Science and Religion questions

[Denny Crane]

face it Denny, you're a heathen atheist : )

Heathen agnostic you mean.

;-)

 

[crowTrobot]

Fair enough. Agnostics don't believe in god. I should have stated it better (like I just did).

Why don't agnostics believe in god? Because the process doesn't lead them to believe in one.

an agnostic can believe god is highly probable based on evidence. at when level of probability does he become a theist? what's the tipping point?

 

[magnifier661]

It's no empirical evidence of a creator. There is some commonality that would need to be investigated. Maybe all intelligent life is human and evolution works that out everywhere the same. So much of animal life here has two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, four limbs, etc. That might be a clue that is the optimal form that life would take anywhere.

Well I'm not talking 4 limbs, two nostrils, eyes and ears. I'm saying the evolved conscious life has the exact same DNA as we do.

And explain how you think that the universe would somehow, by chance, have a genetic footprint of all evolved life to be human?

 

[TripTango]

Fair enough. Agnostics don't believe in god. I should have stated it better (like I just did).

Why don't agnostics believe in god? Because the process doesn't lead them to believe in one.

And, should their agnosticism lead them to not believe in god, they would then ALSO be classified as atheist.

Don't fight it, Denny -- there is so much power on the dark side of the force...

 

[magnifier661]

And, should their agnosticism lead them to not believe in god, they would then ALSO be classified as atheist.

Don't fight it, Denny -- there is so much power on the dark side of the force...

Hahaha

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

"And I don't care what atheists want to call themselves. It's not their "right" to define atheism as something they want it to be."

Sure it is ... kind of -- as long as their definition does the position justice. They merely "want it" to reflect the actual state of the position as only they (presumably) can understand it (you know, by actually being an atheist).

The concept has changed over time as has our understanding of belief, deity, etc. Language changes to reflect the actual underlying understandings that actual people have. It's not the other way round.

 

[blazerboy30]

"And both positions are based on the belief of something they can't prove."

Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Proof, strictly speaking, is limited to formal systems. But have you ever heard of a convergent proof? Rather than speak of proof, which is mostly irrelevant to this topic, better to speak of reasons we have for justifying the holding of the beliefs we have. You're really just repeating your faith in a few old saws that many consider to be rusted relics -- no longer fit for the job of informing us about actual human experience.

HAHA! Bust out the tinfoil hats!! :MARIS61:

It's hilarious that somebody with the time to type out that nonsensical rant can't find the time to figure out how to hit the "quote" button on this board.

 

[blazerboy30]

This is the semantic aspect if the argument that is nonproductive. Even if there was some grand, organized movement to shift people to atheism by redefining the word, why in the world shouldn't we allow atheists to define what they stand for? As you point out, dictionary definitions are variable over time and subject to popular usage. Why accept definition A as gospel, but reject definition B as a modern bastardization? If the original usage is the correct one, why do you seem to espouse the modern, popularized definition of "agnostic"?

Honestly, I don't care how people define their own beliefs. Where this matters is when a group of so-called atheists feel the need to ridicule the beliefs of the religious or theists.

Sometimes this ridicule comes in the form of chastising the religious for changing their beliefs so that science doesn't disprove their beliefs. But now we're seeing that it is perfectly fine for the atheists to change their beliefs, doctrines or definitions.

Some semblance of fairness and getting rid of the hypocrisy is my point in all of this.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

an agnostic can believe god is highly probable based on evidence

How so? What evidence makes such a thing believable? I can think of none. So I'm asking, what is it you have in mind as evidence?

 

[TripTango]

Honestly, I don't care how people define their own beliefs. Where this matters is when a group of so-called atheists feel the need to ridicule the beliefs of the religious or theists.

Sometimes this ridicule comes in the form of chastising the religious for changing their beliefs so that science doesn't disprove their beliefs. But now we're seeing that it is perfectly fine for the atheists to change their beliefs, doctrines or definitions.

Some semblance of fairness and getting rid of the hypocrisy is my point in all of this.

There is no central "doctrine" of atheism aside from not believing in a god, so I'm not sure how it (if it existed) could be subject to change. If there has been a redefinition of the specific meaning of the word "atheist", it is almost certainly as a result of changing nomenclature rather than some kind of systematic change in the beliefs of actual people. There is no holy text, no clergy, no leadership, no church. There's no membership fee, no pledges to recite, no code of behavior to follow, and no regular meetings required. This is why many atheists object to being lumped in with religious groups -- aside from being a belief system, there's not much else it has in common with any organized religion.

Now, that said, there are certainly plenty of atheists who promote their beliefs with a religious fervor. I find "evangelical atheists" as annoying as the pushiest of Bible thumpers. I know a lot of atheists who are big fat jerks. On the other hand, most of my family (whom I love dearly) are hardcore, photos-of-the-Pope-on-the-wall Catholics.

If you look for the worst in people, you will always find it.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

"Honestly, I don't care how people define their own beliefs. Where this matters is when a group of so-called atheists feel the need to ridicule the beliefs of the religious or theists."

What is the justification for the idea that all beliefs are beyond ridicule? Why shouldn't we expose unjustified, dangerous beliefs? Lying is bad. Mass lies are massively bad.

 

[blazerboy30]

"Honestly, I don't care how people define their own beliefs. Where this matters is when a group of so-called atheists feel the need to ridicule the beliefs of the religious or theists."

What is the justification for the idea that all beliefs are beyond ridicule? Why shouldn't we expose unjustified, dangerous beliefs? Lying is bad. Mass lies are massively bad.

Keep speaking in hyperbole. It's much easier for you to be an internet meme with a schtick than to have a reasonable conversation.

 

[Denny Crane]

And, should their agnosticism lead them to not believe in god, they would then ALSO be classified as atheist.

Don't fight it, Denny -- there is so much power on the dark side of the force...

No

Still be an agnostic as long as there's any way Reason and evidence could change the person's mind.

 

[Denny Crane]

"And I don't care what atheists want to call themselves. It's not their "right" to define atheism as something they want it to be."

Sure it is ... kind of -- as long as their definition does the position justice. They merely "want it" to reflect the actual state of the position as only they (presumably) can understand it (you know, by actually being an atheist).

The concept has changed over time as has our understanding of belief, deity, etc. Language changes to reflect the actual underlying understandings that actual people have. It's not the other way round.

Awesome. So neo nazis can define themselves as social democrats.

 

[ABM]

Ok, let's agree that you believe in God and find him to have acted in your life in lots of ways. Why do you think He feels it's necessary for you to praise him?

First of all, I don't question God...or his "motives". If I were to do that, I wouldn't bother worshiping Him in the first place. That would be senseless.

God designed people for his pleasure....and to have personal, intimate relationship with Him. This life we're living right now is of the smallest of fractions compared to what eternity will be like in His presence.

He left us His Word, the Bible, to relate (as much as we can comprehend it) who He is. He sent His Son as an example and way to have intimate relationship with Him. He sent His Holy Spirit to empower us to live the life He's calling us to live on a day to day basis. He's given us prayer to communicate to and with Him.

I know these things to be true in my own life. I share them as witness and testimony to you.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Awesome. So neo nazis can define themselves as social democrats.

Come on Denny, that's not what I said, nor is it implied in what I said. My opinion on changing concepts is hardly controversial -- I'm assuming that conceptual change happens when whatever the reality is that is comprised by it, begins to fray its edges. Or maybe think of it more in terms of a snake and its skin; fits great at first, somewhat flexible, but eventually must give way to the present snake ... if it's going to continue to "cover it" adequately.

Anyway, conceptual change is not what your colorful example depicts -- there's nothing arbitrary about conceptual change as I understand it. Your young nazis seem to have merely taken another name, one that has little to do with their former identity.

 

[julius]

You have quite a knack for saying something inflammatory at the beginning of your post and then being totally hypocritical in the rest of your post. It makes you look like a fool.

(said after re-reading it and editing it)

I don't necessarily think what i said was inflammatory, or anything I said was hypocritical. Unless you make it out to be. The same could be true of non religious people too. But I think most non religious people only talk to someone else about religions when that person first addresses it.

I never talk to people about their relationship with god or religion, unless they assume I am religious and agree with their mindset OR try to force their beliefs onto me.

maybe I should've said I don't like having people define how I think about something or my belief systems. But in most cases, atheists or agnostics aren't defining how I think of being agnostic or atheist.

Actually no, looking back, what the hell are you talking about? I said one thing I hate about religious people is when they tell me their version of what I believe as though it's obvious thats how I'm supposed to feel.

And then I'm hypocritical for saying don't tell me what to believe, as though I'm telling others what to believe?

Seriously? Where did I do that?

I treat others beliefs the same way I want to be treated. If you don't believe what I believe thats ok. I don't necessarily believe what you believe, but i don't go around telling you what it is you actually believe (through my eyes). Never have, never will.

Well said! I fucking hate that!

In fact a true Christian shouldn't be religious at all. Jesus teaches the man without sin cast the first stone. That means that no man on this planet can pass judgement or blame on another; unless of course you are Denny!

See? Mags totally got what I was saying. I know that (or I should say, i'm strongly in the belief that) Mags is religious. I'm perfectly ok with it. I enjoy his discussions about religion and science, even if I believe he's mistaken about things. But I don't go "jeesh Mags, let me tell you what I think your beliefs are".

He's not trying to change/ redefine what I believe, so it fits what he understands or believes. That's one thing I dislike.

I don't understand why people are religious (in as much as in my experiences, I find it hard to accept believing it). I respect that he is.

 

[magnifier661]

How did I say something inflammatory and hypocritical?

I was asking questions, because i wanted to know the answers. not in the sense of "haha, I'm trolling you! internetz serious business!"

but just wondering what people thought about certain things.




See? Mags totally got what I was saying. YOU looked for something to bitch about, and created it. I did not say anything bad or rude or "gotcha" worthy.

I was saying that I dislike being told what I believe or why I believe it, or being told by someone who doesn't believe what I believe, what it is THAT I believe.

IN the first post in this thread I did not tell people what they believed, or a version of what they believed.

I asked questions about space and the universe because I didn't know the answer/can't wrap my head around it.

I asked questions about religion because i was wondering how those who are religious would feel about the topic.

It's interesting to get another point of view, and I didn't say anything bad about religion or about ones beliefs.

Seems like a good topic, since its 13 pages long.

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

"First of all, I don't question God...or his "motives"."

Of course you don't. But the atheist says there is a very good reason for that -- and that is, you couldn't if you wanted to. Nyuk nyuk nyuk. To them, your stance is just grandstanding -- asserting and mistaking your god language game for something obtaining in the actual world of actual events.

That you appear to manage well within this understanding is more a testament to your imaginative powers (which I and many others can personally attest to) than it is to anything real that the concept of deity comprises.

I believe it's a psychological fact; sufficiently-vague, harmonious, ultra narratives do provide real comfort to some members of our species. The real problem for atheists is not convincing the religious that they're dreaming, but rather, what to do about their reliance or dependence on such things. I'm wondering if it shouldn't be approached more from the perspective of religious belief as addiction rather than as delusion.

 

[blazerboy30]

(said after re-reading it and editing it)

I don't necessarily think what i said was inflammatory, or anything I said was hypocritical. Unless you make it out to be. The same could be true of non religious people too. But I think most non religious people only talk to someone else about religions when that person first addresses it.

I never talk to people about their relationship with god or religion, unless they assume I am religious and agree with their mindset OR try to force their beliefs onto me.

maybe I should've said I don't like having people define how I think about something or my belief systems. But in most cases, atheists or agnostics aren't defining how I think of being agnostic or atheist.

Actually no, looking back, what the hell are you talking about? I said one thing I hate about religious people is when they tell me their version of what I believe as though it's obvious thats how I'm supposed to feel.

And then I'm hypocritical for saying don't tell me what to believe, as though I'm telling others what to believe?

Seriously? Where did I do that?

I treat others beliefs the same way I want to be treated. If you don't believe what I believe thats ok. I don't necessarily believe what you believe, but i don't go around telling you what it is you actually believe (through my eyes). Never have, never will.




See? Mags totally got what I was saying. I know that (or I should say, i'm strongly in the belief that) Mags is religious. I'm perfectly ok with it. I enjoy his discussions about religion and science, even if I believe he's mistaken about things. But I don't go "jeesh Mags, let me tell you what I think your beliefs are".

He's not trying to change/ redefine what I believe, so it fits what he understands or believes. That's one thing I dislike.

I don't understand why people are religious (in as much as in my experiences, I find it hard to accept believing it). I respect that he is.

Which of the following did you mean:

a) One thing I hate about religious people ...
b) I hate it when religious people ...

 

[ABM]

"First of all, I don't question God...or his "motives"."

Of course you don't. But the atheist says there is a very good reason for that -- and that is, you couldn't if you wanted to. Nyuk nyuk nyuk. To them, your stance is just grandstanding -- asserting and mistaking your god language game for something obtaining in the actual world of actual events.

That you appear to manage well within this understanding is more a testament to your imaginative powers (which I and many others can personally attest to) than it is to anything real that the concept of deity comprises.

I believe it's a psychological fact; sufficiently-vague, harmonious, ultra narratives do provide real comfort to some members of our species. The real problem for atheists is not convincing the religious that they're dreaming, but rather, what to do about their reliance or dependence on such things. I'm wondering if it shouldn't be approached more from the perspective of religious belief as addiction rather than as delusion.

I didn't believe in God, nor had nothing to do with so-called Christians for the first 32 years of my life. That all changed one evening in the solace of the kitchen in my home. I was totally sober. It was there that I met Jesus Christ for the first time in my life. No way to explain it. Nothing can be compared to it. It was what it was....and is what it is.

Believe as you may, but since that time, I have enjoyed many irrefutable personal evidences which have continued to confirm God, and His existence/influence in my life. It's not an addiction or delusion. Dependence? Most definitely.....and gladly. Wouldn't have it any other way, actually.

Through the many trials, tribulations, and victories I've had in my life, God has given me great peace and joy to walk through each and every experience. It's the coolest of the coolest.

 

[MickZagger]

I went to a young life camp one time cause I wanted to get some pussy.

 

[MickZagger]

Which of the following did you mean:

a) One thing I hate about religious people ...
b) I hate it when religious people ...

Uh, who cares?

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

Keep speaking in hyperbole. It's much easier for you to be an internet meme with a schtick than to have a reasonable conversation.

Hyperbole?

If you think that's hyperbole, then you are probably correct in assessing the likely ease of our conversing. Forgive me, but your response to my response seems rude and defensively dismissive (just in case you're not aware of it).

 

[chevyrunssometimes]

I went to a young life camp one time cause I wanted to get some pussy.

Careful, they'll try and take credit for teaching you to be honest.

 

[ABM]

Careful, they'll try and take credit for teaching you to be honest.

That kinda seems rude and defensively dismissive.

 

[julius]

Which of the following did you mean:

a) One thing I hate about religious people ...
b) I hate it when religious people ...

um, since they're about the same thing, I'm not sure what you're driving at.

 

[julius]

I didn't believe in God, nor had nothing to do with so-called Christians for the first 32 years of my life. That all changed one evening in the solace of the kitchen in my home. I was totally sober. It was there that I met Jesus Christ for the first time in my life. No way to explain it. Nothing can be compared to it. It was what it was....and is what it is.

Believe as you may, but since that time, I have enjoyed many irrefutable personal evidences which have continued to confirm God, and His existence/influence in my life. It's not an addiction or delusion. Dependence? Most definitely.....and gladly. Wouldn't have it any other way, actually.

Through the many trials, tribulations, and victories I've had in my life, God has given me great peace and joy to walk through each and every experience. It's the coolest of the coolest.

You sure it wasn't your gardener you met?

uh oh, I might be hypocritical there!

 

[ABM]

You sure it wasn't your gardener you met?

uh oh, I might be hypocritical there!

Literally, the best, and most influential, experience in my life.

 

[julius]

Literally, the best, and most influential, experience in my life.

meeting your gardener? why, did he introduce you to yoga?


(btw, just so we're clear, I'm trying to imply your gardners name was Jesus. Which said in the manner I'm doing it implies that I'm belittling your religious convictions. I mean, if I'm going to be inflammatory and hypocritical, might as well go all out, right!?! I MEAN AM I RIGHT! OH CRAP I'M YELLING...sorry....anyways, much respect to you A to the BM)