Support NeoGAF

[CF_Fighter]

that's simply not biblical. and it's not rooted in a spirit of love. and whether something is rooted in love is really the best tool we have to discern what is right and what is wrong.

Agreed. But Jesus himself never really stated anything on the environment.

 

[JGS]

Where is this obligation elaborated?

The Israelites had commdments that required them to manage their resources properly. Also, they had specific instructions to not engage in a scorched earth policy in times of war/invasion.

Revelation mentions that God will ruin those ruining the earth.

Although envirnmental concerns are not the same as now, I tend to follow the principle that it's more important to protect the environment than protect the job that damages the environment.

I also think that although it's near impossible to live a totally green life, one's should adopt enviromentally friendly methods as they become availble at a reasonable price.

 

[JGS]

1: What evidence (if any), or logical argument persuaded you that there was an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent creator?

I don't mean for this to sound rude, but I hate this question. It presumes that we are required to prove something in contrast to others. It can and should be easily flipped to apply to non-believers too. In other words, just because one does not believe in something does not mean their position is actually sound. Neither group have to prove belief at all.

The simple answer is the idea and concept of a God makes more sense than existence without one to me.

There's no more way to prove that than there is to prove non-existence unless you include anecdotal evidence which I got the impression you did not want in the other thread. This is also why it's not important to provide "proof". For what?

Again, whether a religious person can prove a creator exists adds no credibilty whatsoever to one who does not believe in a creator.

2: What evidence (if any), or logical argument could be presented that would change your mind about this creators existence?

This one is easy. Simply prove he doesn't exist. This can only occur 2 different ways:

1. Time travel
2. From my Christian standpoint, it would require proof that the Bible is one huge conspiracy theory covering hundreds of years, dozens of writers, & thousand/millions of people involved in it's contents. Yes, it will take more than a skeptic's statement.

 

[Uchip]

I don't mean for this to sound rude, but I hate this question. It presumes that we are required to prove something in contrast to others. It can and should be easily flipped to apply to non-believers too. In other words, just because one does not believe in something does not mean their position is actually sound. Neither group have to prove belief at all.

The simple answer is the idea and concept of a God makes more sense than existence without one to me.

There's no more way to prove that than there is to prove non-existence unless you include anecdotal evidence which I got the impression you did not want in the other thread. This is also why it's not important to provide "proof". For what?

Again, whether a religious person can prove a creator exists adds no credibilty whatsoever to one who does not believe in a creator.

This one is easy. Simply prove he doesn't exist. This can only occur 2 different ways:

1. Time travel
2. From my Christian standpoint, it would require proof that the Bible is one huge conspiracy theory covering hundreds of years, dozens of writers, & thousand/millions of people involved in it's contents. Yes, it will take more than a skeptic's statement.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts

also curious as to why god is always "he"
surely there is a reason for the male personification

 

[JGS]

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts

Dodesn't apply. The quote doesn't make sense unless Mr. Roberts would like to share his wisdom on why he dismisses mine. I can do that with all the religions I'm familiar with but reject.

also curious as to why god is always "he"
surely there is a reason for the male personification

Can't speak for other religions, but God is referenced as hein the Bible so it stuck. Also, if man is made in his image, than it's simply a case of using the appropriate pronoun.

However, I assume he technically transcends gender.

 

[Chaplain]

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts

I think if it wasn't for what Jesus said while he was on Earth, Roberts views would hold allot more weight. Like some of these comments:

"I tell you the truth, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life."

"For just as the Father gives life to those he raises from the dead, so the Son gives life to anyone he wants. In addition, the Father judges no one. Instead, he has given the Son absolute authority to judge, so that everyone will honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son is certainly not honoring the Father who sent him."

also curious as to why god is always "he"

The Apostle John wrote about Jesus:

"In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He existed in the beginning with God.
God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it."

God the Father is a Spirit and does not have a Gender.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

You have a rather "unique" sense of reading comprehension and even more so in interpreting allegory literally. And using admitted third hand sources to define a deity. If one was so inclined one could find some rather pertinent blurbs about the nature of God and mans ability to know it.

 

[Uchip]

I think if it wasn't for what Jesus said while he was on Earth, Roberts views would hold allot more weight. Like some of these comments:

"I tell you the truth, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life."

"For just as the Father gives life to those he raises from the dead, so the Son gives life to anyone he wants. In addition, the Father judges no one. Instead, he has given the Son absolute authority to judge, so that everyone will honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son is certainly not honoring the Father who sent him."



The Apostle John wrote about Jesus:

"In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He existed in the beginning with God.
God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it."

God the Father is a Spirit and does not have a Gender.

the father doesnt have a gender... uhuh
im guessing its due to the gender importance in the times the bible was written

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I don't mean for this to sound rude, but I hate this question. It presumes that we are required to prove something in contrast to others. It can and should be easily flipped to apply to non-believers too. In other words, just because one does not believe in something does not mean their position is actually sound. Neither group have to prove belief at all.

The simple answer is the idea and concept of a God makes more sense than existence without one to me.

There's no more way to prove that than there is to prove non-existence unless you include anecdotal evidence which I got the impression you did not want in the other thread. This is also why it's not important to provide "proof". For what?

Again, whether a religious person can prove a creator exists adds no credibilty whatsoever to one who does not believe in a creator.

This one is easy. Simply prove he doesn't exist. This can only occur 2 different ways:

1. Time travel
2. From my Christian standpoint, it would require proof that the Bible is one huge conspiracy theory covering hundreds of years, dozens of writers, & thousand/millions of people involved in it's contents. Yes, it will take more than a skeptic's statement.

JGS, you have already tried to answer these questions in the other thread...though this is different from your other reply so I will respond to your statement.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what Atheist means as well as the concept of 'burden of proof' (I'm quite sure this has been explained to you before by another member, so I'm not sure why you would be using the same argument.

An Atheist (at least a rational one), would not make the claim 'there is definitely no God', instead, as an Atheist my position is that 'I don't accept the claims about God(s)', there is an enormous distinction between these two statements. If I was to claim that 'there is definitely no God', then yes that is an assertion which needs evidence/proof in order for me to justify that claim. When I am not accepting your claims of God's existence, I am not claiming that God doesn't exist, it just means that you have provided sufficient justification for me to accept your claims, and thus the burden of proof is on you.

I will give you an analogy and we will see who you think the 'burden of proof' is on. Ok, so I have this dragon in my room, it's an invisible dragon that only I can see. You can't touch it, and the only way it manifests in reality is when it 'talks' to me. I have made a claim about this invisible dragon, do you accept that this dragon is real? If you don't, then it is up to you to prove that is doesn't exist right?

The idea of God sounds more plausible to you, so that is a reason for you to believe? I'm sure I don't have to point out the logical fallacy associated with this statement.

 

[OttomanScribe]

JGS, you have already tried to answer these questions in the other thread...though this is different from your other reply so I will respond to your statement.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what Atheist means as well as the concept of 'burden of proof' (I'm quite sure this has been explained to you before by another member, so I'm not sure why you would be using the same argument.

An Atheist (at least a rational one), would not make the claim 'there is definitely no God', instead, as an Atheist my position is that 'I don't accept the claims about God(s)', there is an enormous distinction between these two statements. If I was to claim that 'there is definitely no God', then yes that is an assertion which needs evidence/proof in order for me to justify that claim. When I am not accepting your claims of God's existence, I am not claiming that God doesn't exist, it just means that you have provided sufficient justification for me to accept your claims, and thus the burden of proof is on you.

I will give you an analogy and we will see who you think the 'burden of proof' is on. Ok, so I have this dragon in my room, it's an invisible dragon that only I can see. You can't touch it, and the only way it manifests in reality is when it 'talks' to me. I have made a claim about this invisible dragon, do you accept that this dragon is real? If you don't, then it is up to you to prove that is doesn't exist right?

The idea of God sounds more plausible to you, so that is a reason for you to believe? I'm sure I don't have to point out the logical fallacy associated with this statement.

Surely burden of proof only comes up when one is trying to convince another of their claims? You are the one asking the question in this case...

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

When you detach yourself from all concepts and just "be" that's when you experience what some call God. At least that's what I've experienced.

 

[JGS]

JGS, you have already tried to answer these questions in the other thread...though this is different from your other reply so I will respond to your statement.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what Atheist means as well as the concept of 'burden of proof' (I'm quite sure this has been explained to you before by another member, so I'm not sure why you would be using the same argument.

An Atheist (at least a rational one), would not make the claim 'there is definitely no God', instead, as an Atheist my position is that 'I don't accept the claims about God(s)', there is an enormous distinction between these two statements. If I was to claim that 'there is definitely no God', then yes that is an assertion which needs evidence/proof in order for me to justify that claim. When I am not accepting your claims of God's existence, I am not claiming that God doesn't exist, it just means that you have provided sufficient justification for me to accept your claims, and thus the burden of proof is on you.

My response didn't have anything to do with what an atheist is as I'm not really that concerned with it. That's kind of my point. There's no reason for me to prove what an atheist does not see. It is not a concern of mine and for all I care a person can stay an atheist regardless of it's meaning.

I do disagree that atheism is based in rationality, it's just the primary excuse used and a means to reject observation. Belief is not lab based just like most of life, so anecdotal is all we've got, but it's a lot of it and it's also hopelessly embedded in history. If that's not good enough, than me squirting faith in a petri dish probably wouldn't works either.

I will give you an analogy and we will see who you think the 'burden of proof' is on. Ok, so I have this dragon in my room, it's an invisible dragon that only I can see. You can't touch it, and the only way it manifests in reality is when it 'talks' to me. I have made a claim about this invisible dragon, do you accept that this dragon is real? If you don't, then it is up to you to prove that is doesn't exist right?

The idea of God sounds more plausible to you, so that is a reason for you to believe? I'm sure I don't have to point out the logical fallacy associated with this statement.

Your analogy would work better if it included billions of people across thousands of years having the same story. They don't. It's uniquely yours.

This is a fallacy of the atheist- simplify concepts to the point that they are meaningless and thinking they have outsmarted centuries of proofs, texts, & doctrines they merely choose to reject. Because of that outright rejection, they fail to grasp that the analogy is always limited in scope and accuracy. It makes sense considering that nothing quite matches up with religious belief and a "rational" mind always seems to need to peer reviews before a belief/opinion can be formed.

If one person believed in God, then they would be presumed crazy. When you exapand that out, then the majority of people generally will have a measure of sanity about them and for a majority of people, it makes sense to believe in something over nothing and the person requiring proof from them is unable to offer another option. Not believing until "proof" is provided is NOT AN OPTION since many of these people think they have proof and ones trying to put a scientific condition on it are doing it wrong and always will be.

They just need to cozy up to their science books and look in disbelief at the vast amounts of people that outnumber them 10 to 1 (Made up ratio but still way outnumbered) and stay confused their whole life.

I'm not saying everyone who does believe is correct, I'm saying that it is instinctive for us to want/need/believe in a deity or something. So my goal was to embrace that fact and pick the one that is "right".

 

[jdogmoney]

I do disagree that atheism is based in rationality, it's just the primary excuse used and a means to reject observation. Belief is not lab based just like most of life, so anecdotal is all we've got, but it's a lot of it and it's also hopelessly embedded in history. If that's not good enough, than me squirting faith in a petri dish probably wouldn't works either.

What part of rationality "rejects observation"?

I would think that god exists if there were any compelling reason for me to do so.

What's a piece of evidence you would use to convince someone that god exists, or, more specifically, that your God exists?

 

[phisheep]

A throwaway comment by fludevil at the end of a nice polite post in the Christianity thread sparked some discussion that was kind of inappropriate for that thread, so I’ve taken the liberty of posting it here in this post and the next one, in case anyone wants to pick it up and run with it.

This is when I have no problem with religion. I've tried to stay out of your thread so as not to derail it, dropping in with a question here and there. I'm an atheist, I doubt my mind will ever change on that, and I have no desire to change anyone else's mind, because what if I'm wrong?

I think Raist's question is a valid one: all of this can, and is, done without the Bible every day. But results are results, whatever gets you in movement. I just wanted to drop back in and say way to go, Fernando.

Now don't make me regret this Let some gays get married and keep an open mind about science.

The science stuff went rather like this:

Most religious people I know, including myself, have a very open mind about science. We just don't believe that science in and of itself, started life without a creator's help.

No, I was just speaking in broad generalities, no offense meant. The Christians I come in contact with see science as a replacement for faith and try their hardest to debunk it at every turn. I see no problem with supporting science and believing that's how God made it.

I agree that a lot of Christians think of science as the bad guy- particularly creationists. I also think that's because the science community has refused to compromise in the idea of a creator. I personally force the compromise.

This isn't to say science should have an acceptance of it but they should show a little respect for the majority of mankind that believes something had a hand in life's creation. It's such a minor aspect of scientific thought but it alienates a huge group away from it outside of the surface stuff.

Science is about what's true, not what's popular.

Well, the scientific method is about testability. Any theory that is not testable is not scientific.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

Believe me there will never be an expectation of me to accept the whacky premis of abiogenesis so I don't expect an atheist scientist to do the same with my beliefs.

However, you don't win people to a love of science by saying what they believe is not only incorrect but also made fun of when it has nothing to do with scientific advancement.

As you said, the religious should have love of it and they do, but it would be stupid of them to embrace something that allows it's representatives to beat them like a red headed stepchild over.

The religious I know are perfectly content with learning about science without being insulted. Not a museum or zoo in the world would survive without the support of the religious so they clearly have a love of those things.

Science just has to acknowledge that. If they don't they will remain wrong about us.

Of course I'm not talking about all religious people. But I'm still not sure what you expect from the scientific community. They can't say "Ok, we'll give you a maybe on creationism."

I think it's safe to say that science isn't concerned with winning anyone over.

I wasn't suggesting anything about your personal views on creationism, but I know that some people want it considered as a legit theory, without material evidence. Now this is where lots of people will start to poke holes in scientific theories that supposedly lack material evidence, but none of that will make creationism any more provable. It's just a matter of faith.

Creation isn't theoretical. It's an explanation of what happened - scientific or not.

Things happen all the time before a theory was invented to explain it. It can't be dismissed just because it's not testable even if science must not consider it. In fact, that's the point. Scientist have no business sticking their nose in something that doesn't concern them.

After all their belief In how life started is not a concern to religious folk until it's forced to be.

