What religion are you?

[BlueBalls]

But there have been many irrational ideals that came from atheism, the worst one being the socialist idea that natural selection justifies mass murder.
the real reason for such rationalizations is to justify cruelty.
regardless of the ideology.
nothing is fool proof because fools are so ingenious.

I think we're on the same side on this issue - so I wont comment further.

isn't it a belief that there is only the tangible, and that the universe is a godless mechanism of chance and and natural selection and nothing more, when we don't have the whole picture of everything?

But this is what we have to go on. This is backed up by enough evidence to be accepted. I think it's far more irrational for anyone to take on board what the modern world has to say about the nature of our existence and the state of our universe and choose to pick out the parts modern science has yet to work out and fill it in with what they want to be there - a god or some sort. This line of reasoning gets nobody anywhere because it's untestable.

It's far better for any rational human being to side on the side of evidence than to look out into unknowns and place what they'd like to be there in its place. Those who do this are not rational human beings.

theories are a beliefe, a very well educated and researched belief but one none the less.

This line of argumentation has come up three times this week just to let you know. Again I'll state the term "theory" has duel meanings; one for science and one for its everyday use. Theory in science means that a certain hypothesis has enough evidence behind it to back it up to be taken as fact. Until there comes a long another hypothesis that proves it wrong with proven analytical evidence that theory will still be the standard at which everything else is judged.

In true faith Critical thinking is not finding justification for defending a bullshit stories of fairy tails, its in depth insightful analysis of ones own self in relation to the world around the individual and involves extremely abstract thought.

Does that really depend on faith? Do you have to be able to comprehend a higher power of some sort to relate to your surroundings? I don't believe so.

in return I can say how ridicules is it for scientists to believe in magical forces like gravity and black wholes - super strings and multiple dimensions, because some guy in a lab coat who makes guesses.

Why is it ridiculous? People want to be able to understand the universe in which they live. It is the duty of those who take it upon themselves to study and work in the field of science to find evidence and draw upon the evidence they have gained to infer a conclusion.

It's a little different when we get into the realm of theoretical physics (which someone else will have to talk about for me)..

Those were some amazing leaps of faith.
Einstein came up with a whole new universe just by thinking about it.
and so far he's been right.
both the scientist and the mystic take amazing leaps of faith,
and both have influenced the other,
as a spiritualist and someone who can make assumptions - of course I make bigger leaps of faith, and without critical thinking it is not hard to delude myself.

Yes but do you have any evidence at all that backs up your claims? This is the big difference, science works in evidence. If there's no evidence for a hypothesis then it isn't science it's faith and that divide should never be crossed.

This is why so many people become annoyed at the fact that people want creationism in the science classroom as an alternative to the theory of Evolution. A theory that has no evidence whatsoever up against one that has mountains of evidence (that some choose not to see).

I think that also applies to atheism as well.
a reason why I can not take an absolute position of saying my way is the right way, but like all rational critical thinkers do have a reasoning for my point of view.
It does not matter what your point of view is, it is not incorruptible.
no philosophy is perfect because people lie to themselves.

As I said in my previous post; most atheists accept that they can't prove that god doesn't exist. Some will say they strongly believe that there isn't one. But I really doubt anyone would go so far out on a limb and say they're absolutely certain - like a lot of believers - that there is no god.

You're right, taking an absolutist position on anything is not the right move to make, and allowing some room for error is always a good thing. There may in fact be a god - it's highly unlikely in my opinion - but there may well be and I would have been wrong and I'll accept that.

But until that day comes to believe in something that has no evidence at all to back it up is just irrational to me and to many other people who don’t believe in a higher power – whatever that may be.

 

[Cido123]

As I said in my previous post; most atheists accept that they can't prove that god doesn't exist.
---------
They must not prove.
Vice versa ,who trust (in "something")-proves..

 

[Will E Worm]

As I said in my previous post; most atheists accept that they can't prove that god doesn't exist.
---------
They must not prove.
Vice versa ,who trust (in "something")-proves..

They should just accept the fact they are wrong.


A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.
Theodore Roosevelt

 

[lechepicha]

They should just accept the fact they are wrong.

hmmmmmm. are you SURE about that ? i mean, really sure ?

Atheists are fucking idiots

http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/80645/Atheists-are-fucking-idiots


7 reasons why becoming an atheist sucks

http://www.curefaith.com/2009/04/7-reasons-why-becoming-atheist-sucks.html


9 Reasons Why Atheists Suck

http://shoutwire.com/ecomments/full/125151/9_Reasons_Why_Atheists_Suck

 

[Cpt.Obvious]

said a bunch of stuff

I'm going to try and sum this up in an elegant one stroke tactic.
which will probably even make less sense.

My father who was an Atheist use to say "if there is a god, it is me".
one day after I had started a serious spiritual search in my life (and he was respectful of my beliefs) he in presenting his point of view once again said "if there is a god it is me" to which I replied, "Yes, Exactly".

here is my version of that same discussion with you

It's far better for any rational human being to side on the side of evidence than to look out into unknowns and place what they'd like to be there in its place. Those who do this are not rational human beings.

What did Monsignor Georges Lemaître, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, do?
They looked into the unkown and found the unbelievable and all of them were accused of putting in the place of nothing that what they wanted.

If you are going to argue fools argue about their foolishness, not what they mock.
to do that you have to be precise.

Spirituality does not base itself on what is unknown but what is known and extrapolates from there just as science does
The difference is Faith goes on the personal experience and must make assumptions
Science goes on facts and must be cynical.

science that does not take leaps of faith, and faith that does not question its self, is stagnant and fanatical, and runs the risk of becoming the false shadow of each other.

 

[Cido123]

Old Fairy Tales is not truth.:nono:

All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.
Stendal

 

[Will E Worm]

"my way's better than your way", evangelical, bullshit.

...with Will E Worm.
He lives with his head up his ass, and I'm sure it's very comfortable.

Evangelicalism is a different group altogether and they are apostates.

You have that backwards and flaming is against this sites rules. :nono:

:nono:

You tell him. But, he's a Christ rejector. He will have to change sides first.

 

[Wainkerr99]

Christian.

'"I have said ye are Gods; and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes" [literally heads]. Psalm 82:6.'

'Jesus said, "Is it not written in your law, I said ye are Gods?"'

St Paul was a thinker of his age. He studied under the Rabbi Gamaliel. 'Gamaliel was one of the most honorable and reputable Jewish rabbis during the days of the Apostles (Acts 5:34). He was the grandson of Hillel, the founder of the most influential rabbinical school of Judaism. Gamaliel was also the president of the Sanhedrin in succession of his father'.

I might point out that the learned men of those times studied more than just the Torah.

'The apostle tells us that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God ...neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14).'

Please don't lecture me about citation. I am simply pointing out a Biblical reference to the word on gods.

 

[Johan]

God is a lie created by men to control other men.

Religions has done more evil in the world than any other ideology, including communism ah nazism.

 

[Cpt.Obvious]

They should just accept the fact they are wrong.

if I come to a false conclusion on how to save a life, and circumstances tern out that through actions taken based upon my belief, actually do save that life,
am I wrong ?
If I accurately and correctly asses a proper way to save a life and through proper action taken according to that assessment, fail to save that life,
am I wrong?

A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.
Theodore Roosevelt

Teddy knew the value of ancient politics.

 

[Will E Worm]

Teddy knew the value of ancient politics.

He told the truth.
A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education.
Theodore Roosevelt

:hatsoff:

 

[Cpt.Obvious]

God is a lie created by men to control other men.

Religions has done more evil in the world than any other ideology, including communism ah nazism.

Communism and Nazism are religions
and they were created to control other men.

 

[BlueBalls]

What did Monsignor Georges Lemaître, Albert Einstein, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, do?
They looked into the unkown and found the unbelievable and all of them were accused of putting in the place of nothing that what they wanted.

They came to their conclusions through observation, mathematics and the continuation of the work in the field by those who had come before them - which are the basis of all scientific inquiry. And since their time their theories have either been realised or overtaken by better ones which again is the scientific method coming into play and keeping the facts correct and up to date.

There's no basis for the faith comparison here. To take Newton for example, every discovery he ever made was due to his adherence to scientific understanding of his day. But as soon as he hit that wall where even his great mind couldn't explain something he jumps onto the “higher power” bandwagon. Now why was this? (You have to remember this was centuries before a coherent idea of where we came from as human beings, so we really can excuse him from this) It is lack of knowledge, nothing more – lack of knowledge leads to speculation and this is in no way scientific. As you say further down in your post science is cynical and analytical which allows it to stay on track and keep it free of speculation, faith and guess work. As soon as the mind cannot explain something it jumps to the most abject foolishness - that God must have done it - no I do not believe this is somehow God getting in touch with us or some other spiritual explanation, as I say it's nothing but lack of knowledge looking for meaning. From science to nothing and of course if there's no knowledge there altogether you get nothing but 100% adherence to something that cannot be observed.

This is where the divide comes from; fact based evidence verses a leap of faith. Surely there is only one winner there.

If you are going to argue fools argue about their foolishness, not what they mock.
to do that you have to be precise.

Spirituality does not base itself on what is unknown but what is known and extrapolates from there just as science does
The difference is Faith goes on the personal experience and must make assumptions
Science goes on facts and must be cynical.

science that does not take leaps of faith, and faith that does not question its self, is stagnant and fanatical, and runs the risk of becoming the false shadow of each other.

But the whole notion of "spirituality" is an unknown. So you can't say that it does not base itself unknowns when it's an unknowns itself.

I completely disagree with your whole notion of scientific stagnation. Reasons in the post above.

I don't know. I continue to be sucked into these arguments. Maybe it's time to leave it here.

 

[Cpt.Obvious]

Old Fairy Tales is not truth.:nono:

such as fairy tails like the luminiferous ether?
it was not true and yet proved so much.

All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few.
Stendal

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein

 

[Will E Worm]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein

The same Einstein whose theories are coming under fire now and have been for the last couple years. :tongue:


1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV)
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

[Cpt.Obvious]

stuff

Yes exactly.

My issue is with fanaticism, not with exploration.
I'm not asking you to believe what I do.
I am supporting your point of view as an atheist based upon Critical thinking.
My point is critical thinking goes both ways.
it is just that because we live in a world of practicality and physical needs
the scientific must take president, and the atheist point of view easily is seen as obvious.
Spirituality can easily fly free with imagination.
and because of that.
both atheist and spirituality needs critical thought or faces exploitation by fanaticism.
I am not trying to make converts.
if anything I'm trying to enforce your own position, and your right to your conclusion.
I am also saying many of the very same points that support atheism also support spirituality.
and that both can be exploited by fanaticism using the conclusions of both.

I am with you being apposed to dogmatic religious willful pigheaded ignorance.
just also pointing out, if you take on spirituality in order to undermine religion,
you can inadvertently disprove yourself, because spirituality uses many of the same points of view.
and also fanaticism is not the sole providence of any Ideology.

Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. Sir Arthur Eddington.
draw what ever conclusion you can from that, but atheism is still a belief.
and there for be attacked as one.
I am deliberately leaving out arguments of my own spiritual beliefs, for the purpose of simply trying to point out how an argument can be turned on its head.
that and also spiritualist find blasphemy,
fucking the stone cold corpse of Jesus Christ, funny.
(and by the way that is a real French Canadian curse)

 

[Cpt.Obvious]

The same Einstein whose theories are coming under fire now and have been for the last couple years. :tongue:


1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV)
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

isn't that from the book which the validity of has been under fire for the past 100 years?

 

[Will E Worm]

isn't that from the book which the validity of has been under fire for the past 100 years?

By heretics.

 

[Spleen]

Technically I'm CofE, but only because I was baptised. Now I am nothing. I'm not even athiest.

 

[Cpt.Obvious]

By heretics.

Like biblical scholars.