View Full Version : Do you believe in (a) God?
Red_Polo
17-10-06, 04:31 PM
Just thought it'd be interesting to see who does/doesn't...
It's a very definite no for me.
NB: Fowler excepted, obviously - we can't have everyone saying yes! :)
warrenpeace
17-10-06, 04:36 PM
Doesn't seem very likely does it?
Religions represent the attempts of societies less developed than this one to explain the natural world and also to build a moral code.
thesilverfoxlfc
17-10-06, 04:36 PM
Yes for me
I'd like to believe in God, it would be nice to think we go on after this life, however, I don't think there is.
paulcooper4
17-10-06, 04:37 PM
only fowler
Neil Young
17-10-06, 04:38 PM
No.
Hollowman
17-10-06, 04:38 PM
Yes.
StevieGnR
17-10-06, 04:39 PM
No for me
The incredible igor
17-10-06, 04:42 PM
Just thought it'd be interesting to see who does/doesn't...
It's a very definite no for me.
whats you're definition of (a) God?
Red_Polo
17-10-06, 04:55 PM
whats you're definition of (a) God?
Hmmm. OK, a conscious, omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent being which created the universe.
Buys Coop a dictionary off Amazon.co.uk :crackoff:
Rafanomenon
17-10-06, 05:12 PM
not a chance - the thought of it (to me) is ridiculous
I beleive in Science personally and the 2 don't co-exist!
not a chance - the thought of it (to me) is ridiculous
I beleive in Science personally and the 2 don't co-exist!
Not true!
Rafanomenon
17-10-06, 05:23 PM
Not true!
We have a very religious person in my office and he will not entertain the theory of evolution - he believes something decided there will be life and bang - there was life!
OK I take back that they don't co-exist but some religions will not admit to certain scientific evidence (should have put it that way in the first place!)
Mattshark
17-10-06, 05:30 PM
No it is a silly concept of out-dated superstition.
Snigger
17-10-06, 05:52 PM
If the forces of nature, science and evolution can be explained as a God then yes. The vikings, Incas and other early civilazations were closer than we are now in their worship of elements that created the forces of nature - I don't think there is man with a long white beard who created the earth in seven days then created man and shortly afterwards woman using only a rib, people have him confused with Santa Claus.
There is way too much scientific proof to disprove any theologian theory. Religion is man made, and was used as a thought police to manage people and make churches rich. People feared hell and damnation and paid good money to have their sins absolved. Instances like the crusades and Spanish inquisition were more to do with riches than faith - the knights templar were were a wealthy organisation, the Catholic Church still is. These days they are much more about community and helping people, however many faiths have shady beginings.
paulcooper4
17-10-06, 05:54 PM
Buys Coop a dictionary off Amazon.co.uk :crackoff:
lost you at that point there:o
We can never say 100% that there isn't a creator - some omnipotent being that watches over us.
However - a lot of the stuff written in the bible has been disproved (or explained) by Scientific discovery, which gives credence to people claiming there isn't a God.
However, as no one really knows, there might be! :)
So, I'd like there to be a 'good' afterlife, however I don't think there is - I guess I'll find out when I die.
paulcooper4
17-10-06, 06:01 PM
zombie dave would be the fella to ask i reckon
wrong forum Paul... :handshake:
not a chance - the thought of it (to me) is ridiculous
I beleive in Science personally and the 2 don't co-exist!
:shake: Oh dear.
It's very much a yes from me. It's entirely based on faith. But i live life with an open mind.
Not surprised to see 'no' the populist choice though.
There can't be a definite no or yes answer to this. No proof either way.
Personally the answer for me is no.
It makes me laugh when people say definitely yes or no, cos neither can be true :)
R
animal magic
17-10-06, 06:29 PM
no i dont believe in a god
There can't be a definite no or yes answer to this. No proof either way.
Personally the answer for me is no.
It makes me laugh when people say definitely yes or no, cos neither can be true :)
R
The question is, 'do you believe in God?'
Not is there a...
royzared
17-10-06, 06:31 PM
No,No and thrice times no!
It's a big fat no from me.
The question is, 'do you believe in God?'
Not is there a...
As I said, my answer has to be no.
R
There can't be a definite no or yes answer to this. No proof either way.
Personally the answer for me is no.
It makes me laugh when people say definitely yes or no, cos neither can be true :)
R
Ok, wasn't clear the first time. There can be a definite answer to what you believe in
Nope, i believe in other things ...
Nope, i believe in other things ...
Father Christmas?
CharlieMansonsSquint
17-10-06, 07:37 PM
Yes, as in myself.:D
Abdul Alhazred
17-10-06, 07:53 PM
Yes.
My god has fuck-off tentacles and exists across many dimensions too.
Seriously, I don't believe* in anything. Over to my Holy Trinity for a potted summary of my half-arsed cosmology;
"I can conceive of nothing, in religion, science or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." Charles Fort
"In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth & the Paths, of Spirits & Conjurations, of Gods, spheres, Planes & many other things which may or may not exist.
It is immaterial whether they exist or not.
By doing certain things, certain results follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophical validity to any of them." - Aleister Crowley
"Live by the foma (harmless untruths) that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy" Kurt Vonnegut
* that is, there is nothing that I hold to be absolutely true in any general sense.
'ken hell. Bunch of heathens, the lot of you!
:crackoff:
Gonna have to dust the olde bible down, and start bashing a few heads.
Abdul Alhazred
17-10-06, 08:52 PM
zombie dave would be the fella to ask i reckon
Amen -I'd be interested in Dave's insights on what happened to his soul.
Did it pay a fleeting visit to Heaven/Valhalla/whatever on his death/undeath?
If so did it return with news of the afterlife?
Or did it remain in his rotting corpse?
The floor is yours Dave ...
Its a huge massive big fat NO from me. The idea is just plain ridiculous superstitious nonsense IMO.
Strange one that. I believe in some sort of higher power, i suppose. But if God does exist, where did he come from?
And so on and so on and so on.....
Sprouty
17-10-06, 09:22 PM
Religion was a control method devised by the powerful. It continues to control even unto this day.
Howard_lfc
17-10-06, 09:28 PM
An unreserved no for me. There's far too much pain, suffering, violence & depravation in this world for there to be a God.
An unreserved no for me. There's far too much pain, suffering, violence & depravation in this world for there to be a God.
Ah, but who's to say that if there was a god there wouldn't be even more suffering, violence and depravation in the world. We always think a god would be benevolent, but they could be right evil bastards :D
R
Maestro
17-10-06, 10:34 PM
No.
Let George tell you more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzHlMs2rSIM
paulcooper4
17-10-06, 10:35 PM
wrong forum Paul... :handshake:
eh?.....:eyebrow:
Abdul Alhazred
17-10-06, 10:49 PM
Ah, but who's to say that if there was a god there wouldn't be even more suffering, violence and depravation in the world. We always think a god would be benevolent, but they could be right evil bastards :D
R
Amen. I'd say the Greek Gods are more plausible creators than El Shaddai or Allah.
(i.e. a bunch of jealous, wrathful, hateful, cuel & arbitrary wankers)
Doesn't seem very likely does it?
Religions represent the attempts of societies less developed than this one to explain the natural world and also to build a moral code.
i agree with you, but bellieve is not the same a religion...
the belive in something greater than yourself, something beond is much older than any religion, we are curious as a race and so am i...
i don't know, all evidence points in a direction of no god, but there are big questions unanswered, and i'm a romatic at heart, i'd like to belive theres something more than what the eye sees, but i cant believe or disbelieve, i wonder about the possibility but have no definite believe...
and it also depends on your definition of god aswell...
publiusscipio
18-10-06, 01:13 AM
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Red_Polo
18-10-06, 02:01 AM
No.
Let George tell you more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzHlMs2rSIM
Never heard any of his stuff before, that was quality! :haha:
Father Christmas?
I believe in YOU.
Maestro
18-10-06, 09:01 AM
Never heard any of his stuff before, that was quality! :haha:
The man is a legend.
A big fat NO from me.
I think the whole thing is a complete joke, and I seriously resent been badgered on my own front door or in the middle of town on a night out.
NO, this comes after years as a practising Christian. A lot of soul searching led me to this.
saveferris
18-10-06, 12:44 PM
For me Yes, I have always believed in God but never always practiced, when i didnt practice I had generally a hard time of things and couldnt understand why things went wrong.
Since I have been practicing on the whole my life is a lot lot better and I have an appreciation if things go wrong as to why.
So in effect by practicing this enhanced my opinion further
For me religion is just a big fight over who's got the best imaginary friend. However that said i find the whole concept enthralling and feel that there are definate social and personal benefit from understanding diferent religions and their ultimate practices, for example the development of common society is intrinsically linked to actions associated with belief in a god or strand of religion. Tibeten(sp) spiritualisism is full of calming methods that can be used to reduce stress and live in closer tranquility, eg meditation exercises etc.
So for me no but anyone who thinks any different fair play to ya.
For me religion is just a big fight over who's got the best imaginary friend. However that said i find the whole concept enthralling and feel that there are definate social and personal benefit from understanding diferent religions and their ultimate practices, for example the development of common society is intrinsically linked to actions associated with belief in a god or strand of religion. Tibeten(sp) spiritualisism is full of calming methods that can be used to reduce stress and live in closer tranquility, eg meditation exercises etc.
So for me no but anyone who thinks any different fair play to ya.
You would be hard pushed to find the equivalent tolerance among the believers.
:handshake:
warrenpeace
18-10-06, 01:32 PM
The Hoff believes in God:
I was brought up Catholic, but that really turned me away from the Church. I do have a great relationship with God, though. He helped me when I had a drinking problem. He helped me through my divorce. He helped me through big decisions about the Knight Rider TV series."
DAVID HASSELHOFF
Maestro
18-10-06, 01:38 PM
He didn't help him much with his sense of style now, did he?
Red_hot
18-10-06, 01:40 PM
No is winning! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :( I don't think I could get by not believing in something. What would be the point otherwise?
Maestro
18-10-06, 01:44 PM
Maybe if you say some prayers, the "yes" vote will gain some momentum?
warrenpeace
18-10-06, 02:02 PM
He didn't help him much with his sense of style now, did he?
You don't think it is Hoffster's god given right to wear tight jeans and a leather bomber jacket? Think again, Sunshine :handshake:
warrenpeace
18-10-06, 02:03 PM
No is winning! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :( I don't think I could get by not believing in something. What would be the point otherwise?
Why does there have to be a point?
Red_hot
18-10-06, 04:12 PM
Why does there have to be a point?
