Support NeoGAF

[Neoriceisgood]

I've got to say, I hate it when atheist use "scientific" arguments to ridicule religions.

:lol :lol :lol

 

[szaromir]

What are you supposed to counter superstition with? More superstition?

Quoting scientific facts to disprove religion is superstition. Evolution does not disprove (or prove) existence of God. Quantum fields theories do not disprove (or prove) it. That's what irks me about atheists.

And I actually took a lot of time studying quantum fields theories.

 

[goomba]

Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. — unknown

Completely retarded that so many can follow such a belief.

 

[News Bot]

We are becoming smarter as a people.

 

[Hilbert]

Quoting scientific facts to disprove religion is superstition. Evolution does not disprove (or prove) existence of God. Quantum fields theories do not disprove (or prove) it. That's what irks me about atheists.

And I actually took a lot of time studying quantum fields theories.

The problem is that science has been a driving force behind many of humanities greatest moments. Thinking rationally about reality makes us better. Religion asks us to eliminate this mode of thought, in favor of this idea of faith, which is very difficult for many people.

While I agree that using facts to disprove the existence of god doesn't really work, the idea of a being beyond all evidence and fact is itself reason to not accept it's existence when you are used to thinking scientifically.

 

[siddx]

Quoting scientific facts to disprove religion is superstition. Evolution does not disprove (or prove) existence of God. Quantum fields theories do not disprove (or prove) it. That's what irks me about atheists.

And I actually took a lot of time studying quantum fields theories.

Evolution isn't meant to disprove the existence of god. Its meant to disprove the concept of creationism, that everything "appeared" as it is now 5000 years ago in some garden.
If anything, evolution is a supporter for some kind of power greater than us. Not the McBeardy god, but something else.

 

[Kinitari]

I would be interested to hear about how you found more meaning and happiness in life outside of religion.

Well i'll give you my summarized story. When I was practicing a religion, it felt like I had to follow these obscure and (in my personal opinion) stupid guidelines, live monotonously through my life to achieve eternal bliss - and even that wasn't guaranteed, because of all the little sins I committed. It was stressful, and I felt bad about myself more than anything else.

Soon as I was old enough to think for myself (and meet an Athiest in highschool, I didn't know you could NOT be religious before that) I started to feel more... in control of my life. I didn't feel like I had to answer to anyone except for myself, so I had to use my own personal beliefs as my 'guide' through life. It was a very liberating feeling. And now I never think "I would love to do that... but am I allowed to?".

 

[soul creator]

Quoting scientific facts to disprove religion is superstition. Evolution does not disprove (or prove) existence of God. Quantum fields theories do not disprove (or prove) it. That's what irks me about atheists.

And I actually took a lot of time studying quantum fields theories.

they can "disprove" a lot of popular definitions of god, though.

Of course, what people usually end up doing is just defining god to become more and more "mysterious", so that it's always just outside of reach of whatever new scientific breakthrough is found. But that's a separate issue. If someone says God specially created human beings, and then someone says human beings evolved from a common ancestor, and then some theists collectively turn around and say "well um, God is what set evolution in motion! That's what I meant by him creating human beings".

Then sure, the person didn't technically "disprove" god. But they did show that God is a slippery, vague concept that seems to say more about a believer's personal feelings and view of the world, and is a sociological and psychological concept, rather than any sort of actual literally existing being.

 

[Blader]

The problem is that science has been a driving force behind many of humanities greatest moments. Thinking rationally about reality makes us better. Religion asks us to eliminate this mode of thought, in favor of this idea of faith, which is very difficult for many people.

While I agree that using facts to disprove the existence of god doesn't really work, the idea of a being beyond all evidence and fact is itself reason to not accept it's existence when you are used to thinking scientifically.

No it doesn't.

 

[Hilbert]

No it doesn't.

The concept of faith does. If your religious doesn't use faith then hooray.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Completely retarded that so many can follow such a belief.

Completely amazing that you'd characterize something on the basis of something you read on the internet.

If you want to understand something, learn about it. There are literally hundreds of books from the last 2,000 years that discuss Christian (or whatever religion you're intent on bashing) philosophy and theology. This of course goes far beyond the standard New Atheist fare (Ditchkins & Harris) and requires becoming aware of the last 50 years of philosophical discourse.

 

[Kinitari]

Quoting scientific facts to disprove religion is superstition. Evolution does not disprove (or prove) existence of God. Quantum fields theories do not disprove (or prove) it. That's what irks me about atheists.

And I actually took a lot of time studying quantum fields theories.

Who are these people who try to 'disprove' the existence of God? Science and logic are perfect tools for poking holes in the silly beliefs of the Abrahamic (and other) Religions. Eventually you poke enough holes, and the religion itself is just a mess of illogical ramblings.

That neither proves or disproves the existance of a higher Deity. But it does make the Dieties as we know them seem contradictory and impossible.

 

[Vinci]

Knew this would end up being a science vs. religion topic, with each side taking offense and defense in turn.

15% is pretty good, just need to keep moving up.

 

[szaromir]

The problem is that science has been a driving force behind many of humanities greatest moments. Thinking rationally about reality makes us better. Religion asks us to eliminate this mode of thought, in favor of this idea of faith, which is very difficult for many people.

While I agree that using facts to disprove the existence of god doesn't really work, the idea of a being beyond all evidence and fact is itself reason to not accept it's existence when you are used to thinking scientifically.

Not true. Science is the greatest thing humanity has conceived, but it has nothing to do with religion. I am used to think scientifically and science doesn't ask questions about God, that's why it'll never answer them.

Then sure, the person didn't technically "disprove" god. But they did show that God is a slippery, vague concept that seems to say more about a believer's personal feelings and view of the world, and is a sociological and psychological concept, rather than any sort of actual literally existing being.

As of now, I don't think Church is commenting on Universe's nature or its history and just follows latest science theories. Other than that I agree with you (although, technically, God still could be quiet real, only that he doesn't interact with 'our' Universe by any of the four known interactions )

 

[gamergirly]

The problem is that science has been a driving force behind many of humanities greatest moments. Thinking rationally about reality makes us better. Religion asks us to eliminate this mode of thought, in favor of this idea of faith, which is very difficult for many people.

While I agree that using facts to disprove the existence of god doesn't really work, the idea of a being beyond all evidence and fact is itself reason to not accept it's existence when you are used to thinking scientifically.

Religion really isnt the problem. Just the institutionalization of it. I think they were be more believers if they weren't forced to do things that have nothing to do with their beliefs.

 

[Fimbulvetr]

So are they combining numbers for agnostics and atheists?

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

Evolution does not disprove (or prove) existence of God. Quantum fields theories do not disprove (or prove) it. That's what irks me about atheists.

And? Evolution does not disprove (or prove) existence of Thor either. That's what irks me about Christians. All atheists do is believe in one less space god than you. Believing in the flying spaghetti monster is just as reasonable as believing in any deity. You have just as much evidence that God exists as I do that Zeus does. The funny thing about logic is that the onus is on you to prove that God exists. But you can't. Just like you can't for the Apollo, Pink unicorns or a million other made up things. The only reason why you don't need evidence to 'believe' is because you will never have it and after all, one needs some mental justification in believing bullshit.

(stolen from another nonsense thread)

No it doesn't.

a major facet of most religious thought is not thinking critically or rationally about something; please continue to split semantic hairs about the difference between organized religion and faith though.

this thread is great great news regardless; it's about fucking time that the 'non-believers' had some kind of political power though.

 

[Purkake4]

Knew this would end up being a science vs. religion topic, with each side taking offense and defense in turn.

15% is pretty good, just need to keep moving up.

No, the atheists will take out jobs!

So are they combining numbers for agnostics and atheists?

Obviously, agnostics don't believe in a god, do they?

 

[Discordian_taco]

What do you guys think about someone like Nikola Tesla? An incredibly spiritual man and yet also a man of science. He believed all his inventions were "beamed" to him from a higher power.

 

[DY_nasty]

What do you guys think about someone like Nikola Tesla? An incredibly spiritual man and yet also a man of science. He believed all his inventions were "beamed" to him from a higher power.

That alone makes me think that he's a loon.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

What do you guys think about someone like Nikola Tesla? An incredibly spiritual man and yet also a man of science. He believed all his inventions were "beamed" to him from a higher power.

what's your point exactly - Francis Collins was head of the Human Genome Project and he believes in the talking snake; just because someone is a scientist does not mean he has common sense about other things.

 

[Hilbert]

Not true. Science is the greatest thing humanity has conceived, but it has nothing to do with religion. I am used to think scientifically and science doesn't ask questions about God, that's why it'll never answer them.

When I am asked to accept the existence of something, I will approach that question scientifically. I will address statements about reality that way. It's nice you can separate the two, but I cannot, and so it is with many others.

 

[Kinitari]

Religion really isnt the problem. Just the institutionalization of it. I think they were be more believers if they weren't forced to do things that have nothing to do with their beliefs.

I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me the fundamental design of Religion goes against the scientific and logical (thought) process. You are given a book of rules and stories that are supposed to be guidelines to life, and the explanations to some of mans most base questions. Unfortunately these do not hold up to scrutiny.

So yeah, you can deny these truths in the book and write them off, but you are now no longer following the religion as it was intended. So to be truly religious, is to deny logic and science. Thus making these two pretty incompatible.

Well, I guess that is unless people want to tell me that I am misrepresenting what it is to be 'truly religious' or even just 'religious' (cherry picking what you like out of a book doesn't seem the right way to do it). I am completely open for that debate. Maybe i'll learn something, there are no scriptures telling me otherwise ^.~.

 

[soul creator]

and just in case no one's noticed, the original post is from March. I'm sure we've hit at least 50% now that Obama has had some time to put Christians in Nazi/Fascist/Socialist re-education camps!

 

[szaromir]

And? Evolution does not disprove (or prove) existence of Thor either. That's what irks me about Christians. All atheists do is believe in one less space god than you. Believing in the flying spaghetti monster is just as reasonable as believing in any deity. You have just as much evidence that God exists as I do that Zeus does. The funny thing about logic is that the onus is on you to prove that God exists. But you can't. Just like you can't for the Apollo, Pink unicorns or a million other made up things. The only reason why you don't need evidence to 'believe' is because you will never have it and after all, one needs some mental justification in believing bullshit.

You are free to believe or not to believe in anything. Just don't use science in religious arguments.

 

[gamergirly]

I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me the fundamental design of Religion goes against the scientific and logical (thought) process. You are given a book of rules and stories that are supposed to be guidelines to life, and the explanations to some of mans most base questions. Unfortunately these do not hold up to scrutiny.

So yeah, you can deny these truths in the book and write them off, but you are now no longer following the religion as it was intended. So to be truly religious, is to deny logic and science. Thus making these two pretty incompatible.

Well, I guess that is unless people want to tell me that I am misrepresenting what it is to be 'truly religious' or even just 'religious' (cherry picking what you like out of a book doesn't seem the right way to do it). I am completely open for that debate. Maybe i'll learn something, there are no scriptures telling me otherwise ^.~.

I agree. It comes down to whether you "need" proof of something/someone existing or not. That's the incompatible zone. There will never be an intersection.

If I needed scientific proof, I would be an Atheist. Since I don't need proof and think that the God/Jesus theology is logical within my realm of thinking, I'm a Christian. It's as simple as that for me.

 

[Jaffaboy]

Good.

.

 

[Furcas]

I would be interested to hear about how you found more meaning and happiness in life outside of religion.

I can't answer for Extollere, but my own answer is that atheism gives us true moral responsibility.

Theists see morality as a function of God's will, which is just another way of saying that if they do good things, it's because they believe that's what God wants them to do. That means they do good to earn God's approval, or to avoid punishment, or because they see God as the ultimate authority figure, or some other similar reason. This kind of morality is pathetic and childish. I mean that literally; it's the way children think: They're good little boys and girls because they want their parents to love them, or to avoid being spanked, or just because of the instinct to do what authority figures tell them to do.

On the other hand, an atheist that behaves morally does so because he or she wants to. My morality is a function of my will, not anyone else's. This is a very empowering feeling and gives much more meaning to my life than a supernatural father figure ever could.

That said, this isn't the reason why I believe there's are no gods. I believe there are no gods for the same reason I believe there are no dragons: They are implausible concepts for which there is no evidence.

And that's the really horrifying thing about religious believers: Not only is their morality childish, but it's entirely dependent on a being that is fictional. They behave morally because they want to do the will of someone who doesn't even exist! This is a form of insanity worse than that of the poor bastards who see flying pink elephants everywhere; at least they don't consider their delusions the source of all morality.

 

[Count Dookkake]

You are free to believe or not to believe in anything. Just don't use science in religious arguments.

You have that second sentence backwards, I think.

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

You are free to believe or not to believe in anything. Just don't use science in religious arguments.

why not just substitute the word 'science' for 'common sense' and continue to stretch those goal posts?

Or conversely.

You are free to believe or not believe in anything. Just don't use religion in rational arguments.

what makes me most crestfallen about this is the fact that you/others have no genuine retort to my post; it must be hard to justify your own beliefs when confronted with critical questions raised by those outside of your superstitious circle.

 

[Blader]

a major facet of most religious thought is not thinking critically or rationally about something; please continue to split semantic hairs about the difference between organized religion and faith though.

It's not splitting hairs at all, there's a huge difference between organized religion and general spirituality.

Not sure why you even brought that up though, I wasn't even making that argument in the first place (though I suppose I am now).

 

[Hilbert]

You are free to believe or not to believe in anything. Just don't use science in religious arguments.

Why does religion set the terms to these discussions? You think the religious won't use science when it strengthens their position?

Saying "God exists" is a statement about reality. Science is how we examine reality. What is wrong with using that?

 

[szaromir]

You are free to believe or not believe in anything. Just don't use religion in rational arguments.

I don't.
But the discussion of God's existence is not and can't be rational.

You have that second sentence backwards, I think.

Yep, it goes the other way around, too.

 

[I <3 Memes]

they can "disprove" a lot of popular definitions of god, though.

Of course, what people usually end up doing is just defining god to become more and more "mysterious", so that it's always just outside of reach of whatever new scientific breakthrough is found. But that's a separate issue. If someone says God specially created human beings, and then someone says human beings evolved from a common ancestor, and then some theists collectively turn around and say "well um, God is what set evolution in motion! That's what I meant by him creating human beings".

Then sure, the person didn't technically "disprove" god. But they did show that God is a slippery, vague concept that seems to say more about a believer's personal feelings and view of the world, and is a sociological and psychological concept, rather than any sort of actual literally existing being.

Who was it that said "Religion always takes one step back from the light of science." ? I really can't remember who said that but it is spot on. It doesn't just take a step back from the light of science, but also will try to stay in-step with what is socially acceptable in an effort to remain relevant. How many churches in America would have married a black man to a white woman 150 years ago....? How many religions in this country are going to deny evolution or speak out against homosexuality 30 or 40 years from now? Not many.

Outside of what cults and some of the more fanatical religions of this world practice, by which i mean the amount of absolute control these cults and religions try to hold over their followers and what they do with their life, I'm not bothered at all by people believing in gods. Whatever helps people make it through life. But it's pretty obvious that by and large these beliefs are the result of a lifetime of brainwashing.

If forcing someone to attend religious services from the time they can walk, speaking constantly about gods and their will being the cause of things that happen in the world, putting the word god on everything from bumper stickers to the money everyone handles, socially ostracizing people that don't go along with that belief, to surrounding someones entire life experience with the notion that a god exists ... well if that's not brainwashing then I guess it's not god that doesn't exist, it's brainwashing that doesn't exist.

Of course most of the things I mentioned in the paragraph above don't take place in America anymore or aren't as prominent as they once were. Andwhatdoyaknow, with those factors being less prominent the numbers of Atheists and Agnostics is rising.

Of course correlation does not imply causation in every circumstance, but I think a pretty strong argument could be made in this circumstance.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Yep, it goes the other way around, too.

Not really.

If someone makes a claim about the world, another may use science to investigate that claim.

 

[Davidion]

I don't.
But the discussion of God's existence is not and can't be rational.

Except it is interpreted as such, against the preference of many.

Religion is shoe-horned into everyday social discourse and used as a qualifier in many discussions that both advocate and dictate moral & political principles/actions. To try to isolate religious and dogmatic thought as a issue of pure personal faith is nonsense in practice; we can discuss the issue of faith on a personal level, but it's delusional to isolate it to that scope when you're discussion at a social level.

 

[KevinCow]

Quoting scientific facts to disprove religion is superstition. Evolution does not disprove (or prove) existence of God. Quantum fields theories do not disprove (or prove) it. That's what irks me about atheists.

And I actually took a lot of time studying quantum fields theories.

I doubt anyone thinks evolution absolutely disproves the existence of a god, just that it pokes some mighty big holes in specific religions.

 

[szaromir]

what makes me most crestfallen about this is the fact that you/others have no genuine retort to my post; it must be hard to justify your own beliefs when confronted with critical questions raised by those outside of your superstitious circle.

How can I comment on "believing in God is retarted and not common sense" (which your posts ultimately come down to)?

I'm not even sure if I believe in anything BTW.

Why does religion set the terms to these discussions? You think the religious won't use science when it strengthens their position?

Saying "God exists" is a statement about reality. Science is how we examine reality. What is wrong with using that?

I don't think religious will ever be in a position where science could strengthen their arguments.
I think that God as most modern religions comprehend it, is simply beyond our reality. That's why scientific methods will always be useless. It really comes down to the void that I think most people feel in their lives and how they want to fill it.

Not really.

If someone makes a claim about the world, another may use science to investigate that claim.

By "it goes the other way around, too" I meant that religion should never come into science's way (and it generally doesn't nowadays as it sadly used to in the past).

 

[Furcas]

The popular mantra of religious believers like szaromir that religion and rationality exist in two separate spheres is nothing more than another attempt to protect their unjustified beliefs from criticism.

There is reality, and there are beliefs about reality. Beliefs that are held because of logic and/or evidence are very likely true. Those that are held for other reasons, such as wishful thinking and childhood indoctrination, are mere guesses, and are therefore almost certainly false.

And that's all there is to it. Religious beliefs aren't 'beyond the remit of rationality', no more than beliefs about invisible dragons and magical teapots.

 

[Vinci]

I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me the fundamental design of Religion goes against the scientific and logical (thought) process.

Exactly. Which is why these debates are worthless. I can't use science to disprove God, or God to disprove science, for the simple fact that the core tenets of either belief don't align at any point. Like comparing an apple to a car or something.

 

[soul creator]

I tend to find it interesting how we're all of sudden supposed to assume some sort of vague deistic god whenever we have these discussions.

That's typically the defense used when "progressive" religious arguments are made (my god is totally compatible with everything scientific!), but it always seems so theoretical and has any sort of real world context stripped from it. The vast majority of people believe in a God that actually has specific effects on our world. He created it, he "guided" it, he has feelings for people, he cures the sick, he sets up rules and a moral code for us to follow, you can telepathically communicate with it, he can do magic, and so on and so forth. Especially if we're talking about monotheistic religions (which compose a huge section of believers, certainly in the US), these are the characteristics that are commonly associated with the word "god".

I find this pretty unlikely to exist in any meaningful sense of the word, therefore I'm an atheist. But when I say this, people turn around and go "bu bu that's not what every believer believes, you can't disprove god!" Ok, sure. So the god you believe in doesn't do any of this stuff? Then it's a pretty pointless concept to discuss unless we're just doing thought experiments.

Deists are a pretty small minority in the grand scheme of things, yet almost all of these message board discussions seem to assume that's the primary definition of god that people have in mind. I'm pretty sure when someone asks me "Do you believe in god?" they're not talking about Baruch Spinoza's version.

 

[Haly]

Good to hear, the sooner we shake off religion the better.

 

[Hilbert]

I think that God as most modern religions comprehend it, is simply beyond our reality. That's why scientific methods will always be useless. It really comes down to the void that I think most people feel in their lives and how they want to fill it.

And my problem with that is, there is no difference between god's existence or non-existence.

I am going to bow out of this conversation, but I hope I have made it more clear why people bring scientific ideas into discussions of this type.

 

[Davidion]

I think that God as most modern religions comprehend it, is simply beyond our reality. That's why scientific methods will always be useless. It really comes down to the void that I think most people feel in their lives and how they want to fill it.

This will be true the day that religion ceases to dictate moral standings upon its followers. Conceptually, the divine can or even should be unknowable; that philosophical wall is breached the second anyone begins to suggest that a deity or force can advocate or enforce moral and ethic mandates on others.

Soul Creator's last assessment addresses this quite well.

 

[Dever]

Usually I find atheist recruitment really irritating because it's like, dudes, the whole benefit of being atheist is that you don't have to do dumb shit like evangelize your philosophy to people who don't want to hear it, but this billboard is sensible and respectful outreach instead of being smarmy "haha I'm right and you're wrong" like those idiotic "We have to talk --God" billboards so I approve.

Atheism is simply not believing in any gods. You're right in that atheism doesn't come with a commandment to evangelize to others like maybe christianity does. It's up to the person to decide what they wish to do with their non-belief. Some take it upon themselves to do their part in getting rid of unsupported superstitions, some keep it to themselves. Some atheists hold that religious thought can be harmful to our species as a whole, surely they would want to make their voice known on something as important as that?

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Every single person in this thread is wrong.




Especially the agnostics.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Theists see morality as a function of God's will, which is just another way of saying that if they do good things, it's because they believe that's what God wants them to do. That means they do good to earn God's approval, or to avoid punishment, or because they see God as the ultimate authority figure, or some other similar reason. This kind of morality is pathetic and childish. I mean that literally; it's the way children think: They're good little boys and girls because they want their parents to love them, or to avoid being spanked, or just because of the instinct to do what authority figures tell them to do.
.

I understand that not being tied to a set of rules can be liberating - you can do whatever you want where as before you had restrictions (in response to an earlier quote from another poster). I also understand that doing good for the sake of doing good, because you want to, not because a god has told you to, can feel rewarding.

I just don't think its addressing whats at the heart of the matter: why be good? What purpose are you serving? How does this give meaning and purpose to your life? Religion gives context to many of the better things in life: Kindness, charity, Family, Love, Peace. What are those things like in when Religion is stripped away?

 

[szaromir]

The popular mantra of religious believers like szaromir

Except that I'm not a religious person. I've never been a member of any Church/religious organisation and I'm not sure if I believe in anything.

I think everyone as child asked questions such as "why is grass green? why do i exist? what is the meaning of my life? how does my a living organism function?" etc. Some of those questions science already answered (though probably most people, including our dear atheists here, did not bother to look them up, because maths is a powerful obstacle :lol ). The others can't be answered by science and can't be answered only by religion/philosophy or other personal beliefs. Dismissing religious expalanations 'a priori' seems silly to me.

 

[Hilbert]

Religion gives context to many of the better things in life: Kindness, charity, Family, Love, Peace. What are those things like in when Religion is stripped away?

Just as nice and just as important. But my context is within humanity, not something out there.

I may understand that my love for my children is based in an evolutionary need to pass on my genetics, but that does not change how they make me feel.

 

[VanMardigan]

It's an echo chamber in here, but this is what happens on the internet when you have mod-sanctioned, like-minded circles of conversation where dissent is put down until it doesn't have a voice.