On science, I'm not a creationist - relatively few people my side of the Atlantic are, it seems to be predominantly an American phenomenon. But that aside, what I find annoying is the presumptive rudeness of some scientists about religious beliefs. It isn't, after all, as if scientists are a specific group each endowed with all knowledge, and nor should they pretend to be. A metallurgist, a physicist or a zoologist have no special expertise outside their own fields and no particular business larding their otherwise admirable books with potshots at religion. It is just plain impolite. Of course, there are exceptions, particularly where this is done in response to religious people similarly dipping their toes into science that they don't understand. I don't mind the debate at all. It's the rudeness that I can't stand - there's no call for it. And I do appreciate that it happens on both sides and each side feels aggrieved.

And sure, anything that is not testable isn't scientific and the existence of God isn't scientifically testable at least not in this life. But it is bad logic to claim that means it is not true. There are loads of things that are true but untestable. To take a stupid example, it is true either that Julius Caesar ate breakfast on the morning of the Ides of March or that he didn't. Neither proposition is testable, neither is scientific but one of them must be true.

Why would scientists go for a compromise on the subject when the question of whether or not there is a creator cannot, by definition, be answered by science?

This I can't wrap my head around. I don't think rude scientists are much of a problem. Like I asked JGS, what could you possibly want scientists to say about creationism? they only comment on it when someone demands it be treated as science.

I think if you could prove God existed, through scientific means, it would make faith pointless. If there was a rock in Egypt that had God's signature on it, there wouldn't be any choice. "Of course God exists, its a fact."

I see your point. What would you say about a politician, judge, public school teacher, or anyone else other than a minister spreading the word of God? Isn't that the same thing?

Don't put words in my mouth. The has nothing to do with fundamental truths. I'm not involving myself in a scientific debate at all. This has to do with courtesies - the whole point at which I started.

This involves the disdain that many have in the science community toward the religious who will never in a million years come over to the dark side of life got here without a creator which is FAR less testable.

A belief in creation Is not solely the domain of Christians. It is the norm and impossible to disprove.

I say chuck it up and accept that the majority of people don't accept the unproven premise a scientist might and accept the fact that the majority of religious people already accept the rest- including evolution.

If they choose to define every field as requiring non-belief in a creator then there will always be a scientist started rift between them and us.

I can live with that. It's not like a scientist can prove i dont like science lol.

I would totally agree with you if Christianity did not have a fundamental emphasis on aggressive expansion. Live and let live is a great philosophy, but seeking people out and telling them that they were born flawed and must seek salvation doesn't seem to fit that philosophy. It seems only fair to me to ask for proof. This resistance seems to offend many Christians.

You're right.

About the rude scientists bit, I was largely thinking Dawkins – not so much the God Delusion as throwaway lines in his earlier and expressly scientific works. I believe Atkins, Wilson and a few others have also been casually dismissive of religion for no real reason related to what they were writing – though I don’t remember the details.

I’m not convinced the JGS is right that a belief in creation is the norm – it isn’t on my side of the Atlantic.

Slo’s point is a good one about politicians/judges etc. I’d say it all comes down to keeping the professional stuff in the professional sphere. I have nothing against a judge etc spreading the word of God – providing they are not doing in their professional capacity. Ditto politicians and so on. Same goes for scientists, they are perfectly entitled to have opinions for or against anything – what seems to me needlessly provocative is bunging anti-religious stuff into scientific works where it doesn’t actually add anything to the science. That’s just gratuitous.

I don't think it is at all realistic to expect scientists to make any concession or compromise about creation/religion - perhaps best we could hope is for them to keep on-topic in their field.

 

[phisheep]

And the gay marriage bit went like this:

Politics and religion is a big sticking point with me too. I do not condone gay marriage in the Christian congregation. However, I don't think that should tranlsate to the nation as a whole which is on a different playing field in our society...unless you think the US is backed by God. I do not.

On gay marriage, As JGS sort of pointed out above, there's a big gap between what Christians see as Christian marriage - which is largely between man, wife and God - and what states see as marriage - which is bound up with laws, tax breaks, registration requirements, quickie divorces and so on. The two have drifted apart in very many countries so they aren't the same thing any more. I really don't care either way whether a state permits or doesn't permit gay marriage - it isn't an issue that touches me. I do care that religions/religious communities should be capable of following their own tenets in such matters. It is perfectly feasible for a state to recognise a Christian marriage and also to permit gay marriage, and I don't see why either should seek to force the other to their way of thinking. It's the old 'render unto Caesar' thing all over again.

This is a great answer, IMO.

It would be nice if Christian political advocates in the states shared this view, but the ones with influence largely do not.

Assuming your white, if that sentence said instead:

"I really don't care either way whether a state permits or doesn't permit black marriage - it isn't an issue that touches me."

Would you change your mind?

Good catch. I just assumed if everyone minded their own business, gay people could be married. But yeah, I should have amended my agreement to sheep's comment.

Well, I walked right into that one didn’t I?

No I’m not that crass, just bad at putting things when I’m knocking a post while cooking. (At this point it is traditional to put in a line about some of my best friends being gay, but at the moment that isn’t true – so I don’t even have that excuse!).

The sort of thing that I meant to say was more along the lines that from a Christian point of view, what the state does or doesn’t permit in the way of marriage just isn’t relevant to the Christian view of marriage. You want to change the state you go the route of lobbying and the ballot box rather than relying on the morality of a particular religion. You want a religious gay marriage you either persuade your religion to change its mind or you go join one that permits it or you have a little schism – that sort of thing happens all the time. What you can’t reasonably do is force a religion to go against its beliefs by legislation. Doesn’t work and not worth trying.

 

[JGS]

What part of rationality "rejects observation"?

I would think that god exists if there were any compelling reason for me to do so.

What's a piece of evidence you would use to convince someone that god exists, or, more specifically, that your God exists?

But you miss the idea that I would reject God exists if there was a rational reason to do so.

Your problem is you reject what other people observe. Literally millions of people believe that God exists in theiur lives and could offer you countless proofs, yet you can't accept it since you can't use a Bunsen burner on it. Not one person can jump up and prove God dioesn't exist - anecdotally or in that all important lab experiment.

In short, the "I'll believe it when I see it" is not a rational argument regarding the existence of God, it's just ones atheists thinks works. It doesn't. No one cares whether you believe in God or not since we can verify it for ourselves.

 

[wayward archer]

But you miss the idea that I would reject God exists if there was a rational reason to do so.

Your problem is you reject what other people observe. Literally millions of people believe that God exists in theiur lives and could offer you countless proofs, yet you can't accept it since you can't use a Bunsen burner on it. Not one person can jump up and prove God dioesn't exist - anecdotally or in that all important lab experiment.

In short, the "I'll believe it when I see it" is not a rational argument regarding the existence of God, it's just ones atheists thinks works. It doesn't. No one cares whether you believe in God or not since we can verify it for ourselves.

The exact same thing could be said of Islam, or people in ancient times who really 'felt' that Zeus or Odin or some kind of divine force was in their presence, or Buddhists who feel that they achieve enlightenment.

Cognitive dissonance is real. It happens all the time in non-spiritual contexts. It is far more rational to assume that is what most religious experiences are based on than to assume your or anyone's specific religious experience is any more real than someone elses.

The problem isn't that someone doesn't believe what you say you are feeling is what you are really feeling. Despite the fact that many ex-christians/muslims etc have admitted to lying about religious experience to 'fit in', or gain status amongst their peers, or to try and convert people, I have no reason or motive to believe your religious experiences don't feel real to you.

The problem is that you are interpreting them to mean something that you were raised to believe and arent willing to critically examine them at all.

 

[JGS]

About the rude scientists bit, I was largely thinking Dawkins – not so much the God Delusion as throwaway lines in his earlier and expressly scientific works. I believe Atkins, Wilson and a few others have also been casually dismissive of religion for no real reason related to what they were writing – though I don’t remember the details.

Again, there would be no issue whatsoever if not for God. The accusation that religious by and large hate science shows the bias ones have in rejecting religious folk because it's simply not true. The religious LOVE science. It's one of the big things we talk about as verification of creation which is a perfectly acceptable view until science comes up with a better one...which they haven't.

I’m not convinced the JGS is right that a belief in creation is the norm – it isn’t on my side of the Atlantic.

Belief in a higher intelligent is the norm. There are very few countries where the majority of the population does not have the view. I may have mispoke about the creator bit, but I don't think so. Now what is taught in school is a different matter and, as I said, life without creation is isadly the norm. That doesn't mean it sticks with people. the norm is spirituality.

For the record, I don't think any mention of origins of life is the way to go since none of it is remotely "proveable" and not necessary for a science based education. It teaches kids facts on a fairy tale (Without the fairy) foundation.

I don't think it is at all realistic to expect scientists to make any concession or compromise about creation/religion - perhaps best we could hope is for them to keep on-topic in their field.

No one is expecting them to. I never said anything otherwise. I do think that two things should be required of any "Professional":

1. Respectful disagreement rather than scornful disdain and ridicule. It doesn't win anyone over. In fact, I have never met someone who was "converted" to one side or the other by insults or dismissiveness. Science is not so special that it shouldn't be encouraged by the most common of folk. This can be done without any mention of religion whatsoever, much less a rejection of all forms of it.

2. Sticking to what they know. A scientist does not grasp belief unless they have it. They certainly aren't experts in any event, so their view of my religious stance means nothing- about the same as a Gaffer atheist (no offense just speaking the truth).

So a scientist can ramble on as much as he wants about how he thinks life got started. This does not involve any corelative expertise in human nature or religious thought- certainly not to the extent of accusing me of being delusional. I see things crystal clear.

BTW, I don't really know where to put this, so I'll just say that when I say scientist, I also include those that think they are simply by loving science and not believing in God. There's a lot of them around on the web.

EDIT: That reminds me. I personally see nothing wrong with Christians being questioned about their beliefs in the Christianity thread I think it helps when these matters are brought up because ones can see that Christianity is not what a non-believers perception of it is necessarily. Right now there's a debate over faith vs. works because not all Christians see things the same way (They should but that another entirely massive thread)

When it bogs down to something lacking respect in the thread, then move it here where things get nasty. At no point in time did I feel disrespect was being shown and I apologize if it appeared I was doing so.

In this thread, however, it may be a different story...

 

[JGS]

The exact same thing could be said of Islam, or people in ancient times who really 'felt' that Zeus or Odin or some kind of divine force was in their presence, or Buddhists who feel that they achieve enlightenment.

Cognitive dissonance is real. It happens all the time in non-spiritual contexts. It is far more rational to assume that is what most religious experiences are based on than to assume your or anyone's specific religious experience is any more real than someone elses.

The problem isn't that someone doesn't believe what you say you are feeling is what you are really feeling. Despite the fact that many ex-christians/muslims etc have admitted to lying about religious experience to 'fit in', or gain status amongst their peers, or to try and convert people, I have no reason or motive to believe your religious experiences don't feel real to you.

The problem is that you are interpreting them to mean something that you were raised to believe and arent willing to critically examine them at all.

The same can be said for ones who don't feel anything at all.

The point is the dismissing of it. The "I don't see it so you must be wrong" mentality gets no one anywhere. The fact of the matter is civilization has been progressing and advancing just fine with all of us loopy people claiming that God/Buddha/Allah/Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

An atheist popping in going "lol prove it" isn't really affecting that much.

Basically, assume that tyour opinion is the right one until proven wrong a with Zeus.

 

[jdogmoney]

Basically, assume that tyour opinion is the right one until proven wrong a with Zeus.

YOU JUST SAID

JUST NOW

THAT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--

 

[JGS]

YOU JUST SAID

JUST NOW

THAT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA--

No I didn't

EDIT: Actually, I probably did because I'm remebering all the Greek Mythology. That's what I get for typing on the fly.

I suppose there is no way to prove that Zeus never existed, but if one trots up to Olympus they won't find him and very few speak of his power and majesty now (Although I've never been to Greece, so they may still have alarge contingency of Zeus worshippers there.

I'll leave it in my original post though for continued scorn and ridicule.

 

[devenger]

A throwaway comment by fludevil at the end of a nice polite post in the Christianity thread sparked some discussion that was kind of inappropriate for that thread,

Wow, great work. Real quick:

Dawkins as a rude scientist? No sarcasm, I can buy that. I wasn't thinking about "celebrity" scientists.

I don't think churches should be forced to do anything. Only talking about legal marriages.

As for the throwaway comment: What can I say, I have a knack. Those really are the two issues I know most non-religious people have. Textbooks and gay rights.

Both are a huge issue in Texas (home), as our population sets textbook standards, and many Texas Republicans want to further curtail gay rights.

 

[Dunk#7]

I was reading over the earlier discussion regarding how the scientific community looks at creationism and I have to agree with JGS

Many people said that science has no place for creation because it simply cannot be "tested" or "proven"

There seems to be a double standard here.

How do you test the big bang? How do you prove that something came from nothing?

I thought the scientific community prided itself on being "open-minded". You cannot be open minded if you exclude possibilities from something that currently has no solid answer.

There are numerous theories out there that deal with the beginning of the universe, but none of the can really be tested or proven.

At the end of the day it requires faith regardless as to which current theory you believe.

Truth cannot always be tested. You cannot just simply toss out everything that cannot be tested without throwing away some truths in the process.

 

[soul creator]

About the rude scientists bit, I was largely thinking Dawkins – not so much the God Delusion as throwaway lines in his earlier and expressly scientific works. I believe Atkins, Wilson and a few others have also been casually dismissive of religion for no real reason related to what they were writing – though I don’t remember the details.

I would be curious to know the context, as lots of religions love to propose really bad answers to scientific questions, so obviously scientists would be "casually dismissive" of them.

 

[JGS]

I would be curious to know the context, as lots of religions love to propose really bad answers to scientific questions, so obviously scientists would be "casually dismissive" of them.

This isn't directed to me but since I started it....

I am not saying that scientist don't have a right or place to question religious folk who enter their realm. For example, if a religious person says the earth and universe were made in 7 literal days, it should be taken to task since there is insurmountable evidence IMO to suggest this isn't the case. The idea that there is a God is not the same thing

However, most of the debates are mythical themselves. Churches teach what they want, scientist explain what they know and the world moves along perfectly fine in the great circle of life.

It's the ones who say on the basis of science that god is a stupid thing to believe in and wholly incompatible with science that get my goat considering it's totally untrue.

Why would anyone religious want to accept anything those yokuls say? I'm one of the weird ones.

 

[wayward archer]

The same can be said for ones who don't feel anything at all.

Another possibility exists, they feel the same kinds of things you do... perhaps a profound sense of awe when looking at the world, the sky, the universe, everything... a 'spritual awakening' when they see an amazing sunrise or they attend a large gathering immersed in hundreds of people all dancing and overwhelming music everywhere but aren't interpreting it the same way that you do. From my own personal experience, the exhilaration felt at a revival or a "Praise Music" concert really isn't that different from the same feeling felt at a rave.

A lot of Christians, including myself when I was younger, get fixated on this idea that atheists and nonbelievers feel 'nothing', or that they are ignoring some everpresent call of God, or that some demon in their lives is diverting or distracting them. When I talked about cognitive dissonance earlier this could very well be a textbook case, and since it happens in every religion or belief system that people cling to all over the world, I don't think it's irrational to conclude that it couldn't happen with Christians as well.

An atheist popping in going "lol prove it" isn't really affecting that much.

It's not going to affect much because a Christian, or ANY religious person who is genuinely strong in their faith isn't going to take the challenge seriously because they personally don't need proof and/or have been sufficiently warned not to test their own beliefs (doubting Thomas). It's rather convenient and actually goes a long way towards explaining how Christianity and Islam could be as successful and long-lasting as they are even if they were (possibly) not true.

 

[devenger]

How do you test the big bang? How do you prove that something came from nothing?

I thought the scientific community prided itself on being "open-minded". You cannot be open minded if you exclude possibilities from something that currently has no solid answer.

There are numerous theories out there that deal with the beginning of the universe, but none of the can really be tested or proven.

Dunk, I don't mean to be dismissive, but at the very least, it's up for debate whether the Big Bang can be tested or proven. You are discounting numerous fields. Also, numerous other scientific theories on the origin of the universe, which can also be tested, and are, every day. This statement is close to "Why we got monkeys?"

Lets say we convince a group of scientists to have an open mind and consider creationism. It's a short work day, because they can't do anything to study it, test it, or recreate it. What would you have the scientific community consider, specifically?

And why can't we just keep it separate? Read about evolution, or the Big Bang theory, or black holes shitting new universes, and think, yeah, God might have done it that way. But that gets into taking the Bible literally or metaphorically, and I ain't getting close to that discussion.

 

[Dunk#7]

Dunk, I don't mean to be dismissive, but at the very least, it's up for debate whether the Big Bang can be tested or proven. You are discounting numerous fields. Also, numerous other scientific theories on the origin of the universe, which can also be tested, and are, every day. This statement is close to "Why we got monkeys?"

Lets say we convince a group of scientists to have an open mind and consider creationism. It's a short work day, because they can't do anything to study it, test it, or recreate it. What would you have the scientific community consider, specifically?

And why can't we just keep it separate? Read about evolution, or the Big Bang theory, or black holes shitting new universes, and think, yeah, God might have done it that way. But that gets into taking the Bible literally or metaphorically, and I ain't getting close to that discussion.

What tests can be ran to study how the universe just spontaneously appeared from nothing?

What can scientist do to study or test any of the other theories? All they can do is look at how things have been and how they are now and make an assumption as to how things came to be. It is just as easy to say God created it as it is to say it appeared from nowhere.

The origin of the universe will never be proven. The best we will ever do is rough guesses based on current evidence. Until one of the theories takes a major leap in possibility over another one we need to keep all possibilities open.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

First time in this thread... But I don't really believe in the organized religions. However, if someone calls me an atheist, or even an agnostic, I kind of cringe. I don't really like to be associated with any kind of group like that.

I'm not sure if there's a word or group to put me in, but I do have some kind of a belief... It's mainly derived from the works of Carl Sagan and other notable people like him. It's the whole thing that we are made from atoms that came from the big bang. We're all made from the explosions of stars and other cosmic events. And when we die, our matter stays, as part of the grander cosmos.

Carl Sagan said that "We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself." I really liked that. It's like life is the final evolutionary step for the greater universe itself. I don't know. I really liked stuff like that but it's not necessarily a belief or anything.

Sounds like something falling pretty easily into naturalistic pantheism to me. One could maybe see pantheism as making a stronger claim (the cosmos = "God"), but thematically your thoughts are similar. It's also more of a category than a single position, after all one of the recurring problems in any broad theological discussion is settling on a definition for 'God' in the first place.

I used to be a naturalistic pantheist and my idea was just 'the whole is greater than the sum', to explain divinity or a higher pattern emerging from the interconnectedness and emergent properties of the universe, etc. This was basically just speculative pondering, so even though I began to somewhat identify with that position it was more a sort of thing where "I believe this kind of bullshit more than I can believe that sort of bullshit", it was more idle reflection than strong-minded contemplation.

But I think that's essentially how it is with any abstract metaphysical claim, we can't really know anything (and so the issue arguably can't be said to be 'important'), then it often means just buying one brand of bullshit over the other. Some just work better or seem more plausible for the individual.

 

[wayward archer]

What tests can be ran to study how the universe just spontaneously appeared from nothing?

What can scientist do to study or test any of the other theories? All they can do is look at how things have been and how they are now and make an assumption as to how things came to be. It is just as easy to say God created it as it is to say it appeared from nowhere.

The origin of the universe will never be proven. The best we will ever do is rough guesses based on current evidence. Until one of the theories takes a major leap in possibility over another one we need to keep all possibilities open.

Science doesn't really try OR feel the need to explain why the universe just spontaneously appeared from nothing. "It's here so let's study it."

Just like a Christian doesn't really try or feel the need to explain why God exists at all, did he appear from nothing or always existed? Doesn't matter to them. "He's real so let's worship Him".

Science at least is looking at observable data that can be gathered directly. Stars and Galaxies are 'red shifting' away from us, indicating that everything is moving apart. Background radiation is direct evidence that a massive densely packed clump of matter and energy existed in the distant past which isn't around today which fits the idea of a younger universe which has expanded into what we now exist in. All the data we've gathered and the mathematics we perform on that data which have proven reliable so far indicate that at some point everything in the universe was condensed into one point.

There really isn't much point in trying to use this against science or atheism or non-belief in a specific deity. "You can't prove God didn't do it" or "Everything needs a cause and therefore the first cause has to be God" aren't compelling arguments. If your objective is simply to leave the door open for some kind of Prime Mover or first cause that existed at the beginning of time then you've succeeded, although that first cause could still potentially be an infinite number of things we haven't even conceived of yet rather than a specific deity worshiped today.

 

[Dunk#7]

Science doesn't really try OR feel the need to explain why the universe just spontaneously appeared from nothing. "It's here so let's study it."

Just like a Christian doesn't really try or feel the need to explain why God exists at all, did he appear from nothing or always existed? Doesn't matter to them. "He's real so let's worship Him".

Science at least is looking at observable data that can be gathered directly. Stars and Galaxies are 'red shifting' away from us, indicating that everything is moving apart. Background radiation is direct evidence that a massive densely packed clump of matter and energy existed in the distant past which isn't around today which fits the idea of a younger universe which has expanded into what we now exist in. All the data we've gathered and the mathematics we perform on that data which have proven reliable so far indicate that at some point everything in the universe was condensed into one point.

There really isn't much point in trying to use this against science or atheism or non-belief in a specific deity. "You can't prove God didn't do it" or "Everything needs a cause and therefore the first cause has to be God" aren't compelling arguments. If your objective is simply to leave the door open for some kind of Prime Mover or first cause that existed at the beginning of time then you've succeeded, although that first cause could still potentially be an infinite number of things we haven't even conceived of yet rather than a specific deity worshiped today.

If that was the case then why does science tend to hold onto one particular theory when it comes to dealing with the creation of the universe.

Those evidences don't point to only one possible explanation. There are multiple reasons that could explain the pheonomenons that you described. What if everything was created with those properties? What if God is the large clump of mass and energy that is at the origin? Those are just a couple off the top of my head. There are numerous others that have nothing to do with religion.

Science should not support only one possible explanation. It's all or nothing. Take your pick.

 

[wayward archer]

If that was the case then why does science tend to hold onto one particular theory when it comes to dealing with the creation of the universe.

Those evidences don't point to only one possible explanation. There are multiple reasons that could explain the pheonomenons that you described.

It's pretty clear you don't understand what "science" is and I doubt this response will help much, but maybe someone will benefit from it.

What if everything was created with those properties?

Unless there is evidence that everything was just created with those properties it's useless to assume this. This hypothesis doesn't change anything about how we study the universe.

What if God is the large clump of mass and energy that is at the origin?

This is about as useful as "What if Satan buried fake dinosaur bones to trick us into thinking the world wasn't 6000 years old". In other words, it isn't. Science deals with observable facts.

Those are just a couple off the top of my head. There are numerous others that have nothing to do with religion.

Science should not support only one possible explanation. It's all or nothing. Take your pick.

Science supports what makes the most sense given the data we have. Right now it appears that if you go back in time all matter and energy in the unverse condenses into one point. That is ALL science says about it. It doesn't say that God spoke and the universe exploded. It DOESN'T say that this didn't happen either. It just says the way the universe appears to behave now, this is the most likely conclusion about our past.

Demonstrate some direct evidence that the universe was created to look like a big bang occurred when it actually didn't or that "God" is the large clump of mass at the origin and science will take those ideas seriously. You can't, because there really isn't any. There's no smiley face drawn on the background radiation nor a microscopic stamp on every atom that says "Made in Heaven, manufacture date 6000 BC".

The scientific method, which can be practiced by anyone, really isn't about assuming things, and it certainly doesn't have any one particular thing that it wants to prove at the expense of everything else. Its job is to look at evidence and draw conclusions from it, not to keep every possibility open. Science doesn't engage in wishful thinking.

People are a different matter. People can have agendas (atheists, religious fundamentalists, and everyone in between), and they can engage in wishful thinking, and they can make things up that make them comfortable with their existence, and ease their fears of death. This is natural. It is not scientific. The difference is, anyone is capable of stepping up and researching the ways and means of reality with an open mind, analyzing evidence, and drawing their own conclusions. Your "we should consider every possibility" is not scientific, sorry. Evidence proceeds conclusion.

 

[devenger]

Science should not support only one possible explanation. It's all or nothing. Take your pick.

Hmm, are you talking about the Big Bang, being the one possible explanation supported by science?. I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to.

If it is, no there are lots of theories besides the Big Bang, that's just the most popular, and the only one with a sitcom named after it.

As for alternatives, sure, I think if the universe is a holographic donut, you could still say God made it. But we might be able to figure out how it was made. Science is about poking at the universe forever to see if it can be understood.

 

[soul creator]

If that was the case then why does science tend to hold onto one particular theory when it comes to dealing with the creation of the universe.

because that's what currently has the best evidence for it? Anyone is more than welcome to offer alternate explanations (assuming it's not just randomly making up things that sound good in one's head, but don't actually hold up in reality)

Those evidences don't point to only one possible explanation. There are multiple reasons that could explain the pheonomenons that you described. What if everything was created with those properties? What if God is the large clump of mass and energy that is at the origin?

"what if the tiny units of electricity that power my computer...are actually god?"

Those are just a couple off the top of my head. There are numerous others that have nothing to do with religion.

Science should not support only one possible explanation. It's all or nothing. Take your pick.

You basically just took things with relatively clear definitions (energy, mass, etc.) and then attached the word "god" to it. That doesn't actually answer anything, nor provide any better information.

 

[JGS]

Another possibility exists, they feel the same kinds of things you do... perhaps a profound sense of awe when looking at the world, the sky, the universe, everything... a 'spritual awakening' when they see an amazing sunrise or they attend a large gathering immersed in hundreds of people all dancing and overwhelming music everywhere but aren't interpreting it the same way that you do. From my own personal experience, the exhilaration felt at a revival or a "Praise Music" concert really isn't that different from the same feeling felt at a rave.

I assume that everyone does have the same feeling. It's just biology. What triggers it is important though. Religion is more than feeling, it's more than music, it's more than promises. A good religion is the whole package & I would be very disappointed in myself if I only fell for an emotional response.

I was providing a simple answer for a pretty irrational argument for the non-existence of God.

A lot of Christians, including myself when I was younger, get fixated on this idea that atheists and nonbelievers feel 'nothing', or that they are ignoring some everpresent call of God, or that some demon in their lives is diverting or distracting them. When I talked about cognitive dissonance earlier this could very well be a textbook case, and since it happens in every religion or belief system that people cling to all over the world, I don't think it's irrational to conclude that it couldn't happen with Christians as well.

I don't think any of those things. Quite frankly, I don't have a problem with atheists at all except for the few on the internet that insist I should view things their way since it's the correct way. That's incorrect.

Otherwise, they are another segment just like Muslims, Buddhists, or agnostics in which I don't share the same view with.

It's not going to affect much because a Christian, or ANY religious person who is genuinely strong in their faith isn't going to take the challenge seriously because they personally don't need proof and/or have been sufficiently warned not to test their own beliefs (doubting Thomas). It's rather convenient and actually goes a long way towards explaining how Christianity and Islam could be as successful and long-lasting as they are even if they were (possibly) not true.

This is true except for the testing. We test ourselves all the time. It's just that the skeptics fall short of convincing us otherwise. In other words, they constantly fail at persuasion. Testing is what makes religions last, not the lack of it. The side effect, unfortnately, is that it becomes less refined with time. The basis, however, is sound.

Scripturally, challenging belief was quite common. Thomas testing of his faith was not a bad thing and was encouraged just by Jesus obliging him. Paul regarded a whole congregation (Bereans I think) as worthy of copy because they researched stuff.

Religous people often do need proof. I know I do although I could never be truly atheist ever either.

 

[jdogmoney]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

You guys talking about the universe coming from nothing being some fanciful concept that science can't really back up should definitely watch this video.

 

[Dunk#7]

Hmm, are you talking about the Big Bang, being the one possible explanation supported by science?. I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to.

If it is, no there are lots of theories besides the Big Bang, that's just the most popular, and the only one with a sitcom named after it.

As for alternatives, sure, I think if the universe is a holographic donut, you could still say God made it. But we might be able to figure out how it was made. Science is about poking at the universe forever to see if it can be understood.

Since there are numerous theories out there that are obviously not proven then what would be wrong about including creationism as a possible theory?

Creationism is no more unproven than numerous other theories that are given much more support by the scientific community.

 

[devenger]

Since there are numerous theories out there that are obviously not proven then what would be wrong about including creationism as a possible theory?

Creationism is no more unproven than numerous other theories that are given much more support by the scientific community.

If you're interested, do some reading, but there is evidence for other cosmology theories.

@JGS I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Quick question: Could you choose not to believe in God? I mean, you personally. It's obviously not something you'd be interested in doing. But would you have the ability, if chosen, to not believe in God?

 

[wayward archer]

Since there are numerous theories out there that are obviously not proven then what would be wrong about including creationism as a possible theory?

Creationism is no more unproven than numerous other theories that are given much more support by the scientific community.

With this logic we should have a theory that what we think of as the color blue is really red, and teach that in every school.

Or that all people who's name begins with a "Z" are actually aliens, and try and pass laws to take rights away, imprison or stone them to death.

Or that at the beginning of time God created the universe, heaven, and hell, and decided to play a big joke on us and sentence everyone who believes in heaven to hell, and everyone who doesn't believe in heaven or hell goes to heaven for not blindly believing in something, and then persecute and shun people who don't believe that way.

You can't disprove those things, even though there isn't direct evidence to indicate that they are true in any way. But that doesn't mean they should be considered as strongly as theories we do have affirming evidence for.

It's all about evidence. Show me don't tell me.

 

[Uchip]

I think this belongs here

 

[Dunk#7]

If you're interested, do some reading, but there is evidence for other cosmology theories.

@JGS I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Quick question: Could you choose not to believe in God? I mean, you personally. It's obviously not something you'd be interested in doing. But would you have the ability, if chosen, to not believe in God?

Just as there is evidence that points to a creator. There are signs of intelligent design everywhere, but somehow people refuse to accept those evidences.

You act as if I have never looked into or studied other possibilities on the origin of the universe. Is it not possible that I have looked at all the options and intelligently choose creation?

There are scientists out there that support creation and use science to back their beliefs.

 

[Orayn]

Since there are numerous theories out there that are obviously not proven then what would be wrong about including creationism as a possible theory?

Creationism's very premise relies on yet another unproven model. Explaining one unknown with an even bigger unknown is not how a good hypothesis is put together.

Just as there is evidence that points to a creator. There are signs of intelligent design everywhere, but somehow people refuse to accept those evidences.

Do you have any specific examples of observations we've made that can be explained only by intelligent design?

 

[JGS]

If you're interested, do some reading, but there is evidence for other cosmology theories.

@JGS I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Quick question: Could you choose not to believe in God? I mean, you personally. It's obviously not something you'd be interested in doing. But would you have the ability, if chosen, to not believe in God?

I wasn't meaning anyone in particualr. I don't think most atheists attempt to do this. However, many of them use ridicule to at least apply doubt/shame/silence to the belief. Not saying you do it yourself, but it's far from non-existent on Gaf.

I would not be able to disbelieve God. I've tried. I was agnostic for a few years but it just didn't feel right so I hukered down in the books and decided that I had no other logical choice but to believe in God and be a Christian.

Atheism does not present a compelling enough argument for me. I could be one guess if proof that God didn't exist could be provided.

 

[devenger]

You act as if I have never looked into or studied other possibilities on the origin of the universe. Is it not possible that I have looked at all the options and intelligently choose creation?

You said creationism and other theories had the same amount of evidence, which just isn't true. That means you and I value creationist evidence differently.

I didn't say you were dumb for choosing creation, I'm just positive it has no scientific evidence to support it. Not one single internet link you could provide is going to say "=God" at the end. It's not a scientific theory, it's a religious belief.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but there's no reason to go on and on that creationist is equally supportable. We disagree on that.

 

[Kinitari]

Just as there is evidence that points to a creator. There are signs of intelligent design everywhere, but somehow people refuse to accept those evidences.

Your signs are emotional responses. "This is beautiful, it must have been designed" "This is complex, it must have been designed" "I don't understand this, it must be god". This is not a healthy mentality to have, I think.

I won't even bring up Science here, I will bring up our cognitive make up. We don't look at things and say "I like this answer the most, thus it should be valid" - if we did, we would not be successful, we would not learn we would not grow. People who continue to hold the mindset you hold are held back, simple as that.

You act as if I have never looked into or studied other possibilities on the origin of the universe. Is it not possible that I have looked at all the options and intelligently choose creation?

It sounds like you haven't, or are being intellectually dishonest. There is a mountain of evidence that points to a 'big bang'. Tons of it, verifiable, understandable clear and stuff that was predicted to be there that we looked for and found. It makes the most sense. Saying "god did it" is equally as likely as saying I went back in time, went SSSJ7 and did it. I have no problem holding those two theories to the same standard.

There are scientists out there that support creation and use science to back their beliefs.

These are people who are religious and sad. Every scientist you quote who uses 'science' to back up creation, I will show you 10 more that cleanly dismember his theory when they 'peer review' it. Maybe those 10 scientists are part of a giant conspiracy concerning the illuminati and their desire to hold down Christianity. Or maybe it's just bunk.

 

[wayward archer]

This is true except for the testing. We test ourselves all the time. It's just that the skeptics fall short of convincing us otherwise. In other words, they constantly fail at persuasion. Testing is what makes religions last, not the lack of it. The side effect, unfortnately, is that it becomes less refined with time. The basis, however, is sound.

Scripturally, challenging belief was quite common. Thomas testing of his faith was not a bad thing and was encouraged just by Jesus obliging him. Paul regarded a whole congregation (Bereans I think) as worthy of copy because they researched stuff.

Religous people often do need proof. I know I do although I could never be truly atheist ever either.

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

While I do believe that you have struggled and retained your faith and I respect that, I honestly don't believe most Christians, especially evangelical conservative Christians, challenge their faith in any meaningful way. Anti-intellectualism, this strong push towards homeschooling and school vouchers that would let their children go to private schools is all about insulating themselves and their children against non-believers, something that seems against Jesus' teaching (Go ye therefore...), but that Paul and John Calvin recommended (Calvin went so far as to have a man executed because he wrote a book on agnosticism). Cleansing your environment to make it pure.

The fear of hell is a powerful motivator. Ironically it's not even a big part of Jesus' message (really not convinced that the Gehenna that is in the gospels is a place of everlasting torment, Hades is a really a greek idea that predates Jesus and any Jew of that day would have been repulsed enough by the very notion of their body being thrown into "Gi-Hennom" which was a valley where the bodies of the unrighteous were thrown to burn up, instead of being given a proper burial, but that is a discussion for another time).

 

[phisheep]

EDIT: That reminds me. I personally see nothing wrong with Christians being questioned about their beliefs in the Christianity thread I think it helps when these matters are brought up because ones can see that Christianity is not what a non-believers perception of it is necessarily. Right now there's a debate over faith vs. works because not all Christians see things the same way (They should but that another entirely massive thread)

When it bogs down to something lacking respect in the thread, then move it here where things get nasty. At no point in time did I feel disrespect was being shown and I apologize if it appeared I was doing so.

In this thread, however, it may be a different story...

Don't get me wrong JGS - the discussion there was respectful enough. It's just the subject matter looked likely to attract a horde of atheists and derail Fernando's thread the same as happens nearly all the time. I'm not a mod or anything, but it just seemed a good idea to get the discussion outta there before, rather than after, things went off the rails.

I like Fernando's thread, but for safety's sake it's probably best to keep it to Christian-on-Christian action. At least mostly.

How do you test the big bang? How do you prove that something came from nothing?

Just want to pick up on this point for now. It isn't about how you test the big bang, it's about how you test the big bang theory.

And the way you do that is looking for the current evidence of it, which is exactly what happened. You work out the big bang in detail, with lots of maths, and you find that things should be moving apart, the universe should appear non-homogenous (because of the finite speed of light) and there should be echoes of the big bang lying around the universe.

Two of those three bits of evidence (source counts of quasars and background radiation)were found during my lifetime - when I was young there was a big old conflict between big bang and steady-state theories. So it's not true to say that science just clings onto one theory regardless of evidence.

 

[gerg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

You guys talking about the universe coming from nothing being some fanciful concept that science can't really back up should definitely watch this video.

This was brought up in another discussion I had with ThoseDeafMutes about the logical soundness of saying that the universe can come from "nothing" (and by this I mean actual nothing, rather than the "average" nothingness to which the video refers).

ThoseDeafMutes suggested that not everything which is contingent and finite needs to be caused, namely something which is random. He gave "radioactive decay" as an example of this, and argued that while such a process does have a vaguely defined "reason for occurring" (as in, a cause), the process itself is fundamentally random.

Unless I misread his argument, though, I don't think that there can be a midway between "being caused" and "being random" - if something has even so much as a hint of a cause, in my mind, then eventually the processes that lead to that event happening should be knowable. In this way it should make no sense to ask, if radiocative decay is truly random, how or why radioactive decay is caused. If it is random, then it has no cause.

Now, if we do leave room for matters which are caused but undetermined, then we have free will.

 

[Dever]

If that was the case then why does science tend to hold onto one particular theory when it comes to dealing with the creation of the universe.

Those evidences don't point to only one possible explanation. There are multiple reasons that could explain the pheonomenons that you described. What if everything was created with those properties? What if God is the large clump of mass and energy that is at the origin? Those are just a couple off the top of my head. There are numerous others that have nothing to do with religion.

Science should not support only one possible explanation. It's all or nothing. Take your pick.

Science holds on to the theory with the most evidence to back it up. We've observed that galaxies are swiftly drifting apart from one another, so from that we can conclude they must've been closer in the past. There's also the cosmic microwave backround radiation, which was predicted by scientists who supported the big bang model before it was discovered basically by accident. The observations fit the predictions neatly, and in 1989 NASA sent the COBE(Cosmic backround explorer) satellite to orbit to study the radiation further. This is what the satellite found:

The smooth line is the one predicted by the big bang model. The squares are the observations made by COBE. As you can see, it fits perfectly. There's also other evidence for the model that isn't hard to find. Now the thing I want to stress is that this doesn't prove that the universe came from nothing and that's not what the model even claims. It only shows that the entire universe was compressed into a small point around 13,7 billion years ago and has been expanding from there. I'm not a physicist though this is just my understanding from reading popular science stuff.

If you want to propose that God was the giant clump of stuff at the beginning, you'd have to explain what this would imply. What should we see if this were the case, and what shouldn't we see and why? In other words, what testable predictions does your hypothesis make? If it doesn't make any, it's outside the realm of science. It might still be true though, there's just no reason to believe it.

To believe that everything was just created with the properties they have is to believe in a trickster God that's out to fool us. If the universe was never compressed into an incredibly dense space, there's no reason for the microwave backround to exist. Why would God create the galaxies drifting apart from one another? In any case, the hypothesis makes no predictions. You could equally well propose that everything was created last thursday with memories of our past, artificial lives already planted into our heads. Do you think it would be rational to believe in last thursdayism until it was shown to be wrong?

 

[JGS]

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Right, it was a lesson. And like everything else in the Bible, the eyewitness accounts help bolster faith.

While I do believe that you have struggled and retained your faith and I respect that, I honestly don't believe most Christians, especially evangelical conservative Christians, challenge their faith in any meaningful way. Anti-intellectualism, this strong push towards homeschooling and school vouchers that would let their children go to private schools is all about insulating themselves and their children against non-believers, something that seems against Jesus' teaching (Go ye therefore...), but that Paul and John Calvin recommended (Calvin went so far as to have a man executed because he wrote a book on agnosticism). Cleansing your environment to make it pure.

I believe this is true although most Christians are not Evangelicals by a long shot. The rest don't need to challege their faith too terribly much, not in a skeptics way, because there's no reason to. They have reconciled enough in their mind to answer the questions pertinent to them. They accept a whole lot more adjustments in thought then given credit for such as evolution . Basically, they are happy.

But again, you're right. Many don't challenge things to the degree I did which means that many can be swayed by the littlest thing...if that thing were actually satisfying to them. In most cases it's not or it's compatible with their faith.

The fear of hell is a powerful motivator. Ironically it's not even a big part of Jesus' message (really not convinced that the Gehenna that is in the gospels is a place of everlasting torment, Hades is a really a greek idea that predates Jesus and any Jew of that day would have been repulsed enough by the very notion of their body being thrown into "Gi-Hennom" which was a valley where the bodies of the unrighteous were thrown to burn up, instead of being given a proper burial, but that is a discussion for another time).

I don't believe there is a eternal torment teaching in Scripture to begin with and it's not something compatible with the kind of person God is- even in terms of punishment.

I don't think fear of Hell is the primary reason. It's not even a primary sermon point in most churches that I know of and even then it's almost always in connection with heathens. People within the church wouldn't be doing half the stuff they do if they thought Hell was the outcome.

I also think the push to homeschooling is a direct result of a push to obliterate religion altogether from school including personal displays of it. To tell a person they can't pray because it offends somebody is stupid, yet that is what some school say can't be done. Clubs and organizations I get, but not a person who is praying over a lunch meal. I also don't think it's a big deal for a non-sponsored group of Christians talking about the Bible (Actually insert whatever religion you want). It's their way of life and out of all groups, those nerds affect peer pressure in no substantial way.

Add to that a curriculum that mandates learning about an origin of life concept that is not true and people leave and admittedly not just the evangelicals. It's not that the home schooling actually mirrors the first 3 chapters of Genesis, it's that it allows one to omit that part and it's not affecting their kid's intelligence in the slightest.

The insulation is not against Jesus teaching either. The night before his death, a big part of Jesus' prayer was about keeping his disciples out of the world. Christians are supposed to be seperate because society has a powerful influence on how one lives. It actually tries to dictate that. Scripture makes it pretty clear that Christians control their interactions with the world not the other way around, so many are wary of being told what to do when it is neutral to contrary of their beliefs.

The problem is the government & society uses a lowest common denominator in order to cover all citizens who aren't criminals. Christianity uses the highest common denominator which specifically excludes those that don't accept Christian teaching, meaning that we do indeed think we are better than the average Heathen Joe. Just in case it's not notice, I'm exagerating for brevity's sake.

Parents worried about that see alternate schooling as a solution. I don't have a problem with that although I'm not worried about the level of interaction my kids have with heathen Joe's kids. They'll be alright. Plus, I would be a horrible homeschool teacher although bith my in-laws are teachers.