Support NeoGAF

[Nobody_Important]

That's good news.

Hope it gets much lower much faster.

 

[BadBurger]

Nature doesn't need or have a "mind" or "design". It just is. The metals are metals. We can observe it, define parts of it given our knowledge, and perform replicable tests against it.

Religion, on the other hand, is all just speculation. I find myself in the same camp as the great Carl Sagan, in that there should not be some need to combine the two - doing so is a disfavor to both. We have the reality of science, and then the various beliefs of the many religions out there. Let them be seperate, as they should be. They both serve their own purposes.

I think my focus on the teachings of Jesus while I was a Catholic helped me be a better person to others (it's definitely a major reason why I give thousands to charity a year and do my best to work the homeless shelter near my old alma mater in the winter), while my awareness of various things that science wrought made me a better citizen and more compassionate and worldly person. Like, you know, acknowledging man-driven climate change and how it will continue wrecking the lives of millions in affected third world areas (one of the reasons I give so much to Heifer International, as they have some focus on these populations).

 

[Doczu]

Ah, my favorite morality story of how to create and form happy families!

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Genesis#19:30

30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

37 And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Ah yes, one of mine favorite passages i threw around in religion classes calling out incest in the Bible - a classic. I thought i was smart using it, found it on a lot of "rationality" pages in the early days of the internet.
Taking anything written at face value (not just the Bible self) and not digging into it makes you lose sight of the bigger picture:

- Lot is a victim of (incest) rape
- Lot's daughters are a product of Sodom and Gommorah, their morality hasn't changed even after they were spared by God in the destruction of their homes and they feared no one else would want them.
- check up on the names of their sons and which historical people they represent and what kind relations they had with the Izraelites of the time
- God in his love and compassion didn't off them after their sin, even though it was (and to this day is) one of the worst things thst you can do.

Last point is quite important to look at as God in the Old Testament wasn't anyone to fuck with. Many other stories in the Bible show that even if the people sinned they were still in his grace after they shown remorse and corrected their way.

Anyway, i could go on and on, but i will stand to my beliefs. The Bible is still a valid read today even for those that don't believe per se. Even if it is "for fun" or to analyze it as a work of art.

That said, the New Testament is more important to Christians - it changes the perception of God and how he views humanity. It even shows how Jesus changed Gods heart after bring nailed to a cross and asking him to forgive humanity their sins. I mean he brought plagues, death and floods for lesser things, one would think that killing his son would bring apocalypse. Compassion plays a big role in the second half as religion evolved with humanity when they formed enormous (for the time) countries and cities. No more eye for an eye, less killing in general.

This is, it goes without saying, absolutely not true.

https://www.news24.com/news24/xarch...on-believers-according-to-statistics-20180719

https://www.learnreligions.com/divorce-rates-for-atheists-248494

https://humanists.uk/2019/03/10/hum...to-end-in-divorce-official-statistics-reveal/

I will look into it when i have some more time and get back on it. Really don't have a lot of time, but i don't want to leave it without an answer. I hope the topic remains open till then!

I'd love to throw my 2c regarding christian scientists: FFS one of the creators (lol) of the Big Bang theory was a belgian catholic priest, guy smart as fuck. When he proposed his idea of how the universe got created he was ridiculed for the fact it reminded people the Book of Genesis. And look where we are right now

 

[kurisu_1974]

I'd love to throw my 2c regarding christian scientists: FFS one of the creators (lol) of the Big Bang theory was a belgian catholic priest, guy smart as fuck. When he proposed his idea of how the universe got created he was ridiculed for the fact it reminded people the Book of Genesis. And look where we are right now

First of all it was 1951, Belgium was Christian and conservative as fuck back then, but even then George Lemaître insisted than science and religion had no overlap and should never be conflated. I'm sure he was so smart that he knew religious mythology is allegorical rather than fact based.

 

[Doczu]

First of all it was 1951, Belgium was Christian and conservative as fuck back then, but even then George Lemaître insisted than science and religion had no overlap and should never be conflated. I'm sure he was so smart that he knew religious mythology is allegorical rather than fact based.

First of all, it was 1927 when he came up with the expanding universe theory and 1931 when he claimed everything came from a primeval atom (the Big Bang). Sadly, his work was overshadowed by Hubble and others and he wasn't even mad he got no credit for it.
And i am happy he draws a hard line between religion and science, for bias reasons. Nevertheless, i like to think the Book of Genesis is an interpretation of the creation of the universe, even on a methaphorical level.

 

[AJUMP23]

What would be good is if those of us that believed in God, acted like He wants us to.

 

[Chaplain]

I'd like to hear just one.

Also your post conflates belief and faith imo. Faith is the essence of religion, as it is a belief that requires no proof. This is why it also can never be rationalized. And if this "god" was just a bootstrap mechanism to kickstart the universe as you seem to think (which is a very limited and human-centric view either way) then why call it god or worship it? Makes zero sense.

Your definition of faith is not the Biblical definition of faith:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word comes from the Latin fides, which means loyalty or trust. And, if we have any sense, we don’t normally trust facts or people without evidence. After all, making well-motivated, evidence-based decisions is just how faith is normally exercised— think of how you get your bank manager to trust you or the basis for your decision to get on board a bus or an aircraft. Believing where there is no evidence is what is usually called blind faith; and no doubt in all religions you will find adherents who believe blindly. Blind faith can be very dangerous— witness 9/11. I cannot speak for other religions, but the faith expected on the part of Christians is certainly not blind. I would have no interest in it otherwise. The Gospel-writer John says: Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. John, chapter 20, verses 30-31 John is telling us that his account of the life of Jesus contains the eyewitness record of evidence on which faith in Christ can be based. Indeed, a strong case can be made that much of the material in the Gospels is based on eyewitness testimony." (Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University John Lennox, Can Science Explain Everything?)

This is unpacked further in the following discussion:

"Faith is part and parcel of my life as an intellectual and a scientist. I believe in the theory of gravitational attraction, why? Because I have evidence for it. I believe my wife loves me, why? Because I have evidence for it. And, my Christian faith consists, not in faith as a leap into the unknown, it is an evidence-based commitment - otherwise, I wouldn't be remotely interested in Christianity." (Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University John Lennox)

 

[FunkMiller]

I'd love to throw my 2c regarding christian scientists: FFS one of the creators (lol) of the Big Bang theory was a belgian catholic priest, guy smart as fuck. When he proposed his idea of how the universe got created he was ridiculed for the fact it reminded people the Book of Genesis. And look where we are right now

Lamaitre was indeed a genius, and also, it should be noted, if he had been born in the last fifty years, would have been most assuredly atheist. I can extrapolate this opinion because more or less every single scientist alive today and working in the fields of cosmology and astrophysics… is really really atheist.

The fact he was able to compartmentalise his scientific rigour from the religious indoctrination he received from childhood is testament to the man’s cognitive ability.

The fact he remained a catholic priest is also testament to the paychological power that religiosity had at that time, and still does in many places.

 

[kurisu_1974]

First of all, it was 1927 when he came up with the expanding universe theory and 1931 when he claimed everything came from a primeval atom (the Big Bang)

Right, I was referring to the year when the pope tried to co-opt his theories and he said no thanks.

Nevertheless, i like to think the Book of Genesis is an interpretation of the creation of the universe, even on a methaphorical level.

What else would it be... but it was not really thought up by Christians (probably some mash-up from Mesopotamian or Babylonian myth, Christians love repurposing other faiths and customs), nor does it teaches us anything scientific, so its relevance here is a bit lost on me.

 

[MHubert]

The cornerstone of atheism.

I always have to scratch my head when religious folks say atheists ‘believe’ in something the same way they do.

No we don’t. We base our judgements on evidence. There’s no verified, reviewed, or independent evidence to suggest the existence of god (any god) so why would I believe in one?

That’s the absence of belief.

Atheism is a celebration of evidence… about our universe, and our ever increasing understanding of it. Nothing in religion comes close to the joy and awe of knowing you come from stardust, formed in the heart of a supernova.

I don't think a lot religious people would say that atheists believe the same way they do.

Believing that the only right way to attain knowledge is through evidence is in itself a metaphysical assumption about the nature of the universe, so how can it be an absence of belief?

 

[kurisu_1974]

I don't think a lot religious people would say that atheists believe the same way they do.

Believing that the only right way to attain knowledge is through evidence is in itself a metaphysical assumption about the nature of the universe, so how can it be an absence of belief?

Because as soon as there is evidence, belief becomes unnecessary. Give me proof of your god, and I will just know he exists, no belief and no faith necessary.

 

[GymWolf]

What a gullible bunch.

 

[MHubert]

Because as soon as there is evidence, belief becomes unecessary. Give me proof of your god, and I will just know he exists, no belief and no faith necessary.

Evidence makes a good case to believe in something, but it's not a prerequisite for it to be real. Besides, you would have to believe that the proof or evidence given to you is in fact real and not doctored or fabricated in any way, so it's pretty hard if not impossible to transcend the fundamentals of belief. It is a problem of epistemology more than it is a problem of fine tuning the scientific method.

 

[winjer]

Evidence makes a good case to believe in something, but it's not a prerequisite for it to be real. Besides, you would have to believe that the proof or evidence given to you is in fact real and not doctored or fabricated in any way, so it's pretty hard if not impossible to transcend the fundamentals of belief. It is a problem of epistemology more than it is a problem of fine tuning the scientific method.

So much non-sense. If something is real, then providing evidence for it is feasible.
And to verify if some evidence is fabricated or not, all it takes is one of the most important steps in the scientific method: verification by peers.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Besides, you would have to believe that the proof or evidence given to you is in fact real and not doctored or fabricated in any way, so it's pretty hard if not impossible to transcend the fundamentals of belief

I guess that is what we call science right? The scientific method? And what we know can change over time.

 

[MHubert]

So much non-sense. If something is real, then providing evidence for it is feasible.

Unless what you just said is an assumption then prove it.

 

[winjer]

Unless what you just said is an assumption then prove it.

That is the whole goal of the scientific process.
If you had any knowledge about science and if you weren't so far deep into esoteric crap, you would understand it.

 

[MHubert]

I guess that is what we call science right? The scientific method? And what we know can change over time.

Sure, I'm just arguing that science or the scientific method doesn't completely transcend belief.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Sure, I'm just arguing that science or the scientific method doesn't completely transcend belief.

You are saying that, but not really arguing tho.

 

[K2D]

Survey size?! (n=?)

Maybe I'm not looking carefully enough, but this survey is meaningless without knowing number of participants.

Anyways - it should be front and center.

 

[Rentahamster]

Your definition of faith is not the Biblical definition of faith:

Isn't Hebrews 11 the Biblical definition of faith?

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Hebrews#11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[MHubert]

That is the whole goal of the scientific process.
If you had any knowledge about science and if you weren't so far deep into esoteric crap, you would understand it.

Ok but I asked you to prove this statement: 'If something is real, then providing evidence for it is feasible' - it being the goal of the scientific method doesn't automatically validate it's basic assumption.
And what's with the strawman? This is basic epistemology and I have had yet to argue with anyone on this forum about the scientific method without being accused of esotericism or being religious.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I'll take belief in old religions over the new religion that's popping up in their place.

 

[MHubert]

You are saying that, but not really arguing tho.

You are right, I asked the question: 'Believing that the only right way to attain knowledge is through evidence is in itself a metaphysical assumption about the nature of the universe, so how can it be an absence of belief?'

 

[winjer]

Ok but I asked you to prove this statement: 'If something is real, then providing evidence for it is feasible' - it being the goal of the scientific method doesn't automatically validate it's basic assumption.
And what's with the strawman? This is basic epistemology and I have had yet to argue with anyone on this forum about the scientific method without being accused of esotericism or being religious.

Is something is real it can be observed and measured. Science has been doing it for a few centuries with great success.
With each passing year science progresses and finds new ways to observe and explain reality.

Epistemology has nothing to do with reality nor the scientific method. It's just dialect to justify delusion.
That's why it uses faith, not logic, not analysis of reality.

 

[Rentahamster]

I'll take belief in old religions over the new religion that's popping up in their place.

Are those the only options available to you?

 

[-MD-]

80% figure can't be right, seems way too high.

 

[Rentahamster]

Evidence makes a good case to believe in something, but it's not a prerequisite for it to be real.

What are some widely accepted examples of this? What things in life are universally accepted to be real, but have no evidence that acknowledge its existence?

 

[MHubert]

Is something is real it can be observed and measured. Science has been doing it for a few centuries with great success.
With each passing year science progresses and finds new ways to observe and explain reality.

I know what science is. I'm asking you to prove your statement, which according to you should be easy.

Epistemology has nothing to do with reality nor the scientific method. It's just dialect to justify delusion.
That's why it uses faith, not logic, not analysis of reality.

Dude wat

 

[kurisu_1974]

You are right, I asked the question: 'Believing that the only right way to attain knowledge is through evidence is in itself a metaphysical assumption about the nature of the universe, so how can it be an absence of belief?'

Right and I explained but it but alas to no avail. Which is usual in discussions with religious types who prefer a faith based reality.

Do you want to discuss burden of proof next? Or what the point of faith is when you can't even define what you belief in?

 

[Rran]

I'd like to hear just one.

I suggest checking out in detail the Kalam cosmological argument as well as the argument from fine-tuning. I feel that these are consistent and logically sound positions to take. That doesn't mean everyone has to agree on them, or that they're indisputable fact. It's important not to conflate proof with evidence.

About your comments on faith, as pointed out, many religions disagree with that definition. I mentioned it earlier, but "fideism" (blind faith) is a heresy in Catholicism.

And if this "god" was just a bootstrap mechanism to kickstart the universe as you seem to think (which is a very limited and human-centric view either way) then why call it god or worship it? Makes zero sense.

Because that one singular argument isn't the sole thing we use to understand the nature of God. Explaining one's belief systems is a multi-tiered process, starting with 1) belief in a grand designer, 2) belief that this deity is the Abrahamic God, 3) belief that Jesus is God's son, 4) belief in whatever sect of Christianity one believes in. My posts in this thread have only been focused on the first point. Mainly since the topic (and survey) seems to be about theism on a broader sense rather than something like Christianity.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Sounds like God of the gaps to me tbh.

Edit: not even God, just some unidentified prime mover with some premises based on a beginning that we know nothing about and a cause that we know even less about. It's a good thought experiment I guess, but you'll have to do better. Because who says there was a beginning, who says there was cause, and why call the alleged prime mover a god?

 

[Rentahamster]

I suggest checking out in detail the Kalam cosmological argument as well as the argument from fine-tuning. I feel that these are consistent and logically

Thanks again for posting a detailed response. I'll get to it, but work's been pretty busy. The short version, however, is that while what you wrote of that Kalam argument is logically valid, as in, the premise (if true) would lead to the conclusion, it's not sound because the premise is not true or at the least not proven to be true to a sufficient degree of confidence.

 

[MHubert]

What are some widely accepted examples of this? What things in life are universally accepted to be real, but have no evidence that acknowledge its existence?

How about every scientific discovery ever made? Unless you would argue that scientifically proving something only makes it real from that point on. Or maybe we are talking past each other...

 

[Rran]

Thanks again for posting a detailed response. I'll get to it, but work's been pretty busy. The short version, however, is that while what you wrote of that Kalam argument is logically valid, as in, the premise (if true) would lead to the conclusion, it's not sound because the premise is not true or at the least not proven to be true to a sufficient degree of confidence.

To be honest, this thread's been a bit exhausting for me as well between work and family stuff! I'm okay with us saying our own pieces, agreeing to disagree, and being able to get back to (real) work if you are, haha.

Sounds like God of the gaps to me tbh.

Then perhaps I have failed to adequately explain the position.

 

[winjer]

I know what science is. I'm asking you to prove your statement, which according to you should be easy.

Do you know of any event in reality that science won't be able to observe, measure and explain?

 

[MHubert]

Right and I explained but it but alas to no avail. Which is usual in discussions with religious types who prefer a faith based reality.

You 'explained' that when you have proof belief becomes unnecessary, which doesn't answer my question in any way, shape or form. So, what, you don't think you need to believe that the method you used is the correct one? if so, how come? Again, why is it that you accuse me of being a 'religious type' when I'm just asking more or less standard questions about the scientific method.

Do you want to discuss burden of proof next? Or what the point of faith is when you can't even define what you belief in?

I do not, because it makes no sense to what I'm arguing.

 

[EruditeHobo]

Even the Big Bang didn't come from nothing; there was still matter and space and the very laws of reality that would've had to been in place prior to it. But those same laws of reality state that such a thing should not have been possible since matter cannot be created from nothing. That's the contradiction.

You're presuming facts not in evidence -- you have no way of knowing how or if the laws of our local presentation of the universe apply to something outside of that, and no one knows for sure what the "beginning" of the universe even means. What the experts know, generally, is that we only know things up to a certain point, and we can't look beyond that.

We certainly cannot make claims about what happened or what kinds of laws exist outside what we call our universe.

It's a commonly used cosmological argument for the existence of (a) god:

P1: Whatever began to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

It is not an argument for the existence of god, it is a logical argument which might not apply to our universe which doesn't mention god at all, one which is used by apologists to make a leap to an argument for god... but without the word "god" in any premise or the conclusion, it cannot by definition be an argument for a "god".

 

[kurisu_1974]

I don't think you want to understand the difference between knowledge and belief and that makes it hard to have this conversation. You're just coming off as deliberately obtuse at this point. I mean, the answers to these so called questions you have seem quite clear to me, but you are stuck with the idea that everything is faith based or needs belief.

 

[MHubert]

Do you know of any event in reality that science won't be able to observe, measure and explain?

I do not know of any observable recorded event that science does not have an explanation for. It's also not at all what I'm talking about. I'm asking you to prove that observing, measuring and explaining within a scientific framework is the only right way to gain knowledge.

 

[EruditeHobo]

How about every scientific discovery ever made?

So it is your claim that there is no evidence for every scientific claim... ever made?

 

[EruditeHobo]

I do not know of any observable recorded event that science does not have an explanation for. It's also not at all what I'm talking about. I'm asking you to prove that observing, measuring and explaining within a scientific framework is the only right way to gain knowledge.

You seem to be the one proposing another way to go... so we should probably start there -- what is this other paradigm through which we can gain knowledge that we know to be "true", and please give an example of such a lesson.

 

[MHubert]

I don't think you want to understand the difference between knowledge and belief and that makes it hard to have this conversation. You're just coming off as deliberately obtuse at this point. I mean, the answers to these so called questions you have seem quite clear to me, but you are stuck with the idea that everything is faith based or needs belief.

Right. Let's end it here then.

 

[winjer]

I do not know of any observable recorded event that science does not have an explanation for. It's also not at all what I'm talking about. I'm asking you to prove that observing, measuring and explaining within a scientific framework is the only right way to gain knowledge.

In the whole of human history, the scientific method is the only one that has consistently proved to describe reality with any level of accuracy.
I know of no event where religion has been able to describe reality in a better, more accurate and precise way than the scientific method.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Right. Let's end it here then.

If your questions about the scientific method are so standard, I'm sure Wikipedia or any other online resource can explain it better than me, so I agree. I have heard enough circular faith based reasoning anyways.

 

[SoulChamber]

Nice to see it dropping so much.

The more America moves towards secularism, the happier and better it will be.

https://www.christiantoday.com/arti...orld-are-among-the-least-religious/127465.htm

https://onlysky.media/pzuckerman/the-happiest-nations-on-earth-are-strongly-secular/

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2018...ile-religious-countries-are-poor-and-unhappy/

I totally agree. Back when I was in my mid-30's, I started having doubts & started feeling uneasy about going to church. Then about three years later, I started doing research about

• The Bible,
• Christianity,
• Religion in general,
• Religion's awful past history of violence of wars, genocide, etc. & physically abusing, molesting & raping children,
• Learning & studying about the Big Bang, Science & Evolution,

All of these have contributed to me despising Christianity, churches & religion entirely. I wasn't even a strong Christian in the first place. The Bible, Quran, religion, churches, are entirely manipulative. They don't want anyone to develop critical thinking or be open-minded. Since then, I stopped with the following:

• Praying before I eat meals,
• Stopped reading the Bible,
• Stopped attending churches,
• Stopped listening to Christian &/or Gospel music (which is emotionally manipulative in itself), &
• Refused to take part in Bible Studies in which my mother & aunt does whenever my 1st cousin & her husband has it every Tuesday night.

Also, all of that baloney about the Bible, Quran, God, Satan, Heaven, Hell, Sin, Angels, Demons, etc. are just man-made concepts designed by men to control & manipulate people, especially by having their congregations staying inside of their churches or wherever so that church leaders can continue to grift gullible people of their money in order to continue to fund their lavish lifestyles, especially megachurches & televangelists.

Churches are nothing more than businesses. Church leaders, youth leaders & televangelists don't give a damn about anyone but two things: Children & money.

I say that the only "good" churches are something like Unitarian Universalist churches, & communities like Sunday Assembly, where all Atheists gather.

 

[kurisu_1974]

I say that the only "good" churches are something like Unitarian Universalist churches, & communities like Sunday Assembly, where all Atheists gather.

Even the more traditional denominations like Dutch Protestantism can go that way.

A study by the Free University of Amsterdam found that one-in-six clergy in the PKN and six other smaller denominations was either agnostic or atheist.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14417362

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Are those the only options available to you?

According to our culture right now, it seems to be so.

 

[22:22:22]

Like... The classic bearded man in heaven God?

 

[MHubert]

So it is your claim that there is no evidence for every scientific claim... ever made?

Not at all. I'm saying that evidence doesn't spawn a given phenomenon into existence. I think most would accept the premise that gravity was real before any discourse about its viability as something provable.

You seem to be the one proposing another way to go... so we should probably start there -- what is this other paradigm through which we can gain knowledge that we know to be "true", and please give an example of such a lesson.

I have no idea. I'm a firm believer in the scientific method, for what it is intended for anyways, and I'm only here arguing because some people are claiming that trust in the scientific method somehow transcends any form of belief... And that apparently makes me religious and an esotericist.