"I only read the last page, but I'm guessing this turned into a smug internet atheist thread?"
Its a website,ABOUT VIDEO GAMES.
Would you believe in God if there was scientific evidence?
More like it started out as a by-the-numbers pseudo scientific religious personification rant. I'm not an Atheist in case you're wondering." @Jeffery said:
"I only read the last page, but I'm guessing this turned into a smug internet atheist thread? ""
Its a website,ABOUT VIDEO GAMES.
Religion is always such a hot topic.
The way I see it is that science is evidence for a God, but not the bearded man in the sky God, not even a literal God. Science has taught us how nature works, so surely nature itself is the creator? I'm not saying this in a save the whales kind of way, I'm just saying that science and religion are compatible - it's just BOTH SIDES of the religion-science debate trip themselves up by taking everything literally. To me, God is everywhere, and heaven is a contented smile at the end of your life knowing that you have done everything you wanted/needed to do, and knowing that you will not be forgotten by the people who loved you.
Christians are (mostly) idiots because they seem to all believe in a robed Zeus-like figure sitting up on a cloud taking a personal interest in their own pathetic little life. Atheists are just as bad as Christians, too - Atheism is a religion against religion, it's a religion based around arrogance of belief and Dawkins is the pope. It's a hypocrisy on such a grand scale it's laughable.
Take religion as literally as you want, take Atheism as literally as you want, but don't be arrogant enough to label it as truth - it's a fool who believes that they know everything there is to know. We are only humans.
http://www.giantbomb.com/video-thing-its-a-website/17-20/
This really isn't the place for trying to aruge the universe. These arguaments never go anywhere, nobody ever gets converted.
"Religion is always such a hot topic. The way I see it is that science is evidence for a God, but not the bearded man in the sky God, not even a literal God. Science has taught us how nature works, so surely nature itself is the creator? I'm not saying this in a save the whales kind of way, I'm just saying that science and religion are compatible - it's just BOTH SIDES of the religion-science debate trip themselves up by taking everything literally. To me, God is everywhere, and heaven is a contented smile at the end of your life knowing that you have done everything you wanted/needed to do, and knowing that you will not be forgotten by the people who loved you. Christians are (mostly) idiots because they seem to all believe in a robed Zeus-like figure sitting up on a cloud taking a personal interest in their own pathetic little life. Atheists are just as bad as Christians, too - Atheism is a religion against religion, it's a religion based around arrogance of belief and Dawkins is the pope. It's a hypocrisy on such a grand scale it's laughable. Take religion as literally as you want, take Atheism as literally as you want, but don't be arrogant enough to label it as truth - it's a fool who believes that they know everything there is to know. We are only humans. "
I thought the only claim most atheists make is for a negative belief, i.e that they don't believe in something. How you compare that to a religion seems bizarre, since atheists typically claim not to know; just like scientists. Its the religious folks that make claims of knowledge.
This divide between science and religion is based in "relative" versus "absolute" knowledge of our existence. The rationalist relative approach concedes that we can only "know" things based on our current frame of reference and based on our appraisal of available evidence, which has, does and will change with time. A good example of this is can be seen in scientific discoveries (like gravity), which evolve hugely as our understanding grows.
In contrast to this, the basis for most religions is an absolute knowledge of our reason for being here (normally based on third hand written testimony). The rational problem with this is that there are so many religions and groundless reasons to choose between them all, but no explicit evidence to suggest "truth".
Your belief that God is nature - a Deist view - has no reasonable basis of evidence. But it is your gut feeling and doubtlessly gives a comforting notion that your existence is somehow taken out of your responsibility. Does calling about one third of the world's population "mostly idiots" have some spiritual value to you? How do you know that Christians think of God as sitting on a cloud?
The fact that man can't come to grips with the fact that when we die we simply become part of the earth like everything else is why people need to have a god or in the past gods to cling onto. It sucks, I don't like it either but that doesn't mean i have to cling onto some guy in the sky that will let me come live in his awesome house if i am good and do what he wants and if not will send me to timeout in a fire pit.
" @Isaac: Doesn't the fact that we have found remains millions of years old prove that the world is older then 6,000 years old. The fact that man can't come to grips with the fact that when we die we simply become part of the earth like everything else is why people need to have a god or in the past gods to cling onto. It sucks, I don't like it either but that doesn't mean i have to cling onto some guy in the sky that will let me come live in his awesome house if i am good and do what he wants and if not will send me to timeout in a fire pit. "what this guy said. If I could make myself believe I would.
for the people who still dont know, Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It encompasses many things. Agnostics, nostic atheists, and a bunch of other weird little sub groups.
point is, if the guy says he is an atheist, that means he just doesnt have enough proof in your god to make him believe in it.
Whatever you're reading which perpetuates the myth that Nazism was a natural extension of Darwin's theory of natural selection is fucking wrong. End of story. Hitler was a failed artist and futurist, he was also psychotic and whatever influence any aspect of his self exposed research had it was always tempered with his penchant for bloodshed and his thirst for power. Science doesn't unlock brutality, power has always appealed to thiose who wish to wield it and science is merely another expression of power to those sorts of people who are less interested in self empowerment than they are in having power over others." @SeriouslyNow: science can be abused practically but also by fundamentalist interpretations of what it implies. I'm talking about belief, so using valence theory as an abuse of science to argue with me is like saying people can kill each other with sharpened crosses.... My point was about humans interpretations of highly regarded works on the level of belief. I agree that religious faith is potentially scary in the 21st century. but I wanted to add some balance against that argument: I think the appropriation of scientific theory into a faith can unlock brutality in the same way as appropriating the 'word of god'. I really think darwinism was such a radical new thing that it affected the zeitgeist enough to pave the way for Hitler in a way, with neitzsche making it a philosophy and loads of thinkers/writers becoming eugenicists. the nazis were a 'scientific' dictatorship in the same way that Iran has a 'religious' one. The way I read history the holocaust was a horrific but logical conclusion of natural selection being taken at face value, as a faith. and no you can't blame science, just people's natural inclination to faith. (a faith in the superiority of the ayrian race which also comes from 'scientific' endevour of the time) . the point was that humans can use science as a dogma, despite its good intentions, the same as religion, and this has created shit in the past too. I was just trying to be fair and maybe your right that at the moment there's alot more dangerous stuff in religious works than scientific (I hadn't thought about that its true .).... and basically I agree the world would be safer right now without religion. (and faith!) You win because you have alot more modern examples with religion but you haven't shot down my 'balance giving point' IN MY OPINION. ( shit I can't stop it underlining) Basically your last line but replace science with 'highly regarded works' ..... "
Your point of view is actually bordering on being offensive because you're using examples of biological, sociological and theological sciences to say that the good people who've bothered to research and publish papers in these sciences are to blame for National Socialism's rise in Germany. That's also fucking wrong. Germany was in pretty dire financial straits post WW1 and this financial pressure on communities in Germany gave rise to old Anti-Semetic views which were common in a lot of Europe stretching back a millennium, having been mostly recently expressed in the pre WW1 Pogroms in Poland. So Hitler did what any smart right wing power hungry politician would do, he chose a set of culturally non-German and non-conformist scapegoats to blame; Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals. He then proceeded to rob their wealth and property and then set about exterminating them. All of the theory he quoted had absolutely nothing to do with his actions, it just served as a means of technobabble to make his fellow Nazi voters feel informed as if there was a valid reason for the deaths of those whom they robbed and murdered. The master race wasn't the end it was the means. I can't believe I even have to explain this to someone.
Dogma is religious law and science is based on research. Yes it's true that some sciences have rules which people accept while not totally agreeing with them, such as Unifying Theory, Dark Matter and String Theory, but these are hotly debated and those who debate them do so for the betterment of the sciences. No scientist takes any of these debated and unprovable theory, nor any of those proven as Dogma. I'm not sure which planet you live on but on this one all scientific researchers are constantly refining theories which they were taught and many fields of scientific endeavour in constant states of flux.
Your opinions sucks and it's maddening to have to listen to you ramble on incoherently as you try to cram bullshit down my throat.
Actually, I would say that claim should be attributed to Agnosticism rather than Atheism, but I suppose the two overlap sometimes. I do, however, stand by my comparison - Atheism has become almost militant in it's denial of a Christian God in the past few years, something which has been widely documented.
As for scientific truth, the belief that truth must be supported by fact is only relevant to physical problems - metaphysical issues such as God and the universe have no solid proof because there is none to find - you can't just send a probe up through the clouds, confirm the existance of God and wash your hands of the affair, there comes a point where you must make logical deductions and logic tends to differ from person to person. I mean, it's like what happens after you die? I like to think that there is something more than a short spell on Earth then an eternity in a little hole in the ground but I could never offer any proof to that - and neither could any Scientist, to the contrary. When a question cannot be answered, the truth becomes whatever opinion dictates.
But regarding your final paragraph - are you implying that my existance IS my responsibility? My life, certainly, but my existance?
I call people idiots because people are idiots, spirituality be damned. And finally, I can only work from what I am familiar with; "The rationalist relative approach concedes that we can only "kno" things based on our current frame of reference and based on our appraisal of available evidence, which has, does and will change with time." I'm not caiming every Christian believes that, that would be both moronic and hypocritical, but such people do exist and I'm using them as my frame of reference - dealing with the most 'extreme' version, if you will.
Do you believe in anything other than science? I'd like to think that people can find comfort in something other than the pursuit of fact. It's as though people are too busy examining the brush strokes to appreciate the picture.
" @diz: Actually, I would say that claim should be attributed to Agnosticism rather than Atheism, but I suppose the two overlap sometimes. I do, however, stand by my comparison - Atheism has become almost militant in it's denial of a Christian God in the past few years, something which has been widely documented. As for scientific truth, the belief that truth must be supported by fact is only relevant to physical problems - metaphysical issues such as God and the universe have no solid proof because there is none to find - you can't just send a probe up through the clouds, confirm the existance of God and wash your hands of the affair, there comes a point where you must make logical deductions and logic tends to differ from person to person. I mean, it's like what happens after you die? I like to think that there is something more than a short spell on Earth then an eternity in a little hole in the ground but I could never offer any proof to that - and neither could any Scientist, to the contrary. When a question cannot be answered, the truth becomes whatever opinion dictates. But regarding your final paragraph - are you implying that my existance IS my responsibility? My life, certainly, but my existance? I call people idiots because people are idiots, spirituality be damned. And finally, I can only work from what I am familiar with; "The rationalist relative approach concedes that we can only "kno" things based on our current frame of reference and based on our appraisal of available evidence, which has, does and will change with time." I'm not caiming every Christian believes that, that would be both moronic and hypocritical, but such people do exist and I'm using them as my frame of reference - dealing with the most 'extreme' version, if you will. Do you believe in anything other than science? I'd like to think that people can find comfort in something other than the pursuit of fact. It's as though people are too busy examining the brush strokes to appreciate the picture. "
@Myrmidon:
Atheism becomming militant? And why pick on a Christian God to for atheists to "deny", rather than accept atheits don't believe in any form of "god". Please reference this "wide documentation" supporting your view, else I'll call your argument ad-populem and ad-ridiculum.
Funnily enough, there is some scientific discovery regarding the universe and its origins! This evidence contradicts evidence from at least the main 3 Abrahamic religions. Previously "metaphysical" problems have often gained scientific explanations, as what was supernatural often becomes part of an acccepted scientific theory, with discovery.
What you like to think and what actually happens may be two quite different things. But if there is no answer then there is no real objective truth, despite yours or anyone's opinion.
Are you saying a rationalist approach is moronic? You do seem keen on throwing insults around at people who think differently to you. I believe in many things, most of which would be uninteresting or unknown to you. I'm not sure the pursuit of "finding comfort" is something I personally do belive in or think healthy, since people can take comfort in all sorts of lies.
Oh goddamnit this is gonna get bad fast.... oh wait... too late.... Who gives a fuck anyways? All you know for sure as that this is the one true life, so live it as best as you can and make sure your happy when you die. If there's another life after that then huah! but till then.... I'm proud to not give a shit.
God will never prove his existence it defeats the purpose of faith.
