Atheists...

[zenmandan]

I saw this the other day. Although the video is a bit too long for the point he is making (could have done the same in about 2 minutes vs the 5 it is), he brings up an interesting argument. I'm curious as to opinions on this one.

atheists are fools?

[Morphine Child]

That was a cool little video. Though he forgot Einstein - which I'm sure someone on here will argue, go ahead, I'll find some quotes to pull up - that was a cool little list of "fools".

I've been reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins for the last few weeks, and his purpose is related to this video, though on a much larger and more scientific, nay, logical scale.

7% of American scientists have professed a belief in a personal god. An even lower percent, I believe 6.5% roughly, of Nobel prize awarded scientists believe in a personal god. Religion has taken the word atheist through the mud much like "pagan" and "witches" (or originally, any woman with a thought or an idea).

I love the George H.W. Walker quote too. Apparently he hasn't read much on his U.S. History. The country was essentially founded by agnostics and atheists, such as Thomas Jefferson, who thought these "silly" religions would eventually die down. With the progress of science I'm baffled that the number of believers in this country continues to go up. But as Dawkins says, for every gap that science fills in with evolution and cosmology, two more gaps are created. We fill in what happened between 1 million years ago and 500,000 years ago with a discovery 750,000 years ago, then there is the gap between 750,000 and 1 million, and 500,000 and 750,000. As long as there is gaps, there will be space for god. Though since the discovery of Darwinian evolution that space has been drastically reduced.

Dawkins has a great metaphor for an understanding of those gaps. When looking at a murder, we're able to reconstruct pieces of evidence (ie. fingerprints, hair, footprints, eyewitness, motives) to convict a murderer, and solve the crime. We don't require videotape evidence in order to have a complete account of the crime. We don't need videotape evidence of every second to rebuild what happened or convince people of what happened. And probably at least 98% (maybe someone can dig up a real number for that), the evidence and conclusion are correct. This, I feel, is a much better way to understand "gaps" than to assume supernatural intervention.

I hope this thread thrives. I like talking about this stuff. And as my boy Dawkins says, "Wake up!"

[zenmandan]

As far as "thriving" goes...I doubt it. I put it up three days ago and you're the first to comment. I enjoyed Dawkins take on the forensic evidence and filling in the gaps.

[echosauce1]

That was a cool little video. Though he forgot Einstein - which I'm sure someone on here will argue, go ahead, I'll find some quotes to pull up - that was a cool little list of "fools".

I've been reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins for the last few weeks, and his purpose is related to this video, though on a much larger and more scientific, nay, logical scale.

7% of American scientists have professed a belief in a personal god. An even lower percent, I believe 6.5% roughly, of Nobel prize awarded scientists believe in a personal god. Religion has taken the word atheist through the mud much like "pagan" and "witches" (or originally, any woman with a thought or an idea).

I love the George H.W. Walker quote too. Apparently he hasn't read much on his U.S. History. The country was essentially founded by agnostics and atheists, such as Thomas Jefferson, who thought these "silly" religions would eventually die down. With the progress of science I'm baffled that the number of believers in this country continues to go up. But as Dawkins says, for every gap that science fills in with evolution and cosmology, two more gaps are created. We fill in what happened between 1 million years ago and 500,000 years ago with a discovery 750,000 years ago, then there is the gap between 750,000 and 1 million, and 500,000 and 750,000. As long as there is gaps, there will be space for god. Though since the discovery of Darwinian evolution that space has been drastically reduced.

Dawkins has a great metaphor for an understanding of those gaps. When looking at a murder, we're able to reconstruct pieces of evidence (ie. fingerprints, hair, footprints, eyewitness, motives) to convict a murderer, and solve the crime. We don't require videotape evidence in order to have a complete account of the crime. We don't need videotape evidence of every second to rebuild what happened or convince people of what happened. And probably at least 98% (maybe someone can dig up a real number for that), the evidence and conclusion are correct. This, I feel, is a much better way to understand "gaps" than to assume supernatural intervention.

I hope this thread thrives. I like talking about this stuff. And as my boy Dawkins says, "Wake up!"

I'll preface this by saying my slow net connection prevented me from watching the video so if I'm out of line here let me know. I did however want to reply to the above quote with my two cents for the sake of discussion.

I've never understood the argument that science disproves a god. I can see where scientific findings may provide evidence against certain beliefs within a religion, but human interpretation can do that alone without science.

All too often in these kinds of discussions (not necessarly this current one) it seems to be science vs. christianity when it should be science vs. organized religion. There are many other religions out there, which probably have lots of beliefs science discredits as well. However, science is just a study of what already is here. It can sometimes answer the "how" these things got here, but not the "why" of it all. That is why I can buy agnostic beliefs with a sense of empathy, but true atheism is something I have a hard time wrapping my head around.

***** Quote Repaired By Admin _KA *****

[Morphine Child]

I've never understood the argument that science disproves a god. I can see where scientific findings may provide evidence against certain beliefs within a religion, but human interpretation can do that alone without science.

All too often in these kinds of discussions (not necessarly this current one) it seems to be science vs. christianity when it should be science vs. organized religion. There are many other religions out there, which probably have lots of beliefs science discredits as well. However, science is just a study of what already is here. It can sometimes answer the "how" these things got here, but not the "why" of it all. That is why I can buy agnostic beliefs with a sense of empathy, but true atheism is something I have a hard time wrapping my head around.

***** Quote Repaired By Admin _KA *****

Science can not technically disprove "god", though the definition of god is quite malleable, and has been twisted and restated over many many years. I think the reason science so frequently attacks christianity is because of it's overwhelming stranglehold on a good chunk of the industrialized world. It's most prominent and so scientists find themselves attacking it most frequently because so much is founded upon it, and reliant on it.

As far as the "why" things got here, you're essentially falling back on a variation of the gap argument I presented. Just because we haven't taken it back that far, doesn't mean we won't. A few hundred years ago evolution was not even known to exist, and now it explains the origin of all life, including our own. It is that "why" question that keeps science pushing forward. If scientists stopped at "well, we don't know. Must have been God", then we wouldn't make progress. We wouldn't have Newton, we wouldn't have Einstein, we wouldn't have whomever it is that has the next great breakthrough in the world of physics.

True Atheism, in my opinion, is more the denial of a personal god. Theistic - the most common and most spoken of form of theism - means by definition, "the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation". Where as an atheist denies the existence of a personal god that is a creator and ruler of the universe. Of course there is a the deistic concept which has a stand-off creator that does not intervene, but only served as a prime mover.

[Morphine Child]

hey zenmandan, check out this website if you're looking for discussions on topics related to atheism: http://richarddawkins.net/home

Over there it's not a "dirty word", and you'll find some great information and resources for leaning.

[Aero]

I agree that it seems like the issue is always "evolution v.s. intelligent design", but I believe this is too narrow. One can still hold on to the belief of God and hold evolution to be true.

So far, science hasn't fully explained the origin of the universe. Although there are thousands of theories, surely something cannot come from nothing.

[sharkmansix]

Although there are thousands of theories, surely something cannot come from nothing.

So where did God come from?

[Garr]

It's all circular.

Think of it like this and it makes more sense:
∞

The universe has no beginning or end. There is no reality but a lack thereof.

[Morphine Child]

Although there are thousands of theories, surely something cannot come from nothing.

So where did God come from?

You beat me to that one.

Thinking about it from the Ockham's razor perspective, I don't see how a super intelligent creator that came out of nothing to create something as complex as our universe is more simple than any idea science has come up with. Which is a progression of billions of years (which no one here can comprehend) of evolution on a cosmic and biological scale.

[Aero]

Although there are thousands of theories, surely something cannot come from nothing.

So where did God come from?

So where did the laws of science come from?

I admire thinkers like Dawkins, but I don't think we'll ever find out the answers to these questions because we can't comprehend them.

btw, great point, Garr

[sharkmansix]

So where did the laws of science come from?

Dirty pool my friend.

Honestly I don't know.

I just find it interesting when people base that as their arguement for the existance of God, when the existance of God basically throws all of science away.

because we can't comprehend them

One day we'll figure it out. Let it be Kirk or Picard someone will.

[Morphine Child]

Although there are thousands of theories, surely something cannot come from nothing.

So where did God come from?

So where did the laws of science come from?

I admire thinkers like Dawkins, but I don't think we'll ever find out the answers to these questions because we can't comprehend them.

The laws of science? The cerebral cortex would be a good answer I believe.

We can't comprehend these questions yet because we do not have the means to do so. Much like the greeks, and the authors of the bible did not have the resources we have, or an understanding of the cosmos and biology that we have, and so they gave the best answer they could...the same way some scientists do today. A partial answer isn't satisfactory for most people. Sadly, I have to settle with the fact that these questions may not be answered until well after my death. But I'm fine with that, and I don't need an absolute answer right now.
[/quote]

[Aero]

So where did God come from?

So where did the laws of science come from?

I admire thinkers like Dawkins, but I don't think we'll ever find out the answers to these questions because we can't comprehend them.

The laws of science? The cerebral cortex would be a good answer I believe.

We can't comprehend these questions yet because we do not have the means to do so. Much like the greeks, and the authors of the bible did not have the resources we have, or an understanding of the cosmos and biology that we have, and so they gave the best answer they could...the same way some scientists do today. A partial answer isn't satisfactory for most people. Sadly, I have to settle with the fact that these questions may not be answered until well after my death. But I'm fine with that, and I don't need an absolute answer right now.

[/quote]


It's true that the human mind has "discovered" these laws, but we did not invent them.

You've also brought up another interesting topic: is this knowledge obtainable? It seems that you believe there will be a time when everything is known, if it is possible to solve these problems.

Interesting convo going on, guys

[Morphine Child]

It's true that the human mind has "discovered" these laws, but we did not invent them.

You've also brought up another interesting topic: is this knowledge obtainable? It seems that you believe there will be a time when everything is known, if it is possible to solve these problems.

Interesting convo going on, guys

Wow, a civil conversation on this topic...let's keep that going! haha

True, we did not invent them. I do believe in time with the studies of the cosmos, we'll have a far greater understanding of how things such as gravity came to be. In fact, I'm sure there are probably some explanations for it somewhere. Those may only be "theories" at the time, but given the resources that the future will bring, I feel confident in future discovery and understand.

I suppose to say that we'll someday know everything is quite the bold statement. haha. I shouldn't make that statement, and I won't. I can't. I do however believe we'll have a much better understanding of the cosmos and their origins someday. And when we get to that point we will continue to try and take it further. That's the beauty of science in opposition to religion...they're always searching for something more, and realizing that it's not as "simple" as god.

On a bit of a sidenote...I have a real problem with the idea that the inability to present the origins of the universe right now lead to that "simple" answer of god, which in turn (I use this example because it's most well known) means the christian god, which in turn means the bible is correct. It's similar to the "gap" theory that I touched on in an earlier post, noting that god is basically filling in the gaps of evolution. Well, biological evolution is an obvious fact, and I wonder how long using god to fill in gaps will last within cosmological research.