Atheism debate

[Born_again]

While it may very well be that generally speaking Atheists and scientists are more open to new ideas they are still only human and are just as liable to invest undue emotion into a particular perspective or theory. I would say you have a lot of faith in the open-mindedness of most, if not all Atheists and every scientist. :spinball:

I would say that wishful thinking would have been your primary emotional exasperation whilst composing such a statement, as highlighted above. Sorry. :eyeballspin:

[hellomynameis]

However, if we apply our “emotion, intuition and creativity” to interpreting the universe and from this we glean some system, idea or belief (like spirituality) and this belief interacts with the physical world then in all likelihood it should produce measurable observations.

It may be a case of us not recognizing the observations, not being able to "measure" them or that the observations are perceived different depending on the "observer's" point of reference. Consider that the active brain areas are the same for someone in the physical presence of an object as they are for someone remembering(visualizing) the same object.
ETA It could even be a case of trying to "hear" with our eyes (using the wrong channel of perception?)

Maybe, but I am assuming we are talking about perspectives relating to spirituality and if someone adopts one of the many namebrand religions of the world like Christianity it really opens the doors to faslifibale observations even putting the metaphysical perceptions aside.

[Amor vincit omnia]

There are about 10 billion stars in an average galaxy, and there are about 10 billion galaxies that we can see in the universe. And on ONE planet a few thousand years ago, after centuries of believing in other GODS to explain the unexplainable, suddenly the one GOD shows himself to A FEW SELECT PEOPLE on this planet, presents his son and comes up with rules that EVERYONE else has to learn to follow or they will spend eternity in hades.

Never mind the contradictions with other religions, the coincidences and lack of any real evidence. Never mind the power struggles, the abuse and the wars caused by religion over the years. Any time there is something that doesn't quite look right, the blinders are put on and it's brushed aside with excuses about HIS mysterious ways.

So HE hands a few select people the RULES on a stone tablet and hopes all will be well. If HE was so great and powerful, wouldn't he do a slightly better job of ensuring the word was spread a little better than that? Why throw out a handful of miracles if you can really put on a show?

People blame the current moms and dads for their lack of parenting skills. It would seem that HE didn't do much better - tossed us a few rules and left us to figure things out on our own. He even gave us nuclear weapons to play with.

Nativity or naievity? There are so many holes in the story it is ludicrous.

Mankind is weak and somehow trusting that someone else must have the answer. We need/want an answer so anything that a majority are following must be true - how can so many people be misguided for so long? Who's to stop it when there is money, power, and control in the cards.

[steven lloyd]

Regardless, if science proves that there is a god, the ultimate irony of all ironies is that the first person ever to communicate with god will undoubtedly be a scientist.

Why would that be ironic ??? Oh yeah, because you believe belief in the existence of God and belief in science are mutually exclusive ideas. What a simplistic perception. If someone says they believe in the existence of God, they must then necessarily ascribe to certain rules and customs, and believe in the literal translation of the Bible or some other book. No wonder the debate on this board remains so senseless (God exists. No He doesn’t. Prove it. No, you prove it).

:dyinglaughing:



EDIT TO ADD: I'm sorry. I should point out there have been a number of fascinating ideas brought to this board. It is just the general polarization of the discussion I find so senseless. Just my opinion - and yes I know: If I don't like it I can leave. Bye.

[Tumult]

This is the point where I would like to offer an answer. As cheesy as it sounds, Love is the answer. This makes many people uncomfortable and some will reject it out of hand or willfully ignore it. Love is an integral part of our consciousness and it may offer us additional perceptions of the universe. The benefits of Love can be understood logically and are also scripturally sound. The New Testament (for what it’s worth) goes as far as to point to Love as a way to interact with God.

Logically if you focus your consciousness on Love, if you activate the altruistic part of your brain and keep it running in the background it will change your perceptions and people’s perceptions of you. It will change the way you communicate with people, it will alter your body language and people will pick up on these non-verbal cues. It should cause you to smile which studies show can actually make you happy. Try it for a week (thought experiment) and see if you get any results.

Scripturally, the New Testament says God is Love and those that love each other are of God, know God, abide in God, perfect God’s Love, fulfill the Law and have God’s Love abiding in them. The fact that so many Christians are not aware or choose to ignore this is unfortunate but perhaps we can point these things out to them.

I think everyone can understand the benefits of Love to the world and if people keep Love active in their consciousness great changes will happen.

[Born_again]

Why would that be ironic ??? Oh yeah, because you believe belief in the existence of God and belief in science are mutually exclusive ideas. What a simplistic perception. If someone says they believe in the existence of God, they must then necessarily ascribe to certain rules and customs, and believe in the literal translation of the Bible or some other book. No wonder the debate on this board remains so senseless

Again we arrive at the inevitable shun and run tactic. Simplistic you charge. Well if it's that simplistic why is it that you and others have such a difficult time in coming forward with a simple hypothesis for the existence of a god? Or do you feel uncomfortable with the knowledge that most of us Atheists are not as closed-minded as would benefit you in debate? There are thousands of the world's greatest minds out there just waiting for someone to put a half-*bleep* hypothesis together so that they can get to work on it. They are waiting....and waiting...and waiting!
Peter Higgs put forth a hypothesis so fantastical that even the Pope would have laughed at it, had it been in one of the gospels. The scientific community dismissed it out of hand initially until Higgs persisted and reworked his hypothesis to a point where it had to be investigated scientifically. His 'unprovable' theory of 'something as of yet to be determined' was given scientific air-time, and where has that led us to now? Bingo! You got it.
So I believe that "belief in the existence of God and belief in science are mutually exclusive ideas" do I?
Maybe if you weren't so crop-happy with your quoting that would have been plain for all to see with regards to mutually exclusive ideas, wouldn't it?

There is a lot of truth in what you say with regards to the perceived single-minded approach to the "correct answer". However, I would argue that someone that has chosen to follow the logical and reasoned approach is not actually fixed in their convictions just because they subscribe to a particular scientific theory.
For example, I would argue for the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang until I was blue in the face if the opposing argument was just Creation, however, if we start finding fossils on far-away planets with identical features(DNA) to animals that have or do exist on earth, I'd drop my subscription to evolutionary theories in a heartbeat, as would most, if not all Atheists. You could also bet your bottom dollar that every scientist on the planet would be wholeheartedly moving towards a hypothesis that there is some form of 'intelligent design'.

That, my friend, would clearly lay the mutually exclusive theory of yours squarely back at your own feet. It's as simple as that, simply put!

[Glacier]

Why would that be ironic ??? Oh yeah, because you believe belief in the existence of God and belief in science are mutually exclusive ideas. What a simplistic perception. If someone says they believe in the existence of God, they must then necessarily ascribe to certain rules and customs, and believe in the literal translation of the Bible or some other book. No wonder the debate on this board remains so senseless

Again we arrive at the inevitable shun and run tactic. Simplistic you charge. Well if it's that simplistic why is it that you and others have such a difficult time in coming forward with a simple hypothesis for the existence of a god? Or do you feel uncomfortable with the knowledge that most of us Atheists are not as closed-minded as would benefit you in debate?

It all depends on how you look at it. If you look at nature with the assumption God exists, you will see his design displayed in nature, but if you look at nature with the presumptive position there is not god, you will see awesomeness of evolutionary advancement. I do not believe any amount of evidence short of seeing God in person would convince most atheists otherwise. If some DNA were found on some far away planet I highly doubt that will be enough to convince us there is a god. I would say that would be one more way to disprove the Bible. It a two way street, so no amount of evidence will convince most believers in God otherwise either. We are all human with human tendencies - we take what we want to hear and ignore what we don't. Several studies have been done to prove this.

Of course it is okay to think your position is correct, but am not a big fan of the "your more closed minded than me" approach. No offense, just my opinion.

On another thought. What kinds of occupations have the highest numbers of Atheists, Christians, etc.? That would be an interesting topic study.

[steven lloyd]

So I believe that "belief in the existence of God and belief in science are mutually exclusive ideas" do I? Maybe if you weren't so crop-happy with your quoting that would have been plain for all to see with regards to mutually exclusive ideas, wouldn't it?

There is a lot of truth in what you say with regards to the perceived single-minded approach to the "correct answer". However, I would argue that someone that has chosen to follow the logical and reasoned approach is not actually fixed in their convictions just because they subscribe to a particular scientific theory.
For example, I would argue for the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang until I was blue in the face if the opposing argument was just Creation, however, if we start finding fossils on far-away planets with identical features(DNA) to animals that have or do exist on earth, I'd drop my subscription to evolutionary theories in a heartbeat, as would most, if not all Atheists. You could also bet your bottom dollar that every scientist on the planet would be wholeheartedly moving towards a hypothesis that there is some form of 'intelligent design'.

That, my friend, would clearly lay the mutually exclusive theory of yours squarely back at your own feet. It's as simple as that, simply put!

Sorry, but nothing you have said here demonstrates any consideration of accepting a possible explanation somewhere between two polarized points. Like I said, there have been some fascinating ideas proposed on this board. Unfortunately, this wasn’t one of them.

[Born_again]

If some completely unique DNA where found on some far away planet I highly doubt that will be enough to convince us there is a god. I would say that would be one more way to disprove the Bible. It a two way street, so no amount of evidence will convince most believers in God otherwise either. We are all human with human tendencies - we take what we want to hear and ignore what we don't. Several studies have been done to prove this.

Of course it is okay to think your position is correct, but am not a big fan of the "your more closed minded than me" approach. No offense, just my opinion.

Compare:

I would argue for the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang until I was blue in the face if the opposing argument was just Creation, however, if we start finding fossils on far-away planets with identical features(DNA) to animals that have or do exist on earth, I'd drop my subscription to evolutionary theories in a heartbeat, as would most, if not all Atheists. You could also bet your bottom dollar that every scientist on the planet would be wholeheartedly moving towards a hypothesis that there is some form of 'intelligent design'.

You are arguing against my point by changing the scenario I gave, then using the new(your) scenario to counter the position I held originally. I cannot see what you are trying to achieve by this kind of manipulation.
In the case of your scenario above then I would say that as no new evidence for god has been uncovered, I would happily continue with my unchallenged Atheistic reasoning. I would not say that my 'belief that there is no god' would be enhanced in any way as I already fully expect there to be "completely unique DNA" out there in the Universe already.
Again, I am seeing the traits of wishful thinking on the behalf of the theistic viewpoint of how Atheists think. I may be wrong, but the recurring impression that I keep getting is that the theists want, no, would love a level playing field as far as close-mindedness goes, which of course would suit them just nicely because the whole debate could then just 'go away' once deadlock is achieved.
Sorry, but that is not going to happen. You are seriously underestimating the Atheistic advantage of unfettered open mindedness. Stop tarring us with your own brush, please. It is completely inappropriate.

As for your interest in what the theistic/Atheistic representations are per occupation, I can say that I have seen figures based on levels of education, and another based on IQ. I have yet to see one based on the broad spectra of occupation per se.

[hellomynameis]

Epicurus weighs in:



I would think the theistic comeback would be to say that God is able to eliminate all evil but we would not want him to do so, that this chaotic but emancipative universe is ironically the most enabling, free and unknowingly by most the most desirable.

Of course the counter argument would be that God could just as easily created a non-restrictive universe that was free of evil.

Does the atheist even need to qualify an ambiguous God figure? And most of the common religions introduce a restrictive God which makes Epicurus's argument a valid one.

By far the most common retort at this junction (in my IRL experience) has been that we cannot possibly comprehend God's methods(aka his is a dictator so too bad so sad.) or that God, in his love, gave humanity the choice of salvation.

However, the last answer seems both arbitrary (for God to use) and raises Epicurus's question again, no? And if someone is going to use the "we cannot comprehend God's methods" which is an argument from the metaphysical than I feel it is fair that we insist on seeing a large body of proof. Proof that insistences of metaphysical interaction with our universe show measurable results that confirm the particular God in question. This should be simple to do, one example, the benefits of prayer are unique and exclusive to only one religion, or, the benefits of prayer are neither unique or exclusive.

[steven lloyd]

You are seriously underestimating the Atheistic advantage of unfettered open mindedness...

... that assumes all who believe in the existence of God have no knowledge of science of scientific method, and assumes all who believe in the existence of God believe in creationism as literally expressed in the Bible. With unfetterd open mindedness as this (because after all, only ateists can be open-minded), folks could start a club.

:dyinglaughing: :dyinglaughing: :dyinglaughing:

[hellomynameis]

Hello, I am Hellomnameis and I approve of this message.

This is the point where I would like to offer an answer. As cheesy as it sounds, Love is the answer...

not that I actually APPROVE of what you had to say... There are many people that have a kind of vague spirituality that has a doctrine that comprises of just "I believe there is a God" and the Golden rule with agape being the essence of 'holiness' (though I doubt they would call it that).

It is a step away from agnosticism but towards religion. Very harmless in any meaningful way, not that organized religion is always harmful.

[Born_again]

So you find my statement risible³, and even worthy of yet another classic stephen lloyd assumption. I'm glad I'm providing you with adequate food for comment; long may it continue.

I wasn't going to bother, but what the hell, you only live once:

Sorry, but nothing you have said here demonstrates any consideration of accepting a possible explanation somewhere between two polarized points.

Accepting that I am now mindful that you may be physically blind, re-quoting what I've said would just be a forlorn exercise in futility. What exactly would be considered[to you] "a possible explanation somewhere between two polarised points"? Are you going to break with historical convention by offering up even a grain of proof or evidence for god? If so, you'll see a born-again Born_again within the day!
I believe I made myself perfectly clear on how I am accepting of all theories for consideration; a position that for some strange reason you are personally aggrieved by, like a bitter pill, or so it seems judging by your fluffing-around what I am on record as saying. I stand by what I say, and it leaves very little room for your blessed assumptions. If you are having a problem comprehending anything I have said, then ask. Better still, rather than trying to win a war of attrition by repeatedly posting frustratingly base questions/remarks based on nihility, why not get yourself in the ring and put your standpoint out there for all to see, as open-minded as I'm sure it is?
Is that too much to ask from a person whom alludes to being insulted on account of his 'open-mindedness'?

[katzenjammer]

Don't you think any discussion/argument about God is meaningless unless there is at least agreement on the definition of God. My God is a pot smoking, black, fat woman who speaks with a lisp. Whats your?

[fvkasm2x]

Don't you think any discussion/argument about God is meaningless unless there is at least agreement on the definition of God. My God is a pot smoking, black, fat woman who speaks with a lisp. Whats your?

Me too !! Lets start our own church and get a break on taxes.