Article about Incompatibility of Science/Religion

[310Rduner]

I thought this was a pretty good article and worth posting here. It points out why atheists shouldn't feel the debate over religion is pointless, and that it is an effort worth partaking in. NO, this thread isn't trolling to start another religion debate where theists will be bruttally pummeled (BAHA Dirty Theists!:p ), rather as a good discussion piece to illustrate the harms in giving up the arguement. (Yes the author throws jibes at theists, but it is not subterfuge, nor in lieu of infortmation.)

Discuss:


In Focus: Science and Religion



There is an entrenched idea, even among many atheists, secularists, skeptics that arguments about religion - arguments between atheists and theists, science and religion, believers and non-believers - are futile, at best a waste of time and at worst offensive if not cruel. But the trouble is there seems to be no such idea on the other side. Believers and theists seem to have no hesitation or diffidence whatever about assuming their beliefs are both true and synonymous with virtue, and saying as much. This is a peculiar arrangement, any way you look at it. The side that has it right, that considers evidence and logic and probablities, is politely silent. The side that, if forced to choose between evidence and belief, chooses the latter, is always rebuking the other side for not doing the same. There is much to be said for politeness and tolerance and not offending, but not if it's all on one side. And in any case, even though there is much to be said, there is not everything. There is also a great deal to be said for understanding how the world is and how things come about there - whether through the actions of an omnipotent omniscient benevolent supernatural being who created a world full of disease, accident, pain, sorrow, hardship and death, or through natural and unconscious causes - in order to deal effectively with that world.

But, sad to say, all too often the much to be said for tolerance trumps the much to be said for truth. Ironically the result is not peace and harmony and mutual respect but rather that the religious crowd gets more and more full of itself, more demanding and aggrieved and truculent, more inclined to tell everyone what to do and slander atheists as immoral nihilists. That's where tolerance gets you, apparently. The atheist side, i.e. the side that's able to see the world as it is without the aid of absurd fictions, is (out of pity for the weak-mindedness of the other side?) all politeness and respect and tactful silence. The theist side, the side that prides itself on believing in supernatural beings and heaven and life after death, is all assertion and scorn and noisy disagreement.

So the hands-off policy is no good. That just lets the believers have it all their own way, and they use their advantage to chastise and bully the skeptics. The people who have no evidence for their beliefs rebuke and tyrannize over the people who do have evidence for their beliefs: a highly perverse set-up. Daniel Dennett wrote in a recent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times of matter-of-factly telling a group of clever high school students that he was an atheist.
Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me, with considerable passion, for "liberating" them. I hadn't realized how lonely and insecure these thoughtful teenagers felt. They'd never heard a respected adult say, in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had calmly broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.

As Dennett points out, this is what happens when skeptics, atheists, and secularists keep silent: they begin to seem a far smaller percentage of the population than they are: doubters feel isolated and peculiar, and believers feel superior, confident and self-righteous. It simply doesn't answer in the long run to give way to error and bad thinking, it only encourages it.

But it's futile, goes the cry. It's a waste of time, it's useless, people never change their minds about these things. So Susan Greenfield, in an interview a few years ago:
I've sat through many science-religion ding-dongs, and they strike me as a complete waste of time. No one is going to change their views. The Atkins-Dawkins stance treats science almost as though it were a religion, and evangelically try to convert other people. Meanwhile, the religious person can't articulate why they believe what they do: they just do.

But people do change their views. Not all of them all the time, not easily, not necessarily even when they are confronted with evidence or good arguments. But they do change them sometimes, and it's impossible to know in advance what those times are. People read books, they discuss, they think, and sometimes they do change their views. Sometimes from atheism to theism, alas, but also sometimes the other way. And as for 'just believing' something, what of that? We can all believe all sorts of things that are not true. We can believe the sun travels around the earth, or that crystals have healing powers, or that it's a good idea to take antibiotics when we have a cold, or that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was an authentic document. What is wrong with someone better-informed disabusing us of our mistaken beliefs?
I don't believe in God but that is a belief, not some thing I know. I believe I love my husband, but I couldn't prove it to you one way or the other. How could I? I just know I do. My particular belief is that there is no Deity out there, but I can't prove it and therefore I would not have the temerity to tell other people they're wrong. The coinage of proof is not appropriate for belief...

But belief in one's own internal emotional state is not the same thing as belief in the existence of an entity in the external world. Naturally we can't prove our own emotions to other people, any more than a bat can prove to us what it is like to be a bat. But what does that have to do with truth-claims about a supernatural being? And in any case the issue is not one of proof but one of evidence. We can't prove our emotional states, but we can offer evidence. We can't prove the non-existence of a deity, but we can ask why there is no good evidence of its existence. Bertrand Russell pointed out that we can't prove there's not a china teapot orbiting the sun, and Carl Sagan pointed out that we can't prove there's not an invisible odorless inaudible dragon in the garage, and both pointed out that that's no reason to assume there is.

Of course, if we simply want to believe in orbiting teapots, or fairies at the bottom of the garden, or Quidditch, or the Easter bunny, for our own amusement, that's reasonably harmless (except for the state of our intellects). But religion is a public matter, to put it mildly. Religion doesn't just sit back and let the world go its own way and believe whatever it 'just does', religion intervenes. Religion makes truth claims about the world, and on the basis of those truth claims, it tells us all how to think and behave. That alone is reason enough to consider the assertions of religion every bit as open to contradiction and challenge and discussion as any other set of truth claims.

One way people try to protect religion from these harsh inquiries is by declaring that it inhabits a separate sphere from that of science, that it is more like poetry or story-telling than it is like science. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a surprisingly silly book making that claim a few years ago. But it won't wash. First because of the truth claims issue: religion doesn't act like poetry, it doesn't just tell stories or create images, it makes assertions that we are expected to believe. Second, because religion does not have the expertise that is claimed for it, even in that 'separate' sphere. Gould (this was one of the silliest things in the book) repeatedly said that religion had expertise in morality among other things. But why? What conceivable expertise does religion have on moral questions? What does religion know that moral philosophers do not know? Richard Dawkins is incisive on this point in his classic essay 'Dolly and the Cloth-Heads':
Religious lobbies, spokesmen of "traditions" and "communities", enjoy privileged access not only to the media but to influential committees of the great and the good, to the House of Lords (as I mentioned above), and to the boards of school governors. Their views are regularly sought, and heard with exaggerated "respect", by parliamentary committees. Religious spokesmen and spokeswomen enjoy an inside track to influence and power which others have to earn through their own ability or expertise. What is the justification for this?...Isn't there more justification for choosing expert witnesses for their knowledge and accomplishments as individuals, than because they represent some group or class of person?