If you ever find proof of God you are actually disproving God, because God would never prove himself.
"Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God – resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is “grow(ing) old like a garment” (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.
"
woah. awesome dude. I believe in god now
@diz:
Wow.
I certainly didn't expect my reply to be taken quite so badly, but from what you've written it seems you missed the crux of some of my points.
I didn't deny Atheists don't believe in any form of God - through the process of denying other God's this is made clear. Consider the 'Dawkins culture' that has been doing the rounds recently, I'll post a video of the main man himself, the worlds most famous atheist, comparing God to Wotan, Thor and JuJu up the mountain. If that isn't enough documented evidence, you could take the youtube comments as well - there are some there from self professed atheists all denying God. Or you could check out some videos uploaded by self professed atheists 'debunking' God, that should count too. Of course, you could always try books - I don't like playing the Dawkins card too often, but he did write 'The God Delusion', and I know that Sam Harris has written some quite potent anti-religion book although I don't know whether he has all-out denied the existance of a God. And, of course, there will be plenty of television debates to choose from - I'd check Bill O Reilly, see who he is shouting at these days.
And I'd also like to point out I said 'almost' militant. Not actually militant. I'm talking about the sheer energy they put into trying to debunk faith.
As for your point on scientific proof for metaphysical issues, I didn't really make my point clear, of course science has uncovered fact from things that were previously described as metaphysical, and of course we have a good theory as to how the universe came to be, but all that is irrelevant to the point I was making. I'm talking about pure existance, there could not possibly be any physical proof of a God.
As for the whole objective truth thing, you hit the nail on the head. But there is a difference between objective truth and personal truth, but if there is no physical evidence to something it doesn't mean that thing is never spoken of again, it switches from objective to personal truth, and becomes belief. It's like saying someone is wrong for having a certain taste in music.
And finally, quote to me the bit that gave you the impression I thought a rational approach was moronic? I don't even see where you got that from. All I said was a lot of people are stupid, it's the nature of humanity. The only other use of the word moronic I can see is where I said it would be moronic to assume every Christian believed exactly the same thing, which is something I thought you would agree with.
Oh, also - how is the pursuit of comfort unhealthy? I assume you mean people taking comfort in something that isn't true, but is it not the living that counts?
Edit: Forgot about the Dawkins video I mentioned:
" I once saw this gothic dude wearing a T-shirt with JESUS IS A CUNT on the back. "Yeah i got that shirt, Its my favourite shirt.
Wait a second, Hebrews 11:13 doesen't say anything even close to that." @Isaac said:
woah. awesome dude. I believe in god now ""Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) explained (Psalm 102:25-26). This law states that everything in the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly. Entropy (disorder) entered when mankind rebelled against God – resulting in the curse (Genesis 3:17; Romans 8:20-22). Historically most people believed the universe was unchangeable. Yet modern science verifies that the universe is “grow(ing) old like a garment” (Hebrews 1:11). Evolution directly contradicts this law.
"
Hebrews 11:13 (King James Version)
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
And if you go back to earlier translations of the bible it's even less clear. And what the hell does that even mean 'things which are seen were not made of things which do appear' Things that we see, like rocks people and trees, are made out of the same elements of matter that "appear" throughout the universe.
The other bits are kind of a stretch too. Is everything in the bible true or should we look through it and pick out the parts that sort of fit? Do you think Noah really put two of every animal on a boat? There are 40,000 different kinds of spiders, did he really catch them all? Not to mention that if an species gets down to only 2 left, that's not enough genetic diversity to keep the population going. Of course at the time this was written, nobody knew about genetics.
" I feel that the core of any religion which is faith would be cheapened by any scientific evidence of his existence. Since the main purpose of faith is believing in Him even though you don't have a perfect knowledge of Him. It's almost a test of our love and trust in God. Plus the Bible has been translated through many many ages, so even though the integral message is kept intact, certain little details might be lost or mistranslated toward the present day. "Why the fuck would you bump this?
I highly doubt that there would be any scientific evidence for God, as religion is based on faith not fact.
BAM! Yanked the rug out from under her feet, and stamped a big denied on her forehead.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment