doublesweetness
Posts: 13
Joined: 11/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Brain,
Science already has prevailed, it's just dragging everyone else along with it.
The reasons behind why people need gods are many, but basically it boils down to; fear, ignorance and desire. People fear death and what they do not know, so they make something up. And since many people fear admitting ignnorance, they are more than happy to make up what they do not know or understand. Gods either provide all the answers (made up ones), or they allow the believer to pretend they have a special connection to some being which knows everything. That is really what religion provides, the illusion of knowing everything. Obviously it also provides the illusion of eternal life, rewards for the good, and punishment for the bad, which covers the desire section.
kdsub,
You are mistaken, one only has to look at the source for gods to discount them. No person has arrived at the possiblity of gods through thought, reason or evidence, it is just a primitive superstition handed down and expanded upon from our protohuman ancestors. No religion has ever provided actual answers for how the world or universe works, because all religions are made up to fill in the gaps of what people do not know.
Yes, there are things we do not know, but this does not make our fantasies true or even likely, and we don't need to know everything before we can move on from fantasies and deal with reality.
Also there is nothing more close minded than being chained in the past and pretending to already have all the answers. That is what all god beliefs do, they shut down the search for answers because god is the answer to any question. Also religious types don't take kindly to people discovering new things and making their god look simplistic and childlike. An open mind means not assuming, and not just making things up when one reaches the end of ones understanding. Religion is sticking ones head in the sand, science is searching for understanding.
While it will take a while for them to die off, science and evolution have killed traditional religion. Now that we have the knowledge, nothing can stop the inevitable death of nearly all concepts of gods. Despite the religious nuts desperately trying to say their religions can coexist with evolution, the simple fact is the two are incompatable. Religions make people special, sicence makes people just another species who will either evolve or become extinct, with absolutely no effect on the universe. The only gods that survive into the future are unknowable, non interferring creators of an indifferent universe, which is as good as no god at all.
fellow,
Creationism itself is at the kindergarten level, and that is being generous.
Kirata,
Check out a few history books from your local library. Study the concept of religion, instead of just one.
There is just one reason to include gods in any discussions about reality, and that is believers trying to defend their beliefs. These people "know" god exists, and therefore they must include god in everything. Even the agnostics who only think gods might exist, assume this thought is true and then try to figure the world out. The only sane, reasonabe position to take is to not assume, and not claim knowledge one does not possess and start with no gods. Gods can only be considered if we encounter evidence of such things.
And don't forget that religions have been proven to be false beyond any doubt, the only possible god left is a non interferring creator of an indifferent universe who has no more consideration for us than anything else. Of course even this kind of god would be an assumption, so only desperate believers would ever include it. And even this type of god still comes from our primitive ancestors, there is no other source for the concept of gods.
switch2please,
Hell for a masochist would be the pain free heaven, like that old joke. The masochist says "Beat me", the sadist says "No".
Oh, and you don't need to believe in evolution, you can learn about it and understand it, eliminating the need to believe. That's the good thing about knowledge, it's available to everyone. No personal experineces needed to understand it.
willbeurdaddy,
You are incorrect. Belief is accepting without reason/evidence and scientific inquiry eliminates beliefs by providing reason/evidence. Personal experiences does not necessarily eliminate belief, which is why scientific inquiry requires more than personal anecdotes.
Termyn8or,
Logic does not dictate some conscious force created the universe, that is belief and lack of knowledge/understanding confusing you. Don't worry, this happens to most people. Superficially things always seem to fit togehter, but under the superficial veneer there is random chaos, and more information to be learnt. Also we are programmed to look for patterns, it's very helpful for an omnivorous hunter gatherer, so we find paterns in the chaos because it makes us feel better, not because they exist (not to the extent some of us want them to). It's no different than seeing a face in a cloud. We make the face, the face does not exist.
Arpig,
Religion does not attempt to answer anything, it provides a fairytale for the masses, not answers. And science has already disproven the most basic tentet of all religions, that people are special and the universe exists because of us.
As for why the universe exists, why not? Does there have to be a reaosn? Or do religious people just desire a reason? Our desires do not shape reality, just because we want a reason does not mean one exists, and we should not assume one exists.
And we do not accept the big bang on faith, we accept it as the best idea put forth based on the available evidence. Whereas religions are some of the most simplistic ideas put forth based on no evidence, and often contrary to available evidence.
"Contextually that is precisely the case. Someone does say "I believe my husband is cheating on me" when they see lipstick on his shirt, he comes home late from the office, she finds credit card receipts for a restaurant they didnt eat at together"
willbeurdaddy,
Don't you read? Working late, lipstick (which could be from something innocent) and credit card receipts (which could also have nothing to do with cheating) are not a video of sexual acts. You are changing the goalposts and it doesn't work. All the things you suggested do earn the comment "I believe", the videotape does not.
Silence8,
The ancients didn't have submarines. We now know the old idea of the sun being the source of all life on Earth is wrong.
Go with Sagan's idea instead, we are all starstuff. It doesn't actaully make the ancient idea close to correct, but it beter illistates your idea.
Fitznicely,
Many religious people reduce science to a belief system just so they can ignore scientific knowledge in favour of their belief system. Afterall if they are both beliefs then why not just choose one. Ignorance.
willbeurdaddy,
There are plenty of people who refuse medical treatment because of their faith. In the U.S. people took science to court to try and focre other to not accept it.
HimNbabygirl,
You were raised catholic, and you are trying to make what you know fit what you were raised to believe. It happens everytime science makes discoveries, believers either rework their beliefs, or their gods die.
eyesopened,
That's the value of science, it judges on the facts. Being religious doesn't exclude ones theories from science, lack of thought, reason and evidence does.
And religion does not seek answers, it claims to already have them. That's the whole point of religion.
You don't have to stop believing, but your belief is completely useless to any investigation of the real world, or in any practical sense. It's only use is to you, and probably far less useful than you would like to believe.
tazzygirl,
Medically speaking there is nothing god/religion can explain, and much science can explain.
kdsub,
"But to claim science has the answers, at this time, is not science but opinion. "
Science does have some answers, lots of really good ideas, and lots of likely probabilities. Rleigion has none of these things. The idea of god comes from nothing, one needs to assume a god exists to even conside it. So we are left with the scientific position of facts, good ideas and probabilities.
Kirata,
The big bang theory does not come out of thin air though, and it's far superior to any religious fantasy in history. Also if you're going to ask what happened before the big bang, you need to ask what created god. Religion certainly doesn't clear things up at all. It simplifies things, which is handy for some people, but it doesn't improve understanding in any way.
And don't forget we are capable of saying we do not know, and there is no reason why we should know all we want to. But saying this does not add any weight to any fantasy.
"in any terms meaningful to our current physics", that's the most intelligent thing you've said, and you need to pay a lot more attention to it. Never forget we are limited, and just because science can't satisfy every question you may have, it doesn't lessen what we do know or add value to fantasies. Also remember that science is merely a tool and makes no promises of providing answers, only religion makes such promises. Answers come in there own time, and you won't be around for them, accept it.
Sanity,
Except the hindus were concerned with humanity, as all religions are. Karma is not an indifferent universe, it is an afterlife reward/punishment system.
Kirata,
"In my opinion, if you are contending that science has disproved the existence of God, then you have absolutely no idea what science is, or what it does."
Perhaps you could explain how you formed this opinion, and in such a way which shows you have some understanding of science and what it does. Since you think science has not disproven religion/god, then I would say you have little idea of science, the discoveries it's made, or human history, or human nature.
"But if you really believe that the nonexistence of God is a scientific fact"
If you believe the nonexistence of gods (don't get caught in the monotheist delusion) is not a scientific fact you are suffering from the assumption delusion. You have a double dose of delusion to overcome.
"To assert as a fact that there is no God is delusional no matter what you call it. There is no way we can know such a thing"
I'm sorry, you are suffering from an overdose of the assumption delusion.
eihwaz,
"Actually they won't do such an experiment because the question of the existence or nonexistence of God is not within the domain of the scientific enterprise"
You're close to being partly right here. Science does not concern itself with gods, santa or any other fairytale, but science does have to concern itself with believers who try to impose their beliefs on others.
Sanity,
You are hardwired for pattern recognition, that is why you would wonder who made it, not because something had actually made it.
MzMia,
"It is amusing the time and energy many put into, attempting to prove, there is not a GOD.
I guess it gives them something to do. "
If people stopped insisting there was a god, and stopped blowing things up because of god, and stopped trying to force their god in schools and science, no one would need to bother disproving their fantasy. In fact if the religious people kept their beliefs to themselves the whole topic would disappear.
eyesopened,
"I do however take some offense at being told that my personal experiences ARE delusions just because some non-believing zealot says so."
LOL, it has nothing to do with zealotry, it is all about humanity. And unless you are claiming to be some supernatural being, we must treat you as human. As a human you experiences are not completely reliable, and the more unbelievable, the more likely those experiences are delusions. No if you think you have experienced god, or talked to dead people, or flown through the air without equipment or your won body, then you would be delusional. If this upset you, there is nothing I can do about it, nor do your feelings have any inpact on reality.
"So if nothing is Super-natural, just nature undisovered, it would make more sense to keep an open and curious mind."
If you want to have an open and curious mind, don't get chained down with old superstitions. Being open minded does not mean falling into the past and closing off the present and future. Regurtating old superstitions is about as closed minded as you can get.
switch2please,
"Since neither can offer conclusive proof, they are both theology."
You like the all or nothing approach I see, unfortunately that is not much use, to you or anyone else. Theology is based on nothing, science is based on observable reality, so even without absolute proof of a particular concept science has far m ore substance than theology.
As for god with or without a universe, it's irrelevent as you can't have gods without people.
"I meant that neither evolutionism or creationism can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, so neither can be construed as right or wrong. It's a matter of choice, and I choose evolution. "
It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of belief. Religion doesn't come into it, unless you are a believer. As for neither being right or wrong, one provides lots of answers and deals with observable reality, the other gives no answers and is based entirely on fear, ignorance and desire. One is absolutely wrong, and the other is ever improving and the best we've got.
Kirata,
"See, this is what troubles me about some of the positions that are taken in these threads. The people taking them appear to have a very clear idea of what "God" is, or must necessarily be, which, equally clearly, they reject. But to reject your own notion of God, or one that you heard from somebody else, is to address only that limited specific notion"
Well only a fool would assume gods to begin with, so gods only enter the equation when some believer tries to defend their version of gods.
vincentML,
"What the hell do we do with an undefined god? "
We throw it away as it is completely useless as a god. Gods are created to meet our needs.
"That's err cowardly maybe? No, I do not wish to be unkind. "
Cowardly is not being unkind, as it was thoughless and comtribute nothing to the thread as well.
MzMia
"I did not say I don't READ these threads "now and then", I just rarely bother to comment."
But when you do comment it's a useless driveby which aims to put others down without actually doing anything. This is the failure to engage your brain. You would be much better of saying nothing, as that would give a more intelligent appearence than the drivebys.
eyesopened,
"But clearly some, without meeting me, knowing me, or having any idea what my personal experiences may be, can declare as fact that I am delusional."
You are human, so without knowing anything about you the individual, we already know a lot about how your brain works, and how unreliable your personal anecdotes could be. That, combined with what you are claiming could easily allow a complete stranger to correctly assess you as delusional, it really depends on what you try to claim. Knowledge of god immediately puts you in the delusional section.
tazzygirl,
"Is there any evidence he doesnt exist? "
Is there any reason to assume gods to begin with? Any evidence to even entertain the idea? Beside the fact that people were raised with a simplistic, flawed idea handed down from our protohuman ancestors.
"Just out of curiosity... how many hours have been put into the search for the missing link?"
A tiny fraction when compared to what's been spent looking for gods. Also gods are the entire story, while missing links are tiny parts of the theory which have no effect on the theory as a whole. Missing links do not weaken evolution, especially with current and emerging technology, they are just the only thing the religious nuts have to desperately cling to as their gods die.
Kirata,
"What would you expect to find, one of his old toothbrushes or something?"
Drag yourself out of the christian delsuion, and consider gods people have created. We have actively disproven many, many gods. Gods far older than christianities. As knowledge gorws and gods die, believers make up new gods. This doesn't make the new gods real, but it does add to the evidence that gods do not exist.
ThatDamnedPanda,
"We have absolutely zero evidence that god doesn't exist. None. Zilch. Nada. Nada trace, nada shred, nada single atom of evidence that god does not exist. "
We have overewhelming evidence that gods do not exist. But we really don't need any of it, as we have no reason to assume gods exist in the first place.
"See any reason we can't? Any reason we can't do those things while still believing in god?"
Yes, our history is full of examples of belief in god stagnating advances in knowledge.
"the apparent proposition that if one believes in god, one must not believe in science. And that's just not valid. Like hundreds of millions of other people, I believe in both. I see absolutely no contradiction in the two belief sets;"
There's the beggining of the problem. You are calling a tool of investigation with a proven track record a belief system, trying to make it as useless and ineffectual as actual belief systems. While this might not effect you, it certainly does effect some people. People who call themselves scientists (because they got a science degree, which anyone with average or above IQ could easily acheive) yet try to circumvent scientific procedure by attemping to push their beliefs through the courts. That is always the danger with believers, especially those who mistakenly call science a belief. If science discovers something which upsets their beliefs, they will ignore the science and choose the belief. Some can avoid this problem, most can't.
"My belief in god does not depend at all on those 2000-year old fables - I suspect that I regard the wackos who wrote them as even more deranged and more disturbed than you do, and in fact I view them more with contempt than anything else, because I consider those people the lunatics who give god a bad name. "
LOL, and yet the only source you have for your belief in gods is these people and those who came before them.
|
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 
Profile
RE: The puzzle of life - science versus creationism - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread