U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-07-2018, 09:32 AM
 
414 posts, read 383,836 times
Reputation: 460

Advertisements

We are rather similar.. Thanks for the input on it.. Its all very complex and we try making it easy..
Its not meant to be easy.. My guess is if we were to figure it out we'd even be worse off as a society and culture.. Not that we dont have issues as is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina View Post
Sure, I can agree with this.

We will never be able to explain "why" a mother lost her son to a drunk driver.

Science will never explain "why" this person won the lottery and that person didn't.

Science will ever explain "why" the universe exists.

It will never explain "why" we are even here at all.

However, the erroneous assumption is that these types of question contain a "why" at all.

The human brain is hardwired to seek order out of chaos -- which is why we so often see faces and other familiar shapes within random patterns.

The operant word here being -- random. This is something the human mind cannot compute. We try so hard to find the order within the chaos of world events thinking there has to be a REASON.

The idea that, just perhaps, there was no reason, makes the brain short circuit. Luck, randomness, these things are unfathomable because there isn't an order to them. That's why they are random.

Science can tell us why the mother's son was killed by a drunk driver. It can give a medical "why" that caused the death. It can give a "why" based on physics outlining why these two cars met at the intersection when they did. Science can explain how and why a person is so impaired by alcohol consumption -- and suchlike.

But it can't explain why it had to happen at all ... in the first place.

I'm just not one who can put a god in there. I can only assume that my brain is hardwired much differently than others since randomness doesn't bother me, and I don't assume everything that happens must have been for a higher, grander purpose or plan. Sometimes things ... just happen.

I don't have any problem with people who have a spiritual take on the unexplainable -- but gods? No. Which is why I stick with science for the explanations of our natural world. Like many others, I'm an agnostic atheist and anti-theist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2018, 09:33 AM
 
414 posts, read 383,836 times
Reputation: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
That's a fair statement.

I am a science person (2 degrees in geology), and I know that science does not have all the answers and is sometimes (at least temporarily wrong).

But then there's the religious folks who think they have all the answers. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
Yep anyone who says they have all the answers.. Be leery.. With science OR relgion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 05:58 PM
 
32,826 posts, read 8,177,641 times
Reputation: 4627
It's more that the religious think they have The Answer - which is the Answer to everything and makes all actuall answers irelevant and, if they contradict with the Answer, are considered wrong, no matter how well supported.

Science doesn't have all the answers by any means, but at least the ones it does have are pretty reliable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2018, 08:07 PM
 
2,827 posts, read 1,712,646 times
Reputation: 988
Real science does, yes.

Atheist science, however, is just as biased as theist science.

Atheism is not the absence of bias in study (that would be agnosticism, which is ideal for a scientist). It has its own suppositions.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSaI0OaTLAU

In this video, a theologian (who has an okay grasp of science) looks at Hawking. Expecting to find real science however, he finds 2/3 of what he read was philosophy. Specifically ontological relativism. What that means is that what exists (ontology) is whatever you think it is. You believe in space aliens or Elder Gods? Sure, that's as true as gravity and momentum.

That is okay for a religious person to believe, because it is part of belief. But for someone to claim to study fact and present this sort of stuff? Of course, they're unbiased. :sarcasm:
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2018, 05:17 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,070 posts, read 8,364,393 times
Reputation: 5993
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
Atheism is not the absence of bias in study (that would be agnosticism, which is ideal for a scientist). It has its own suppositions.
Atheism simply describes a lack of belief in a single topic, not a knowledge position on it. In the absence of evidence, atheism does not take a position that is not warranted. That IS agnostic.

The irony here is that you're citing Craig, who is as biased as they come, critiquing an atheist who holds some views that are inconvenient for Craig's biases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2018, 08:33 AM
 
6,732 posts, read 3,025,689 times
Reputation: 2346
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw View Post
This young generation is increasingly either openly non-religious or part of the more hardline groups.
Two thirds of teenagers don't believe in God - Telegraph
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rticle1320112/
Previous generations never had this mentality, where you either need to obey every rule in your religion to a tee or couldn't consider yourself religious at all, but this generation it seems to finally be happening. Young people think because they have sex, party, have gay friends, etc that they are not welcome in their religion. Confusing about this, for Christianity at least, is that the churches their parents went to (Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed etc) tend to talk very little about these subjects especially compared to the churches where younger people are more highly represented (Pentecostal, Charismatic, Evangelical Baptist, Non-denominational Evangelical etc). Most of the larger mainline protestant churches have actually stopped condemning homosexuality and the like and many have a large number of LGBT members in the clergy. I've heard this is a similar issue in the Jewish community, where sects like Reform and Conservative are shrinking, but the ultra-Orthodox communities are thriving. I'd imagine it's similar in Islam and Eastern Religion as well.
What is giving the younger generation this dilemma?
What dilemma? Why should anyone settle for any patriarchal organization that has a history of treating women, children, and LGBTQ as lesser beings?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2018, 10:06 PM
 
2,827 posts, read 1,712,646 times
Reputation: 988
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Atheism simply describes a lack of belief in a single topic, not a knowledge position on it. In the absence of evidence, atheism does not take a position that is not warranted. That IS agnostic.

The irony here is that you're citing Craig, who is as biased as they come, critiquing an atheist who holds some views that are inconvenient for Craig's biases.
Dude, seriously, watch the video and read my points.

Oh look, looking up ontological relativism/pluralism, we get a transcript of his speech.

Craig definitely does have a specific belief set, but he very distinctly calls out Hawking for acting like he is indifferent and an objective observer when it is quite clearly talking about patent nonsense. He says that Flat Earth types are "just as valid" as real science. Isn't there a limit to what is considered scientific thinking?

As a "scientist" Hawking is out of his depth talking about something that is largely a philosophy/faith subject. Craig as a theologian would be perfectly okay saying all reality is subjective. But he doesn't. He says that a caveman wouldn't understand what a scientific device on a lab table is, but all the same this doesn't unmake the reality that there is such a device there.

One of these people lives in the real world. But it isn't the one you think it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2018, 11:02 PM
 
Location: The backwoods of Pennsylvania ... unfortunately.
5,409 posts, read 3,041,486 times
Reputation: 3817
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
Real science does, yes.

Atheist science, however, is just as biased as theist science.
What the hell?

There's no such thing as "atheist science."

There is only "science."

Saying there is an "atheist science" is like saying there are "atheist algebra equations" or "atheist zebras" or "atheist computers."

No such beast even exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
Atheism is not the absence of bias in study (that would be agnosticism, which is ideal for a scientist). It has its own suppositions.
Obviously you don't really understand atheism.

Just because a scientist is an atheist doesn't mean he/she can't be unbiased in their findings. Unlike, say, Christian apologists who refuse to admit to the existence of or accept any scientific evidence that doesn't support the existence of ... not just a higher power, but the existence of their specific God of the Bible.

In the same vein, there is no reason why a believer can't be an unbiased scientist. However, there IS a difference between the two:

Almost every single atheist will tell you the same thing: It's not that we say with absolute certainly that NO gods exist ... AT ALL. What we say is that, so far, there's no good evidence for believing any gods exist therefore we don't believe in gods. Anecdotal evidence, weird experiences of other people, the Bible, someone beating astronomical odds to obtain a good result from a bad situation -- those things are rather poor examples of evidence for a god, and those things contain ZERO evidence that the God of the Bible exists.

I think believers actually think we atheists are just being rebellious children or something and don't understand that if actual good evidence presented itself for a god to exist, we would accept that evidence and start changing our belief system. We're not going to fold our arms defiantly in the face of a god and still claim it doesn't exist.

This is why atheists are STILL unbiased when it comes to scientific research. As far as they're concerned, so what if they find evidence for a god? It's no skin off their backs -- or ours, for that matter. Okay, so we were wrong. Big deal. Atheism is not the core of our identity; despite what it may seem like reading these forums, atheists spend almost ZERO time being atheists. We really don't have anything invested in this stance except our own egos, to some degree.

However, people who believe in religions tend to be FAR more biased because religious belief invariably tends toward absolutism. In Christianity, for example, there's no room for "maybes" or "possiblies." No, you have to believe in and love God with every fiber of your being. You can't kinda-sorta believe or think *maybe* God exists. By the time a religious person becomes educated and experienced enough to do real work in science, they have decades invested in their religion.

Believers have far too many issues to overcome. For example, many believers internalize their religion to such an extent that there's literally no difference between themselves and their religion. If you criticize their religion, you're accused of criticizing them as a person. If you mock their religion, they complain that you're not being nice to THEM. And so on.

So how then can a person who finds evidence that their god simply wasn't necessary cope with that? It would be like finding evidence that YOU don't exist! So they ignore it, rationalize it so that they can fit god in there somewhere, or whatever they need to do.

Which is why there are those 5% of scientists who STILL refuse to believe in evolution despite the overwhelming evidence that evolution is 100% fact -- both micro AND maco. (And 4.9% of those 5% are American scientists, which stinks of cultural bias rather than truth given that America is the most religious country in the industrialized world.)

And if that weren't enough, believers have their literal eternity riding on the idea that their god is real. It would take some serious reconditioning to abandon the idea of eternal paradise in favor of scientific evidence that may not support it. As an atheist, I've heard it more than enough times: "Without god, what is there to live for? What's the point of life, then? If all you do when you die is ... die, then where is the hope? Why do anything?" And on and on and on.

These people aren't going to give up all of those hopes and emotional investment and their own identity for the sake of evidence that completely unravels their view of the entire universe. Nope.

But we atheists -- hey, if there's a god, there's a god. What difference does it really make to us? It's not like we WANT to cease to exist when we die. Don't you think that I would be ecstatic if I knew there was an awesome paradise waiting for us with all of our friends and loved ones and even pets waiting for us with open arms when we arrive there? You betcha. But there's no evidence for it. So we don't pin our hopes on wishful thinking.

You don't have to be agnostic to be unbiased. No one is trying to prove atheism -- unlike religion which has an entire cottage industry of apologists using crappy junk science to prove their god exists. Or, worse still, trying to prove that the Bible is the LITERAL truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
Can you show me where in the video what you claim is being discussed? I can't listen to that lying sack of shyte William Lane Craig for an entire hour. He's precisely the kind of person I mentioned above who uses crappy junk science to prove the Bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
That is okay for a religious person to believe, because it is part of belief. But for someone to claim to study fact and present this sort of stuff? Of course, they're unbiased. :sarcasm:
Well here you're presenting the fallacy of composition. Just because one person does this doesn't mean every athiest is now biased. That's absurd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2018, 12:28 AM
 
2,827 posts, read 1,712,646 times
Reputation: 988
Quote:
What the hell?

There's no such thing as "atheist science."

There is only "science."

Saying there is an "atheist science" is like saying there are "atheist algebra equations" or "atheist zebras" or "atheist computers."

No such beast even exists.
From my experience, the "science" (see below) posited by Hawking and his ilk is not science. I once read a book (no, I do not know the author's name) which spent most of the book quoting Einstein like he was a genius and fawning over other people's observations. Yes, Einstein was a genius. But it was because he was a free-thinker, in the real sense of the word. No, he was not an atheist. He wasn't a theist either. Nor was he an agnostic. He had his own ideas about the universe, and despite both theists and atheists trying to claim him, sorry your calling him a genius while using him for your own ends means you don't know him except to try to control him. Further, he spent the entire last chapter in an insufferable rant about how his findings "prove" God doesn't exist, when in fact they were nothing more than observations of black holes or something. I can't remember this fool's name, but to quote my favorite movie, "he's nobody important."

Science conducted by those with an atheist bias. Atheist science.

Quote:
Just because a scientist is an atheist doesn't mean he/she can't be unbiased in their findings. Unlike, say, Christian apologists who refuse to admit to the existence of or accept any scientific evidence that doesn't support the existence of ... not just a higher power, but the existence of their specific God of the Bible.
I see, so because someone else believes that a scientific theory disproves God, and you have a difference of opinion, somehow you are the one who is biased?

Suppose, for instance that we do a study in weather. We find distinctive patterns that are testable. You are convinced that this ordered pattern is proof that we don't need God to explain patterns in the universe. There is evidence? Nope, it's opinion. The same evidence, my opinion would be something along the lines of... patterns in weather are to such a degree of order that it can only prove intelligent design.

I AM NOT READING THE REST OF THAT FREAKING WALL OF TEXT. Especially, since in my experience, nobody has done me the same courtesy. A response to a quote should not exceed four paragraphs. Not unless the quote is also that long. It smacks of someone's old man nagging him about cleaning the dishes.

Quote:
Well here you're presenting the fallacy of composition. Just because one person does this doesn't mean every athiest is now biased. That's absurd.
Actually, no I wasn't saying every. I didn't use the word "every". I used the word "someone". Someone has made a claim that they study science, yet instead spend a good portion of their book pushing what is actually theology? No, sorry, NO, that doesn't work. It's intellectually dishonest. Had Hawking (or whatever that guy above) called their book Atheist Theology, yes, he could have legitimately pushed whatever stuff he wanted about God. He didn't. He called it The Grand Design, and made it about black holes and the Big Bang event (ostensibly) but in actuality spends a chunk of time talking philosophy.

Every atheist is biased though. As is Christian. Every Buddhist. Every Hindu. This is the natural condition of being human. But it does not and should not disqualify from science, unless the scientist in question (a) falsifies data to support a conclusion, or (b) takes leave of observable reality.

A scientist deals in observable reality, what they can see, feel, taste, smell, and hear. They are welcome to their faith (or lack thereof), they are welcome to their biases. Biases will be tested against anyway, to prove a consistent result. But when a scientist starts dealing in what they cannot see, feel, or touch, this is no longer science.

For instance, I could as a scientist say, "In conclusion, prevailing weather patterns are proven to be consistent with (blah blah blah). It is my opinion as a Christian/Jew that this is an evidence for intelligent design." Sure, fine, I've owned it as an opinion. What I cannot do, however, is try to couch my personal beliefs so it seems like science but is actually me preaching. That is precisely what I accuse Hawking of.

Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 02-09-2018 at 12:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2018, 03:49 AM
 
Location: Boston
3,693 posts, read 1,169,778 times
Reputation: 5695
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
I don't think myself that religion and science are really compatible. Science may accommodate religion by keeping it separate, or religion may accept the findings of science but keep Godfaith in places where science cannot go. That is, the gaps for God. But they are gradually being closed down.

But it is true that many (I recall that the Pew review found about half the nones) still do believe in a god of sorts, while not espousing any particular religion - even culturally or residually. It is organized religion that it taking it on the chin and irreligious theism or 'agnostics' as they call it, or even 'spiritual', is still a pretty safe gap for "God".
When Newton wrote the law of gravity he didn't declare God unnecessary, he used it to declare how God elegantly designed laws of physics.

God of the gaps is a recent atheist fallacy.
https://youtu.be/OFIpxMl0QbY
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top