Respecting religion???
Discussion
eccles said:
To me, worshiping the the Sum, the moon, the wind or the rain has far more logic to it as all these things would have affected their daily lives and whether they ate or not. Whoever dreamt up some all seeing being must have a right one!
Someone I know is very religious (Jesus variety). They get a bit shirty when I even mention concepts like the winter solstice, or referring to star signs (tutting its far too much like the occult for their liking). I resisted the urge to point out that they do worships the winter solstice every year, its just that it has been nicked and given a quick re-spray.
I've not thought much about "who made the person who made everything" argument since Primary school arguments. It didn't seem that relevant then, and doesn't now. The answer could be nothing all the way through to anything, and no-one would ever really know. However, for people who are of a nervous disposition, it must be comforting to be told: "it was my God who made everything - now give me 10% of everything you earn, or else!"
I respect some of the priests I know, who have a real vocation for helping, and being a pastoral influence. However, there are others who are just career priests, who have the look of a junior minister/bag carrier about them.
I can also respect the front line of religion, but Medecins Sans Frontieres et. al can do that too. The tradition is comforting for a lot of people I suppose, and I enjoy looking round a good medieval cathedral or church, which are the best things to be derived from Christianity IMO apart from perhaps Father Ted.
Ian
PRTVR said:
What I find interesting is that people can believe that there was nothing, then everything just appeared in the big bang, that is a a major belief.....
If it is a major belief - it is a mistaken one.None of the leading scientific theories start with "nothing" as a starting condition.
Big bang theory for example gets us back as far as the planck epoch. This is a time 10^-43 seconds after the big bang had started. It is at this point that the theory breaks down as it is insufficient to describe what happened before that (if indeed time even has meaning past that point).
Claudia Skies said:
- How come god hasn't moved on to communicating over the internet? Seems a bit of a slip-up for the all-powerful one to steer clear of something which would potentially be far more effective than relying on those old books.
Give me a break, you know us old types and keyboards, give me an old fashioned stone slab any day of the week.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ridicule away, bring it on. I have my reply ready, it is witty, terse and full of meaning it is "you smell".Seriously, could not care. Personally never had a problem with it. Persecution is another matter and I think that is where the release has come home with information technology. I hope all religions fade away as technology allows information spread. Any god worth her salt would be needing to put in an appearance or disappear in a puff of logic.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
They are two different dimensions though: Gnosticism/Agnosticism and Theism/Atheism. The former is about a state of knowledge, the latter about personal gods.You can be an agnostic atheist (that's what I am) or an agnostic theist (which is I suspect you are). Gnostic Theists (ie people who claim to have sure and certain knowledge of their own personal god) tend to be a bit "enthusiastic".
But in terms of ridiculing/taking the piss out of each other: Absolutely, bring it on!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The big bang, a phrase coined by a scientist who believed in the steady state of the universe, is a theory. It is not like evolution or gravity which are facts. BB is the best explanation of what has been observed. I don't 'believe' it in the same way some religionists suggest they believe in a god. I accept that in the future it will be modified, even changed entirely. As I say, it is the best guess at the moment.
To go back to Newton, he explained gravity. You could say he was wrong but it is not quite that simple. If you want to fly to the Moon, you use Newtonian physics. Want to put a satnav satellite in orbit? Then Einstein is required.
The joy of science is that it is always new. You have to accept that every explanation, every theory, is wrong. In the deep, distant future we might be able to be definitive (I don't think so though), but until them every scientist wants to prove the previous one wrong.
Some creationist once said that all she had to do was prove Darwin wrong on one point to 'win.' This shows how silly she was of course. Darwin's theory has been modified over the years. The discovery of DNA was a bit of a triumph and it explained lots of the stuff Darwin had observed but was unable to explain. But it didn't make him wrong.
So belief in a scientific theory brings with it the acceptance that it will be changed in the future.
Some of those without a real concept of science say: 'Scientists don't know everything.' A farcical statement. Some branches of science suggest they can never know everything. But just because, at the moment, science is wrong about most things it doesn't mean that myth and magic must be invoked.
Newton was wrong about gravity being an attractive force, but scientists still talk of it in this was because it is the easiest way to understand it. But it doesn't mean that if Einstein had suggested that angels held onto our ankles his opinion would have been just as valid.
I accept the big bang theory. I say 'the' but there are a number of versions of it. But they are theories so I know that in the future they will change.
Fred Hoyle, the bloke who came up with big bang, but as a derogatory term, was a great theorist. He used to be on the radio and I remember my elder brother tuning into one of his broadcasts as if it was yesterday, then us discussing what we thought he'd said. But he was wrong on many things yet right on many others. He was the sort of scientist that is essential to the craft: coming up with theories to challenge what was accepted.
I don't believe that an asteroid killed all the dinosaurs. As my youngest said when we watched a programme on it: 'How could one hit all of them?'
After all, why didn't one of them duck?
The facts tend to point towards this but whilst I accept that it is possible, and is the most exciting theory, leading to all sorts of lovely CGI, it might be wrong. And I reckon it probably is. But even if it is proved wrong, the asteroid will still have crashed into the Earth in a location difficult to spell, and dinosaurs would still be extinct.
So in other words, I do not expect to be ridiculed or mocked just because I accept a theory based on observations and experiments that show it as most likely, especially as I will probably accept its replacements. However, and this is the important thing, the observations and results of experiments will remain the same.
Scientists admit (if that is the correct word, perhaps it would be better to say agree or maybe even rejoice in the knowledge that) they do not know everything. To say otherwise would be a tremendous conceit. Yet it is one that many religionists profess = god (or gods) did it.
So mock that.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You seem to think every decision has a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong. I assume you think all agnostics think there is a 50% chance God exists?Every fact we know has a probability of being correct associated with it. We are at least 99.99999% certain the sun will rise tomorrow morning. We can never be 100% sure though.
The probability that there is no creator is not the same for every agnostic or atheist. For me it's somewhere around the 99.999% level. As an atheist the only extra step I've taken over an agnostic is to say this is high enough that I'll take it as correct and use the word 'believe' in everyday language.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure if you are being serious here.
The big bang, a phrase coined by a scientist who believed in the steady state of the universe, is a theory. It is not like evolution or gravity which are facts. BB is the best explanation of what has been observed. I don't 'believe' it in the same way some religionists suggest they believe in a god. I accept that in the future it will be modified, even changed entirely. As I say, it is the best guess at the moment.
To go back to Newton, he explained gravity. You could say he was wrong but it is not quite that simple. If you want to fly to the Moon, you use Newtonian physics. Want to put a satnav satellite in orbit? Then Einstein is required.
The joy of science is that it is always new. You have to accept that every explanation, every theory, is wrong. In the deep, distant future we might be able to be definitive (I don't think so though), but until them every scientist wants to prove the previous one wrong.
Some creationist once said that all she had to do was prove Darwin wrong on one point to 'win.' This shows how silly she was of course. Darwin's theory has been modified over the years. The discovery of DNA was a bit of a triumph and it explained lots of the stuff Darwin had observed but was unable to explain. But it didn't make him wrong.
So belief in a scientific theory brings with it the acceptance that it will be changed in the future.
Some of those without a real concept of science say: 'Scientists don't know everything.' A farcical statement. Some branches of science suggest they can never know everything. But just because, at the moment, science is wrong about most things it doesn't mean that myth and magic must be invoked.
Newton was wrong about gravity being an attractive force, but scientists still talk of it in this was because it is the easiest way to understand it. But it doesn't mean that if Einstein had suggested that angels held onto our ankles his opinion would have been just as valid.
I accept the big bang theory. I say 'the' but there are a number of versions of it. But they are theories so I know that in the future they will change.
Fred Hoyle, the bloke who came up with big bang, but as a derogatory term, was a great theorist. He used to be on the radio and I remember my elder brother tuning into one of his broadcasts as if it was yesterday, then us discussing what we thought he'd said. But he was wrong on many things yet right on many others. He was the sort of scientist that is essential to the craft: coming up with theories to challenge what was accepted.
I don't believe that an asteroid killed all the dinosaurs. As my youngest said when we watched a programme on it: 'How could one hit all of them?'
After all, why didn't one of them duck?
The facts tend to point towards this but whilst I accept that it is possible, and is the most exciting theory, leading to all sorts of lovely CGI, it might be wrong. And I reckon it probably is. But even if it is proved wrong, the asteroid will still have crashed into the Earth in a location difficult to spell, and dinosaurs would still be extinct.
So in other words, I do not expect to be ridiculed or mocked just because I accept a theory based on observations and experiments that show it as most likely, especially as I will probably accept its replacements. However, and this is the important thing, the observations and results of experiments will remain the same.
Scientists admit (if that is the correct word, perhaps it would be better to say agree or maybe even rejoice in the knowledge that) they do not know everything. To say otherwise would be a tremendous conceit. Yet it is one that many religionists profess = god (or gods) did it.
So mock that.
Derek, I only criticise you for saying you KNOW things about the origins of the universe. I know it is just a theory. At present the Big Bang theory and God are at best competing theories i.e. explanations of what could be.The big bang, a phrase coined by a scientist who believed in the steady state of the universe, is a theory. It is not like evolution or gravity which are facts. BB is the best explanation of what has been observed. I don't 'believe' it in the same way some religionists suggest they believe in a god. I accept that in the future it will be modified, even changed entirely. As I say, it is the best guess at the moment.
To go back to Newton, he explained gravity. You could say he was wrong but it is not quite that simple. If you want to fly to the Moon, you use Newtonian physics. Want to put a satnav satellite in orbit? Then Einstein is required.
The joy of science is that it is always new. You have to accept that every explanation, every theory, is wrong. In the deep, distant future we might be able to be definitive (I don't think so though), but until them every scientist wants to prove the previous one wrong.
Some creationist once said that all she had to do was prove Darwin wrong on one point to 'win.' This shows how silly she was of course. Darwin's theory has been modified over the years. The discovery of DNA was a bit of a triumph and it explained lots of the stuff Darwin had observed but was unable to explain. But it didn't make him wrong.
So belief in a scientific theory brings with it the acceptance that it will be changed in the future.
Some of those without a real concept of science say: 'Scientists don't know everything.' A farcical statement. Some branches of science suggest they can never know everything. But just because, at the moment, science is wrong about most things it doesn't mean that myth and magic must be invoked.
Newton was wrong about gravity being an attractive force, but scientists still talk of it in this was because it is the easiest way to understand it. But it doesn't mean that if Einstein had suggested that angels held onto our ankles his opinion would have been just as valid.
I accept the big bang theory. I say 'the' but there are a number of versions of it. But they are theories so I know that in the future they will change.
Fred Hoyle, the bloke who came up with big bang, but as a derogatory term, was a great theorist. He used to be on the radio and I remember my elder brother tuning into one of his broadcasts as if it was yesterday, then us discussing what we thought he'd said. But he was wrong on many things yet right on many others. He was the sort of scientist that is essential to the craft: coming up with theories to challenge what was accepted.
I don't believe that an asteroid killed all the dinosaurs. As my youngest said when we watched a programme on it: 'How could one hit all of them?'
After all, why didn't one of them duck?
The facts tend to point towards this but whilst I accept that it is possible, and is the most exciting theory, leading to all sorts of lovely CGI, it might be wrong. And I reckon it probably is. But even if it is proved wrong, the asteroid will still have crashed into the Earth in a location difficult to spell, and dinosaurs would still be extinct.
So in other words, I do not expect to be ridiculed or mocked just because I accept a theory based on observations and experiments that show it as most likely, especially as I will probably accept its replacements. However, and this is the important thing, the observations and results of experiments will remain the same.
Scientists admit (if that is the correct word, perhaps it would be better to say agree or maybe even rejoice in the knowledge that) they do not know everything. To say otherwise would be a tremendous conceit. Yet it is one that many religionists profess = god (or gods) did it.
So mock that.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure if you are being serious here.
The big bang, a phrase coined by a scientist who believed in the steady state of the universe, is a theory. It is not like evolution or gravity which are facts. BB is the best explanation of what has been observed. I don't 'believe' it in the same way some religionists suggest they believe in a god. I accept that in the future it will be modified, even changed entirely. As I say, it is the best guess at the moment.
To go back to Newton, he explained gravity. You could say he was wrong but it is not quite that simple. If you want to fly to the Moon, you use Newtonian physics. Want to put a satnav satellite in orbit? Then Einstein is required.
The joy of science is that it is always new. You have to accept that every explanation, every theory, is wrong. In the deep, distant future we might be able to be definitive (I don't think so though), but until them every scientist wants to prove the previous one wrong.
Some creationist once said that all she had to do was prove Darwin wrong on one point to 'win.' This shows how silly she was of course. Darwin's theory has been modified over the years. The discovery of DNA was a bit of a triumph and it explained lots of the stuff Darwin had observed but was unable to explain. But it didn't make him wrong.
So belief in a scientific theory brings with it the acceptance that it will be changed in the future.
Some of those without a real concept of science say: 'Scientists don't know everything.' A farcical statement. Some branches of science suggest they can never know everything. But just because, at the moment, science is wrong about most things it doesn't mean that myth and magic must be invoked.
Newton was wrong about gravity being an attractive force, but scientists still talk of it in this was because it is the easiest way to understand it. But it doesn't mean that if Einstein had suggested that angels held onto our ankles his opinion would have been just as valid.
I accept the big bang theory. I say 'the' but there are a number of versions of it. But they are theories so I know that in the future they will change.
Fred Hoyle, the bloke who came up with big bang, but as a derogatory term, was a great theorist. He used to be on the radio and I remember my elder brother tuning into one of his broadcasts as if it was yesterday, then us discussing what we thought he'd said. But he was wrong on many things yet right on many others. He was the sort of scientist that is essential to the craft: coming up with theories to challenge what was accepted.
I don't believe that an asteroid killed all the dinosaurs. As my youngest said when we watched a programme on it: 'How could one hit all of them?'
After all, why didn't one of them duck?
The facts tend to point towards this but whilst I accept that it is possible, and is the most exciting theory, leading to all sorts of lovely CGI, it might be wrong. And I reckon it probably is. But even if it is proved wrong, the asteroid will still have crashed into the Earth in a location difficult to spell, and dinosaurs would still be extinct.
So in other words, I do not expect to be ridiculed or mocked just because I accept a theory based on observations and experiments that show it as most likely, especially as I will probably accept its replacements. However, and this is the important thing, the observations and results of experiments will remain the same.
Scientists admit (if that is the correct word, perhaps it would be better to say agree or maybe even rejoice in the knowledge that) they do not know everything. To say otherwise would be a tremendous conceit. Yet it is one that many religionists profess = god (or gods) did it.
So mock that.
Slight thread drift, but why don't you think an asteroid killing the dinosaurs is possible?The big bang, a phrase coined by a scientist who believed in the steady state of the universe, is a theory. It is not like evolution or gravity which are facts. BB is the best explanation of what has been observed. I don't 'believe' it in the same way some religionists suggest they believe in a god. I accept that in the future it will be modified, even changed entirely. As I say, it is the best guess at the moment.
To go back to Newton, he explained gravity. You could say he was wrong but it is not quite that simple. If you want to fly to the Moon, you use Newtonian physics. Want to put a satnav satellite in orbit? Then Einstein is required.
The joy of science is that it is always new. You have to accept that every explanation, every theory, is wrong. In the deep, distant future we might be able to be definitive (I don't think so though), but until them every scientist wants to prove the previous one wrong.
Some creationist once said that all she had to do was prove Darwin wrong on one point to 'win.' This shows how silly she was of course. Darwin's theory has been modified over the years. The discovery of DNA was a bit of a triumph and it explained lots of the stuff Darwin had observed but was unable to explain. But it didn't make him wrong.
So belief in a scientific theory brings with it the acceptance that it will be changed in the future.
Some of those without a real concept of science say: 'Scientists don't know everything.' A farcical statement. Some branches of science suggest they can never know everything. But just because, at the moment, science is wrong about most things it doesn't mean that myth and magic must be invoked.
Newton was wrong about gravity being an attractive force, but scientists still talk of it in this was because it is the easiest way to understand it. But it doesn't mean that if Einstein had suggested that angels held onto our ankles his opinion would have been just as valid.
I accept the big bang theory. I say 'the' but there are a number of versions of it. But they are theories so I know that in the future they will change.
Fred Hoyle, the bloke who came up with big bang, but as a derogatory term, was a great theorist. He used to be on the radio and I remember my elder brother tuning into one of his broadcasts as if it was yesterday, then us discussing what we thought he'd said. But he was wrong on many things yet right on many others. He was the sort of scientist that is essential to the craft: coming up with theories to challenge what was accepted.
I don't believe that an asteroid killed all the dinosaurs. As my youngest said when we watched a programme on it: 'How could one hit all of them?'
After all, why didn't one of them duck?
The facts tend to point towards this but whilst I accept that it is possible, and is the most exciting theory, leading to all sorts of lovely CGI, it might be wrong. And I reckon it probably is. But even if it is proved wrong, the asteroid will still have crashed into the Earth in a location difficult to spell, and dinosaurs would still be extinct.
So in other words, I do not expect to be ridiculed or mocked just because I accept a theory based on observations and experiments that show it as most likely, especially as I will probably accept its replacements. However, and this is the important thing, the observations and results of experiments will remain the same.
Scientists admit (if that is the correct word, perhaps it would be better to say agree or maybe even rejoice in the knowledge that) they do not know everything. To say otherwise would be a tremendous conceit. Yet it is one that many religionists profess = god (or gods) did it.
So mock that.
I understood the theory was that the asteroid was so big (big enough to cause the gulf of mexico or similar) that the change in climate was sufficient to kill all the big stuff. Seems plausible. The fact that the dinosaurs did not evolve again is further proof of how evolution works.
PS When will the mocking of atheists start? Depending on how theists do this, it tends to focus on what atheists say about religion, which in turn ends up as focussing on the part of theology that are typically considered wanting by athiests. So it usually ends up backfiring on the theists.
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 24th January 11:47
anonymous said:
[redacted]
This is the bit you seem to struggle with Voight. All possibilities are not equally valid, but in order to find space for God theists often try to set everything on a even playing field when it clearly is not.The big bang theory is based on actual observation of the actual universe and its attributes. God is based on a few books and absolutely no actual observation of the actual universe.
If a few books is all that is necessary to provide a competing theory, then surely it is equally as possible that Ra or Vishnu or the titan Cronos created the universe. Yet it's clear you dismiss those as competing theories, without any rationale.
Scientists do not know everything with certainty, but they propose models and theories based on a preponderance of evidence and probability. Those that are repeatable and best match experimental observation are then taken as our best available explanation.
I am willing to accept that there may have been a being incomprehensible to us which kick started the creation and expansion of the universe, but that being would be absolutely nothing like the personal God described in the Bible, and it would have had no further impact on the development of anything in the universe.
However, on balance of probability introducing another unnecessary element into the creation of the universe (if things cannot create themselves, who created the incomprehensible being?) seems pointless, so I am happy to accept that the universe does not have a creator.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes, if you choose to. That's the whole point of this thread. People should be allowed to mock the beliefs of others, if they wish to and if they think the beliefs are stupid. I've go no issue with someone mocking my belief that 2+2=4, because they think it's five. I have sufficient confidence in my position to not be worried by the mockery. ///ajd said:
Slight thread drift, but why don't you think an asteroid killing the dinosaurs is possible?
I understood the theory was that the asteroid was so big (big enough to cause the gulf of mexico or similar) that the change in climate was sufficient to kill all the big stuff. Seems plausible. The fact that the dinosaurs did not evolve again is further proof of how evolution works.
PS When will the mocking of atheists start? Depending on how theists do this, it tends to focus on what atheists say about religion, which in turn ends up as focussing on the part of theology that are typically considered wanting by athiests. So it usually ends up backfiring on the theists.
Sorry to not be clear. I'm not suggesting the asteroid theory is not possible. In fact I reckon it has a lot going for it. One objection is a bit unscientific: everyone loves a catastrophe. Further, if it didn't lend itself to all sorts of exciting Discovery programmes, I wonder if it would have been fed to us so frequently.I understood the theory was that the asteroid was so big (big enough to cause the gulf of mexico or similar) that the change in climate was sufficient to kill all the big stuff. Seems plausible. The fact that the dinosaurs did not evolve again is further proof of how evolution works.
PS When will the mocking of atheists start? Depending on how theists do this, it tends to focus on what atheists say about religion, which in turn ends up as focussing on the part of theology that are typically considered wanting by athiests. So it usually ends up backfiring on the theists.
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 24th January 11:47
However, the main problem I have with it is that people went looking for this specific solution and the conflicting evidence, which was frequently referred to pre-Chixulub, has been sidelined. If you look at all the major police investigations that went wrong, the team generally went looking for a specific solution rather than gathering evidence and then working out who might have done it. The inconvenient circumstances were rather ignored.
That said, I have little doubt that the asteroid had an influence. But was it, as we are told, the main cause of the end of the species? I'm not convinced.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Do they? Atheism by it's definition is simply a lack of belief in god or gods (the prefix "a" means "without" and theism is the belief in the existence of god or gods)Agnosticism by comparison asserts that the nature of god is unknowable. Agnosticism appears to be making claims that cannot be tested - atheism makes no such claims.
An assertion that god does not exist seems to fit the definition of an antitheist rather than an atheist.
alock said:
You seem to think every decision has a 50/50 chance of being right or wrong. I assume you think all agnostics think there is a 50% chance God exists?
Every fact we know has a probability of being correct associated with it. We are at least 99.99999% certain the sun will rise tomorrow morning. We can never be 100% sure though.
The probability that there is no creator is not the same for every agnostic or atheist. For me it's somewhere around the 99.999% level. As an atheist the only extra step I've taken over an agnostic is to say this is high enough that I'll take it as correct and use the word 'believe' in everyday language.
Sorry, and I don't intend to tell you how or what to believe, but I understood that atheism was an absolute certainty, in your mind at least, that a God does not exist, it seems strange to mock theist believers if you don't have the balls to say either you simply don't or can't say (agnostic) or that you are 100% certain.Every fact we know has a probability of being correct associated with it. We are at least 99.99999% certain the sun will rise tomorrow morning. We can never be 100% sure though.
The probability that there is no creator is not the same for every agnostic or atheist. For me it's somewhere around the 99.999% level. As an atheist the only extra step I've taken over an agnostic is to say this is high enough that I'll take it as correct and use the word 'believe' in everyday language.
I do think it a little wrong to be talking about 50/50 probability splits or any particular probability splits in this instance without any idea to base it on other than your own opinion.
I believe that there is 100% certainty, which is absolute, and there is everything else.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 24th January 12:46
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Yes, if you choose to. That's the whole point of this thread. People should be allowed to mock the beliefs of others, if they wish to and if they think the beliefs are stupid. I've go no issue with someone mocking my belief that 2+2=4, because they think it's five. I have sufficient confidence in my position to not be worried by the mockery.
It was the major error of scientists in their battle against religionists pushing creationism on school kids. They assumed that once the overwhelming evidence for evolution was presented then everyone would accept it, in the same way as they accept gravity. But it didn't go away. Rich people funded propaganda, the middle American gospel idiots forced their beliefs on schools and all of a sudden, like with voight, it suddenly became a competition between supposed conflicting theories.Churches mocked science and proven fact. Go on YouTube to see the self ordained ministers ridiculing evolution. It is farcical and deserves mocking, not because of their beliefs, but their desire to push these onto children as a theory, when it quite patently is not.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff