Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

[Lifer]

Because I don't pretend to have an answer to things we can't answer yet.

You are contradicting yourself. You consistantly tell believers they are delusional. How do you know?

 

[OldEngland]

Since this is a science debate lets try and keep it objective please gentleman.

Two points have been raised, albeit not as scientifically or as gracefully as i would have hoped.

1) The personal God.

It is an interesting concept, and I don't pretend to be remotely wise enough to have anything but a guess informed by my own experience of life. Firstly, I think we should remember we are personal beings, trying to make sense of the little box with limited sensory view holes that we have to live in for every breath we ever take. We have to recognise that all proposed encounters with this force “God” in the present and the past have been filtered and expressed by the human experience. Of course a relationship with God is interpreted and experienced as a personal thing, and written and described thus.

Even if God was an obscure, impersonal, impartial and distant force would we still try to personalise it, to make it our own, to make sense of the world? My view and relationship with God is probably different to yours? Even though it would be the same God, no? Would this account for the personal nature? But let’s not simply dismiss out of hand with no proof the possibility that if we want it and ask for it, that a force can love us intimately, saving us from living a life where we go against the flow of nature, with amazing grace, before gently guiding us for the rest of our life.

So Wildo, do you think a distant impersonal force is more likely? Or do you just dismiss any chance of God? If so just out of interest what are your reasons?

Oh and for the record. True atheists, those people who state atheism when asked “what is your religion”, those who absolutely dismiss any God-like force in the universe are, ironically for your previous statement as rare as hen’s teeth.
According to Adherents.com (A site which claims states it is not affiliated with any religious, political or educational organisation) true atheists on earth number approximately 250m (and the majority of these from the former USSR states and China). This is in a population of approaching 7billion, of which 4.5 billion people claim to believe in a personal God. Is the vast majority of the population wrong? Is it just you that knows the truth? Are you missing something, or am I?
Are you small, green, with a tendency for Guinness paid by gold by any chance?

2) Arrogance

I don’t find Wildo arrogant. Intellectually arrogant yes maybe, but that is a completely different thing. I know of this because I once owned the t-shirt (in fact I probably owned a whole wardrobe). The fact that you cannot rationalise something so therefore it can’t possibly exist and I’ll ridicule it instead is a common reaction. Relying on limited proven data for your whole perspective is a natural reaction to life, especially when our best mechanism for exploring the world, science, comes up with nothing, and if you haven’t experienced anything, why wouldn’t you be cynical.
I always respected those who believed, but I still thought belief in God and religion was simply a crutch for the weak, which of course ultimately, it is. Some people just don't want to live like that, if so good luck to you.

Accepting that there are things you will probably never understand is a hard thing to learn for some people, and often the smart ones find it harder. I still know nothing about the universe, every question I answer, another ten pop up to replace it. We will never know everything, I am nothing, and know nothing and understand nothing in the grand scheme of things and I don’t mind a bit, in fact I love it and thank/praise what I do find out daily.

It’s such a shame some believers don’t behave towards others in the graceful, understanding, forgiving, merciful, non-judgemental, totally humble way that Jesus taught us, continually giving and not wanting anything in return. We are supposed to show the light, the way we are guided to, not darken it and drive people away from making an objective decision about who “you want to be”, as creationism vs. evolution, the Catholic church and the Monty python style say “no” brigade believers once did to me. Everyone has their own path, it may not be right for you, or your neighbour, but who are we to judge anyone else and what is right for them. Everyone learns in their own way, and no-one is wise enough to understand another’s path through life. Some people may have to be cynical unbelievers to reach their personal rainbow for all I know. The world would be a better place if every Christian, despite our own individual personal shortcomings, behaved and thought as they are taught.

Anyway I'll apologise for the extended ramble and go back to the topic in hand, I am very glad you have joined the debate Lifer. I would love to know what direct experience of God have you had or heard about? Savings, healings, guidance or miracles perhaps, either for you or for others? Have you ever experienced pure selfless love from God or another person?
It'd be great to start with a good example from you to investigate, and return to the topic by discussing if/how science could ever begin to design an experiment to prove it. Is science advanced enough? Is it acceptable and appropriate to attempt to prove God? Is it possible in the first place? An experiment partially designed by those who don’t believe has the advantage removing some of the conflicts of interest, and they have the opportunity of trying to prove us wrong.

 

[Wildo7]

You are contradicting yourself. You consistantly tell believers they are delusional. How do you know?

When you claim to have an answer that you can't possibly have you are deluding yourself.

 

[Wildo7]

Nobody can dismiss anything with 100% certainty, and that applies to all supernatural beliefs and answers. Every time the human race has attempted to answer something with a supernatural explanation it has always been wrong. I don't "think" anything about it, I have no idea. If you look at string theory or the idea of the multiverse, there are infinite dimensions with infinite possible timeline connected through quantum particles. I have no clue as to whether this is accurate or not and have no idea to conceptualize the answer but it's at least based on some kind of logic.

People say "how can something come from nothing," I don't necessarily believe that something can come from nothing, I simply don't know. But if that is your justification for belief in an intelligent creator (and for the sake of argument this is about a personal God, not a metaphorical one) then it does nothing to stop that infinite regress (who created God?). All believers are doing is inventing an arbitrary end point with no justification to put their mind at rest. This belief has grown throughout history from a primitive logic sought to explain everything through superstition. Now it answers less of those questions. I don't assign characteristics to the unknown because the answers are almost always different from a blind guess (faith), especially a blind guess that presumes human intention (why v. how).

Say you believe in a personal God, why is it that those who do always believe in a benevolent God? If you are going to say well I MIGHT be right, you can also say that this God character has an equal chance of being malevolent or impersonal as you said. This to me, shows that one of the main reasons why people believe is that they like the answer, not that they actually believe it. Would they believe in a malevolent God? That very well could be the answer too if you are going to assign personal qualities to "God."

I look at the world and the universe and I do see a totally impersonal characteristic, not a happy or evil one that reflects human emotion. Stars collapsing in places we can't see, asteroids colliding with each other in distant galaxies, planets forming and being destroyed, people living and dying, children suffering and being happy. But you also have to say that any superstition that seeks to give us perspective we don't have might all be equally right since the evidence is the same (nothing). If you're going to say that it takes "faith" or "belief" to attach an impersonal quality to things that isn't true since impersonal, simply implies without PERSONal qualities. When you assume God you are shoe horning everything we know about the world into a predetermined answer, instead of letting the answers actually reveal themselves to you through nature. That is the fundamental problem with faith, there's zero objectivity involved in it. If I've already decided on God, then I'm going to try to squeeze everything I see into that presupposition, and shift God around to fit those pieces that don't fit.

I don't really care where Atheists come from, nor do I care what adherents.com claims. I will however point out that if you look at the history since people had a choice to believe in God, most of the greatest minds have strayed away from the personal God idea. But the truth isn't a popularity contest, and I listen to reason, logic, sound thinking and evidence, not any appeal to the authority of any individual or large group. As has been proven over the course of human history, there's a tendency for people to want to look for an easy answer to things because they just have to know right away. They want a simple life with easy choices and easy morals where they're told what to do without thinking about anything. But life isn't that easy. And these answers are always incorrect and imply tons of assumptions. The very question "WHO" created the Universe or "what is the purpose" implies intent; a human characteristic that is exactly the same that people have always assigned to things they don't know.

The question should probably be totally redefined before we could ever get to an answer and the actual answer would probably redefines our consciousness in a way we've never considered before. Take evolution for example, before we knew about that the question was always framed as a choice between randomness or intelligent design. "Well if we weren't designed by God, how can it be random?" The answer turns out to demonstrate this false choice in the question itself by showing that the process of evolution is neither random nor intelligent design. It redefined our consciousness in a way we couldn't have conceived before. This is the case with the vast answers we seek that we may never be able to get.

Humans evolved to survive in their environment through use of technology and intellect. That selective pressure may simply not require us to develop an intellect that needs to or is able to conceptualize further dimensions or multiverses or infinity or whatever the nature of our Universe may be. If you ask Quantum Physicists or Astrophysicists they'll tell you that there's maybe a handful of people that are able to intuitively conceptualize nature on such macro and micro scales. The idea of God as it's used beyond a metaphor for what we can't understand (yet) is completely absurd, and it defies both logic and reason. It's an absolutely pathetic attempt to answer things by posing questions that probably won't end up even making sense.

I'm not a bully, if there's a psychological benefit someone gets from resting the intellect by believing the God answer to be true and then gets comfort and confidence from that then that's great for the individual. Where I have a huge problem with it is indoctrinating children with fairy tales, telling them that faith is a good quality in a person and forcing them to see reality through a flawed prism or not see reality at all. Any time you shape morals, education etc. from dogma you are creating robots that do not act logically or seek any understanding, but simply do as they're told.

