Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 160
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God



    Showtime is running it's movie "Borgias" (the original crime family) about a corrupt Pope who actually had a hit man and actually used him. It shows how corrupt the early church was and the abuse of power by the early popes. There were tons of illigitimate kids from the early popes and today we have the scandals from the priests. Not much has changed.

    http://www.sho.com/sho/the-borgias/h...borgiasgeneral


    The Pope in 1960 said the incense from the force has infiltrated the walls of the vatican. He was putting the cardinals and priests on notice that he knew about their satan worship and it spread to France and eventually the south east of the U.S. The term was never used again.

    The Force is a old testament Jewish term for Satan and George Lucas used it in his Star Wars
    movie when they said may be force be with you. He was actually talking about Satan and nobody knew it. Lucas is Jewish and well familiar with the old testament and the term.

    I really don't think God intended the church to go from the Upper Room to the Catholic Church and a pope. When Cornelius bowed to St Peter, Peter said no. You bow to no one except God.

    I'm really this close from dropping out of church and worshipping God in my own way. I get better sermons on TV anyway.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 04-16-2013 at 03:44 AM.




  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,256

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Just going to bump this thread because it was very interesting. Also, what a representation of atheists here! I'm pleasantly surprised. I'm a proud one myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    Can you see where the wind comes and where it goes? Of course not.

    If you can't understand earthly things, how can you understand heavenly things. CHRIST TO DISCIPLES

    He also said you believe because you see, blessed are those that believe but cannot see.
    I hate to jump right in and say something like this, but wind/air/oxygen is a typical example given by believers and it is truly a very bad one.

    Wind is not transcendent. While it cannot be seen, it can be felt on the skin, it can be heard, and if it is carrying the right particles it can be smelled. It can be detected irrefutably and scientifically. Nothing about god or gods--timelessness, mysteriousness, needing to rely on faith to know it's there--applies to wind. Or, really, to any force of nature that simply cannot be seen but can be proven in myriad other ways, e.g., gravity, magnetic waves, radiation, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    Trap has a point, ultimately this debate comes down to faith. No amount of logic will convince the faithful that god is not there, and no amount of exhorting will convince a skeptic to take it on faith.
    Hi there, ASB! Along with Dade and a few others I have long liked your postings here. Always well thought out.

    Matt Dillahunty is the most famous host of a show I like on YouTube called "The Atheist Experience." (Perhaps a few posters here like HoustonRaven have even heard of it? It's based in Austin, TX.) Anyway, one of Matt's most famous sayings is, "Faith is the reason people give when they don't have a good reason."




  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,256

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Any of you atheists ever consider Pascal's Wager?
    My understanding of it is this: Better to believe in god and be wrong (no consequence) than to not believe and be wrong (potential consequence, depending on which/what kind of god you believe in [Christian god, for example, MAJOR and INFINITE consequence]).

    Is this the concept you're referring to, HR? If so, yes I have considered it. 1) I can't force myself to believe for the sake of a bet. I don't believe in god/gods because my mind does not allow me. It is illogical to me. 2) If a god is worth my worship, it shouldn't be able to be tricked this way. Because really, this is a hedging of bets that amounts to working the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Too much evidence in nature and, oddly enough, in science for me to think otherwise.
    Pardon the flippancy, but please explain this evidence that is apparent to you but not apparent to the thousands of scientists who would love to publish a paper that proves or even strongly suggests god with natural and scientific evidence, which would bring them fame, fortune, and probably a Nobel Prize.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Organized religion, to me, is the vein attempt by the finite to explain the infinite. By simple definition, we cannot begin to understand or explain the infinite.
    If you cannot begin to understand or explain the infinite, then why believe in god? The only way this is not a direct contradiction on your part is if you don't think god is infinite. If he is, then you believe in something you "cannot begin to understand or explain," and you are not being logically superior in any way to organized religion.




  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,534
    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Is this the concept you're referring to, HR? If so, yes I have considered it. 1) I can't force myself to believe for the sake of a bet. I don't believe in god/gods because my mind does not allow me. It is illogical to me. 2) If a god is worth my worship, it shouldn't be able to be tricked this way. Because really, this is a hedging of bets that amounts to working the system.
    I don't believe Pascal was suggesting anything like what you're intimating. He was simply postulating it would be wise to err on the side of belief. I don't think he was taking some sort of strong stand or formulate a faith based on his philosophy. I don't necessarily believe in this concept of his. I was merely posting it to the room as a discussion point.

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Pardon the flippancy, but please explain this evidence that is apparent to you but not apparent to the thousands of scientists who would love to publish a paper that proves or even strongly suggests god with natural and scientific evidence, which would bring them fame, fortune, and probably a Nobel Prize.
    I see God when I look at my unborn daughter via our 3D sonogram. Her face, her hair, her eyes, the way she twitches when I touch my wife's belly. I see God when I am at the Grand Canyon, when I read up on the process of chlorophyll, when I watch a program about nuclear energy or black holes, etc

    What scientists don't know proves to me the existence of a higher being just as much as we have been able to prove. For every time a scientist figures out why something happens, there's 5 new doors opened leading Man in another direction. The more we study the vastness of space or the vast world of microbiology that we're just now beginning to discover, let alone explain, the more we realize that what we don't know as a race is far more than what we actually do know.

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    If you cannot begin to understand or explain the infinite, then why believe in god? The only way this is not a direct contradiction on your part is if you don't think god is infinite. If he is, then you believe in something you "cannot begin to understand or explain," and you are not being logically superior in any way to organized religion.
    Logic is about definitions. For there to be a finite, you must also have the infinite. The infinite is unexplainable, undefinable and something you cannot personify. Then, by definition, the infinite must be a higher being. It is "God" per se? Who knows? I happen to believe there is a God who got this whole ball of wax started.

    I don't look at Faith as a competition of who's right or "logically superior" to someone else. Perhaps there's our fundamental difference. Faith (or lack of) is a deeply personal issue, and while it's being discussed openly here, isn't something one should force on to one another.

    Faith is the absence of logic so of course, as someone who sees Faith through the prism of logic, cannot understand.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    My understanding of it is this: Better to believe in god and be wrong (no consequence) than to not believe and be wrong (potential consequence, depending on which/what kind of god you believe in [Christian god, for example, MAJOR and INFINITE consequence]).

    Is this the concept you're referring to, HR? If so, yes I have considered it. 1) I can't force myself to believe for the sake of a bet. I don't believe in god/gods because my mind does not allow me. It is illogical to me. 2) If a god is worth my worship, it shouldn't be able to be tricked this way. Because really, this is a hedging of bets that amounts to working the system.



    Pardon the flippancy, but please explain this evidence that is apparent to you but not apparent to the thousands of scientists who would love to publish a paper that proves or even strongly suggests god with natural and scientific evidence, which would bring them fame, fortune, and probably a Nobel Prize.
    Easy. Look at something as fundamental as energy. Scientists have no idea what energy is. It can neither be created nor destroyed, and that's about the extent.
    It's common to hear the moment of the big bang referred to as an Infinitely dense, infinitely small ball of energy. There is no such quantity as "infinite." It's not a number, it's a direction you count in. Calling something "infinitely small" or "infinitely dense" tries to call a counting process a quantity. It's a slick trick to paper over the fact that if there ever was any point of origin of "the universe," physics completely lacks the tools to describe it. All it can even try to describe is events after the origin. It is ridiculously comical when someone points to something like M-theory or String theory (Theoretical mathematical iteration masquerading as if it could ever be more than just that, theoretical.) as exhibit 'A' as to why theism/deism should be mocked and is unnecessary mysticism.


