Science as a God

[DeletedUser]

Yahwe and the Holy Spirit are different Gods.

Allow me to teach you some about your own religion, that is unless you are part of some weird cult version.

Yahwe is the god from the old testament, which is the same god as in the new testament.

The christian God is one, but made out of three parts, God, the holy spirit, and Jesus. This god is known as Yahwe.

I have yet to see or hear of any christians that worship the holy spirit alone,
still there are diffrences between groups which of the three aspects they focus on,
and in their focus on Jesus' divinity or humanity.

I really say I'm a Christian more out of habit (that's what I've been raised as) but I believe more that science is correct, and the matter the Big Bang was caused by was created by "God".

If you are a christian "by habit" then you clearly aren't much of a christian.

 

[DeletedUser]

You can't be certain that god doesn't exist so why waste your time trying to convince someone of it?

lol, you can't be certain (in fact you have no supporting evidence whatsoever), that god does exist, so why waste your time trying to convince someone of it?

See how that works?

And, for the record, it is quite reasonable to attempt convincing someone of their inanity for believing in something without proof, without evidence. Psychologists do it all the time. I mean, just because it's a shared fantasy doesn't make it any more real.

As for ulterior motive, a religious adherent would say that they're trying to save your immortal soul. You're just doing it for kicks. How is that better?

You're now assuming the motive behind a person's efforts is meaningless, pointless, and what they are responding to, attempting to counter, is benign. So, when did you become an expert in mind reading?

For me, if I venture to correct someone of their perceptions, it is to counter their efforts, as in the case of the OP, or to prevent them from doing something inane, destructive, etc.

Go on then. Make it. Convince me that someone believing in a god is intrinsically harmful to other people.

Too easy. Maybe you should recall the efforts by people, believing in God, to participate in holy wars. Maybe you should recall the Inquisitions. How about those who tried to change the school's curriculum in order to teach "creationism" as a science. Or maybe the whole issue about people denying evolution, contesting the research, as if it's some sort of belief system, when in actuality it is at the core to so many scientific breakthroughs and discoveries.

Maybe when you realize that fantasy isn't reality, we'll have a better argument. But, as it stands, just because someone believes in something doesn't necessarily make it true. And, when those beliefs are destructive by action, by behavior, by mindset, to themselves or others, it is the responsibility of the "educated" to share their education, to pull these people out of the dark ages and into comprehension.

Because, really, ignorance is common, but intentionally refusing to be educated, just so you remain ignorant, is unconscionable.

Religion can not say the facts as concluded by science and her evidences are wrong. While science on the other hand cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, or other gods.

Religion cannot contest the evidence because it is evidence, not because science points to the evidence and says, "look for yourself."

Also, it is not the goal of science to prove/disprove the existence of any god. It never has been and it never will be. But that has nothing to do with people wanting to believe in something that will make it easier for them to deal with the hardships of stark reality. A lie is a lie, regardless of the accouterments, and if you have no evidence in support of a belief, it is essentially a lie, because you take non-evidence and pontificate upon it, giving non-evidence unfounded, unsupported, credibility. Even if a belief were true, the mere effort of trying to substantiate it with attitude makes it a lie in the minds of those adhering to the belief.

Thanks to science, we have strong bases for a lot of reasons. But on the other hand, where reasons end, that's where faith begins.

Indeed, as many have already indicated, that's why faith is, "unreasonable."

Religion and science need not always clash..they actually could compliment each other..

No angle. Science truly never clashes with religion. It is religion's endeavor to clash with things that threaten their belief system. I.e., a resistance to evidence, a stubborn resolve to adhere to their first assumptions, their initial interpretations of dogma, despite contrary evidence.

There is also no actual compliment. Scientific research does not attempt to compliment religious beliefs, nor is it demonstrated to do such. The only compliment religion presents to science is to say, "yeah, alright, you evidenced your point a hundred-thousand ways, you're right."

 

[DeletedUser]

In response to John Rose, I don't mean you worship Science or Taoists worship Yin and Yang like Christians and Hindus worship their gods; I meant that you have a driving force that makes the Universe "work" like a god. The Universe according to Atheists is driven by the Laws of Physics. That replaces any spiritual force (Yin, Yang, Mother Earth, Spirits) or conventional "God" (any Hindu god, the "Lord", Yahwe, Allah). The only religion that really doesn't have a driving force is Buddhism (to the best that I can understand it). Also, I am a Christian/Spiritual. If you think Christians worship Yahwe, you're just a flat out idiot.

