[scorpion]

It continues to boggle my mind that intelligent people can look at the vast, essentially incomprehensible complexity of the universe and just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, it was all just a happy accident!" The idea that there is no intelligent force behind the creation of the universe is literal madness. Sheer denial of reality. Everyone knows this, especially atheists. The atheistic worldview is not about logic, it's about rebelling against the entire concept of God. The evidence clearly and overwhelmingly (undeniably, really) points to the conclusion that our universe was created by some force far beyond our ability to comprehend. This is why you see many atheists now endorse the "multiverse" theory (saying that there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be the lucky one), but this is substantially more an article of faith than the idea that the universe was simply created by a being we would refer to as God.

If you reject Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or all religions, fine. Perhaps you have your own conception of who or what God actually is. But rejecting the existence of God (meaning an all-powerful creative force) altogether is simply not a credible position. We know that God exists. The evidence is all around you and is irrefutable. There are clearly forces at work which are infinitely greater than the ability of the human mind to comprehend. The idea that even the tiniest bit of matter would spontaneously emerge out of nothingness is itself insane (as Vladimir Poontang pointed out above: you cannot logically have an uncaused cause within a closed system - you need something outside of the system to initiate anything, necessitating God). And the idea that a spontaneous uncaused cause could randomly generate complexity on the scale of the universe is literally the most insane notion that the human mind could entertain.

tl;dr Atheism is a lot more about, "Fuck you, Dad! I'll do whatever I want!" than it is, "After careful consideration of the facts and years of study, I find the existence of a creator God highly improbable." But atheists can never admit this, even to themselves.

[Scoundrel]

(04-21-2018 07:45 PM)Vladimir Poontang Wrote:  

Your counter argument is well thought out, and eloquently expressed. I concede.

No counter-argument, I'm only pointing out that the logical contradiction is too brazen to be taken seriously.

[Scoundrel]

(04-21-2018 07:58 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

It continues to boggle my mind that intelligent people can look at the vast, essentially incomprehensible complexity of the universe and just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, it was all just a happy accident!"

I don't consider any aspect of reality to be an "accident," happy or otherwise. I certainly don't regard the "complexity" of the universe to be "incomprehensible." Quite the opposite: The universe (and everything in it) can absolutely be understood, can be made sense of, if man uses his powers of reason, observation & investigation.

(04-21-2018 07:58 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

The idea that there is no intelligent force behind the creation of the universe is literal madness.

What's madness is the idea that the universe was "created" — created by a supernatural being who somehow managed to exist antecedent to everything existing.

(04-21-2018 07:58 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Sheer denial of reality.

Theists deny causality. The universe is not a realm of inexplicable miracles; it is a lawful of realm of cause and effect, one governed by natural — not supernatural — law.

(04-21-2018 07:58 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Everyone knows this, especially atheists.

"You may say that you're an atheist, but deep inside your heart, you know there is a God."

Deep inside my heart, I know there is no God. The concept is utterly untenable and, as you (and Vladimir Poontang) insist, incomprehensible.

When a theist says that God is incomprehensible, I take him at his word. If something is indeed "far beyond our ability to comprehend," why try? I simply dismiss the claim out of hand and move on.

[GoingTheDistance]

This thread is long, forgive me if this question has already been asked in the 30 something pages so far:

My question is, where does it end?

I agree with Scorpion that it's madness to think all of this is just random.

I saw something on TV once (National Geographic Channel) where a scientists gave this example: Imagine a parasite that is living in your stomach. That parasite has no concept or idea about anything outside of your own stomach. Your stomach is that parasites world. The parasite has no clue that the host it's living in belongs to other dimensions of this world, and yet that parasite is unknowingly part of those other dimensions of this world as well.

I understand that there's an infinite amount of things that humans can just never understand, just like that parasite living in our stomach for its whole life.

But again, while I acknowledge that it's madness to think all of this is random and while I acknowledge that humans can not possibly comprehend an infinite amount of things, I still ask the question:

Where does it end? If there is no start or end line, how is that possible? Are there real world examples of things that do not start or end, they just merely are?


Vladamir mentioned something that merely "self exists" but how is that possible? I just don't understand.

What I mean is, who created God? Who created the thing/being/whatever that went on to create God? Ext. Ext.?

I really hope that when I die that if there is a God, he will help me to understand all of these life questions. I also hope he lets me view human history to see how we really evolved on this planet, maybe similar to watching a movie or something.

[RatInTheWoods]

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

As I've been saying, whilst in theory I can do an experiment myself, the reality is that I still have to take scientific insights mostly on faith.

Not letting you get away with that...

You can do experiments yourself, and when you do, you understand the importance of the process, physical proof, repeatability and remain open to challenge from a different theory, different evidence or a complete revision of your knowledge if someone does a better experiment.

Zero faith required. Polar opposite to being handed a religion with no evidence, no proof, no challenges allowed and then being given all that second hand by a human.

There is NO scientific insight that requires faith, or can not be verified, repeated or observed by yourself. If it was any of those, it wouldn't be a scientific insight....

True, if you can not be bothered to learn the science yourself, then you might like to believe others that can, but this is not the basis for science. If you got off your arse and went and learned the science - then the evidence would hold true.

No matter how much effort you make, you can not verify, repeat or verify the religious dogmas handed to you. You need faith to believe it.

Total polar opposite way of thinking and understanding the universe.

I know you are smart enough to understand how science works, and how there is zero faith involved in it. Buts your rational mind trying to justify irrational "faith" as being just as valid. Hamstering.

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(2) As said, I could facetiously also answer that the most fundamental religious dogma is testable: you can sit down and pray and see if you get an answer.

Nothing happens, for everyone who does this. repeatable, observable and verified nothing. Unless you hear voices, in which case you made need to see a mental health expert.

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

"Science is testable, religion is not". The two ideas are not in conflict in that way

Correct, those two thought paradigms are not in conflict, and can not be compared.
They are polar opposites of the scale, apples and oranges indeed.

Thats why I take offence to "science needs faith" or "science is a religion" or atheists have dogmatic beliefs etc.

That would be as stupid as saying "religion needs evidence"

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Science does not apply where an idea is not falsifiable, period. That feature of it as a concept does not make it inherently superior as a means for navigating the world, it is just a hard limit that the discipline sets on itself. Emerging from that idea are the factors science is of very little use where the evidence is not (1) reliable, (2) sufficient, or (3) in the presence of a high degree of opacity.

Glad you understand this concept.

Science is no good at making shit up. It's no good at inventing things from your imagination and passing them off as real. In short, it's the opposite of religion - which excels at these two things.

It's not a shortcoming of science, it's a beautiful inbuilt protection for lies, falsehoods and dogma.

This DOES make it a inherently superior as a means for navigating the REAL world, and avoiding crazy ideas, ridiculous beliefs and mistakes of ignorance and stupidity.

Yes, science isn't much use when we lack evidence, proof, knowledge or repeatability. But neither is making shit up from your imagination!

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

The enlightened scientific mind understands these limitations well because they are inherent to science as a discipline. With them should come a profound humility and a philosophical refusal or reluctance to comment on religious beliefs, since they are not falsifiable concepts and indeed a good contingent of scientists themselves concede there actually isn't a conflict between science and religion.

This is just ridiculous as a statement....

Because we don't know and can't prove a negative we should embrace whatever crazy assed explanation anyone comes up with, in the total absence of evidence and proof? On what planet is that a rational intelligent position to have?

You can't disprove the Easter Bunny, so we should " Come to them with them a profound humility and a philosophical refusal or reluctance to comment on their crazy, silly and ridiculous beliefs?"

No, we should ask for evidence or dismiss their flights of fancy as a conjuring of their imagination. And rightly so, less we become fools to whatever can be imagined or laughably spoken about.

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

People have blind faith in science because most do not understand it without an interpreter. The same feature is that of religion.

No. People do not have blind faith in science. They understand, as you do, that science and its methods are robust, provable and evidence based. They do not need to have faith, and they do not need an interpreter.

The opposite is true of religion - it doesn't work without blind faith, without the absence of any evidence and with total acceptance of the unprovable.

[RatInTheWoods]

(04-21-2018 04:29 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Climate Change is, therefore, a Religion, as are many other Progressive Beliefs that stand in opposition to observable lived experience. However, these beliefs are sold as science by whomever controls both the dissemation of information and is given teaching authority over others. This is why a lack of replicability in science has been consistently-ignored for decades - as in the case of Climate Change - when the true results would contradict the gatekeeping group's religious beliefs.

Bad science is not a religion, although it looks the same because people are lying, trying to pass off false information, and distort evidence to suit their own self serving agenda.

The weather system of earth are complex, the timescales are huge and the evidence far from extensive.

So you can make up whatever explanation or conclusion you want, but its not science, don't be confused.

1+1 is science - enough evidence and repeatability there to stand with confidence that the answer is two, will always be two and why.

Yes bad science looks like religion.

[RatInTheWoods]

(04-21-2018 07:59 PM)Scoundrel Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 07:45 PM)Vladimir Poontang Wrote:  

Your counter argument is well thought out, and eloquently expressed. I concede.

No counter-argument, I'm only pointing out that the logical contradiction is too brazen to be taken seriously.

Yep, that ones like shooting fish in a barrel.

"god must exist because she made the universe, because nothing can create itself or have been around since the beginning of time!"

Well then by your logic, who made the god?

"He was there since the beginning of time or he made himself"

ie its turtles all the way down young man.

[Sassy]

I don't believe in god. i believe in the universe.

[Paracelsus]

(04-22-2018 03:15 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

True, if you can not be bothered to learn the science yourself, then you might like to believe others that can, but this is not the basis for science. If you got off your arse and went and learned the science - then the evidence would hold true.

You doubtless are typing this from the driver's seat of your own personal LHC, having smashed the subatomic particles together for yourself. Is this really so hard for you to understand?

Quote:

No matter how much effort you make, you can not verify, repeat or verify the religious dogmas handed to you. You need faith to believe it.

There's a simple way to test your assertion: have you personally verified by experiment that you have conducted that there is a Higgs Boson yet? Dude, science doesn't give you any real tools for navigating the real world.

Quote:

I know you are smart enough to understand how science works, and how there is zero faith involved in it. Buts your rational mind trying to justify irrational "faith" as being just as valid. Hamstering.

This from the guy who has yet to demonstrate that he has personally conducted any experiment verifying any principle of quantum physics, and says I'm hamstering?

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(2) As said, I could facetiously also answer that the most fundamental religious dogma is testable: you can sit down and pray and see if you get an answer.

Nothing happens, for everyone who does this. repeatable, observable and verified nothing.[/quote]

Question for your doubtless scientific approach to this experiment: how have you eliminated the possibility that the reply to your prayer is "No"?

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

"Science is testable, religion is not". The two ideas are not in conflict in that way

Correct, those two thought paradigms are not in conflict, and can not be compared.
They are polar opposites of the scale, apples and oranges indeed.[/quote]

I'd have thought an atheist would understand the difference between two things that are on a spectrum and two concepts that are not related.

Quote:

Thats why I take offence to "science needs faith" or "science is a religion" or atheists have dogmatic beliefs etc.

Someone who takes offence to the assertion that people are capable of taking things for granted without proving them for themselves is the sort of guy who isn't practicing the supposed dispassion that science is said to bring with it.

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

Science does not apply where an idea is not falsifiable, period. That feature of it as a concept does not make it inherently superior as a means for navigating the world, it is just a hard limit that the discipline sets on itself. Emerging from that idea are the factors science is of very little use where the evidence is not (1) reliable, (2) sufficient, or (3) in the presence of a high degree of opacity.

Glad you understand this concept.

Science is no good at making shit up. It's no good at inventing things from your imagination and passing them off as real. In short, it's the opposite of religion - which excels at these two things.

It's not a shortcoming of science, it's a beautiful inbuilt protection for lies, falsehoods and dogma.

This DOES make it a inherently superior as a means for navigating the REAL world, and avoiding crazy ideas, ridiculous beliefs and mistakes of ignorance and stupidity.

Yes, science isn't much use when we lack evidence, proof, knowledge or repeatability. But neither is making shit up from your imagination![/quote]

Which gives more hope, provided the impetus to build hospitals, provides palliative care, and shows up to provide charity: religious-based organisations, or atheist ones? I'd call religion very useful in those circumstances, not to mention Taleb's characterisation that religion's purpose in helping humanity avoid tail risks is an entirely rational use of religion.

Quote:

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

The enlightened scientific mind understands these limitations well because they are inherent to science as a discipline. With them should come a profound humility and a philosophical refusal or reluctance to comment on religious beliefs, since they are not falsifiable concepts and indeed a good contingent of scientists themselves concede there actually isn't a conflict between science and religion.

This is just ridiculous as a statement....

Because we don't know and can't prove a negative we should embrace whatever crazy assed explanation anyone comes up with, in the total absence of evidence and proof? On what planet is that a rational intelligent position to have?

Earth. Reread the article I posted from Nassim Taleb, you'll start to get it.

Quote:

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

People have blind faith in science because most do not understand it without an interpreter. The same feature is that of religion.

No. People do not have blind faith in science. They understand, as you do, that science and its methods are robust, provable and evidence based. They do not need to have faith, and they do not need an interpreter.

The opposite is true of religion - it doesn't work without blind faith, without the absence of any evidence and with total acceptance of the unprovable.

As said, people have blind faith in science. Show me your Large Hadron Collider in your backyard and show me your personal results of your experiments to verify the existence of the Higgs Boson, and then you have a point. Not until.

[Sherman]

Science is the ultimate in red pill and non bullshit. Science hands you a piece of incredible magic and power called a cell phone that allows you to talk to anyone in the world and for a nominal fee that most people can afford. They don't dress up in funny robes and make you go through a ritual to obtain it. They don't talk about the wonders of mysticism and tell you its magic. They just hand the power to you with no bullshit. More power than you deserve. But yet the ignorant masses still give incredible respect to fakers dressed in ancient costumes who just make things up in their own heads. Some people get their noses bent out of shape because scientists say things that contradict their ignorance, instead of being grateful for the knowledge.

[Paracelsus]

(04-22-2018 11:06 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Science is the ultimate in red pill and non bullshit. Science hands you a piece of incredible magic and power called a cell phone that allows you to talk to anyone in the world and for a nominal fee that most people can afford. They don't dress up in funny robes and make you go through a ritual to obtain it.

Apart from having you sign your name and address and other stuff so they know where to harass you with marketing materials.

Quote:

They don't talk about the wonders of mysticism and tell you its magic.

Nope, they just rely on fanboys who explicitly call science "magic" to do it for them. That's scientheism in a nutshell.

Quote:

They just hand the power to you with no bullshit. More power than you deserve.

Huh, so, science is not only the giver of POWAAAAHHH, it tells you that you don't deserve it and you should be grateful for it. Sounds a lot like the sort of things science complains about with religion.

Quote:

But yet the ignorant masses still give incredible respect to fakers dressed in ancient costumes who just make things up in their own heads. Some people get their noses bent out of shape because scientists say things that contradict their ignorance, instead of being grateful for the knowledge.

And some people get bent out of shape when it's pointed out that the world went on without the discipline of science for many thousands of years before people started getting infatuated with it, and will go on long after the ignorant masses discover its limitations on providing any meaning to existence as well.

[RatInTheWoods]

(04-22-2018 09:37 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

You doubtless are typing this from the driver's seat of your own personal LHC, having smashed the subatomic particles together for yourself. Is this really so hard for you to understand?

This is a pretty weak attempt to discredit science as a faith based religion.

The thing is, you can actually devote decades of your life and prove them right, or wrong. Because its real, and it's based on evidence and its repeatable, observable and backed up by a million linked and provable experiments, all of which you can do yourself. You don't have to do it, but you can, and many do.

But you conveniently overlook the millions of smaller, more easier demonstrations of the power and accuracy of science and rational thinking and evidence based knowledge.

Your day to day life is filled with huge numbers of in your face examples of the power of the scientific method, that I am sure you have an understanding of how it all works in complete and utter faithless way.

Closing your mind, eyes or putting your head in the sand does not make these scientific discoveries false, or justify you saying "with my eyes closed its not real and requires faith".

No matter how uncomfortable this makes you, or how absolutely it blows apart your belief system, it's real, You can do it.

You can do nothing remotely close to this to accept any religion as real. All religions are 100% based on a blind faith, totally requiring you to suspend rational thought, analysis and scientific reason. They are unprovable.

And you only have to read about a few wack job religious beliefs and or religions invented in mans history to quickly see the results of this kind of thought paradymn.

Religion requires (blind) faith, science requires rational thinking and proof.

Polar opposites.

[Scoundrel]

If by "science" you mean a process of rational, evidence-based inquiry, then science and religion are irreconcilable opposites. Scientific inquiry requires the total banishment of faith and belief in any sort of mystical or supernatural forces; it assumes an atheistic universe, one in which all causes are natural, intelligible, etc.

Most people are not professional scientists, and no one has total knowledge in every subject and field. A certain degree of trust in what certain people tell us, in their work and in their conclusions, can be perfectly valid. (It can also be invalid, as when one follows the advice of an obvious charlatan or quack.) But this is so far from the kind of "faith" that religion demands — faith in the supernatural, in the logically contradictory/impossible, in the unintelligible and "incomprehensible" — that to equate the two, or imply that they are remotely similar, is almost unbelievably disingenuous.

[Pride male]

This video help me bridge evolution and religion. There is a purpose to creation and the transformation in consciousness is what is driving humanity and nature in general.

   

[RatInTheWoods]

Shigir Idol found to be 11,600 years old. It was made by the survivors of the last great Ice Age

The old gods worshiped before the new gods

Also a link to an idol over 40,000 years old!

Amazing to think of early man inventing and worshipping ancient gods, using the made up myths to explain things he didn't understand or know yet.

Its interesting that something in humans mind and nature leads them to make up gods to worship, we see it in all cultures, across all times, repeating the same process.

Of course things are pretty much business as usual today.

What is that makes man create these deities to worship?

[bgbusiness]

I was baptized when I was little because my mom is an avid Christian.
I was never really into religion growing up, but got pretty heavy during college and started to believe in God.
Starting last year, I realized how "fake" and "artificial" some people are in Church.

This created a negative perception towards them in me and I stopped going to church and basically faded away.
I am at a very weird stage where I go back and forth. Sometimes I would label myself as a Christian and sometimes I do not...

It's almost like a bad relationship that you have with one of your exes and thinking, "I love her, but I don't need her. Oh wait, I don't love her actually....Wait, I need her..."

I am pretty detached from the religion though...Just focusing on my work.

[Mage]

(04-30-2018 02:16 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

Shigir Idol found to be 11,600 years old. It was made by the survivors of the last great Ice Age

The old gods worshiped before the new gods

Also a link to an idol over 40,000 years old!

Amazing to think of early man inventing and worshipping ancient gods, using the made up myths to explain things he didn't understand or know yet.

Its interesting that something in humans mind and nature leads them to make up gods to worship, we see it in all cultures, across all times, repeating the same process.

Of course things are pretty much business as usual today.

What is that makes man create these deities to worship?

What makes people assume any old statue is an idol?

[TheKongoEmpire]

No

[Sherman]

This is an interesting interview with a guy named "Science Mike". He was raised a Christian and then became an atheist, and then says he discovered Jesus again and returned to Christianity. He discusses how he lives life as a Christian without mytholology and reconciled with science. This dialog is thoughtful and not the usual atheist vs. christian banter which goes nowhere.

https://bartcampolo.org/2018/04/308-scie...e-mchargue

[BortimusPrime]

(04-30-2018 03:16 PM)Mage Wrote:  

(04-30-2018 02:16 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

Shigir Idol found to be 11,600 years old. It was made by the survivors of the last great Ice Age

The old gods worshiped before the new gods

Also a link to an idol over 40,000 years old!

Amazing to think of early man inventing and worshipping ancient gods, using the made up myths to explain things he didn't understand or know yet.

Its interesting that something in humans mind and nature leads them to make up gods to worship, we see it in all cultures, across all times, repeating the same process.

Of course things are pretty much business as usual today.

What is that makes man create these deities to worship?

What makes people assume any old statue is an idol?

Those Venus figures might have been fapping material for all we know.

[BortimusPrime]

(04-21-2018 07:58 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

It continues to boggle my mind that intelligent people can look at the vast, essentially incomprehensible complexity of the universe and just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, it was all just a happy accident!" The idea that there is no intelligent force behind the creation of the universe is literal madness. Sheer denial of reality. Everyone knows this, especially atheists. The atheistic worldview is not about logic, it's about rebelling against the entire concept of God. The evidence clearly and overwhelmingly (undeniably, really) points to the conclusion that our universe was created by some force far beyond our ability to comprehend. This is why you see many atheists now endorse the "multiverse" theory (saying that there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be the lucky one), but this is substantially more an article of faith than the idea that the universe was simply created by a being we would refer to as God.

If you reject Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or all religions, fine. Perhaps you have your own conception of who or what God actually is. But rejecting the existence of God (meaning an all-powerful creative force) altogether is simply not a credible position. We know that God exists. The evidence is all around you and is irrefutable. There are clearly forces at work which are infinitely greater than the ability of the human mind to comprehend. The idea that even the tiniest bit of matter would spontaneously emerge out of nothingness is itself insane (as Vladimir Poontang pointed out above: you cannot logically have an uncaused cause within a closed system - you need something outside of the system to initiate anything, necessitating God). And the idea that a spontaneous uncaused cause could randomly generate complexity on the scale of the universe is literally the most insane notion that the human mind could entertain.

tl;dr Atheism is a lot more about, "Fuck you, Dad! I'll do whatever I want!" than it is, "After careful consideration of the facts and years of study, I find the existence of a creator God highly improbable." But atheists can never admit this, even to themselves.

How is it insane to guess that if everything that you can observe operates via natural processes, then outside of your observational reach things probably work via natural processes as well?

Maybe a god did create the universe, but whatever level of reality he's on has natural laws as well, and after he created the Universe he went on the god-internet to argue with another god about the existence of super-god, since one cannot conceive of a hyperspace so perfectly crafted such that a being as complex as a god can come into existence, hence the necessity of super-god.

[ester]

I believe in God, because I believe this beautiful universe and its overwhelming wonders could not have just happened. It looks like someone intentionally designed it. Someone with great power and intelligence.

[Pride male]

Has anyone here read the Blind Watchmaker?

[RatInTheWoods]

(05-14-2018 02:36 PM)ester Wrote:  

I believe in God, because I believe this beautiful universe and its overwhelming wonders could not have just happened. It looks like someone intentionally designed it. Someone with great power and intelligence.

But then who created the creator? By your logic, something so beautiful and with overwhelming wonders needs to have a supernatural creator, then something must have created that being?

So you see the problem with your logic?

If the creator existed "since the beginning of time" or "just is" then use occam's razor to apply that logic to matter and energy of the multiverse.

The "how did this all get here" problem is mind blowing for us evolved chips. The timescales and complexity of the universe are well outside the scope of our short lives and small jungle patch. We will never have the real answer.

But there's no need to create supernatural fairy creation stories up and pretend they solve the dilemma. They don't.

Its ok to say "we don't know, and probably never will".

[Super_Fire]

(05-15-2018 06:18 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

But there's no need to create supernatural fairy creation stories up

Textbook atheist argument.

"God" is no more fairy-tale than "atoms formed", a.k.a. the scientific equivalent of "shit happened."