Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 25 of 120 1 2 23 24 25 26 27 119 120
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
The smallest single cell is more complex than a house for us to create, but it is not evidence of god or any supernatural being, any more than it is proof of the existence of a soul.

Souls and gods exist because people believe in them, without belief they are nothing.

.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
About my belief in a future free from suffering and pain, let me add:I believe that this will only come about with the help of the divine tools such as faith, hope, love--the human power to will good--plus science and evolution.

Ellis, you comment
Quote:
That is a lovely thought...I can see how it would be comforting to believe that, and gain strength from such belief.

If you think it is a "lovely thought..." then I presume you would like it to be so, okay?

If this is true you do not need to add: "Though I do not share it." All you need add is your gift of will power. I like to say, if anything is to be, it is up to me.

You say, "Souls and gods exist because people believe in them, without belief they are nothing." Right on!

Faith, hope and love are powerful GØD-like spiritual tools.
I would feel I had joined the fools if I refused to use such tools: laugh Pardon the doggerel!

Last edited by Revlgking; 11/04/07 05:55 AM.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
Originally Posted By: Ellis
The smallest single cell is more complex than a house for us to create, but it is not evidence of god or any supernatural being, any more than it is proof of the existence of a soul.


This is because you have been conditioned to believe that the universe can be created and fine tuned to produce incredible complexity and mind out of inanimate matter by UTTER CHANCE.

On the other hand, Anthony Flew, after being a leading atheist for 50 years has decided that current scientific knowledge presents an overwhelming case that what we see could only have arisen as the result of a guiding intelligence.

His very lucid book, 'There is a God' sets out his journey.

In an interview he recently said -

Wiker: You say in 'There is a God', that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial…to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself " 'Can you hear me now?'"

Flew: "There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion."


So much for the atheist argument that science leads to atheistic materialism. It is only Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens who are so dogmatic and fundamental in their seething anger that they cannot see where the evidence is truly leading.

The great deception of the Twentieth Century was that we can get mind from mud. The Twenty-First Century will show how much of a fantasy the idea is.


THE GAME IS OVER FOR ATHEISTS AND WE ARE SEEING THE DECLINE OF ATHEISM AS AN INTELLECTUALLY COHERENT EXPLANATION OF LIFE.


Last edited by Socrates2007; 11/04/07 12:33 PM.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I'm guessing you are unaware that Flew recanted his recantation and admitted that he based his initial switch on erroneous views he had read.

OTOH, I didn't realize that it was an atheist argument that science leads to atheistic materialism, at least not necessarily. That is irrelevant to abiogenesis and evolution. The Bible itself says that mind comes from mud - mixed with a little pixie dust. Science is just making the pixie dust unnecessary.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Socrates---Science does not lead to atheism. Independent thinking does.



Rev, you commented---If you think it is a "lovely thought..." then I presume you would like it to be so, okay?

But for it to be so I would have to believe in the after life, and I most unambiguously do not.

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
Your comments answered here:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=24152#Post24152

and:

TFF, Leading scientists claim exactly that science and evolution in particular disposes of God - Dawkins goes further. A recent conference with Dawkins, Harris etc. stated that it was sciences job to destroy religion.

We can all use terms like pixie dust to ridicule an argument...most modern Christians have a more sophisticated view of things...you misrepresent.

Ellis, How So? Is Flew not an independent thinker?

Last edited by Socrates2007; 11/04/07 11:08 PM.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
1. What things have I misrepresented?

2. I'd like to see what the exact quote is from Dawkins, Harris. Regardless, it doesn't mean I agree with them - or that they speak for all atheists, or all scientists.

3. Flew may or may not be an independent thinker. That doesn't make him right.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
OK Socrates, lets all concede for now "that current scientific knowledge presents an overwhelming case that what we see could only have arisen as the result of a guiding intelligence."

How has this guiding intelligence operated? What can the idea tell us about the Old Testament, the Qran, the Torah, Buddhist beliefs, animism, or any other religious belief? Surely their varying interpretations of the "guiding intelligence" are incompatible with each other, and with the evidence.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Socrates asked--Is Flew not an independent thinker?

I have to admit to not being familiar with Flew's work however I can, and I will, generalise on this point of view as it is not unique to Mr Flew! I feel that maybe Flew (and others of his ilk) may present as independent thinkers, but to me they appear to be more like dependent believers.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
More than once I have asked atheists: If you are an atheist--which philosophy I respect--define for me the kind of God you think theists have in mind.

While you are at it, define the kind of GØD you think I have in mind, the kind I affirm.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
1. Atheism is not a philosophy, per se. It is a component of philosophy. It can be a derivative of a philosophy or it can be a (partial) basis for a philosophy. It can be an ancillary or ad hoc portion of a philosophy, but it isn't a philosophy unto itself.

2. Atheists may or may not mean the same thing by the term 'atheism' that you do when you use the term.

3. I have always acknowledged that there are multiple definitions of 'god'; however, those definitions are can be categorized or grouped. I have expressed my opinion on a number of different views here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgtoaVACidw

Of course, most people who have religious beliefs resist having their beliefs categorized, because their views are obviously correct and more sophisticated than the others in the category.

"See, those OTHER guys, they argue over whether god wears a BLUE shirt or a RED shirt, but we sophisticates realize that god doesn't even WEAR a shirt!"

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
TFF, there is something wrong with my 'puter, all voices sound like chipmunks laugh. Maybe God does not want me to hear your words laugh.

However, I presume you are an atheist. Could you give me a summary of what you said?

You say. "Of course, most people who have religious beliefs resist having their beliefs categorized, because their views are obviously correct and more sophisticated than the others in the category."

As a unitheist, I am prepared to accept atheism anytime anyone can convince me that I do not exist within existence, which is, IMO, a self-evident and eternal process within the infinity of space and time we call now.

As an individual, I consciously choose to believe--with only self-evident proof--that there is, if we choose it, more and more life and consciousness. I believe that it will be filled with meaning, purpose and an infinite variety of things to do.

IMO, atheists, without any proof, seem to believe that, purely by accident, we individuals came from nothing and will, on death will go back to it. IMO, such a belief requires a ton of faith.

If atheists are right, no one will ever know. We will all RIP. Not a bad deal, really. But, as one who does not want to RIP, I prefer to WWW (work, with a will) and with the knowledge and power to be truly loving.

However, if theists/unitheists/panentheists etc., are right, think of the fun we will have with our atheist friends: "TFF, are you having fun, yet? Or do you find that angelic a bit choir boring?" laugh

BTW, I am not fond of choirs going on and on, either. I hope Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, etc., will be on hand. I love Strauss waltzes, Newfie, Irish and country music, the Beetles, the 40's...lots of variety.


Last edited by Revlgking; 11/07/07 06:14 PM.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
God is the sum of all goldfish. Everyone acknowledges that goldfish exist. Therefore god exists.

Here's something that may be unfathomable to you: I do not care whether you accept atheism. However, I do care when people misrepresent science or conflate scientific ideas with the counterfeits from philosophy/religion.

I've heard of "self-evidence proof," of God, but I've never actually seen any, except insofar as God as defined as something intended to confuse.

Atheists do not claim that individuals came from nothing. While caricatures of atheism may require faith, the actual article does not.

You actually believe that your "philosophy" enables you to be truly loving, the implication being that atheists are incapable of same. Too bad it doesn't enable humility.

If Ralph the cabbage god exists, we'll all have great fun as well. Unlimited beer and pretzels, all women have IQ's of 180 and perfectly sized and toned mammalian protruberances. Guys have IQs of 150 and enormous reproductive appendages. Of course that has no relevance to science. But then again ...




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
She's actually Raelene the cabbage god-- but you got the IQ distribution right!


FF said: Here's something that may be unfathomable to you: I do not care whether you accept atheism. However, I do care when people misrepresent science or conflate scientific ideas with the counterfeits from philosophy/religion.

So true!!

And I would add that I have no desire to convert people to my way of thinking. I do not believe in the supernatural in any manifestation, others do. That's OK with me. Why is it not so with them? What is it about my lack of belief that so upsets, and sometimes enrages, people? Even to the extent of questioning my ability to love?

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
T
Tim Offline
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 192
*Random Rant by Tim*

Has it ever occured to you that perhaps there is not The Way, or a single truth or law that would be true for everything. Even time is relevant. It may be true that scientists are searching for a theory for everything, but how could they do that?!

The idea of Freud was of the id, ego, and supergo. One (I think the Id) is the culture's perspective of things, aka what is morally acceptable or the general outline of a society. Another (I think the ego) was what you personally thought about something. And the blending of these represented our superego (unless I've switched the terms, I always forget which) which is what we decide to do based on those two, sometimes conflicting, choices.

In other words, what is true for someone, might not be true for another.

My philosophy on life, and religion, and science, is undoubtedly different from yours. That is because I am not the same person, living half a globe away, in a different generation, or in a different socio-economic class. Some natives in Africa who have never heard of Jesus act different than the Christianized (yet oftentimes secular) Western world.

So I have different opinons than you. And that's okay. The fact that some of you will disagree with my logic proves that we have different opinions.

*End rant, I have to do my "The Great Gatsby" project and I've procrastinated enough*

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Fallible. I agree with comments on your youtube video. However, as a musician and music teacher I'm aware that you should never apologise for your performance in advance. And what's this about not believing in Thor?

Rev. How come a belief in any sort of God immediately confers a life after death for the believer? Have you any evidence for any connection?

Last edited by terrytnewzealand; 11/08/07 03:15 AM.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
God is the sum of all goldfish. Everyone acknowledges that goldfish exist. Therefore god exists.

So, now we know what atheists believe.
Quote:
Here's something that may be unfathomable to you: I do not care whether you accept atheism.
We also know that they do not care.
But then, they do care
Quote:
However, I do care when people misrepresent science or conflate scientific ideas with the counterfeits from philosophy/religion.

Confusing, eh?
as you demonstrate by saying
Quote:
I've heard of "self-evidence proof," of God, but I've never actually seen any, except insofar as God as defined as something intended to confuse.

Quote:
Atheists do not claim that individuals came from nothing.
Okay. Then where did we come from?
Quote:
While caricatures of atheism may require faith, the actual article does not.
Okay, now prove that existence does not exist.
Quote:
You actually believe that your "philosophy" enables you to be truly loving, the implication being that atheists are incapable of same. Too bad it doesn't enable humility.
You admit to being loving, good on you! I will admit that I need to be more humble.

BTW, when you write:
Quote:
If Ralph the cabbage god exists, we'll all have great fun as well. Unlimited beer and pretzels, all women have IQ's of 180 and perfectly sized and toned mammalian protruberances. Guys have IQs of 150 and enormous reproductive appendages. Of course that has no relevance to science. But then again ...
Are you Taliban-like? You do seem to have a sense of humour.

Last edited by Revlgking; 11/08/07 04:37 AM.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Quote:
The idea of Freud was of the id, ego, and supergo....I always forget which) which is what we decide to do based on those two, sometimes conflicting, choices.
Tim comments.

Tim: Here is the scoop on Freud, who, BTW. was an atheist. As such he no concept of sin, as such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego

I ALSO LIKE THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY
=================================
There was a little kind who had a little id,
Right in the middle of her ego.
When she was good, 'twas because she was understood;
but when she was bad, 'twas her libido. laugh

According to Freud, we are not personally responsible for the evil we do. It is not our fault, it is the result of our heredity and environment--our parents and our conditioning are the problem.

In my humble opinion, Freud was very wrong.

Last edited by Revlgking; 11/08/07 04:34 AM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Quote:
Rev. How come a belief in any sort of God immediately confers a life after death for the believer? Have you any evidence for any connection?
TerryNZ asks.
Without any proof whatever I offer the following opinion--and it is just that, an opinion: Everyone will survive death, including atheists and agnostics. Those who helped make life hell here will inherit hell there. We will reap what we sow. Similar to Buddhists, I do believe we get the opportunity to reincarnate and have another go at living better lives.

I AM NOT A TYPICAL THEIST WHO BELIEVES IN BEING JUDGEMENTAL
===========================================================
I call myself a unitheist (panentheist). That is, right now, with the help of GØD (in and through us all)--not a personal god, or God--I am doing my best to make a heaven on earth.
I invite sincere moral, ethical and loving atheists and agnostics to do the same, if they wish. Do you?


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Ref, I like your little poem. It's cute. Thanks for sharing.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Page 25 of 120 1 2 23 24 25 26 27 119 120

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5