Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism to defeat religion by 2038?
Options
Comments
-
So this is a confirmation that there is a pride involved.
You make my point for me. When asked to evidence your position you just revert to ad hominem and name calling.
A claim is either true or false. Not both. You are either able to substantiate a claim, or you can not. Not both.
When asked to do so, you just throw out words like "pride" and run. The only "pride" I see on display is the pride involved in thinking you hold a position that is immune to requirements of evidence and reason.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You make my point for me. When asked to evidence your position you just revert to ad hominem and name calling.
A claim is either true or false. Not both. You are either able to substantiate a claim, or you can not. Not both.
When asked to do so, you just throw out words like "pride" and run. The only "pride" I see on display is the pride involved in thinking you hold a position that is immune to requirements of evidence and reason.
But if it was not a pride, you would have answered why it is ok for scientists to spend billions on the Cern facility for something that has never been proven to exist, and why it is somehow wrong to have a faith that a God exists.
We have some atheists who go on about science as if people of belief are somehow in conflict with science or hate science. Is this not a pride in them seeing themselves as somehow being superior because they only believe in science?
I don't see myself superior to anyone, for the record.0 -
People will never see God in their lives. They have a false perception that a 'god' is controlling what happens around them. So false that even when things go wrong, they see it as a challenge from their god.
I had several deaths in my family over the past year. I don't blame God, life was never suppose to be easy.
Being born is a challenge and then just surviving is the biggest challenge.0 -
What has pride got to do with the Cern project? It's for educational purposes and has provided results that have never been seen before. You're clutching at straws here.But if it was not a pride, you would have answered why it is ok for scientists to spend billions on the Cern facility for something that has never been proven to exist, and why it is somehow wrong to have a faith that a God exists.
I'm pretty sure science would argue that Jesus' miracles magic tricks were not real.We have some atheists who go on about science as if people of belief are somehow in conflict with science or hate science.
I think the problem is that you're associated pride with the devil. 7 deadly sins and all that nonsense.Is this not a pride in them seeing themselves as somehow being superior because they only believe in science?
That's arguable given your post history in the thread.I don't see myself superior to anyone, for the record.
Of course you wouldn't blame god. Sure you're a good god fearing Christian. You're probably one of those people who will say "god doesn't make these things happen, but he's here to help us through it". Complete rubbish in my opinion.I had several deaths in my family over the past year. I don't blame God, life was never suppose to be easy.
Being born is a challenge and then just surviving is the biggest challenge.0 -
0
-
Advertisement
-
-
But if it was not a pride, you would have answered why it is ok for scientists to spend billions on the Cern facility for something that has never been proven to exist, and why it is somehow wrong to have a faith that a God exists
Nobody said it's wrong to have faith in God. If someone chooses to believe otherwise, what's the problem? Building something that may enhance our understanding of how things work and why we're here is a good thing, regardless of it's cost.. But from what I can see of you, you'd prefer to just take it all as it is and say it's all Gods work and we shouldn't question it?We have some atheists who go on about science as if people of belief are somehow in conflict with science or hate science. Is this not a pride in them seeing themselves as somehow being superior because they only believe in science?
It's not a belief, it's a fact in a lot of cases. The catholic church held science back decades and opposed free thinking. Galileo was persecuted and his ideas, along with countless others were repressed and rejected.
As funny as this sign is, this church is no different from any other religion with a hardcore member.0 -
That's hardly 'reality'. It's the largest source on Jesus that exists today, it's reliability historically on the subject is debatable. Your first point that it's the most reliable source in all of history is with respect a tad daft. It can't even agree on internal points between the various authors. I've already given examples of that regarding the sources for the resurrection and there are more examples of this internal inconsistency.
.
Most reliable source in all history? He didn't really say that did he?
News to me and I'm a historian.
The Bible is a source - yes.
Like all other sources it has to be treated with care and important questions asked.
Who wrote it?
Why did they write it?
Who was the intended audience?
What did they hope to gain by writing it?
When was it written?
Do other versions of the document exist?
Are there any other sources which verify it?
Any verifying sources also need to be examined following the same formula and so on and so forth.
Edit to add: I forgot the most important question - is the document a primary source? - which means was it written contemporary to the events it describes and did the writer witness these events personally? If it does not fulfil these two important criteria it is a secondary source aka 'hearsay'.
I have yet, in 20 odd years, found any source that was absolutely 100% without a doubt truthful for the simple reason that humans wrote them.0 -
What has pride got to do with the Cern project? It's for educational purposes and has provided results that have never been seen before. You're clutching at straws here.
I'm pretty sure science would argue that Jesus' miracles magic tricks were not real.
I think the problem is that you're associated pride with the devil. 7 deadly sins and all that nonsense.
That's arguable given your post history in the thread.
Of course you wouldn't blame god. Sure you're a good god fearing Christian. You're probably one of those people who will say "god doesn't make these things happen, but he's here to help us through it". Complete rubbish in my opinion.
Please keep up with the topic. The Cern facility was in response to "Or it might be simply that when asked you have consistently failed each and every time to provide even a scrap of an iota of evidence, argument, data or reasons on which to lend even a modicum of credibility to the claim there IS a god."
The point was billions of euro have been spent to try and prove something that is held on a belief and without evidence (as of yet) and why is that somehow acceptable and why is it unacceptable to hold a belief in God?
Is pride somehow good? whether one believes in sin or not.
I know you would want me to blame God, tell me what good would that do?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
What has the amount of money spent got to do with anything? I think you need to look at the fact that they are trying to understand something and build up a scientific case. So apart from saying "because the bible", what exactly has religion done to try and prove their god exists? Again, you're clutching at straws!Please keep up with the topic. The Cern facility was in response to "Or it might be simply that when asked you have consistently failed each and every time to provide even a scrap of an iota of evidence, argument, data or reasons on which to lend even a modicum of credibility to the claim there IS a god."
The point was billions of euro have been spent to try and prove something that is held on a belief and without evidence (as of yet) and why is that somehow acceptable and why is it unacceptable to hold a belief in God?
Have you ever heard anyone say "have pride in your work"? Of course it's good.Is pride somehow good? whether one believes in sin or not.
I don't want you to blame god. I'm just wondering why you feel the need for a god in your life.?I know you would want me to blame God, tell me what good would that do?
That wasn't the question. The question was "Are you proud that you believe in god?"One doesn't believe in God out of pride.0 -
Ummm.. I wouldn't bother trying to argue with that guy anymore.
Smash: *Posts relevant discussion with good points*
Min: *Puts in earplugs* "Pride, lalalal, one believes in PRIDE... How about some Pride....!! Pride is bad.pride
:pac:0 -
Nobody said it's wrong to have faith in God. If someone chooses to believe otherwise, what's the problem? Building something that may enhance our understanding of how things work and why we're here is a good thing, regardless of it's cost.. But from what I can see of you, you'd prefer to just take it all as it is and say it's all Gods work and we shouldn't question it?
It's not a belief, it's a fact in a lot of cases. The catholic church held science back decades and opposed free thinking. Galileo was persecuted and his ideas, along with countless others were repressed and rejected.
As funny as this sign is, this church is no different from any other religion with a hardcore member.
Oh but they do, this is why so many topics on religion appear on this forum rather than in the various forum accredited to things like atheism, christianity and so on.
If there is anything negative or perceived as negative about a faith, it appears in AH, the same people would never post any positive topics about religion, it has to be negative topics and it is always the same people giving out about religion and a belief in God.
The Catholic church had some famous cases like with Galileo (who remained a committed Catholic throughout his life) but the Catholic Church has an academy of science where over a third of the scientists are Nobel prize winners, it has an observatory where the head of the observatory has said that alien life probably exists and it could be intelligent life.
btw the scientists come from areas of science , the current president of the Pontifical academy of sciences is a Nobel prize winning Protestant (Werner Arber), he won the Nobel prize for discovering restriction endonucleases.0 -
Ummm.. I wouldn't bother trying to argue with that guy anymore.
Smash: *Posts relevant discussion with good points*
Min: *Puts in earplugs* "Pride, lalalal, one believes in PRIDE... How about some Pride....!! Pride is bad.pride
:pac:
Smash took my post about Cern which had nothing to do with pride and associated it with the argument on pride as if I was somehow associating it with pride, maybe that is you idea of a relevant discussion with good points...0 -
Smash took my post about Cern which had nothing to do with pride and associated it with the argument on pride as if I was somehow associating it with pride, maybe that is you idea of a relevant discussion with good points...
Sorry what?
"But if it was not a pride, you would have answered why it is ok for scientists to spend billions on the Cern facility for something that has never been proven to exist, and why it is somehow wrong to have a faith that a God exists."0 -
Oh but they do, this is why so many topics on religion appear on this forum rather than in the various forum accredited to things like atheism, christianity and so on.
If there is anything negative or perceived as negative about a faith, it appears in AH, the same people would never post any positive topics about religion, it has to be negative topics and it is always the same people giving out about religion and a belief in God.
The Catholic church had some famous cases like with Galileo (who remained a committed Catholic throughout his life) but the Catholic Church has an academy of science where over a third of the scientists are Nobel prize winners, it has an observatory where the head of the observatory has said that alien life probably exists and it could be intelligent life.
btw the scientists come from areas of science , the current president of the Pontifical academy of sciences is a Nobel prize winning Protestant (Werner Arber), he won the Nobel prize for discovering restriction endonucleases.
Given what happened to those who disavowed the RCC at the time this is not much of a claim to be honest. You could just as easily say that Galileo wanted to stay alive so he said what the RCC wanted to hear...0 -
Galileo, being the worlds best astronomer at the time was obviously a very intelligent person who didn't want the skin to be stripped from his bones so he was hardly going to go blabbering otherwise now, was he.The Catholic church had some famous cases like with Galileo (who remained a committed Catholic throughout his life)0 -
What has the amount of money spent got to do with anything? I think you need to look at the fact that they are trying to understand something and build up a scientific case. So apart from saying "because the bible", what exactly has religion done to try and prove their god exists? Again, you're clutching at straws!
Have you ever heard anyone say "have pride in your work"? Of course it's good.
I don't want you to blame god. I'm just wondering why you feel the need for a god in your life.?
That wasn't the question. The question was "Are you proud that you believe in god?"
So no one has an answer why it is ok for for scientists to hold a belief in something that has not been proven to exist apart from their own belief and how this is somhow different to believing in an existence in God.
I suppose this is why the Higgs Bosum is aslo referred to as the God particle, but it is more acceptable for some atheists to believe in something that hasn't been yet proven than to be more accepting that a God may exist.
You are moving the pride from oneself to the work, if you looked at yourself as being better than someone who was cleaning toilets then that would not be good, you would be putting yourself above the toilet cleaner.
I just feel a presence of a God in my life, I just can't stop believing even if I wanted to, it is not that I feel I need God as such, I just feel God exists, so I wouldn't use the word need, but more so faith that a God does exist.
I don't have pride that I believe in God, as I said it has nothing to do with pride.0 -
Galileo, being the worlds best astronomer at the time was obviously a very intelligent person who didn't want the skin to be stripped from his bones so he was hardly going to go blabbering otherwise now, was he.
In exchange for recanting Galileo was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life and publication of his works forbidden by the Inquisition.0 -
So no one has an answer why it is ok for for scientists to hold a belief in something that has not been proven to exist apart from their own belief and how this is somhow different to believing in an existence in God.
I suppose this is why the Higgs Boson is aslo referred to as the God particle, but it is more acceptable for some atheists to believe in something that hasn't been yet proven than to be more accepting that a God may exist.
Of course you're missing the point that in the case of things like the Higgs Boson we can actually get a definitive answer as to whether or not it actually exists which makes it very much different from belief in a deity.
It's all rather disingenuous, when you stop to think about it.0 -
Advertisement
-
So no one has an answer why it is ok for for scientists to hold a belief in something that has not been proven to exist apart from their own belief and how this is somhow different to believing in an existence in God.
I suppose this is why the Higgs Bosum is aslo referred to as the God particle, but it is more acceptable for some atheists to believe in something that hasn't been yet proven than to be more accepting that a God may exist.
You are moving the pride from oneself to the work, if you looked at yourself as being better than someone who was cleaning toilets then that would not be good, you would be putting yourself above the toilet cleaner.
I just feel a presence of a God in my life, I just can't stop believing even if I wanted to, it is not that I feel I need God as such, I just feel God exists, so I wouldn't use the word need, but more so faith that a God does exist.
I don't have pride that I believe in God, as I said it has nothing to do with pride.
Science gathers evidence to prove or disprove theories. Quantifiable and verifiable evidence is gathered. Reports are written which are peer reviewed. They may 'believe' a particular theory is correct but their belief is completely worthless unless they can prove that the theory correct.
Science = Searching For answers.
Religion = Certain it has all the answers so no point looking further.
BTW - Where exactly has a scientist stated 'you must believe this or go to Hell?'0 -
Sorry what?
"But if it was not a pride, you would have answered why it is ok for scientists to spend billions on the Cern facility for something that has never been proven to exist, and why it is somehow wrong to have a faith that a God exists."
It started from this:nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Or it might be simply that when asked you have consistently failed each and every time to provide even a scrap of an iota of evidence, argument, data or reasons on which to lend even a modicum of credibility to the claim there IS a god.
I responded withSo this is a confirmation that there is a pride involved.
It is called a faith for a reason, people may undividually see God in their own lives, it doesn't mean one is able to give the proof.
But then CERN had to build a super ultra modern facility in order to try and prove something that hadn't been proven as a fact.
But they claim what te so called God particle (nothing to do with God in the argument put forward by you) does exist.
The fact is science hasn't been able to prove everything and should one believe the CERN facility was built in vain because nothing has been proven yet?
From the Telegraph on June 2nd, 2012
quote missing here
So do these scientists lack a credibility or is it a case of double standards by some people for what one can believe in science to exist and what a person of faith believes exists?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You make my point for me. When asked to evidence your position you just revert to ad hominem and name calling.
A claim is either true or false. Not both. You are either able to substantiate a claim, or you can not. Not both.
When asked to do so, you just throw out words like "pride" and run. The only "pride" I see on display is the pride involved in thinking you hold a position that is immune to requirements of evidence and reason.
I just said pride was involved in the atheist position taken, I then used CERN and it's search for something unproven as of yet to see if the same standards applied to the scientists.
I just wanted to see if CERN were wrong for spending billions on trying to prove something they believed in when there is no evidence as of yet that it actually exists.
Because this no evidence position would in itself hold back science if scientists didn't think of possibilities even if there is no hard evidence for it.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Science gathers evidence to prove or disprove theories. Quantifiable and verifiable evidence is gathered. Reports are written which are peer reviewed. They may 'believe' a particular theory is correct but their belief is completely worthless unless they can prove that the theory correct.
Science = Searching For answers.
Religion = Certain it has all the answers so no point looking further.
BTW - Where exactly has a scientist stated 'you must believe this or go to Hell?'
That is a very ignorant view of religion.
If religion had all the answers then why does the Vatican for example have an academy of sciences? Why do they put in top people who have won Nobel prizes?
Why do they bother to operate a giant telescope searching the skies and contributing to knowledge on Space?
Why have many of the top scientists throughout hostory have a strong religious belief.
Religion has never claimed to have all the answers.0 -
So no one has an answer why it is ok for for scientists to hold a belief in something that has not been proven to exist apart from their own belief and how this is somhow different to believing in an existence in God.
I suppose this is why the Higgs Bosum is aslo referred to as the God particle, but it is more acceptable for some atheists to believe in something that hasn't been yet proven than to be more accepting that a God may exist.
You are moving the pride from oneself to the work, if you looked at yourself as being better than someone who was cleaning toilets then that would not be good, you would be putting yourself above the toilet cleaner.
I just feel a presence of a God in my life, I just can't stop believing even if I wanted to, it is not that I feel I need God as such, I just feel God exists, so I wouldn't use the word need, but more so faith that a God does exist.
I don't have pride that I believe in God, as I said it has nothing to do with pride.
Scientists hold a belief in the Higgs boson because there is evidence that it exists - all our observations of the universe so far are consistent with the Higgs boson existing. Scientists have belief, because there is evidence, even though that evidence is not yet conclusive. If the Higgs boson is not discovered, it will stop being believed in, and a new theory put in place.
This is exactly unlike any idea of God, whose believers totally reject the idea that humans can try to prove God exists, and will not be convinced that there is no God despite only having only hearsay as evidence that he does exist.
If the Higgs boson was a matter of faith among scientists, like God, there would be no need to do any experiment, as everyone would be perfectly convinced of its existence already.0 -
hooradiation wrote: »Of course you're missing the point that in the case of things like the Higgs Boson we can actually get a definitive answer as to whether or not it actually exists which makes it very much different from belief in a deity.
It's all rather disingenuous, when you stop to think about it.
So if it is proven, does this mean that they shouldn't have believed in it's existence, a belief that led to billions being spent on it, until it was actually proven?0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,145 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59074
and why not? So long as it doesn't descend into hubris. We should be proud of our species.The more one grows in wealth and wisdom, the more they are likely to grow in pride.
Not quite. The church by the time of Galileo(and for a good while before) weren't in the habit of such acts, lurid Protestant propaganda and fearmongering aside. Indeed "heretics" were far more likely to be chopped up by non Catholics. Protestants in England killed far more "witches" than the inquisition ever did and over a shorter period of time too. Being tried by the various Catholic inquisitions was significantly safer for a person accused of a capital crime than being tried in secular courts of the time. Their 2% rate of handing down death sentences was much much lower than in secular courts and they obeyed their own internal laws and rules more(actually the Italian inquisitions highest penalty was imprisonment).Galileo, being the worlds best astronomer at the time was obviously a very intelligent person who didn't want the skin to be stripped from his bones so he was hardly going to go blabbering otherwise now, was he.
Galileo actually debated his theory with church scholars and it was only after the second debate did he fall foul of the authorities. He was tried by the inquisition and cleared of all charges the first time. During this time he promised not to publish more on the theory. It was 20 years later when he went ahead and published that really got on their tits and they found him guilty and sentenced him to house arrest. Whats odder is that the heliocentric theory had been around for decades and the church did feck all about it. Contrary to popular Copernicus' works barely raised an eyebrow from church officialdom.
Of all the Christian churches the Catholic church has been most open to science. For a start and early on they avoided literalism in biblical interpretation. Evolution a good example. The church stayed pretty quiet on the matter officially. Compare that to the other christian denominations who being more literal went batshít. Still are if you regard the various non catholic sects in the US and elsewhere who follow creationism.
While the Catholic church does have a deep pit of shít that needs to be dug out, there are also quite a number of half truths and downright inaccuracies from some about that version of Christianity.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
That is a very ignorant view of religion.
If religion had all the answers then why does the Vatican for example have an academy of sciences? Why do they put in top people who have won Nobel prizes?
Why do they bother to operate a giant telescope searching the skies and contributing to knowledge on Space?
Why have many of the top scientists throughout hostory have a strong religious belief.
Religion has never claimed to have all the answers.
Does it make you proud to call other people's posts ignorant?
I seem to remember learning the following in school:
Q 'Who made the world?'
A. God made the World.
Seems like a definitive statement to me.0 -
So if it is proven, does this mean that they shouldn't have believed in it's existence, a belief that led to billions being spent on it, until it was actually proven?
It'd be nice if, just once, something you wrote bore a passing resemblance to being related to what you're quoting.
Or wasn't total gibberish.0 -
But if it was not a pride, you would have answered why it is ok for scientists to spend billions on the Cern facility for something that has never been proven to exist, and why it is somehow wrong to have a faith that a God exists.
I did not answer it because it is a change of subject and a deflection. I asked you for evidence and argument, you responded by asking me for evidence and argument on a totally different topic. It was a cop out and as such I am not about to reply to it.
If you want to start another thread about CERN and what the utilty of spending vast amounts of money in the pursuit of data and information is I am more than happy to engage you on it.
THIS thread however is about atheism and religion and MY point was about how you have no evidence whatsoever for your god. A point you proved for me by running instantly away from that request and throwing out ad hominem like "pride" and subject changes to "CERN".
Run away from the questions all you like, but if you decide at any point to actually answer them I am all ears. In fact, like Philologos, the only utility I can find in replying to you is just to keep you talking so people can see exactly how you act. You're doing my job for me better than I could if you were to give me your password and let me write your posts myself.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is confusing, it's almost like your trying to miss the point.So if it is proven, does this mean that they shouldn't have believed in it's existence, a belief that led to billions being spent on it, until it was actually proven?
The higgs existence became apparent to science, it reveals itself through the work scientists do. The place that science is at now is complex and makes little sense to our macro world. It takes big science machines to confirm what's happening but it's not just about finding the Higgs, if they do find it it will bring advances just like all these discovery's do, there is real money and wealth from these discovery's that goes beyond fame and is completely based in practical day to day life. No one would put money into these things if there wasn't financial return on their investment.0
Advertisement