That Religion Thing?

partyatmygaff

challengemaster wrote: »

One way or another - I'm a scientist, and have been primarily scientifically minded most of my life. Needless to say I'm an athiest

Needless to say? Excuse me?

Science =/= Atheism

Science and belief in God are not mutually exclusive in any way shape or form as neither one disqualifies the other. Forgive me for saying it, but it is usually what i'd like to term new age pseudo-intellectuals who maintain the "I'm scientifically minded therefore atheist" argument.

These supposedly scientific people rely on nothing but their own self-serving opinions and ignore the thousands upon thousands of greater scientists who are religious.

Take Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome project and one of the most accomplished scientists of our time. He was a former atheist who became a Christian.

The whole idea of "you can't prove it doesn't exist, therefore it does" doesn't float with me. I can't prove theres an invisible pink elephant in orbit around the earth either, doesn't mean it exists, nor am I going to start worshiping it on the miniscule chance that it does.

There are a whole lot of things that cannot be proven. Mathematics for example. It is not based on absolute proof. It relies on axioms that are generally accepted to be true despite there being no absolute proof.

Not only that but you, I and every single human being on this planet rely on both faith and reason in our decision making and thought processes. There is no brain that is purely rational.

IMO religion is nothing more than something thought up of by people to make life (and death) not seem so scary, especially to children.

You may hold that opinion but that it is all that it is. An opinion and not necessarily fact.

I mean, come on - Someone dies and they go to this amazing, peaceful, tranquil place in the sky?:rolleyes:

That is a childish view on the matter. I know this is C&H but come on (With an obligatory :rolleyes:) you can do better than that.

And my opinion is that anyone who needs religion in their life is pathetic,

Thank you for the insult.

so much so I feel sorry for them that they need fairytales to get on with life

Let me reiterate. Opinion does not necessarily mean fact.

and can't actually think for themself.

The usual rubbish I hear every day. Nothing new to see here.

SarahBeep!

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That is a childish view on the matter. I know this is C&H but come on (With an obligatory :rolleyes:) you can do better than that.

Thats it, walk into a perfectly intelligent discussion (one of many we have here) and insult us just because some regular posters here aren't old enough to vote.

You might want to be able to back up statements like that before you make them.

jumpguy

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Thats it, walk into a perfectly intelligent discussion (one of many we have here) and insult us just because some regular posters here aren't old enough to vote.

You might want to be able to back up statements like that before you make them.

Apologies if I'm wrong here, but I'm lost...did you misunderstand his post?

SarahBeep!

I know this is C&H but come on

Aside from the religion thing, there's no need to rock up here and presume that the opinions of people are childish just because they're different from your own and because some of our posters are young.

partyatmygaff

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Thats it, walk into a perfectly intelligent discussion (one of many we have here) and insult us just because some regular posters here aren't old enough to vote.

I'm only 17 myself. When I said "This is C&H" I was merely saying that it's not exactly what you'd call a "serious discussion" forum as the religion or humanities fora would be called. It's more of a lighthearted forum. I apologise if you found that insulting.

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Aside from the religion thing, there's no need to rock up here and presume that the opinions of people are childish just because they're different from your own and because some of our posters are young.

I don't even know where to start with this...

SarahBeep!

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change...

Like other people's beliefs perhaps?

Does anyone here have a problem with other people's beliefs because they conflict with their own? Or are you willing to accept that we can contrast without conflict.

Grindylow

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Like other people's beliefs perhaps?

Does anyone here have a problem with other people's beliefs because they conflict with their own? Or are you willing to accept that we can contrast without conflict.

Are you drunk?!

jumpguy

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Like other people's beliefs perhaps?

Does anyone here have a problem with other people's beliefs because they conflict with their own? Or are you willing to accept that we can contrast without conflict.

Where's that quoted from?

I am definitely a firm believer that we can "contrast without conflict" (a phrase I'm definitely using from now on :P). I usually keep my religious beliefs to myself for that reason. More often than not these days, I find that, rather ironically, it's people with firm atheist convictions that are the most inclined to religiously discriminate.

partyatmygaff

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Like other people's beliefs perhaps?

Discussion can and often does bring about a change in other people's views. There would be no such thing as discussion if we all accepted that other people's views are unchangeable. They are changeable but only through convincing the holder of said beliefs.

Does anyone here have a problem with other people's beliefs because they conflict with their own? Or are you willing to accept that we can contrast without conflict.

I have no idea where you are getting all of this from. I was responding to someone who is clearly prejudiced against those holding a faith in God. I may have missed something but I do not recall mentioning that I have a problem with anyone's beliefs throughout this thread.

Grindylow

I agree with what partyatmygaff said in relation to Challengemasters' post, it was a rather.. stupid to say the least, post..

SarahBeep!

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I have no idea where you are getting all of this from. I was responding to someone who is clearly prejudiced against those holding a faith in God. I may have missed something but I do not recall mentioning that I have a problem with anyone's beliefs throughout this thread.

