|
On June 15 2010 09:58 krndandaman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 04:22 enzym wrote:On June 15 2010 02:01 zrules wrote:
People are entitled to what they believe every person whose beliefs are not consistent with reality effectively harm other people by making ignorance more widely accepted. so i disagree. that's actually very ignorant by you. you're essentially saying "my belief is correct, anyone else who is exposed to other beliefs is in danger because they will be forever lost in ignorance.' People believe what they believe for a reason. You think millions of people were brainwashed? LOL
That isn't what he is saying. He is saying that it is harmful to become complacent in your views of the world, to stop questioning things. Which it is.
Yes, people believe things for a reason. And for most people that reason is something other than a conclusion based on questioning. In fact, I would expect most theists believe what they believe for social reasons. Debate a fundamental christian and see how much fun that is.
Show nested quote +No body repeat No body is an atheist "one morning". Atheism can be correctly correlated with liberal political views, simply because, as atheists, we do not attach "sin" to everything people do in their personal lives. Who are you, or who am I, to say that two consenting adults are sinners?. Enjoy your sexuality, and let others enjoy theirs." Actually, not all theists go apeshit about homosexuality. As one myself, I take a liberal standpoint which is 'who are we to judge another sinner?' Sure homosexuality is a sin, but what makes it any different from the daily sins one commits every day?
this is wise
There are tons of different opinions out there and a simple video like this won't change any views ROFL
I don't think that's why he posted the video. Did you read his post? He isn't trying to change anyone's religious views as far as I can tell.
|
On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life.
We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't.
|
On June 15 2010 10:29 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life. We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't.
If religious belief were based upon rationality and evidence it would not be called faith. Faith fills the gaps of experience and evidence. The tone of my statement may have been slightly derogatory, but I think the dictionary definition of irrationality is quite consistent with that of faith.
Also, if I started hearing god, I would think it much more likely that I was experiencing some sort of hallucination. The human mind is not flawless and can be easily duped.
|
On June 15 2010 10:33 3clipse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 10:29 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life. We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't. If religious belief were based upon rationality and evidence it would not be called faith. Faith fills the gaps of experience and evidence. The tone of my statement may have been slightly derogatory, but I think the dictionary definition of irrationality is quite consistent with that of faith.
No, faith is described by lack of proof, not lack of evidence.
Also, if I started hearing god, I would think it much more likely that I was experiencing some sort of hallucination. The human mind is not flawless and can be easily duped.
That's the thing. If you examine something, there will surely be a verifiable cause. This does not mean that this cause isn't part of a greater "supernatural" scheme. It could be both.
|
|
|
On June 15 2010 10:47 krndandaman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 10:33 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 10:29 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life. We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't. If religious belief were based upon rationality and evidence it would not be called faith. Faith fills the gaps of experience and evidence. The tone of my statement may have been slightly derogatory, but I think the dictionary definition of irrationality is quite consistent with that of faith. Also, if I started hearing god, I would think it much more likely that I was experiencing some sort of hallucination. The human mind is not flawless and can be easily duped. Idk if I heard the voice of god i'd assume i'd realize for sure that it is god. it wouldn't be the voice of god if you were like 'oh gee what is this voice? perhaps im hallucinating' anyways just watched the video and its pretty retarded. dunno why OP is complaining that the video should be off the web, its mainly showing how stupid the museum is, rather than supporting it.
he must mean net as in trap
I was confused as well
|
On June 15 2010 10:38 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 10:33 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 10:29 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life. We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't. If religious belief were based upon rationality and evidence it would not be called faith. Faith fills the gaps of experience and evidence. The tone of my statement may have been slightly derogatory, but I think the dictionary definition of irrationality is quite consistent with that of faith. No, faith is described by lack of proof, not lack of evidence.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith
This is the first definition I looked at and the word evidence is present. Although I think we're arguing unsubstantial semantics here.
Also, if I started hearing god, I would think it much more likely that I was experiencing some sort of hallucination. The human mind is not flawless and can be easily duped.
On June 15 2010 10:38 travis wrote:
That's the thing. If you examine something, there will surely be a verifiable cause. This does not mean that this cause isn't part of a greater "supernatural" scheme. It could be both.
This is an absurd argument. "Ok, so they had this vision because of the chemical balance in their brain resulting from their severe schizophrenia... but god gave them schizophrenia!". You could answer every question with "god did it" at the root. God makes atoms form and behave the ways they do. God controls gravity. Great. I've stated several times that a god obviously cannot be disproven because the very concept is not grounded in the natural world. I have provided a natural explanation. Your comeback is based purely on faith; what you believe or what it "could" be.
I will concede, however, that those experiencing visions are not relying on faith, but rather delusions. The evidence is apparent to them, it is their perception that is flawed.
|
On June 15 2010 11:00 3clipse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 10:38 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:33 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 10:29 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life. We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't. If religious belief were based upon rationality and evidence it would not be called faith. Faith fills the gaps of experience and evidence. The tone of my statement may have been slightly derogatory, but I think the dictionary definition of irrationality is quite consistent with that of faith. No, faith is described by lack of proof, not lack of evidence. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faithThis is the first definition I looked at and the word evidence is present. Although I think we're arguing unsubstantial semantics here.
Material evidence is what it says. I know exactly what I am arguing.
Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 10:38 travis wrote:
That's the thing. If you examine something, there will surely be a verifiable cause. This does not mean that this cause isn't part of a greater "supernatural" scheme. It could be both. This is an absurd argument. "Ok, so they had this vision because of the chemical balance in their brain resulting from their severe schizophrenia... but god gave them schizophrenia!". You could answer every question with "god did it" at the root. God makes atoms form and behave the ways they do. God controls gravity. Great. I've stated several times that a god obviously cannot be disproven because the very concept is not grounded in the natural world. I have provided a natural explanation. Your comeback is based purely on faith; what you believe or what it "could" be.
Up to here we seem to be agreeing. You call it absurd, I am not sure what the basis for that is.
|
Man, there is some bigtime spirituality bashing going on here. This is not some black and white issue of I'm right, there is no god, and because you have no proof you are irrational (wrong). Should there be greater powers, which there very well could be, I would highly doubt they would be anything near rational. These are things that we will likely never know in this lifetime, which is why it bugs me when people start saying "there is no god, no afterlife, etc" because these are statements that cannot be proven. There's really no point arguing because everyone can counter everyone else's argument (if there's a god, why do people suffer. maybe there's some greater plan, lessons, karma, who really knows), but to definitively say that you know what is and isn't is ignorant. I'm not forcing opinions, but I think it's better to keep an open mind.
And a big lol goes out to the wikipedia studies. Those are sure proof that spiritual people are idiots. I'm slightly offended 
|
On June 15 2010 11:21 eLiE wrote:Man, there is some bigtime spirituality bashing going on here. This is not some black and white issue of I'm right, there is no god, and because you have no proof you are irrational (wrong). Should there be greater powers, which there very well could be, I would highly doubt they would be anything near rational. These are things that we will likely never know in this lifetime, which is why it bugs me when people start saying "there is no god, no afterlife, etc" because these are statements that cannot be proven. There's really no point arguing because everyone can counter everyone else's argument (if there's a god, why do people suffer. maybe there's some greater plan, lessons, karma, who really knows), but to definitively say that you know what is and isn't is ignorant. I'm not forcing opinions, but I think it's better to keep an open mind. And a big lol goes out to the wikipedia studies. Those are sure proof that spiritual people are idiots. I'm slightly offended
I wouldn't call it bashing
They are just presenting their point of views
They are not ripping on the religion
I don't think that it should bug you that people say "there is no god, no afterlife, etc"
It is their point of view, you should keep an open mind in that regards as well
now if they start bashing religion and flaming or what not, then you can be annoyed by them.
But that is not because they say those things, but because of what they are doing
To be honest, I have been to that creationist museum like during spring break...
Mom was like, I heard about this and lets go see it
I went in and the first thing I see, dinosaurs and people
wat
And they were like trying to explain every phenomenon based upon what God has done in the Bible or something and I was just like
honestly do you expect us to believe all this?
I told mom at the end that it was really uh not very true lol
I am a Christian but that was just a load of hot air
waste of time and money
not to mention ,more importantly, the misleading stuff they were presenting
They did have a petting zoo, got to see a camel in real life xD
|
On June 15 2010 08:45 travis wrote:
to save john lenin?
Wait, was this on purpose? Because I always thought that song was pretty obviously talking about something like communism lol. Every time I say that, though, people are all "oh no he's just talking about a brotherhood of men who are equal" and I don't know how to respond.
|
On June 15 2010 12:02 Redmark wrote:Wait, was this on purpose? Because I always thought that song was pretty obviously talking about something like communism lol. Every time I say that, though, people are all "oh no he's just talking about a brotherhood of men who are equal" and I don't know how to respond.
oops it's john lennon eh
no that was not on purpose rofl
I don't think he is talking about communism, but that is an interesting way to interpret it.
|
On June 15 2010 10:25 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 09:58 krndandaman wrote:On June 15 2010 04:22 enzym wrote:On June 15 2010 02:01 zrules wrote:
People are entitled to what they believe every person whose beliefs are not consistent with reality effectively harm other people by making ignorance more widely accepted. so i disagree. that's actually very ignorant by you. you're essentially saying "my belief is correct, anyone else who is exposed to other beliefs is in danger because they will be forever lost in ignorance.' People believe what they believe for a reason. You think millions of people were brainwashed? LOL That isn't what he is saying. He is saying that it is harmful to become complacent in your views of the world, to stop questioning things. Which it is. Yes, people believe things for a reason. And for most people that reason is something other than a conclusion based on questioning. In fact, I would expect most theists believe what they believe for social reasons. Debate a fundamental christian and see how much fun that is.
Travis, while it is a danger to stop questioning of things, it is their right in the U.S. to do so, they can believe and express what they want. The liberty to have the ability to question what you believe is wrong stems from the ability to actually express what you think is wrong. If people lose the right to cite what is wrong in their minds, then no longer do we have democracy, but a one sided mob rule. However "unfortunate" (as some people might say, you didn't... obvious :/) it is to have the ability to speak whatever the hell you want even if it is just plain wrong is, more or less, a check on our system, to prevent it from being a, more or less, befuddlement of a single outspoken idea. Actually, considering that this was the way some of the founding fathers wanted to make disbelief in "God and Country" possible, it is ironic that now that very right which they needed to speak out against the pretenses of Christianity at the time are now being used by Christians in the modern time against Atheism/belief in Science alone.
|
On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 03:55 Impervious wrote:On June 15 2010 02:28 J1.au wrote:On June 15 2010 02:25 XFire wrote:My grandma is a Lutheran, my dad thinks we came from another planet (idk there), my mom is agnostic, and I'm an agnostic atheist. The faith is dying with generations.  How does that work? The person realizes that there is no way of currently proving that there is no god, however, there is more than enough evidence out there to show that the gods people believe in right now are fallacies..... However, the belief is that there is no god. That is how it separates itself from both atheist and agnostic. It is like a mesh of the two. A good way to look at is by examining Russell's Teapot.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Some other useful quotes: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? - Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? - Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? - Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? - Then why call him God.
"You take the word of one book...written by middle aged men in middle age tents,but you wont even examine the evidence presented by thousands of scientists in thousands of books...Pathetic.
You assume that I am an atheist because I hate god. NO, I am an atheist because...I have examined the evidence of the universe, of life, of matter presented by science. Then I asked my self, "Which is more plausible and complete?, science or religion. Which is more open to any hypothesis, provided there is evidence..." . I did not become an atheist just by waking up and saying, "I hate god". No, I couldn't care less what the theologians do in their varied places of worship.
No body repeat No body is an atheist "one morning". Atheism can be correctly correlated with liberal political views, simply because, as atheists, we do not attach "sin" to everything people do in their personal lives. Who are you, or who am I, to say that two consenting adults are sinners?. Enjoy your sexuality, and let others enjoy theirs."
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." I would argue that you are simply an atheist. I think the term agnosticism was created as a "soft atheism" for those who didn't wish to offend back when the term atheist was severely taboo (it still is, to a certain extent). Atheists do not "know" that there is no god. That in itself would be an act of faith. If I'm to generalize for a minute, they are rationalists above all else. By its very definition, supernatural phenomenon can be neither proven nor disproven. The only logical stance is to suspend belief in a higher power if no evidence for one exists. Either you believe in a god in the absence of evidence (faith) or you do not. The view that all atheists have some sort of blind devotion to the concept that there could never be a higher power is a straw man set up by fundamentalists to give the movement a dogmatic feel similar to their own religious regime. The nature of science does not rest upon unfounded assumptions and rigid predispositions; it is our best guess as to how the universe functions based on the evidence we have right now and it is subject to change as new evidence arises.
You can believe in a God/Gods, you can be unsure, or you can believe that there are none.
And, even if you are unsure, you can lean in the direction of a belief that God/Gods exist, or you can lean in the direction of a belief that God/Gods do not exist.
Atheist is the belief that there is no God/Gods. Theist is the belief that there is a God/Gods. Agnosticism are those that are unsure. There is such thing as an Agnostic Theist.....
tldr: Atheism = Agnosticism
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Not quite. It's more like a spectrum, with hard-core theists on one end, hard-core atheists on the other, and agnostics right in the middle.
|
On June 15 2010 11:09 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 11:00 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 10:38 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:33 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 10:29 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 10:04 3clipse wrote:
You either have irrational faith in the supernatural or you do not.
Disagreed. If one has a voice of god in their head which speaks to them then how is it irrational to believe in god? Many people are provided evidence of their faith during life. We are, first and foremost, creatures of subjective experiences. One thinks they know something until they discover they don't. If religious belief were based upon rationality and evidence it would not be called faith. Faith fills the gaps of experience and evidence. The tone of my statement may have been slightly derogatory, but I think the dictionary definition of irrationality is quite consistent with that of faith. No, faith is described by lack of proof, not lack of evidence. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faithThis is the first definition I looked at and the word evidence is present. Although I think we're arguing unsubstantial semantics here. Material evidence is what it says. I know exactly what I am arguing.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith
"4. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irrational
"b : not governed by or according to reason"
I agree that terms are not perfectly synonymous and faith may be based on some stream of rational thought. My central point was that one either has faith in a higher power of one does not. I do not find much about religion to be rational, but I suppose logic and "evidence" based upon subjective perception could be used in defense of religion. Is this what are trying to argue?
On June 15 2010 10:38 travis wrote:
Up to here we seem to be agreeing. You call it absurd, I am not sure what the basis for that is.
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it.
On June 15 2010 12:25 Impervious wrote:You can believe in a God/Gods, you can be unsure, or you can believe that there are none. And, even if you are unsure, you can lean in the direction of a belief that God/Gods exist, or you can lean in the direction of a belief that God/Gods do not exist. Atheist is the belief that there is no God/Gods. Theist is the belief that there is a God/Gods. Agnosticism are those that are unsure. There is such thing as an Agnostic Theist.....Not quite. It's more like a spectrum, with hard-core theists on one end, hard-core atheists on the other, and agnostics right in the middle.
You've really only quoted definitions here. I know what the terms mean.
I believe atheist is an appropriate term for anyone who is not a theist. The traditional definition of atheists seems dogmatic and unrealistic to me- I believe the label was created by the Christian majority to make atheism seem as reliant on faith as theism is. I don't think there are very many non-believers who have unshakable, unquestioning faith that no gods exist. Why would they? There is no text training them to perceive differing points of view as heresy and preachers telling them to resist impure thoughts which question the establishment. In the absence of intellectual coercion, things are not black and white and all possibilities must be considered. Neither Atheists or Agnostics have an unshakable belief that Yahweh/Allah/Vishnu/etc is the true path to salvation which basically puts them in the same boat. Maybe self-identified Agnostics have some vague belief that there could be something out there or think they're "spiritual" or want to stay open-minded, but without an upbringing in a specific religion they would have no reason to believe religion x over religion y and so would likely never adopt an organized religion. I think Atheism and Agnosticism are very similar in practice and Agnostics should be considered Atheists. Primarily because:
1. The term Atheism has become a taboo and twisted to mean things that it does not. If it becomes all-encompassing to represent non-religious people as a whole then it will become apparent that Atheists are not hardheaded, hateful, millitant bastards who want to turn your children over to satan, but are moral, non-religious people who are unthreatening and all around you.
2. I will agree that there is a spectrum of sorts among atheists, perhaps that "spirituality" factor, but I think whether one is a theist or not is pretty black and white. Most religions require certian rituals and the assumption of unwavering belief. If you're not really sure if you believe in Jesus, you're not a theist. "Agnostics" have so, so much more in common with "Atheists" than with Theists.
I guess I can't really argue against what you self-identify as. I am basically of the "Agnostics are Atheists without balls" camp. I used to identify as Agnostic, now I would call myself an Atheist. I wouldn't say much has changed aside from my perception of what the terms mean to me.
|
On June 15 2010 13:09 3clipse wrote:
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it.
Well, how about the fact that conscious experience is not necessary nor serves any function in a material universe. All that we do could happen without consciousness.
I do not find much about religion to be rational, but I suppose logic and "evidence" based upon subjective perception could be used in defense of religion. Is this what are trying to argue?
yes
|
On June 15 2010 13:19 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 13:09 3clipse wrote:
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it. Well, how about the fact that conscious experience is not necessary nor serves any function in a material universe. All that we do could happen without consciousness.
I disagree. I doubt any being could function with the adaptive capabilities, perception and complex thought patterns as humanity without developing a consciousness of oneself.
If you are, in fact, correct, it means very little. Discussions of what should or should not "naturally" be without a creator are entirely arbitrary. Why something rather than nothing? Well, why nothing rather than something? We've come a long way in understanding our world, but we are mortal beings(or perhaps you believe our souls persist for eternity, w/e) and we may never be ever to adequately answer these questions, but my lack of an explanation does not give credence to a supernatural one.
|
On June 15 2010 11:21 eLiE wrote:Man, there is some bigtime spirituality bashing going on here. This is not some black and white issue of I'm right, there is no god, and because you have no proof you are irrational (wrong). Should there be greater powers, which there very well could be, I would highly doubt they would be anything near rational. These are things that we will likely never know in this lifetime, which is why it bugs me when people start saying "there is no god, no afterlife, etc" because these are statements that cannot be proven. There's really no point arguing because everyone can counter everyone else's argument (if there's a god, why do people suffer. maybe there's some greater plan, lessons, karma, who really knows), but to definitively say that you know what is and isn't is ignorant. I'm not forcing opinions, but I think it's better to keep an open mind. And a big lol goes out to the wikipedia studies. Those are sure proof that spiritual people are idiots. I'm slightly offended
Herein lies the problem. Atheist shouldn't be the one proving for non-existence. Theist should be proving for existence. Scientifically, the one who propose the hypothesis should be the one proving it. You may claim that saying "god doesn't exist" is a hypothesis itself but it is based on the "god exist" assumption theist makes. The root of this issue would then be proving of god's existence instead of non-existence.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
altho this has been posted countless times, i feel a need to post it again. It pretty much sums up the root issue of the "God Vs No God" debate.
|
On June 15 2010 13:58 3clipse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 13:19 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 13:09 3clipse wrote:
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it. Well, how about the fact that conscious experience is not necessary nor serves any function in a material universe. All that we do could happen without consciousness. I disagree. I doubt any being could function with the adaptive capabilities, perception and complex thought patterns as humanity without developing a consciousness of oneself.
really? rocks fall, do they have to experience falling?
waves crash, do they have to experience crashing?
If you are, in fact, correct, it means very little. Discussions of what should or should not "naturally" be without a creator are entirely arbitrary. Why something rather than nothing? Well, why nothing rather than something? We've come a long way in understanding our world, but we are mortal beings(or perhaps you believe our souls persist for eternity, w/e) and we may never be ever to adequately answer these questions, but my lack of an explanation does not give credence to a supernatural one.
this is true and a good point, I agree actually. however it demonstrates what science lacks when it comes to greater understanding.
|
Well, I'd say we're at a slight disadvantage considering god is such a tough guy to get a hold of. That's why it's not really a fair argument, the discussion of faith is not a rational one or one possible to prove or disprove, hence the term taking a leap of faith. We're not wrong in doing it, and neither are atheists in staying rationally grounded, but rationality isn't everything, it's a certain point of view. And I'm not saying faith goes blindly without doubt, really, the two go hand in hand.
Personally (studying science towards medicine), I think there are things too amazingly complicated and perfectly formed to believe that they could arise purely out of chance, and that's all the evidence I need to believe in something else.
I actually had a really smart professor who got stuck teaching an elective bio course, and he took it in his own direction and made a pretty smart argument for and against a god using all these theories. I wish i could understand the diagrams I scribbled down.
EDIT:
this is true and a good point, I agree actually. however it demonstrates what science lacks when it comes to greater understanding.
I think this is the whole point. Science is confined to a rational perspective (I remember the prof going on about occam's razor). Because we can't create testable predictions for theories about god or spirituality, the topic is by definition arbitrary and irrational. Faith fills in the gaps that science cannot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
