This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

In the beginning

2456789

Comments

  • "It's moot for purposes of scientific rigor, therefore it does not exist" is just as much of a leap of faith as "God exists."

    :-)
    Nope. If something can not in any way affect the world, that is identical to it not existing at all.

  • Rym's arguing the pragmatic as the actual I believe. Which is obvious the pragmatic approach, and generally the only useful one. We've danced this jig a thousand times, mostly because Rym and Apreche like to use slightly stronger language than is accurately warranted for effect.
  • "It's moot for purposes of scientific rigor, therefore it does not exist" is just as much of a leap of faith as "God exists."

    :-)
    Nope. If something can not in any way affect the world, that is identical to it not existing at all.

    That requires a belief that the physical universe is all there is.

    Nevermind all the weird shit you see when you start getting into quantum physics.

    "There is no God" is scientifically premature. The zealous arguments for absolute atheism without opportunity for agnosticism are mostly a backlash against the opposite zealotry in the Bible Belt. /r/atheism is FULL of pissed off Bible Belt youth who spout these arguments.

  • What exactly is people's fascination with discussion religion and God in the context of "does he exist or not?" or "why do people believe in God?"
  • edited June 2012
    But, for all practical scientific purposes, any particular assertion of the existence of a "god" is equally valid to an assertion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and is effectively disproven by all inquiry and evidence to date.
    Let me relate to you a story: My mother often says something like "Jesus rose from the dead. 500 people saw him!" My response: "Your source is the Bible. Of course it's going to say that. Not to mention, people see Mary on toast, and familiar faces in a crowd."

    While she is not my intended audience (not a scientist, AT ALL), arguing about god has a lot of baggage and assumptions I don't care to address. What I'd like is to challenge the lines between my sister's & father's identities of Scientist and Christian. I think sufficient evidence is available for scientific theories on origins, but I do not have the background to present it to them.
    Post edited by no fun girl on
  • What exactly is people's fascination with discussion religion and God in the context of "does he exist or not?" or "why do people believe in God?"
    I'll go with "Cultural".

    Survey says?

  • "There is no God" is scientifically premature. The zealous arguments for absolute atheism without opportunity for agnosticism are mostly a backlash against the opposite zealotry in the Bible Belt. /r/atheism is FULL of pissed off Bible Belt youth who spout these arguments.
    Hardly. Generic "god as a concept" believe doesn't mean anything. And most self-described christians have a fairly specific belief in a particular "god" from their book, which has both evidence of secular origin and a total lack of evidence of existence.

    It is far from scientifically premature to say that there is no "christian" god.

    As for "god as a concept," again, it's too vague to mean anything or even be debated. It's like saying "FHGHASGIHOSDGS exists as a concept that I vaguely define for myself but which has no bearing on anything."

  • What exactly is people's fascination with discussion religion and God in the context of "does he exist or not?" or "why do people believe in God?"
    I'll go with "Cultural".

    Survey says?
    cock flavored spit.
  • What exactly is people's fascination with discussion religion and God in the context of "does he exist or not?" or "why do people believe in God?"
    Because they were brainwashed as children and can't accept the fact that what they have believed their entire lives is wrong.
  • RymRym
    edited June 2012
    Honestly? I would have zero interest in religion but for the fact that these people both vote, and vote for dangerous/regressive things.

    We have a society where certain assertions presented under the guise of "religion" are treated differently from other assertions. ALL assertions should be treated exactly equally and be subject to equal scrutiny.

    Asserting that a god exists is the same as asserting that hobbits really existed.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • What exactly is people's fascination with discussion religion and God in the context of "does he exist or not?" or "why do people believe in God?"
    Because they were brainwashed as children and can't accept the fact that what they have believed their entire lives is wrong.
    Both my parents are late conversion from varied backgrounds.
  • If someone you are talking to keeps using the bible as their evidence, then the person you need to look for is Hector Avalos. There is a two part video you can find of him on YouTube that is very good. As you can imagine, he also has written books on the subject. There is no archaeological evidence for anything in the bible.
  • What exactly is people's fascination with discussion religion and God in the context of "does he exist or not?" or "why do people believe in God?"
    Because they were brainwashed as children and can't accept the fact that what they have believed their entire lives is wrong.
    Both my parents are late conversion from varied backgrounds.
    Their lives were very sad, and they went to a church and it made them very happy. I mean come on, pancake breakfast Sunday! Lots of friendly people all hanging out singing songs. What's not to like?
  • Honestly? I would have zero interest in religion but for the fact that these people both vote, and vote for dangerous/regressive things.