This is a huge problem for the human race, especially when it gets in the way of our actual understanding of the way things work. The whole practice of indoctrinating children with religious crap is very telling, since nobody can claim any child is possibly capable of making up their own minds on the subject. Their minds are developing and very impressionable, and what they are taught through nurture, they are likely to believe for the rest of their lives and it's likely to shape how they think about things.

If children weren't brainwashed, and we didn't continue to glorify total ignorance and anti-intellectualism, I can guarantee you that we'd see a whole hell of a lot more atheists in the world. That's how warped society is because of religion. Superstitious beliefs essentially say, there's no need for progress or asking questions any more rationally, because we've got the answer already. The fact that you posed the question, "is it appropriate to try to prove or disprove God" is scary, since your basically saying that we might want to stop seeking to understand because it might offend this mythical man. You see this indoctrination on a broad scale by people who don't even consider themselves religious, yet they've been taught by our culture that that the choice is between God or no God and that faith is a good quality to have when in fact there's absolutely no value in it and it's actually very dangerous. I know hat if I were seeking to control people I'd plant the seeds of faith too, since it basically says "you're probably going to get better answers, but just believe me anyway, that's what God wants."

You think I'm intellectually arrogant because I am able to admit I don't have the first clue about the Universe but reject one hypothesis with no evidence because of it's glaring flaws, contradictions and assumptions (omnipotence and omniscience are not reconcilable, why would God value believing in him without evidence above all else etc.). I also have nothing but contempt for those that try to brainwash other people with their crap because they have lost the ability to think for themselves or have decided that God makes them happy and are too mentally lazy to keep going further in the thought process.

I'm a strong atheist, not a weak one, I don't believe in the God hypothesis because it seems silly and childish and doesn't satisfy the problem of an infinite regress. I also think that the God hypothesis seeks to answer a question people don't even have the first clue as to how to ask. Believers also reject other hypothesis but only because it contradicts what they've chosen to believe. Remember, every one in this forum is an atheist as far as 3500 other superstitions go, I just go one god further.

 

[Lifer]

When you claim to have an answer that you can't possibly have you are deluding yourself.

Why are my claims more delusional than yours?

Ive never come on these boards and called people ridiculing names like you and others do toward believers.

Ive never called you delusional, ive never mocked yours or anothers lifestyle of non-belief like so many others here do.

So i dont believe I need to apologize for stating what I believe to be as true.
And I dont believe you need to either.

But to tell someone else they are delusional puts the ball in your court, not mine, to justify your claims and your behavior.

 

[Wildo7]

Why are my claims more delusional than yours?

Ive never come on these boards and called people ridiculing names like you and others do toward believers.

Ive never called you delusional, ive never mocked yours or anothers lifestyle of non-belief like so many others here do.

So i dont believe I need to apologize for stating what I believe to be as true.
And I dont believe you need to either.

But to tell someone else they are delusional puts the ball in your court, not mine, to justify your claims and your behavior.

I never called you names nor did I ask for an apology.

But you are still claiming something is so, so the burden of proof is still on you to provide evidence. I don't care to prove you are delusional or not, but the fact is without evidence there's no reason for anyone to take your beliefs seriously, nor is there reason to take anyone else's beliefs seriously. Remember, you believe that people of the 3500 other registered religions are delusional.

 

[Lifer]

I never called you names nor did I ask for an apology.

But you are still claiming something is so, so the burden of proof is still on you to provide evidence. I don't care to prove you are delusional or not, but the fact is without evidence there's no reason for anyone to take your beliefs seriously, nor is there reason to take anyone else's beliefs seriously. Remember, you believe that people of the 3500 other registered religions are delusional.

You did call me delusional. I am a believer, you call believers delusional.

And please dont put words in my mouth. I have NEVER called other people delusional and you know it. I may not believe as other 3500 registered religions do but I would never be so disrespectful as telling them they are delusional.

(so can we say the word "delusional" any more times in one thread? )

I did not start this thread so why am I the one who has prove anything?

I couldnt care less about the Evolution debate. I think a lot of my fellow Christians waste a lot of their time getting involved in worrying about it as much as they do. Personally, as we have talked ad nauseum, I believe there is room for both the idea of Evolution and a Creator that started it all. I know you have made you views known and I respect that.

But me stating my beliefs is me stating my beliefs. I neither have to, as unfortunately too many believers do, try and prove you wrong or prove myself right.

i think we've beaten this to death.

 

[Wildo7]

hggghhhhhhhhhh fine.

But if I think people who believe in something isn't true are deluding themselves, how is that different from saying something similar about people who ascribe to a different political ideology? I know how much you think of the neo cons...

 

[Lifer]

hggghhhhhhhhhh fiiiiinnne.

Phewww. we're done.

Praise the Lord!

 

[Synovia]

Personally, as we have talked ad nauseum, I believe there is room for both the idea of Evolution and a Creator that started it all. I know you have made you views known and I respect that.
.

Theres certainly room, but theres a big difference between the two: evidence.

 

[Synovia]

But me stating my beliefs is me stating my beliefs. I neither have to, as unfortunately too many believers do, try and prove you wrong or prove myself right.

To be a part of science, you most certainly do.

 

[Lifer]

To be a part of science, you most certainly do.

am I a part of science? is this what you science folks do all day?

hey, this ice cream is good.

PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Wildo7]

am I a part of science? is this what you science folks do all day?

hey, this ice cream is good.

PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifible and requires empirical evidence, observation, repeatable results and peer review before a it is accepted. Doesn't look like "God" qualifies.

 

[Lifer]

Ok, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifible and requires empirical evidence, observation, repeatable results and peer review before a it is accepted. Doesn't look like "God" qualifies.

qualifies for what?

 

[Wildo7]

qualifies for what?

science.

Do you want a scientific break down of the taste buds and neurology that make people like ice cream? Or are you going to say that subjective feelings are little angels whispering in your ear?

 

[Lifer]

science.

Do you want a scientific break down of the taste buds and neurology that make people like ice cream? Or are you going to say that subjective feelings are little angels whispering in your ear?

yup, never a generalization or negative remark from Wildo.

Are you telling me that using science you can show somebody that their claim that their ice cream is good is not able to be proven and thus their claim is not true?

 

[Wildo7]

yup, never a generalization or negative remark from Wildo.

Are you telling me that using science you can show somebody that their claim that their ice cream is good is not able to be proven and thus their claim is not true?

When did I claim I don't make "negative" remarks? And how did I generalize, I asked you a question...

The fact is taste can be proven, and there's no purpose in proving or disproving individual mundane tastes, so your analogy sucks. Too negative?

 

[Lifer]

When did I claim I don't make "negative" remarks? And how did I generalize, I asked you a question...

The fact is taste can be proven, and there's no purpose in proving or disproving individual mundane tastes, so your analogy sucks. Too negative?

why does the analogy suck?
You can prove what tastes good too somebody?

And then, since theres not enough of a purpose for you, why bother?
thats your answer?

If I tell you that I know for a fact that Rasberry tastes better Vanilla, you can tell me using science that im incorrect ( or should I say delusional?)

How would you know?

I say I believe in God.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Wildo7]

why does the analogy suck?
You can prove what tastes good too somebody?

Me personally? No. Do you honestly think science can't explain why certain things taste good to certain people?

And then, since theres not enough of a purpose for you, why bother?
thats your answer?

No that's the reason why it's ridiculous to equate religion to every person being personally tested and examined to reveal their individual food preferences. If we wanted to, we most likely could, but we aren't going to because there's no point in the answer. Don't pretend to be obtuse.

If I tell you that I know for a fact that Rasberry tastes better Vanilla, you can tell me using science that im incorrect ( or should I say delusional?)

How would you know?

I say I believe in God.

Prove me wrong.

You are way smarter than this. The statement "Raspberry tastes better to me than vanilla" is a fact that can be explained scientifically. The statement "God exists" is an opinion about external realities not supported by anything.

You're equating individual statements of preference with the validity of statements about the nature of the Universe. Pretty silly no?

 

[OldEngland]

Ok.

So suggest a scientific reason. Why do some people find the teachings of Jesus so helpful to the function of their daily lives, changing how they act and speak in a very short period of time? Why do some people believe in God and not others?

Are they predisposed, is it nature or nurture? are there biochemical or physiological changes when you "find God", are there psychological changes?

Does forgiving yourself for prior acts which you are not proud of release you to be happier? How come the belief and forgiveness of "God" seems to accomplish this act so much more quickly? Should we spend more time on the couch instead?

You can poo poo it all you want, but this stuff happens. Drug addicts, thieves, even murderers change dramatically overnight upon hearing the gospel. Pretending it doesn't is ignoring a valid bit of evidence (even if it is presented in a way that is offensive to you because of you distaste of religion). I don't think your bias is very good scientific practice. Saying it is supernatural therefore doesn't merit investigation is a copout IMHO.