Well I think life would be pretty depressing if I didn't believe there was one.
warrenpeace
18-10-06, 04:16 PM
So you believe to keep you happy? It sounds like a better reason than most :)
Maestro
18-10-06, 04:18 PM
The point, is a very simple one. It was outlined quite succinctly by the Rev. O'Shea Jackson in the mid-80's. He phrased it thus:
"Life ain't nuthin' but bitches an' money"
Amen, Brother Cube, amen.
:handshake:
dirty_sanchez
18-10-06, 04:26 PM
I believe in a thing called love.
Oooooooooooooooh!
GUITAR!
http://blogs.prisacom.com/rollingstone/wp-content/subidas/dark_justin.jpg
Seriously though, no I don't believe in God. I generally think that religion in general is just a method of opression that has been taken in a positive light by some people and turned into a motivational tool. Most things in the universe can be explained with science.
warrenpeace
18-10-06, 04:31 PM
The point, is a very simple one. It was outlined quite succinctly by the Rev. O'Shea Jackson in the mid-80's. He phrased it thus:
"Life ain't nuthin' but bitches an' money"
Amen, Brother Cube, amen.
:handshake:
Unless you are a mayfly of course
Well I think life would be pretty depressing if I didn't believe there was one.
not if you make sure you live this one to the fullest, maby this is everything we get, and if we thik like that we will enjoy it alot more, explore it and invest in life itself...
Red_hot
18-10-06, 04:34 PM
Well I do believe in God. I don't think religion is all bad at all. Faith and hope are good too in my opinion and it can help to ease peoples suffering. If you don't believe then fairy scruff but I can't be arsed with all these people who come on and just slag everything about religion off when half off them dont even know what its about.
(That wasn't aimed at you)
warrenpeace
18-10-06, 04:40 PM
Well I do believe in God. I don't think religion is all bad at all. Faith and hope are good too in my opinion and it can help to ease peoples suffering. If you don't beleive then fairy scruff but I can't be arsed with all these people who come on and just slag everything about religion off when half off them dont even know what its about.
(That wasn't aimed at you)
:handshake:
Agree 100%. I've got a fair bit of faith and hope too, although not in god. They are good things to have.
Red_Polo
19-10-06, 06:54 PM
The man is a legend.
Yeah so I've been told many times. Him and Pryor. Never heard/seen much of either of them though. Will have to do some torrent hunting.... :)
Red_Al_77
19-10-06, 08:17 PM
I believe in science and as such God doesn't exist.
Neil Young
19-10-06, 08:21 PM
Good to see you, Al. Where have you been? :handshake:
Red_Al_77
19-10-06, 08:25 PM
Good to see you, Al. Where have you been? :handshake:
Changed my internet provider and work is extremely busy as you can imagine. It's good to be back.
Hate to say it, but some of the posts on this thread are disappointing.
:(
Hate to say it, but some of the posts on this thread are disappointing.
:(
It's the anti-Hasselhoff stuff isn't it?
Red Chilli
19-10-06, 10:22 PM
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
:handshake:
So that's a no from me too.
Maestro
19-10-06, 10:35 PM
Good to see you, Al.
Seconded. :handshake:
alunevans
20-10-06, 03:41 AM
For me Yes, I have always believed in God but never always practiced, when i didnt practice I had generally a hard time of things and couldnt understand why things went wrong.
Since I have been practicing on the whole my life is a lot lot better and I have an appreciation if things go wrong as to why.
So in effect by practicing this enhanced my opinion further
it seems clear that, for you, religious practice provides you with the philosophical reflection and perspective to emotionally handle your personal crises better.
but it doesn't mean there is an actual God.
a lot of cognitive behavioural therapy is aimed at doing the exact same thing.
glad its working for you though.
alunevans
20-10-06, 03:45 AM
I believe in science and as such God doesn't exist.
One of my musician acquaintances from the States told me he's planning to write a gospel song about Science. :D
Anfield Mole
20-10-06, 09:15 AM
I'm a believer.
Red_hot
20-10-06, 09:19 AM
I'm a believer.
Amen brother. :rock:
dirty_sanchez
20-10-06, 09:42 AM
Well I do believe in God. I don't think religion is all bad at all. Faith and hope are good too in my opinion and it can help to ease peoples suffering. If you don't believe then fairy scruff but I can't be arsed with all these people who come on and just slag everything about religion off when half off them dont even know what its about.
(That wasn't aimed at you)
Just out of interest, do you like following the law, rules at work etc?
Red_hot
20-10-06, 09:55 AM
I think rules are there for a reason but I don't always agree with them no. Why?
Snigger
20-10-06, 10:18 AM
I'm a believer.
Did you see her face?
Maestro
20-10-06, 10:21 AM
One of my musician acquaintances from the States told me he's planning to write a gospel song about Science. :D
:D
I like...
dirty_sanchez
20-10-06, 10:50 AM
I think rules are there for a reason but I don't always agree with them no. Why?
Because to me, they are no differant to religion. If you get a job, you are supposed to obey the company rules and do whatever your boss says. Same as religion.
Religion can be a good thing, but people who hold fast to religion are open for exploitation. You only have to look at people who commit atrocities like 9/11. Do you really think these people believe that flying a plane into a tower and killing thousands of people is a morally right thing to do? Of course not. They do it because they have been told that it's the right thing to do in the name of their religion.
Red_Polo
20-10-06, 01:34 PM
Did you see her face?
He must've done. Not a trace of doubt in my mind ;) *
*:shake:
Hollowman
20-10-06, 01:36 PM
Because to me, they are no differant to religion. If you get a job, you are supposed to obey the company rules and do whatever your boss says. Same as religion.
Religion can be a good thing, but people who hold fast to religion are open for exploitation. You only have to look at people who commit atrocities like 9/11. Do you really think these people believe that flying a plane into a tower and killing thousands of people is a morally right thing to do? Of course not. They do it because they have been told that it's the right thing to do in the name of their religion.
Yeah, but the question was about faith, not adherence to any creed.
The question of a belief in God is a metaphysical question and therefore can't be proved or disproved by science methods by definition.
from the New Scientist
dirty_sanchez
20-10-06, 01:58 PM
Yeah, but the question was about faith, not adherence to any creed.
Fair enough. Still don't see it myself. Faith in say god if you're a christian is just a concept. Some people on this planet suffer ridiculous amounts of hardship, surely that shakes peoples faith in an omnipotent being of some sort. What sort of people have faith in a god that stands by and lets innocent people suffer?
I went to a Humanist Funeral Yesterday. How refreshing to celebrate the life of frend through an honest recollection of him without all the bs about being reunited in the afterlife.
The testament said basically he was a great guy, remember him but he's gone now, his effect on your life will remain. No religion to get in the way.
Very moving service of remembrance, the first humanist funeral I've been to.
What if DM were right though and God does have a sick sense of humour?
Red_Polo
20-10-06, 02:20 PM
The question of a belief in God is a metaphysical question and therefore can't be proved or disproved by science methods by definition.
from the New Scientist
:handshake:
In raising metaphysics we stumble on an interesting point. Science is not more or less 'true' or 'real' than religion is. The difference being that religion is a set of views that we mould our perception of reality around, whereas science is a set of views constantly moulded to match our perception of reality.
Red_Polo
20-10-06, 02:26 PM
Fair enough. Still don't see it myself. Faith in say god if you're a christian is just a concept. Some people on this planet suffer ridiculous amounts of hardship, surely that shakes peoples faith in an omnipotent being of some sort. What sort of people have faith in a god that stands by and lets innocent people suffer?
The thing is religion has an answer for anything you throw at it. Which is why atheism is no more correct than theism. Free will makes all sorts of atheist arguments irrelevant. As do the fact that life on Earth is nothing in comparison to the eternal life afterwards - those who suffer now but keep their faith will have eternal bliss after their death etc.
The thing is you can't use logic to prove God doesn't exist. Logic is a man-made concept we use to make sense of the world, not something which God does not have to obey. Otherwise you could disprove the existence of God in one simple question:
"If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then can he make a box which he cannot open?"
If he can make such a box then he is not all pwoerful since he cannot open it. Otherwise he is not all knowing as he does not know how to make such a box. But then this is a lgocal argument - and God is not bound by logic.
dirty_sanchez
20-10-06, 03:39 PM
I hear what you are saying, but my point above isn't based on logic. Ok, imagine this if you will. You have a mate. Your mate kicks you in the balls. You blame it on a temporary glitch. Then he kicks all of your other mates in the balls. You start to get a bit suspicious. He goes and kicks people he doesn't know in the balls. Then he comes back and kicks you in the balls again. Why would you stay mates with him?
Snigger
20-10-06, 03:47 PM
I hear what you are saying, but my point above isn't based on logic. Ok, imagine this if you will. You have a mate. Your mate kicks you in the balls. You blame it on a temporary glitch. Then he kicks all of your other mates in the balls. You start to get a bit suspicious. He goes and kicks people he doesn't know in the balls. Then he comes back and kicks you in the balls again. Why would you stay mates with him?
does he have a big white beard and low rumbling voice?
Red_Polo
20-10-06, 04:42 PM
I hear what you are saying, but my point above isn't based on logic. Ok, imagine this if you will. You have a mate. Your mate kicks you in the balls. You blame it on a temporary glitch. Then he kicks all of your other mates in the balls. You start to get a bit suspicious. He goes and kicks people he doesn't know in the balls. Then he comes back and kicks you in the balls again. Why would you stay mates with him?
No, because logically it would not make sense for me, so I wouldn't be mates with him. But if I had the irrational belief that he was doing it for my own good and it would serve me well in the future, then I might remain very close friends with him :D
That is a logical argument - you are basically saying that it is illogical to believe in God, especially given the situation the world is in. Which is of course completely true, regardless of the world's situation.
The thing is to the theist it holds no water, since...
God works in mysterious ways which we cannot hope to understand etc etc
These kind of irrational beliefs negate any logical/rational argument anyone can propose. Ultimately the argument is futile.
What will eventually see religion end is not that logic disproves God, but the fact that reason serves us far better than faith. Because whilst neither represent the truth, one is clearly more useful than the other.
dirty_sanchez
20-10-06, 04:53 PM
The thing is to the theist it holds no water, since...
God works in mysterious ways which we cannot hope to understand etc etc
These kind of irrational beliefs negate any logical/rational argument anyone can propose. Ultimately the argument is futile.
What will eventually see religion end is not that logic disproves God, but the fact that reason serves us far better than faith. Because whilst neither represent the truth, one is clearly more useful than the other.
The thing is, reason does serve us better than faith. Who truly benefits from having faith?
I totally respect the right of a person to have faith, but for me it's a hollow concept. People act because their actions benefit themselves or other people. There's your logic right there. That's what drives people to do what they do.
There's nothing wrong with having faith in something, for example I have absolute faith in my girlfriend to do the right thing by me or other people. However, faith in something which is disproven by logical thought is misguided. If I had faith that grass is red then that would make me crazy. Most people wouldn't respect my right to think that, they'd think I'd been on LSD, so why is having faith in a God any different? Just because people have believed in him for a very very long time doesn't make it right.
Neil Young
20-10-06, 05:03 PM
No, because logically it would not make sense for me, so I wouldn't be mates with him. But if I had the irrational belief that he was doing it for my own good and it would serve me well in the future, then I might remain very close friends with him :D
That is a logical argument - you are basically saying that it is illogical to believe in God, especially given the situation the world is in. Which is of course completely true, regardless of the world's situation.
The thing is to the theist it holds no water, since...
God works in mysterious ways which we cannot hope to understand etc etc
These kind of irrational beliefs negate any logical/rational argument anyone can propose. Ultimately the argument is futile.
What will eventually see religion end is not that logic disproves God, but the fact that reason serves us far better than faith. Because whilst neither represent the truth, one is clearly more useful than the other.
Sorry to butt in here but have you read Stephen Jay Gould on this subject?
Anfield Mole
20-10-06, 05:27 PM
Did you see her face?
I couldn't leave her if I tried.
dum-de-dum-de-de dum-de-dum-de-de
Red_Polo
20-10-06, 05:33 PM
The thing is, reason does serve us better than faith. Who truly benefits from having faith?
I totally respect the right of a person to have faith, but for me it's a hollow concept. People act because their actions benefit themselves or other people. There's your logic right there. That's what drives people to do what they do.
There's nothing wrong with having faith in something, for example I have absolute faith in my girlfriend to do the right thing by me or other people. However, faith in something which is disproven by logical thought is misguided. If I had faith that grass is red then that would make me crazy. Most people wouldn't respect my right to think that, they'd think I'd been on LSD, so why is having faith in a God any different? Just because people have believed in him for a very very long time doesn't make it right.
I think there are undoubtedly people who benefit a great deal from their faith. But to me the problem with organised religion is it does not give enough freedom for people to develop their own belief system, too much is prescribed. We know that people with strong belief systems have happier, healthier lives. That doesn't necessarily mean religion, but some form of strong belief system or code of ethics.
About the respecting religious belief thing - I think there is a great deal of truth to what you say in that sometimes religious belief is respected far beyond the level of respect afforded to beliefs that are equally irrational to you and I. But with organised religions - looking at it pragmatically - whether you think it's mass delusion or holy truth it's obvious that deriding each others beliefs would not be in the best interests of the world at large. We all have to live together in peace and that often means overlooking what you might see as flaws and concentrating on the good. After all, we'd expect religious people to overlook our heathen status :D
Red_Polo
20-10-06, 05:40 PM
Sorry to butt in here but have you read Stephen Jay Gould on this subject?
I read quite a few excerpts from The Mismeasure of Man when I was doing a history of medicine course involving evolution, eugenics, IQ and racism, but I don't think I've read anything of his about religion and metaphysics. Clever fella though. Might be tempted to read some more of him in the future once I've worked my way through the pile of non-fiction books I've accumulated over the last month or two!
If I choose to believe in the divine, do I do this a) out of habit, b) for comfort or c) out of fear that if I don't I may be wrong.
Would God be happy with me believing for these reasons?
I was brought up a catholic, and so believed because I was told to. As I grew up terrible situations made me decided that if God did exist, I didn't much like him. Which then turned to a belief that maybe he didn't exist.
Now im not too sure to be honest. I want to not believe but I have nagging doubts about my agnosticism. Q: did you hear baout the agnostic dyslexic insommniac? A: He lay awake all night wondering if there was a Dog.
Btw did you kow the only character in the simpsons to have four fingers a hand is God.
redlancer
21-10-06, 06:18 PM
Definite no
Can understand why religon and faith has appeared. Mortality and inquisitive minds.
Heaven - sun - life
Hell - volcanoes - death
I belive there will be more intelligent beings than us, but did they have a hand in our making? No
But then I made an ant farm when i was a kid, wonder what they're doing now.
Religion has killed so many inocent lives, yet without it would the human race still be here.
I do beileve in ghosts or the more to the point there could be another form of life we're yet to understand
Red_Polo
21-10-06, 06:23 PM
there could be another form of life we're yet to understand
What, you mean like women?
redlancer
21-10-06, 06:28 PM
What, you mean like women?
:haha:
proves me point
arn't most ghosts women aswell.
ah well that's ghosts and strange things sorted.
Women with a grudge to bear
Nyet, non, nein and no!
"God" is an idea cooked up by a bunch of nomadic desert wanderers 4000 years ago to explain the mechanisms of things they couldn't understand. Like why it rained one day and not the next.
Abdul Alhazred
21-10-06, 08:17 PM
Now im not too sure to be honest. I want to not believe but I have nagging doubts about my agnosticism. Q: did you hear baout the agnostic dyslexic insommniac? A: He lay awake all night wondering if there was a Dog.
God spelt backwards is dog, but Bob spelt backwards IS STILL BOB
:handshake:
publiusscipio
21-10-06, 11:09 PM
No is winning! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :( I don't think I could get by not believing in something. What would be the point otherwise?
:confused:
Red_Polo
21-10-06, 11:13 PM
No is winning! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :( I don't think I could get by not believing in something. What would be the point otherwise?
Thomas Paine: My country is the world, my religion to do good.
Mattshark
22-10-06, 11:42 PM
Thomas Paine: My country is the world, my religion to do good.
Good sentiment.
NotLikeYou
24-10-06, 06:00 PM
I believe in science and as such God doesn't exist.
What... science doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
I accept science as it works on observations and evidence, but I believe in God. I believe God started the Big Bang and since there is no evidence to suggest otherwise I'll keep on believing it.
Which makes God the greatest scientist of them all.
:rock:
Incidentally lots of forethinking scientists through the ages have had a faith in a god/higher power. And as I pointed out previously even the New Scientist states that the question of science disproving god is a metaphysical one and therefore beyond the realm of science.
Science and religion are just two different ways of looking at the same thing. Unified theory or God.
paulcooper4
24-10-06, 08:26 PM
What... science doesn't mean God doesn't exist.
I accept science as it works on observations and evidence, but I believe in God. I believe God started the Big Bang and since there is no evidence to suggest otherwise I'll keep on believing it.
Which makes God the greatest scientist of them all.
:rock:
welcome to est david icke:rock: :rock: :rock:
dirty_sanchez
25-10-06, 09:08 AM
The question that I have to ask of the believers is what evidence to we have that god exists at all any more than any fictional character. I admit I'm fairly cynical about this and I'm trying to be respectful of people who do have strong religious views, but I don't understand why people devote their life to something that could be a wholly fictional concept.
Thats why its called faith though.
Incidentally lots of forethinking scientists through the ages have had a faith in a god/higher power. And as I pointed out previously even the New Scientist states that the question of science disproving god is a metaphysical one and therefore beyond the realm of science.
Science and religion are just two different ways of looking at the same thing. Unified theory or God.
I read a book by a reverend david wilkinson (whom i subsequently met) called something like God, the Big Bang and Steven Hawkins wher he gives a lucid explanation of the conflict between science and faith. It was worth a read, although i'm still an atheist it was at least an intelligent discourse on faith and science.
dirty_sanchez
25-10-06, 11:46 AM
Thats why its called faith though.
But surely having faith in a concept with no foundation is ridiculous?
But surely having faith in a concept with no foundation is ridiculous?
Fredo thinks we'll win the league!
dirty_sanchez
25-10-06, 11:49 AM
I think there's more chance of actual evidence of god.
No for me. I've seen far too much shit go down to believe there could be one, and all scientific evidence points to the non-existence of a God. Pretty much most things in the Bible can now be explained by scientific or historical fact, including the parting of the Red Sea.
Like others, I firmly believe religion of any sort only came about as a result of people trying to find an explanation for the unexplainable. It is now so outdated and used by the few to control the many in whatever way they see fit, for good and bad.
We live. We die.
No for me. I've seen far too much shit go down to believe there could be one, and all scientific evidence points to the non-existence of a God. Pretty much most things in the Bible can now be explained by scientific or historical fact, including the parting of the Red Sea.
Like others, I firmly believe religion of any sort only came about as a result of people trying to find an explanation for the unexplainable. It is now so outdated and used by the few to control the many in whatever way they see fit, for good and bad.
We live. We die.
You forgot "Shit happens" in between
You forgot "Shit happens" in between
Sorry. My bad.:handshake:
Sorry. My bad.:handshake:
What is the derivation of "My bad"?
But surely having faith in a concept with no foundation is ridiculous?
Possibly, but (and this is difficult for a simpleton like me to explain) it isn't faith if its proved. This is a bit facile but you have faith that, say, antartica exist because you are told it does. Just as religio types tell you god exists. Yes you can go and visit Antartica to prove it, but what if you found it not to be there?
I've lost it now, I don't know what im rabbiting about, lol.
No for me. I've seen far too much shit go down to believe there could be one, and all scientific evidence points to the non-existence of a God. Pretty much most things in the Bible can now be explained by scientific or historical fact, including the parting of the Red Sea.
Like others, I firmly believe religion of any sort only came about as a result of people trying to find an explanation for the unexplainable. It is now so outdated and used by the few to control the many in whatever way they see fit, for good and bad.
We live. We die.
What scientifc evidence?
Pretty much most things in the Bible can now be explained by scientific or historical fact, including the parting of the Red Sea.
Does that prove that God was not involved?
Does that prove that God was not involved?
Good one. But, no as a negative can rarely be proven.:handshake:
What scientifc evidence?
I can't remember the specific details now, but there was something I read a while ago that did show historical evidence of an event whereby the Red Sea receded to the point where one could walk across for a very short while.
What scientifc evidence?
Some clown tried to explain to me the other day that God created science in order to truly test mankinds faith in him. Utter bobsocks. People are fully entitles to their views and beliefs and I try quite hard to respect them but when people come up with shit like that it makes me slightly less than tolerant!
Yes..Baphomet
Oh ok, in all seriousness I believe in a higher Being. Where he is or what he does is another question.
I don’t believe the (war) God from the bible. Too much wrath/ fire& brimstone for my liking. anyway each to their own on this subject, back to the Lurkers section for me..
Some clown tried to explain to me the other day that God created science in order to truly test mankinds faith in him. Utter bobsocks. People are fully entitles to their views and beliefs and I try quite hard to respect them but when people come up with shit like that it makes me slightly less than tolerant!
Is it possible though that Science and God are one and the same thing. God maybe isn't a being like us but a source of power at the fabric of the universe. Which is what Scientists call the unified energy theory, its what they all seek, their holy grail if you like. Who's to say they aren't both right, scientists AND Religion.
Its an interesting theory. My comment was aimed more at the view that a consciously thinking being created and communicated with mankind and all other creations, while at the same time playing pranks like burying Dinosaur bones to test the masses. I think the trouble you may have is that science has led us to attribute rational thought, or at least understanding, to events. To say that the scientific discovery and an all seeing deity are one and the same is stretching it a bit for me.
Its merely a possibilty. Me, I believe in a bit of both if that makes sense.
dirty_sanchez
26-10-06, 08:47 AM
Is it possible though that Science and God are one and the same thing. God maybe isn't a being like us but a source of power at the fabric of the universe. Which is what Scientists call the unified energy theory, its what they all seek, their holy grail if you like. Who's to say they aren't both right, scientists AND Religion.
I think that there is some foundation in your unified energy theory there. The personification of that power into some kind of being would make religion somewhat akin to a children's bedtime story though.
Is it possible though that Science and God are one and the same thing. God maybe isn't a being like us but a source of power at the fabric of the universe. Which is what Scientists call the unified energy theory, its what they all seek, their holy grail if you like. Who's to say they aren't both right, scientists AND Religion.
Yes, but what came first? or does it make no sense to disscuss "beginnings" in linear terms. Teleology - discuss....
I think that there is some foundation in your unified energy theory there. The personification of that power into some kind of being would make religion somewhat akin to a children's bedtime story though.
I agree totally. I have never had much truck with organised religion anyway. Thats mankinds interpretation, to borrow a quote from the 5% 'ers "no man is god".
Yes, but what came first? or does it make no sense to disscuss "beginnings" in linear terms. Teleology - discuss....
That sort of question makes my head hurt.
dirty_sanchez
26-10-06, 09:38 AM
Yes, but what came first? or does it make no sense to disscuss "beginnings" in linear terms. Teleology - discuss....
Presumably the religion came first as people probably used it to explain things like the weather, long before they were capable of advanced scientific theories to explain them. I agree with this train of thought. Religion came about through people trying to explain things that they don't understand.
Egyptians and Incas and Aztecs had Scientific measures back in the day, but they ran along side their religious beliefs. SOme of their engineering feats are incredible.
Also I read a book ages ago that compared myths from different parts of the world in different cultures. Its surprising the amount of differing myths are based on the same things. Their are far too many coincidences in them at a time when the cultures had developed seperately.
Not proof I know but it is interesting.
Snigger
26-10-06, 09:56 AM
God, science and nature could be one and the same thing - God is not a being but a force. God is not a he who made the earth in 6 days and took a breather on the 7th then burned his hands making the sun so made Pluto to soothe them.
If you believe in evolution and the forces of science and nature then in a sense that could be god because in days of yor we as a race had no understanding of science. God is always portrayed as an old man in modern religions but in ancient religions God was the Sun, the moon, Thor god of thunder, Neptune God of the sea etc... forces of nature. A bit like the Romans, Aztecs and Ancient Egyptians some of these ancients were ahead of their time - unfortunately the human race went backwards after each of these societies were wiped.
dirty_sanchez
26-10-06, 10:07 AM
God, science and nature could be one and the same thing - God is not a being but a force. God is not a he who made the earth in 6 days and took a breather on the 7th then burned his hands making the sun so made Pluto to soothe them.
If you believe in evolution and the forces of science and nature then in a sense that could be god because in days of yor we as a race had no understanding of science. God is always portrayed as an old man in modern religions but in ancient religions God was the Sun, the moon, Thor god of thunder, Neptune God of the sea etc... forces of nature. A bit like the Romans, Aztecs and Ancient Egyptians some of these ancients were ahead of their time - unfortunately the human race went backwards after each of these societies were wiped.
Exactly. God as a concept was probably created to summarise forces of nature that people did not understand, but were in awe of.
But that doesn't necessarily negate the existence of "God". It may be metaphorically used by religion as a man with a white beard and sandals, but that could be the best way for our feeble minds to cope with the incomprehendibility (is that a word?) and enormity of the metaphysics involved.
dirty_sanchez
26-10-06, 11:18 AM
Possibly, but I think that shows an alarming amount of disrespect for people's intelligence levels. It's possible for people to be in awe of nature and evolution without having to personify it. The technicalities of the metaphysics involved are huge, but the concept of god is a simple one. Why is the sun hot? Oh, it's an act of God? Why is the sky blue? It's an act of God. It's a way for people to answer something that they don't know the answer to.
Man, this conversation is like being stoned, except if I was stoned I wouldn't be able to say personify and I'd have lost interest by now.
Neil Young
26-10-06, 11:38 AM
God, science and nature could be one and the same thing - God is not a being but a force. God is not a he who made the earth in 6 days and took a breather on the 7th then burned his hands making the sun so made Pluto to soothe them.
If you believe in evolution and the forces of science and nature then in a sense that could be god because in days of yor we as a race had no understanding of science. God is always portrayed as an old man in modern religions but in ancient religions God was the Sun, the moon, Thor god of thunder, Neptune God of the sea etc... forces of nature. A bit like the Romans, Aztecs and Ancient Egyptians some of these ancients were ahead of their time - unfortunately the human race went backwards after each of these societies were wiped.
Your last point is very debatable IMO. The Romans' methods were far more barbaric than the so-called barbarians who eventually defeated them, the Aztecs practised human sacrifice and ancient Egyptian society was intensely hierarchical and practised incest. All three economies were based on slavery. Getting rid of them hardly constitutes "going backwards" to my mind.
dirty_sanchez
26-10-06, 11:42 AM
Your last point is very debatable IMO. The Romans' methods were far more barbaric than the so-called barbarians who eventually defeated them, the Aztecs practised human sacrifice and ancient Egyptian society was intensely hierarchical and practised incest. All three economies were based on slavery. Getting rid of them hardly constitutes "going backwards" to my mind.
I don't think the moral integrity of these societies is really relevant here. Aren't we talking about their theological ability rather than how morally dubious some of their practices are?
Neil Young
26-10-06, 11:46 AM
"Theological ability" seems rather a vague term - what does it mean?
I take your point although I do think that myths about which societies are "civilized" should be challenged wherver they are repeated. In particular there's a lot of crap talked about the Roman world.
Anyway, since the Roman Empire metamorphosized into the Roman Catholic church I hardly think we can talk about it as a civilization that was wiped out.
dirty_sanchez
26-10-06, 12:10 PM
That's fair enough. I used the vague phrase to encompass a large subject that I have a vague comprehension of (slightly hypocritical given my previous posts). I was trying to say that we should base our argument on how much or little their concepts of religion and science cross over, whether they base their image of God on the sun, a little man, or just a conceptual theory such as in Snigger's post above. Basically what I'm saying is that people explain fantastical things using either physical (science) or metaphysical (religion) method, or a mixture of the two. I was trying to say that more advanced societies would be generally weighted towards the physical theories because they have the intellect and the resources to form more well founded scientific conclusions about things.
dirty_sanchez
26-10-06, 12:11 PM
I apologise for the inpenetrable English that I used above.
Snigger
26-10-06, 12:40 PM
Your last point is very debatable IMO. The Romans' methods were far more barbaric than the so-called barbarians who eventually defeated them, the Aztecs practised human sacrifice and ancient Egyptian society was intensely hierarchical and practised incest. All three economies were based on slavery. Getting rid of them hardly constitutes "going backwards" to my mind.
I was refering to their beliefs and faiths not their methods - However when you consider that the Romans had sewers, central heating, roads, government etc.... not to mention their ability in construction and you then look at the few hundred years following the fall of the empire you would have to agree that the human race did not advance but went backwards.
Barbaric parctices still go on today - look at Rwanda and slavery was only abolished relatively recently in the time gap between now and the Romans. These ancient civilizations may not have been as civilized as your PC mind would like, but they were miles ahead of anyone else in their time and we hardly much more civilized today.
None of this however was the point of my post - My point was they worshipped forces of science and nature as gods not their methods of doing this - Those that sacrificed did so because they thought it would appease the Gods and be for the greater good of man, they did not use it as an excuse for genocide or war as later societies did so who are we to judge their methods.
Neil Young
26-10-06, 12:48 PM
I think we are perfectly capable of judging their methods - that's what history does, make judgments. You do it yourself by saying they were civilized - I think in some ways they were, in others they weren't.
I agree with you on the need for humility in making those judgments and that is exactly what is lacking in so much discussion on here and in wider society about, for instance, Islam.
Snigger
26-10-06, 12:59 PM
I think we are perfectly capable of judging their methods - that's what history does, make judgments. You do it yourself by saying they were civilized - I think in some ways they were, in others they weren't.
I agree with you on the need for humility in making those judgments and that is exactly what is lacking in so much discussion on here and in wider society about, for instance, Islam.
I didn't say we weren't capable of judging them - it was a rhetorical question.
Mattshark
26-10-06, 01:32 PM
None of this however was the point of my post - My point was they worshipped forces of science and nature as gods not their methods of doing this - Those that sacrificed did so because they thought it would appease the Gods and be for the greater good of man, they did not use it as an excuse for genocide or war as later societies did so who are we to judge their methods.
The Roman belief system was taken nearly completely off the Greeks and all the gods where personified in human form and they where still concieved to explain things they couldn't. With human sacrifice, the Romans did it for sport and the American civilizations who practiced sacrifice are not hugely known about in the same way as the European classical civilizations and Egyptians are. The Egyptians also believed the world was masterbated into existance.
Snigger
26-10-06, 01:46 PM
The Roman belief system was taken nearly completely off the Greeks and all the gods where personified in human form and they where still concieved to explain things they couldn't. With human sacrifice, the Romans did it for sport and the American civilizations who practiced sacrifice are not hugely known about in the same way as the European classical civilizations and Egyptians are. The Egyptians also believed the world was masterbated into existance.
how big would that penis have had to have been.
Mattshark
26-10-06, 01:47 PM
how big would that penis have had to have been.
Dunno, maybe big enough so if he ever got a stiffy he'd die of bloodloss to the brain.
Snigger
26-10-06, 01:51 PM
Dunno, maybe big enough so if he ever got a stiffy he'd die of bloodloss to the brain.
so for the world to have been and wank jack - Egypts God would have to be dead?
Mattshark
26-10-06, 01:59 PM
so for the world to have been and wank jack - Egypts God would have to be dead?
Potentially. Thats the thing about religion, its all a bit daft.
bazza76
26-10-06, 02:14 PM
Absolutely no chance there is a God. None whatsoever.
However, I would be there are countless other intelligent lifeforms out there. in our galaxy alone.
Man, this conversation is like being stoned, except if I was stoned I wouldn't be able to say personify and I'd have lost interest by now.
it's like.....what was I saying?.....I.....who fancies a pizza?
Absolutely no chance there is a God. None whatsoever.
However, I would be there are countless other intelligent lifeforms out there. in our galaxy alone.
Just out of interest, and this isn't supposed to sound as harsh as it will, how can you be so sure?, what do you know that literally billions of people before didn't/don't?
Mattshark
26-10-06, 04:44 PM
Just out of interest, and this isn't supposed to sound as harsh as it will, how can you be so sure?, what do you know that literally billions of people before didn't/don't?
Because the idea of an eternal omnipitant being is just a bit silly really.
dirty_sanchez
26-10-06, 05:10 PM
Just out of interest, and this isn't supposed to sound as harsh as it will, how can you be so sure?, what do you know that literally billions of people before didn't/don't?
Do they actually know, or is it just a myth that has been passed down for years, like Everton being good in the 80's
Because the idea of an eternal omnipitant being is just a bit silly really.
I wouldn't dare to presume I understood the universe and all that was in it. The problem is when you judge things by human standards such as time for instance.
I beleive there are thing we simply don't have the cranial capacity to understand and would therefore never dismiss things out of hand.
Do you think single cell organisms could cope with the mental strain of knowing there is a vast universe (that we know about) out there? No, simply because they are too small and can only think in linear terms of their surroundings.
Do they actually know, or is it just a myth that has been passed down for years, like Everton being good in the 80's
It may well be, but my point was to ask how he can be so sure, it's like looking at a painting through a pinhole, you can only see a small part of it and what you see might not make sense. But you can't dismiss it out of hand, when immensely superior thinkers through the ages haven't.
Descartes (I think therefore I am) believed in a higher being, and no disrespect to bazza, I would hold his opinion higher.
Redlife
26-10-06, 05:34 PM
God, if you want me to eat the whole multi-pack of Cadbury's Flakes which is the kitchen, give me no sign.
:rock:
Hollowman
26-10-06, 06:28 PM
Absolutely no chance there is a God. None whatsoever.
However, I would be there are countless other intelligent lifeforms out there. in our galaxy alone.
Given the unfathomable odds against intelligent life developing anywhere, I would strongly bet against mankind ever finding another being of reckonable social and philosophical standing.
Red_Polo
26-10-06, 06:35 PM
Someone once said the only thing we know for sure is that we know nothing. I'd say we probably don't even know that much.
Science is not truth, it is just a set of working models. As soon as we find a model doesn't work we reinvent that model or create a more complex model that can co-exist with the original one. That is science. To believe in science is blind, just as it is to believe in religion.
I think there is a small chance we might find life outside of our planet in the near future, although I doubt we will find intelligent life before mankind ceases to exist.
Mattshark
26-10-06, 07:54 PM
Do you think single cell organisms could cope with the mental strain of knowing there is a vast universe (that we know about) out there? No, simply because they are too small and can only think in linear terms of their surroundings.
Actually they can't think.
Mattshark
26-10-06, 07:58 PM
Given the unfathomable odds against intelligent life developing anywhere, I would strongly bet against mankind ever finding another being of reckonable social and philosophical standing.
The odds are only unfathomable in small areas, however there are plenty of plane where conditions are possible and life can be made out some very simple chemicals. Once life is formed, there is plenty of potential for life to then evolve from there on.
Actually they can't think.
Fair point, but do you see what I am getting at. We are small so we think small and cannot see the bigger picture because we have no concept of being able to deal with it.
Mattshark
26-10-06, 08:08 PM
Fair point, but do you see what I am getting at. We are small so we think small and cannot see the bigger picture because we have no concept of being able to deal with it.
Does not however mean that there is an all knowing all seeing omnipitant deity, that is in fact a man made concept.
Science is not truth, it is just a set of working models. As soon as we find a model doesn't work we reinvent that model or create a more complex model that can co-exist with the original one.
That depends on the field of science, some do deal with fact or at least high likely hood, your description is more physics and concepts that had been previously accepted do get completely thrown out.
We used to KNOW the earth was flat, then we found out we were wrong so knowledge was revised. We constantly push back boundaries of conceptions as we find out more about the wonder of the universe, so why is it difficult to grasp there is more to it than (currently) is humanly imaginable.
To say something doesn't exist because the concept is silly, is a little bit arrogant, close minded and does you a disservice.
Does not however mean that there is an all knowing all seeing omnipitant deity
But it doesn't prove God doesn't exist either.
I could argue with you to show me proof that God doesn't exist and you couldn't, just as I couldn't prove God does exist. Thats why its called faith.
Mattshark
26-10-06, 09:02 PM
We used to KNOW the earth was flat, then we found out we were wrong so knowledge was revised. We constantly push back boundaries of conceptions as we find out more about the wonder of the universe, so why is it difficult to grasp there is more to it than (currently) is humanly imaginable.
To say something doesn't exist because the concept is silly, is a little bit arrogant, close minded and does you a disservice.
I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was highly unlikely. But I do not believe it does though and there is a god, he is a twat quite frankly.
I'm agnostic, meaning (at least by my use of the word!) that I can't prove it either way.
I usually find that if you follow most things to their extreme (origin of universe, laws of physics/chemistry/biology - that kind of shit) there's stuff that scientists can theorise about but can't be proven per se.
I guess that suggests that there's more likely (IMO) to be a 'god' than not, but in my mind 'it' probably wouldn't be a sentient being - just something that hasn't been adequately explained by our limited minds
Does not however mean that there is an all knowing all seeing omnipitant deity, that is in fact a man made concept.
That depends on the field of science, some do deal with fact or at least high likely hood, your description is more physics and concepts that had been previously accepted do get completely thrown out.
We don't know there isn't a god either.
Lots of things in science you accept as 'fact', but have you actually personally examined the evidence or just accepted the view of someone who has?
Mattshark
26-10-06, 09:26 PM
We don't know there isn't a god either.
Lots of things in science you accept as 'fact', but have you actually personally examined the evidence or just accepted the view of someone who has?
I know this. I never said conclusively that there wasn't, I just don't believe it.
There is very little I accept with out question, but there are huge areas of science that are fact, esp a lot of chemistry. I don't know about physics, however I there is greater evidence for or against certain points in biology, but some of it is fact and proven.
I know this. I never said conclusively that there wasn't, I just don't believe it.
There is very little I accept with out question, but there are huge areas of science that are fact, esp a lot of chemistry. I don't know about physics, however I there is greater evidence for or against certain points in biology, but some of it is fact and proven.
your direct quote
Because the idea of an eternal omnipitant being is just a bit silly really.
Mattshark
26-10-06, 09:30 PM
your direct quote
In my opinion it is, it does not mean i'm not wrong
I know this. I never said conclusively that there wasn't, I just don't believe it.
There is very little I accept with out question, but there are huge areas of science that are fact, esp a lot of chemistry. I don't know about physics, however I there is greater evidence for or against certain points in biology, but some of it is fact and proven.
Me too. We're probably very similar belief-wise, but I wouldn't refer to the belief that there is a god as silly :D
Mattshark
26-10-06, 09:34 PM
Me too. We're probably very similar belief-wise, but I wouldn't refer to the belief that there is a god as silly :D
I probably wouldn't if the world wasn't nicer, but it is crap and crap stuff happens to people who don't deserve it.
Red_hot
26-10-06, 09:39 PM
Erm, what fah-q says.
glynner
26-10-06, 09:45 PM
Yes for me.
Elsewhere on this thread, it's said that there can't be a God because he/she/it allows so much global suffering. But I don't see it working like that - I see it more like a situation where a "creator" created the human race, and what we choose to do while we are on this earth is up to us.
Red_hot
26-10-06, 09:50 PM
Yes for me.
Elsewhere on this thread, it's said that there can't be a God because he/she/it allows so much global suffering. But I don't see it working like that - I see it more like a situation where a "creator" created the human race, and what we choose to do while we are on this earth is up to us.
:handshake:
What if God just put us here for his own entertainment? That's all we are - just something for him to have a bit of a laugh at?
glynner
26-10-06, 09:56 PM
You mean like a celestial Coronation Street ?
You mean like a celestial Coronation Street ?
eloquently put my friend
Mattshark
26-10-06, 10:07 PM
Yes for me.
Elsewhere on this thread, it's said that there can't be a God because he/she/it allows so much global suffering. But I don't see it working like that - I see it more like a situation where a "creator" created the human race, and what we choose to do while we are on this earth is up to us.
I seriously doubt that the human race was created by anyone at all, the earth was here for millions of years before we existed, it'll be here well after we are gone.
to quote: "Well, basically, there was this little dot, right? And the dot went bang and the bang expanded. Energy formed into matter, matter cooled, matter lived, the amoeba to fish, to fish to fowl, to fowl to frog, to frog to mammal, the mammal to monkey, to monkey to man, amo amas amat, quid pro quo, memento mori, ad infinitum, sprinkle on a little bit of grated cheese and leave under the grill till Doomsday."
Mattshark
26-10-06, 10:15 PM
to quote: "Well, basically, there was this little dot, right? And the dot went bang and the bang expanded. Energy formed into matter, matter cooled, matter lived, the amoeba to fish, to fish to fowl, to fowl to frog, to frog to mammal, the mammal to monkey, to monkey to man, amo amas amat, quid pro quo, memento mori, ad infinitum, sprinkle on a little bit of grated cheese and leave under the grill till Doomsday."
That order is well out
Bacteria
Archeobacteria
Ameoba
Sponge
Flat worm
Velvet worm
arthropod
fish
amphibian
reptile
mammal-like reptile
mammal
primate
ape
man
is much more likey
That order is well out
Bacteria
Archeobacteria
Ameoba
Sponge
Flat worm
Velvet worm
arthropod
fish
amphibian
reptile
mammal-like reptile
mammal
primate
ape
man
is much more likey
I stand corrected
Anyone watch that programme on aout the Buddha Boy who is meditating for 6 years, he hasn't eaten or drunk anything for 10 months. And Science is baffled. It's not proof of anything but it is interesting
Anyone watch that programme on aout the Buddha Boy who is meditating for 6 years, he hasn't eaten or drunk anything for 10 months. And Science is baffled. It's not proof of anything but it is interesting
Jesus.
Presumably his heart rate/metabolic rate is about 1 beat a second/virtually nothing so his body doesn't need food or water....although he's going to be fucking thirsty when he wakes up :D
He missed our 5th European Cup too as it was mid May 2005 when he entered this state.
He said he will come out of it after 6 years and is revered there as the second coming of Buddha. They filmed him continually for 4 days and nights and he barely moved let alone ate or drank.
He missed our 5th European Cup too as it was mid May 2005 when he entered this state.
He said he will come out of it after 6 years and is revered there as the second coming of Buddha. They filmed him continually for 4 days and nights and he barely moved let alone ate or drank.
Fascinating stuff, by I see it as evidence of amazing control over body and mind, not existence of god :handshake:
Red_Polo
27-10-06, 01:33 AM
The odds are only unfathomable in small areas, however there are plenty of plane where conditions are possible and life can be made out some very simple chemicals. Once life is formed, there is plenty of potential for life to then evolve from there on.
Only if there is a potential for variation and selection, which there isn't necessarily. Even then, life would have to survive and develop to a point where it was intelligent enough to be able to break out of the environment it was conceived in.
Red_Polo
27-10-06, 02:06 AM
That depends on the field of science, some do deal with fact or at least high likely hood, your description is more physics and concepts that had been previously accepted do get completely thrown out.
I'm talking about absolutely everything we think of as fact. It is just our best working perception of reality, it is not necessarily even remotely close to reality. All science deals with what establishing models/theories which work. What works we describe as fact, but we do not know it to be so. Everything we claim to know is based on metaphysical assumptions which provided us with an initial foundation to build a system of knowledge.
Even basic Newtonian physics that we can demonstrate as 'fact' are based on these assumptions. Imagine you have zero knowledge and set about to prove any basic physical law. You cannot do so without making basic assumptions about the nature of reality and our perception fo reality.
"concepts that had been previously accepted do get completely thrown out"
The fact that science continually builds on itself means that all our new models have to be made to fit the old ones. In effect once a model has entered the pyramid of scientific knowledge and had other models built on top of it, it cannot be removed without bringing down those associated models.
So when someone stumbles upon a new phenomenon which rails against established models, such as occured with the 'ultraviolet catastrophe', scientists suddenly remember they are not dealing with fact. So they form a complicated new model to explain the phenomenon in such a way as it fits with the old ones. And there we have it, our new fact. Light is not a particle, light is not a wave, it is something else, which can behave as either depending on what mood it's in. Wave-particle duality. And of course, that's the way it should be, it's the only working way we have of making sense of the world. But it's not really a matter of fact, and never was.
Red_Polo
27-10-06, 02:11 AM
Yes for me.
Elsewhere on this thread, it's said that there can't be a God because he/she/it allows so much global suffering. But I don't see it working like that - I see it more like a situation where a "creator" created the human race, and what we choose to do while we are on this earth is up to us.
Yes, the free will argument. Of course that is sort of squashed when you consider that natural disasters and disease kill an awful lot of people and cause much suffering. You can't put that down to free will.
Although I do accept that if you go further down the line the theist will have an answer for everything. Of course he does, his whole argument is based on the idea that there is an all powerful, all knowing, all good being out there who works in mysterious ways. Using that concept, any earthly goings on can be justified.
Red_Polo
27-10-06, 02:17 AM
Anyone watch that programme on aout the Buddha Boy who is meditating for 6 years, he hasn't eaten or drunk anything for 10 months. And Science is baffled. It's not proof of anything but it is interesting
Ah come on, blatant hoax! He raised plenty of money from tourists though apparently.
Before he disappeared that is - he's probably sunning himself on the beach in Cuba, drinking Mojitos and getting his end away with his hired Latin pussy. :D
:)
:alongsidetupacshakey:
Mattshark
27-10-06, 10:30 AM
I'm talking about absolutely everything we think of as fact. It is just our best working perception of reality, it is not necessarily even remotely close to reality. All science deals with what establishing models/theories which work. What works we describe as fact, but we do not know it to be so. Everything we claim to know is based on metaphysical assumptions which provided us with an initial foundation to build a system of knowledge.
Even basic Newtonian physics that we can demonstrate as 'fact' are based on these assumptions. Imagine you have zero knowledge and set about to prove any basic physical law. You cannot do so without making basic assumptions about the nature of reality and our perception fo reality.
"concepts that had been previously accepted do get completely thrown out"
The fact that science continually builds on itself means that all our new models have to be made to fit the old ones. In effect once a model has entered the pyramid of scientific knowledge and had other models built on top of it, it cannot be removed without bringing down those associated models.
So when someone stumbles upon a new phenomenon which rails against established models, such as occured with the 'ultraviolet catastrophe', scientists suddenly remember they are not dealing with fact. So they form a complicated new model to explain the phenomenon in such a way as it fits with the old ones. And there we have it, our new fact. Light is not a particle, light is not a wave, it is something else, which can behave as either depending on what mood it's in. Wave-particle duality. And of course, that's the way it should be, it's the only working way we have of making sense of the world. But it's not really a matter of fact, and never was.
Your delving into the field I don't delve into there, not good with physics.
I went a bit crossed eyed when reading that too.
Red_Polo
27-10-06, 02:43 PM
http://www.devinebydesign.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/Youaintseenme1.jpg
glynner
27-10-06, 04:14 PM
Yes, the free will argument. Of course that is sort of squashed when you consider that natural disasters and disease kill an awful lot of people and cause much suffering. You can't put that down to free will.
Although I do accept that if you go further down the line the theist will have an answer for everything. Of course he does, his whole argument is based on the idea that there is an all powerful, all knowing, all good being out there who works in mysterious ways. Using that concept, any earthly goings on can be justified.
I don't see how the existence of natural disasters squashes the so-called "free-will" argument. Yes, people don't directly cause natural disasters (although it could be argued that some of them are envrionmental engimas indirectly caused by man).
Natural disasters are forces of nature, no ? Not caused by man or God. I'm not seeing how their existence lends substance to the argument either way.
glynner
27-10-06, 04:20 PM
I seriously doubt that the human race was created by anyone at all, the earth was here for millions of years before we existed, it'll be here well after we are gone.
Yeah, I don't have an answer for that, and it's a good point. Maybe God went on a tea break between the time he/she/it created Earth and the time man was created ? :eyebrow:
Depth_Charge
27-10-06, 05:03 PM
No!
I also don't trust anyone who defines themselves by their religion - be they Catholic, Muslim or any one of the other thousand or so religions who all have their 'own' God.
Don't get me started on that 'intelligent designer' bollocks either...
Mattshark
27-10-06, 07:28 PM
No!
Don't get me started on that 'intelligent designer' bollocks either...
On the plus side for biologists there have suddenly had a lot of jobs become available in the US due to a distinct lowering in science educational stadards and some states having the science's at high school level being deemed not good enough for higher education.
Red_Polo
27-10-06, 07:37 PM
I don't see how the existence of natural disasters squashes the so-called "free-will" argument. Yes, people don't directly cause natural disasters (although it could be argued that some of them are envrionmental engimas indirectly caused by man).
Natural disasters are forces of nature, no ? Not caused by man or God. I'm not seeing how their existence lends substance to the argument either way.
God created those natural forces though!
Red_Al_77
27-10-06, 07:56 PM
There is more proof of the big bang theory and all that entails than the existence of a God. Show me any proof of a God and I may start to believe. At this present time however I see none and am of the opinion that people choose to believe to an extent because of the feeling of security and well being it brings to their lives.
...as to life on other planets. Well I see no reason the doubt at this present time that somewhere in a universe of billions of stars and planets that some other form of intelligent life exists. The conditions that bought about our existence are likely to have been repeated elsewhere. Probability shows us that.
glynner
28-10-06, 02:31 AM
There is more proof of the big bang theory and all that entails than the existence of a God. Show me any proof of a God and I may start to believe. At this present time however I see none and am of the opinion that people choose to believe to an extent because of the feeling of security and well being it brings to their lives.
...as to life on other planets. Well I see no reason the doubt at this present time that somewhere in a universe of billions of stars and planets that some other form of intelligent life exists. The conditions that bought about our existence are likely to have been repeated elsewhere. Probability shows us that.
Great point about the probability of life elsewhere. What would constitute evidence in your eyes of a "God", by the way?
glynner
28-10-06, 02:34 AM
God created those natural forces though!
Right, but if he/she/it, created those forces, but let them take on their own natural course, that still doesn't prove anything either way -at least that's my thinking...
Red_Polo
28-10-06, 02:38 AM
Right, but if he/she/it, created those forces, but let them take on their own natural course, that still doesn't prove anything either way -at least that's my thinking...
Well, being all-knowing, God would know the consequences that would have.
Now that I've raised omniscience........the ideas of God being all-knowing, and of free will existing, are at odds with each other. If God knows everything then He knows what path we will take. If He knows what path we will take then no free will is being exercised on our parts.
Neil Young
28-10-06, 07:47 AM
Well, being all-knowing, God would know the consequences that would have.
Now that I've raised omniscience........the ideas of God being all-knowing, and of free will existing, are at odds with each other. If God knows everything then He knows what path we will take. If He knows what path we will take then no free will is being exercised on our parts.
Clever logic but that's just what God wants you to think.
Red_Al_77
28-10-06, 01:36 PM
Great point about the probability of life elsewhere. What would constitute evidence in your eyes of a "God", by the way?
That's a tough question.
You have to ask yourself though if God is all worldly wise etc etc and so bloody great then why does he allow so much suffering. Seems to be pretty crap at his job to me.
wow so many of you guys dont believe!
and most of you all point to the fact o deary me the world is such a terrible place *if* there was a god he wouldnt let such terrible stuff happen..
I wonder if you might look at all the wonderful amazing stuff that has happened to yourselves and other and think thats Gods doing also? and hence there is a god?
Also for those who say well because of science there isnt a god..some of the worlds top scientists and physisits...phisists...(no wait i got this) physicists..(errrm you get what i mean) have come to the conclusion that there *must* be a higher force/being/entity that has helped us get where we are today!
Obviously from this you can tell its a YES from me..and it was because of my in depth study of science that lead me to believe in a god cos there are just so many amazing things including yourselves there to be a coincidence!
(I realise this sounds realy hippyish and new age love and yes i wana vomit after reading it also..but its true)
Also dont get caught up in the actions of others who do loopyness in the name of a religion..ie the loopy muslims blowing themselves up in the name of their belief/or bush sayin god told him to go to war/or the jews killing innocent people in an attempt to keep a stretch of land they believe has been given to them by god!
These people have a *poitical* agenda and not a religious one and so its very little to do with god!
Jaco_Pastorious
01-11-06, 10:24 PM
No.
People do forget that we have been smacking the shit out of each other since we crawled out of the mud. It's our nature.
We used to KNOW the earth was flat, then we found out we were wrong so knowledge was revised. We constantly push back boundaries of conceptions as we find out more about the wonder of the universe, so why is it difficult to grasp there is more to it than (currently) is humanly imaginable.
To say something doesn't exist because the concept is silly, is a little bit arrogant, close minded and does you a disservice.
But surely it is just a bit odd to have a specific idea - namely a god - when there is no evidence at all and you except that you can't even comprehend the nature of that being if it were to exist? I'm sure it has come up before but I think a quick Bertrand Russell quote wouldn't go amiss:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
wow so many of you guys dont believe!
and most of you all point to the fact o deary me the world is such a terrible place *if* there was a god he wouldnt let such terrible stuff happen..
