Oh, it's like that? Grizzled, try to focus on the arguments instead of your irrational hatred of me, and you might just learn something. Putting aside your profound ignorance of evolutionary theory for the moment, it seems you still struggle with the principle of falsifiability. As I explained earlier in this thread, a scientific hypothesis is strengthened when it is subject to a test that may potentially falsify it, but doesn't. In fact, this is the only way in which a hypothesis gains merit. To show the importance of falsifiability in a scientific hypothesis, let's look back at your chandelier example. Grizzled proposed that we can test the existence of the chandelier by canvassing those who have been in the room at one time or another. Each respondent can answer in one of two ways: that they remember a chandelier in the room or they don't. But, whether affirming or denying, these personal testimonies are unreliable, and don't get us any closer to being able to come to a conclusion on the existence of the chandelier. Alternatively, we could construct a simple test that could easily falsify the chandelier hypothesis: walk into the room and note whether it's there or not. If it's not, hypothesis falsified. The example is admittedly crude, but the principle remains: if the chandelier is in the room, we should be able to observe it when we walk in. On the other hand, it is not necessarily true that if the chandelier exists, a majority of people who have been in the room would recall its presence. In science, nothing matters but the available evidence. Authority, expertise, consensus--all irrelevant to the proper execution of the scientific method. So, even in you fantasy world where scientists are unconcerned with the principle of falsifiability, science itself is, and future Galileos will be able to sort out the stuff that was based on evidence from the stuff that was propped up by the prevailing winds of the day.
This is the difference between science and religion (and by religion, I do not mean spirituality). Religion tells us the truth. It's not about discovery of the truth. Science is about the search for truth, not a statement of truth. While both are about truth, they are the opposite ends of the spectrum. One seeks to define it, the other is about understanding it.
I'll add my 2 cents to the original topic, although as expected it has totally derailed. I personally don't find too much grief with being known as an atheist. At least not open hostility. And I am indeed an atheist, not agnostic. In the sense that I put the possibility of God's existence(as defined by major monotheistic religions) on the same level as gremlins or Zeus or unicorns. Which means I can't deny that any of these may exist, but I'll believe it when I see it. That said, I generally just tell people "I'm not religious" rather than actually flaunting my atheism. And most people leave it at that. Because IMO simply being adamant about atheism is like saying FU to a religious person. And I'm not looking to piss people off.
Based on Grizzled's brilliant analysis and expose on what constitutes scientific evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the only way to appropriately end this thread is to have approximately 75% of those of us involved decide to believe in invisible prancing purple unicorns . This, as Grizzled astutely observed, gives merit to the idea of their existence. Indeed, if more people believe it, and for a longer period of time, this would make, according to Grizzled, their existence even more "real". Why, you ask, is this the answer? Because I prefer invisible purple unicorns to Grizzled's chandelier fairy.
So god has sympathy for the man who stole a bunch of money and is about to have to own up for it..... but none for the millions of starving children in africa, who have never been introduced to the idea of christianity, therefore wont make it into heaven. Doesn't make much sense to me. If god had the power to put this man in this situation, why do all of the horrible things in the world happen??? Thats what i don't get about all that prayer stuff. God can obviously make things happen at the snap of his fingers, what is he waiting for? Is it all big game for him to make all those people suffer like that? Someone of faith please answer my questions.
MadMax, you have a amazing conception of faith, i would love if you could answer my questions in the above post. I used to believe but questions like those just made me lose all faith. Your insight would be greatly appreciated.
I apologize for not responding right away...been busy today. So according to you, something logical and rational, which has been proven scientifically (for example, the elements that make up water) is ignorance on peoples part if they believe that? You keep refering to belief in science as the same as belief in religion. They are polar opposites. The average child learning biology 101 is not in the classroom thinking to himself: Wow, this can totally take the place of my Christian religious views and belief system. Are there people that take science to an extreme? sure, same with religion. The difference i'm pointinf out is that not everyone who looks to science is doing so for a "religious" purpose. It is simply for the knowledge, much like mythology, i don't read up on mythology to follow it and for it to become my current religion. And you've failed to do so up to this point. My statement was in reference to the religious aspect which YOU continuously make when talking about science. You keep generalizing everyone into your boxed view of religion and belief. So my believing that science, records, writes and updates the physical around me(which nature, and the universe do on their own, as i have no bearing on such)is equal to your belief in an all powerful being called God who created the universe? Do tell how the 2 are even remotely the same? No i don't, whether there is a GOD or not is not important to me, therefore i need no faith at all. What would my faith consist of, and for what purpose. The same is said for science, it could be right at times, it can be wrong at times, i'm fine either way...so how does your idea of it having to be CORRECT work then? See you can't get over the fact that there are people that do not THINK and FEEL as you do. In your idea of life, everyone MUST have faith or belief or the universe comes apart at its core. Lets say he did, i still wouldn't concern myself with it...religion or God as you put it, isn't something i NEED in my life. On that spectrum yes i can agree, on the science end of things...there is nothing far reaching about it. I get your view, i really do...You just can't accept that fact that other people don't need to add religion or God to the equation of life as you do. It eats you up inside, you try to take subtle shots at the ideas of science as the sole point of knowledge for the universe to another person.
I haven't had the chance to read through this thread since two days ago but just from glancing at some of the post it seems like this thread is getting hung up on the usual trap of looking at religion and science as though they are in conflict with each other in a zero sum game where you can have to accept one or the other. I don't think they need be in conflict or that it is a zero sum game and that we not only can accept both but as rational beings we need both. I agree that challenging science based upon religious texts is a very shallow view of both science and religion but reducing religion down to leprechauns and unicorns is also a very shallow view of religion and as close minded as denying evolution based on what is written in Genesis. As rational beings we are curious about the Universe and our own existence. Science is a methodology that we use to gain knowledge about perceptual and material existence. As rational beings though the curiousity of our minds isn't limited to material existence and there are questions that cannot be answered materially. For example usince science I can determine a chain of causality that led to my existence but through material means I can't answer why I am here and if there is a purpose to my existence. As a rational being I am aware that my existence is limited and that there was a time that I wasn't here and there will be a time that I am never there. Being aware of that inevitably the question arises then is there more to just this limited existence. Rationality leads to spirituality. Some might say that there is nothing more than material existence and there is no need to search for more. I have in the past accused those who look to use a religious argument to disprove science as being intellectually lazy but I would also say that those who decide that there is nothing more than imaterial existence as being intellectually lazy too. It is in our nature as thinking beings to question if there is more to it than just the material existence. So whether God exists or not as rational beings aware of the passage of time and mortality we will seek it out or create it. That doesn't mean that we reject science as that is the way we understand the material Universe but we can also accept that we are spiritual beings with questions that go beyond the material.
Quit bothering with this dude. Just pray that he gets another Vancouver BBall team some day. The dude has become increasingly irritating to this board. Anger issues abound.
that definitely a fine way to present yourself. i just get pissed when some atheists (or any religion for that matter) flaunt their belief (or lack of belief) thinking they are better or smarter than someone who believes something different.
At level I’ve been talking about I think it’s more detached and impersonal science rather than faith. One would devise a study and count the numbers and conclude that there probably is a God. This doesn’t say very much about God, however. Proving empirically that a god or gods most likely exists is almost trivial, but it’s also almost meaningless. Is there one god or more than one? Do all religions believe in the same god? Is this god or gods passive or active? Without knowing anything about god simply knowing that there probably is a god is not very useful. To add more depth to the knowledge you may want to do a follow up study, perhaps using phenomenology or grounded theory as a methodology, to dig deeper into the personal experiences of those who believe in God. I think this is the kind of thing that a deeper, more personal, study would dig into. From my personal experiences I know that there are people who conform to what they think they’re supposed to believe, and others who have had deep personal experiences and who truly have a personal belief/faith, and I think these are two quite different things. I think you might be call one a tradition or set of traditions, and the other a deep, personal, spiritual experience.
I largely agree, but I actually had something different in mind. What you say here is true from a detached, purely logical, standpoint, but I was thinking more about the less tangible ways we relate to other people and their experiences. There are people you almost instinctively connect with, for example, and others who you have great trouble understanding and really don’t ever connect with. When you do I think that kind of connection is hard to quantify, (although it might be fun to try to kick it around a bit.) In my previous post I was thinking more of the impact of hearing the personal experiences of people you do almost instinctively connect with, or whose experiences resonate with you on that more instinctive level. I think those are almost without fail extremely powerful.
What happened to you rhad? Seriously. Once upon a time you used to be quite an intelligent poster, but now you're more of pathetic jackass. I honestly hope you're feeling better before too long, but until then you'll be on my ignore list with TJ.
You have gone from a quality poster to a douche yourself, bro. Perhaps you haven't seen it. I've seen your death spiral for a while. You need to lighten up.
I really appreciate this question. I hoped for it in some ways and didn't want to post the story for the same reason. My daughter just returned from Costa Rica feeding and teaching one of the poorest tribes in Central America, the BriBri Indians. They have been flooded out of homes and schools since last November and they are very dirt poor. There are several stories very similar to that one as to her time in the jungle. God works through people and to be frank it is my fault that we don't see more done to help people, not just fantastic stories but every day hard work. We have a saying in our church, real church ministry means your hands are dirty. The saddest thing is us Christians right here in America have enough talent, strength and resources for God to use in Africa and change the entire continent. Much is being done also, remember God works through people. I left out alot of other factors that GOd used in that one man's life. It is not God's desire that Americans waste food while people in Africa starve. We will answer for that. It is God's plan that we serve the entire world. He has provided enough for us to do it, we are too selfish. I only share stories where I serve in my area of service. We do send funds overseas but our desire is to send people. We are going to PaPua New Guinea next year, God willing. To give you a clear answer the horrible things happen because of wrong choices. It is our power to do great evil or great good, what God does is empower in special ways those who are in tune with Him. Those who starve shouldn't. God gave us food, the greater tragedy is we did little for them. I could explain this more clearly and thoughtfully if you would like just email me or if you are in Houston let's get together. Your post touched my heart. Thanks
I've always perceived Marx as an atheist. His works make him seem like he is more of an agnostic tho. While I completely hate the idea of communism, one aspect of Marx always has rung true to me, the concept of bringing heaven to earth. I feel like Atheists, like Jews value life on earth more than the afterlife. Christians and Muslims value the afterlife more than the earthly one. I don't think atheists don't give a crap, and if that seems the way I've portrayed it I apologize to all atheists. In the end, you're all believers of something, what differs is what you emphasize. Right now, I need life on earth to be more meaningful because I'm young, when I'm old that will probably change, so I might be a stronger believer in God, heck, I might find religion. All I can say is this: IF IT WORKS FOR YOU, and you're not infringing on anyone else's liberty, who gives a flying eff. Why do atheists get so much of the burden? Because they think they have to prove their faith. The same goes for any believer. If you're happy, let it be.
I have read a few comments along the lines of "I dont mind if people are of faith, that's up to them, I keep my non belief to myself". Throwing another spanner in the works, how do you feel about the children of these "people of faith" that are brought up with basically very little choice but to follow their parents religion - no matter how misguided that may be. Case in point - Westboro Baptist Church. Anyway, i'm not here to attack any particular religion at all...i'm just asking how do my fellow Clutchies feel about the brainwashing (no matter how subtle it may be) of children by the parents that skews the kids views during their most formative years and beyond.
Grizzled, you've answered the question you've been debating already. Is there anything to be gained by trying to scientifically prove the existence of God(s)? As you said it is almost trivial. The study you are outlining is a sociological study that would determine how widespread is belief in God and why people believe but doesn't get you that much closer to proving that God exists. As I've said and will continue to say that the existence of God isn't a scientific question and my own view is that spirituality is really about questions that can never be conclusivily answered.
