|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2016 23:32:41 GMT -5
This makes a point, but it is a pretty small sample size. If you google "percentage of scientists believing in god", it gives somewhat of a different picture. And, of course we could debate who legitimately carries the designation of "Scientist". Does a degree in Science qualify you, or do we need to narrow the definition to a mindset or a particular set of accomplishments? A simple way, the only way one can discern whether someone is legitimate "Scientist" is whether at person uses the scientific method to arrive at their conclusion.
"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2]
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[3] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as 'a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.' " from wiki
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 23, 2016 23:56:33 GMT -5
A worldwide study showing many false and common assumptions about science and faith. Alvin The study's results challenge longstanding assumptions about the science-faith interface. While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists, the global perspective resulting from the study shows that this is simply not the case More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious," Ecklund said. "And it's striking that approximately twice as many 'convinced atheists' exist in the general population of Hong Kong, for example, (55 percent) compared with the scientific community in this region (26 percent)." The researchers did find that scientists are generally less religious than a given general population. However, there were exceptions to this: 39 percent of scientists in Hong Kong identify as religious compared with 20 percent of the general population of Hong Kong, and 54 percent of scientists in Taiwan identify as religious compared with 44 percent of the general population of Taiwan. Ecklund noted that such patterns challenge longstanding assumptions about the irreligious character of scientists around the world. .......Ecklund and fellow Rice researchers Kirstin Matthews and Steven Lewis collected information from 9,422 respondents in eight regions around the world: Rice University logo They also traveled to these regions to conduct in-depth interviews with 609 scientists, the largest worldwide survey and interview study ever conducted of the intersection between faith and science. Read more at: phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html#jCp When someone does research of this kind many factors must be taken into consideration. How many other factors in these countries might cause the scientists to self-is identify as religious? Fear of governmental censorship? fear of being considered an atheist? general culture? family disapproval? The US having freedom of expression could account for nearly all US scientists not believing in any god.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jan 24, 2016 5:05:40 GMT -5
I think the opposite is true. People are probably more fearful of identifying with a religion in some of these countries than not.
There are Christians in all walks of life and professions. In psychology religious beliefs are seen as important in healing the whole person.
Interesting to read Joanna above suggesting that people with a religious belief aren't critical thinkers or whatever word she used. Seems like she's saying she is somehow smarter and a superior thinker than those who have a religious belief.
No religious belief does not make a person a deeper thinker than those who do!! Those who have a religious belief might just be right and those without one wrong / fooled. Seems like you don't think it is ndoctrinating children into believing there is no God but only if we say there is. Not much critical thinking going on there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 5:13:42 GMT -5
What truly critical thinker could discount the possibility of God existing? The non-existence of God is a belief only, NOT a fact!
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 24, 2016 9:34:40 GMT -5
quote-The US having freedom of expression could account for nearly all US scientists not believing in any god. This is a commonly believed misconception and statistics and facts and information and studies, are often not powerful enough to change beliefs, as we all have experienced at some point in our own lives. Here is a study done exclusively on American scientists, with interesting information. Naturally, very controversial and of course some say study was flawed etc. etc. etc., but ........... Alvin news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/misconceptions-of-science-and-religion-found-in-new-study/ The one that really surprised me was- Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God’s existence - RUS is the largest study of American views on religion and science. It includes the nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 Americans, more than 300 in-depth interviews with Christians, Jews and Muslims — more than 140 of whom are evangelicals — and extensive observations of religious centers in Houston and Chicago. The study is being provided to the AAAS Dialogue on Science Ethics and Religion program to help foster dialogue between religious groups and scientists. - See more at: news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/misconceptions-of-science-and-religion-found-in-new-study/#sthash.MBS7qP14.dpuf
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 24, 2016 11:03:41 GMT -5
quote-The US having freedom of expression could account for nearly all US scientists not believing in any god. This is a commonly believed misconception and statistics and facts and information and studies, are often not powerful enough to change beliefs, as we all have experienced at some point in our own lives. Here is a study done exclusively on American scientists, with interesting information. Naturally, very controversial and of course some say study was flawed etc. etc. etc., but ........... Alvin news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/misconceptions-of-science-and-religion-found-in-new-study/ The one that really surprised me was- Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God’s existence - RUS is the largest study of American views on religion and science. It includes the nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 Americans, more than 300 in-depth interviews with Christians, Jews and Muslims — more than 140 of whom are evangelicals — and extensive observations of religious centers in Houston and Chicago. The study is being provided to the AAAS Dialogue on Science Ethics and Religion program to help foster dialogue between religious groups and scientists. - See more at: news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/misconceptions-of-science-and-religion-found-in-new-study/#sthash.MBS7qP14.dpuf " Sociologist Elaine Ecklund is known for her constant stream of publications and talks promoting the compatibility of science and religion. Her work is, of course, funded by the John Templeton Foundation, whose goal to show that science and faith are mutually supportive.
I’ve often written about Ecklund’s spin-doctoring, which always yields conclusions congenial to Templeton’s mission, but the distortions just keep on coming. Templeton dispenses some $70 million a year to get its soothing message out." newrepublic.com/article/117071/elaine-ecklund-says-science-religion-are-compatible-why-theyre-notOn a personal note was amazed to see a pamphlet in my doctors office saying he practiced "Evidence Based Medicine". I wondered who in 2016 would go to a doctor who DID NOT practice Evidence Based Medicine? Are there any 2x2 who believe in homeopathy? I find when you get really sick most believers put their trust in science over any hope in faith healing.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 24, 2016 12:25:29 GMT -5
What truly critical thinker could discount the possibility of God existing? The non-existence of God is a belief only, NOT a fact! This explains it better than I could write. Is Atheism A Belief?www.youtube.com/watch?v=H66ZZXieGMM
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 12:40:06 GMT -5
What truly critical thinker could discount the possibility of God existing? The non-existence of God is a belief only, NOT a fact! This explains it better than I could write. Is Atheism A Belief?www.youtube.com/watch?v=H66ZZXieGMMI'm afraid I differ from the presenter in the above video. My faith is very much evidence based, not the absence of evidence. Many people deny the testimony of evidence to suit there idea of truth. I have seen many personal evidences in my lifetime about the existence of God. I would be a fool to deny them. Even the natural world is proof to myself beyond any reasonable doubt that God exists. I have yet to hear a competent argument against this. Richard Dawkins "We're getting there" verification of evolution (without God) equates to an involuntary, rapid, bowel evacuation.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 24, 2016 13:05:33 GMT -5
I'm afraid I differ from the presenter in the above video. My faith is very much evidence based, not the absence of evidence. Many people deny the testimony of evidence to suit there idea of truth. I have seen many personal evidences in my lifetime about the existence of God. I would be a fool to deny them. Even the natural world is proof to myself beyond any reasonable doubt that God exists. I have yet to hear a competent argument against this. Richard Dawkins "We're getting there" verification of evolution (without God) equates to an involuntary, rapid, bowel evacuation. That doesn't sound like biblical faith. " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 14:04:55 GMT -5
I'm afraid I differ from the presenter in the above video. My faith is very much evidence based, not the absence of evidence. Many people deny the testimony of evidence to suit there idea of truth. I have seen many personal evidences in my lifetime about the existence of God. I would be a fool to deny them. Even the natural world is proof to myself beyond any reasonable doubt that God exists. I have yet to hear a competent argument against this. Richard Dawkins "We're getting there" verification of evolution (without God) equates to an involuntary, rapid, bowel evacuation. That doesn't sound like biblical faith. " Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" The "seen" is evidence of the "unseen!" Also, in our relationship with God and Jesus, we must seek them out and get to "know" them!. "Knowing" a person is evidence that they exist. And that IS Biblical! To those who truly "know" God, there is no question about his existence. They might question his ways, etc., though.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 24, 2016 14:38:45 GMT -5
The "seen" is evidence of the "unseen!" Also, in our relationship with God and Jesus, we must seek them out and get to "know" them!. "Knowing" a person is evidence that they exist. And that IS Biblical! To those who truly "know" God, there is no question about his existence. They might question his ways, etc., though. The "seen is evidence of the unseen" - doesn't make sense to me. When I look at nature, I am filled with wonder and awe. Now if I credited the beauty and wonder of nature to an unseen god, it wouldn’t make it any more wonderful. Speaking of faith and belief; did you ever wonder about the Thomas story? Now here is a guy where the story goes, must have seen first hand the 37 miracles of Jesus. Yet after all this he did not believe it was Jesus when he appeared to him after eight days. Did not Thomas "know Jesus"? Are we to believe that Thomas must have thought those 37 miracles were just magic tricks? I suspect most of the atheists here on TMB would believe if they saw that much first hand evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 15:03:11 GMT -5
The "seen" is evidence of the "unseen!" Also, in our relationship with God and Jesus, we must seek them out and get to "know" them!. "Knowing" a person is evidence that they exist. And that IS Biblical! To those who truly "know" God, there is no question about his existence. They might question his ways, etc., though. The "seen is evidence of the unseen" - doesn't make sense to me. When I look at nature, I am filled with wonder and awe. Now if I credited the beauty and wonder of nature to an unseen god, it wouldn’t make it any more wonderful. Speaking of faith and belief; did you ever wonder about the Thomas story? Now here is a guy where the story goes, must have seen first hand the 37 miracles of Jesus. Yet after all this he did not believe it was Jesus when he appeared to him after eight days. Did not Thomas "know Jesus"? Are we to believe that Thomas must have thought those 37 miracles were just magic tricks? I suspect most of the atheists here on TMB would believe if they saw that much first hand evidence. Why does the evidence of a "seen" creation not point to an unseen creator for you? Why does it not make any sense. Do the "nonsense" alternatives make more sense? If you look at a beautiful oil painting, does your mind not credit the artist, even if you don't know him or her? How can you possibly look at an oil painting and acknowledge the artist, yet when considering a far, far greater work, you ignore the creator? To my mind, the evidence of the natural world, in itself is irrefutable proof of there being a creator. All other "theories" just do not get off the ground by comparison. Basically, evidence is anything which tends to prove or disprove something under examination. I have NEVER heard of the created world being used to "disprove" the existence of God. Tam saw far more than 37 miracles of Jesus. In fact he worked quite a few of them himself. Belief is something far more than acknowledgement of something. With Jesus it is submitting your very life to him. Tam, like the others, scattered at the time Jesus was taken to be crucified. They all thought the party was over. He had his doubts at that time, but when he saw the evidence he was very convinced, probably embarrassingly so? There were "many" Jews who saw God working through Jesus. They could not deny the evidence. Look at ol' Nico baby, a Pharisee who came to Jesus by night and declared on their behalf "We know that thou art a teacher come from God, because no man could do the things you do, but God be with him." (paraphrased). You see, people in general believe what they want to, irrespective of the evidence. If they don't want to believe something, no matter the evidence, they simply reject it. It says a lot more about them than it does about the evidence. Putting atheists to one side, I believe most people who take the name of Christ today, would react very like the Pharisees of old if Jesus was walking on the World today. They believe in a false Christ and despite any evidence of the real Christ, they would reject him because of the changes they would have to make in their lives. In order to reject the message (which they cannot) they would attack the messenger. Happens all the time.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 24, 2016 15:59:46 GMT -5
Why does the evidence of a "seen" creation not point to an unseen creator for you? Why does it not make any sense. Do the "nonsense" alternatives make more sense? I see the god question as one that can not be proven, or disproven. The way I see it is if you believe in god, then it's from an article of faith, not evidence. Some of the physical claims in the bible however can be disproven. Some Christians get around these by classifying them as metaphors. The problem in believing "everything created needs a creator" or the Argument From Cause & Existence is the question of who created god? It's a never ending cycle where each god needs yet another god to create that god, and so on. The only way to make "everything created - needs a creator " work is to make an exception to the rule, where god was not created. Putting atheists to one side, I believe most people who take the name of Christ today, would react very like the Pharisees of old if Jesus was walking on the World today. They believe in a false Christ and despite any evidence of the real Christ, they would reject him because of the changes they would have to make in their lives. In order to reject the message (which they cannot) they would attack the messenger. Happens all the time. When I professed, I also thought most all the other Christians were not TRUE Christians. Today, if someone says they are a Christian, then I think of them as a Christian.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 16:22:59 GMT -5
Why does the evidence of a "seen" creation not point to an unseen creator for you? Why does it not make any sense. Do the "nonsense" alternatives make more sense? I see the god question as one that can not be proven, or disproven. The way I see it is if you believe in god, then it's from an article of faith, not evidence. Some of the physical claims in the bible however can be disproven. Some Christians get around these by classifying them as metaphor. The Bible teaches that the proof of faith (what faith is based on) is evidence. Faith is based upon strong, clear, logical, true, historical evidence. Faith is not guesswork. Faith is not a blind leap in the dark. Faith is not grounded in subjective feelings. God provides the objective, rational evidence for belief; man provides the belief based on that evidence. The Bible does not teach that God gives man his faith. John wrote: "but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ..." (John 20:31). Paul wrote: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). Unless our faith is based upon sound evidence from God's word, we do not have the right kind of faith. For Further Study: Mark 1:15; 16:15-16; Luke 8:12-13; 24:25; John 4:39-42; 5:46-47; 8:30,46; 9:35-38; 17:20; 19:35; 20:24-31; Acts 4:4; 8:12-13; 9:41-42; 11:19-21; 13:12; 14:1; 15:7; 17:11-12; 18:8; 24:14; 26:27; Romans 10:8-21; 1 Corinthians 2:4-5; 3:5; 15:1-2,11,14,17; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 2:11-13; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 5:13.
The problem in believing "everything created needs a creator" or the Argument From Cause & Existence is the question of who created god? It's a never ending cycle where each god needs yet another god to create that god, and so on. The only way to make "everything created - needs a creator " work is to make an exception to the rule, where god was not created. Why does God need to be created? Does an artist need to be painted? In any case, first things first. Does God exist? Either the natural world points to creation or some kind of evolution? Take your pick. Creation undoubtedly points to a creator. Evolution points to.............good luck with that one.
Putting atheists to one side, I believe most people who take the name of Christ today, would react very like the Pharisees of old if Jesus was walking on the World today. They believe in a false Christ and despite any evidence of the real Christ, they would reject him because of the changes they would have to make in their lives. In order to reject the message (which they cannot) they would attack the messenger. Happens all the time. When I professed, I also thought most all the other Christians were not TRUE Christians. Today, if someone says they are a Christian, then I think of them as a Christian. Measure your Christians by God's word, not by what they claim, including myself!
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 24, 2016 16:24:01 GMT -5
Good afternoon Joanna and thank you for the two video links in your OP. I have watched both with great interest and have contemplated the contents of each as you suggested.
The first link was a cute and interesting presentation of the practical applications of Bayes’ Theorem. I hope to become more proficient at integrating her three principles into my own reflections.
I was initially very enthusiastic when I found that the second video featured a discussion between Professor Dennett and Bill Moyers. I hold both individuals in high regard. Over time, I have made valiant efforts to read some of Professor Dennett’s books but have to admit that his philosophy and work in cognitive science often probes depths of understanding beyond my grasp. You can only imagine, then, the intense disappointment I experienced as I watched the video. In the hope of stimulating some further discussion of the Dennett video, I will highlight several selections that I found particularly troublesome.
The video opens (0:05/6:29-0:21/6:29) with Bill Moyers asking Professor Dennett ‘if my faith doesn’t pick your pocket or break your bones, why should you care what I believe’ to which Dennett responds ‘I wouldn’t care except that religious people care so much about what everybody else thinks . . . . .’. This first exchange amazed me. Dennett’s response is childish, it is the response one might hear from an eight year old on a playground - - - - ‘I would not have hit little Johnny except he hit me first!’ One of Dr. Dennett stature knows whether he cares or doesn’t care, why shift the responsibility for his intension to judge the beliefs of others onto someone else’s shoulders?
But there is more. The simple declarative statement “religious people care so much about what everybody else thinks” is troublesome from so many perspectives; (1) It is a pejorative stereotype of religious people. Since there is no delimiter on “religious people” one is forced to assume he is referencing “all religious people” (he ineffectively attempts to soften this impression a little later in the video). (2) He makes this declarative statement without referencing any consensus evidence, surprising for one who justifies their assertions on the presence/absence of empirical evidence. Is anyone aware of any legitimate experimental data to support his broad statement? (3) Although his unsupported declarative statement is hostile toward religious people, he uses the same behavior to justify his own pronouncements on the topic of discussion!?!
The next section (0:37/6:29-0:46/6:29) is egregiously hostile. Again, I plead for actual evidence to support the contention. Is there any scientifically valid data in the peer reviewed scientific literature that clearly isolates dependent and independent variables from other variables and demonstrates a causative effect between religion and cognitive impairment? Is so, please send me a list of supporting references. In my opinion, the claim is not only aggressively condescending, it is preposterous.
The next section (1:05/6:29-1:27/6:29) drips with pomposity! What authority, what right, what divinity permits one objective participant to define either the “job” or “duty” of his peer in an objective conversation. It is a familiar rhetorical device to achieve superiority in a debate but rather disappointing when used by someone with Dr. Dennett’s credentials. One is also challenged by Dr. Dennett’s grasp of elementary jurisprudence – the plaintiff is generally expected to support the charges with evidence, not the other way around.
Finally, it is instructive to carefully observe the exchange between Bill Moyers and Professor Dennett (1:42/6:29-3:06/6:29). Note the extended pause at (2:05/6:29) in response to an insightful query. Note then how the discussion ground-rules are altered to recast the debate in terms of a “politically moral discussion test” (2:32/6:29) in an effort to regain the high ground. Finally note how Professor Dennett is only too anxious to take the “faith card” off the table (2:53/6:29) but fails to identify any card he is prepared to sacrifice in order to have a “reasonable discussion”. Do you suppose he would be willing to take his “requirement for empirical evidence card” off the table?
The discussion beyond (3:06/6:29) is rather trite up to about (5:12/6:29). Beyond that, Professor Dennett makes several points that are important and worthy of a sustained and respectful discussion combining the accumulated insights of both faith and reason.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Jan 24, 2016 16:24:12 GMT -5
When Jesus read the scriptures on His first return to Nazareths SYNAGOGUE, The words of His introduction as Messiah to the people came from Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,because he has chosen me to bring the Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind,and set free the oppressed and anounce that the time has come when the Lord wii save His people" (I think he mentioned the poor first?)
.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 24, 2016 16:57:46 GMT -5
The Bible teaches that the proof of faith (what faith is based on) is evidence. Faith is based upon strong, clear, logical, true, historical evidence. Faith is not guesswork. Faith is not a blind leap in the dark. Faith is not grounded in subjective feelings. God provides the objective, rational evidence for belief; man provides the belief based on that evidence. The Bible does not teach that God gives man his faith. John wrote: "but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ..." (John 20:31). Paul wrote: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). Unless our faith is based upon sound evidence from God's word, we do not have the right kind of faith. For Further Study: Mark 1:15; 16:15-16; Luke 8:12-13; 24:25; John 4:39-42; 5:46-47; 8:30,46; 9:35-38; 17:20; 19:35; 20:24-31; Acts 4:4; 8:12-13; 9:41-42; 11:19-21; 13:12; 14:1; 15:7; 17:11-12; 18:8; 24:14; 26:27; Romans 10:8-21; 1 Corinthians 2:4-5; 3:5; 15:1-2,11,14,17; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 2:11-13; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 5:13. I see your argument for the evidence for god boils down to: 1. Nature is wonderful, and I say god did it all. 2. The bible says god exists, and I believe the bible. As for: #1. You add a god to nature where the universe needs none to be as it is. There is no evidence of any supernatural gods, let alone any extra-biblical evidence of Jesus. #2. Using the bible as your evidence of god is as defendable as saying The Napkin Religion is the one true religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 17:03:06 GMT -5
The Bible teaches that the proof of faith (what faith is based on) is evidence. Faith is based upon strong, clear, logical, true, historical evidence. Faith is not guesswork. Faith is not a blind leap in the dark. Faith is not grounded in subjective feelings. God provides the objective, rational evidence for belief; man provides the belief based on that evidence. The Bible does not teach that God gives man his faith. John wrote: "but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ..." (John 20:31). Paul wrote: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). Unless our faith is based upon sound evidence from God's word, we do not have the right kind of faith. For Further Study: Mark 1:15; 16:15-16; Luke 8:12-13; 24:25; John 4:39-42; 5:46-47; 8:30,46; 9:35-38; 17:20; 19:35; 20:24-31; Acts 4:4; 8:12-13; 9:41-42; 11:19-21; 13:12; 14:1; 15:7; 17:11-12; 18:8; 24:14; 26:27; Romans 10:8-21; 1 Corinthians 2:4-5; 3:5; 15:1-2,11,14,17; Ephesians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 2:11-13; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 5:13. I see your argument for the evidence for god boils down to: 1. Nature is wonderful, and I say god did it all. 2. The bible says god exists, and I believe the bible. As for: #1. You add a god to nature where the universe needs none to be as it is. There is no evidence of any supernatural gods, let alone any extra-biblical evidence of Jesus. #2. Using the bible as your evidence of god is as defendable as saying The Napkin Religion is the one true religion. yeah but does your napkin god have 40 authors over 1500 years agreeing pretty much on everything?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 24, 2016 17:10:36 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2016 17:29:52 GMT -5
XNA, can you tell me exactly what the natural world and all its beauty points you to as regards its origin?
The natural world is an inestimably large amount of evidence in itself of its actual origin. What are these origins? No faffing about now!
Either you believe that God created it all,
or,
We're waiting on your response?
You see it's one thing to say there's no God, but the evidence of his handiwork is all around us.
Evidence (especially in abundance) points to the truth of a matter. What does the evidence I am citing (I have other forms evidence I could also use) state to you?
If you say there is no evidence of God, then I want you to give me a more reasonable account of the origins of the evidence I have cited as proof of God!
Otherwise.....your case is dismissed!
I conclude your "lifeless" napkin is evidence that it is an object made by man, using my common sense, sheer logic and reasonable thinking. Yet I don't know how the napkin was made or who made it. Alternatives are that it evolved or it was Dawkins' pink fairies! Do you agree with my conclusion?
Why the problem with something inestimably greater than a napkin (and with life especially) being attributed to a greater power than man?
As a result of the evidence I see all around me, I do not need even one ounce of faith to believe in God the creator of all. I do need faith to believe that to be acceptable to the creator God I must believe in his only begotten Son. That faith is in a way, truth and life. It is confirmed by God's Holy spirit to myself, as it is with every true believer. I believe it. God proves it (individually).
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 24, 2016 18:46:52 GMT -5
XNA, can you tell me exactly what the natural world and all its beauty points you to as regards its origin? The natural world is an inestimably large amount of evidence in itself of its actual origin. What are these origins? No faffing about now! The exact origin of the universe is unknown, but the leading theory of how the universe came to be is called The Big Bang Theory. science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/
I can not truly grasp the size, and all the wonders in the universe, and neither can anyone else. What caused the universe to form in the first place is also unknown. In short; I don't know, You don't know, and none of the man made gods know either. Life is full of mystery.If you say there is no evidence of God, then I want you to give me a more reasonable account of the origins of the evidence I have cited as proof of God! Otherwise.....your case is dismissed! The one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. An atheist does not make the claim there is no god, they just reject the theist claim there is a god.
Now if the theist can back up their claim with some convincing evidence, then they would provide a reason for one to believe their claim, but until then the atheist withholds belief of the theist claim. To believe without a good reason is credulity, and delusion.
Your proof so far is lacking any evidence except for; the wonders of nature so god did it, and evidence coming from a book being true, which is true because the book says its true. That makes just as a convincing argument as the One True Napkin Religion.
BTW a lot of Christians sound to me like men who believe more in the book, than in their god.
As a result of the evidence I see all around me, I do not need even one ounce of faith to believe in God the creator of all. I do need faith to believe that to be acceptable to the creator God I must believe in his only begotten Son. That faith is in a way, truth and life. It is confirmed by God's Holy spirit to myself, as it is with every true believer. I believe it. God proves it (individually). Some people don't need a good reason, or any reason to believe something. For myself I want to know more things that are true, and believe fewer things that are not true.
I can't be 100% certain of anything, as new evidence may change my mind.
Science has answers which should always be questioned, while religion has answers which can not be questioned.
Science is the opposite of dogmatic thinking.
