User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 150

  1. #51
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    The fact that it's written by an Atheist, doesn't change the validity of the statements. Frankly, I find any affiliation irrelevant. The only point is, that it makes sense.
    It's not who writes it as much as what assumptions the author uses. Many atheists assume you can use scientific methods to answer religious questions. I personally would not do this, and furthermore I could explain why doing so is actually unreasonable. However whether or not a person agrees with my argument has less to do with how logical it is and more to do with what they want to believe to begin with.

    In other words the reason why it makes sense to you is because you want it to make sense. I do not believe an objective observer (if there is such a thing when discussing faith/religion) would see the arguments as reasonable.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  2. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    That is not what I am actually saying. Person can be scientific and spiritual in the same time. It is just that when you go deep enough entire perspective changes and if you use common sense in combination with knowledge entire thing falls apart. That is all what I am saying.
    I know what you're saying. I don't want to belabor the discussion, but the perspective you adopt when you go deep is dependent on what your previously held conceptions were. If one were an atheist before becoming a scientist, I think one would find more confirmation of their atheism in science. If one were spiritual before becoming a scientist, I think it's just as likely that one would find a deeper and more holistic beauty to what they see as the work of a sentient consciousness.

    I absolutely concede that the more you learn about science, the less and less likely God appears to be, based entirely on logic. The more you know about math, the more you understand how unlikely it is that you will win the lottery. But people win it every day. Unlikely is not the same as false. I think that the perspective shift you describe could be more a function of the type of people that go into science. They're more likely to have complete faith in the scientific method as the arbiter of all that is true. But measuring God with science is like measuring time with a thermometer. I simply don't see the conflict between the two, and I don't believe that spirituality "falls apart" after a certain amount of scientific indoctrination. It may fall apart for some people if they are of a certain mind. But if it really did fall apart objectively, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  3. #53

    Default

    Though a lot of scientists don't realise, the aim of science is to provide a tool for problem solving. It doesn't answers truths. In some ways science could be completely abstract, because the thing we care about is that the system models reality. It doesn't have to be reality, except for the fact that understanding "reality" models reality best.

    Science is used to predict experiments, it only cares about underlying truths when they help predict the experiment better. If there is a formula to predict something, the only reason scientists search deeper is to improve the formula or predict more. This is why it is so amusing when people come out and make a big deal about scientists being wrong. Most of their formulas won't wrong, they were just superseded by more accurate ones.

    There is little room for the black and white of religion at the high end of science. And this is where half the conflict lies. A question has to be left open, and move around in the gray. When people make baseless claims without data, it just undermines scientific integrity. ie. the world is flat and 5000 years old. Science tries to predict nothing about God, because God will never be in a system it can model. You can't watch him, or experiment with him as a variable and see the outcomes. And if you think you can, remember he has free choice and motives you may never understand, so may as well be random noise. Religion should predict nothing about science, but in some places tries to scientifically justify itself. This is basically crap science (and crap religion). And so scientists get annoyed that people are trying to justify that 2+2=5 all the time. And religions for some reason think they care about them as more than an annoyance, and want a debate. With patents and funding and all the other problems in science, the last thing you need is the public being lead in 20 different wrong directions by people who make stuff up. Try to sell half the real science to the public these days and they don't get it anyway.

    hmm... that's a long enough rant
    Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

  4. #54
    Senior Member placebo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Dunno who might be interested in listening to , or may have already listened to , Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchen's 'blasphemy debate' -- YouTube - Fry and Hitchens Discussion 1/10 (Sound Fixed) [first of ten parts here]. Might be relevant to this topic. Fry makes a particularly nice speech at the very end when someone asks how to enfuse secular society with the 'poetry' of religion to make people care (or a question along those lines).

    YouTube - Stephen Fry's beautiful comments on a world without God.
    (how do I embed video?)

  5. #55
    Senior Member swordpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ISTx
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    Considering the infinite amount of debates on this subject, what makes one believe this thread will bring anyone closer to the answers? Just throwing that out there.

  6. #56
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    It's not who writes it as much as what assumptions the author uses. Many atheists assume you can use scientific methods to answer religious questions. I personally would not do this, and furthermore I could explain why doing so is actually unreasonable. However whether or not a person agrees with my argument has less to do with how logical it is and more to do with what they want to believe to begin with.

    In other words the reason why it makes sense to you is because you want it to make sense. I do not believe an objective observer (if there is such a thing when discussing faith/religion) would see the arguments as reasonable.
    Given that the fortress of your "reasoning" presupposes that elucidation would be fruitless since I would "choose" not to listen (false, by the way: I accept any argument that is well-supported), I will only challenge you to list a single question that science will never at any point be in a position to answer.

    I'm also still rather curious to know what these "assumptions that only atheists make" are. (As evidenced by the fact that you deleted said line from your initial post, you know as well as I do that the statement was tenuous to put it generously.)
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  7. #57
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beat View Post
    Considering the infinite amount of debates on this subject, what makes one believe this thread will bring anyone closer to the answers? Just throwing that out there.
    Well my original intent was a question of "why people will debate on this subject despite the lack of an answer", but somehow the topic has shifted to science vs religion. :rolli:

    And I'm still wondering about that. Why?

    Berber suggested, "As the old fade out, the new appear, each time with questions of their own."

    Is that really true though? I've been exposed to this question for a lot time, and I'm sure many people share my experiences... yet we're still discussing about science vs religion despite numerous threads previously on this topic. I think there's more to the issue then just new participants...

  8. #58
    Senior Member placebo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Well my original intent was a question of "why people will debate on this subject despite the lack of an answer", but somehow the topic has shifted to science vs religion. :rolli:

    And I'm still wondering about that. Why?

    Berber suggested, "As the old fade out, the new appear, each time with questions of their own."

    Is that really true though? I've been exposed to this question for a lot time, and I'm sure many people share my experiences... yet we're still discussing about science vs religion despite numerous threads previously on this topic. I think there's more to the issue then just new participants...
    I think it's one of those questions where, if you have to ask it, you'll never understand.

  9. #59
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Is that really true though? I've been exposed to this question for a lot time, and I'm sure many people share my experiences... yet we're still discussing about science vs religion despite numerous threads previously on this topic. I think there's more to the issue then just new participants...
    To be fair, I've seen a great many repeats of love advice, what type do you like, what type is manipulative, what type has the highest IQ and so forth (topics that I tend to click on). It's not just religion that brings that up!

    (You offer a good reminder on how little it moves forward though... interesting thought.)

  10. #60
    Senior Member LostInNerSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Why have them?

    I don't get it... seems like a waste of time.

    It's unanswerable. Neither side wins, yet people are still interested?

    An issue of defending their believes (or there lack of)? Or something else?
    God exists in peoples minds, at least in any of the forms people on earth worship. I'm perfectly happy stating that as a fact. Look at a crazy religion in scientology and how easily it has taken hold in modern times. Many of the major religions IPO'ed thousands of years ago when supernatural beliefs were the logic of the day. What's the difference between god and santa claus? When kids reach a certain age parents tell their kids this strokey bearded guy is not real, but this other strokey bearded guy is real.

    Life is replete with false information that is perpetuated from one generation to the next. Take the financial markets for example. Common "wisdom" (extremely common) has is that the stockmarket leads the economy by about six months, but a look at the data show this to be false. Another example from finance would be that of efficient market theory. This is another extremely prevalent theory that is easy to disprove. Get online at night and place an order for one contract of e-mini gold. You can actually move the price of gold as represented by that contract with just one order. That is essentially an arbitrage opportunity which disproves efficient market theory. These are ideas that can easily be disproven, yet they live on.

    Someone make a LOGICAL argument in support of god to counter mine. If you succeed you will be the first.

Similar Threads

  1. Does The Thought of God Not Existing Terrify You?
    By serenesam in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 04-01-2014, 02:46 PM
  2. The irrefutable existence of God
    By Zangetshumody in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 07:52 PM
  3. Hologram theory and the existence of fate and/or God
    By Valiant in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-21-2012, 08:05 AM
  4. The central question of religion is not the existence of God?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-25-2012, 04:16 PM
  5. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 08:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO