Until your death?

You are correct in that the older theories were proven wrong and discredited, my original query stands, how long will you believe in the Higgs boson with no evidence? How long will you believe that 90% of the universe is {mega-handwaving} dark matter without proof and verification? What if scientists tell us that dark matter never be empirically verified [unlike electrons, etc]?

If not for 2000 years, as you say, then for how long? A straight answer if you please.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how this Higgs Boson thing is relevant. I don't know that much about it, but from some quick reading it seems that a) there is some indirect evidence of its existence b) it has been predicted to exist in a scientific fashion which has a track record of at least partial success at predicting this sort of thing. Religion has no track record whatsoever of being correct. But no, I would not say that I believe in the Higgs Boson based on what I've read. I'd say I believe that there is a decent chance they are right, just like there is a decent chance the Bears win the Super Bowl.