Nobody "worships" yin and yang, they are merely an outdated explanation for how the world works, much like the archaic concept that all matter is composed of the 4 elements, earth, air, fire and water. Likewise no scientist "worships" gravity, elecromagnetic force, or the strong or weak nuclear forces. what scientist do however do, is measure them, I'd like to see anybody measure yin and yang, or any form of divinity.

 

[DeletedUser]

Bear with me...I have a mild hangover...

Much of my standpoint so far has been based on terminology - and different interpretations of it. If you introduce terms like "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" (invented in the 90s) - or the Dawkins Scale (The God Delusion 2006) then that changes the definition of the terminology.

So - to rewrite my original statement under this terminology: Strong atheism is a belief.

Wouldn't you agree, however, that that is what many theists try to argue?

They say, "I believe in creationism, you believe in evolution and they both take faith to believe in".

Which is basically true, though, isn't it? I mean, have you actually read On the Origin of Species or other works since on evolution? Or do you just know the principles expounded in that work and think "Hey, that sounds pretty damn plausible..."? Maybe you have read extensively on evolution - but do you think that everyone who believes in evolution has that level of knowledge or understanding or do you think some take it on faith?

That said, please bear in mind that I'm not saying that both beliefs are equally reasonable - which brings us to:

Theists will claim that if you cannot explain everything and take something on faith in the counter-nihilist stance, that you have as much faith as someone who believes that there was a guy who walked on water, made the blind see and arose from the dead through magical powers.

Which I whole-heartedly disagree with. Religion requires a lot more faith than a belief in the current scientific understanding of the world. The thing is that you can go and read Darwin (or Dawkins) and make an informed judgment. You can check on the facts as presented, if you have the time and the inclination. Most people don't - most people take science on faith - but the option is there nevertheless.

lol, you can't be certain (in fact you have no supporting evidence whatsoever), that god does exist, so why waste your time trying to convince someone of it?

I don't. Never said I did. I don't believe that god exists.

Go on then. Make it. Convince me that someone believing in a god is intrinsically harmful to other people.

Too easy. Maybe you should recall the efforts by people, believing in God, to participate in holy wars. Maybe you should recall the Inquisitions. How about those who tried to change the school's curriculum in order to teach "creationism" as a science. Or maybe the whole issue about people denying evolution, contesting the research, as if it's some sort of belief system, when in actuality it is at the core to so many scientific breakthroughs and discoveries.

That was easy to type, perhaps, but it doesn't convince me of anything. That's anecdotal evidence, Hell. You can't point out an isolated incident of where religion lead to harm and then jump to the conclusion that "belief in god is intrinsically harmful to other people".

Let's take a counter-example: Mahatma Ghandi. He was a religious man - he believed in the Hindu gods. Did that belief mean he was intrinsically harmful?

All you've proven is that there are incidents where religion has lead to harm. I don't dispute that. However, to state that one person's belief in god or gods is intrinsically harmful to other people is a nonsense. It implies that everyone who believes in any god is harmful.

Maybe when you realize that fantasy isn't reality, we'll have a better argument. But, as it stands, just because someone believes in something doesn't necessarily make it true. And, when those beliefs are destructive by action, by behavior, by mindset, to themselves or others, it is the responsibility of the "educated" to share their education, to pull these people out of the dark ages and into comprehension.

How is my gran's weekly visit to church destructive? She gets a bit of comfort from it and it's not as if she's about to jump out of her pew and suddenly declare a new crusade to retake Jerusalem.

Sure..."when those beliefs are destructive", you might feel an obligation to do something. You can't surely be trying to suggest that all faith is destructive?

 

[DeletedUser]

So - to rewrite my original statement under this terminology: Strong atheism is a belief.

Bevoir, I already responded to this misinterpretation in an earlier post, which it seemed you missed altogether.

The omission of a belief does not make a belief. a-theism is the omission of belief. It is the common sense approach to "not" believing in something without evidence. And, since no evidence can ever be presented on the existence of a God, common sense says, "don't believe." A strong atheist is merely someone who is further inclined to logical analysis.

Look, Bevoir. Do you believe in blue fairies, magical unicorns, flying pegasi? You see, if you don't believe in those things, that does not make you a believer in not believing... it makes you sane, rational, grounded, applying common sense and logic. That's not a belief, it's not a religion, it's "not" believing in something just because a group of people insist upon its existence, without provision for, nor reliance on, evidence.

