On Atheism vs. Christianity

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
I apologize for not reading the whole thread but I well chip in with another thought.

I am an out and out scientist... I have PhD in chemical engineering and I do some pretty hardcore nanotech, solid-state physics research. I have read up and studied some cosmology (cool stuff) and string theory (beautiful math), yada yada. I should be Atheist by the numbers but I'm not.

Really I think the question of the origin of the universe has nothing to do with science... science studies mechanism and modality.

When you start asking simple questions like, "where did all the mass and energy in the universe come from?" (trust me, all the cosmologically theories in world really cannot answer this question) or "why are we here?" "Is there any purpose to our life or is our life pointless and arbitrary?"

Well... those questions all rapidly lead to consideration of the supernatural in one form or another and I will venture here to claim that everyone is either religious or incredibly dimwitted (let me explain).

If you have though about any of the questions above then you are religious... because you thought about them and likely reached some sort of a conclusion, temporary or otherwise. In order to do that you had to make a decision to believe something that as of yet has limited or no evidence to support the belief.

If you really never considered some of these questions... well, sorry, but there you have it.

Atheist generally believe that somehow science will eventually explain every minutia of our universe, our pysche... where all our mass and energy came from in the first place if this is the only universe and/or our how different canceling forms of matter parted into different chronistic universes, at the cost of positively unfathomable energy that came from somewhere else or went somewhere else. And some day science will simply stop because there will be nothing left to know about everything in our universe (and beyond)?

Well Atheists... I salute you. Science is your religion and it takes a lot of faith to believe that science will answer all the fundamental philosophical questions that we have, because it hasn't answered any of them yet. Never once has science answered the questions, "why are we here?" or "what is the purpose of life, if any?" or even "where did all this mass and energy come from?". And actually I'll argue that it is not science's job to answer any of these questions nor could science answer these questions without making extremely rash assumptions.

Science has proven time and time again that a lot of religious people were/are ignorant, no disputing that (lol)... but don't paint all religious types with the 'ignorant' brush. Remember that science also has proven time and time again that earlier scientists were ignorant.


Theists place their faith in a God or gods or some supernatural power.

My supernatural power is God... he made and orchestrated the world we are discovering and exploring. That is my explanation in a nutshell.

An atheist supernatural power is the next great discovery that may or may not happen to explain what presently remains unexplained. By definition any new natural laws that would be discovered are 'super-natural' with respect to our present scientific understanding, right? But after that great discovery there will be more stuff that will be unexplained and need to be discovered, etc. That is how it has always been in science... should we believe it will ever be different? There is no evidence to support the belief that the scientific discovery cycle will ever end.

All I'm saying is when you boil it down, atheism is simply a modern religion.

And if god created all of this, who/what created him?

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
I apologize for not reading the whole thread but I well chip in with another thought.

I am an out and out scientist... I have PhD in chemical engineering and I do some pretty hardcore nanotech, solid-state physics research. I have read up and studied some cosmology (cool stuff) and string theory (beautiful math), yada yada. I should be Atheist by the numbers but I'm not.

Really I think the question of the origin of the universe has nothing to do with science... science studies mechanism and modality.

When you start asking simple questions like, "where did all the mass and energy in the universe come from?" (trust me, all the cosmologically theories in world really cannot answer this question) or "why are we here?" "Is there any purpose to our life or is our life pointless and arbitrary?"

Well... those questions all rapidly lead to consideration of the supernatural in one form or another and I will venture here to claim that everyone is either religious or incredibly dimwitted (let me explain).

If you have though about any of the questions above then you are religious... because you thought about them and likely reached some sort of a conclusion, temporary or otherwise. In order to do that you had to make a decision to believe something that as of yet has limited or no evidence to support the belief.

If you really never considered some of these questions... well, sorry, but there you have it.

Atheist generally believe that somehow science will eventually explain every minutia of our universe, our pysche... where all our mass and energy came from in the first place if this is the only universe and/or our how different canceling forms of matter parted into different chronistic universes, at the cost of positively unfathomable energy that came from somewhere else or went somewhere else. And some day science will simply stop because there will be nothing left to know about everything in our universe (and beyond)?

Well Atheists... I salute you. Science is your religion and it takes a lot of faith to believe that science will answer all the fundamental philosophical questions that we have, because it hasn't answered any of them yet. Never once has science answered the questions, "why are we here?" or "what is the purpose of life, if any?" or even "where did all this mass and energy come from?". And actually I'll argue that it is not science's job to answer any of these questions nor could science answer these questions without making extremely rash assumptions.

Science has proven time and time again that a lot of religious people were/are ignorant, no disputing that (lol)... but don't paint all religious types with the 'ignorant' brush. Remember that science also has proven time and time again that earlier scientists were ignorant.


Theists place their faith in a God or gods or some supernatural power.

My supernatural power is God... he made and orchestrated the world we are discovering and exploring. That is my explanation in a nutshell.

An atheist supernatural power is the next great discovery that may or may not happen to explain what presently remains unexplained. By definition any new natural laws that would be discovered are 'super-natural' with respect to our present scientific understanding, right? But after that great discovery there will be more stuff that will be unexplained and need to be discovered, etc. That is how it has always been in science... should we believe it will ever be different? There is no evidence to support the belief that the scientific discovery cycle will ever end.

All I'm saying is when you boil it down, atheism is simply a modern religion.

Awesome post miniMunch. You succinctly stated what I have been thinking for a long time. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
I apologize for not reading the whole thread but I well chip in with another thought.

I am an out and out scientist... I have PhD in chemical engineering and I do some pretty hardcore nanotech, solid-state physics research. I have read up and studied some cosmology (cool stuff) and string theory (beautiful math), yada yada. I should be Atheist by the numbers but I'm not.

Really I think the question of the origin of the universe has nothing to do with science... science studies mechanism and modality.

When you start asking simple questions like, "where did all the mass and energy in the universe come from?" (trust me, all the cosmologically theories in world really cannot answer this question) or "why are we here?" "Is there any purpose to our life or is our life pointless and arbitrary?"

Well... those questions all rapidly lead to consideration of the supernatural in one form or another and I will venture here to claim that everyone is either religious or incredibly dimwitted (let me explain).

If you have though about any of the questions above then you are religious... because you thought about them and likely reached some sort of a conclusion, temporary or otherwise. In order to do that you had to make a decision to believe something that as of yet has limited or no evidence to support the belief.

If you really never considered some of these questions... well, sorry, but there you have it.

Atheist generally believe that somehow science will eventually explain every minutia of our universe, our pysche... where all our mass and energy came from in the first place if this is the only universe and/or our how different canceling forms of matter parted into different chronistic universes, at the cost of positively unfathomable energy that came from somewhere else or went somewhere else. And some day science will simply stop because there will be nothing left to know about everything in our universe (and beyond)?

Well Atheists... I salute you. Science is your religion and it takes a lot of faith to believe that science will answer all the fundamental philosophical questions that we have, because it hasn't answered any of them yet. Never once has science answered the questions, "why are we here?" or "what is the purpose of life, if any?" or even "where did all this mass and energy come from?". And actually I'll argue that it is not science's job to answer any of these questions nor could science answer these questions without making extremely rash assumptions.

Science has proven time and time again that a lot of religious people were/are ignorant, no disputing that (lol)... but don't paint all religious types with the 'ignorant' brush. Remember that science also has proven time and time again that earlier scientists were ignorant.


Theists place their faith in a God or gods or some supernatural power.

My supernatural power is God... he made and orchestrated the world we are discovering and exploring. That is my explanation in a nutshell.

An atheist supernatural power is the next great discovery that may or may not happen to explain what presently remains unexplained. By definition any new natural laws that would be discovered are 'super-natural' with respect to our present scientific understanding, right? But after that great discovery there will be more stuff that will be unexplained and need to be discovered, etc. That is how it has always been in science... should we believe it will ever be different? There is no evidence to support the belief that the scientific discovery cycle will ever end.

All I'm saying is when you boil it down, atheism is simply a modern religion.

Awesome post miniMunch. You succinctly stated what I have been thinking for a long time. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

!

 

[ericlp]

I've noticed in my discussions with atheists that a particular point they make is this: That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

That's your problem right there.... Atheist's don't believe that there is a God, no matter what God it is... So, your entire argument is pointless since, it's not just the christain god, it'a ALL gods. You can't convert to Muslim or Buddhism and still claim to be an atheist. Even if you just made one up like the pan cake god and went down to Ihop and got your tax credit for the free meal I still believe you really couldn't call yourself an atheist.

 

[nixium]

Originally posted by: ericlp
I've noticed in my discussions with atheists that a particular point they make is this: That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

That's your problem right there.... Atheist's don't believe that there is a God, no matter what God it is... So, your entire argument is pointless since, it's not just the christain god, it'a ALL gods. You can't convert to Muslim or Buddhism and still claim to be an atheist. Even if you just made one up like the pan cake god and went down to Ihop and got your tax credit for the free meal I still believe you really couldn't call yourself an atheist.

Which atheist claims this??!

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

I can't get over the people patting miniMUNCH on the back for such a poorly conceived post.

Look, atheism isn't the substitution of science for faith -- it's not a trade -- it's the simple absence of the latter. The reasons behind that absence would be different for every atheist you ask. Science is just a tool, not a belief system, and the comparisons miniMUNCH has drawn are specious at best. The fact that "ignorant" scientists who have proposed incorrect hypotheses can be proven wrong at all is a great example of the value of science -- that we can continue to learn and transcend our understanding of the universe.

Questions like "Why am I here?" might sound philosophically titillating, but they are intellectually weak. What does that question even mean? If you translate it to something concrete, like "How did I get here?", then you might find answers and science might help you do so. But science, being just a tool based on tests and observations, will not explain purpose or meaning at a personal level. Those answers come only from individual reflection, if they come at all, and if some use faith to find them, so be it. I choose to look elsewhere because that path does not seem sensible to me or fitting with what I have experienced.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Elfear
... a lot of stuff ...
Awesome post miniMunch. You succinctly stated what I have been thinking for a long time. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

!

You just don't understand. This probably is the most concise description. With all of the inherent gotchas, there is a lot explaining away to do.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I can't get over the people patting miniMUNCH on the back for such a poorly conceived post.

Look, atheism isn't the substitution of science for faith -- it's not a trade -- it's the simple absence of the latter. The reasons behind that absence would be different for every atheist you ask. Science is just a tool, not a belief system, and the comparisons miniMUNCH has drawn are specious at best. The fact that "ignorant" scientists who have proposed incorrect hypotheses can be proven wrong at all is a great example of the value of science -- that we can continue to learn and transcend our understanding of the universe.

Questions like "Why am I here?" might sound philosophically titillating, but they are intellectually weak. What does that question even mean? If you translate it to something concrete, like "How did I get here?", then you might find answers and science might help you do so. But science, being just a tool based on tests and observations, will not explain purpose or meaning at a personal level. Those answers come only from individual reflection, if they come at all, and if some use faith to find them, so be it. I choose to look elsewhere because that path does not seem sensible to me, or fitting with what I have experienced.

And I would like to add to the bolded that faith is not the absence of science.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I can't get over the people patting miniMUNCH on the back for such a poorly conceived post.

Look, atheism isn't the substitution of science for faith -- it's not a trade -- it's the simple absence of the latter. The reasons behind that absence would be different for every atheist you ask. Science is just a tool, not a belief system, and the comparisons miniMUNCH has drawn are specious at best. The fact that "ignorant" scientists who have proposed incorrect hypotheses can be proven wrong at all is a great example of the value of science -- that we can continue to learn and transcend our understanding of the universe.

Questions like "Why am I here?" might sound philosophically titillating, but they are intellectually weak. What does that question even mean? If you translate it to something concrete, like "How did I get here?", then you might find answers and science might help you do so. But science, being just a tool based on tests and observations, will not explain purpose or meaning at a personal level. Those answers come only from individual reflection, if they come at all, and if some use faith to find them, so be it. I choose to look elsewhere because that path does not seem sensible to me, or fitting with what I have experienced.

And I would like to add to the bolded that faith is not the absence of science.

By definitions alone, I would think that's completely obvious to anyone. But there's no arguing that science and faith can be at odds, as evidenced quite clearly by how some who subscribe to religious beliefs portray science as a threat.

Edit: Additionally, I think it's only natural to question a purported scientist who holds spiritual beliefs that are unfalsifiable, which would seem to be in direct contention with a fundamental part of his work. It's a strange and interesting disjoint, although I wouldn't go so far as to claim that being a scientist absolutely precludes a person from also being spiritual, or vice versa. I suppose one could also be an atheist theologian.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: LunarRay
What I find most alarming about the books of the bible or New Testament in particular is the notion that we have so much Contemporaneous writings about Socrates who lived what.... 400BC or around that time.. and hardly one bit of fully accepted writings about Jesus who lived

That is why I do not just read the bible to get the full story. I read everything from the time regardless of what/if religion it belongs too. A lot of information can be gained by reading other historical documents of the time.

I think one of the reasons we have more from the Greeks is that they were very literate for the time. They kept very detailed records and were centered in a central area. Where as the Israelite moved around quite a bit making things like record keeping and written works much harder to maintain. The other thing is the burning of text by the Romans. They were notorious for burning text of any religion except their own.

I have no doubt Jesus existed. There are too many things that would have to be coincidence for it not to be so. The grave of Joseph has been found proving that the family did exist. Other religions mention him as not the son of God but a teacher or prophet. The timing of the crucification and the governor that was in charge it all lines up.

Yes, of course...
It does puzzle me nonetheless... As I mentioned elsewhere, I went to a Catholic Academy and Jesuit run High School... very much oriented toward the various skyences and we studied the bible and all the relevant other writings from a perspective you'd expect from Jesuits... they ARE a critical thinking lot, usually. That was way back in BC somewhere so stuff has been uncovered since and I've read what I've seen..
It does not reduce one iota my belief in Jesus Christ. However, I was born with a certain type of analytical approach to stuff. And, I question everything except my faith. I am comfortable in doing so as well..
Although my scholarship was to pursue Engineering I soon found how lazy I was and switched to Accounting and developed or sustained my Auditor Mentality through out my life. If I see something that looks like a Duck... quacks like a Duck... I'm pretty apt to deduce it is Moonbeam... er... a Duck.

The part bolded above . Expand on that a little ,. Well see how jusuit you are ,

As you no doubt know, the Jesuits are under the patronage of Madonna Della Strada, one of the styles of the Virgin Mary. The lot of them, Priests, Brothers what have you are into education, intellectual research, missionary and other stuff. My bit about '... perspective you'd expect from Jesuits ...' is simply that they are critical thinkers... The school was oriented toward science versus a general academic curriculum.
Let's say I said the sermon on the mount has a problem. ... I'd maybe argue that there are no mountains where it is said to have occurred.. The brothers would not condemn me for taking that approach but, rather, they'd expect me to view all aspects of that sermon in a defensible argument. The focus was hardly ever on the truth or falsity of an issue but whether or not we could reject or not reject the null. All aspects of the learning process that fit that approach were presented similarly... So, as I see it, we would seek to develop some null about something and then test against that... and keep going while our little minds rejected each null until resolved to a conclusion which may be that we can't reject the null but can accept the preponderance.

Having said the above, I should add.... In my opinion you do not possess the requisite qualifications necessary to 'see' how Jesuit I or anyone is especially based on what you have highlighted in bold from my posting... It don't make one "Jesuit" to be taught by them... and I don't claim to be Jesuit either in the fullness of their belief, their teaching methods or their propensity utter... "Hmmmmmmm" too often.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
All I'm saying is when you boil it down, atheism is simply a modern religion.

Atheism is a religion just as much as not believing in leprechauns is a religion.

And for your daily dose of Crazytown, Rep. Michele Bachman never fails:

http://minnesotaindependent.co...eat-health-care-reform

I think the reason people might say atheism is a religion is not b/c atheists believe there isn't a god. It is probably a "special" way of saying that everyone believes in something. It would probably be more accurate to say atheism is like a religion, but the idea is so general, that is kind of pointless to even make a statement like that. Really, the key thing people are pointing at when they make these statements is the word "believe." That said, I would not say that atheism is a religion.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
I apologize for not reading the whole thread but I well chip in with another thought.

I am an out and out scientist... I have PhD in chemical engineering and I do some pretty hardcore nanotech, solid-state physics research. I have read up and studied some cosmology (cool stuff) and string theory (beautiful math), yada yada. I should be Atheist by the numbers but I'm not.

Really I think the question of the origin of the universe has nothing to do with science... science studies mechanism and modality.

When you start asking simple questions like, "where did all the mass and energy in the universe come from?" (trust me, all the cosmologically theories in world really cannot answer this question) or "why are we here?" "Is there any purpose to our life or is our life pointless and arbitrary?"

Well... those questions all rapidly lead to consideration of the supernatural in one form or another and I will venture here to claim that everyone is either religious or incredibly dimwitted (let me explain).

If you have though about any of the questions above then you are religious... because you thought about them and likely reached some sort of a conclusion, temporary or otherwise. In order to do that you had to make a decision to believe something that as of yet has limited or no evidence to support the belief.

If you really never considered some of these questions... well, sorry, but there you have it.

Atheist generally believe that somehow science will eventually explain every minutia of our universe, our pysche... where all our mass and energy came from in the first place if this is the only universe and/or our how different canceling forms of matter parted into different chronistic universes, at the cost of positively unfathomable energy that came from somewhere else or went somewhere else. And some day science will simply stop because there will be nothing left to know about everything in our universe (and beyond)?

Well Atheists... I salute you. Science is your religion and it takes a lot of faith to believe that science will answer all the fundamental philosophical questions that we have, because it hasn't answered any of them yet. Never once has science answered the questions, "why are we here?" or "what is the purpose of life, if any?" or even "where did all this mass and energy come from?". And actually I'll argue that it is not science's job to answer any of these questions nor could science answer these questions without making extremely rash assumptions.

Science has proven time and time again that a lot of religious people were/are ignorant, no disputing that (lol)... but don't paint all religious types with the 'ignorant' brush. Remember that science also has proven time and time again that earlier scientists were ignorant.


Theists place their faith in a God or gods or some supernatural power.

My supernatural power is God... he made and orchestrated the world we are discovering and exploring. That is my explanation in a nutshell.

An atheist supernatural power is the next great discovery that may or may not happen to explain what presently remains unexplained. By definition any new natural laws that would be discovered are 'super-natural' with respect to our present scientific understanding, right? But after that great discovery there will be more stuff that will be unexplained and need to be discovered, etc. That is how it has always been in science... should we believe it will ever be different? There is no evidence to support the belief that the scientific discovery cycle will ever end.

All I'm saying is when you boil it down, atheism is simply a modern religion.

And if god created all of this, who/what created him?

A question like this almost makes me think that you do recognize that something can't come from nothing in this universe.

If something can't come from nothing in this universe, than something outside the universe has to cause the universe. God is not bound by space and time- he created those things.

 

[JKing106]

The problem with atheism is that is require as much faith as religion to say "There is no god." The existence of god/gods cannot be proven or disproved. I classify myself as agnostic. I don't believe god/gods exist, but I cannot prove it. And no one can prove to me they do. Anecdotes are not facts.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Well Atheists... I salute you. Science is your religion and it takes a lot of faith to believe that science will answer all the fundamental philosophical questions that we have, because it hasn't answered any of them yet. Never once has science answered the questions, "why are we here?" or "what is the purpose of life, if any?" or even "where did all this mass and energy come from?". And actually I'll argue that it is not science's job to answer any of these questions nor could science answer these questions without making extremely rash assumptions.

I believe this the most important part of your post. This is what I don't understand. Science is a tool for exploring the physical aspects of the universe. Science by its nature is not equipped to answer the philosophic questions. I have trouble understanding why some people do not seem to accept this. Science can capture part of the process when attempting to answer the philosophical questions, but it can never provide a full answer.

Science can become a religion when people use it to answer the philosophic questions that it is not equipped to answer, or if it is used to partially answer things about our physical realm that we not have the technology or means to accurately measure. At this point, it is really not science anymore. So, pure science is not a religion. Science is science. It is like saying a rock is a rock. it is just there to measure and analyze.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: JKing106
The problem with atheism is that is require as much faith as religion to say "There is no god." The existence of god/gods cannot be proven or disproved. I classify myself as agnostic. I don't believe god/gods exist, but I cannot prove it. And no one can prove to me they do. Anecdotes are not facts.

It really is this simple.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: JKing106
The problem with atheism is that is require as much faith as religion to say "There is no god." The existence of god/gods cannot be proven or disproved. I classify myself as agnostic. I don't believe god/gods exist, but I cannot prove it. And no one can prove to me they do. Anecdotes are not facts.

These are semantic gripes, and also logically fallacious. One cannot prove that something doesn't exist, and the burden of proof is on those who claim it does.

It's like making up a word for the type of person who doesn't believe in upside-down rainbow-powered battleships, and demanding they prove you wrong when you insist on their existence. Any reasonable person could probably be coaxed to admit that, yes, there is a possibility that such ships exist, but it's so beyond the realm of conceivable plausibility that it's not worth any kind of philosophical consideration. Only by a very strict definition of "faith" would you say that it takes any amount of it to disbelieve.

Another nitpick. One definition of atheism is, "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods." The term "atheism" therefore shouldn't be assumed to always mean "active rejection" (saying, "God does not exist."), although it can be that. Atheism can also encompass agnosticism (saying, "I don't believe God exists.") -- in which case it might be called weak atheism.

Atheism can also simply imply the resolution to not waste time on a faith question that is meaningless in terms of observed reality, such as the absurd example I provided above. Some atheists certainly feel the same way about all deities, and not just upside-down rainbow-powered battleships: The question is absurd, so the answer is not worth pondering to begin with.

 

[YoungGun21]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Why is sex fun? Surely, pleasure is not a prerequisite to procreation, as in the cases of the vast majority of other species. Why do we enjoy eating? Why do we enjoy looking at beautiful things? In other words, in a world which is ultimately meaningless, why does pleasure exist?

Humans evolved to prefer activities that insure their survival. However, in addition to that, humans evolved with an extremely flexible capacity to process information: the human brain. A side effect of the human brain evolving is the capacity to enjoy higher, more complex aesthetic stimuli. In this way human evolution 'overshot' the raw intelligence required to survive in the wild. There is absolutely nothing supernatural about this.

It seems to be the philosophical equivalent to Atheists to what the problem of pain is for Christians.

Epic fail on logic.

Atheists make no positive claims about the way the universe works outside of scientific discovery and as I explained above, there is nothing supernatural about humans evolving to enjoy higher order pleasures.

Christians on the other hand believe in supernatural events such as the ressurrection of Christ with 0 scientific evidence, but rather the Bible as their 'proof.' There is not a single shred of philosophical equivalence going on here.

The purpose of this topic is to point out the fallacy I think is inherent in challenging Christians on the basis that pain implies something meaner than a loving God.

It seems to me that pain and pleasure must play by the same rules. That is, if pleasure is part of evolution, then pain must be too. Yet many atheists only question the significance of pain, and typically ignore pleasure.

In other words, if pain is proof that God, even if he exists, is not a nice guy, then what is pleasure proof of?

Again, this is not so much a discussion seeking to establish God's existence. It's meant to debunk the Pain argument. (Hey, at least I'm honest.) Ultimately, I don't think pain or pleasure can be used to establish anything conclusively indicating God's existence or non-existence.

Umm... because it can't. Ever. Thanks for trying.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: LunarRay
What I find most alarming about the books of the bible or New Testament in particular is the notion that we have so much Contemporaneous writings about Socrates who lived what.... 400BC or around that time.. and hardly one bit of fully accepted writings about Jesus who lived

That is why I do not just read the bible to get the full story. I read everything from the time regardless of what/if religion it belongs too. A lot of information can be gained by reading other historical documents of the time.

I think one of the reasons we have more from the Greeks is that they were very literate for the time. They kept very detailed records and were centered in a central area. Where as the Israelite moved around quite a bit making things like record keeping and written works much harder to maintain. The other thing is the burning of text by the Romans. They were notorious for burning text of any religion except their own.

I have no doubt Jesus existed. There are too many things that would have to be coincidence for it not to be so. The grave of Joseph has been found proving that the family did exist. Other religions mention him as not the son of God but a teacher or prophet. The timing of the crucification and the governor that was in charge it all lines up.

Yes, of course...
It does puzzle me nonetheless... As I mentioned elsewhere, I went to a Catholic Academy and Jesuit run High School... very much oriented toward the various skyences and we studied the bible and all the relevant other writings from a perspective you'd expect from Jesuits... they ARE a critical thinking lot, usually. That was way back in BC somewhere so stuff has been uncovered since and I've read what I've seen..
It does not reduce one iota my belief in Jesus Christ. However, I was born with a certain type of analytical approach to stuff. And, I question everything except my faith. I am comfortable in doing so as well..
Although my scholarship was to pursue Engineering I soon found how lazy I was and switched to Accounting and developed or sustained my Auditor Mentality through out my life. If I see something that looks like a Duck... quacks like a Duck... I'm pretty apt to deduce it is Moonbeam... er... a Duck.

The part bolded above . Expand on that a little ,. Well see how jusuit you are ,

As you no doubt know, the Jesuits are under the patronage of Madonna Della Strada, one of the styles of the Virgin Mary. The lot of them, Priests, Brothers what have you are into education, intellectual research, missionary and other stuff. My bit about '... perspective you'd expect from Jesuits ...' is simply that they are critical thinkers... The school was oriented toward science versus a general academic curriculum.
Let's say I said the sermon on the mount has a problem. ... I'd maybe argue that there are no mountains where it is said to have occurred.. The brothers would not condemn me for taking that approach but, rather, they'd expect me to view all aspects of that sermon in a defensible argument. The focus was hardly ever on the truth or falsity of an issue but whether or not we could reject or not reject the null. All aspects of the learning process that fit that approach were presented similarly... So, as I see it, we would seek to develop some null about something and then test against that... and keep going while our little minds rejected each null until resolved to a conclusion which may be that we can't reject the null but can accept the preponderance.

Having said the above, I should add.... In my opinion you do not possess the requisite qualifications necessary to 'see' how Jesuit I or anyone is especially based on what you have highlighted in bold from my posting... It don't make one "Jesuit" to be taught by them... and I don't claim to be Jesuit either in the fullness of their belief, their teaching methods or their propensity utter... "Hmmmmmmm" too often.

Yes yes you do have a firm grasp of the Veil. But what lies underneath that veil is the knights templer. You see that which they project. The real question is what are they Hiding, from us. Templers and the 12 Kings, Is good reading but its gets much better than that .

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

NEMESIS 1 REALITY

 

[coloumb]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Mods, I figured this was the best place to make such a thread, as we've had similar threads here before.

I've noticed in my discussions with atheists that a particular point they make is this: That a good and loving God would not subject his creations to pain, suffering, death, and the worst that the world can do to us. Therefore, even if a God does exist, he isn't the benevolent one that Christians believe in.

The problem of pain has been written on in volumes which could stack to the moon. What I really want to know about is its philosophical opposite: the problem of pleasure.

Why is sex fun? Surely, pleasure is not a prerequisite to procreation, as in the cases of the vast majority of other species. Why do we enjoy eating? Why do we enjoy looking at beautiful things? In other words, in a world which is ultimately meaningless, why does pleasure exist?

It seems to be the philosophical equivalent to Atheists to what the problem of pain is for Christians.

This should pretty much explain pleasure with regards to humans and other species:

http://www.livescience.com/ani...090325-animal-sex.html

"Sweets and sex ? as well as drugs, winning the lotto and every other rewarding experience ?stimulate the same brain circuit, said Berridge, and this pleasure circuit is common to both human and non-human animals. His experiments suggest a further homology, one of emotional experience"

Pleasure is nothing more than a response to something you enjoy. It's not controlled by any GOD - it's unique to each living organism.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
I apologize for not reading the whole thread but I well chip in with another thought.

I am an out and out scientist... I have PhD in chemical engineering and I do some pretty hardcore nanotech, solid-state physics research. I have read up and studied some cosmology (cool stuff) and string theory (beautiful math), yada yada. I should be Atheist by the numbers but I'm not.

Really I think the question of the origin of the universe has nothing to do with science... science studies mechanism and modality.

When you start asking simple questions like, "where did all the mass and energy in the universe come from?" (trust me, all the cosmologically theories in world really cannot answer this question) or "why are we here?" "Is there any purpose to our life or is our life pointless and arbitrary?"

Well... those questions all rapidly lead to consideration of the supernatural in one form or another and I will venture here to claim that everyone is either religious or incredibly dimwitted (let me explain).

If you have though about any of the questions above then you are religious... because you thought about them and likely reached some sort of a conclusion, temporary or otherwise. In order to do that you had to make a decision to believe something that as of yet has limited or no evidence to support the belief.

If you really never considered some of these questions... well, sorry, but there you have it.

Atheist generally believe that somehow science will eventually explain every minutia of our universe, our pysche... where all our mass and energy came from in the first place if this is the only universe and/or our how different canceling forms of matter parted into different chronistic universes, at the cost of positively unfathomable energy that came from somewhere else or went somewhere else. And some day science will simply stop because there will be nothing left to know about everything in our universe (and beyond)?

Well Atheists... I salute you. Science is your religion and it takes a lot of faith to believe that science will answer all the fundamental philosophical questions that we have, because it hasn't answered any of them yet. Never once has science answered the questions, "why are we here?" or "what is the purpose of life, if any?" or even "where did all this mass and energy come from?". And actually I'll argue that it is not science's job to answer any of these questions nor could science answer these questions without making extremely rash assumptions.

Science has proven time and time again that a lot of religious people were/are ignorant, no disputing that (lol)... but don't paint all religious types with the 'ignorant' brush. Remember that science also has proven time and time again that earlier scientists were ignorant.


Theists place their faith in a God or gods or some supernatural power.

My supernatural power is God... he made and orchestrated the world we are discovering and exploring. That is my explanation in a nutshell.

An atheist supernatural power is the next great discovery that may or may not happen to explain what presently remains unexplained. By definition any new natural laws that would be discovered are 'super-natural' with respect to our present scientific understanding, right? But after that great discovery there will be more stuff that will be unexplained and need to be discovered, etc. That is how it has always been in science... should we believe it will ever be different? There is no evidence to support the belief that the scientific discovery cycle will ever end.

All I'm saying is when you boil it down, atheism is simply a modern religion.

Awesome post miniMunch. You succinctly stated what I have been thinking for a long time. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

That is beautiful.

 

[dguy6789]

Anyone that believes atheism is a religion is a moron. Any person who calls themselves an atheist that claims to know there is no god is not an atheist, just a moron.

""Atheism" is a term that should not even exist. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I can't get over the people patting miniMUNCH on the back for such a poorly conceived post.

Look, atheism isn't the substitution of science for faith -- it's not a trade -- it's the simple absence of the latter. The reasons behind that absence would be different for every atheist you ask. Science is just a tool, not a belief system, and the comparisons miniMUNCH has drawn are specious at best. The fact that "ignorant" scientists who have proposed incorrect hypotheses can be proven wrong at all is a great example of the value of science -- that we can continue to learn and transcend our understanding of the universe.

Questions like "Why am I here?" might sound philosophically titillating, but they are intellectually weak. What does that question even mean? If you translate it to something concrete, like "How did I get here?", then you might find answers and science might help you do so. But science, being just a tool based on tests and observations, will not explain purpose or meaning at a personal level. Those answers come only from individual reflection, if they come at all, and if some use faith to find them, so be it. I choose to look elsewhere because that path does not seem sensible to me, or fitting with what I have experienced.

And I would like to add to the bolded that faith is not the absence of science.

Actually, it often is. Many, many people feel compelled to question scientific theories because those theories are at odds with their faith.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: shira
First of all, I take exception to your use of the phrase, "reaction to events," when referring to God. How can God possibly "react?" You're implying that God is affected by external events.

And the comparison you're making between, on the one hand, yourself and your cat (and your extremely limited foreknowledge of you cat's demise) and, on the other hand, God and his infinite foreknowledge of everything that ever was, is, or every will be is absurd.

First of all, you have an emotional attachment and dependency on your cat. And the prospect of your cat dying is of relatively recent origin - you're still dealing with the newness of it. Also, although you can see the end coming, the details of that end aren't distinct. You don't know exactly when and you don't know exactly how. Furthermore, you have no idea what it's going to feel like when your cat finally does die - you fear what you might feel; you fear what life will be like in the days after the death. And beyond these practical details and feeling, an infinity of other details elude you.

An infinite, all-everything God, on the other hand, isn't remotely comparable. From the infinite past to the moment Satan tempted mankind, God has known every detail of what Satan would do, every detail of the fall of man, every detail of every action of every human to the end of time. And still, when the completely known event - every atom, every sound, every smell, every action - transpired, God "reacted" with rage?

Even at my weakest I couldn't swallow such rot.

First of all, I do not remember reading anywhere in the bible about God reacting with "Rage." He does get angry, but "rage" has the connotation of someone being out-of-control. Just b/c God knows what is coming does not change His expectations that He has for us.

. . .

Can you really believe what you wrote in the bolded sentence?

I just watched a video of Usain Bolt running 19.19 last week in the 2009 World Track and Field championships. I'd watched that video several times before. I knew exactly what the outcome of the race would be. To say in this situation , "I had expectations today that Usain Bolt would run a 19.19 in 200 meters" is just nonsensical. I had no "expectations" whatsoever.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: shira

Think about what you're saying: If science doesn't have complete proof of one or another specific mechanism that brought the present universe into existence, you say, "It must be God."

How come, in the absence of a particular "proven" mechanism that causes, say, the disease ALS, you don't also say, "It must be God?" How about the question of what, precisely dark matter is and how it can possibly be the case that something undetectable (so far) by conventional means nevertheless has a powerful gravitational effect on conventional matter? Absent "proof" of what dark matter is, do you say, "It must be God" playing mischief out there in the cosmos?

You say you want "proof." Well, no theory is every proved. The most we can say about any scientific theory is that the weight of evidence is extremely strong. But that won't be good enough for true believers. They'll ALWAYS shout down strong, objective, scientific evidence that challenges their faith-based explanations. The origins of humanity is a perfect example of faith shouting down science. The origins of the universe will certainly be another.

This notion of attributing to God things that we can't yet fully explain or understand is just more evidence of the feebleness of the religious mind. Welcome to the church of the God of the Gaps.

I think youre giving science a little more credit than it deserves. We live in a heady age. Meaning, our knowledge is increasing substantially; however, what we are also learning, is the more we know, the more we realize we dont know. We all know there was once a time when the greatest minds thought the world was flat. We look at that now and say, based on the limited scope of their study, I can understand that. But they were wrong. Why wouldnt the same be true of now? Perhaps our scope of knowledge isnt as great as we think it is? I propose we "dont know" many things we claim to "know".

But that is the arrogance of man.

What's so ironic is that what replaced flawed scientific notions of the nature of the world was . . . . more accurate scientific notions. In no case has non-science every replaced science.

Think about it: Science is vital and changing, always challenging itself, always demanding of itself more and better proof. Scientific knowledge evolves, and if you doubt that it does, than look at virtually every technological advance since the dawn of man - science works.

And you compare THAT state of affairs with what? A pre-determined, static set of beliefs that must be justified by finding ways to discredit anything or anyone that disagrees. You call that "truth"?

You stated earlier that there were "studies" that addressed the tension between God's omniscience and mankind's free will. Do you really believe that those studies could ever arrive at a conclusion that stated, "Nope. Makes no sense"??

Unlike science, religion can never question and discard it's fundamental truths. Therefore, unlike science, religion has nothing whatever to do with knowledge.

Sure its possible. As far as your last statement, it is false. Religion and everything about it is ALWAYS being challenged and questioned, by its own. You seem to think the Christian community just blindly accepts whatever their preacher throw their way...and that is categorically FALSE. Especially in the last 100 years there has been much work in the science community in regards to religion, and it will continue. But overall I think you have a jaded, misguided, or flat out naive view of what happens inside religious circles.

Your claim is absurd. You compare the Faithful questioning what their preacher says with questioning fundamental principles of faith, and think THAT is what being "open minded" means?. The existence of God and God's power, and the essential nature of Christ, are NEVER questioned by the official church. These are premises of the religion, not conclusions. Only peripheral issues that aren't central to the faith are subject to modification.