Atheism

GreyWizzard · Post by **GreyWizzard** » 03 Sep 2006 06:07 pm

what's not to say some higher being just didn't slap all the ingredients together while saying "Gee, I wonder what this stuff does".

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 03 Sep 2006 06:11 pm

What's not to say that the universe isnt the result of a third year physics prac in another universe where someone has made mini black holes evaporate?

At what point does a made-up suggestion become absurd?

GreyWizzard · Post by **GreyWizzard** » 03 Sep 2006 06:24 pm

well, then techincally they are a higher being. They are a creator.

BOOMY · Post by **BOOMY** » 03 Sep 2006 07:01 pm

Ignorance?! Oh I see, spirituality having some place in the universe...what a crazy deluded ideal!

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 03 Sep 2006 07:34 pm

GreyWizzard wrote:well, then techincally they are a higher being. They are a creator.

Splitting hairs, but yes. The point is, however, that you can make up whatever you want if you can't test it.

But it's still bullshit.

AgOnNy · Post by **AgOnNy** » 03 Sep 2006 07:53 pm

Ok ok, everybody stop..... with all the wisdom that comes spilling out of me.. i will tell you all the truth...

I am a higher sentinent thing... Your galaxy is my computer game, much like the way you all play the Sims, only much much more advanced.
I can end all of this just by hitting the power button on my console, so shutup, stop fighting and believe in the Josh.

That is all my little retarded digital children.

vision · Post by **vision** » 03 Sep 2006 07:58 pm

BOOMY wrote:Ignorance?! Oh I see, spirituality having some place in the universe...what a crazy deluded ideal!

Yeah, that's what I said.

Nice classic religious rephrasing the argument there. You are showing your ignorance if you think that science and spirituality make as much sense as each other, because you're demonstrating your need for spirituality as a crutch for what you don't understand.

BOOMY · Post by **BOOMY** » 03 Sep 2006 11:07 pm

How am I doing that? What dont I understand? You're good at over assuming, hey?

Only a fool would deny spirituality a part of his life and still call himself complete.

If i'm so ignorant then please enlighten me as to how a god, higher power, the soul or spirituality doesn't exist. I am not denying any science brought to the table in this thread but it really has nothing to do with the nonexistance of a spiritual understanding in life.

Did you ever think me and grey have a belief in a higher power but an ever changing idea that can evolve, rather than rigidly fastening our beliefs to something and ruling out any deeper thought that could go into a particular philosophy or 'fact'.

David Carney · Post by **David Carney** » 03 Sep 2006 11:35 pm

Here's a question for anyone reading this post...

Do you believe in...

(a) Something eternal

or

(b) Someone eternal

I would love to know what came before the big bang, and how the elements needed for it came into existance.

vision · Post by **vision** » 04 Sep 2006 06:20 am

BOOMY wrote:How am I doing that? What dont I understand? You're good at over assuming, hey?

Only a fool would deny spirituality a part of his life and still call himself complete.

If i'm so ignorant then please enlighten me as to how a god, higher power, the soul or spirituality doesn't exist. I am not denying any science brought to the table in this thread but it really has nothing to do with the nonexistance of a spiritual understanding in life.

Did you ever think me and grey have a belief in a higher power but an ever changing idea that can evolve, rather than rigidly fastening our beliefs to something and ruling out any deeper thought that could go into a particular philosophy or 'fact'.

Here's a question for you - why is someone a fool for 'denying' (or how about the never found the need for it?) spirituality?

And why is the burden of proof on someone who doesn't believe? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 04 Sep 2006 09:33 am

David Carney wrote:Here's a question for anyone reading this post...

Do you believe in...

(a) Something eternal

or

(b) Someone eternal

I would love to know what came before the big bang, and how the elements needed for it came into existance.

By definition, there was no 'before' - the big bang was the start.

selfish · Post by **selfish** » 04 Sep 2006 10:56 am

wow some people are jerks
there's a lot of things being skimmed over - people who believe in any kind of higher power being lumped in with religious nutjobs and being told they're obviously stupid

and pat: read this

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 04 Sep 2006 11:10 am

That was an interesting read, selfish. Unfortunately, if that were the case, it would be pretty much impossible to observe evidence for this, because we a limit as to how far we can see due to the speed of light. I' also hazarding a guess that the curvature of one of these sub-universes would mean it is effectively cut-off from the others anyway.

An interesting idea though.

selfish · Post by **selfish** » 04 Sep 2006 11:23 am

exactly pat: the truth of all this is that any evidence for it is going to be unobservable from our current position, and so anyone passing a firm judgement either way is being a cockhead.

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 04 Sep 2006 11:26 am

True, but that doesnt negate the fact that claiming there is a higher being is still completely made-up.

Seraph · Post by **Seraph** » 04 Sep 2006 12:12 pm

That's a redundant statement, though, Pat, because of course higher beings are made up. At this point, all higher beings systems are theories (I use the term loosely and as its general language definition, not its scientific meaning, as most higher being systems are not of the scientific world and are not bound by scientific standards of proof).

I think what's being neglected here is that religion and science both created themselves. Both were designed by peoples/cultures wanting answers for things they didn't understand. Most notably, both religion and science made their own rules and standards. Just as science proves its claims via scientific methods, using science-defined standards of proof and evidence, religion proves its validity through its own standards of proof and evidence.

The thing that science did to protect itself and win the hearts and minds of so many, was to promise that it would eventually have the answers. This was a great move, because whenever religion gives us an answer we don't like, or doesn't give us an answer, we write off religion as being a crock - but when science can't explain something, or gets something wrong, it's ok because surely we'll get there eventually, right?

The point I'm trying to make with all of this, is that whether you are a religious person or not, whether you believe in the idea that humans and science will give us all the answers or not - neither religion nor science has the answers now. The difference is that religion has already laid its cards on the table. Science is content to wait until it has something concrete before it places its bet.

selfish · Post by **selfish** » 04 Sep 2006 12:17 pm

curse you seraph for being able to write so well and so sensibly

Seraph wrote:The difference is that religion has already laid its cards on the table. Science is content to wait until it has something concrete before it places its bet.

this is true, but then there's the third path - the "i think there's something there but i don't know what" - which has the same ability of science to adapt to whatever happens in the future. religion without showing its cards.

GreyWizzard · Post by **GreyWizzard** » 04 Sep 2006 12:19 pm

Pat, I don't see what your problem is. I believe in a higher being and I believe in science. Just because I believe one thing doesn't mean I have to stop believing in the other. As selfish said, some people are really lumping people with some "spiritual" belief in with the hardcore religious nut bars. It's a little harsh.

mech · Post by **mech** » 04 Sep 2006 12:23 pm

The difference between science and religion is that science is evidence based and not concrete, and does not claim to ever have "all" the answers, it just works to explain what's around us. Religion reckons it has the answers without evidence and that you should just have "faith".

Seraph · Post by **Seraph** » 04 Sep 2006 12:31 pm

Firstly, religion does have evidence, just as science does. It's just evidence based on the religious standards of evidence, rather than scientific standards of evidence.

Secondly, the ultimate goal of science is to have all the answers - so it's not that different from religion. Religion just has its answers now, whereas science is still working on it.

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 04 Sep 2006 12:31 pm

I think youre giving too much credit to religion in your post, seraph. Like you say, religion has "layed its cards on the table" already. There is no genuine attempt in religion to explain why something is the way it is when it can simply be explained away as "the will of the god/s".

The way your phrase "The thing that science did to protect itself" is more than a bit worrying, because you are treating science almost as an entity unto itself, and that is certainly not the case. Science is a mthod of inquiry into how and why things work. Furthermore, science doesnt require "protection" because, as has repeatedly been shown, startling discoverie that reshape the understanding of the universe have been widely accepted when proven true or reliable. How else can you explain the acceptance of say, quantum theory when it is a concept that is so completely alien to the human mind and reasoning?

You are correct in saying "Science is content to wait until it has something concrete" but not when you add the "before it places its bet" condition. This isnt a matter of making blind assertions - it's a matter of finding out how and why things work instead of holding onto millenia-old ideas that have effectively overtaken society through collective ignorance.

Finally, I would love to say how much I dislike the assertions that science and religion are so easily referred to in the same breath as if they were of equal merit. The number of contradictions and patently made-up beliefs that have been continually disproven over the centuries is astounding. Religion is truely an impediment to understanding.

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 04 Sep 2006 12:36 pm

Seraph wrote:Firstly, religion does have evidence

Please provide an example. Preferably one that has not since been contradicted with a scientific explanation.

GreyWizzard wrote:Pat, I don't see what your problem is. I believe in a higher being and I believe in science. Just because I believe one thing doesn't mean I have to stop believing in the other. As selfish said, some people are really lumping people with some "spiritual" belief in with the hardcore religious nut bars. It's a little harsh.

I appreciate there is a distinction, but I'm more concerned with religion as a propogating idea that seems incredibly adept at ingraining young minds with untruths. In some ways it behaves like an entity in that it has defense mechanisms against which individuals rarely have a chance.

GreyWizzard · Post by **GreyWizzard** » 04 Sep 2006 12:40 pm

you make it sound like anyone who believes in a god, or an after life or whatever has no right to believe in science.

The simple thing is, no one has proven everything to me, I don't know what happens when you die, I don't know that there isn't some pantheon of gods. I fail to see what is so wrong in having an open mind. That is what makes a good agnostic. Someone who doesn't close their mind to either side of the argument but desires to know more. They don't fall for the bullshit rewritten history of a christian bible. They study the other gods, like Wodin and Alla, and buddah. I'm not seeking enlightenment, I'm not trying to prove the existence of a god, I'm just keeping my mind open to everything that is around me because I don't know all the answers.

edit

please note, I wrote this before seeing your last post.

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 04 Sep 2006 12:45 pm

I agree with you about keeping an open mind, Grey. I just seem to feel that keeping an open mind is a concept that is mutually exclusive with any one faith that already spells out "how things are".

Seraph · Post by **Seraph** » 04 Sep 2006 12:47 pm

Religion has given its answers, and has explained them. It has proved its answers in its own field - God willed it. God says so. The bible says so. The church says so. That's the level of proof religion has designed, and it's fulfilling its level of proof quite well.

Analysing science as an entity is simply one way of understanding it. Look at something from the point of view that it creates itself to make itself more powerful, to rule its world, and to understand why the individual people that formed it did so. Religion and science can both be viewed as entities created by people to obtain and maintain power. It's certainly not the only way to look at something, but it is one of the many ways I try to look at any situation, if for no other reason than to give me an idea of just how many grains of salt I need to take it with.

Science is as much of an entity unto itself as religion is. They're both social constructs. That's probably about the only thing they're in any way similar.

Science accepts the very counter-intuitive theories of quantum theory because it has followed all the rules of science in proving itself. Religion has done the exact same thing. It just uses a different system of proof, because it is not science. Besides, religion has its own variety of quantum theory. God is one thing, everything and nothing, he is everywhere and nowhere

Finally, I'm not sure exactly who it is you are referring to about the "equal merit" thing. Religion is most definitely an impedement to scientific progress, however, there's no question there. Religion is an incredibly powerful entity, but has lost a lot of its power in the last 500 years and would love to get it back.