    We have a society where certain assertions presented under the guise of "religion" are treated differently from other assertions. ALL assertions should be treated exactly equally and be subject to equal scrutiny.

    Asserting that a god exists is the same as asserting that hobbits really existed.
    My only interest in God or no God is academic. My morality is not based in religion whatsoever. My morality is based in socialism and humanism (and my own definition of both.) ;-)
  • muppet is spouting the usually "You can disprove there is a god" or "It's a belief to think that the physical world is the only thing that exists". These are nice claims to try and equate non-belief with the ridiculousness that is religion/belief in god, but they are just strawmen arguments.

    I can't disprove there is a god because there is no evidence. It's not a belief because the physical world the only thing we can measure.

    It's not a leap of faith to demand evidence for the existence of god just like it's not a leap of faith to demand evidence for thetans or Russell's teapot.

    Also, please don't conflate agnosticism and atheism. They are two different spectrums. Atheism deals with the actual institution of religion while agnosticism deals with whether or not it's possible to prove there is a god.
  • edited June 2012
    Nobody is fully prepared for every possible discussion, unless you want to always fall back on some position relatively impossible to argue with like solipsism/nihilism/dickism.
    It is possible to argue against those things; I've argued against solipsism in other threads and I will do so again if need be, because it's wrong.
    Nevermind all the weird shit you see when you start getting into quantum physics.
    Quantum physics isn't weird; it's perfectly normal.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • muppet is spouting the usually "You can disprove there is a god" or "It's a belief to think that the physical world is the only thing that exists". These are nice claims to try and equate non-belief with the ridiculousness that is religion/belief in god, but they are just strawmen arguments.

    I can't disprove there is a god because there is no evidence. It's not a belief because the physical world the only thing we can measure.

    It's not a leap of faith to demand evidence for the existence of god just like it's not a leap of faith to demand evidence for thetans or Russell's teapot.

    Also, please don't conflate agnosticism and atheism. They are two different spectrums. Atheism deals with the actual institution of religion while agnosticism deals with whether or not it's possible to prove there is a god.
    No strawman, mostly because I'm not trying to use God to compel you to believe or do something. I don't care if you believe in God or if you behave as though God exists. I just say you can't disprove God, and you can't. There's no subtext. There's no ulterior motive. This annoys people who are used to dealing with subtext and ulterior motives.

    I wasn't conflating agnosticism and atheism. Not even a little.

  • It's an easy thing to keep science and faith separate. God created the universe in 6 days. OK, his days are longer than ours. And it doesn't discuss the mechanism of creation - it only provides attribution. So science can be totally correct - and it just means we're figuring out how he did it.

    But I'm betting they're more stubborn than that. Sounds like your dad thinks we don't know how to compensate for the rate of universe expansion. And he thinks the earth is several thousand years old?

    I've got bad news - you can't reason with them. If you could, they wouldn't be young-Earth creationists. Doubly given the late in life conversion - those types tend to be the most irrational.
  • Primary weapon against Bible-citations?

    The Documentary Hypothesis

    A useful book recommended to me by Luke.
  • I just say you can't disprove God, and you can't. There's no subtext. There's no ulterior motive.
    Then define "god."

  • edited June 2012
    Primary weapon against Bible-citations?

    The Documentary Hypothesis

    A useful book recommended to me by Luke.
    Link fixed. Could someone explain to me why we're having this argument again?
    Post edited by Greg on
  • It's an easy thing to keep science and faith separate. God created the universe in 6 days. OK, his days are longer than ours. And it doesn't discuss the mechanism of creation - it only provides attribution. So science can be totally correct - and it just means we're figuring out how he did it.

    But I'm betting they're more stubborn than that. Sounds like your dad thinks we don't know how to compensate for the rate of universe expansion. And he thinks the earth is several thousand years old?

    I've got bad news - you can't reason with them. If you could, they wouldn't be young-Earth creationists. Doubly given the late in life conversion - those types tend to be the most irrational.
    He's a young earth unless proven otherwise creationist. He's said openly that he just hasn't been presented with evidence for otherwise. I see that as an opportunity.

  • Link fixed. Could someone explain to me why we're having this argument again?
    because no one reads OP
  • I just say you can't disprove God, and you can't. There's no subtext. There's no ulterior motive. This annoys people who are used to dealing with subtext and ulterior motives.

    I wasn't conflating agnosticism and atheism. Not even a little.

    Sure you can disprove him, if you were presented evidence. It's just any and all evidence that exists is superficial and obviously fictitious. The default logical stance is not one of default existence which must be disproved, but rather a skeptical stance of non-existence which must be proved.

  • I just say you can't disprove God, and you can't. There's no subtext. There's no ulterior motive.
    Then define "god."

    Can't, except in the most general terms. This annoys you. I know.

    The thing is, I don't rely on a belief in God. I don't need God to exist. Nothing depends on God existing. I just think it's possible he/she does. People really really really want me to believe it's totally impossible. I feel sorry for those people because they are just as obsessed with nonsense as the Westboro Baptist Church is.

  • I just say you can't disprove God, and you can't. There's no subtext. There's no ulterior motive.
    Then define "god."

    Can't, except in the most general terms.

    So, you assert a completely undefined thing cannot be disproven? You've literally said nothing.

  • edited June 2012
    I just say you can't disprove God, and you can't. There's no subtext. There's no ulterior motive.
    Then define "god."

    Can't, except in the most general terms. This annoys you. I know.

    The thing is, I don't rely on a belief in God. I don't need God to exist. Nothing depends on God existing. I just think it's possible he/she does. People really really really want me to believe it's totally impossible. I feel sorry for those people because they are just as obsessed with nonsense as the Westboro Baptist Church is.

    Is it possible that the flying spaghetti monster exists?

    This is the only topic on this forum which has rules regarding its discussion that could result in penalties. Before we had such rules it repeated 100 times a day with no end. Be careful where you tread.
    Post edited by Apreche on

  • He's a young earth unless proven otherwise creationist. He's said openly that he just hasn't been presented with evidence for otherwise. I see that as an opportunity.
    Honestly? I'd wager he's beyond hope. The evidence against Young Earth Creationism is so extensive, so prevalent, and so deeply vetted, that if he is currently still not convinced, he has set a literally impossible standard of proof for himself.
  • It's an easy thing to keep science and faith separate. God created the universe in 6 days. OK, his days are longer than ours. And it doesn't discuss the mechanism of creation - it only provides attribution. So science can be totally correct - and it just means we're figuring out how he did it.

    But I'm betting they're more stubborn than that. Sounds like your dad thinks we don't know how to compensate for the rate of universe expansion. And he thinks the earth is several thousand years old?

    I've got bad news - you can't reason with them. If you could, they wouldn't be young-Earth creationists. Doubly given the late in life conversion - those types tend to be the most irrational.
    He's a young earth unless proven otherwise creationist. He's said openly that he just hasn't been presented with evidence for otherwise. I see that as an opportunity.
    Easy. Carbon dating. If he disbelieves the technology, he has to disagree with a vast swath of physics. And I can guarantee he hasn't critiqued to that level.

    His beliefs have been challenged - he just ignores the cognitive dissonance. I'd put money on it.

    If your sister has ever said something like "we have evidence of micro-evolution but not macro-evolution," just stop trying. She is literally unsalvagable.

  • I just say you can't disprove God, and you can't. There's no subtext. There's no ulterior motive.
    Then define "god."

    Can't, except in the most general terms.

    So, you assert a completely undefined thing cannot be disproven? You've literally said nothing.

    I think it's possible that the big bang was set in motion by deliberate intent. Can't prove it wasn't. Can't prove it was. It's amazing how complex and interrelated the human body is. Everything works, most of the time. When you start taking anatomy and physiology you learn what an amazing, almost fractal system the body is. It's intense. It's ridiculous. Maybe somebody figured that shit out on a whiteboard someplace. Why not?

    Evolution and intent aren't mutually exclusive necessarily. It's popular to say they are. So what? Can't prove it. Can't disprove it. There's no argument to be had.

    What's funny are the people that get seriously angry when you say "hey, maybe there's something supernatural setting some of the goalposts around here." This is mostly because of the heinous shit organized religion has done. People are pissed off and not as objective as they think they are.

    So it goes.

This discussion has been closed.