Maybe you have read extensively on evolution - but do you think that everyone who believes in evolution has that level of knowledge or understanding or do you think some take it on faith?

Again, Bevoir, you're confusing "faith" on a belief and "trust" in the human spirit. When people are presented evolution, they don't "believe" it without evidence, they "trust" on the people presenting the information, because those people have researched it in-depth and have worked with that knowledge to provide scientific advances. You're also forgetting, Bevoir, the information is readily available, the evidence is readily available, the examples are readily available. If someone were to decide they don't "trust" the presenters, they can get off their ass and review the evidence for themselves.

You cannot do that on a faith, on a belief, simply because there IS NO EVIDENCE. The presenters never rely on evidence, they merely point at a book, a compilation of stories and ponderings, written by people from the bronze-age making outlandish claims, without a shred of supporting data. There's the difference, and it's a huge one. A chasm that differentiates faith in fantasy from trust in man.

Reasonable people don't take science on faith, they take it on trust.

I don't. Never said I did. I don't believe that god exists.

Convenient opt-out, but that was not an honest interpretation of my rhetorical question. Please spend the time to reread not merely what I wrote, but what I was responding to.

That's anecdotal evidence, Hell.

You're going to claim the examples I presented are anecdotal? They're clear examples of "a belief in a god" being intrinsically harmful to other people. It makes people gullible, easily manipulated on something other than logic, or reason. It allows those with ill-intent the ability to easily manipulate "god believers," holding their belief in hostage. Religion, belief in a god, hampers individual thought, reasonable, rational analysis, logical interpretation of data. Anything that incurs a dependency, whether it be physical, mental, or spiritual, is intrinsically harmful. De-facto, a belief in a god is intrinsically harmful.

You can't surely be trying to suggest that all faith is destructive?

"You can't surely be trying to suggest that all addictions are destructive?"

Faith is an addiction of the mind, a process in which a person lies to themselves, or allows others to lie to them, as a means to assuage their ill-feelings, give them good thoughts, make them happy, at least temporarily. That's the definition of the high aspired-to when ingesting a recreational drug.

Religious fervor has been scientifically tested, and determined, to inject chemicals into the brain, central nervous system, and other body particulars. The "high" of religious fervor, of faith, is a chemical reaction that, in many cases results in a dependency for that self-same feeling, which, in turn, results in efforts to duplicate this effect.

 

[DeletedUser]

Bevoir, I already responded to this misinterpretation in an earlier post, which it seemed you missed altogether.

Hey, I can't answer everything... There are only so many hours in a day. :dry:

The omission of a belief does not make a belief. a-theism is the omission of belief. It is the common sense approach to "not" believing in something without evidence. And, since no evidence can ever be presented on the existence of a God, common sense says, "don't believe." A strong atheist is merely someone who is further inclined to logical analysis.

No, it isn't. Using Richard Dawkins' definition of a "strong atheist" - rather than getting further bogged down by semantics - "strong atheism" is the denial of gods rather than the absence of belief.

What you're talking about would be defined by Dawkins as de facto atheism or weak atheism - depending on the degree of conviction.

Look, Bevoir. Do you believe in blue fairies, magical unicorns, flying pegasi? You see, if you don't believe in those things, that does not make you a believer in not believing... it makes you sane, rational, grounded, applying common sense and logic. That's not a belief, it's not a religion, it's "not" believing in something just because a group of people insist upon its existence, without provision for, nor reliance on, evidence.

No, I don't believe in blue fairies. I believe that such things are figments of imagination. I don't believe in God either.

Again, Bevoir, you're confusing "faith" on a belief and "trust" in the human spirit. When people are presented evolution, they don't "believe" it without evidence, they "trust" on the people presenting the information, because those people have researched it in-depth and have worked with that knowledge to provide scientific advances. You're also forgetting, Bevoir, the information is readily available, the evidence is readily available, the examples are readily available. If someone were to decide they don't "trust" the presenters, they can get off their ass and review the evidence for themselves.

The thing is that you can go and read Darwin (or Dawkins) and make an informed judgment. You can check on the facts as presented, if you have the time and the inclination. Most people don't - most people take science on faith - but the option is there nevertheless.

You obviously hadn't read my post which I've quoted here.

You cannot do that on a faith, on a belief, simply because there IS NO EVIDENCE. The presenters never rely on evidence, they merely point at a book, a compilation of stories and ponderings, written by people from the bronze-age making outlandish claims, without a shred of supporting data. There's the difference, and it's a huge one. A chasm that differentiates faith in fantasy from trust in man.

Again - you're repeating things I've said. I'm not going to argue against a point I've already made myself.

Convenient opt-out, but that was not an honest interpretation of my rhetorical question. Please spend the time to reread not merely what I wrote, but what I was responding to.

Opt out? Not really. It was an acknowledgement that trying to spend your time convincing someone of the existance of god is as futile as trying to convince them of the absence of gods.

You're going to claim the examples I presented are anecdotal? They're clear examples of "a belief in a god" being intrinsically harmful to other people. It makes people gullible, easily manipulated on something other than logic, or reason. It allows those with ill-intent the ability to easily manipulate "god believers," holding their belief in hostage. Religion, belief in a god, hampers individual thought, reasonable, rational analysis, logical interpretation of data. Anything that incurs a dependency, whether it be physical, mental, or spiritual, is intrinsically harmful. De-facto, a belief in a god is intrinsically harmful.

Wow. For someone who claims to extol science, that's a huge leap. Those are opinions really - there's no logical basis for them. If you want to believe that all belief in god is intrinsically harmful then by all means, be my guest, but that doesn't make it a fact.

Religious fervor has been scientifically tested, and determined, to inject chemicals into the brain, central nervous system, and other body particulars. The "high" of religious fervor, of faith, is a chemical reaction that, in many cases results in a dependency for that self-same feeling, which, in turn, results in efforts to duplicate this effect.

Well, putting aside the fact that you're insinuating that faith isn't possible without fervour...

Lots of things inject chemicals into the brain. If I go for a run then the body releases endorphins with provide a "runner's high". (Ok, I'll confess...I've never had that. I've run half-marathons without getting a runner's high and I feel pretty damn conned by that). Sex releases chemicals into the brain. Chocolate does the same.

Does that mean that running, sex and chocolate are all intrinsically harmful?

 

[DeletedUser]

That said, please bear in mind that I'm not saying that both beliefs are equally reasonable

Just as long as you understand that that IS the goal of many a theist.

 

[DeletedUser]

That said, please bear in mind that I'm not saying that both beliefs are equally reasonable

Just as long as you understand that that IS the goal of many a theist.

Oh absolutely.

Some go even further and state that the belief that there is no god is ludicrous whereas the presence of a god is self-evident. I understand that but I'm certainly not espousing that point of view.

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh absolutely.

Some go even further and state that the belief that there is no god is ludicrous whereas the presence of a god is self-evident. I understand that but I'm certainly not espousing that point of view.

I understand that. As I said before, I think John Rose was responding to that point of view because what you were saying was rather close to it.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, it isn't. Using Richard Dawkins' definition of a "strong atheist" - rather than getting further bogged down by semantics - "strong atheism" is the denial of gods rather than the absence of belief.

Let's get one thing clear here. Dawkin's #7 definition, on strong athiest, is an absolute (100%), which is non-existent. To discuss it in the context of "real" is a fallacy.

No, I don't believe in blue fairies. I believe that such things are figments of imagination. I don't believe in God either.

Which firmly demonstrates my point. "Not believing" does not transpose into "believing not." They simply do not mean the same thing and to transpose them is opportunistic, disingenuous, even deceiving.

You obviously hadn't read my post which I've quoted here.

Incorrect. I already read it, and in fact corrected you on it previously, because you were arguing it with the misnomer of faith, as opposed to trust. To be quite blunt, you have a very bad habit of transposing words and, in doing so, transposing meanings to suit your argument. This is fallacious and not altogether sincere.

Opt out? Not really. It was an acknowledgement that trying to spend your time convincing someone of the existance of god is as futile as trying to convince them of the absence of gods.

For which I firmly disagree (but, again, this was not the initial argument, and thus you are attempting to impose either a strawman, or a red herring. Not quite sure which without seeing where you intend on going with this tangential supposition).

The rest of your post is dismissive, attempting to point elsewhere as a means to argue irrelevance, essentially posing a non-sequitor. So, while I'm willing to continue debate/discussion, I truly wish you would refrain from this excess in fallacious reasoning. You are firmly leaning on this crutch for the purposes of "winning" an argument, as opposed to the more altruistic agenda of obtaining answers.

 

[DeletedUser]

You seem obsessed with trying to suggest that I'm arguing a point that I'm not actually making. I'm not making fallacious arguments - you're merely misunderstanding my point and therefore attributing my comments to a standpoint not of my making.

I've told you the point I was making - that "strong atheism is a belief". You can argue whatever points you like about other forms of atheism but you're transposing my words in doing so.

 

[DeletedUser]

*/me rolls eyes*

There goes the *poof* approach, of returning to your initial stance as a means to dismiss ALL arguments and evidence previously presented.

I already indicated that 100% atheism is an absolute, non-existent, and thus a fallacy of debate. Continuing to debate this particular fallacy, if I can once again be blunt, is merely a practice in mental masterbation. Serves no purpose and is not real.

I mean, seriously dude, if you limit your argument to debating a non-existent state, you're not really debating the real issue. Might as well debate about nothing and everything. Figurative absolutes are fun to muse over, but no serious discussion should ever be anchored by them.

Let me know when you want to return to "grounded" discussion.

 

[DeletedUser]

Dude...you're really being rather blinkered in your view of strong atheism. How can you state categorically that nobody out there has a stance of strong atheism? Can I ask you if you believe that strong theism exists?

As for the peripheral arguments - if you'd like to start a thread proposing the premise that "All belief in god is intrinsically harmful" then I'll gladly participate.

 

[DeletedUser]

Let me try this again.

Strong atheism, as termed by Dawkins, is 100% non-belief in god. This is a non-existent perception, an absolute. Therefore debating it as if it were real is a fallacy, a wastrel practice in metaphysical impossibility. Unlike you, I actually did read his more popular book.

If you truly, honestly, want to debate this subject, you should stop wasting your time with variable terminology, deemed to differ based on the person or persons interpretations and definitely avoid the absolutes, for they are a waste of debate due to their non-existence. What you're really trying to argue here, Bevoir, is antitheism.

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you absolutely sure that absolutes don't exist?

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you absolutely sure that absolutes don't exist?

I tire of your childish games.

I suggest we either move on, or lay the "debate" dead.

 

[DeletedUser]

Dude...you're really being rather blinkered in your view of strong atheism. How can you state categorically that nobody out there has a stance of strong atheism? Can I ask you if you believe that strong theism exists?

This is just my take on this:

Its not the same thing believing one knows as knowing factually is, I refer you to my first post about epistemology also.

Strong Atheism as defined by Richard Dawkins is a paper exercise, you may find people who identify themselves as 7s, but they'll all be lying, they can't exist in the same way as someone who is a number 1, who knows there is a God can't exist, although the vast majority of believers will identify themselves as number 1s.

He's just trying to balance out the scale.

There are in non Dawkins senses Strong Atheists, I consider myself an Atheist with a capital A, but I'm open minded enough that if I find myself in front of the pearly gates I'm not going to be arguing with Peter the nature of his existance, I'd probably have some strong words to say about the Bible rewrites leaving out Dinosaurs though.

The scale is merely to correct imo, the absolute labels of Atheist, Believer and Fence Sitter (agnostics - Atheists without balls, etc)... the truth is what goes on inside peoples heads is often quite different from what they say publically. Therefore its a bit hard to use 'Strong Atheism' number 7 as a functional tool in any argument.

 

[DeletedUser]

Good explanation. (Although didn't you know that God placed dinosaur fossils there to test you? You failed :dry

So, when it comes to god, there are no absolutes - nobody is sure he exists, nobody is certain that he doesn't. There's no scientific proof that he exists (just personal proof which is no kind of proof at all). There's no proof that he doesn't exist (sure, just as there's no proof that leprechauns don't exist). We're all just weighing up the probabilities in our heads and stating our opinions.

Which is why I say that a statement such as "There are no gods" is a statement of belief rather than a statement of fact.

 

[DeletedUser]

Which is why I say that a statement such as "There are no gods" is a statement of belief rather than a statement of fact.

Yes, that's true in the absolute sense. You also can't prove much in the absolute sense, either. You can maybe prove that you exist and possibly a little math and logic.

But, I have to ask...so what?
How is this supposed to be interesting?

 

[DeletedUser]

Which is why I say that a statement such as "There are no gods" is a statement of belief rather than a statement of fact.

You were doing so well until that last line.

Your reasoning until that point is the exact reason one can say that there are NO gods,
no fairies, no leprechauns, no dragons, or no invisible monster eating the socks in your washingmachine!

The lack of supporting evidence to the contrary, and probability itself, rules it out as fiction, fantasies and delusions.

Your line of reasoning is getting tedious.