I don't believe in god. i believe in the universe.

(04-22-2018 03:15 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  True, if you can not be bothered to learn the science yourself, then you might like to believe others that can, but this is not the basis for science. If you got off your arse and went and learned the science - then the evidence would hold true.

You doubtless are typing this from the driver's seat of your own personal LHC, having smashed the subatomic particles together for yourself. Is this really so hard for you to understand?

Quote:No matter how much effort you make, you can not verify, repeat or verify the religious dogmas handed to you. You need faith to believe it.

There's a simple way to test your assertion: have you personally verified by experiment that you have conducted that there is a Higgs Boson yet? Dude, science doesn't give you any real tools for navigating the real world.

Quote:I know you are smart enough to understand how science works, and how there is zero faith involved in it. Buts your rational mind trying to justify irrational "faith" as being just as valid. Hamstering.

This from the guy who has yet to demonstrate that he has personally conducted any experiment verifying any principle of quantum physics, and says I'm hamstering?

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  (2) As said, I could facetiously also answer that the most fundamental religious dogma is testable: you can sit down and pray and see if you get an answer.

Nothing happens, for everyone who does this. repeatable, observable and verified nothing.[/quote]

Question for your doubtless scientific approach to this experiment: how have you eliminated the possibility that the reply to your prayer is "No"?

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  "Science is testable, religion is not". The two ideas are not in conflict in that way

Correct, those two thought paradigms are not in conflict, and can not be compared.
They are polar opposites of the scale, apples and oranges indeed.[/quote]

I'd have thought an atheist would understand the difference between two things that are on a spectrum and two concepts that are not related.

Quote:Thats why I take offence to "science needs faith" or "science is a religion" or atheists have dogmatic beliefs etc.

Someone who takes offence to the assertion that people are capable of taking things for granted without proving them for themselves is the sort of guy who isn't practicing the supposed dispassion that science is said to bring with it.

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Science does not apply where an idea is not falsifiable, period. That feature of it as a concept does not make it inherently superior as a means for navigating the world, it is just a hard limit that the discipline sets on itself. Emerging from that idea are the factors science is of very little use where the evidence is not (1) reliable, (2) sufficient, or (3) in the presence of a high degree of opacity.

Glad you understand this concept.

Science is no good at making shit up. It's no good at inventing things from your imagination and passing them off as real. In short, it's the opposite of religion - which excels at these two things.

It's not a shortcoming of science, it's a beautiful inbuilt protection for lies, falsehoods and dogma.

This DOES make it a inherently superior as a means for navigating the REAL world, and avoiding crazy ideas, ridiculous beliefs and mistakes of ignorance and stupidity.

Yes, science isn't much use when we lack evidence, proof, knowledge or repeatability. But neither is making shit up from your imagination![/quote]

Which gives more hope, provided the impetus to build hospitals, provides palliative care, and shows up to provide charity: religious-based organisations, or atheist ones? I'd call religion very useful in those circumstances, not to mention Taleb's characterisation that religion's purpose in helping humanity avoid tail risks is an entirely rational use of religion.

Quote:

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  The enlightened scientific mind understands these limitations well because they are inherent to science as a discipline. With them should come a profound humility and a philosophical refusal or reluctance to comment on religious beliefs, since they are not falsifiable concepts and indeed a good contingent of scientists themselves concede there actually isn't a conflict between science and religion.

This is just ridiculous as a statement....

Because we don't know and can't prove a negative we should embrace whatever crazy assed explanation anyone comes up with, in the total absence of evidence and proof? On what planet is that a rational intelligent position to have?

Earth. Reread the article I posted from Nassim Taleb, you'll start to get it.

Quote:

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  People have blind faith in science because most do not understand it without an interpreter. The same feature is that of religion.

No. People do not have blind faith in science. They understand, as you do, that science and its methods are robust, provable and evidence based. They do not need to have faith, and they do not need an interpreter.

The opposite is true of religion - it doesn't work without blind faith, without the absence of any evidence and with total acceptance of the unprovable.

As said, people have blind faith in science. Show me your Large Hadron Collider in your backyard and show me your personal results of your experiments to verify the existence of the Higgs Boson, and then you have a point. Not until.

Science is the ultimate in red pill and non bullshit. Science hands you a piece of incredible magic and power called a cell phone that allows you to talk to anyone in the world and for a nominal fee that most people can afford. They don't dress up in funny robes and make you go through a ritual to obtain it. They don't talk about the wonders of mysticism and tell you its magic. They just hand the power to you with no bullshit. More power than you deserve. But yet the ignorant masses still give incredible respect to fakers dressed in ancient costumes who just make things up in their own heads. Some people get their noses bent out of shape because scientists say things that contradict their ignorance, instead of being grateful for the knowledge.

(04-22-2018 11:06 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Science is the ultimate in red pill and non bullshit. Science hands you a piece of incredible magic and power called a cell phone that allows you to talk to anyone in the world and for a nominal fee that most people can afford. They don't dress up in funny robes and make you go through a ritual to obtain it.

Apart from having you sign your name and address and other stuff so they know where to harass you with marketing materials.

Quote:They don't talk about the wonders of mysticism and tell you its magic.

Nope, they just rely on fanboys who explicitly call science "magic" to do it for them. That's scientheism in a nutshell.

Quote:They just hand the power to you with no bullshit. More power than you deserve.

Huh, so, science is not only the giver of POWAAAAHHH, it tells you that you don't deserve it and you should be grateful for it. Sounds a lot like the sort of things science complains about with religion.

Quote:But yet the ignorant masses still give incredible respect to fakers dressed in ancient costumes who just make things up in their own heads. Some people get their noses bent out of shape because scientists say things that contradict their ignorance, instead of being grateful for the knowledge.

And some people get bent out of shape when it's pointed out that the world went on without the discipline of science for many thousands of years before people started getting infatuated with it, and will go on long after the ignorant masses discover its limitations on providing any meaning to existence as well.

(04-22-2018 09:37 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  You doubtless are typing this from the driver's seat of your own personal LHC, having smashed the subatomic particles together for yourself. Is this really so hard for you to understand?

This is a pretty weak attempt to discredit science as a faith based religion.

The thing is, you can actually devote decades of your life and prove them right, or wrong. Because its real, and it's based on evidence and its repeatable, observable and backed up by a million linked and provable experiments, all of which you can do yourself. You don't have to do it, but you can, and many do.

But you conveniently overlook the millions of smaller, more easier demonstrations of the power and accuracy of science and rational thinking and evidence based knowledge.

Your day to day life is filled with huge numbers of in your face examples of the power of the scientific method, that I am sure you have an understanding of how it all works in complete and utter faithless way.

Closing your mind, eyes or putting your head in the sand does not make these scientific discoveries false, or justify you saying "with my eyes closed its not real and requires faith".

No matter how uncomfortable this makes you, or how absolutely it blows apart your belief system, it's real, You can do it.

You can do nothing remotely close to this to accept any religion as real. All religions are 100% based on a blind faith, totally requiring you to suspend rational thought, analysis and scientific reason. They are unprovable.

And you only have to read about a few wack job religious beliefs and or religions invented in mans history to quickly see the results of this kind of thought paradymn.

Religion requires (blind) faith, science requires rational thinking and proof.

Polar opposites.

If by "science" you mean a process of rational, evidence-based inquiry, then science and religion are irreconcilable opposites. Scientific inquiry requires the total banishment of faith and belief in any sort of mystical or supernatural forces; it assumes an atheistic universe, one in which all causes are natural, intelligible, etc.

Most people are not professional scientists, and no one has total knowledge in every subject and field. A certain degree of trust in what certain people tell us, in their work and in their conclusions, can be perfectly valid. (It can also be invalid, as when one follows the advice of an obvious charlatan or quack.) But this is so far from the kind of "faith" that religion demands — faith in the supernatural, in the logically contradictory/impossible, in the unintelligible and "incomprehensible" — that to equate the two, or imply that they are remotely similar, is almost unbelievably disingenuous.

This video help me bridge evolution and religion. There is a purpose to creation and the transformation in consciousness is what is driving humanity and nature in general.






   

Shigir Idol found to be 11,600 years old. It was made by the survivors of the last great Ice Age

The old gods worshiped before the new gods

Also a link to an idol over 40,000 years old!

Amazing to think of early man inventing and worshipping ancient gods, using the made up myths to explain things he didn't understand or know yet.

Its interesting that something in humans mind and nature leads them to make up gods to worship, we see it in all cultures, across all times, repeating the same process.

Of course things are pretty much business as usual today.

What is that makes man create these deities to worship?

I was baptized when I was little because my mom is an avid Christian.
I was never really into religion growing up, but got pretty heavy during college and started to believe in God.
Starting last year, I realized how "fake" and "artificial" some people are in Church.

This created a negative perception towards them in me and I stopped going to church and basically faded away.
I am at a very weird stage where I go back and forth. Sometimes I would label myself as a Christian and sometimes I do not...

It's almost like a bad relationship that you have with one of your exes and thinking, "I love her, but I don't need her. Oh wait, I don't love her actually....Wait, I need her..."

I am pretty detached from the religion though...Just focusing on my work.

(04-30-2018 02:16 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Shigir Idol found to be 11,600 years old. It was made by the survivors of the last great Ice Age

The old gods worshiped before the new gods

Also a link to an idol over 40,000 years old!

Amazing to think of early man inventing and worshipping ancient gods, using the made up myths to explain things he didn't understand or know yet.

Its interesting that something in humans mind and nature leads them to make up gods to worship, we see it in all cultures, across all times, repeating the same process.

Of course things are pretty much business as usual today.

What is that makes man create these deities to worship?

What makes people assume any old statue is an idol?

No

This is an interesting interview with a guy named "Science Mike". He was raised a Christian and then became an atheist, and then says he discovered Jesus again and returned to Christianity. He discusses how he lives life as a Christian without mytholology and reconciled with science. This dialog is thoughtful and not the usual atheist vs. christian banter which goes nowhere.

https://bartcampolo.org/2018/04/308-scie...e-mchargue

(04-30-2018 03:16 PM)Mage Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 02:16 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Shigir Idol found to be 11,600 years old. It was made by the survivors of the last great Ice Age

The old gods worshiped before the new gods

Also a link to an idol over 40,000 years old!

Amazing to think of early man inventing and worshipping ancient gods, using the made up myths to explain things he didn't understand or know yet.

Its interesting that something in humans mind and nature leads them to make up gods to worship, we see it in all cultures, across all times, repeating the same process.

Of course things are pretty much business as usual today.

What is that makes man create these deities to worship?

What makes people assume any old statue is an idol?

Those Venus figures might have been fapping material for all we know.

(04-21-2018 07:58 PM)scorpion Wrote:  It continues to boggle my mind that intelligent people can look at the vast, essentially incomprehensible complexity of the universe and just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, it was all just a happy accident!" The idea that there is no intelligent force behind the creation of the universe is literal madness. Sheer denial of reality. Everyone knows this, especially atheists. The atheistic worldview is not about logic, it's about rebelling against the entire concept of God. The evidence clearly and overwhelmingly (undeniably, really) points to the conclusion that our universe was created by some force far beyond our ability to comprehend. This is why you see many atheists now endorse the "multiverse" theory (saying that there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be the lucky one), but this is substantially more an article of faith than the idea that the universe was simply created by a being we would refer to as God.

If you reject Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or all religions, fine. Perhaps you have your own conception of who or what God actually is. But rejecting the existence of God (meaning an all-powerful creative force) altogether is simply not a credible position. We know that God exists. The evidence is all around you and is irrefutable. There are clearly forces at work which are infinitely greater than the ability of the human mind to comprehend. The idea that even the tiniest bit of matter would spontaneously emerge out of nothingness is itself insane (as Vladimir Poontang pointed out above: you cannot logically have an uncaused cause within a closed system - you need something outside of the system to initiate anything, necessitating God). And the idea that a spontaneous uncaused cause could randomly generate complexity on the scale of the universe is literally the most insane notion that the human mind could entertain.

tl;dr Atheism is a lot more about, "Fuck you, Dad! I'll do whatever I want!" than it is, "After careful consideration of the facts and years of study, I find the existence of a creator God highly improbable." But atheists can never admit this, even to themselves.

How is it insane to guess that if everything that you can observe operates via natural processes, then outside of your observational reach things probably work via natural processes as well?

Maybe a god did create the universe, but whatever level of reality he's on has natural laws as well, and after he created the Universe he went on the god-internet to argue with another god about the existence of super-god, since one cannot conceive of a hyperspace so perfectly crafted such that a being as complex as a god can come into existence, hence the necessity of super-god.

I believe in God, because I believe this beautiful universe and its overwhelming wonders could not have just happened. It looks like someone intentionally designed it. Someone with great power and intelligence.

Has anyone here read the Blind Watchmaker?

(05-14-2018 02:36 PM)ester Wrote:  I believe in God, because I believe this beautiful universe and its overwhelming wonders could not have just happened. It looks like someone intentionally designed it. Someone with great power and intelligence.

But then who created the creator? By your logic, something so beautiful and with overwhelming wonders needs to have a supernatural creator, then something must have created that being?

So you see the problem with your logic?

If the creator existed "since the beginning of time" or "just is" then use occam's razor to apply that logic to matter and energy of the multiverse.

The "how did this all get here" problem is mind blowing for us evolved chips. The timescales and complexity of the universe are well outside the scope of our short lives and small jungle patch. We will never have the real answer.

But there's no need to create supernatural fairy creation stories up and pretend they solve the dilemma. They don't.

Its ok to say "we don't know, and probably never will".

(05-15-2018 06:18 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  But there's no need to create supernatural fairy creation stories up

Textbook atheist argument.

"God" is no more fairy-tale than "atoms formed", a.k.a. the scientific equivalent of "shit happened."

If god exists I am sure he doesnt look like a Homo Sapien. God is probably a gas or wind or something. I dont for a moment think he is a muscular guy with a beard.

(05-16-2018 02:55 AM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

(05-15-2018 06:18 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  But there's no need to create supernatural fairy creation stories up

Textbook atheist argument.

"God" is no more fairy-tale than "atoms formed", a.k.a. the scientific equivalent of "shit happened."

You miss my point.

I'm ok with making shit up, that's fine. (well for religions anyway)

But when people try and say that shit they made up is a better, more rational and logical explanation as to where the universe comes from, that's where I need to remind everyone that a) we don't know, and b) making shit up is not better than a)

And don't misinterpret sciences position on creation. we 99% don't have a clue.

Of course we have a few wild theories, but almost no evidence or way of checking them. This doesn't mean "religion has the answers" at all.

(05-16-2018 05:03 AM)Pride male Wrote:  If god exists I am sure he doesnt look like a Homo Sapien. God is probably a gas or wind or something. I dont for a moment think he is a muscular guy with a beard.

You can't get from our senses and empiricism to God without faith.

If you could, you wouldn't need faith.

I believe in God, but I think RatInTheWoods' point is irrefutable.

Saying God made it isn't that much better than saying it evolved naturally because even a total dummy is going to think to say: Then who made God?

And you won't have an answer.

Maybe you can say that the current state of things seems so organized that it had to be the product of a conscious mind and get away with it.

But you have no real answer for origins.

It is better to be honest about that than pretend saying God made it is a answer to the origin of things.

I also like thinking of myself as one of the "evolved chips".

(05-16-2018 04:22 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 02:55 AM)Super_Fire Wrote:  

(05-15-2018 06:18 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  But there's no need to create supernatural fairy creation stories up

Textbook atheist argument.

"God" is no more fairy-tale than "atoms formed", a.k.a. the scientific equivalent of "shit happened."

You miss my point.

I'm ok with making shit up, that's fine. (well for religions anyway)

But when people try and say that shit they made up is a better, more rational and logical explanation as to where the universe comes from, that's where I need to remind everyone that a) we don't know, and b) making shit up is not better than a)

And don't misinterpret sciences position on creation. we 99% don't have a clue.

Of course we have a few wild theories, but almost no evidence or way of checking them. This doesn't mean "religion has the answers" at all.

The problem with this debate is that it's been sullied by the American evangelicals and their Creationism in schools and the ensuing backlash.

I think science is compatible with the notion that there is rational order to the universe. What I call God is whatever machination that ensures there is a continuing rational order to the universe. We see it clearly from the geometry of natural to sexual dimorphism in animals. All of these things are so well created, even mathematically-so, that it's clear all of creation conforms to some kind of order (even that which feels chaotic to us in the short-term).

Tony Campolo is a son of a famous evangelist who became an atheist. He wrote a book with is father called "Why I left Why I Stayed". He talks about why he left the religion and his father talks about why he stayed. This seems like a good book to get both points of view.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GCCT3CU/ref...TF8&btkr=1

This is an interesting interview with Tony Campolo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yM5zG_w4AZE&t=390s

"Without God, all is permitted" - Dostoevsky

This quote arises from the main character in "Crime and Punishment" rationalizing the murder of a pawn broker. He convinces himself that murdering her would be better for everyone: She torments her daughter, and holds debt over the heads of the downtrodden. "The world would be better off without her!" So, naturally, he murders her...

Without God, all is permitted, because without any objective morality passed down to us through religion, we can rationalize any immoral behavior that conveniently fits our interests. Whether it is sex, drugs, or murder, people will find a way to do it because "Hey, we're just a bunch of carbon floating on a speck of dust hueueuheu".

If atheists could create a compelling set of moral guidance, I'd be on board. But they can't. Secular Humanism? Give me a break. This is just a BS ideology that elites tout as an alternative to religion, even though they don't really know what it is. It just sounds nice. Nor will it ever catch on with the masses as it's not compelling. While some may balk at the myths of the Bible, myths are how morals and teachings are most effectively passed down.

Religion is universal because it provides an essential utility to mankind: It promotes moral guidance, virtue, strength, and of course, reproduction, which atheists have no reason to do because "Hey were just meat sacks! YOLO"

As Voltaire said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." Yup. Religion has worked pretty well for thousands of years, so the atheists better have a damn good reason for getting rid of it. So far, I am not convinced.