Poll: Where are you on the Dawkins scale?
Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.
Poll Options
Where are you on the Dawkins scale?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-08-2013
Flanscho's Avatar
Elite User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,046
Thanked 0 Times
Flanscho Flanscho is offline
Elite User
Flanscho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,046
Thanked 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starry View Post
I also agree with what another member said about not understanding why people think science and religion cannot coexist.
I guess the problem stems from things we didn't understand in the past having often been explained with religion. An earthquake happened? A god was angry! Lightning? Thundergod! Diseases? A curse! Tsunami? Such a huge wave can't be natural! Solar Eclipse? It's a sign!

But then we did research. And we learned. And we realized that these things do not require any deity to happen. And that's where this conflict origins in. And it's still going on until today.

All these things I mentioned, and much much more, we once thought to be religious stuff, that had to do with gods of any sort. Why should the Big Bang or the theory of Abiogenesis be any different? Right now, we have theories, and many religious people say "we don't know how it happened, so God did it". While atheists and many other people say "we don't know how it happened, but we can find it out". You don't know how Abiogenesis works exactly, or how the Big Bang happened. I don't know it either. There are scientific theories, and religious tales, that all try to explain it. But the scientists keep working, gathering data, they progress. It's only a matter of time.


Quote:
After all, "science" (I hate the way it's spoken of as though it is something in itself rather than a method... it would be much more helpful to speak of the scientific consensus.) was wrong in the past, things considered true now may well be proven wrong in the future... Therefore, I believe the sensible thing is to search for yourself and see where your search takes you, never believe something just because a scientist says it, anymore than you would because a vicar says it.
Scientists wonder how something works. They observe. They then try to explain it with a theory. And then they gather evidence to support that theory.
That every now and then a theory turns to be wrong is a natural part of the process. It simply proves that the process works, because scientists keep checking each others work, to ensure that it's the most accurate and up to date as possible. And you say that this is a reason not to "believe" science?
Saying "scientists were often wrong" sounds as if all religious concepts were always true. We know the names of over 2500 deities, and thousands of religions. Do you think all are true? Is Quetzacoatl as true as the christian God? Nope. According to the Aztec, the christian God would be nonsense, and Quetzacoatl would exist. And according to the Christians, it's the other way round. And you say that both are more believable than science?

I rather stick to people who work, who check each others work, who want to ensure that it's the most accurate and up to date, than to those, who keep repeating the same stuff since thousands of years, ignoring evidence and logic.

Not to mention that you don't have to "believe" scientists or science. The information is there, it's all for you to learn, to check yourself. There is no belief needed. You don't believe what a scientists says? Then go check his work and what his work is based on. However, 99% of those who doubt science are unwilling or not capable to check the work. And that is plain ridiculous. It's like saying "nah, the sun doesn't shine" while refusing to open your eyes.

Unlike with religion, you don't have to take a jump, to trust science. You don't have to assume things to be true, for which there is neither evidence nor a logic theory. All you need is an open mind, an objective view, the will to learn, and the education and intelligence to understand the concepts.

But so many religious people are just not interested in learning. Like, on the Yahoo website, there is a comment section. On each scientific article, religious people show up, and mock and question it. For example, when there is an article about evolution, they ask "how can we have evolved from monkey, if there are still monkeys?". But that question has been answered since a long time. And it has been asked a thousand times and answered a thousand times. And the people asking it could look up the answer within five minutes. But they are not interested in learning. They are not interested in educating themself. They ask not to be taught and improve themselves, but rather because they think of it as some fight.
Or dinosaurs. Whenever there is an article about dinosaurs, people ask "but why did we find human footsteps next to dinosaur footsteps". And again, this question has been answered decades ago. But the people are not willing to listen listen, to understand it. They can talk but are deaf. Because they want to be. They rather want to be stupid and uneducated before they'd be willing to learn something that might be in conflict with what most of them were brainwashed into as children.

Last edited by Flanscho; 03-08-2013 at 10:21 AM.
Flanscho is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
Starry's Avatar
Elite User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Herefordshire, England
Posts: 1,384
Thanked 0 Times
Starry Starry is offline
Elite User
Starry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Herefordshire, England
Posts: 1,384
Thanked 0 Times
^^ I agree with being open-minded - For me personally, that means taking nothing at face value - as you say, check things for yourself (something I wholeheartedly encourage everyone to do with all things).

I don't say that we should automatically believe something else - rather we should be neutral, look for ourselves and see where that takes us. Therefore, I do not believe scientists purely because they're "scientists", or the consensus purely because it's the consensus at the moment... I look at what they say and see if it makes sense given all sides of arguments. After all, take creationist arguments for a moment - they are highly, highly flawed in many, many ways and most certainly completely wrong in many ways.... but here and there they make a good point which a lot of mainstream scientists ignore. There are of course, scientists who take these things on board and fit them into their theories, but the consensus may not change, when perhaps it should, and indeed, maybe it will at some point. The same applies within science itself, there are opposing arguments all the time, in all areas. Most of which are not politically or religiously motivated, they simply come from different interpretations of the evidence...

Saying "scientists are often wrong" in no way equated to saying "religion was always true". I can see that both are often wrong, religions much more so, given their nature.

I simply refuse to put faith in anything, including scientific consensus. Since, without knowing for ourselves, we take these things on faith, believing that others do know...
__________________
"You've never truly known the kind of place that I come from." - Arena - 'State of Grace'

"When agony comes more from hope than failure,
Look further than your preconceptions, expectations,
Where the power of the mind can take you out beyond this reach,
Higher than the dull and simple world you know so well,
Back to paradise..." Arena - 'Solomon'
Starry is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
Advanced User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 410
Thanked 0 Times
gazelle gazelle is offline
Advanced User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 410
Thanked 0 Times
I voted for number 2 since I believe in god (but I'm not religious), and in regards to science and believing in god (not religion) I've always actually found science to be a proof of god ; To me witnessing all of the beauty and symmetry in nature( and the science behind it that we still have yet to discover), indicates that there's a wise power behind all of this and all of this can only have been deliberately designed by a stronger power than the human kind. I think the below quote from Einstein explains this better:

Quote:
The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.
gazelle is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
Banned
Elite User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,342
Thanked 0 Times
KiaKaha KiaKaha is offline
Banned
Elite User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,342
Thanked 0 Times
Kind of interesting to see who is what. Quite surprising really.

Religion eh? Got better things to think about personally. As long as people leave me alone I am good with it.
KiaKaha is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
Flanscho's Avatar
Elite User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,046
Thanked 0 Times
Flanscho Flanscho is offline
Elite User
Flanscho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,046
Thanked 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by gazelle View Post
the beauty and symmetry in nature( and the science behind it that we still have yet to discover), indicates that there's a wise power behind all of this
Well, for me, beauty ain't an absolute value, but simply depends on what we learned and how we processed that information.

Like, in the past, very big woman were considered to be the most beautiful. Now, this changed in most countries. Or in China, women with super tiny feet they could barely walk on were considered to be pretty, while most people from other nations wouldn't share that view.

Many religious people always say that the chance of us being here and fitting in so perfectly is a proof that it was designed for us. But I disagree. Let me try to explain it like this: imagine a cave. Now it rains, the cave is filled up with water. A religious person seeing this might say: "the cave has been created specifically for the water, because it fits in perfectly". Other people might say "the water is highly flexible/adaptable, and so it fits into any crack whatsoever".

The cave is our universe, life is the water. Life is highly adaptable. No matter what our universe would look like, if life of any sort would be possible, life would exist, and would try to adapt as best as possible. If the universe would be slightly different, neither you nor me would exist. But some other forms of life would exist. And they'd be as best adapted as possible as well.

As such, there is no "chance" involved. When people say "the universe fitting that perfectly to us can't be a coincidence" is simply a wrong point of view, because the people think that the universe was created for them. Which religious people like to think (what with the earth being the center of the universe and the sun revolving around the earth and whatnot).

But in the end, it is completly irrelevant what the universe would look like. If life would be possible, life would exist, and it would try to adapt. There is no coincidence, no chance. No matter what is thrown at life, it would teem if possible. You and me are the result of millions of years of evolution in this universe. Throw a different universe at us, and we wouldn't exist, but other living things would exist, some of which would again be amazed how well they'd fit in.
Flanscho is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
kilojoule's Avatar
check out my new avatar
Elite User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,652
Thanked 55 Times
kilojoule kilojoule is offline
check out my new avatar
Elite User
kilojoule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,652
Thanked 55 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starry View Post

Saying "scientists are often wrong" in no way equated to saying "religion was always true". I can see that both are often wrong, religions much more so, given their nature.

I simply refuse to put faith in anything, including scientific consensus. Since, without knowing for ourselves, we take these things on faith, believing that others do know...
My whole head kinda tilted to the side when I read this ...

Religion can't be wrong. Religion is a belief and a belief can not be wrong. Beliefs don't tend to rely on proof. They mostly exist in spite of proof.

Science can be wrong though.


Faith is a whole other ballgame.


ow my head hurts its only 11am lol
__________________
"There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face" - Shakespeare's Macbeth
kilojoule is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
Kiwong's Avatar
Elite User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: falling for life wave after wave and never saying goodbye
Posts: 7,777
Thanked 479 Times
Kiwong Kiwong is offline
Elite User
Kiwong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: falling for life wave after wave and never saying goodbye
Posts: 7,777
Thanked 479 Times
Flanscho, science collects data that will either support or disprove a hypothesis or theory. The data collected is used to test a theory, not necessarily to support it. Collecting data to support a theory would be considered dogma.

The thing with science is that anyone can test a hypothesis or theory with their own data.

Some of the best theories stand up to tests across a range of scientific disciplines and are hard to disprove. There is still the opportunity to falsify these theories with the collection of more data.

Science, which is based on the scientific method, can be right or wrong based on statistical probalities, at various levels of confidence.

Religion on the other hand is not science it is dogma. God exists, and the only data that can be collected is to prove it's existance, the existance of God can't be falsified.
__________________
In my dreams nothing holds me down, there is only out and away. I wish I could die and be reborn as a bird. William Wharton Birdy
Kiwong is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
Flanscho's Avatar
Elite User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,046
Thanked 0 Times
Flanscho Flanscho is offline
Elite User
Flanscho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,046
Thanked 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwong View Post
Religion on the other hand is not science it is dogma. God exists, and the only data that can be collected is to prove it's existance, the existance of God can't be falsified.
Of course you can't disprove God. Same as you can't disprove that microscopic invisible unicorns dance on your head right now. I don't believe that a god exists, and I don't believe that unicorns dance on your head right now. Neither makes any sense to me.

There is no single proof that any deity exists. There can't be evidence that any deity does not exist. However, there can be reasons that make the existence of a deity likely or unlikely. And for me, there is a huge number of reasons why I think that no deity exists, where there is, for me, no single reason that supporst the existence of a deity.
Flanscho is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
Starry's Avatar
Elite User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Herefordshire, England
Posts: 1,384
Thanked 0 Times
Starry Starry is offline
Elite User
Starry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Herefordshire, England
Posts: 1,384
Thanked 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by joule View Post
My whole head kinda tilted to the side when I read this ...

Religion can't be wrong. Religion is a belief and a belief can not be wrong. Beliefs don't tend to rely on proof. They mostly exist in spite of proof.
Of course a belief can be wrong. If I believe that the earth is flat, then I'm almost certainly wrong (there are still some flat-earthers, maybe they're onto something lol). If I believe that I am bright green and glowing, then I am definitely wrong (unless there is a way of looking at me which would make me appear that way, but given the way things currently stand...)

Many things which we all believe/have believed are/were wrong and many are/were right... Believing in it doesn't make it so, just as disbelieving in something doesn't negate it (unless we want to go down some rather mind-bending theory routes, in which case, who knows...).

Faith can be wrongly placed. Belief is belief whether or not it is correct.
__________________
"You've never truly known the kind of place that I come from." - Arena - 'State of Grace'

"When agony comes more from hope than failure,
Look further than your preconceptions, expectations,
Where the power of the mind can take you out beyond this reach,
Higher than the dull and simple world you know so well,
Back to paradise..." Arena - 'Solomon'
Starry is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
Kiwong's Avatar
Elite User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: falling for life wave after wave and never saying goodbye
Posts: 7,777
Thanked 479 Times
Kiwong Kiwong is offline
Elite User
Kiwong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: falling for life wave after wave and never saying goodbye
Posts: 7,777
Thanked 479 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanscho View Post
Of course you can't disprove God. Same as you can't disprove that microscopic invisible unicorns dance on your head right now. I don't believe that a god exists, and I don't believe that unicorns dance on your head right now. Neither makes any sense to me.

There is no single proof that any deity exists. There can't be evidence that any deity does not exist. However, there can be reasons that make the existence of a deity likely or unlikely. And for me, there is a huge number of reasons why I think that no deity exists, where there is, for me, no single reason that supporst the existence of a deity.
Exactly, and that is why religion is not science it is dogma.
__________________
In my dreams nothing holds me down, there is only out and away. I wish I could die and be reborn as a bird. William Wharton Birdy
Kiwong is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
Advanced User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 410
Thanked 0 Times
gazelle gazelle is offline
Advanced User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 410
Thanked 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanscho View Post
Many religious people always say that the chance of us being here and fitting in so perfectly is a proof that it was designed for us. But I disagree. Let me try to explain it like this: imagine a cave. Now it rains, the cave is filled up with water. A religious person seeing this might say: "the cave has been created specifically for the water, because it fits in perfectly". Other people might say "the water is highly flexible/adaptable, and so it fits into any crack whatsoever".
I infer from that statement that you're implying that I'm religious and that I was using that logic, but again I emphasize that while I do believe in god I'm not religious (my point of views are far more different from people who are religious and as a matter of fact I find myself to be a victim of religious people) and I wasn't using the logic that you brought up I was referring to science and laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanscho View Post
But in the end, it is completly irrelevant what the universe would look like. If life would be possible, life would exist, and it would try to adapt. There is no coincidence, no chance. No matter what is thrown at life, it would teem if possible. You and me are the result of millions of years of evolution in this universe. Throw a different universe at us, and we wouldn't exist, but other living things would exist, some of which would again be amazed how well they'd fit in.
True, but I still do think that life is created from energy, and according to the law of energy, energy can be transferred or transformed from one form to the other and I call the ultimate source of energy (or in other words life ) "God"... Anyhow I by no means had any intentions to get into a debate with anyone here or to convince anyone to believe in god I was just explaining why I voted for number 2 that's it .
gazelle is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
kilojoule's Avatar
check out my new avatar
Elite User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,652
Thanked 55 Times
kilojoule kilojoule is offline
check out my new avatar
Elite User
kilojoule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,652
Thanked 55 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starry View Post
Of course a belief can be wrong. If I believe that the earth is flat, then I'm almost certainly wrong (there are still some flat-earthers, maybe they're onto something lol). If I believe that I am bright green and glowing, then I am definitely wrong (unless there is a way of looking at me which would make me appear that way, but given the way things currently stand...)

Many things which we all believe/have believed are/were wrong and many are/were right... Believing in it doesn't make it so, just as disbelieving in something doesn't negate it (unless we want to go down some rather mind-bending theory routes, in which case, who knows...).

Faith can be wrongly placed. Belief is belief whether or not it is correct.

Lemme try again.

If I say 'The Earth is flat' and Coyote comes along and gives me proof which shows that the Earth is not flat, then my statement is incorrect.

If I say 'I believe the Earth is flat' and Coyote comes along and proves that the Earth is not flat, my statement is still valid.


A belief can not be wrong because it is not based on proof. Most of the time, beliefs exist in spite of proof. Since a belief is not measured in proof, it cannot be disproved by proof.

Many Scientists are good examples of this. For instance there are a lot of Scientists whos work prove Evolution but they believe in Creationism.

A persons beliefsystem is a result of many different influences.
__________________
"There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face" - Shakespeare's Macbeth
kilojoule is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
Kiwong's Avatar
Elite User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: falling for life wave after wave and never saying goodbye
Posts: 7,777
Thanked 479 Times
Kiwong Kiwong is offline
Elite User
Kiwong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: falling for life wave after wave and never saying goodbye
Posts: 7,777
Thanked 479 Times
Some creationists claim to be scientists, but they aren't. Creationism is a religuous belief not a science. It is a belief that the account in Genesis of the creation is literally true. The large majority in the scientific community argue that creationism is not a science, and do not support it being teached in schools as science, but left to religious study.
__________________
In my dreams nothing holds me down, there is only out and away. I wish I could die and be reborn as a bird. William Wharton Birdy
Kiwong is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
Newbie User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 38
Thanked 0 Times
Dreamseller Dreamseller is offline
Newbie User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 38
Thanked 0 Times
For those of you who say that you believe in a god and that belief by definition means that there is no proof...what made you believe in that specific god in the first place over any of the thousands of other gods?

(Bear in mind that the bible/Qur'an/other holy books are not forms of proof. A book cannot be proof of the facts within, if that were the case, anyone could write anything in a book and you would have to believe it.)
__________________
"Perception is Everything." - Dreamseller
Dreamseller is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
kilojoule's Avatar
check out my new avatar
Elite User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,652
Thanked 55 Times
kilojoule kilojoule is offline
check out my new avatar
Elite User
kilojoule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,652
Thanked 55 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwong View Post
Some creationists claim to be scientists, but they aren't. Creationism is a religuous belief not a science. It is a belief that the account in Genesis of the creation is literally true. The large majority in the scientific community argue that creationism is not a science, and do not support it being teached in schools as science, but left to religious study.
I agree with you that Creationism is a belief. I'm just a little hazy on this point. I'm just not sure.
Quote:
It is a belief that the account in Genesis of the creation is literally true.
because I don't think that's necessarily true of all Creationists. I think Creationists share the common belief that A Supernatural being created the Universe and the life within it. I think it splinters off after that.
__________________
"There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face" - Shakespeare's Macbeth

Last edited by kilojoule; 03-08-2013 at 12:58 PM. Reason: typo
kilojoule is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
Banned
Elite User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,342
Thanked 0 Times
KiaKaha KiaKaha is offline
Banned
Elite User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3,342
Thanked 0 Times
Is this where I should put some pictures up of cute bunnies? Have we reached that stage yet? Cant be too far off..

I kid I kid... sorta..

Just gonna grab some nachos..
KiaKaha is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
vj288's Avatar
Grand champion orangutan wrangler, welterweight class
Elite User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Under the waves...
Posts: 4,054
Thanked 240 Times
vj288 vj288 is offline
Grand champion orangutan wrangler, welterweight class
Elite User
vj288's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Under the waves...
Posts: 4,054
Thanked 240 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by joule View Post
Lemme try again.

If I say 'The Earth is flat' and Coyote comes along and gives me proof which shows that the Earth is not flat, then my statement is incorrect.

If I say 'I believe the Earth is flat' and Coyote comes along and proves that the Earth is not flat, my statement is still valid.


A belief can not be wrong because it is not based on proof. Most of the time, beliefs exist in spite of proof. Since a belief is not measured in proof, it cannot be disproved by proof.

Many Scientists are good examples of this. For instance there are a lot of Scientists whos work prove Evolution but they believe in Creationism.

A persons beliefsystem is a result of many different influences.
If you say you believe the earth is flat than you're statement would be valid (if you thought that) but your belief would be false. The statement itself is valid but it's not sound. (The world is not flat just because you believe it to be). So a religious belief, like that the world was going to end on 12/21/12 can be truly be what someone believes, but is an inaccurate belief.

The two statements you used as an example are actually very similar, the first is also a belief just not specifying who it belongs to. Scientist are led to believe the earth is round due to overwhelming evidence, even the things we're most sure of have some level of doubt in them though. I don't want to get into "what is reality/what is really real" but if there are truths to the world I don't think we have access to them, all we can do is guess. Maybe some guesses are better, like that the earth is round or sky is blue, but still not certainty. You can say "the earth is flat" after coyote proves otherwise, and him and anyone else who agrees with his research/proof will consider the statement wrong, but to anyone who doesn't agree it can be "true" still. People "prove" and "disprove" the existence of god all the time, so the statement "god exists" is true or false depending on who is hearing it, and there's really not a consensus like there is about the shape of the world.
__________________
I'm a stranger to myself

"If you don't imagine, then nothing ever happens at all"
vj288 is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
kilojoule's Avatar
check out my new avatar
Elite User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,652
Thanked 55 Times
kilojoule kilojoule is offline
check out my new avatar
Elite User
kilojoule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,652
Thanked 55 Times
nooooo hhaha please without getting into the 'what is reality?' debate

The statement 'The Earth is flat' may be proven to be incorrect while the belief 'The Earth is flat' is valid.

My point is that a belief can not be wrong. It may be disproved factually but the belief still stands. Belief has nothing whatsoever to do with fact. You can't have 'a wrong belief' its like an opinion.
__________________
"There's no art to find the mind's construction in the face" - Shakespeare's Macbeth
kilojoule is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
Lea Lea is offline
Banned
Elite User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,453
Thanked 0 Times
Lea Lea is offline
Banned
Elite User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,453
Thanked 0 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starry View Post
Vj288. I agree a lot with what you said... I always find it mildly frustrating that "God" implies a religious god, when there are plenty of people who believe in a god and yet hate religions. It used to be more common for people to accept the idea of a god existing outside of religious ideas, but it seems very rare now... People simply equate God and religion as the same thing.

I also agree with what another member said about not understanding why people think science and religion cannot coexist. Or rather, I do understand why (crazy over-the-top religious people trying to fight against science which goes against their beliefs, along with some anti-religious atheists who want to bring down all religion and demonise it... Both fighting against each other...), but there are plenty of scientists who are religious or have belief in a god of some form.

Ideally we ought to look at evidence and decide where that takes us.. That's what I do and that's where I get my beliefs from. I take nothing on faith, including what "science" says... After all, "science" (I hate the way it's spoken of as though it is something in itself rather than a method... it would be much more helpful to speak of the scientific consensus.) was wrong in the past, things considered true now may well be proven wrong in the future... Therefore, I believe the sensible thing is to search for yourself and see where your search takes you, never believe something just because a scientist says it, anymore than you would because a vicar says it.
I agree with vj288 and Starry, and Gazelle. It made me think of and article form the book The Road Less Travelled:


The Baby and the Bath Water

The foregoing case histories were offered in response to a question: Is belief in God a form of psychopathology? If we are to rise out the mire of childhood teaching, local tradition and superstition, it is a question that must be asked. But these case histories indicate that the answer is not a simple one. The answer sometimes is yes. Kathy´s unquestioning belief in the God her church and mother taught clearly retarded her growth and poisoned her spirit. Only by questioning and discarding her belief was she able to venture forth into a wider, more satisfying, more productive life. Only then was she free to grow. But the answer also is sometimes no. As Marcia grew out of the cold microcosm of her childhood into a larger, warmer world, a belief in God also grew within her, quietly and naturally. And Ted´s forsaken belief in God had to be resurrected as an essential part of the liberation and resurrection of his spirit.

What are we to do with this yes-and-no answer? Scientists are dedicated to asking questions in the search for truth. But they too are human, and like all humans, they would like their answers to be clean and clear and easy. In their desire for simple solutions, scientists are prone to fall into two traps as they question the reality of God. The first is to throw the baby out with the bath water. And the second is tunnel vision.

There is clearly a lot of dirty bath water surrounding the reality of God. Holy wars. Inquisitions. Animal sacrifice. Human sacrifice. Superstition. Stultification. Dogmatism. Ignorance. Hypocrisy. Self-righteousness. Rigidity. Cruelty. Book burning. Witch burning. Inhibition. Fear. Conformity. Morbid guilt. Insanity. The list is almost endless. But is all this what God has done to humans or what humans have done to God? It is abundantly evident that belief in God is often destructively dogmatic. Is the problem, then, that humans tend to believe in God, or is the problem that humans tend to be dogmatic? Anyone who has known a dyed-in-the-wool atheist will know that such an individual can be as dogmatic about unbelief as any believer can be about belief. Is it belief in God we need to get rid of, or is it dogmatism?

Another reason that scientists are so prone to throw the baby out with the bath water is that science itself, as I have suggested, is a religion. The neophyte scientist, recently come or converted to the world view of science, can be every bit as fanatical as a Christian crusader or a soldier of Allah. This is particularly the case when we have come to science from a culture and home in which belief in God is firmly associated with ignorance, superstition, rigidity and hypocrisy. Then we have emotional as well as intellectual motives to smash the idols of primitive faith. A mark of maturity in scientists, however, is their awareness that science may be as subject to dogmatism as any other religion.

I have firmly stated that is is essential to our spiritual growth for us to become scientists who are sceptical of what we have been taught - that is, the common notions and assumptions of our culture. But the notions of science themselves often become cultural idols, and it is necessary that we become sceptical of these as well. It is indeed possible for us to mature out of a belief in God. What I would now like to suggest is that it is also possible to mature into a belief in God. A sceptical atheism or agnosticism is not necessarily the highest state of understanding at which human beings can arrive. To the contrary, there is reason to believe that behind spurious notions and false concepts of God there lies a reality that is God. This is what Paul Tillich meant when he referred to the "god beyond God" and why some sophisticated Christians used to proclaim joyfully, "God is dead. Long live God". Is it possible that the path of spiritual growth leads first out of superstition into agnosticism and then out of agnosticism toward an accurate knowledge of God? It was of this path that the Sufi Aba Said ibn Abi-I-Khair was speaking more than nine hundred years ago when he said:

Until college and minaret have crumbled
This holy work of ours will not be done.
Until faith becomes rejection, and rejection becomes belief
There will be no true Muslim.

Whether or not the path of spiritual growth necessarily leads from a sceptical atheism or agnosticism toward an accurate belief in God, the fact of the matter is that some intellectually sophisticated and sceptical people, such as Marcia and Ted, do seem to grow in the direction of belief. And it should be noted that this belief into which they grew was not at all like that out of which Kathy evolved. The God that comes before scepticism may bear little resemblance to the God that comes after. As I mentioned at the beginning of this part, there is no single, monolithic religion. There are many religions, and perhaps many levels to belief. Some religions may be unhealthy for some people; others may be healthy.

All this is of particular import for those scientists who are psychiatrists or psychotherapists. Dealing so directly with the growth process, they more than anyone else are called upon to make judgments as to the healthiness of an individual´s belief system. Because psychotherapists generally belong to a sceptical if not strictly Freudian tradition, there is a tendency for them to consider any passionate belief in God to be pathological. Upon occasion this tendency may go over the line into frank bias and prejudice. Not long ago I met a college senior who was giving serious consideration to the possibility of entering a monastery a few years hence. He had been in psychotherapy for the preceding year and was continuing. "But I have not been able to tell my therapist about the monastery or the depth of my religious belief", he confided. "I don´t think he would understand." I did not begin to know this young man well enough to assess the meaning that the monastery held for him or whether his desire to join it was neurotically determined. I very much would have liked to say to him: "You really ought to tell your therapist about it. It is essential for your therapy that you be open about everything, particularly a serious matter such as this. You should trust your therapist to be objective". But I did not. For I was not at all sure that his therapist would be objective, that he would understand, in the true meaning of the world.

Psychiatrists and psychotherapists who have simplistic attitudes toward religion are likely to do a disservice to some of their patients. This will be true if they regard all religion as good and healthy. It will also be true if they throw out the baby with the bath water and regard all religion as sickness and the Enemy. And, finally, it will be true if in the face of the complexity of the matter they withdraw themselves from dealing at all with the religious issues of their patients, hiding behind a cloak of such total objectivity that they do not consider it to be their role to be, themselves, in any way spiritually or religiously involved. For their patients often need their involvement. I do not mean to imply that they should forsake their objectivity, or that balancing their objectivity with their own spirituality is an easy matter. It is not. To the contrary, my plea would be that psychotherapists of all kinds should push themselves to become not less involved but rather more sophisticated in religious matters than they frequently are.
Lea is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013
HHDisturbed's Avatar
Intermediate User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Midwestern U.S.
Posts: 176
Thanked 0 Times
HHDisturbed HHDisturbed is offline
Intermediate User
HHDisturbed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Midwestern U.S.
Posts: 176
Thanked 0 Times
First of all let me say that I grew up attending Catholic Church and was even an altar boy for nearly 10 years. (and no, I never had a bad incident with a priest). But as I grew older and became more educated the stories of the bible became as much science-fiction as Star Wars itself. I know that I was taught to have blind faith but this is hard to do when there is ZERO evidence or any basis in fact whatsoever. The fact is that every civilization that has ever existed wants to know how we came to be and to believe that there is more to life than our short existience on this planet. Where else must those answers be but from the sky above?

I think it's wonderful if someone wants to believe in God if it makes them feel happy inside. However, the evidence and facts that we have shows that everything is merely a product of nature and physics within the universe. And let us not ignore the fact that the bible was written by MAN and was assembled by politicians in early Roman times. They were the ones who chose which stories would be in or not be in the bible purely for their own political gains. You see religion, since the beginning of time, has existed to control the masses through fear. But in that regard there actually is some good to it in that without religion humans would have likely destroyed one another long ago. On the other side of the coin, many religions to this day preach hate about those who do not believe the same as they do. Look at the middle east, they've been killing one another since the beginning of time over their differing religious beliefs. Wow...how "godlike" of them!

As far as the existence of life on this planet...Earth simply hit the 1 in a billion lottery. Every factor from our size, our moon, our distance from the sun, the existence of water, our magnitosphere, our atmosphere and a million other things just happened to be just right to start and support life. But in the end, our sun will expand (like all stars do) and will completely engulf every planet in our solar system. This will completely extinguish all life as we know it. That hardly seems to be the design of a loving god but rather the simple physics of nature. Given that this cataclismic event will occur millions of years from now it is likely that humans or a rock from space will destroy this planet long before then.

I do believe that there is other life elsewhere in our galaxy and throughout the universe. To think otherwise is purely arrogant. Unfortunately, the nearest star to us (beyond our own sun) would currently take us more than 30,000 years to reach it. So given that, it is doubtful that we will ever find life elsewhere simply due to distance. Our Milky Way Galaxy alone is more than 100,000 light years accross. That means it would take 100,000 years of traveling at the speed of light to cross it. So we might as well be alone in the universe because they aint coming here either.
__________________
It's far more productive to believe in the higher power within ourselves rather than in the stars...
SO COME TO THE DARK SIDE...We have cookies!!!

Last edited by HHDisturbed; 03-08-2013 at 05:39 PM.
HHDisturbed is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What's the meaning of life to an atheist? Klaus Off-Topic 72 09-04-2015 10:21 PM
Scale it 1 to 10 commenter39 Avoidant Personality Disorder Forum 40 10-12-2011 10:17 PM
An atheist meets God Thelema Off-Topic 4 06-05-2009 01:54 PM
101 Atheist Quotes sabbath92002 Off-Topic 10 04-30-2009 06:59 PM
The Atheist Test(by Ray Comfort) jesuschristschild Off-Topic 10 05-23-2007 11:20 AM

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Contact Us Privacy