| |
|  |  |
 |
| Discussion: Jack I think you're right, but a lot of scientists seem to think it *can* explain everything. The thing is it's so good at what it does. It's never wrong about the things it does try to explain, so people get carried away with it sometimes. But there is absolutely nothing in science that disproves the notion of God. Personally I think the argument about suffering and injustice is a flawless argument against the existence of a loving God, and that argument has nothing to do with science. >>By Flagg Flagg, you are completely right, and I, too, hate the "suffering and injustice" argument. No scientist uses that, that argument is the favorite of poets and metal bands. Also, and again I hope PE will back me up, no real scientist (i.e, someone employed by an accredited university) thinks science can explain everything. That belief is the exact opposite of what a scientific thinker would believe. >>By Just Jon No, I said I agree with the suffering and injustice argument. Regardless of who else favours it I have never heard it properly answered by any believer in God. >>By Flagg I think God is just something in our imagination. It would seem utter madness if we were here just because we are here. I think we all need reasons for unanswerable questions. For some, God was this answer. But I've said it before - I think those who still believe in God in this day & age are completely crazy. A friend of mine says that he KNOWS god exists. I asked him why - but he wouldn't tell me (perhaps for personal reasons). Either way I told him he was crazy - he didn't seem to offended. What kind of Loving God would ever allow the halocaust to happen, for 20 million innocent people to die under Stalin's rule, for 100 000 people to be wiped off the face of the earth in the Tsunami of 2004; for rape and murder to occur; to allow Africa to starve itself to death and to linger in poverty ? I read the first few pages of the bible a few weeks ago. It basically said "it's better off not knowing evil." I think that this is the worst thing possible - it reminded me of what another christian had said to me when I was checking the ingredients of a packet of crisps for any meat-based substences (like animal rennet). She said "well if you don't know what's in it - then your conscience is clear." I thought this was ironically profound. Don't even get me started on people who think evolution is a load of rubbish......... >>By Tchock ''If ignorance is bliss then knock the smile off my face.'' Now *that's* sensible (and you know who said it ;) I HATE the evolution vs. god argument. Why can't they both be true? >But I've said it before - I think those who still believe in God in this day & age are completely crazy. But people 400 years ago might have said the same thing about believing in a pantheon of gods. They were as certain about everything then as we are today. Science is always correcting itself and finding out new things. >>By Flagg Wait - I take it all back - there IS a god !!!!! My infomatics tutorial hasn't been put up yet (it's due tomorow) = I don't have any work to do !!!!! Why can't evolution & the god argument both be true ??? Well certainly in Christianity it can't entirely be true - but I really don't think you mean that..... Someone told me that they considered evolution to be a gift from god. I guess there's no reason why both can't be true - but there's no evidence that there IS a god.... there is evidence of evolution. Actually one of the teachers at my school said something along the lines of "science is a load of rubbish because it doesn't work or it's proven to be wrong at times." I agree totally - science is always correcting itself, it itself is constantly evolving - which makes it more credible - when it is wrong, it does not try and convince everyone that it is right. It concedes defeat and thinks.... what IS the answer then ??? I wonder what the first being was to believe in somesort of god. Who was it that thought "there's someone I am at mercy to, someone looking after me, someone I should worship." ? >>By Tchock Science admits defeat, yes. But many scientists still don't accept that there are questions that science can't answer. I guess for me it's a personal thing. There are so many questions I have about life (MY life in particular) and about the way the world works and science can't answer any of them, it can't justify anything. It just explains the physical world. Maybe that's enough for some people, but it annoys me when scientists say religion shouldn't even exist because... maybe religion is really an attempt to explain the other side of existence, the subjective side: why people do the things they do. Because science can't help us at all with the way people behave can it? Psychology isn't a science, it's speculation. So some people turn to concepts like good and evil, god and satan. I'm not saying it's true, and I think religious people take it much too far, but I think there's a place for religion even today. Did any of that make any kind of sense whatsoever? >>By Flagg Yes that made sense. Now, I see Tchock using the "how could a loving God...?" argument, and it drives me crazy. Why do people assume a God would be loving? The evidence supports a hateful, sadistic God--but it's not evidence against the existence of God, it's merely evidence against God as envisioned by most believers. Having said that, I think Tchock and I share the same reason for not believing--there's simply no evidence to suggest a God. I would also like to point out that everyone who believes in God is also an atheist of sorts in that they don't believe in all the other Gods. Christians, for example, don't believe in Zeus. So really we're all atheists, it's just that I believe in one less God than some people. >>By Just Jon No, atheist means 'without god' so you only need to believe in one god to not be an atheist. Well, in the Bible God is defined as omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) and benevolent (loving) but he can't be all three or there wouldn't be all this suffering. True it doesn't disprove the notion of an intelligent entity watching over us, but it does disprove the CHRISTIAN god as defined in the Bible. >>By Flagg It is an individual's right to worship as they choose---provided they don't harm anyone. We don't mock folks that believe in Christianity or Judiasm or whatever. We deon't (try to) demonstrate the folly of their belief system, nor do we call them extremists becauswe they merely 'believe.' But 'humanists' do that all the time. They are about the most intolerant bunch that I've ever met. Said above that one ofr you haven't seen any reason to believe in a God-nor have I. I quietly keep that to myself; I wear it as no badge, What troubles me about the above is the smugness (bordering on humor and contempt) in some of the posts above. Remember, it is our Mothers and Fathers AND Grandparents that most likely hold those beliefs. I have never engaged my parents (now deceased) or congregation members on the topic of hypocrisy in religion....it is clearly out of bounds and in bad taste. A little bit of tolerance goes a long way............ FYI Today was just another day in Paradise...high temp of 88F/32C and at 7:05 Monday evening, temp is steady at 77F. Eat your hearts out!! Hope that each of you enjoyed your weekend as much as me. >>By lv2read I can't speak for the others but personally I think I'm very tolerant of religious people. This board is here for discussion, and many religious people seem to like discussing God and so on with atheists. For YOUR information I've had discussion about that kind of thing with my dad (a Christian) several times. He never saw it as being in bad taste. I don't think wanting to argue (even with extreme passion) about it amounts to intolerance. In London right now we've got beautiful clear skies, sun shining on everything, and near-freezing temperatures. The perfect weather in my opinion. >>By Flagg Yeah, I've had the same experience with arguing/discussion religion with religious people before. A few weeks ago, while at this Christian Society organised Freshers Welcome thing, one of the organizers approached me & my friends. He was just asking how our new uni life was & then he mentioned that he was a christian and that this was a christian organized affair. So I then asked him after a bit "so whats it like believing in God." And the argument/discussion which followed - although quite heated.... well he didn't seem offended. He seemed quite reasonable about it (& even gave me a *New Age* copy of the Birth & Life of Jesus.). 32 degrees C in the autumn (fall) !!!!!!!!!! We don't get that in SUMMER !!! Up here it's the same as London actually. But a bit more freezing. It looks 32 degrees if you don't step outside................... Actually, 32 degrees is TOO hot for me.... >>By Tchock I'm pretty sure we had 32 degrees this summer. Nearly bloody killed me. Anyway, yeah. I remember conversations while I was at school as well. I don't think it's offensive or in bad taste to discuss religion, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who does think that. >>By Flagg Re ideal Southern California temps...... Wednesday afternoon 2:45 (or do refer to it as 1445?) Am going for lunch---only one block away approx 24C--uncomfortably cool.....will probably order in. Yesterday's high peaked at 35C in downtown Los Angeles (about 40+ miles to the North). Religion... How do you have a discussion on religion with a belieber, un;ess of course you believe similarly. Religion is based on faith. Is someone less intelligent, or foolish, or downright lame because they have faith?? I don't think so. What is there to discuss? (Tchock: New Age Christianity is not Christianity at all--I've been told. Sounds like you were misled...) >>By lv2read Well you just discuss it. It's based on faith, yes. But they seem perfectly willing to discuss it, sometimes objectively. Many atheists would say yes, believers are foolish for having faith when there is no good reason to believe it. Sometimes it looks to me like religious people believe in religion simply because it's there to be believed in. There is no way a Christian could come up with everything in the Bible on his/her own. They take the Bible's word for the whole thing - that's what seems foolish to me. This is why I have much more respect for Zen; it's general spirituality, and all a person has to do to experience it is meditate. There's no nonsensical leap of faith involved. >>By Flagg New Age Christianity ??? I just made that term up meaning the popular "Down with da kids" manifestation of christianity so that kids think reading the bible is "cool". What is there to discuss about anything then ??? I have my views & *beliefs* You have yours. Does that mean we should all shut up ??? No - new ideas spread through discussion of old ones. So what do you think of Rumsfeld resigning & the House of Representatives being won by the Democracts (same applies to the Senate if they've won by the time you reply to this..........) ???? I prefer North Californian temperatures............... they seem bearable :) >>By Tchock As a Yank I'm freakin' ecstatic about the outcome of the elections. The best part is, a lot of the Democrats elected are pretty moderate, so it's possible our congress might be able to represent a majority of Americans rather than far-left or far-right. I voted for mostly Democrats, but I did vote for two Republicans, and really I think middle-of-the-road is best. The way I see it, on a national level Democrats are best--they'll watch out for the lower middle class and poor, they won't start useless wars, and they don't care what my gay friends do with their leisure time. On the other hand, I like Republicans locally because they don't build needle exchanges in my neighborhood or insist that the police view a carload of young black males the same way as they would a Mercedes driven by an old white guy. Not morally pure, but pragmatic. My liberalism ends where my property line begins. As for Rumsfield, I see him as a war criminal along the lines of Goering. I hope the old bastard gets cancer. >>By Just Jon Flagg Reluigion comes down to Faith---blind faith if you will. How do you have a productive discussion with someone that can reply, "The bib;e says it...it must be so." You can point out countless contradictions and the believer will merely state that God has a reason for everything. I have no desire to pursue such a discussion. Tchock Wherein ideas are based on logic and reason---albeit very different--an exchange of viewpoints may leade to consensus and compromise. Rumsfeld resignation---not too surprising. It is interesting how the difficulties in Iraq were neatly pinned on him.... The President holds veto power, and it takes a 2/3 majoriity to over ride it. Hence, I expect no drastic changes. I vote a straight Republican ticket, so Governor Arnold saved the day for me. Northern California weather.....terrible. New Age Christianity is not a NEW thing. In America, at least, they are a group of people that believe in the idea and example of Jesus as opposed to the literal Jesus was a man, rose from the dead and so on and on. I don't know their constitutency, but they are middle aged and above primarily. It is all foolishness to me. >>By lv2read >You can point out countless contradictions and the believer will merely state that God has a reason for everything. I have seen that now and then, but on the whole I find it's perfectly possible to have a meaningful discussion with a religious person about their religion. The thing is, I really think my views on religion are flawless; no Christian can make an argument that I can't counter - as long as we're arguing on the same terms (i.e. logic and common sense). If the argument goes on long enough we do get to the point where they say 'Well I believe and that's that', then I can't say anything back. I have to accept that not everyone works by logic and common sense. So you're right, kind of. But there are still no hard feelings between me and the person I'm discussing it with. They don't view it as intolerant or in bad taste. >>By Flagg Flagg <<<So you're right, kind of. But there are still no hard feelings between me and the person I'm discussing it with. They don't view it as intolerant or in bad taste.>>> All I can say is that your experiences have been different from mine. How do you discuss faith based conclusions in logical terms? Flagg, that would be difficult to do. And, interestingly enough, it is the logical thinkers that I have found to be the most intolerent of all. I am comfortable with my beliefs as you seem to be with yours, yet I don't consider my point of view to be flawless. >>By lv2read >How do you discuss faith based conclusions in logical terms? I don't. The example I remember is when the person I was talking to said that their belief was based on faith and not reasoning, and I said 'so you accept that there is no objective way to prove the existence of God?' and they said yes. I don't consider my point of view on *everything* to be flawless, but I am confident that there IS no objective way to prove the existence of God. That's why I don't understand the leap of faith involved. I'm not one of these Richard Dawkins-type people who say science and logic can explain EVERYTHING. I think there is something beyond the understanding of science or rational thinking. But believing that that thing is a conscious entity that created us and has opinions on what we should and shouldn't do, simply because it's in a book, is ridiculous. >And, interestingly enough, it is the logical thinkers that I have found to be the most intolerent of all. I can't disagree with that since it's from your personal experience and I wouldn't presume to tell you how much experience you have or don't have... But to me it sounds like an unfair generalisation. >>By Flagg Is it just me or does the world feel a whole safer place today :) >>By wreckin krew I sure feel safer. >>By Flagg Safer???? With a Republican President I feel safe!!! And a sincere thank you to Europe for Governor Arnold. His liberal opponent, Phil Angelides, could have conceded 20 minutes after the polls closed. Remember, if legislative action is stalemated it is the responsibility of the majority. I expect no drastic changes. It was said that the majority of Dems elected were moderates---whether or not that is factual I don't know, but they had better be.............. FLAGG <<<But to me it sounds like an unfair generalization.>>> I, also, wish that was an unfair generalization. Ask yourself which group labels the other as stupid, shallow, ignorant, and so on. Those are the words of intolerance. Someone is not less intelligent to me because they are religious!!!! Many a scientist wears their atheish and/or agnosticism on their cuff. As an agnostic I say shame on them. >>By lv2read I think both groups label the other stupid, shallow, ignorant and so on. Not everyone who believes science and rationality can answer any question is intolerant; not every religious person is a blind fanatic; just as not everyone who believes the war in Iraq is wrong values human life. What I'm saying is there is no point making that kind of generalisation. It just doesn't hold for real people. As for the proud scientists I say good for them. The same goes for strongly religious people. As long as they don't push it to the point of violence they have my respect. They're showing everyone what they believe in. At least they believe in something. >>By Flagg I don't expect any drastic changes either, but Bush says he's open to any and all ideas, which much be a first. Of course, saying and acting don't exactly go hand in hand for politicians. >>By Flagg Ah, Tchock, I just saw this near the top of this page. I must have missed it before but it's important: >I think we all need reasons for unanswerable questions. I don't. >>By Flagg Well apparently over 50% of the voting American population agree with me its safer, Ah - democracy don't you just love it :) >>By wreckin krew Wreckin Crew Less than 1 in 3 rigistered voters voted for a change. Approximately 1 in 4 of voting age actually voted for Democrats. All in all, the new group is pretty moderate I'm told....so much for radical change. I'm shedding no tears for Rumsfeld...hope that he is replaced with a real tiger. >>By lv2read Me too - the tiger might digest the rest of the Bush Administration.............. >>By Tchock |