I never met a Christian which said they did not need faith to believe in god. I guess you must have zero doubts, & no longer have need for faith?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 24, 2016 19:05:52 GMT -5
I see your argument for the evidence for god boils down to: 1. Nature is wonderful, and I say god did it all. 2. The bible says god exists, and I believe the bible. As for: #1. You add a god to nature where the universe needs none to be as it is. There is no evidence of any supernatural gods, let alone any extra-biblical evidence of Jesus. #2. Using the bible as your evidence of god is as defendable as saying The Napkin Religion is the one true religion. yeah but does your napkin god have 40 authors over 1500 years agreeing pretty much on everything? The sticking point to your statement that "40 authors over 1500 years agreeing pretty much on everything" is that it isn't true!
Wars have killed millions, destroyed whole cities, ravaged whole countries, all done BECAUSE people DID NOT agree!
Why do you think that there are thousands of "Christian " denominations which have fought tooth & nail with one another and tortured those that didn't agree with them?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 24, 2016 19:57:58 GMT -5
I think the opposite is true. People are probably more fearful of identifying with a religion in some of these countries than not. There are Christians in all walks of life and professions. In psychology religious beliefs are seen as important in healing the whole person. Interesting to read Joanna above suggesting that people with a religious belief aren't critical thinkers or whatever word she used. Seems like she's saying she is somehow smarter and a superior thinker than those who have a religious belief. No religious belief does not make a person a deeper thinker than those who do!! Those who have a religious belief might just be right and those without one wrong / fooled. Seems like you don't think it is ndoctrinating children into believing there is no God but only if we say there is. Not much critical thinking going on there. In many countries people are more fearful of identifying as being non-religious then of of have the prevailing religion of their country. Many of those countries do not have the freedom of religion or freedom from religion as we do in the US. They have to present a facade at least of believing in the prevailing religion.
Can you cite the place where you found that it stated "In psychology religious beliefs are seen as important in healing the whole person?"
You also say that some of us who are atheists think that we are somehow "smarter and a superior thinker than those who have a religious belief." Quite often religious people will begin to say that about us. They attack us rather than the message.
Perhaps they should question themselves as to why you feel that way. Is it because by hearing our beliefs it causes them to question your own beliefs and that is uncomfortable?
Just "killing the messenger" doesn't help them to understand the message.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jan 24, 2016 20:20:52 GMT -5
It is strange to be accused of being arrogant or believing oneself to be superior in thinking when the religious mindset supports the believer's claims that they have the answers to life's mysteries and can tell you where life came from and how to achieve eternal life.
Where once I was encouraged not to think but to just "know" I now realise that to "know" I had to admit "I do not have the answers" and this inspires, motivates and empowers me to seek out expert knowledge.
It is beyond perplexing that anyone can believe any ancient texts, written by those with less scientific knowledge than the average primary school student, can accurately inform us about the origins of life.
Assign these ancient texts to the mythology shelf and instead of subduing your innate thinking potential: ask questions and source the answers based on reason.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 25, 2016 0:49:43 GMT -5
I am sure we would know if they were involved in some kind of charity organisation/ work. We usually have an idea of what those around us do. If you are not aware of any helping out then your premise is in error.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 25, 2016 0:52:47 GMT -5
While we're at it, might as well mention another scientist, and, no , not all scientists are atheists, not EVEN close. Being an atheist and being a scientist are unrelated. In one case the person doesn't believe in god. Beliefs and searching for facts/truth are very different things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 4:44:50 GMT -5
XNA, can you tell me exactly what the natural world and all its beauty points you to as regards its origin? The natural world is an inestimably large amount of evidence in itself of its actual origin. What are these origins? No faffing about now! The exact origin of the universe is unknown, but the leading theory of how the universe came to be is called The Big Bang Theory. science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/
I can not truly grasp the size, and all the wonders in the universe, and neither can anyone else. What caused the universe to form in the first place is also unknown. In short; I don't know, You don't know, and none of the man made gods know either. Life is full of mystery.OK, What does the "evidence" (there is an overwhelming amount of it to consider) point YOU to? "I don't know" is a cop out. Do you believe it just might point towards a supreme creator being, i.e. God, or don't you want to admit that? You state life is full of mystery, right? Is it just possible that that mystery just might include a supreme being, a creator God? If so, add that possibility to the sheer volume of evidence in the natural world and things start to look a heck of a lot more likely to the common sense, logical, unbiased mind.
quote source="/post/682387/thread" timestamp="1453674592" author="@ram"]If you say there is no evidence of God, then I want you to give me a more reasonable account of the origins of the evidence I have cited as proof of God! Otherwise.....your case is dismissed! The one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. An atheist does not make the claim there is no god, they just reject the theist claim there is a god.
Now if the theist can back up their claim with some convincing evidence, then they would provide a reason for one to believe their claim, but until then the atheist withholds belief of the theist claim. To believe without a good reason is credulity, and delusion.
So far you are clearly adopting the tactics of avoidance rather than applying fair logic. You have an agenda. Already the arithmetic of evidence and possibility point towards the probability of there being a God, unless you can categorically prove there is no God. When you consider the "possibility" of a creator God and then add the sheer volume of evidence, then even "probability" becomes a conservative consideration.
Your proof so far is lacking any evidence except for; the wonders of nature so god did it, and evidence coming from a book being true, which is true because the book says its true. That makes just as a convincing argument as the One True Napkin Religion.
No my friend, you have yet to grasp the important information that "real" evidence conveys. The natural world points to either 1) a creator God, or 2) some other origin. I asked you for your opinion and you tell me no one knows how the natural world came into being. You avoid possibility one without providing proof to disclaim it. By the way, I DO KNOW how the world came into being. The Bible tells me so. You see, when you consider the sheer volume of natural evidence along with the possibility of there being a God, you can only arrive at one outcome. The Bible then makes perfect sense in this regard. Your position is merely one of denial rather than the proper consideration of the overwhelming amount of evidence that backs up the existence of God. All you need to do is to accept the possibility of there being a God and you have the lead that you are looking for. It may not be what you want, but it is there!
BTW a lot of Christians sound to me like men who believe more in the book, than in their god.
You're very wrong on this point, but in a right way. Most Christians do not even read the Book far less believe it. Most Christians either believe or follow others who believe in a false God. We are starting to agree!
As a result of the evidence I see all around me, I do not need even one ounce of faith to believe in God the creator of all. I do need faith to believe that to be acceptable to the creator God I must believe in his only begotten Son. That faith is in a way, truth and life. It is confirmed by God's Holy spirit to myself, as it is with every true believer. I believe it. God proves it (individually). Some people don't need a good reason, or any reason to believe something. For myself I want to know more things that are true, and believe fewer things that are not true.
Please acquire a knowledge of the value and importance of evidence! Evidence is fact. The more evidence you have the more it points you to the proper conclusion. If you want to know more, there is the journey to start on. Instead of discounting real evidence, start counting it! Believe me, it's all there!
I can't be 100% certain of anything, as new evidence may change my mind.
When you start to have real faith, God will 100% prove himself to you.
Science has answers which should always be questioned, while religion has answers which can not be questioned.
Science is the opposite of dogmatic thinking.
Most science IS dogmatic thinking. If the possibility of a creator God exists, then why do they not include this possibility in their investigations?
I never met a Christian which said they did not need faith to believe in god. I guess you must have zero doubts, & no longer have need for faith?
There is a vast difference between believing God exists and having faith in the living word of God by which to lead ones life. Even the devils believe in God....AND tremble! I know without a shadow of a doubt that God exists. I have to subvert my human will to have faith to live for him. I need no faith for the former. I need faith for the latter. The former is proved beyond any reasonable doubt, having weighed up the evidence. The evidence alone proves to me that God exists. I don't need faith for that, just a reasonable, unbiased, logical, common-sense mind, in weighing up the facts. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 25, 2016 7:40:27 GMT -5
While we're at it, might as well mention another scientist, and, no , not all scientists are atheists, not EVEN close. Being an atheist and being a scientist are unrelated. In one case the person doesn't believe in god. Beliefs and searching for facts/truth are very different things. Very good point and one I was doing a poor job of demonstrating. Thank you.That is the reason why scientists can be atheists or believers EQUALLY and not as if one groups worldview prevents them from being good scientist. Unrelated. Alvin
|
|