would he be proud of atheists search for the truth and their fearless attitude towards the possible existence of life after death?
my point is that a great piece of art is the one that goes beyond what the artist intended it to be. if there's a god, then atheists surely made his greatest work of art (humanity) go beyond his expectations. even a god has to show some humility once in a while. whaddya think?
QuoteLet us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
You lose your time, your ability to deal with the physical world and define new natural laws, you lose your objectivity. Look at this way if you live your life the best you can then after you are dead find something else you are in the same boat as everyone else because religion is man made and if their is some other power religion will not matter.
QuoteDeep Ecology is rooted in a perception of reality that goes beyond the scientific framework to an intuitive awareness of the oneness of all life, the interdependence of its multiple manifestations and its cycles of change and transformation.
The new dark age.
Read "The age of American Unreason"
Quotebut this solution is the most simple one and it is obvious
It is not so simple since he left out dark matter. Knowing the unknown will take a new way to measure.
There is a God. It's not a 'he'.
This God does admire the courage of atheists and of all who search for their own sincere truths.
To the OP:
Well, considering that it took a serpent in the garden to give people knowledge and understanding of themselves, I'm thinking, for the Judeo Christian conception of god ... not so much.
Mina.
Quote from: mina.m->-bleeped-<-ie link=topic=54200.msg336595#msg336595 date=1232773944
To the OP:
Well, considering that it took a serpent in the garden to give people knowledge and understanding of themselves, I'm thinking, for the Judeo Christian conception of god ... not so much.
Mina.
oh yeah. That guy is a 'HE'. and he don't like dissention.
Quote from: Rebis on January 23, 2009, 11:27:38 PMoh yeah. That guy is a 'HE'. and he don't like dissention.
Nope. Went and created an entire dimension of torture just to put us in.
Mina.
Obliquely, this topic brings to mind the meme in the religious world that morality can not exist absent of religion -- that one needs religion to be 'moral'.
I keep hoping to find a website that lists non-believers who have committed acts and lived lives exemplary of high moral standards -- I need the examples to counter the religionists who insist that Atheists Can't be Moral.
And, yes, I believe that IF god exists, zie'd admire those atheists who could stand up for their convictions that zie doesn't exist in the face of an overwhelming onslaught from the religionists.
=K
::smiles::
I wrote a scholarship essay once about the fallacy that religion is required for morality.
Carl Sagan was an atheist. So were a looooong list of other scientists, authors, comedians, etc.. and the son of Ronald Reagan, and Lance Armstrong, to name a few big names. Full lists are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists)
There's a lot of us. :)
Re: do you think that if god existed, he'd admire the courage of atheists?
yeah, if he's Christ-like. however, if I were a god, i'd insist on blind worship. i wouldn't want my people to think too much. :P
And while we're at it, there's Project Steve: (http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve)
QuoteNCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism."
Creationists draw up these lists to try to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Not everyone realizes that this claim is unfounded. NCSE has been asked numerous times to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution. Although we easily could have done so, we have resisted. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!
Quote from: Nero on January 24, 2009, 03:28:01 PM
Re: do you think that if god existed, he'd admire the courage of atheists?
yeah, if he's Christ-like. however, if I were a god, i'd insist on blind worship. i wouldn't want my people to think too much. :P
Love your rapier-like wit, dude! ;D
=K
No, She wouldn't admire atheists for their courage, rather She would appreciate that atheists didn't worship graven images or Perhaps She might appreciate that it is fear of eternal death and damnation that drives most to believe in Her and fearfulness is not an admirable character trait. I mean in the Christian mythology God/Jesus is worshiped as the destroyer and death bringer of those who won't 'believe' in him. Grave - Graven.. 2. Fraught with danger or harm: Jesus returning on the clouds to judge the living and the dead is the epitome of a graven image.
Quote from: Karen on January 24, 2009, 02:57:18 PM
Obliquely, this topic brings to mind the meme in the religious world that morality can not exist absent of religion -- that one needs religion to be 'moral'.
I keep hoping to find a website that lists non-believers who have committed acts and lived lives exemplary of high moral standards -- I need the examples to counter the religionists who insist that Atheists Can't be Moral.
And, yes, I believe that IF god exists, zie'd admire those atheists who could stand up for their convictions that zie doesn't exist in the face of an overwhelming onslaught from the religionists.
=K
here's a brief list:
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_humanist.html (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_humanist.html)
and another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humanists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humanists)
They include Steve Allen, Jonas Salk, and Kurt Vonnegut
Post Merge: January 24, 2009, 06:56:50 PM
God is an atheist!
QuoteGod is an atheist!
An Atheist has a belief. That makes it the same category as religion. Agnostic wants proof either way to accept the truth.
Nietzsche, God is dead. God, Nietzsche is dead. Nietzsche had a witness to what he said. God had no witness to the fact that he said it. Nietzsche is dead that is a witnessed fact.
If you say there is no god, then obviously you would not hear god speak. For me, however, my consciousness and unconsciousness are all things at all times in all places. Real or not, god is in me. God says "Hi" to you. I was there when it was said.
Quote from: Nero on January 24, 2009, 03:28:01 PM
Re: do you think that if god existed, he'd admire the courage of atheists?
yeah, if he's Christ-like. however, if I were a god, i'd insist on blind worship. i wouldn't want my people to think too much. :P
heh heh cute. keep in mind that you aren't 'required' to participate. all you've got to do is ignore my threads.
QuoteGod says "Hi" to you. I was there when it was said.
Your testimony has not been collaborated.
Quote from: lisagurl on January 25, 2009, 11:35:14 AM
QuoteGod says "Hi" to you. I was there when it was said.
Your testimony has not been collaborated.
would you ask me for collaboration if I said I played solitaire alone all morning?
Quote from: Rebis on January 25, 2009, 12:15:46 PM
Quote from: lisagurl on January 25, 2009, 11:35:14 AM
QuoteGod says "Hi" to you. I was there when it was said.
Your testimony has not been collaborated.
would you ask me for collaboration if I said I played solitaire alone all morning?
If it was important , yes.
Quote from: Rebis on January 24, 2009, 06:53:54 PM
here's a brief list:
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_humanist.html (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_humanist.html)
and another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humanists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humanists)
They include Steve Allen, Jonas Salk, and Kurt Vonnegut
Humanists aren't necessarily Atheists, they are more of the live and let live variety. Although their philosophy certainly proves morality can exist even in the absence of a belief in God, if that was what you were saying.
Then again, the whole idea human morality would require the hope of a celestial payoff or fear of the opposite seems pretty pessimistic to me. In fact, I would be skeptical about the inherent morality of anybody who couldn't imagine being good just for the sake of being good. I mean really? You need a carrot and a stick to prevent you from descending into riotous debauchery?
BTW I <3 Kurt Vonnegut :).
http://godisimaginary.com/ (http://godisimaginary.com/)
The question is itself absurd. So i would have to answer no.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi
We have made the signs clear to you so that hopefully you will use your intellect. (Qur'an, 57:17)
(An unusual translation)
"Where's my robe? I'm NOT going out there to speak to those people without my clean robe! Somebody is going to get fired over this."
- jesus
There is a superior entity or power I beleive. If s(he) is a forgiving and loving god every persons beliefs are not important. All will be saved in the end. Satan was invented by man in order to scare us into being good boys/girls. May the force be with you. Genevieve
Nothing of the sort, in my case. Any god worth his salt would condemn dangerous religious fanatics and hopeless self-seekers, not atheists, assuming he/she condemned anybody. It's not an issue for me either way, though. There is no such thing as an "immortal soul." The entire idea is ludicrous and stupid to the core. Somewhere in that hundred billion neurons with an average of seven thousand connections to other neurons, maybe there's something like a "soul" of sorts, but it's not this ectoplasmic THINGY that continues to exist when your body expires. It doesn't work that way. If you want me to, I could lecture you AT LENGTH on how it's possible for you to HAVE a personality simply due to the stuff that goes on in your brain. The thing is, I shouldn't have to. If you assume that there's some magical cause for things just because you don't understand them, you lose, and you fail. You are an intellectual coward.
On the other hand, people who have "faith" in this concept just because they want to have a fulfilling relationship with a guy who doesn't exist, here is a surprise for you: I'm a lot more open and understanding toward them. Having experienced love and friendship for myself, I understand how difficult it is to give up on a relationship, once it's established. It doesn't matter to the HUMAN that the person at the other end doesn't exist. The relationship ITSELF is as real as it's possible for something like that to BE real.
I don't hate people for wanting a sense of unconditional love and comfort in their lives. I only really BASH on people if they practice a complete LACK of insight. A religious person who practices some level of insight is as good as an atheist who does the same. An atheist who lacks insight is just as appalling as a religious person who has the same condition. And believe me, I've met plenty of atheists who were just as daft, arrogant, and lacking in objectivity as the most vicious street evangelist.
Atheists wouldn't be admired for their courage, no. If a person deserves to be admired, it shouldn't be for their stance regarding religion at all. Admiration is for attributes like courage, honesty, honor, loyalty, kindness, and the ability to appreciate beauty. You don't need to be a great thinker or some secular humanist to practice things like that, and you can learn them at any time in your life if you choose to. An ounce of good character is worth ten pounds of intellect.
Quote from: lisagurl on January 24, 2009, 08:12:26 PM
An Atheist has a belief. That makes it the same category as religion.
Uh, no, not necessarily. A lot of atheists have come to their conclusions based on the available evidence. It's like what we know about science: if more evidence comes in that refutes our conclusions, then we might very well change our conclusions.
I believe that I will enjoy the cup of coffee sitting on my desk. Does that make it my religion?
Anyway, isn't atheism the default position? Isn't the burden of proof on those who believe in an omniscient, omnipresent deity and all of that?
QuoteAnyway, isn't atheism the default position?
No, an atheist believes there is not any god or super natural power. An agnostic waits for the evidence either way.
Quote from: NatashaDo you think that if god existed, he'd admire the courage of atheists?
Actually I think its an interesting question...
But my (over)simplified answer would have to be a no... here is my reasoning...
The question presumes an omnipotent entity that has human thoughts, feelings and/or emotions. An entity that has pride and can feel a sense of accomplishment (and by corollary, a sense of disappointment and failure).
So either:
Such an entity that could experience these feelings would have a difficult time hiding from its own creations. It would have revealed itself for validation from its own creation as to its true power. As such, there would be no atheists, and those that remain atheists would be condemened as suffering from denial and a detachment from reality....
or
Such an entity would have infininte patience given the amout of time its creations have existed. In such a case, the courage of its creations that purport atheist beliefs would go unnoticed and would have little effect on it.
A third possibility... like so many paintings, sculptures, etc we remain in some dusty discarded corner of the universe. One could then view an apacolypse as a "spring cleaning" which would not be personal in nature. Just time to take out the trash...
One more possibility... maybe we are an object of redicule... like the "dogs playing poker" painting :o
QuoteSuch an entity that could experience these feelings would have a difficult time hiding from its own creations.
Not if it was another dimension humans could not sense.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 20, 2009, 07:42:16 PM
No, an atheist believes there is not any god or super natural power. An agnostic waits for the evidence either way.
Uh, I think you can assume that I know this, given the rest of my reply. Hmm. Are you ducking my questions, or did you just not understand them?
Quote from: Nero on January 24, 2009, 03:28:01 PM
Re: do you think that if god existed, he'd admire the courage of atheists?
yeah, if he's Christ-like. however, if I were a god, i'd insist on blind worship. i wouldn't want my people to think too much. :P
omg that is too funny.
QuoteI believe that I will enjoy the cup of coffee sitting on my desk. Does that make it my religion?
If you only believe it and it is not a fact based on evidence then yes it is a religion.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 21, 2009, 02:33:03 PM
If you only believe it and it is not a fact based on evidence then yes it is a religion.
I don't know about that. Kids believe in Santa Claus but it isn't a religion.
Quote from: Bridgette on June 21, 2009, 02:44:38 PM
I don't know about that. Kids believe in Santa Claus but it isn't a religion.
It isn't, then what do you call this fairytale that misleads the truth in order to manipulate children's emotions..
Quote from: lisagurl on June 21, 2009, 03:02:26 PM
It isn't, then what do you call this fairytale that misleads the truth in order to manipulate children's emotions..
I really don't know what the criteria is for something being called a religion is but I understand what you are saying. Personally I think most religion is much more dangerous than Santa Claus or the Tooth Faerie.
Then you do not know the harm it does to children.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 21, 2009, 02:33:03 PM
If you only believe it and it is not a fact based on evidence then yes it is a religion.
I would disagree; it is merely an unsubstantiated belief. Nothing more and nothing less. You might want to look up "religion" in a dictionary. But by your sort of reasoning, my atheism is not a religion because I arrived at my atheistic conclusions based on the available evidence, not unsubstantiated beliefs. The evidence is likely incomplete; I acknowledge that possibility, as every good scientist does about the conclusions he or she draws. But that acknowledgment does not prevent me from drawing the most informed conclusion I can from the evidence I have.
I understand if you're not willing to take on the real meat-and-potatoes question that I asked (whether atheism is the default position, that is). But think about this: what if someone comes up to you and claims that on this planet there are real live dragons, unicorns, and purple leprechauns with pink polka dots? Throughout your life you've seen no evidence of these wonders, and the person making the claim offers no substantive evidence whatsoever. I should think that the "atheistic" stance, or at least the agnostic position, would be the logical default. Otherwise, the world would be teeming with billions of people who believe in the Christian god AND Allah AND Jehovah AND the Flying Spaghetti Monster AND numerous other deities, all at once. As it is, people tend to just believe in one of these supreme beings and maintain the atheist/agnostic-style position with regard to all the other gods. I find this illogical, but there it is.
As a former agnostic and a current atheist, I dislike being misunderstood. Many people make incorrect assumptions about my position. Therefore, I should also point out that your definition of an agnostic is faulty, and your assumptions about atheists are problematic. First of all, there are different kinds of agnostics. While it is true that some of them are indeed waiting for more evidence, this is not true of all agnostics. Some believe that human beings CANNOT know whether there is a god and are convinced that such knowledge is beyond human ken. Perhaps these folks would change their minds if more evidence were presented, but I suspect that some of them would see such evidence in the interesting light of their own world view.
One definition of an atheist is a person who does not believe that there is such a thing as a supreme being. But atheists can arrive at their conclusions in different ways, and atheists who have any kind of scientific bent at all can change their minds if the evidence changes. As with my other opinions on controversial issues, I am happy to consider new evidence; but I have taken the best position I can with what I have to go on. It can truly be said that, as an atheist, I'm still waiting for evidence of any or all of these versions of god that people are always trumpeting about. My atheism is not a faith-based stance; it is a position based on reason and evidence. As such, I don't see how my particular brand of atheism can be called a religion. It's more of a scientific conclusion than anything else. And like any good scientist, I'm open to new evidence. But I don't expect to get any.
Am I to understand that there is an implicit assumption in the question that it takes some particular courage to be an atheist?
That's funny.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 21, 2009, 02:33:03 PM
If you only believe it and it is not a fact based on evidence then yes it is a religion.
Well, unlike you smart people who know all these facts, I live in a world of sense and perception. I'm too stupid to know perfectly well what the eternal truth is. Excuse me for having an opinion. I will crawl back into my cave and draw idle pictures on the walls. Durrrrrrrrrrrr.
Only the most watered-down, deistical version of "God" can POSSIBLY be defended in modern times. The traditional, Judeo-Christian God is obviously ridiculous.
It is dishonorable to claim that you have proven that the traditional, Judeo-Christian god exists simply because I haven't disproven the existence of some shadowy, aloof figure that is inherently invisible to human perception.
Look, if you want to practice "blind faith," so you can have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, that's one thing.
Trying to discredit MY views using blatantly mendacious arguments is quite another.
In most of the USA, the only excuse I need for being an atheist is that I am not interested in having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In fact, this is the ONLY premise on which I would EVER choose to "get religion," under ANY circumstances. I would not accept your god-head as ANYTHING other than inherently ridiculous unless YOU could persuade ME, using the BEST examples of evangelizing, that I want to have a fulfilling, personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Trying to insist that I have some kind of atheistical religion just because I say that I have NO reason to believe that your god exists is just offensive. It does NOT make me interested in religion. It only makes me feel combative and resentful.
Religion is not just a belief, at least not as far as Christianity is concerned. To be a Christian is EXACTLY having a personal relationship with Christ, or it is seeking out His unconditional forgiveness to absolve us of our sins.
Religion, properly, is not a thing of the intellect. It is a thing of the heart.
That's what faith IS. It's choosing to accept where our heart leads us IN SPITE of the protests of our intellect or powers of empirical reasoning.
Faith is belief without calculation. It is acknowledgement without questioning. Faith in Jesus Christ is more like faith in the loyalty of a friend than believing that the world is round rather than flat.
If you can convince me to want your Jesus Christ as my best buddy, then you might be able to change my atheism. Anything that falls short of that, though, just won't be the same. Trying to persuade me on any other grounds is just going to wear on my patience and eventually piss me off.
Got that?
I'm not ignorant about what Christianity actually IS. It offends me a whole lot when Certain Inconsiderate People assume that I am. I just have a different set of values. They're at least as strong as your values, though, and they are just as good.
Quotepeople tend to just believe in one of these supreme beings and maintain the atheist/agnostic-style position with regard to all the other gods.
The word atheist is used by people to describe someone that does not believe in their God. Christians were called atheists by the early Roman Jews.
Agnostics are not Atheists because they do not believe that any God does not exist they only want proof.
Lisa, if you are an agnostic rather than a Christian, that rant was directed in a general direction, not personally at YOU. In fact, that applies either way. I have very strong, firm views on the subject of religion. I have certain premises on which I would accept religion, none of them based on syllogistic proof. I want to drive this point home quite clearly.
Deductive reasoning does not offer the physical proof of inductive reasoning with facts.
Umm...it is a fact that we simply DON'T have the information as to HOW the universe came to be. We can theorize and speculate, but the fact is that we JUST DON'T HAVE that information. God does not exist because what ACTUALLY exists is a dearth of sufficient information. This does not make me an "agnostic," and I refuse to call myself one. This would just be an implicit "maybe" to the belief that the universe was created by a god. There is no "maybe" in there. We absolutely DON'T HAVE that information. You can't just take a dearth of infomation and superimpose any belief onto it you want to. It doesn't work that way. The origin of the universe is a mystery, and the only good tools we have for ATTEMPTING to explore it are in the theoretical mathematics.
Personally, I don't believe that "theism" has anything to do with religion. It's a bunch of quibbling nonsense designed as an excuse to slander and ridicule atheists and agnostics. It's bull hockey. I absolutely despise people who call themselves "theists." I have found them to be rude and arrogant. They exercise an obscenely intellectually superior attitude, even though they are prone to the most mendacious kinds of attacks.
The GOOD Christians I've known are NOT theists. They are just decent people who feel that they have found something special, and they want to share it out of love. I see them as largely beneficial people. I have not met very many of them that I can HONESTLY say I don't like. I get along with them beautifully. I tend to be very affirming and supportive of their faith. I LOVE a Christian. They are nice people, for the most part.
QuoteGod does not exist because what ACTUALLY exists is a dearth of sufficient information.
So what you do not know does not exist? How about radio waves that have been in the universe for billions of years? 300 years ago no one knew that they existed but they were there. Lack of knowledge does not mean there is no knowledge.
We can imagine other dimensions then there are things we can not even imagine that will be the knowledge of the future if the past is any example.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 21, 2009, 08:39:21 PM
So what you do not know does not exist? How about radio waves that have been in the universe for billions of years?
The radio waves may have existed, but it would have been perfectly correct to ridicule a person for suggesting any such thing, especially if that person could provide no evidence for this belief. In fact, it is improper for ME to state that radio waves exist, either. It is scientific DOCTRINE that radio waves exist, but it would be an outright lie if I treated this belief as if it were supported by direct empirical evidence. The only thing that I "know" about radio waves is that a relatively trustworthy source assures me that they exist. My belief in their existence hinges completely on my trust in this source. I don't expect EVERYBODY to be able to HANDLE that level of ambiguity, but that's the slant I take on it.
I have studied the sciences, and this is the reasoning that we are taught. When you state practically ANYTHING that you did not observe personally, you are REQUIRED to admit that this statement is based on something that you read elsewhere, NOT on something that YOU personally know. If you went too far in making claims that you have not verified the origin of, then you will be laughed completely out of your entire field; and trust me, competition is fierce in the sciences. It's a really hard-knock universe, which is ONE of the reasons I bowed out and decided to pursue something less stressful, at least while I'm going through transition.
I feel perfectly justified in ridiculing an arrogant theist. However, a Christian is different; a Christian embraces absolute, blind trust in Jesus Christ. That's where all those "warm fuzzies" actually come from. I could take a few guesses as to the biology behind it. That's not the point, though.
The point is that the origin of the universe is largely a mystery. We have a few mathematical models suggesting how it MIGHT have come to be, but THAT'S IT. Besides that, we have a few dusty, old creation myths and a few weird-ass fringe notions.
Want me to take a guess as to where the universe came from? I'll give you my best shot. I don't have any real support for it, though. I think that calling whatever force created the universe "intelligent" would be a little bit like saying that a swollen, bloated red giant is a little bit larger than an army ant. That's my guess, and it's just as good as anyone else's Oscar Meyer balogna. Frankly, I don't have more grounds for saying this than suggesting that a black dragon named Morgoth created the universe. I like my idea better, though, because it makes my titties feel all tingly. Opinions on where the universe came from are like buttholes: everybody has one. But you know, at least the people who are out there putting together mathematical models are TRYING to do some serious detective work.
Quotepeople tend to just believe in one of these supreme beings and maintain the atheist/agnostic-style position with regard to all the other gods.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 21, 2009, 05:39:44 PM
The word atheist is used by people to describe someone that does not believe in their God. Christians were called atheists by the early Roman Jews.
Agnostics are not Atheists because they do not believe that any God does not exist they only want proof.
I don't even know what you're doing in this post, and it's a waste of time for me to try to figure it out. But you might want to invest in a good pair of water wings.
I'm bowing out of this conversation, if one can even call it that.
Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three "laws" of prediction:
QuoteWhen a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
The problem with the folks who say "if there is a god then I need proof" is that there is no way to validate the proof. No matter what argument you want to make that its possible to prove a fact, quantum physics has already demonstrated that such facts can easily be dismissed and replaced by new facts that are poorly understood, if they are understood at all.
If thats the case, why do so many humans choose to believe in some power (call it god if you like) that governs the universe in a spiritual way that belies logic? And why are so many hell bent on dismissing the whole thing as opium for the masses?
I think the answer is both sides are struggling to make sense of their own existance. So why would any omnipotent power be impressed with those that refuse to believe over those that blindly believe? Each side is expending the same effort and energy in a common goal that each denies is in lockstep with the other.
Maybe science is guided by some supreme power... or maybe science is the big cosmic joke played on humanity as we try to ascribe meaning to what may be tantamount to some arbitrary sequence of random events. The real truth is there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong. Whats so fascinating is not which answer is correct, but why so many debate the answer?
We both sit down at a diner, and the waitress sets down a piece of toast with an egg on top. You see the image of the virgin mary, I see porn star Bree Olson. Anyone else listening would conclude we are both nuts, its a f***king piece of toast. Thats pretty much how most pro/anti god debates go.
Quote from: Stacy Brahm on June 21, 2009, 11:19:43 PMquantum physics has already demonstrated that such facts can easily be dismissed and replaced by new facts that are poorly understood, if they are understood at all.
This is false.
I gather you are talking about the Uncertainty Principle, which is simply the application of a theorem from Fourier analysis to the mathematical description of QM (using eigenstate expansions in the Schroedinger picture, the way you usually hear it described; though the Heisenberg picture is equivalent, if harder to visualize). Classical QM as well as its extension, Quantum Field Theory are deterministic theories.
Quoteespecially if that person could provide no evidence for this belief
You never quested the existence of radio waves? You never built a coil and generated them and measured them/ I feel sorry for you missing experience. Do not take people's word for anything it all has a probability.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 22, 2009, 09:27:09 AM
You never quested the existence of radio waves? You never built a coil and generated them and measured them?
Actually, I have. I found it very boring. I was just trying to illustrate a point. If I had not, then reporting that I know empirically that radio waves exist would make me a liar. Even though I have, I should accept the limitations in my understanding.
QuoteDo not take people's word for anything
I tend to take a person's word on something if I trust that particular person. In fact, emotions like trust are more entertwined with our thought processes than most of us like to admit.
Quoteit all has a probability.
Ah, do you remember quant lab? Did you have one of those TAs who would figuratively beat you with a cane if you showed so much as ONE extra zero following your decimal? Mine said, "You are a liar. Based on your measurements, you do not know that that zero belongs there. This is completely wrong." Well, the idea of significant figures relates to my point regarding the subject of this discussion. When I encounter a very arrogant theist, I use the same types of remarks. If an arrogant theist says, "I know that God exists," I say, "You are a liar. You have no basis for this statement." Even if the Christian God, Yahweh, actually DID exist exactly according to what is written in the KJV Bible, this person would STILL be a big, fat liar.
However, it is different when a Christian says, "I have a high level of faith in the Bible," then claims that God exists. In that case, I and another scientist simply
disagree on the reliability of a certain piece of standard literature. At some point, even the best scientist has to invest some amount of trust in a piece of standard literature that he/she can ONLY trust because a TRUSTWORTHY individual has assured him/her that it is reliable.
The difference is that Christians report their sources, and they explain, with complete honesty, what motivates them to TRUST these sources. To me, that is the difference between a big, fat liar and someone who practices religious faith.
A Christian walks down the street and sees a woman on her knees, looking up to the sky with her hands together as she is praying and the Christian says 'good Christian". The Christian walks down a bit further and sees a guy on his knees talking to a wall and says "crazy person".
QuoteIn fact, emotions like trust are more intertwined with our thought processes than most of us like to admit.
Emotions are faked many times such as acting and social manipulation. Look at marketing and entertainment.
The spiritual feeling that many people get is difficult to explain. They do have something in their reality but a fMRI only shows less activity in the part of the brain that feels self. So with less self feeling someone can feel open to the universe. Religion gives a explanation to gullible people and through proving methods and traditions enhances and promotes that spiritual feeling.
Throw in ethics and morals and a leader to control it all and you have God. It is imposable to tell people that their understandings have other non-magical explanations because it is very real to them. People need a form of hope and God gives it to them. I am fine with that but it is not evidence to me as I do not care about emotions or hope.
Quote from: lisagurl on June 22, 2009, 02:24:28 PMThe spiritual feeling that many people get is difficult to explain. They do have something in their reality but a fMRI only shows less activity in the part of the brain that feels self. So with less self feeling someone can feel open to the universe. Religion gives a explanation to gullible people and through proving methods and traditions enhances and promotes that spiritual feeling.
Which is one of the reasons I've never had the capacity for religious experiences. I have an incredibly strong sense of self. It goes with the Asperger Syndrome!! In fact, one of the reasons I used to be so messed-up was that my sense of self tended to overshadow and overpower my attachment to reality. I was a real space cadet! :D
QuotePeople need a form of hope and God gives it to them.
Whereas I have a self-destructively tenacious personality that is all but incapable of the feeling of hopelessness. However, I DO spend a lot of time feeling a little bit like my self-awareness could just FLOAT, up and AWAY from my body, and then I'm like "WHEE! I feel like I am FLYING! Hooray!" That's why I used to go everywhere I went SKIPPING instead of walking! AND STILL DO!!!! I also have difficulty focusing on anything when I'm like that. I'm too floaty. HEY!!!! You know, maybe that's why I have such a poor sense of direction!
I think that another thing that drives people to take up religion, though, is that they have difficulty coping with ambiguity. They can't deal with moral ambiguity, so they need their "morals" written down somewhere to reassure them. They can't handle NOT KNOWING what's in store for them after they die, so they have to PUT something there. It's impossible to imagine what it would be like to NOT EXIST (trust me, you can't), so they have to have some sort of "afterlife" scenario. I tend to think that atheists are likely to have an easier time of dealing with ambiguity.