I wonder if you might look at all the wonderful amazing stuff that has happened to yourselves and other and think thats Gods doing also? and hence there is a god?
Also for those who say well because of science there isnt a god..some of the worlds top scientists and physisits...phisists...(no wait i got this) physicists..(errrm you get what i mean) have come to the conclusion that there *must* be a higher force/being/entity that has helped us get where we are today!
Obviously from this you can tell its a YES from me..and it was because of my in depth study of science that lead me to believe in a god cos there are just so many amazing things including yourselves there to be a coincidence!
(I realise this sounds realy hippyish and new age love and yes i wana vomit after reading it also..but its true)
Also dont get caught up in the actions of others who do loopyness in the name of a religion..ie the loopy muslims blowing themselves up in the name of their belief/or bush sayin god told him to go to war/or the jews killing innocent people in an attempt to keep a stretch of land they believe has been given to them by god!
These people have a *poitical* agenda and not a religious one and so its very little to do with god!
I see no reason that god should it exist would be nice (or if he was that his concept of nice would coincide with my own).
Why couldn't it be coincidence? I just don't follow this argument, given the vastness of the universe the odds of almost anything possible within physical law happening somewhere seem quite reasonable.
royzared
02-11-06, 11:08 AM
I don't look in wonder on the universe the earth or mankind,they just are,thats it.
Snigger
02-11-06, 11:17 AM
I wonder if you might look at all the wonderful amazing stuff that has happened to yourselves and other and think thats Gods doing also? and hence there is a god?
You should ask the Iraqi Kurds about the wonderful amazing stuff that has happened to them, or Cambodians growing up with Poll Pot, or Rwandens who survived the genocide, or families suffering the incredible aids crisis all over Africa not to mention famines and disease, or the jews during WW2 - you get my drift. If you are suggesting there is a God and he cherry picks who has wonderful amazing stuff happen to them I think you'll find it is a very small proportion of people who have lived on the planet and therefore a very unfair God
Also dont get caught up in the actions of others who do loopyness in the name of a religion..ie the loopy muslims blowing themselves up in the name of their belief/or bush sayin god told him to go to war/or the jews killing innocent people in an attempt to keep a stretch of land they believe has been given to them by god!
These people have a *poitical* agenda and not a religious one and so its very little to do with god![/QUOTE]
Don't confuse religion with God - Religion is 100% man made - faith in a deity of some kind is not necessarily linked with being religious.
Mattshark
02-11-06, 08:12 PM
Also for those who say well because of science there isnt a god..some of the worlds top scientists and physisits...phisists...(no wait i got this) physicists..(errrm you get what i mean) have come to the conclusion that there *must* be a higher force/being/entity that has helped us get where we are today!
Really? I'd like you to point me to the published papers that imply this (in good journals please, not one with a religous agenda)
I used to be 100% on the side of science, but found that it's not all that convincing.
To create life an exact (and I mean EXACT - if the elements involved deviated .000001% one way or the other it would not work and there are BILLIONS of them) balance of elements is required to hold together animated life AND allow it to survive long enough to evolve.
Thus far science has not found how this happened in our little (and it is little) part of the void that is space and so uses its BIG BANG / Evolution / Darwin thingy.
God is not about religion.
God is creation, God is physics, God is maths.
They were there looooooong before man - we couldn't do a damn thing until it was given us by a larger force.
Look at the way everything exists around us. None of it is coincidence.
DNA - Fibonacci- Primes - Pi - Trigonometry - Calculus - Amino Acids etc.
Do you really think this stuff just happened?
Snigger
03-11-06, 12:57 PM
God is reasoning for all we don't understand. God is science.
Neil Young
03-11-06, 01:14 PM
I used to be 100% on the side of science, but found that it's not all that convincing.
To create life an exact (and I mean EXACT - if the elements involved deviated .000001% one way or the other it would not work and there are BILLIONS of them) balance of elements is required to hold together animated life AND allow it to survive long enough to evolve.
Thus far science has not found how this happened in our little (and it is little) part of the void that is space and so uses its BIG BANG / Evolution / Darwin thingy.
God is not about religion.
God is creation, God is physics, God is maths.
They were there looooooong before man - we couldn't do a damn thing until it was given us by a larger force.
Look at the way everything exists around us. None of it is coincidence.
DNA - Fibonacci- Primes - Pi - Trigonometry - Calculus - Amino Acids etc.
Do you really think this stuff just happened?
Yes, I think it probably did.
Yes, I think it probably did.
Why?
Yes, I think it probably did.
Is that not as much a faith-based assumption as believing it didn't?
Considering the only evidence is probability.
Red_Polo
03-11-06, 03:22 PM
Why?
Why not?
It doesn't strike me as surprising in the slightest that these things should have come about given the vastness of the universe and the length of time involved.
Icon, I don't see why the logical conclusion to seeing something unlikely is to posit a superior being or intelligence. All it does is shift the question back to who invented the superior being.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the point of science. The aim is to investigate the links between things and to allows a greater understanding and where possible to allow the manipulation of what you find. Science doesn't seek a final truth just as good a model to fit the known facts as possible while giving an insight into how it works.
It is not an alternative to religion. I don't understand why people demand the dictomy to be honest. You are right many well respected scientists believe that the more they advance knowledge the more they see god in the world. This is not proof of anyting as the actually good scientist who believe this are able to remove their religious beliefs from their scientific works as the conflict seen by so many is purely imaginary.
Snigger
03-11-06, 04:20 PM
Yes, I think it probably did.
me too - much more likely than the invention of a superior being.
der_Fuchs
04-11-06, 09:40 PM
Me too - because if a God was needed to produce all those things then how and why could God exist before they were in place? And indeed why bother with creation at all? Surely not merely so as to spot the faithful and send them to heaven for eternity - what a criminal waste of divine power that would be.
Red Chilli
05-11-06, 02:08 AM
Potentially. Thats the thing about religion, its all a bit daft.
What about Buddhism? A religion where science and religion co-exists.
Red Chilli
05-11-06, 02:31 AM
He said he will come out of it after 6 years and is revered there as the second coming of Buddha.
That thinking is totally at odds with Buddhism though. Buddha wasn't the "first coming". Buddhists believe in ages, where the universe/nature is continously ending and restarting,sort of reincarnation of the universe. There will only be one Buddha in each age. There have been millions of Buddhas before the Buddha of our age and there will be millions after.
Neil Young
05-11-06, 07:02 AM
Is that not as much a faith-based assumption as believing it didn't?
Considering the only evidence is probability.
:eyebrow:
No, as you say, it's based on probability not faith. They're entirely different concepts you know. :D
My point was that the original argument was worthless since if you're going to discount that the Universe could have occurred by chance then you have to prove that the existence of a supreme being is more probable. Archie said it better than me.
Ultimately isn't all scientific (not mathematical) proof to do with probabilities?
Neil Young
05-11-06, 07:11 AM
I read some time ago that Western philosophy of science is based on a simple nature of truth - something is either true or false. In other traditions, it can be more complex - something is true or not true, false or not false. 'True' is not the same as 'not false' and 'false' is not the same as 'not true'.
I have no idea where this leads us on this argument but I do think if we are going to start considering and to understand how Buddhism, for instance, deals with the nature of scientific enquiry we need to try to consider it not only with Western notions of science but also within an analytical framework that has grown up beside it and is informed by it, i.e. Eastern notions of science.
Ultimately my point is that science is not some immutable, permanent, value-free body of knowledge or method of enquiry but has its own cultural biases and influences. Western science in particular must inevitably have been influenced by the ideology it grew up within and ultimately challenged, that is Christianity.
der_Fuchs
05-11-06, 08:55 AM
Interesting, can you elaborate? In engineering, we are quite used to using probabalistic analyses in the absence of certainty, and no-one thinks it unscientific. And the same laws and techniques are used universally.
I thought the principles behind science came from Aristotle, and therefore predated Christianity. Where thinking was believed true but not rigorously proven it is called theory (eg Darwin's theory of evolution, Einstein's theories of relativity, etc.) so that the user is aware of the doubt. And I had no idea that Eastern science was based on different notions. Please can you tell us how Christianity influences scientific thinking and how Eastern scientific thinking differs?
Neil Young
05-11-06, 09:41 AM
I read it in a book belonging to an ex-girlfriend, I didn't fully understand it at the time and I never got the chance to read it up again. So, no, sorry, I can't elaborate. Someone here must have done Philosophy of Science though.
I thought, and do correct me if I'm wrong, that you can't get certainty in the Universe unless you're dealing purely in abstract mathematics. After all, there is a chance that if you kick a football towards a brick wall, the atoms of the football and the atoms of the wall might line up in such a way that the football can go through the wall leaving both intact. It's just so improbable that we discount it on an everyday level.
You may well be right about Aristotle (although of course you'd agree that he didn't come out of nowhere and must have been influenced by other thinkers for whatever that's worth). I suppose I was saying that the bipolar world of Christianity (Good versus Evil, Heaven and Hell, the Saved and the Damned, etc.) fits very well with our black-and-white notion of scientific truth and that if we in the West had grown up with a different ideology, a different way of looking at the world in terms of the dominant religion then maybe we wouldn't be so quick to sort, as it were, sheep from goats and would see things in more complex terms. Perhaps the fact that Aristotelian logic predates Christianity suggests that the interaction between science and Christianity is not unidirectional and each has influenced the spread and popularity of the other.
I'm far from an expert on non-Western belief systems but it seems to me that a polytheistic religion for example or a belief that all life is interconnected might have given rise to a very different interpretation of the facts (which themselves incidentally are not value-free in that they are always subject to our selection).
For example, I have wondered if something as basic as the classification of species is influenced by this way of thinking that separates one thing from another. One definition of a species is that interbreeding between species results in no offspring or in sterile progeny. That's true for many species of course but there are exceptions. So horses and lions can't interbreed (aside from the fact that one would eat the other anyway), horses and donkeys can but the offspring, mules, are infertile while lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring (and do, in captivity, hence ligers and tigons and lilis and titis). So what is a species? Is there a hard-and-fast rule? If not, isn't that rather "unscientific"?
Another example was the age-old belief that humans are different from animals. Now most of us believe that humans are animals. So just as we saw the development and spread of human rights (abolition of slavery, etc.) so there is some logic in extending rights to animals (with the great apes and cetaceans being the test cases).
That of course is another argument - my point is that the Christian influence on science, with the idea of God creating Man in his own image, has only relatively recently been superseded by the idea that there is not a ladder of Creation or a Great Chain of Being but rather a tree of life that necessarily implies that we aren't "at the top" of anything, we're no more developed than any other animal, we (like chimpanzees and sharks and cockroaches and amoebae and even British lichens) are simply at the end of our own particular twig.
Interesting, can you elaborate? In engineering, we are quite used to using probabalistic analyses in the absence of certainty, and no-one thinks it unscientific. And the same laws and techniques are used universally.
I thought the principles behind science came from Aristotle, and therefore predated Christianity. Where thinking was believed true but not rigorously proven it is called theory (eg Darwin's theory of evolution, Einstein's theories of relativity, etc.) so that the user is aware of the doubt. And I had no idea that Eastern science was based on different notions. Please can you tell us how Christianity influences scientific thinking and how Eastern scientific thinking differs?
I think that the Christian philosophy and poor scientific education plays a huge role in how science is recieved by society. People at large seem not to grasp your point, however I think most people operating in the realm of science would talk in terms of models and theories rather than truth. The aim is to use a theory to construct a model which corresponds to our experience of reality as well as possible. This leads to not only a disconnect between model and truth but also potentially can lead to models which correspond well with reality but poorly with theory leading to incorrect conclusions about the nature of a process.
TheStig
05-11-06, 12:43 PM
No I don't believe in a god.
Red_Polo
05-11-06, 02:52 PM
For example, I have wondered if something as basic as the classification of species is influenced by this way of thinking that separates one thing from another. One definition of a species is that interbreeding between species results in no offspring or in sterile progeny. That's true for many species of course but there are exceptions. So horses and lions can't interbreed (aside from the fact that one would eat the other anyway), horses and donkeys can but the offspring, mules, are infertile while lions and tigers can produce fertile offspring (and do, in captivity, hence ligers and tigons and lilis and titis). So what is a species? Is there a hard-and-fast rule? If not, isn't that rather "unscientific"?
Another example was the age-old belief that humans are different from animals. Now most of us believe that humans are animals. So just as we saw the development and spread of human rights (abolition of slavery, etc.) so there is some logic in extending rights to animals (with the great apes and cetaceans being the test cases).
That of course is another argument - my point is that the Christian influence on science, with the idea of God creating Man in his own image, has only relatively recently been superseded by the idea that there is not a ladder of Creation or a Great Chain of Being but rather a tree of life that necessarily implies that we aren't "at the top" of anything, we're no more developed than any other animal, we (like chimpanzees and sharks and cockroaches and amoebae and even British lichens) are simply at the end of our own particular twig.
It's not necessarily true that we aren't at the top of anything. Even a tree has to have something at the top :)
But your point is very true, it hasn't been long since we were recognised as not being the highest developed beings in a linear process. The worst thing about the great chain of being is that it gave opportunity for racists to classify races into order of how 'developed' or 'civilised' they thought they were. That links in with the idea you bourhgt up of the separation between man and animal - depending on race you could be seen as 'more animal than man'. :s The history of evolutionary theory is littered with racism.
As for species - they are often distinct because they developed in geographic isolation, but there will always be grey areas. Take the idea of the evolutionary tree - where things branch off there is always a joining section where you cannot say whether it is definitively part of one twig or another. In most cases though, species are quite distinct as the new species was in direct competition with the species it evolved from, causing the 'old' species to become extinct. In our evolutionary tree, that means more often than not these joining sections are no longer visible in nature.
Ultimately the word 'species' is useful if not precise in it's meaning. It speaks largely of what we see in nature now and so runs into problems when looking at things developmentally. There is no clear point where something becomes a 'new' species - the process of genetic variation alone did not create them, ecological factors were needed to see the distinct groups created.
A question for those who don't believe in god but science.
Do you believe you have a soul? If so whats it made from?
If you don't would you be prepared to sell it to someone else?
Mattshark
05-11-06, 04:54 PM
What about Buddhism? A religion where science and religion co-exists.
It still has many forms and they have gone to war with each other over aspects of it, Thailand and Myanmar have wared over it. I don't know to much about Buddhism in its various guises, but there is still hypocrasy involved from what I saw in Thailand, where they allow you to get away with aspects in the name of business. It is like all religions IMO, social control.
Mattshark
05-11-06, 04:59 PM
A question for those who don't believe in god but science.
Do you believe you have a soul? If so whats it made from?
If you don't would you be prepared to sell it to someone else?
I personally don't believe in a soul.
Abdul Alhazred
05-11-06, 05:33 PM
I read some time ago that Western philosophy of science is based on a simple nature of truth - something is either true or false. In other traditions, it can be more complex - something is true or not true, false or not false. 'True' is not the same as 'not false' and 'false' is not the same as 'not true'.
Fuzzy logic - rather than having 1 (absolutely true) , 0 (absolutely false) and the excluded middle, you assign a value anywhere in between to the statement/term in question.
It's widely used in control systems, meteorological modelling and neural networks.
As for the 'tree of life', thsi website is quite dizzying;
http://www.tolweb.org/tree/
der_Fuchs
05-11-06, 05:34 PM
I read it in a book belonging to an ex-girlfriend, I didn't fully understand it at the time and I never got the chance to read it up again. So, no, sorry, I can't elaborate. Someone here must have done Philosophy of Science though.
I thought, and do correct me if I'm wrong, that you can't get certainty in the Universe unless you're dealing purely in abstract mathematics. After all, there is a chance that if you kick a football towards a brick wall, the atoms of the football and the atoms of the wall might line up in such a way that the football can go through the wall leaving both intact. It's just so improbable that we discount it on an everyday level.
.
Neil/DWW, thanks for responding.
Neil - I think it is possible to be certain about many things that cannot be quantified by abstract mathematics - for instance my name, my liking for vanilla ice cream etc.
Regarding the football bit, I would have said that the gaps between atoms/molecules are very much larger than the solid bits, so the probability that the atoms don't line up is perhaps higher than you might think. Even so, it is a mathematical certainty that the football won't go through the wall (which is readily verifiable by experiment: try it as many times as you like until you are satisfied). This is because at the atomic level there are forces at work other than those arising only from physical contact.
So I regard science as the rigorous tool to develop knowledge that tells us why things behave in the way they do (and mathematics is its language). Philospohy is the pursuit of truth, is it not? There is some common ground, but for day to day purposes much of what excites a philosopher is just irrelevant detail - angels on a pinhead, which is why physics, chemistry et al went their separate ways. Once engineers have a highly probable predicition of an outcome, they will use it to make something, until some new knowledge comes along that means re-evaluation is required.
Or in other words, the recently accrued scientific knowledge that actually solids contain space as well as matter does not stop solids acting as solids, does it? So engineers continue to build walls that never let balls pass through them (or knock them down), although accountants tend to prefer fences instead, because they are cheaper - not least because they have more gaps in them than do walls.
As DWW states, 9 out of 10 cat owners don't want to think about probabilistic analyses, they want facts, so highly probable outcomes are summarised as facts for them. Generally this is good enough, but every now and then an unlikely outcome will occur that causes them to rise up and protest that they have been misled.
Engineers, footballs and atoms have almost no bearing on the original question, 'do you believe in God?', but the projection of certainty does. When Christian missionaries first arrived on these shores, they presented as facts their vision of God (in the business sense) and the rival destinations of heaven/hell depending on the wether or not you worshipped him as instructed by them. This was tremendously persuasive to the audience who, incidentally, thought of their gods as dangerous, unpredictable and untrustworthy; the pagan priests even admitted that they knew of the universe 'only the amount that a swallow knows of a barn as it flies through it, but nothing about what lies outside'. Once backed up with force, Christianity continued to hold sway in the west for many centuries, which is why if you asked the same question 100 years ago you would get a near unanimous reponse based on the single God viewpoint. I thank the gods that science has done a great deal to roll back these superstitions, by providing other, more credible explanations for creation, life the universe and everything.
Neil Young
05-11-06, 06:28 PM
Neil/DWW, thanks for responding.
Neil - I think it is possible to be certain about many things that cannot be quantified by abstract mathematics - for instance my name, my liking for vanilla ice cream etc.
Regarding the football bit, I would have said that the gaps between atoms/molecules are very much larger than the solid bits, so the probability that the atoms don't line up is perhaps higher than you might think. Even so, it is a mathematical certainty that the football won't go through the wall (which is readily verifiable by experiment: try it as many times as you like until you are satisfied). This is because at the atomic level there are forces at work other than those arising only from physical contact.
So I regard science as the rigorous tool to develop knowledge that tells us why things behave in the way they do (and mathematics is its language). Philospohy is the pursuit of truth, is it not? There is some common ground, but for day to day purposes much of what excites a philosopher is just irrelevant detail - angels on a pinhead, which is why physics, chemistry et al went their separate ways. Once engineers have a highly probable predicition of an outcome, they will use it to make something, until some new knowledge comes along that means re-evaluation is required.
Or in other words, the recently accrued scientific knowledge that actually solids contain space as well as matter does not stop solids acting as solids, does it? So engineers continue to build walls that never let balls pass through them (or knock them down), although accountants tend to prefer fences instead, because they are cheaper - not least because they have more gaps in them than do walls.
As DWW states, 9 out of 10 cat owners don't want to think about probabilistic analyses, they want facts, so highly probable outcomes are summarised as facts for them. Generally this is good enough, but every now and then an unlikely outcome will occur that causes them to rise up and protest that they have been misled.
Engineers, footballs and atoms have almost no bearing on the original question, 'do you believe in God?', but the projection of certainty does. When Christian missionaries first arrived on these shores, they presented as facts their vision of God (in the business sense) and the rival destinations of heaven/hell depending on the wether or not you worshipped him as instructed by them. This was tremendously persuasive to the audience who, incidentally, thought of their gods as dangerous, unpredictable and untrustworthy; the pagan priests even admitted that they knew of the universe 'only the amount that a swallow knows of a barn as it flies through it, but nothing about what lies outside'. Once backed up with force, Christianity continued to hold sway in the west for many centuries, which is why if you asked the same question 100 years ago you would get a near unanimous reponse based on the single God viewpoint. I thank the gods that science has done a great deal to roll back these superstitions, by providing other, more credible explanations for creation, life the universe and everything.
I agree with much of what you say. A couple of minor points I'd dispute:
Your certainty about your name - it's an amusing example but the point is whether you can prove it beyond doubt to others. Fact is, you can't, not least because only in mathematics can conclusions be proved; science only allows things to be disproved.
You know full well that my repeatedly kicking a football against a wall with it bouncing back to me each time is not proof that it won't go through the wall next time. Chances are it won't go through the wall ever but it still can, it's just so incredibly unlikely I'd need more time than has elapsed since the Big Bang.
Funny chap, old man probability.
Neil Young
05-11-06, 06:31 PM
Fuzzy logic - rather than having 1 (absolutely true) , 0 (absolutely false) and the excluded middle, you assign a value anywhere in between to the statement/term in question.
It's widely used in control systems, meteorological modelling and neural networks.
As for the 'tree of life', thsi website is quite dizzying;
http://www.tolweb.org/tree/
Cheers Abdul, interesting stuff.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.