Or there is the notion that science can answer 'how' questions and religion can answer 'why' questions, as in this item from a television discussion of science and religion.
Science can tell us how chemicals bond but only religion can answer the why questions, why do we have a universe like this at all?



Continued

[310Rduner]

But of course religion can't do any such thing. It only says it can, which is a different matter. Anyone can say that. Anyone can say anything at all. But since the answers religions give are not true, it is not clear why their answers to the 'why' questions are any better than their answers to the 'how' questions, or any other questions. Richard Dawkins, again, puts the matter well:
I once asked a distinguished astronomer, a fellow of my college, to explain the big bang theory to me. He did so to the best of his (and my) ability, and I then asked what it was about the fundamental laws of physics that made the spontaneous origin of space and time possible. "Ah," he smiled, "now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand you over to our good friend, the chaplain." But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef? Of course chaplains, unlike chefs and gardeners, claim to have some insight into ultimate questions. But what reason have we ever been given for taking their claims seriously?

Needless to say, it's a large question. So all the more reason to pull together some material on the subject.

OB

Apposite Quotations

Unfortunately, the hope that religion might provide a bedrock, from which our otherwise sand-based morals can be derived, is a forlorn one. In practice, no civilized person uses Scripture as ultimate authority for moral reasoning. Instead, we pick and choose the nice bits of Scripture (like the Sermon on the Mount) and blithely ignore the nasty bits (like the obligation to stone adulteresses, execute apostates, and punish the grandchildren of offenders)...Yes, of course it is unfair to judge the customs of an earlier era by the enlightened standards of our own. But that is precisely my point! Evidently, we have some alternative source of ultimate moral conviction that overrides Scripture when it suits us.
Richard Dawkins: Free Inquiry Spring 1998

I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.
Steven Weinberg: A Designer Universe?

What is boasted of at the present time as the revival of religion, is always, in narrow and uncultivated minds, at least as much the revival of bigotry...
John Stuart Mill: On Liberty

Religious belief is supposed to be, not tentative or hedged, but a profound, and profoundly personal, commitment. To disbelieve, or to believe wrongly, is sinful, and faith, i.e., commitment in the absence of compelling evidence, often conceived as a virtue...By contrast, although in their professional capacity scientists accept many propositions as true-some of them very confidently and firmly, and not a few pretty dogmatically--faith, in the religious sense, is alien to the scientific enterprise...As I see it, religion and science really are profoundly at odds on all the dimensions I have distinguished; and science really is, on all those dimensions, far and away the more admirable enterprise.
Susan Haack, Defending Science


Link tot he posted article:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/infocusprint.php?num=14&subject=Science%20and%20Religion

[SGA]

Good reading.

I have not believed in a higher power for 30 years or so, yet over the last few months, by starting to believe (reluctantly at first) in a higher power watching over us and the universe, I am starting to find a relaxing comfort inside, call it inner peace if you will.

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
The side that has it right, that considers evidence and logic and probablities, is politely silent.

The atheist side, i.e. the side that's able to see the world as it is without the aid of absurd fictions, is (out of pity for the weak-mindedness of the other side?) all politeness and respect and tactful silence.

And like all such arguments, completely unbiased!

Having been involved in many such arguements, I'll agree, it is often the religious side that, as the author puts it, "is all assertion and scorn and noisy disagreement." However, in my experience, the athiestic side is hardly "all politeness and respect and tactful silence." Silent, yes, but hardly polite and respectfully. Rather, they are demeaning, and their silence is never respectful, but rather filled with smug superiority.

You can see this for yourself in this very article. The author labels theists as "weak-minded". Provided that theists have no scientific evidence to support their arguement, how else would you expect them to react to such an accusation but with "noisy disagreement"?

[SGA]

I agree wilkin250r, the article was biased. I did like what the woman author had to say though. Quoted from the article below.

Susan Greenfield, in an interview a few years ago:

I've sat through many science-religion ding-dongs, and they strike me as a complete waste of time. No one is going to change their views. The Atkins-Dawkins stance treats science almost as though it were a religion, and evangelically try to convert other people. Meanwhile, the religious person can't articulate why they believe what they do: they just do.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by SGA
I agree wilkin250r, the article was biased. I did like what the woman author had to say though. Quoted from the article below.

Susan Greenfield, in an interview a few years ago:

I've sat through many science-religion ding-dongs, and they strike me as a complete waste of time. No one is going to change their views. The Atkins-Dawkins stance treats science almost as though it were a religion, and evangelically try to convert other people. Meanwhile, the religious person can't articulate why they believe what they do: they just do.

Yeah well, she's a woman. What could she possibly know? I thought we've been over that before.












Meh, jking of course :blah:

Or am I?...

[batgeek]

no comment except this.

ya gotta have faith...
http://www.classicbands.com/images/wham2.jpg

[310Rduner]

"Of course, if we simply want to believe in orbiting teapots, or fairies at the bottom of the garden, or Quidditch, or the Easter bunny, for our own amusement, that's reasonably harmless (except for the state of our intellects). But religion is a public matter, to put it mildly. Religion doesn't just sit back and let the world go its own way and believe whatever it 'just does', religion intervenes. Religion makes truth claims about the world, and on the basis of those truth claims, it tells us all how to think and behave. That alone is reason enough to consider the assertions of religion every bit as open to contradiction and challenge and discussion as any other set of truth claims."

I'm not going to claim that I'm not trying to get people to change their beliefs, because I am. The more people in the world who follow logic, not making exceptions to ignore logic so they "feel" better the better the world will be.It's not the desire to embrace something that makes them feel better, it's their willingness to discard logical thought to achieve that which is so dangerous I believe. I have no arguement with people having a belief in a god that is neither omnipotent, omniscience,nor omnibenevolant as they make no truth claims about god. Course, the idea of god is a perfect being (thus the omni's), and a perfect being is a creator who is all knowing, all powerful, morally perfect, and so on and so forth. Nevermind almost every one of those adjectives is a contradiction in and of itself. In fact, god can't be described in positive adjective form, and can only be described in negative adjective form or it contradicts itself. (I may be wrong on the positive/negative terms I used, let me look up the reference and I will post it. I'll be back in about 10mins or so hopefully.)

[batgeek]

omni != perfect

omni = all; everything

some religions have perfect beings, some don't.

some people want/need religion, some don't.

some people feel the need to change the other's beliefs.

some people just don't give a sh*t about trying to get their opposition to think like they do.

some people just like to put their opinions here.

some people feel the need to tell them they are wrong.

some people are f*ckin tired of listening to both sides.

some people believe the way they do, and will change their mind when they are damned good and ready...if that ever happens.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by batgeek

some religions have perfect beings, some don't.

some people just like to put their opinions here.

some people feel the need to tell them they are wrong.


1. At least the cool ones don't.

2. <-- Guilty

3. WELL SOMEONE SHOULD!
:p

Deism is the only religion that gets my support. Note that I said support, not belief.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
And like all such arguments, completely unbiased!

Having been involved in many such arguements, I'll agree, it is often the religious side that, as the author puts it, "is all assertion and scorn and noisy disagreement." However, in my experience, the athiestic side is hardly "all politeness and respect and tactful silence." Silent, yes, but hardly polite and respectfully. Rather, they are demeaning, and their silence is never respectful, but rather filled with smug superiority.

You can see this for yourself in this very article. The author labels theists as "weak-minded". Provided that theists have no scientific evidence to support their arguement, how else would you expect them to react to such an accusation but with "noisy disagreement"?

To your first paragraph, I agree. There is smugness and rudeness on both sides. However, I think atheists when in formal debates tend to be a little bit stricter and more polite so as to not lose any face. Where as in several of the transcripts I have read online the theist tends to become the more frequently hostile party. However in most of the debates I've read both sides were very polite, and did not verbally attack eachother.

As far as what they should do when they have no scientific evidence, I would say they should concede the others points, and that they lost that debate. For the most part in the debates I have read the theist offers little to no logic that isn't easily demonstrated as false by the atheist side. The atheist position however has multiple valid logical arguements, and are usually only attacked by means of the theist resorting to low redefinitions and vagueness. Then they are subsequently "teh owned" by the atheist in his rebuttal.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by SGA
Good reading.

I have not believed in a higher power for 30 years or so, yet over the last few months, by starting to believe (reluctantly at first) in a higher power watching over us and the universe, I am starting to find a relaxing comfort inside, call it inner peace if you will.

I'm just curious what position you started from, what made you switch and return to theism? I'm not looking to argue on these points (unless another poster uses them as examples I'll argue them with him), just pure curiosity.

[wilkin250r]

I'll use SGA's quote, not as proof, but as the arguement.

Sometimes emotions are not logical. In fact, it is probably safe to take it beyond "sometimes" and say "often", almost the majority of times, emotions are not logical. Would you agree?

Religion, for most people, is an emotional issue. There are several ways to interpret that last statement. I don't mean to say that it is heavily laden with emotions, such as a breakup or death of a loved one, but rather it is an issue dealing strictly with emotions, rather than physical evidence and provable facts.

Now look at a scientific experiment (I know I'm jumping around, I'll tie it all together in the end) Let's say you have two potted plants, side by side so they get the same air and sunlight. You water one, don't water the other. The watered one lives, the other dies. That would seem to be pretty scientific proof that water (possibly among other things) is needed for plants to survive.

Now, try to take that same scientific method and apply it to emotions and religion. Certain events happen, and a person feels lost, alone, and confused. And then similar to SGA's comment, they begin to believe in a higher power, and they find peace and comfort, just as their religion predicts. It would indicate that the religion is true. Isn't this similar to the scientific experiment?

So, here is where the issue lies. Emotions are not always logical, and thus cannot be proven to another person objectively. But to that person that believes, they have all the proof they need in that inner peace that they feel. But when in a formal debate, they can't just say "God must exist, because I feel happier." That arguement simply wouldn't hold water. So even if they have their own proof, they cannot prove it to somebody else.

[SGA]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
I'm just curious what position you started from, what made you switch and return to theism? I'm not looking to argue on these points (unless another poster uses them as examples I'll argue them with him), just pure curiosity.

I tryed 5 minutes to put it into words, changed paragraphs 2 or three times, guess I cant explain it. I dont go to church, never have prayed to speak of, but a few months back I remember looking up and saying "Lord, If your listening, Im tired of carring all of this weight on my shoulders, being angry all the time, could you help me lighten the load"?
Well, I felt a bit happier over the next few days, so I said thanks to him and asked him for some wisdom to make better choices and felt better inside.

At first, I felt really weird talking to something I could not see, would it even work? Was I being stupid?
Is it made up in my head? Maybe, but Im going side with faith and say no its not. I know what I have been through, how I have felt over the years and this is the first time in my life I have felt that I could relax and let go of anger inside. Its working for me and thats what counts.:)

[Bretmd94]

is there any cliffnotes for that article?? Im to lazy to read it.

I will say this though,

"they are demeaning, and their silence is never respectful, but rather filled with smug superiority."

Even though this is somewhat true, it hits on both sides very easily. Being an Athiest with many very very christian friends, My Christian friends always tend to feel that they are better people and more superior to others that dont believe.

This inturn just pisses me off and causes my big mouth to say stupid things.

Im not going to change my belief unless god himself comes to me, or some very convincing proof comes up. Otehrwise a book will not do it for me.

And please for the love of what ever god you pray to, Do not vote religiously. Its faith, dont force other people onto it. ie, let gay people be gay. If they want to get married, its none of your business. They arent hurting anyone. Some of your best friends, brothers, or sisters may turn out gay. Ive had both.

In conclusion, you can see why many non religious people can be mad at most very religious people. Because they let the good book think for them. That to me shows massive amounts of ignorance and closemindedness (if thats even a word).

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by Bretmd94
My Christian friends always tend to feel that they are better people and more superior to others that dont believe.

I would agree to this statement that you just made, but you took my statement out of context. The article was about general debate between athiests and theists. Yes, theists tend to think themselves superior in general everyday life (this is one of the many reasons I don't attend church), but my statement was reffering to debate and discussion, not everyday life. Imagine a debate situation. The theists is hardly smug and superior, but rather bumbling and embarassed because he knows he has no factual support. Meanwhile, the athiest also knows that there is little or no factual support for the religious arguement, so while the athiest sits silently watching the theists stumble and stammer, his silence is hardly respectful.



Originally posted by Bretmd94
Im not going to change my belief unless god himself comes to me, or some very convincing proof comes up. Otehrwise a book will not do it for me.

And this arguement I've always found absurd. Sure, it makes sense from your point of view. But imagine for a moment that God exists, and that he did create you, along with the entire world around you, and then look at it from HIS point of view.

Imagine you are a parent, and you tell your child to clean his room. Would you expect your child to say "Pay me five bucks, and then I'll clean my room"? Aren't you doing the same thing?

[polabareus]

I guess it's logical to say that there is no god. I mean, we don't know anything about where the universe came from, we don't know where we came from, we don't even know how we can even think about these questions. But, we sure know there's no god.

Religion=Theories+faith
Science=Theories-faith

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by SGA
I tryed 5 minutes to put it into words, changed paragraphs 2 or three times, guess I cant explain it. I dont go to church, never have prayed to speak of, but a few months back I remember looking up and saying "Lord, If your listening, Im tired of carring all of this weight on my shoulders, being angry all the time, could you help me lighten the load"?
Well, I felt a bit happier over the next few days, so I said thanks to him and asked him for some wisdom to make better choices and felt better inside.

At first, I felt really weird talking to something I could not see, would it even work? Was I being stupid?
Is it made up in my head? Maybe, but Im going side with faith and say no its not. I know what I have been through, how I have felt over the years and this is the first time in my life I have felt that I could relax and let go of anger inside. Its working for me and thats what counts.:)

I've run across this several times with different family members, friends and just people in general. I tend to think that if believing in a higher power can make an individual feel comforted than that is fine, so long as it is kept a personal matter, and they know that certain things make certain people feel better, while doing nothing for others. I'll offer up a story of my own. When I was about 8-10(?)my mom entered in a raffle at my middle school for a computer. When I went to sleep that night I remember throwing out one of those quickie prayers in my head ( please let us win this computer) and we won the computer the next day. That's how most stories of prayers go, and people say things like "God reached out to me! I know he is there" and try to convince you that he is out there. But.. that isn't evidence. Here's an experiment courtesy of George Carlin. Pick anything, a baseball player, a musician, a famous whore house, whatever. Pray to it for a week, and see what happens. Most likely the same thing that happens when you pray to god.If it comes true, then you know it worked. If it didn't, well... it's for the better trust X cause it was his plan. But if it was already his plan, and he was going to do it anyways, why pray to x. If it is about having faith that x knows best, and trusting it to him... well why verbalize it? X already knows what you thought about it, and whether you really believe that. My mom has been in the hospital critically for the last 7 months almost. She has bled out completely over 4 times, had major intestinal surgery 4 times, went into cardiac arrest 11 times. . In the beginning she went in for a twisted bowel, and to correct it. Went home, began having major pain and went back to the hospital. Had x-rays taken, and 4 days later the primary docter comes in looks at the x-ray and she is in emergency surgery. She had been laying in bed for 4 days while her bowel had been nicked during surgery and filled her gut with sh*t and bacteria. She went into severe ceptic shock (blood poisoning) and fought off the infection for 1 month on the heaviest antiobiotics known to man while sedated. She recovered further after another month and was discharged. She came home for 1 day, and woke up in the morning very sick and with a high fever. She goes to the emergency room at a closer hospital, they have no clue what it is. 1 week later, she goes back to that other hospital. She is there for a about 3 weeks and they have no clue. Meanwhile, she bleeds out 3 times from a stress ulcer, and gets over 18 liters of blood. They do surgery to close the suture. It keeps leaking and they basically tell us she is going to die. Meanwhile at the same time she still has the rash that developed and is now having major blisters form.She has been seeing a dermatoligist for weeks and they have no idea, say its nothing major. A nurse tells us that it is steven johnson syndrome, and is a reaction to the drugs from first being in on ceptic shock. She doesn't die from the bleeding out. We fight with the hospital after finding out about Steven johnson and contact a the burn unit in a San Fran hospital. They tell us to get her there immediately and she is transferred after much arguing with the current hospital. She goes to St Francis and they surgically remove 100% of her skin that hadn't already which already hadn't come off. 2 months later her skin is 90% healed. The doctors tell us that the fishtulas (holes in her stomach/intestine) won't heal on their own and she has the smallest chance to make it, nothing surgically they can do. Only chance is for her to become strong enough to do surgery (meaning full recovery except the holes). We get her transferred to Stanford hospital. No severe problems there luckily, until she has the 11 cardiac arrests (it was from a potassium difficiency). She begins to recover surprisingly fast from that point. A month later here we are, and she is in a stepdown unit from the icu and took her first stroll in the wheelchair and out of her room to go to an outside patio. Right now we are looking to transfer her to an intermediate rehab facility until she can tolerate full rehab (3 hours a day). There were so many instances in between what I described where we thought she would die that day.Even now while I completely have my hopes and confidence up that she will be making her way to rehab, and then home until they can schedule to surgically close the fishtulas; but I am still scared to f9cking death that something is going to go wrong before that happens, or even after that happens, just like it has so frequently in the past 7-8 months.

For the past 8 months almost, I have been listening to various family members continue to re-affirm that we need to just hold faith in god, and all will be better. Pray, it will help,we need to trust god's plans. So on and so forth. Personally.. this tends to piss me off, and I won't say anything concerning the subject of god to them so as not to make emotionally freak. I kind of look at it from an opposite perspecitive. If I believed in god, I sure as F*ck wouldn't be reminding myself to trust his judgement, and his plan. He would be the person I was most worried of to take care of my mother. Did the idea of trusting in god to take care of her make them feel better? Sure, I guess you could say that. I don't think they were paying any memory to when they put faith that god had a good plan and would take care of grandfather when he was dying of cancer in our living room while we took care of him. Or when about 5 months before that they said the same thing about my grandmother being on a respirator in respiratory icu, or when we had to make the final choice to follow her wishes and turn the respirator off (there was 100% factual knowledge she would never be able to come off, or do anything on it) while the rest of my family and I cried around her bed when she slipped into unconsciousness and died.(Priest in attendance as well, family saying a prayer to god, me silent). (We found out a couple months later my grandfather was going to die of cancer; I grew up with both my grandparents living with us as well as my aunt,uncle(aunts husband,) and mom.)A couple months ago while my mom was still at that burn unit, we found out my uncle had cancer. Later we found out it was terminal, and right now it could be a month or longer before he dies(it's just starting to have its effects). So, if I believed in god I wouldn't want to stake to much faith in him personally, there's a 50/50 chance he may decide to f*ck you over because he chooses to. While the idea of a god makes my relatives (if they aren't fooling themselves about that at least), it kinda makes me comfortable to. It makes me comfortable to know there isn't some a*shole up there, who gets to f*ck your life over regardless of your feelings. OH! Don't forget, he is a God who is morally PERFECT, gets to decide the outcome of your life, and however horribly it ends (it is HIS plan afterall). Personally.. if god does exist, he needs to be put on trial and then executed for crimes against humanity (as well as negligent incompetency). If you want a role model of moral perfectness, don't look to god. I forgot to mention earlier than one of my aunts who lives up in tahoe is going through chemotherapy for cancer is well, but hopefully she should be able to make it.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
I would agree to this statement that you just made, but you took my statement out of context. The article was about general debate between athiests and theists. Yes, theists tend to think themselves superior in general everyday life (this is one of the many reasons I don't attend church), but my statement was reffering to debate and discussion, not everyday life. Imagine a debate situation. The theists is hardly smug and superior, but rather bumbling and embarassed because he knows he has no factual support. Meanwhile, the athiest also knows that there is little or no factual support for the religious arguement, so while the athiest sits silently watching the theists stumble and stammer, his silence is hardly respectful.




And this arguement I've always found absurd. Sure, it makes sense from your point of view. But imagine for a moment that God exists, and that he did create you, along with the entire world around you, and then look at it from HIS point of view.

Imagine you are a parent, and you tell your child to clean his room. Would you expect your child to say "Pay me five bucks, and then I'll clean my room"? Aren't you doing the same thing?

God told me he wants you to sell your house, and donate all the money to charity and live in a cardboard box for 3 years, at which point he will show you the secrets of the world for your generosity. Wait... you mean, you aren't going to do what he says? WHAT?! You want to know HOW I know this? You expect GOD to take the time to explain this to you himself? Don't be so conceited, follow his orders or burn in hell.

Can you see why his point is valid now? There is about the same amount of credible evidence to believe the bible, as their is to believe what God just told me to tell you. Actually, there could probably be an arguement made of my story being more credible.

[FF1O5]

In like 3rd grade my library tacher told me when you pick out a book you should read the first paragraph and count the words you do not understand on one hand.Once one hand got full that ment the book was to high of a level for you. Lets just say I used that rule here and didnt bother reading the rest.

[SGA]

310Rduner
You have a bad hand dealt to you, no doubt about that. I dont blame you one bit for being pissed at God and the people that say put it in Gods hand. I can see where you would say there is no God at all, cause if he was there and is all seeing and all loving, why would he let all of these bad things happen?

God makes a great scape goat for people. Most people cant deal with the hurt, so they put it in Gods hands. It makes them feel better. It brings them comfort. Let them have thier God and thier prayers and their whatever. Nothing wrong with that if it works for them.
Thats how I felt for so many years....and got along just fine without God or higher powers or buddah or whoever.

So Im having a crappy week awhile back and I say what do I have to loose? I'll ask God to carry some of the load. Alot of people do and it seems to work for them. Whats he gonna do, shoot a lighting bolt down at me?
So I ask to the heavens for comfort and I feel better inside. Im like WTF? I shouldnt feel better, cause there is no God. Yet I did.
Over the last few months, I ask in prayer, I feel better and have started to give thanks upstairs for the inner peace I am getting. What can I say? It works for me.

Anyway, stay strong for your family and I hope it all works out for you. PM me anytime if you want to vent.

[Admin]

310Rduner I am very sorry to hear all the hardship that you have been put through. I guess shortly after I met your mother last year in December all of her problems began. You were both in such good spirits and really seemed close. I couldn't imagine going through what you are now, and I wish for the very best. I will be flying out again in December, and hopefully, I will once again be able to meet up with you and your mother at a race.

[Pappy]

god is the human beings way to release things that would otherwise drive us insane.

i cover all the bases...i pray to god and thank the scientists.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by SGA
310Rduner
You have a bad hand dealt to you, no doubt about that. I dont blame you one bit for being pissed at God and the people that say put it in Gods hand. I can see where you would say there is no God at all, cause if he was there and is all seeing and all loving, why would he let all of these bad things happen?

God makes a great scape goat for people. Most people cant deal with the hurt, so they put it in Gods hands. It makes them feel better. It brings them comfort. Let them have thier God and thier prayers and their whatever. Nothing wrong with that if it works for them.
Thats how I felt for so many years....and got along just fine without God or higher powers or buddah or whoever.

So Im having a crappy week awhile back and I say what do I have to loose? I'll ask God to carry some of the load. Alot of people do and it seems to work for them. Whats he gonna do, shoot a lighting bolt down at me?
So I ask to the heavens for comfort and I feel better inside. Im like WTF? I shouldnt feel better, cause there is no God. Yet I did.
Over the last few months, I ask in prayer, I feel better and have started to give thanks upstairs for the inner peace I am getting. What can I say? It works for me.

Anyway, stay strong for your family and I hope it all works out for you. PM me anytime if you want to vent.

Those are pretty well my exact feelings. I won't say that I haven't tried talking with god before in case he was up there. I've tried it, I've said the typical "give me a sign, and I won't argue with you anymore, just with the bible and it's practical application". I can say I've honestly tried it out of curiosity before, I've just never had any sort of response, and I know exactly why that is. I can say that if there was a god, in the sense of someone who created the universe and there was 100% evidence to back it up, I would have no problem with that. However, he had damned better be a deist god, who created the universe but takes no part in our lives, nor specifically designed us. Perhaps you could just say he was responsible for the big bang, and that was it for his contributions. I think that if a god IS up there, and he is the god described in the bible ver batim that I would have a mighty hard time accepting him. I would expect him to explain why he made things so, and in what ways I/anybody benefitted from the pains he caused.

I know that if I ever do accept faith (very unlikely, I'd have to see a significan evidence in support) it won't be in any way associated with the god of the bible. The only god I would accept would be a deist god, and he doesn't demand questionless obediance from you. In fact, he doesn't want anything from you, he might enjoy a little appreciation for the big bang, but it's no real issue for him.

I was raised without religion pretty much, my family didn't push me into attending church, even though my mom and a couple aunts went to catholic sunday school. My mom believes in god, but I don't think she really names that god, just that he is up there. I wasn't raised to reject religion from the start or anything, it was just something that was left up for me to decide. I was baptised catholic, but I think that was for in case I wanted to follow it by my own choice. It was always just up for me to make my own choice, and believe what makes the best sense to me. I know that my grandpa didn't believe in god per se, he was kind of agnostic. My grandma believed in the catholic god, and was a regular at church growing up in the all German community where she was born in Nebraska. Still, she never pushed anything on me, and I think later in life she leaned towards faith still, but not in a preachy/outspoken way. I think I found my way to atheism sometime around 3rd grade or a little before lol. I remember being on the playground, and these couple girls were talking about god and different things like that. They asked me some question I don't remember, and I said "I don't believe in God". "Whaaaat?! YOU don't believe in God???" Meh. She is kinda wh*rish now in highschool so it's always a funny thing to think back on while I silently mock her.

I've never held my atheism from my family, in fact I welcome those conversations. One of my aunts has given me that "oh your just young, you'll understand and find proof when you're older" speech. To which I scoffed. She has always been one of those condescending adults who thinks that by being over a certain age she was passed on a secret knowledge required to make decision about your beliefs; no way she could accept that I reached that maturity years ago.

[310Rduner]

I also appreciate everyone's best wishes, and hopefully things continue the way they are. Going through all this has/is a real test of how you can deal with things and I certainly know I can do it quite well. It makes me really glad that I have always had a real easygoing personality, and that I don't make assumptions about how things are going to happen. It's like I don't worry about what is going to happen tomorrow until it happens today; then I'll deal with it and move on to the next. I've also been glad that I am very good about being able to put things out of my mind when I don't need to be thinking about them. Like when I am doing something, I can put away the hurt/fear and just concentrate on what I am doing at that moment and I don't think about it unless I'm wanting to think about it.

[polabareus]

I disagree with the topic of this thread. Religion is a part of science, let me explain. Part of science is coming up with theories and then prooving them. So anything scientific starts as a theory and then must be proven. Religion is science in the theoritical state, and to become science religion must be proven. Well, I don't know about prooving everything in the bible but there is more and more proof of a "higher power". Scientists around the globe now accept the fact that there is most likely an 11th dimension and in this dimension everything is connected in the universe by one large "membrane". This is called the M theory. It gets even crazier. You go back to the big bang, and before it and then you start getting into parallel universes and some pretty amazing stuff. According to the M theory our universe was created when two other universes collided. What's strange is that these other universes exist in the 11 dimension and they are infintely larger than our own universe and infintely smaller than our own universe. In short, out of our universe the laws of physics as we know them become nill and void. Back to religion. I think at this stage in the game it's way to early to start saying what is and what isn't. If you don't believe in God, fine, don't believe in God. To say there is a God doesn't mean there is a white bearded wizard guy sitting on a throne watching down at our earth. The possiblities are endless as to what the one real truth of everything is. My faith is that I believe there is something more than meets the eye (transformers!) and to shut that out would be the stupidest thing someone could do in my opinion.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by polabareus Well, I don't know about prooving everything in the bible but there is more and more proof of a "higher power". Scientists around the globe now accept the fact that there is most likely an 11th dimension and in this dimension everything is connected in the universe by one large "membrane". This is called the M theory.

Ok, what is your evidence? Don't say you have real evidence supporting the claim of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being and then not offer it up.

Also, going from talk of evidence to speaking of brane theory is a non-sequitur. Brane theory is not evidence of religious claims. Here is the only link I see between religion and science. Religion is an abomination of science. More specifically the idea of faith is an abomination of science.
Here is a quote applicable to religion that I find accurate.

"Any viewpoint that needs to be sheltered from critical thinking is not a viewpoint worth espousing."

[SSRedRider]

Finally I find some people with some common sense. I have tried to be rational about this and talk logical to the ones that believe, but to no good results.

I think this is what happened. When the big bang happened and threw chunks of debris out into space, while the earth was cooling and the rough edges was being cut off, it went thru a green cloud of space dust. This cloud had a parasite in it that is destroying the earth as we speak. We all know its happening and we don't do anything to stop it. It just gets worse day by day. The parasite I am talking about is called Man.

The human being is weak and needs support. Some of them go to religion, some go to alchol and drugs. Some do other things to help them go thru life. But all of us need some sort of support to get us thru the bad times. The best thing I have found is family togetherness. I have tried all of the vices except religion and it never did agree with me. They all will work and since everybody is different, no one cure will work for everybody. We are all just here to breed anyway so enjoy what short time we have here and have a good night.

[MotoX3]

Originally posted by SSRedRider

The human being is weak and needs support. Some of them go to religion, some go to alchol and drugs. Some do other things to help them go thru life. But all of us need some sort of support to get us thru the bad times. very well put...i enjoy this kind of debating..lets try to keep this going:)

[polabareus]

Ok 310rduner, if the M theory is correct and everything from an atom in another universe to your left ear is connected and is part of one large "membrane" then every thought, every feeling, every everything (which is infinite) would be part of this "membrane". If this "membrane" is aware of itself, or conscience if you will, than the range of it's thoughts and emotions and feelings, etc are infinite. Perhaps God is like the internet and all the lifeforms in the megaverse are like servers? People that don't believe in god are always saying that people that do believe use religion as a crutch because they're scared of dying and there is nothing out there. Well, I think the opposite is true. If, after I die, I simply do not exist, what's so scary about that? I couldn't be scared, I couldn't be anything, nothing would matter because there would be no ME at all. Now on the other hand, you have some people who've done some things that aren't exactly kosher and deep down they might be afraid that if one day they are judged the verdict might not be so good. So perhaps they are the type that are/should be, scared. So maybe their is a middle ground. In an infinite megaverse things that are would be things that aren't. Think about it, if there are infinite universes then there is an earth where you got a different job, one where you won the lottery, one where you died when you were 2 years old, one where the earth was destroyed before forming and no life exists in our solar system. The possiblities would be endless and all things would become possible. Wrapping your mind around this concept can be difficult for us when we've been told there are certain laws to physics but it is quite possible. The big bang itself breaks the laws of physics. My hypothesis is that there is a god. Investigating the endless possiblities of this "god" is part of a method. What kind of method?, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. I am NOT trying to shovel any of my beliefs onto you but when you say that there is no way in which a "god" exists, I find that very narrow minded and hypocritical at the very least. Now I will concede this argument because I have a serious itch to go wheeling and right now that's what is important to me.

[SSRedRider]

If there is a god and he is in control of everything including us, and he is such a merciful god then why are there wars, disease, murder. Why did he let millions of jew die in WW2. ??????

I made peace with myself along time ago, we all die. If we was afraid to die, why do we do major jumps, ride our quads to the extreme if we was afraid, knowing that a little misque might be out last. If I was afraid .................................................. ........................................
Whoa wait a minute. Caught myself rambling. Got to go, got a date with Stargate SG1 tonight, going to the universe where I won the lottery. Talk to you all later.


Its all good, just do it

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by polabareus
Ok 310rduner, if the M theory is correct and everything from an atom in another universe to your left ear is connected and is part of one large "membrane" then every thought, every feeling, every everything (which is infinite) would be part of this "membrane". If this "membrane" is aware of itself, or conscience if you will, than the range of it's thoughts and emotions and feelings, etc are infinite. Perhaps God is like the internet and all the lifeforms in the megaverse are like servers? People that don't believe in god are always saying that people that do believe use religion as a crutch because they're scared of dying and there is nothing out there. Well, I think the opposite is true. If, after I die, I simply do not exist, what's so scary about that? I couldn't be scared, I couldn't be anything, nothing would matter because there would be no ME at all. Now on the other hand, you have some people who've done some things that aren't exactly kosher and deep down they might be afraid that if one day they are judged the verdict might not be so good. So perhaps they are the type that are/should be, scared. So maybe their is a middle ground. In an infinite megaverse things that are would be things that aren't. Think about it, if there are infinite universes then there is an earth where you got a different job, one where you won the lottery, one where you died when you were 2 years old, one where the earth was destroyed before forming and no life exists in our solar system. The possiblities would be endless and all things would become possible. Wrapping your mind around this concept can be difficult for us when we've been told there are certain laws to physics but it is quite possible. The big bang itself breaks the laws of physics. My hypothesis is that there is a god. Investigating the endless possiblities of this "god" is part of a method. What kind of method?, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. I am NOT trying to shovel any of my beliefs onto you but when you say that there is no way in which a "god" exists, I find that very narrow minded and hypocritical at the very least. Now I will concede this argument because I have a serious itch to go wheeling and right now that's what is important to me.

Bringing up emotions is more related to neural networks than it is to brane theory. I would argue that emotions are not a physical entity which would qualify as being a part of the brane between higher dimensional universes. They are essential like ideas. They are not tantive objects. When we die our emotions are ended. They do not carry on like the atoms in our body. They cease to be. Unless you believe in a soul that lives on after our death, but that isn't pertinent to the arguement you brought up. I also see now where you were going by bringing up brane theory and higher dimensions. You wanted to prove that just because we can't visualise experience the higher dimensions that "may" be there that we can also do the same with god. I disagree with that. We have EVIDENCE which leads us to the theory of brane's and higher dimensions as a theoretical model of the universe. God fits in no cosmological model with supporting evidence. Your evidence is essentially "we're here" and "you just can't see god". Brane theory can be supported by physical properties,and fits with known natural properties. I don't know if you could say there is 1st hand evidence of it, but it shows up in the background. Like physicists are beginning to believe that observational evidence of higher dimensional unverses separated by a brane in the microwave background. Here is another item which could be taken as evidence of a higher dimension: the Tesseract.http://pictureposter.allbrand.nu/pictures/chester90210/tesseract.jpg
The idea behind the tesseract is that a 2 dimensional person would not be able to comprehend a 3 dimensional square. BUT if you undfolded that square they could see it. A tesseract is a 3-dimensional object which could be folded up into a 4 dimensional object by a 4d entity. We would seemingly see the 3-d tesseract disapear, but would see it change shapes as it moved through our 3d world. For a good story involving tesseracts, I would read Heinlein's And He Built A Crooked House.

Also, through out a google search for flatlanders, It will also discuss 3-d objects as seen by 2-d "flatlanders".

My final point, is there is seemingly NO first hand or second evidence to support the "theory" that there is a god. Evidence does not constitute as the bible, or "but 90% of the population believes it" or anything like "I asked god to speak to me and he did". Scientific evidence. It most assuredly will not likely happen.

There is a reason that people have to drop back on "faith" which by in one definition is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust."
Most (all) times I have seen faith used as a copout in an arguement. "I don't care what evidence you have, I have faith in the lord".

[wilkin250r]

Originally posted by 310Rduner
God told me he wants you to sell your house, and donate all the money to charity and live in a cardboard box for 3 years, at which point he will show you the secrets of the world for your generosity. Wait... you mean, you aren't going to do what he says? WHAT?! You want to know HOW I know this? You expect GOD to take the time to explain this to you himself? Don't be so conceited, follow his orders or burn in hell.

Can you see why his point is valid now? There is about the same amount of credible evidence to believe the bible, as their is to believe what God just told me to tell you. Actually, there could probably be an arguement made of my story being more credible.

This is an issue difficult to explain. Much like love, or death of a close one, religion is very difficult to understand until it is experienced. As such, I don't know how to explain that your example above, just isn't the way it works. (although the sarcasm was easy to spot) ;)

One of the most difficult things I have encountered in my personal life is learning to recognize the voice of God when he speaks to me. It's certainly not the evangalist on TV, or the homeless man on the corner, or my grandmother-in-law (who tells cops that they are going straight to hell when they give her a speeding ticket).

I understand your point. Without definitive proof, how do you know what to believe? And my response to that is kind of cheesy and cliche, but I don't know how else to explain it to you. You just know, you feel it.

And in general, it sounds like you've had some hard times, and I certainly don't envy you. Many people at this point would preach to you, but I have far more respect for you than to do that.

[310Rduner]

Originally posted by wilkin250r
This is an issue difficult to explain. Much like love, or death of a close one, religion is very difficult to understand until it is experienced. As such, I don't know how to explain that your example above, just isn't the way it works. (although the sarcasm was easy to spot) ;)

One of the most difficult things I have encountered in my personal life is learning to recognize the voice of God when he speaks to me. It's certainly not the evangalist on TV, or the homeless man on the corner, or my grandmother-in-law (who tells cops that they are going straight to hell when they give her a speeding ticket).

I understand your point. Without definitive proof, how do you know what to believe? And my response to that is kind of cheesy and cliche, but I don't know how else to explain it to you. You just know, you feel it.

And in general, it sounds like you've had some hard times, and I certainly don't envy you. Many people at this point would preach to you, but I have far more respect for you than to do that.

Hey, no problems here man with that. I definately see where that could lead an individual to a belief in god. I just think that the voice inside your head sometimes isn't god necessarily, just your own voice/better judgement. Your conscience basically. Some people interpret that better judgement/voice whatever you decide to name it as god, others as themselves. I think the way you interpret that definately comes down to a natural desire to either seek religon (and evidence in favor of it) or not want/need to have any part of it.
Some people are better suited to religious beliefs, others don't. However... I still argue that the theist position is in no side to be making Truth claims about their beliefs. I think all the fallacies in religion need to be swept away once and for all. People should NOT be taught that the earth is 7,000 years old as a manner of fact. The only thing that should remain of religion is the core belief that god created the universe, and "some" of the moral teachings. Teaching that gay's are "bad" "evil" is NOT a moral teaching. If people want to continue to believe every story in the bible as fact, or scientists are All wrong, thats fine. They just need to know that they are wrong, until they can present evidence to support such claims, and it be accepted by a body of science as tentative fact. If it can't be supported, cut it out. Religion has so much unnecessary extra baggage that is flat wrong that it is ridiculous. I love it when I come across christians or any other person of faith who does support and believe science (such as yourself wilkin). They hold the core values in a religion which probably don't cause much harm and that is all. I think there should be a push for people of faith to educate and understand science, and just maybe see how they could work it into their beliefs. The bible is after-all not infallible. In fact, you aren't even reading the original version of it. You aren't even reading ALL of it. MEN decided what should go in the bible and what shouldn't, and it isn't necessary to point out these men were much more simple in their understanding of the world as men today. Hell, maybe one of the original scriptures that was thrown out and lost in the desert gives perfect explanation to evolution, and understand the universe. They probably would have thrown it out as a bunch of malarkey because they didn't understand it. I'm getting at the fact that you have zero idea that what you have been taught to believe by the bible and church is the true version of what you should have learned. So to base your beliefs around that is a little bit presumptious. Christianity light: God created the universe, God wants you to play nice. Wouldn't that be so much simpler than the alternative form? And most people that don't go to church and conform to doctrine basically follow that same example.

[wilkin250r]

And this is the thing that I cannot possibly convey to you with solid proof, that the voice inside my head isn't my conscience. Allow me to digress to spiritual matters and personal experience with religion, something very close to preaching.

I have had choices before me, and have argued which action I should take. As I contemplate one course of action, that little voice in my head says "No, Erik, you don't want to do that." And I begin to argue with that voice. Why don't I want to do that? What's wrong with this course of action. It doesn't seem to be any better or worse than some other course of action. In fact, I cannot see any logical reason why I shouldn't. WHY CAN'T I TAKE THIS COURSE OF ACTION?!?

That little voice just replies "You don't want to do that."

Now, if I can't see any logical reason why I shouldn't take a certain course of action, how can it be my conscience? Yet it never fails. I have ignored that voice before, and I have regretted it, but it's only afterwards that I realize why. When I listen to that voice, I have never regretted it. And this has happened on many, many occasions, far beyond a simple fluke occurance.

Now, I don't tell you this to convince you that God exists. But this is one of many examples that are proof to ME. I have personally experienced it, and have felt it. But how in the world would I ever explain this as cold hard fact? I couldn't possibly use this as evidence to convince or convert anybody else. And thus the problem with religion and proof. The proof doesn't come until after you believe, and that proof could never convince a skeptic. This is the very reason for all the cliche response that you see so often "just pray and you'll see". The proof isn't solid, concrete facts. It's like trying to explain the feeling of being cold, to somebody that has never been cold. How would you do it? You could try to explain discomfort, and shivering, but do they really understand? Not until they have actually been cold. How do you prove to them that cold exists? But YOU know what it's like to be cold, because you have personally experienced it, and that feeling is certainly proof enough for you, even if you can't fully explain it to somebody else.