While I really liked your previous post, I strongly disagree with this particular sentence. There have been many times in the past when human understanding of nature has reached a point where it would be really easy to say "we will never understand, let's invoke the existence of a god." The truth is, we may (or may not) someday be able to understand what happened at the very beginning and we're taking the easy way out by giving up and saying "some things are just unknowable." I don't care whether or not a person believes in a god. It has nothing to do with intelligence. There are many smart and dumb people in both camps. I do, however, have a problem with admitting defeat because that will prevent us from ever learning everything we possibly can.
I do not in any way say that because we do not understand something we should invoke the existence of a god. If you didn't agree with the statement that we would never understand it, than you are right maybe one day if we evolved in a much smarter species we might be able to understand the concept of a real beginning and eternity etc. I do not think we should stop looking for answers, but if something is above our understanding it doesn't mean that a higher power is in play, we just do not understand everything in the universe, and we should accept that (but of course still look for answers).
Intellectual honesty is the difference. The second evidence emerges for the existence of God, or a plausible, scientifically sound alternative theory to evolution, Richard Dawkins and his ilk wouldn't "hold on" to evolution or atheism in spite of evidence to the contrary...religion is what people cling to without solid evidence, not science/evolution. Even Dawkins has stated that his mind could be changed. Carl Sagan said: "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic." Pretty much all atheists are agnostic in a way, because they defer to science, reason, and the possibilities of discovering new truths.
I'm not convinced that Richard Dawkins would abandon his views if there was some evidence of him being wrong. How much evidence is needed? Researchers that find evidence opposing Evolution will not be accepted, their articles will not be accepted by any scientific journal, especially not by the well respected ones, because it is never Black and white, all data can be explained in multiple ways, and if a researcher tries to explain his data claiming evolution doesn't exist his paper will be rejected. But maybe you are right and I'm just sceptical. I want to state that I do not think most Atheists/agnostics are like Dawkins (many researchers). I'm an Atheist, and I need a lot of proof of a god to believe in him/her/it.
What would qualify as scientific proof of God and if God could be scientifically proven would that still be God since science has to be falsifiable?
That is not true. In the past 25 years there have been a lot of papers published about things that challenged Evolution, at least the way it was viewed from a Darwinian standpoint. If what you say is correct we would've never heard of the Cambrian Explosion. Since articles are peer reviewed you can't just publish anything but if someone who didn't support Evolution could find some solid evidence to support their argument, like a spaceship dating from the Cambrian Explosion with what looked like genetic experiments, I'm sure they would be published. Science is dogmatic but not so dogmatic that new ideas aren't accepted and old ideas aren't overturned. Just consider that Evolution itself was once the new radical idea.
Your religion of choice? Now from a creationism stand point . .. maybe . . maybe not When something's frame of reference is . . .itself. . . strangely it is proven true. Rocket River
I could have just as easily said from a logical point of view. Let's go with the theories that are actually making predictions that can be falsified. Then we can throw them out if they don't make sense. That's much more logical than just jumping to the conclusion "hey some big guy living in the sky must have caused X to be exactly as it is because we can't understand and have no hope to ever understand it." That approach has been taken time and time again throughout history, only for more logically thinking people to eventually figure out there's a rational explanation to phenomenon X. Science is not my religion of choice, by the way.
I would tend to agree with most of what you said here, but religious apologists tend to put Evolution and Christianity on a "50/50" scale, which is dead wrong... Evolutionary theory, Newton's gravitational theory, and others are clearly much higher on this proposed scale, because there is evidence. If you make up a god, the honus is on you to provide an explanation and/or proof. There is a difference between a "Scientific Theory", and the "Theory" that we use today, as I am sure you know. The poster I was quoting did not seem to understand that concept. There are mountains of logical evidence backing up these theories...
Damn. I know ****'s bad right now, with all that starving bullsh!t, and the dust storms, and we're running out of french fries and burrito coverings...but I got a solution.
1. It is not delusional to think that there could be a creator, It is delusional, by definition, to believe in Zues, Apollo, Jesus, etc... A "personal god" so to speak. ""When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." I tend to agree with that statement. 2. I agree, but I would not go as far as to say that they are worshipping the same God, Polytheism/Monotheism... These people believe in Jesus the water walker, and Zues the lightning thrower. It is not the same as having an Einstein or Carl Sagan esque view of the universe. Since we do not know, as you stated, doesn't that make it delusional by definition? 3. Richard Dawkins rape pounds criticism, because he has the ability to say "We don't know yet". Aside from that, I would love for you to point me to a Dawkins interview or debate where his logic fails in any form... "How is it that hardly any major religion has looked and science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths." 4. Agreed, A creator is a possibility, but is it not delusion when you have to blindly choose a religion? Or follow the one you were raised to believe?
That the Houston Rockets would not have won a championship if Michael Jordan was still in the league.
I thought it was an unremarkable rectal orifice. Or what happened during the last three seasons of Good Times.
Or they just got tired of watching TBN and being dragged to Assembly of God services after working a full shift at Kroger's.