Challengemaster's beliefs lie with science and you appeared to have a problem with that.

The Serenity Prayer

A prayer adopted by the AA.



Noel, I'll ignore that.

Grindylow

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Challengemaster's beliefs lie with science and you appeared to have a problem with that.

The Serenity Prayer

A prayer adopted by the AA.



Noel, I'll ignore that.

The problem is with his ignorance towards other religions. I don't have a problem with agnostics, whereas he clearly has a problem with religious people.

And my opinion is that anyone who needs religion in their life is pathetic,

Proof.

jumpguy

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Challengemaster's beliefs lie with science and you appeared to have a problem with that.

I think partyatmygaff's grievance lies more with the view Challengemaster takes with religious people, and not Challengemaster's own beliefs.

Namlub

The queen'!s some woman lads

partyatmygaff

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Challengemaster's beliefs lie with science and you appeared to have a problem with that.

Beliefs lie with science?

What?

You seem to be implying that I am against science in some strange sort of a way. If that was the case then my CAO would not consist of ten science courses.

My issue with what he said is nothing to do with science. It is all to do with his prejudice and attitude towards theists.

IHeartChemistry

Noel2k9 wrote: »

Are you drunk?!

She aint drunk

She's just making her own point. We all have our own opinions right?

ohthebaby

Just because you're into science doesn't mean you can't be into God...

randylonghorn

I had hoped that when this thread didn't resurrect after three days, we were done with it!

There's a reason why religion and politics were banned as dinner-table topics of conversation! >.<

amacachi

SarahBeep! wrote: »

I didn't feel my religious views were appropriately represented on the form. They weren't taking me seriously so until they do, I refuse to have my religion (Agnosticism) be Other on a major form.

But I did a bit of embellishment on the ole Census, said I took the bus more often than I did so the services would be improved.

Is "No Religion" not representative enough?

Jackobyte

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Beliefs lie with science?

What?

You seem to be implying that I am against science in some strange sort of a way. If that was the case then my CAO would not consist of ten science courses.

My issue with what he said is nothing to do with science. It is all to do with his prejudice and attitude towards theists.

ohthebaby wrote: »

Just because you're into science doesn't mean you can't be into God...

I have to agree that in my opinion, belief does lie with science. Science forces massive holes in religious beliefs. God created the world 4000 years ago and just left million year old fossils around to test our faith? That the process of evolution did not occur and we were created as a species as we are today?

SarahBeep!

amacachi wrote: »

Is "No Religion" not representative enough?

No.

Aoibheann

What would you define agnosticism as so, out of curiosity? It's not a religion, which would surely imply that it is in fact "no religion". Alternatively, could you not have selected other and put "agnostic" where you put in "Jedi"? Like, the beliefs of this country will hardly be accurately represented if people are filling in random things that they're clearly not, and maybe if enough people put in agnostic this time perhaps it'll actually be an option in its own right next time.

Davidius

philologos wrote: »

Is all faith blind faith or just some?

Blind faith generally involves believing in something for no discernible reasons, or more generally believing in something in the absence of objective evidence or proof, or without ever really approaching it objectively. I'm not sure what else I can say about your post as I'm not entirely sure if its points of discussion or not. Might edit this later.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

There are a whole lot of things that cannot be proven. Mathematics for example. It is not based on absolute proof. It relies on axioms that are generally accepted to be true despite there being no absolute proof.

What do you mean by absolute proof? Usually when somebody says that something is absolutely proven in mathematics they mean it's logically follows from axioms. In a mathematical sense it's generally meaningless to talk about the 'truth' of an axiom, so to speak.

flyswatter

Agree with Aoibheann. Agnosticism is not counted as a religion on the census form because its not an actual religion in my opinion and many others. As regards what I am in terms of belief, it's probably a mixture of fate, inspiration and belief from somewhere that things will work out in the end. Someones looking over me. Christianity appeals to me as I was raised a Catholic. I just can't say I'm one anymore after all the abuse scandals, cover ups and distress and pain that was caused, particularly here. Also, Scientology is a load of sh#te! Had to say that. Money making scam, nothing more.

philologos

Jackobyte wrote: »

I have to agree that in my opinion, belief does lie with science. Science forces massive holes in religious beliefs. God created the world 4000 years ago and just left million year old fossils around to test our faith? That the process of evolution did not occur and we were created as a species as we are today?

I think it's nonsense though.

Where in the Bible does it claim that the world is 4,000 years old?
Where in the Bible does it deny evolution?

If what you are saying was true, why are these scientists or these medics able to profess their belief in God and say that their work helps them to see God's glory more on a daily basis through creation. All of the people listed here have some form of university lectureship post and their work has been peer-reviewed.

The idea that you have to drop your brain off to believe in God is just factually and anecdotally wrong.

philologos

Davidius wrote: »

Blind faith generally involves believing in something for no discernible reasons, or more generally believing in something in the absence of objective evidence or proof, or without ever really approaching it objectively. I'm not sure what else I can say about your post as I'm not entirely sure if its points of discussion or not. Might edit this later.

My question was is all faith blind? - My answer would seem to be no. I can give you reasons why I believe in God or what makes my faith evident to me. Indeed my faith calls me to do this (1 Peter 3:15). I think partyatmygaff's points are perfectly valid, and it's great to see someone as eager to defend his faith on this forum and that's why I have a lot of respect for him. I will be revising that current link to make another post at some point to refine what is already there.

Davidus wrote:

What do you mean by absolute proof? Usually when somebody says that something is absolutely proven in mathematics they mean it's logically follows from axioms. In a mathematical sense it's generally meaningless to talk about the 'truth' of an axiom, so to speak.

Then about 99% of all we know cannot be subject to mathematical proof. It seems a little pointless to invoke it now?

flyswatter: I found these podcasts a while ago which go through some of the basics of Christianity (not any denomination) and I found them quite useful.

Namlub

flyswatter wrote: »

Agree with Aoibheann. Agnosticism is not counted as a religion on the census form because its not an actual religion in my opinion and many others. As regards what I am in terms of belief, it's probably a mixture of fate, inspiration and belief from somewhere that things will work out in the end. Someones looking over me. Christianity appeals to me as I was raised a Catholic. I just can't say I'm one anymore after all the abuse scandals, cover ups and distress and pain that was caused, particularly here. Also, Scientology is a load of sh#te! Had to say that. Money making scam, nothing more.

Considering agnosticism is fundamentally a suspension of belief in a supernatural higher controlling power (i.e. you know, a god) I fail to see how anyone would class it as a religion, including agnostics themselves. You seem to have completely missed the point; SarahBeep was saying that the choices for people who don't believe in one of the main religious doctrines all get lumped together under 'no religion', when atheists have different beliefs to agnostics, agnostics have different beliefs to libertarians, etc. Though I agree with Aoibheann that there probably aren't the numbers to justify many non-religious sub-categories.

partyatmygaff

Jackobyte wrote: »

I have to agree that in my opinion, belief does lie with science.

That still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. SarahPeep said that Challengemasters' beliefs lie with science. As in his beliefs are scientific. You are misinterpreting "lie" in that sentence.

Science forces massive holes in religious beliefs.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that...

Jackobyte

philologos wrote: »

I think it's nonsense though.

Where in the Bible does it claim that the world is 4,000 years old?
Where in the Bible does it deny evolution?

If what you are saying was true, why are these scientists or these medics able to profess their belief in God and say that their work helps them to see God's glory more on a daily basis through creation. All of the people listed here have some form of university lectureship post and their work has been peer-reviewed.

The idea that you have to drop your brain off to believe in God is just factually and anecdotally wrong.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That still makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. SarahPeep said that Challengemasters' beliefs lie with science. As in his beliefs are scientific. You are misinterpreting "lie" in that sentence.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that...

I was saying that, in my opinion, parts of science and religion contradict each other, that eventually you have to decide which parts you truly believe. I'm not claiming that science says God doesn't exist, no one knows for definite whether he does or not. What I am trying to say is that the timeline in the Bible for the creation of the earth is severely wrong according to science (Billions of years vs 6000). Also, genealogy shows that we all originate from Africa, migrating through India, yet in the Bible, we are all descended from Jewish ancestry. One of them has to be wrong. Not all of science contradicts religion. Biology, Chemistry, Physics all show how the world works around us without contradicting religion. It is just Scientific Philosophy and Religious Philosophy that don't match.

The Bible's timeline.

The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.

Its just the first part of the link I'm interested in, it was just the first result mentioning the Bible's timeline for creation.

And yes, I realise this post in probably hard to read and nonsensical as I couldn't put what I was trying to say down in words properly.

philologos

Jackobyte wrote: »

I was saying that, in my opinion, science and religion contradict each other, that eventually you have to decide which one you truly believe. I'm not claiming that science says God doesn't exist. What I am trying to say is that the timeline in the Bible for the creation of the earth is severely wrong according to science (Billions of years vs 6000). Also, genealogy shows that we all originate from Africa, migrating through India, yet in the Bible, we are all descended from Jewish ancestry. One of them has to be wrong. Not all of science contradicts religion. Biology, Chemistry, Physics all show how the world works around us without contradicting religion. It is just Scientific Philosophy and Religious Philosophy that don't match.

I'm just saying that the Bible actually doesn't say that the earth is 6,000 years old. It seems odd to me that people would criticise the Bible without knowing what it is saying. Some limited understandings of Christianity hold to this certainly (as in your link), but there is no explicit passage that gives the age of the earth. This is why I can quite happily hold to modern science, and believe in God as can many others.