    In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawkins eludes to the idea that science will know the answer to all questions worth asking. The operative words here being "worth asking". In order to set things straight, in classic western-scientific triumphalist fashion, he proclaims "philosophy is dead". Ignoring the enormous hubris of such a statement, thinj of the irony alone; itself of course being a philosophical statement, subscribing to its own philosophy. The reason for dismissing philosophy is simple. It rids of all questions that do not admit a scientific answer as simply non-questions, or psuedo-questions. The error in this thinking is simple, Said best by Sir Peter Medawar, "Scientists must however never be tempted into mistaking the necessity of reason for the sufficiency of reason. Rationalism falls short of answering the many simple and childlike questions people ask: questions about origins and purposes such as are often comtemptuously dismissed as non- questions or pseudoquestions, although people understand them clearly enough and long to have answers. These are intellectual pains that rationalists-- like bad physicians confronted by ailments they cannot diagnose or cure-- are apt to dismiss as "imagination." it is not to rationalism that we look for answers to these simple questions because rationalism chides the endeavor to look at all."
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,256

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I don't believe Pascal was suggesting anything like what you're intimating. He was simply postulating it would be wise to err on the side of belief. I don't think he was taking some sort of strong stand or formulate a faith based on his philosophy. I don't necessarily believe in this concept of his. I was merely posting it to the room as a discussion point.
    Pascal's Wager is often defined exactly as I laid it out: a hedge-betting that basically fools god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager). But it was indeed just a discussion point. Hopefully, I've made you a little more familiar with a common interpretation of Pascal's Wager.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I see God when I look at my unborn daughter via our 3D sonogram. Her face, her hair, her eyes, the way she twitches when I touch my wife's belly. I see God when I am at the Grand Canyon, when I read up on the process of chlorophyll, when I watch a program about nuclear energy or black holes, etc
    Our children and the beautiful features of Earth are all breath-taking and awe-inspiring, but they do not prove god. If you see some higher power in those things when you look at them, then all I can say is, respectfully, "I understand. Good for you." You see the higher power (unless you are delusional) in a poetic and metaphorical sense, which cannot be proven in a natural or scientific sense, which are both words you used.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    What scientists don't know proves to me the existence of a higher being just as much as we have been able to prove. For every time a scientist figures out why something happens, there's 5 new doors opened leading Man in another direction. The more we study the vastness of space or the vast world of microbiology that we're just now beginning to discover, let alone explain, the more we realize that what we don't know as a race is far more than what we actually do know.
    Because we don't know something doesn't mean god did it. Because we don't know something doesn't mean ANY [noun] did ANY [verb]. That is an argument from ignorance, which is a classic logical fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Logic is about definitions. For there to be a finite, you must also have the infinite.
    Totally agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    The infinite is unexplainable, undefinable and something you cannot personify.
    Higher math deals with infinity quite often, but sure, in the sense you probably mean, the human mind in its current state is probably not equipped to grasp something that extends eternally.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Then, by definition, the infinite must be a higher being.
    But here I must disagree on both points: "higher" and "being," but especially "being." The first assumption is that something infinite is better ("higher") than something finite. But that's very philosophical. The easier route is to contest the term "being," which implies sentience, intelligence, etc. This you have firmly not demonstrated, and probably no one can or ever will.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I happen to believe there is a God who got this whole ball of wax started.
    Not a problem, we are all entitled to our beliefs. But we are not entitled to our own logic. And as you have pointed out, "faith is the absence of logic." I do not think it is a stretch then, and I'm sorry if this is personally offensive, that your faith-based belief is illogical.
    Last edited by akashicrecorder; 05-21-2013 at 07:43 PM.




  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,256

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Easy.
    Please let the board know when you have attained your Nobel Prize.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Look at something as fundamental as energy. Scientists have no idea what energy is.
    Assuming you're correct ... so what? Because scientists don't know what something is doesn't mean a transcendent, timeless, sentient being exists that governs everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    Rationalism falls short of answering the many simple and childlike questions people ask
    Doesn't mean a god (or gods) did it.




  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,534
    Aka, we're trying to keep things civil around here.

    Snarky quips about if someone you disagree with has a Nobel Prize isn't going to help your cause.

    As for your post, I don't feel the exercise in trying to point out why someone's faith is illogical is any different than a devout Catholic trying to proselytize. Both acts are futile, neither will convince the other of their perceived failings and the underlying notion of superiority is very telling as to the lack of strength in the logic.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,256

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Aka, we're trying to keep things civil around here.

    Snarky quips about if someone you disagree with has a Nobel Prize isn't going to help your cause.

    As for your post, I don't feel the exercise in trying to point out why someone's faith is illogical is any different than a devout Catholic trying to proselytize. Both acts are futile, neither will convince the other of their perceived failings and the underlying notion of superiority is very telling as to the lack of strength in the logic.
    I think snark, when used properly, can have great meaning. When someone says "easy" to me in response to my asking someone to prove, with natural and scientific evidence, the existence of god, that deserves many kinds of responses, and I think one of them could be snark. This conversation is not "easy." And my reply is more truth than snark. If Sirdowski can say, "Energy!" and solve the question of god and the universe in time for dinner, then he DOES deserve a Nobel Prize. The fact he (and anyone touting his beliefs) hasn't got one yet suggests his reasoning is flawed and his confidence, ill-founded.

    Also, HR, I have never been trying to convince you of anything. Perhaps what I have been trying to do is prove is the illogicality of belief, and you, in a way, have helped me do that.

    You said "faith is the absence of logic."

    You claim to "believe" in a god.

    When someone believes something without good evidence, s/he is believing it on faith.

    By your own logic, your belief is illogical.

    That doesn't even mean your belief is wrong; because if we find out there is a god, or gods, when we die, you will have been proven right. But the fact remains--again, through reasoning I drew from your own words--that, currently, your faith-based position is not based on reason, evidence, or anything supportable through testable, scientific means.




  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Constantine wasn't even a Christian IIRC. He just went along with it to unite the empires.

    No, he didn't just go along with it. Historians debate if he became a Chrisitan but
    he was the first Roman emperor with a cross in his diadem.

    He got a dream from God. He had a big fight coming
    up to save his empire and God spoke in the dream and told him to carry crosses into
    the battle and he would win. Just think, for 300 years the emperors killed anyone
    with a cross and he orders his soldiers to carry them into battle.

    They did and the won and that's when Constantine saved the church then organized
    it. Yes, he did it in part to save his empire but it was the strongest empire in the
    world during his reign. Not sure if Constantine became a Christian but he gathered the
    pope and bishops at the Nicea Council where the Nicene
    Creed comes from and the church was organized and some believe the books of the
    Bible were organized there as well. There's no proof that Constantine approved or
    disapproved the organizing of the books into the Bible. The first Bible as is today
    was published by the PUritans.

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine...andt/nicea.htm


    The book of Genesis was written by Jews in captivity in Babylon and it survived all
    those centuries. Mathew, the first book of the new testament, was not the first book
    written but was the first book to go into the New Testament.

    Luke was the first book written in the New Testament but it makes sense to put
    Mathew first because it gives Christ's lineage going back to King David. That's
    important because he came as the Messiah exactly the way the Old Testament
    said the Messiah would come.

    Jews in the old testament kept strict records of their family's names that lasted
    for centuries. In fact one had to be a member of Aaron's tribe to be a priest in
    the temple. All the names from that tribe were written on the walls of the temple.
    When the disciples marvelled over all those names Christ said don't marvel for they
    will all come down and the temple will be destroyed.

    It was 70 years later and the deciples, or most of them saw the temple destroyed
    by the Romans. Today, orthodox Jews want to build a third temple on the same spot
    where the big mosque with the golden dome is. It's called the Temple MOunt and
    its the most hotly contested piece of real estate in the world today.

    The Israeli gov't wont let the Jews put a temple there because it will start WW 3
    but the book of Ezekial says a temple will be built in the end times. The Jews even
    have a name for it and call it Ezekial's Temple.

    More info is at www.templemount.com
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 05-21-2013 at 09:38 PM.




  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908
    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Please let the board know when you have attained your Nobel Prize.
    I apologize if I came off as pretentious, it was not my intention.

    The whole of your points can be summed up by saying you are confusing the necessity of logic with the sufficiency of logic.

    Assuming you're correct ... so what? Because scientists don't know what something is doesn't mean a transcendent, timeless, sentient being exists that governs everything.

    Correct. The point is, we get so carried away with all that science has unraveled, that we forget that at a fundamental level (mass-energy, gravity) our edifices we have built are floating on unknown, and potentially, irreducible matters of fact. What I mean by that is, the past two thousand years have been spent understanding how these things work. We have yet to analyze what they are, precisely because they just are. We just accept them as blunt fact. We have to. Mass-energy, just is. Gravity, just is. We are finding more and more about the interactions of these elements (mass-energy, gravity) but what are they? This is even more startling when looking at organisms. What is life? Yes we know it's these amino acids and this protein in this cell, but the actual emergent property "life" that is when these things come together. But why? This is what's so particularly damaging about saying science is the only authority on these matters, because in reality, science just gives us concrete facts, and tells us nothing about them, other than, "because". To go further would be to ask science to prove science. Let's say for example, we founded another branch of science, explaining "how" for all of science, called "super science." We would eventually exhaust "super science" to the point of needing a "super, super science.", and so on for a "super super super science" , ad infinitum. This is the danger of logic. It is a formal system and is thus limited to the rules of a formal system.



    Doesn't mean a god or gods did it.
    Correct. But again, here is the problem with your appealing to logic. How exactly is the idea that the universe was a nothing that turned into a something (the big bang) more logical than saying that everything came from a deity? Stephen Hawkins pioneered it, but the majority of scientists have faith in - because that's exactly what it is based on, faith- that the universe is a nothing that turns out to be a something, and that the universe created itself. Hawkins himself actually takes it one step further, he believes -or has faith in- the notion that the law of gravity formed the universe. What a marvelous contradiction, since the law of nature gravity,* by definition, presupposes the existence of the nature in which it purports to describe.* All scientific law in the last resort says that if you have X you will get Y. If only you can find any X. For those who belive in a God, that is where they find their X. Science however has chosen in this one particular instance, they don't need an X to get Y.



    When it comes to these kinds of debates, I've come to the point where my only intention is for others to entertain and realize the fact that this is much more of a debate than many would have you believe; and in particular, "we must not mistake the necessity of reason for it's sufficiency."
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,534
    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    I think snark, when used properly, can have great meaning. When someone says "easy" to me in response to my asking someone to prove, with natural and scientific evidence, the existence of god, that deserves many kinds of responses, and I think one of them could be snark. This conversation is not "easy." And my reply is more truth than snark. If Sirdowski can say, "Energy!" and solve the question of god and the universe in time for dinner, then he DOES deserve a Nobel Prize. The fact he (and anyone touting his beliefs) hasn't got one yet suggests his reasoning is flawed and his confidence, ill-founded.

    Also, HR, I have never been trying to convince you of anything. Perhaps what I have been trying to do is prove is the illogicality of belief, and you, in a way, have helped me do that.

    You said "faith is the absence of logic."

    You claim to "believe" in a god.

    When someone believes something without good evidence, s/he is believing it on faith.

    By your own logic, your belief is illogical.

    That doesn't even mean your belief is wrong; because if we find out there is a god, or gods, when we die, you will have been proven right. But the fact remains--again, through reasoning I drew from your own words--that, currently, your faith-based position is not based on reason, evidence, or anything supportable through testable, scientific means.
    Exactly.

    It's based on faith.

    Your premise that faith ought to be proven by logic / science is fatally flawed from the start.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,256

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    I apologize if I came off as pretentious, it was not my intention.
    Don't worry about it, Sirdowski, I was actually about to come back on to make clear to everyone that I really don't want to attack anyone here for what they do or don't believe.

    I'm glad we can agree on the "correct"ness of my general responses to you from before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    the past two thousand years have been spent understanding how these things work. We have yet to analyze what they are, precisely because they just are. We just accept them as blunt fact. We have to. Mass-energy, just is. Gravity, just is. We are finding more and more about the interactions of these elements (mass-energy, gravity) but what are they? This is even more startling when looking at organisms. What is life? Yes we know it's these amino acids and this protein in this cell, but the actual emergent property "life" that is when these things come together. But why?
    All questions that we all want answers to. "Why" is a tough question for anyone to answer. It might actually be impossible. But because we do not know the "why" does not give us license to invent one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    This is what's so particularly damaging about saying science is the only authority on these matters, because in reality, science just gives us concrete facts, and tells us nothing about them, other than, "because". To go further would be to ask science to prove science.
    Science has already proved itself. Pardon the snark/truth (once again), but if you know of a reliable method of examining and understanding the world in an objective way that is NOT science, please tell me/the board what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    This is the danger of logic. It is a formal system and is thus limited to the rules of a formal system.
    Whatever the problems and/or limitations of "logic" ... again, if you know of any other reliable, objective system by which we can understand the world, please tell it to us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    How exactly is the idea that the universe was a nothing that turned into a something (the big bang) more logical than saying that everything came from a deity?
    Four problems with your question:

    1) The big bang theory does not say something came from nothing. It is, in fact, a great deal more complex than that, and starts with the fact that scientists use the word "nothing" differently from how we laypeople use it (much how they use the word "theory" differently).

    2) Atheism and the big bang theory are completely unrelated to each other (so actually, I have no need to resolve your question). Atheism is a rejection of god claims. That is it. That's all. The only way to be a bad atheist is to accept a god claim. Which means ...

    3) If the big bang theory were to be proven wrong tomorrow, I still wouldn't believe in a god. Because crossing out one answer does not mean another answer is true unless there are only two possible answers. "Big Bang" and "Magical timeless intelligence" have not been demonstrated as the only two possible answers.

    4) The vast majority of scientific and natural evidence points to the fact that a big bang phenomenon did occur. There is zero evidence for the existence of a magical timeless intelligence, let alone one (if you buy into the Abrahamic religions) that cares about our sex lives, can read our minds, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    the majority of scientists have faith in - because that's exactly what it is based on, faith- that the universe is a nothing that turns out to be a something, and that the universe created itself.
    1) Again, you are incorrect in the sense you're applying the word "nothing." Scientists mean that word differently than we do. There are no examples in nature of absolute nothing.

    2) Scientists do not need faith. Scientists follow evidence. Evidence suggests a big bang phenomenon occurred.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    All scientific law in the last resort says that if you have X you will get Y. If only you can find any X. For those who belive in a God, that is where they find their X. Science however has chosen in this one particular instance, they don't need an X to get Y.
    You're saying every reaction needs an action to have caused it.

    So, what caused god?

    Oh, ... nothing caused god?

    So, more accurately, every reaction needs an action except for the pet causes you like. (Classic example of special pleading, a logical fallacy.)
    Last edited by akashicrecorder; 05-21-2013 at 09:56 PM.




  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,256

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Your premise that faith ought to be proven by logic / science is fatally flawed from the start.
    It indeed would have been if that were ever my premise!

    My assertion was that faith is what people say when they are being illogical. I never said you can prove faith with logic. Either you misunderstood me or are scrambling/deflecting here.

    If we both agree that your faith-based belief is illogical, then we are done here because we both agree.




  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,745

    Re: How can anyone still believe in God

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Science has already proved itself. Pardon the snark/truth (once again), but if you know of a reliable method of examining and understanding the world in an objective way that is NOT science, please tell me/the board what it is.
    In what way?
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland