Number of Theist/Atheist/Agnostic People on boards

Wibbs

Zab wrote: »

Darwin was a total gamechanger, both for evolutionary theory and for atheism.

For biology yes. He came up with a theory of the mechanism for descent with modification, but evolution under the banner of DwM was on the table for a very long time before him. For atheism? That's a more blurred picture indeed. Initially both scientists and many religious, including clerics didn't see this as much a threat to theistic thinking. Even Wilburforce, one of his antagonists bought into the idea of DwM, while disagreeing with him over the mechanism and that humans were descended from apes. It was only among the religious literalists and jealous fellow scientists with competing ideas did he foster the most animosity.

i.e. this wasn't a case of Darwin simply getting lucky and having his work accepted when prior work was not.

Prior theories on various mechanisms of what was to be relabelled as evolution were accepted, that's the point. Evolution was accepted and in the mainstream too, before Darwin, he provided the mechanism. It was the later controversies attached to his work that made him a cause celebre among agnostic/atheistic thought.

Seachmall wrote:

Darwin definitely had an impact on atheism and his work often touted as some sort of corner stone of atheism but the fact of the matter remains that it's only one small element of the debate and only really relevant when faced with a creationist.

Anyone who's lack of faith in God is based largely on Darwin's work is missing a very large part of the pie.

Plus a thousand. I think for modern atheists Dawkins informs much of this Darwin centric near worship. Dawkins has the major horn for Darwin so given his popularity that horn is gonna filter down. However seeing Darwin as the year zero of atheistic thought is akin to disregarding all physics and physicists before Einstein.

Zubeneschamali

Wibbs wrote: »

Evolution was accepted and in the mainstream too, before Darwin, he provided the mechanism.

Eh, no. Evolution was a fringe view at best. Cuvier, who established the fact of extinction and codified the whole biology of vertebrates died believing in waves of creation of unchanging species. Huxley, later such a fan of Darwin, took a similar voyage of discovery to the far side of the world as Darwin, but remained a believer in persistent types for the first half of his career.

I think for modern atheists Dawkins informs much of this Darwin centric near worship

Oh, balls. I was reading Steven Jay Gould on Darwin before I ever heard of Dawkins. Just because Dawkins likes the spotlight doesn't make him Pope of all atheists.

Czarcasm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh, balls. I was reading Steven Jay Gould on Darwin before I ever heard of Dawkins. Just because Dawkins likes the spotlight doesn't make him Pope of all atheists.

Unfortunately to a wave of new generation atheists who think atheism is just about "Lookie me, I read The God Delusion and it all makes sense now", who tend to hold Dawkins up on a pedestal as some sort of demi-god. Atheism isn't about science or scientific theory or actually feeling the need to prove or disprove anything. It's simply that you just don't have any belief in a deity.

There's nothing new about it, but for some people it's a way to provoke attention for themselves and gain validation for their "intellectualism". The fact that they're more vocal online is what has tended in recent years to give atheists a bad rep - just like the extreme religious nut jobs, there too are the anti-religious nut jobs, who mistakenly identify their fundamentalism as atheism.

Wibbs

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Eh, no. Evolution was a fringe view at best. Cuvier, who established the fact of extinction and codified the whole biology of vertebrates died believing in waves of creation of unchanging species. Huxley, later such a fan of Darwin, took a similar voyage of discovery to the far side of the world as Darwin, but remained a believer in persistent types for the first half of his career.

Swap out zoology for cosmology for a moment. The universe having a beginning was the fringe view, the steady state universe was the real deal for most scientists, until the early 60's in fact. The notion of a big bang was thought a bit out there. So? Either way science was ignoring the whole god thang(though the big bang may have put off some because it sniffed of a "creation"). In the case of evolution or as they put it descent with modification it was far less a fringe theory than the big bang would come to be. Like I pointed out even as far back as the Greeks they considered and debated "evolution" though they saw it in teleological rather than mechanistic terms. At the opening of the 19th century the idea that the religious texts were wildly inaccurate in their descriptions of the functioning of nature was well established. Cuvier who you mention even though he turned out to be wrong in his theories was right at odds with the old testament guff. As was Lamarck. And Linnaeus and Charlies own grandfather.

Oh, balls. I was reading Steven Jay Gould on Darwin before I ever heard of Dawkins. Just because Dawkins likes the spotlight doesn't make him Pope of all atheists.

Indeed but Dawkins really brought it to the coffee table book set and ironically the creationist gobshítes have set their stall opposing Dawkins et al with Darwin in the middle. He's a figurehead for both. I just see him as a major stepping stone on the long walk to better understanding of reality, but there were stones before him and stones after him.

Zubeneschamali

Czarcasm wrote: »

The fact that they're more vocal online is what has tended in recent years to give atheists a bad rep

I don't think it's that recent, I first got online around 1996, and alt.atheism on Usenet was already full of religious folks attacking atheists for their arrogance, and atheists pointing and laughing at them.

Artful_Badger

Czarcasm wrote: »

Atheism isn't about science or scientific theory or actually feeling the need to prove or disprove anything. It's simply that you just don't have any belief in a deity.

Of course its about science and scientific theory. Its science and scientific theory which has rendered the teaching of the religious as unfounded nonsense. Its the ability to dismiss everything associated with god as nonsense which results in being an atheist.

As the OP in this thread said Ireland is still seen as predominantly Catholic. The vast majority of Irish Atheists would have been taught as fact that there exists a deity. I wasnt just a flip of the coin that changed their minds...

Zab

Seachmall wrote: »

Darwin definitely had an impact on atheism and his work often touted as some sort of corner stone of atheism but the fact of the matter remains that it's only one small element of the debate and only really relevant when faced with a creationist.

Wibbs wrote: »

For atheism? That's a more blurred picture indeed. Initially both scientists and many religious, including clerics didn't see this as much a threat to theistic thinking

Czarcasm wrote: »

Unfortunately to a wave of new generation atheists who think atheism is just about "Lookie me, I read The God Delusion and it all makes sense now", who tend to hold Dawkins up on a pedestal as some sort of demi-god.

Wibbs wrote: »

Like I pointed out even as far back as the Greeks they considered and debated "evolution" though they saw it in teleological rather than mechanistic terms.

I'm not sure we actually disagree here, yet we're managing to disagree with each other all the same.

I think the "how could we get to be like this without a design being involved" question is much more important than you're making out. As I've said, to me the fact that we can explain how things as complex as modern life can evolve without a designer is pretty important to considering a life without said designer. Teleological evolution doesn't do much for an atheist's argument.

Nobody here worships Dawkins or Darwin or anybody else (perhaps I should just speak for myself). They're all just people who have had varying impact on current thought. Darwin's contribution was large and he will be known for quite some time. Dawkins has been very important in terms of getting people to start thinking for themselves, but his impact won't be anything like Darwin's and he'll be forgotten sooner. Ultimately I don't think that Natural Selection gets undue credit for its impact on current atheistic thought and acceptance.

Seachmall

Zab wrote: »

I think the "how could we get to be like this without a design being involved" question is much more important than you're making out.

For me, at least, that question is not that relevant to atheism.

There are plenty of equally important questions that I don't have answers to on topics such as cosmology and abiogenesis and many others. There might be answers on those topics out there for me to find but my ignorance on the subject in no way causes me to lean towards a belief in a god.

Likewise if I didn't know how humans came to be I don't believe I would be swayed by my not knowing. My atheism is the result of attempting to recognise fallacies and applying various logical and problem-solving concepts, most of which predate Darwin by many years.


Evolution is just not that big a factor in what I believe or don't believe, and I'd imagine that is true for quite a few others.

Wibbs

Zab wrote: »

I'm not sure we actually disagree here, yet we're managing to disagree with each other all the same.

True enough.

Teleological evolution doesn't do much for an atheist's argument.

True again, though evolution/natural selection can also be brought into theological thinking fairly easily too. Unless you're a dyed in the wool literalist nutter.

Nobody here worships Dawkins or Darwin or anybody else (perhaps I should just speak for myself).

Both have become much more noticeable in common discourse over the last 20 years though. Dawkins would be the current and most successful standard bearer for that. Not that I'm agin that BTW. About my first love as a child was palaeontology and ya can't be into that without bumping into Charlie along the way. And though I grew up in the last vestiges of old catholic ireland and was educated by priests I never got even the sniff of displeasure or argument from them on the subject.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think it's that recent, I first got online around 1996, and alt.atheism on Usenet was already full of religious folks attacking atheists for their arrogance, and atheists pointing and laughing at them.

That's true. I found similar in the early days. Most of this stuff seems America based, certainly the religious side of things. There was arrogance flying all over the place though I would say the atheist/agnostic folks were more mirroring it than kicking it off.

Seachmall wrote: »

For me, at least, that question is not that relevant to atheism.

There are plenty of equally important questions that I don't have answers to on topics such as cosmology and abiogenesis and many others. There might be answers on those topics out there for me to find but my ignorance on the subject in no way causes me to lean towards a belief in a god.

Likewise if I didn't know how humans came to be I don't believe I would be swayed by my not knowing. My atheism is the result of attempting to recognise fallacies and applying various logical and problem-solving concepts, most of which predate Darwin by many years.


Evolution is just not that big a factor in what I believe or don't believe, and I'd imagine that is true for quite a few others.

Yes, but you've grown up in a world where such things are known, even if you don't directly find them relevant to your atheism, chances are if you born into a time when they weren't known you'd be praying with the rest. Look how easily american fundy christians can ignore what is around them because they were exposed to the opposing view from the cradle. Imagine a world with no modern science.

Czarcasm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think it's that recent, I first got online around 1996, and alt.atheism on Usenet was already full of religious folks attacking atheists for their arrogance, and atheists pointing and laughing at them.

Ahh jaysus Zub, two seconds on Wikipedia would've told you that the new wave of atheism has been around for centuries (though atheism as a concept has been around for millenia, and I would contend that atheism goes back as far as the dawn of man, just that man didn't call it atheism, they didn't particularly care to identify it as anything).

Although the term "atheism" originated in the sixteenth century – based on Ancient Greek ἄθεος "godless, denying the gods, ungodly" – and open admission to positive atheism in modern times was not made earlier than in the late eighteenth century, atheistic ideas, as well as their political influence, have a more expansive history.

Philosophical atheist thought began to appear in Europe and Asia in the sixth or fifth century BCE. Will Durant explains that certain pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no deities, and no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention. They even appeared to lack simple superstitions, according to travelers' reports. The Vedahs of Ceylon only admitted the possibility that deities might exist, but went no further. Neither prayers nor sacrifices were suggested in any way.

Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism


Given that the average "basement nerd" was clacking away on their keyboards on BBS in the 70's, it's no surprise that it only took them another decade or so to find each other on Usenet. You were coming a bit late to the table in the 90's tbh.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Of course its about science and scientific theory. Its science and scientific theory which has rendered the teaching of the religious as unfounded nonsense. Its the ability to dismiss everything associated with god as nonsense which results in being an atheist.

You would've done well to have read the thread up to now instead of jumping in at the deep end with such an ill informed opinion.

As the OP in this thread said Ireland is still seen as predominantly Catholic. The vast majority of Irish Atheists would have been taught as fact that there exists a deity. I wasnt just a flip of the coin that changed their minds...

You DO realise that Ireland wasn't always predominantly catholic, but under Pagan theology they would've also had a couple of deities? I imagine you were taught about druids in second class history? In a couple of weeks up and down the country we'll celebrate one of the biggest festivals in the pagan calendar!

It was their ability to separate their humanity from their beliefs, or lack thereof, that led them to a common identifiable definition as atheist. Science didn't actually come into it until the last 50 years or so when anti-theists as I said earlier co-opted and twisted atheism to suggest that because science could prove things like evolution and so on, theism is a ball of shìte.

They're completely missing the point that religion and science can co-exist harmoniously and never the twain need meet. It's not rocket science we're dealing with here.

Artful_Badger

Czarcasm wrote: »

You would've done well to have read the thread up to now instead of jumping in at the deep end with such an ill informed opinion.





You DO realise that Ireland wasn't always predominantly catholic, but under Pagan theology they would've also had a couple of deities? I imagine you were taught about druids in second class history? In a couple of weeks up and down the country we'll celebrate one of the biggest festivals in the pagan calendar!

It was their ability to separate their humanity from their beliefs, or lack thereof, that led them to a common identifiable definition as atheist. Science didn't actually come into it until the last 50 years or so when anti-theists as I said earlier co-opted and twisted atheism to suggest that because science could prove things like evolution and so on, theism is a ball of shìte.

They're completely missing the point that religion and science can co-exist harmoniously and never the twain need meet. It's not rocket science we're dealing with here.

I have no problem with being told I am wrong or being better informed for someone taking the time to explain my mistakes to me. Its hard to somach though when put across in such an arrogant way. There isnt just arrogant people on both extremes sneering at across the way using it "to provoke attention for themselves and gain validation for their "intellectualism"". There are also the likes of yourself sitting there sneering at everyone stroking your own bloated ego.

Having said that I stand by what I said. The question of a deity for most people comes from it being taught by established religions as fact. So Atheism for most people is a non belief in the deities worshiped by those established religions. Which as I said for myself and the majority of others is dismissed because scientific advancement has given us enough information to reasonably conclude that the question itself is based in ignorance.

Religion and science can only coexist if the religious choose to ignore science, logic and reason to formulate their opinions. To believe in a deity without any evidence and only traditions based on myths and superstitions to validate the question itself is simply irrational.

Its not rocket science.....

Czarcasm

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I have no problem with being told I am wrong or being better informed for someone taking the time to explain my mistakes to me. Its hard to somach though when put across in such an arrogant way. There isnt just arrogant people on both extremes sneering at across the way using it "to provoke attention for themselves and gain validation for their "intellectualism"". There are also the likes of yourself sitting there sneering at everyone stroking your own bloated ego.

You'll have to forgive me for the tone of my last post being, well, short, but I do indeed have a very short fuse when it's obvious that a person hasn't taken the time to read the thread, and comes out with the same Dawkinesque ideology that's been dismissed time and again even by atheists themselves. For me the thread was never about arrogance nor intellect, I'm here to learn, and I'm learning a lot, but if you insist on bursting onto a thread just to throw an ill informed opinion out there without having read the thread, then you're obviously unwilling to learn anything either. For me a person's intellect is based not on how much they know, but how much they're willing to learn. Any idiot picking up a book can regurgitate Dawkins, that's why they're so easy to spot as ill informed anti-theists rather than informed atheists.

Having said that I stand by what I said. The question of a deity for most people comes from it being taught by established religions as fact.

You're ill informed again. The question of a deity for most people comes from their own philosophy - long before organised religion people were thinking for themselves, then some bright spark thought to organise a belief system, get enough people to buy into the theory, and the ideology gathered legs. Because they're ancient and they've been around for so long, we acknowledge them as organised religion. Nowadays though, when some bright spark gets the idea to organise a belief system we refer to them as cults.

So Atheism for most people is a non belief in the deities worshiped by those established religions. Which as I said for myself and the majority of others is dismissed because scientific advancement has given us enough information to reasonably conclude that the question itself is based in ignorance.

Atheists don't concern themselves with deities, full stop. Unlike anti-theists, atheists don't particularly care to question the existence or not of a deity. They're secure enough in the knowledge that there just isn't any. Nothing to do with science and they don't feel any particular need to prove or disprove that which for them just doesn't exist.

Religion and science can only coexist if the religious choose to ignore science, logic and reason to formulate their opinions. To believe in a deity without any evidence and only traditions based on myths and superstitions to validate the question itself is simply irrational.

Did you even click on the link I posted earlier that gave an accomplished but certainly not exhaustive list of Clerics contributions to science? You'd have seen it if you read the thread, but here it is again -

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric–scientists


There's a reason too why it's called the "Theory of Evolution", or the "Big Bang Theory" or even the "Theory of Relativity", because the scientific community are human beings just the same as the rest of us, and they'll never say anything is a certainty, because at least if it's only a theory, it's allowing for the fact that they just might be wrong, and at least in a worst case scenario that they might be wrong, at least they've got their arses covered! Modern atheist identifying philosophers (I'm struggling think of him as a scientist tbh) such as Dawkins can't tell the difference between theory and fact, but at least if they present their theories as fact, and sound self-assured about it, they'll gain quite a following among anti-theists who stop questioning once they're happy with a label that they feel fits their own philosophy.

The problem with this is that it's based on faith in science, just the same as religion is based on faith in a deity. The only reason either seem rational or irrational is because anti-theists and theists will believe whatever seems logical based on their ever shifting philosophy.

Its not rocket science.....

Quite correct, it's human nature to want to be right all the time with a built in arse covering clause just in case. Atheist philosophy doesn't trouble itself with these sort of conflicts and like I said, has no interest in proving or disproving anything.

Artful_Badger

Czarcasm wrote: »

You'll have to forgive me for the tone of my last post being, well, short, but I do indeed have a very short fuse when it's obvious that a person hasn't taken the time to read the thread, and comes out with the same Dawkinesque ideology that's been dismissed time and again even by atheists themselves. For me the thread was never about arrogance nor intellect, I'm here to learn, and I'm learning a lot, but if you insist on bursting onto a thread just to throw an ill informed opinion out there without having read the thread, then you're obviously unwilling to learn anything either. For me a person's intellect is based not on how much they know, but how much they're willing to learn. Any idiot picking up a book can regurgitate Dawkins, that's why they're so easy to spot as ill informed anti-theists rather than informed atheists.

Its not an ill informed opinion at all. You made a statement about atheism not being anything about science or scientific theory. That's just simply not true. It may have been true at one time when it was a simple blind choice as to whether there was something or wasnt but not anymore for the vast majority of people. And a short fuse and eagerness to insult are not the actions of a man seeking to learn. At least be honest about the thing, you're not here to learn you're here to dig in and defend your own view to the bitter end and by the sounds of it you've been in the trenches for quite some time.

You're ill informed again. The question of a deity for most people comes from their own philosophy - long before organised religion people were thinking for themselves, then some bright spark thought to organise a belief system, get enough people to buy into the theory, and the ideology gathered legs. Because they're ancient and they've been around for so long, we acknowledge them as organised religion. Nowadays though, when some bright spark gets the idea to organise a belief system we refer to them as cults.

Long before organised religion doesnt actually matter to those formulating their opinions having being raised a member of an organised religion though does it ? In the context of being raised a member of a religion which quite a lot of people are then its simply absurd to say that science and scientific theory has nothing to do with not believing in a deity.

Atheists don't concern themselves with deities, full stop. Unlike anti-theists, atheists don't particularly care to question the existence or not of a deity. They're secure enough in the knowledge that there just isn't any. Nothing to do with science and they don't feel any particular need to prove or disprove that which for them just doesn't exist.

Dare I say this is quite an ill informed opinion ? I am an Atheist let me tell you what I am concerned with in relation to this topic. Questioning what I have been told is true with what can be shown to be true or at the very least not entirely untrue. As I like many other was raised a member of an organised religion I was taught quite a lot of things which were just simply untrue. Again only ignorance could lead someone to the conclusion this was done absent science.

Did you even click on the link I posted earlier that gave an accomplished but certainly not exhaustive list of Clerics contributions to science? You'd have seen it if you read the thread, but here it is again -

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric–scientists


There's a reason too why it's called the "Theory of Evolution", or the "Big Bang Theory" or even the "Theory of Relativity", because the scientific community are human beings just the same as the rest of us, and they'll never say anything is a certainty, because at least if it's only a theory, it's allowing for the fact that they just might be wrong, and at least in a worst case scenario that they might be wrong, at least they've got their arses covered! Modern atheist identifying philosophers (I'm struggling think of him as a scientist tbh) such as Dawkins can't tell the difference between theory and fact, but at least if they present their theories as fact, and sound self-assured about it, they'll gain quite a following among anti-theists who stop questioning once they're happy with a label that they feel fits their own philosophy.

The problem with this is that it's based on faith in science, just the same as religion is based on faith in a deity. The only reason either seem rational or irrational is because anti-theists and theists will believe whatever seems logical based on their ever shifting philosophy.

Perhaps I was wrong in what I said. Let me rephrase it. Religion and Science can only coexist if the religious refuse to accept science for what it is. There are plenty of religious scientist and contributors. That doesnt mean they can coexist as both being valid views of reality though. Someone knowledgeable about science who still believes anything that the religious orders has perpetuated is refusing to accept the fact there is no reason to believe it other than wanting to believe it.

Faith in science is different than faith in a deity. The faith in science is based on the fact its not entirely wrong, reliable predictions can be made based on what we have learned. Faith in a deity is faith in nothing but a belief something exits and what makes it so absurd is that its an belief that we know was born out of ignorance to fill in the gaps that have now been filled by science. Who are we, how did we get here, where is here, what is here. These questions have been answered and each time the religious rather than accept it as an explanation and dismiss the previous theories have tried to work it into what they have already decided was the truth and never could be otherwise.

Quite correct, it's human nature to want to be right all the time with a built in arse covering clause just in case. Atheist philosophy doesn't trouble itself with these sort of conflicts and like I said, has no interest in proving or disproving anything.

I'm not sure what way you operate but I have every interest in proving and disproving most things. I neither accept something on blind faith nor do I dismiss something with blind ignorance.

Czarcasm

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Its not an ill informed opinion at all. You made a statement about atheism not being anything about science or scientific theory. That's just simply not true. It may have been true at one time when it was a simple blind choice as to whether there was something or wasnt but not anymore for the vast majority of people. And a short fuse and eagerness to insult are not the actions of a man seeking to learn. At least be honest about the thing, you're not here to learn you're here to dig in and defend your own view to the bitter end and by the sounds of it you've been in the trenches for quite some time.

Right, we'll try this again (fresh head and all that).

Atheism as I understand it, isn't about making a conscious choice whether to believe or not believe. It's about simply that you just don't believe.

I'm not here to dig in and defend anything, or insult people or any of the rest of it, I was here learning and discussing when you pulled me up on something I'd said and then gave it welly with the Dawkinesque spin conflating science with anti-theism and defining it as atheism. That's the same thing as is now happening with the Atheism Plus movement- they're conflating social and humanitarian issues with their anti-theism because science for them just isn't enough - they have to be better human beings again. Far too many are jumping on the atheist bandwagon for their liking and in the Atheism Plus philosophy, some of these people aren't intellectual enough to be "Atheist", so these people feel a need to differentiate themselves again from the herd so to speak.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Long before organised religion doesnt actually matter to those formulating their opinions having being raised a member of an organised religion though does it ? In the context of being raised a member of a religion which quite a lot of people are then its simply absurd to say that science and scientific theory has nothing to do with not believing in a deity.

It SHOULD matter! Because before one is to define oneself as anything, they should know at least the etymology of the label and it's history. To an atheist, it wouldn't matter if they were raised a Mormon, Roman Catholic, a Jew (Well, that one's a bit more than just the religion), the point is, they can't lose what they never had in the first place - faith. They haven't chosen not to follow the faith, they never had it to begin with. They went through the motions, but they just couldn't buy into the philosophy because it was at odds with their own atheist philosophy.

Now, it's not absurd to say that science and scientific theory has nothing to do with not believing in a deity, because as I mentioned above - you can be raised in the faith, but if you never had faith in the first place, there's nothing for you to question. There's plenty for an anti-theist to question, but for an atheist, they quite simply don't give a shít.

None of that has anything to do with science. An anti-theist philosophy can use science as a method to question beliefs held by religion and faith, but an atheist doesn't need to use science, their philosophy is far more secure - they don't need to prove or disprove anything. You can't prove or disprove the existence or absence of something if you don't question whether it exists or not in the first place. To even think about proving or disproving it, is to acknowledge that it might exist. Dodgy territory for an anti-theist who identifies themselves as an atheist right there.

Atheism existed long before anti-theists co-opted science into their philosphy, and there are atheists who don't particularly care for science, aren't particularly interested in it, and don't need to use it to rule out the existence of a deity, because... you guessed it - their philosophy is that there's nothing to question.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Dare I say this is quite an ill informed opinion ? I am an Atheist let me tell you what I am concerned with in relation to this topic. Questioning what I have been told is true with what can be shown to be true or at the very least not entirely untrue. As I like many other was raised a member of an organised religion I was taught quite a lot of things which were just simply untrue. Again only ignorance could lead someone to the conclusion this was done absent science.

You're more than welcome to say my opinion is ill informed, and if you have a more informed opinion I'm all ears. But the rest of what you're saying just shows me that unfortunately you aren't bringing anything new to the table, you're only regurgitating the same opinions of, well, dare I say it, the ill informed anti-theists who self-identify as atheist. I mean, if you're interested, my wife was raised in the Roman Catholic faith as I was (admittedly mine was a bit more fires of hell and brimstone and you'll only ever touch your mickey to take a piss ), but because my wife never bought into the philosophy in the first place, she never had any faith, as it didn't agree with her philosophy. She didn't know she was an atheist at a young age, but she couldn't identify with the teachings of the RC, because her own philosophy told her it was a steaming heap of whatever you're having yourself. Her philosophy as an atheist wasn't formed by intellectual thought, or questioning, or even science. For her, it was just, y'know, nothing!

I'm thinking you mean in your last line- "Again only ignorance could lead someone to the conclusion this was done in the absence of science"?

Either way, your opinion yet again is ill informed. An atheist doesn't need science, hell, even an anti-theist doesn't need science, they just need to believe in their own philosophy. If they don't subscribe to theist beliefs, there are plenty of ways to disprove the existence of a deity, but first they'd have to acknowledge the possible existence of a deity or deities in order to prove that they didn't exist! It's a wonderful conundrum when you REALLY think about it!

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Perhaps I was wrong in what I said. Let me rephrase it. Religion and Science can only coexist if the religious refuse to accept science for what it is. There are plenty of religious scientist and contributors. That doesnt mean they can coexist as both being valid views of reality though. Someone knowledgeable about science who still believes anything that the religious orders has perpetuated is refusing to accept the fact there is no reason to believe it other than wanting to believe it.

Now that's just poor, I mean REALLY poor, and ill informed, especially after all the information that's been discussed in this thread. The whole reason why some people think religion and science cannot coexist is BECAUSE some religiously minded people refuse to accept science for what it is, and some scientifically minded people refuse to accept religion for what it is.

Both can certainly coexist as valid views of reality, it just depends on which way your perception is colored by your philosophy. I believe it was Albert Einstein who famously said - "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one". He was one of these people who when everyone else was wearing red or green glasses, he was wearing 3D glasses, so in his mind was able to envision hypotheticals that led to some of his most fantastical theories, while still at the same time allowing for his faith in, well, he was a pantheist, having originally been raised a Jew and attending a Catholic school. He was a rather complicated individual tbh, but the one thing as he himself had said he wasn't, was an atheist.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Faith in science is different than faith in a deity. The faith in science is based on the fact its not entirely wrong, reliable predictions can be made based on what we have learned. Faith in a deity is faith in nothing but a belief something exits and what makes it so absurd is that its an belief that we know was born out of ignorance to fill in the gaps that have now been filled by science. Who are we, how did we get here, where is here, what is here. These questions have been answered and each time the religious rather than accept it as an explanation and dismiss the previous theories have tried to work it into what they have already decided was the truth and never could be otherwise.

Really? They've already been answered by science? Oh well we can stop looking for alien life then, science says we're alone! Science also determined the earth was flat not too long ago! Science is just the same as faith in that which doesn't exist, except that science seeks to answer questions using a different philosophy to one that says that you must find the answers within yourself. Scientists take an idea, and then hypothesise around it and come up with answers that fit their hypothesis, then they call it a theory, because they have to allow for the fact that they might be wrong. That's how we ended up calling global warming "climate change", how we blamed humans first for the hole in the ozone layer, then the animals farting and releasing methane, then back to humans and their fridges and cars, then industry, then... jesus I can't wait to see what the scientists come up with when they release their climate change report in the morning. But they're 95% sure it's humans this time, even though they still can't explain why there has been no rise in temperature in the last 15 years.

Would somebody please go over and tap one of those scientists on the shoulder and tell them the scientists before them got it wrong and they're working off misleading data over a miniscule time span in relation to the age of the earth?

Science answers questions? It does in it's arse, and in fact it poses more questions than it answers! That's what's so bloody great and so interesting and frustrating about it at the same time!

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm not sure what way you operate but I have every interest in proving and disproving most things. I neither accept something on blind faith nor do I dismiss something with blind ignorance.

You have accepted science on blind faith, and dismissed religion with blind ignorance, but I think I'll leave the last word on this one again to Albert -

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Artful_Badger

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Religion and science can only coexist if the religious choose to ignore science, logic and reason to formulate their opinions. To believe in a deity without any evidence and only traditions based on myths and superstitions to validate the question itself is simply irrational.

Its not rocket science.....

Plenty of scientists are also religious. I'm a scientist and a catholic, I know a number of other practicing catholics who are scientists. I also work with with a lot of Muslims who are extremely religious fasting, going off to pray during the day etc.

mcmoustache

Czarcasm wrote: »

I dunno anncoates, I have to be honest it's calmed down an awful lot from say, well, even around the time of the census, the Magdelene scandals, and up to last year when the Moderators went on a culling spree and there was a moratorium put on religion/no religion threads.

This thread for example has had very little visible moderator activity or intervention, whereas a year ago it would've imploded on itself by now with the amount of bullshít, mud flinging and extreme scenarios posited by BOTH religious and non-religious.

I think the outrage has certainly calmed down. This thread, for example, has been rather tame and the quality of posts has been higher than usual for these sorts of threads.

I think that ann just wanted to take a pop at atheists. A new phenomenon has been the "I'm an atheist but I find other atheists annoying. Not only am I smarter than a religious person, I'm less annoying than atheists" type. To maintain that illusion, they need to see smugness everywhere in the same way that a rascist sees blacks everywhere. A few smug responses in the thread would be enough to see "

planet-threatening levels of smugness generated by atheists

".

Zubeneschamali

Melina Fierce Wardroom wrote: »

Plenty of scientists are also religious.

Scientists are significantly less likely to be religious than non-scientists, and much more likely to identify as atheists:

By contrast, 95% of Americans believe in some form of deity or higher power, according to a survey of the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center in July 2006. Specifically, more than eight-in-ten Americans (83%) say they believe in God and 12% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. Finally, the poll of scientists finds that four-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

Artful_Badger

Czarcasm wrote: »

Right, we'll try this again (fresh head and all that).

Atheism as I understand it, isn't about making a conscious choice whether to believe or not believe. It's about simply that you just don't believe.

I'm not here to dig in and defend anything, or insult people or any of the rest of it, I was here learning and discussing when you pulled me up on something I'd said and then gave it welly with the Dawkinesque spin conflating science with anti-theism and defining it as atheism. That's the same thing as is now happening with the Atheism Plus movement- they're conflating social and humanitarian issues with their anti-theism because science for them just isn't enough - they have to be better human beings again. Far too many are jumping on the atheist bandwagon for their liking and in the Atheism Plus philosophy, some of these people aren't intellectual enough to be "Atheist", so these people feel a need to differentiate themselves again from the herd so to speak.

Havent much time so I'll just respond to this bit for now.

You seem confused between the definition of atheism as being non belief in a deity and how how such a conclusion is reached by people in every day life. It IS about making a conscious decision as to how to view the things religious orders put forth as fact. Only when the questions itself doesnt exist is it anything else.

I pulled you up on a false statement that you made. I'm sorry if I overstepped the mark by daring to question you. And I'm not the one giving it anything, I addressed your false statement and then every other point you made. The rest of that nonsense about Dawkineque spin and Atheists on the bandwagon, not intellectual enough to be atheist etc etc etc is just you doing what you do. You're the on giving the spin welly and tbh it doesnt really make me eager to read and respond to the rest of your post.

I have no interest in trading walls of text with you tbh, particularly when its clear you have been dug in so long and have such contempt for those of an opposing view.

Czarcasm

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Havent much time so I'll just respond to this bit for now.

You seem confused between the definition of atheism as being non belief in a deity and how how such a conclusion is reached by people in every day life. It IS about making a conscious decision as to how to view the things religious orders put forth as fact. Only when the questions itself doesnt exist is it anything else.

You accuse me of digging my heels in, yet you still seem to put forward the idea that the philosophy of atheism is borne of anti-theism, which you seem to be implying is borne of using science to question belief.

Can a question not exist? There's another conundrum for you to ponder.

I pulled you up on a false statement that you made. I'm sorry if I overstepped the mark by daring to question you. And I'm not the one giving it anything, I addressed your false statement and then every other point you made. The rest of that nonsense about Dawkineque spin and Atheists on the bandwagon, not intellectual enough to be atheist etc etc etc is just you doing what you do. You're the on giving the spin welly and tbh it doesnt really make me eager to read and respond to the rest of your post.

There's no need to cling to some perceived inferiority, I view everybody equally so I hate it when people apologise to me for being who they are or for the opinions they hold. Questions are good, question everything, I'm doing it right now, I do it 24/7. In relation to the topic - I question my faith plenty. I used ask myself why if God exists does he not do something about all the pain and suffering in the world? And then I figured well God also gave me free will to do something about it myself. I'm much happier when I'm helping other people to achieve their potential I see in them.

I'd explain to you the basis of my faith, but I don't think you're too interested. Suffice to say what you believe to be true has closed your mind to further questioning.

I have no interest in trading walls of text with you tbh, particularly when its clear you have been dug in so long and have such contempt for those of an opposing view.

Nope, I have all the time in the world to listen to an opposing informed point of view from someone who has taken the time to read through the thread. I only have contempt for people who jump in at the deep end without reading the thread, then espouse an ill informed and quite frankly short sighted point of view, claiming to be informed by science.

You're showing that not alone have you no understanding of atheism, but also that you have no understanding of science.

clairefontaine

Melina Fierce Wardroom wrote: »

Plenty of scientists are also religious. I'm a scientist and a catholic, I know a number of other practicing catholics who are scientists. I also work with with a lot of Muslims who are extremely religious fasting, going off to pray during the day etc.

I would be very surprised if as a scientist you believed in transubstantiation. Do you?

Artful_Badger

Czarcasm wrote: »

You accuse me of digging my heels in, yet you still seem to put forward the idea that the philosophy of atheism is borne of anti-theism, which you seem to be implying is borne of using science to question belief.

Can a question not exist? There's another conundrum for you to ponder.

I'm not digging my heels in just not changing my opinion on something because you keep telling me I'm wrong. I'm an Atheist, I was born a Catholic. I know from first hand experience the change of opinion from belief in a Deity to non belief in a Deity and what that entailed. This country and indeed the world is predominantly religious and beliefs in a deity. Yet you still claim that science plays no part in atheism.

I think you know very well science plays a role but you're clinging to some notion that belief and non belief are equal and nothing to do with science so you dont have to base your belief on logic and reason. Which goes along with your belief that faith in a deity is no different than faith in science.

There's no need to cling to some perceived inferiority, I view everybody equally so I hate it when people apologise to me for being who they are or for the opinions they hold. Questions are good, question everything, I'm doing it right now, I do it 24/7. In relation to the topic - I question my faith plenty. I used ask myself why if God exists does he not do something about all the pain and suffering in the world? And then I figured well God also gave me free will to do something about it myself. I'm much happier when I'm helping other people to achieve their potential I see in them.

You may have missed the sarcasm there. There is no inferiority complex, just me highlighting how much you think of yourself to be upset that someone pointed out you were wrong. The answer to that last question you posed there is because wanting god doesnt do anything about pain and suffering in the world because God as he is claimed to be by the religious orders is a human fantasy story.

I'd explain to you the basis of my faith, but I don't think you're too interested. Suffice to say what you believe to be true has closed your mind to further questioning.

My mind is far from closed. As I said I was raised a Catholic and thought on this and questioned it all my life as Religion is still a big part if modern society.

Nope, I have all the time in the world to listen to an opposing informed point of view from someone who has taken the time to read through the thread. I only have contempt for people who jump in at the deep end without reading the thread, then espouse an ill informed and quite frankly short sighted point of view, claiming to be informed by science.

You're showing that not alone have you no understanding of atheism, but also that you have no understanding of science.

See your at it again. You have contempt for people with opposing views, while claiming earlier to be here to learn, and help your fellow man. But cant help yourself being arrogant and sneering.

I have no problem with people believing whatever they wish to. A lot of people are spiritual and find comfort in these things and it help them along in life. What I cant stand is those with no intention of doing anything but defending nonsense by demonize and ridicule those who question them. Then again old habits I suppose...

Czarcasm

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'm not digging my heels in just not changing my opinion on something because you keep telling me I'm wrong. I'm an Atheist, I was born a Catholic. I know from first hand experience the change of opinion from belief in a Deity to non belief in a Deity and what that entailed. This country and indeed the world is predominantly religious and beliefs in a deity. Yet you still claim that science plays no part in atheism.

OK, I'm not trying to change your opinion Badger, you're going to think what you want regardless, because it suits you to do so. I'm not telling you you're wrong either, I'm telling you that you're ill informed about atheism and science. That's not me being arrogant or any of the rest of it, that's just me pointing out that you're looking at this all wrong because you haven't looked into the history of atheism and you certainly haven't questioned science not nearly hard enough tbh.

Now, if you examine the bold part of what you've written again, I'm hoping you'll see the contradiction in your own statement - The world is predominantly religious, yet while some aren't as scientifically advanced as others, they still have some scientific theories going on. A fantastic example of this is the Egyptian civilisation - they built the Pyramids as tombs for their Pharoahs using some of the most advanced engineering principles still in use today. They were using papyrus long before the Chinese invented paper, ahh I could go on and on, but I'd need an Egyptian breath mint to disguise the smell of bullshít. Suffice to say - Religion and Science coexisted and were a necessary cohesion almost for Egyptian society to function. I'm sure they too had their Atheists.

I think you know very well science plays a role but you're clinging to some notion that belief and non belief are equal and nothing to do with science so you dont have to base your belief on logic and reason. Which goes along with your belief that faith in a deity is no different than faith in science.

Erm, what's that if it's not arguing using reason and logic? Do you see me ramping up into bible thumping mode? Not likely, because while that might make sense to me personally, it's open to vast interpretation, and I'm trying to keep the discussion within the bounds of reason and logic.

If you cannot see by now how belief or lack thereof is to do with philosoply and not science, then I'm at a loss as to how I can explain it to you any clearer.

You may have missed the sarcasm there. There is no inferiority complex, just me highlighting how much you think of yourself to be upset that someone pointed out you were wrong. The answer to that last question you posed there is because wanting god doesnt do anything about pain and suffering in the world because God as he is claimed to be by the religious orders is a human fantasy story.

Ohh I got the sarcasm alright, I just chose to work with it rather than entertain it. I'm not upset at all that a person I consider to be ill informed is telling me I'm wrong, happens every day tbh. Better informed people than me tell me every day I'm wrong too, and because I take their opinion on board, that's how I become better informed.

I know only too well btw that God is a human concept that helps us explain mystery and so on, that makes for some easy and neatly packaged answers, but the thing is, the very essence of faith, is that you believe in something which your rational mind tells you doesn't exist. Of course faith is irrational, but that's why it's a personal thing - The irrational can be as rational as you want it to be, depending on your perception of what's reality and what's not. Not everyone is going to agree with your perception, but them's the breaks.

I know you put all your faith in science and what you see as reality, etc, but if I may ask a personal question - have you ever tried any hallucinogens? You can explain the science behind how hallucinogens work on the brain, the chemicals involved, etc, but you cannot explain the effects they have on a person's consciousness. They alter a persons perception and give them an augmented reality that seems entirely rational to them, but completely irrational to the rest of us. Reality? It's all about perception. Science too is a man-made concept. We use our own systems of quantification, we base most our scientific knowledge on observation, and for what science can't explain - Aliens.

Do you believe aliens exist Badger?

My mind is far from closed. As I said I was raised a Catholic and thought on this and questioned it all my life as Religion is still a big part if modern society.

But you've limited yourself only to what you can prove using science? At some point that's a strategy that's going to come back to bite you spectacularly in the ass!

See your at it again. You have contempt for people with opposing views, while claiming earlier to be here to learn, and help your fellow man. But cant help yourself being arrogant and sneering.

Ohh stop it Badger, nobody's sneering, least of all me, and even though I don't agree with your opinion, even though I didn't like the way you didn't read the thread, I'm still learning a lot from you, so I'm eager to see where this discussion goes! The multiquote is giving me a pain in my face tbh, but I'd like you to see at least I'm taking the time to give your opinions a proper hearing and I'm certainly thinking about what you're saying.

I have no problem with people believing whatever they wish to. A lot of people are spiritual and find comfort in these things and it help them along in life. What I cant stand is those with no intention of doing anything but defending nonsense by demonize and ridicule those who question them. Then again old habits I suppose...

Old habits indeed, atheism and science of course being older than organised religion, yet anyone who questions the conflated philosophy that some anti-theists hold nowadays between atheism and science, is ridiculed.

I'm not defending or deriding anything btw, I'm just saying that because you misunderstand atheism and science, you have conflated the two to fuel your anti-theist philosophy.

Rubeter

Czarcasm wrote: »

I used ask myself why if God exists does he not do something about all the pain and suffering in the world? And then I figured well God also gave me free will to do something about it myself.

And as an omniscient being he knew as he created the beings who did bad things that they would do said bad things and also knew before creating you exactly what you would do with respect to these bad things.
You may have a choice about what you do, but since your omniscient god knew before creating you exactly what you will do and still made you to do these things, where exactly is the free will?

Just a question because I can't join free will with an omniscient creator god, one of them has to go.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

I would be very surprised if as a scientist you believed in transubstantiation. Do you?

I do.

Seachmall

Melina Fierce Wardroom wrote: »

I do.

So you, as a scientist, believe if you test the bread and wine before and after the eucharistic prayer that, while appearing the same, it's structure will have changed?

Czarcasm

Rubeter wrote: »

And as an omniscient being he knew as he created the beings who did bad things that they would do said bad things and also knew before creating you exactly what you would do with respect to these bad things.
You may have a choice about what you do, but since your omniscient god knew before creating you exactly what you will do and still made you to do these things, where exactly is the free will?

Just a question because I can't join free will with an omniscient creator god, one of them has to go.

There's the thing - nobody has made anyone do anything. That's why for me personally my beliefs while I know and understand them to be irrational (Because I know not everyone is going to share my beliefs), for me they are a source of strength, they give me hope. I can't rationally quantify hope using scientific methods (Psychology is often dismissed as pseudoscience because it's nigh on impossible to gather evidence, let alone quantify a standard for it. Even the long standing "bible" of psychological behaviours has engaged in it's own shifty goalpost behaviour in it's latest edition, and many psychologists no longer consider it a reliable source as it's become more about bending to pressure from American political correctness than an actual index of of behavioural disorders), but I know what it is when I feel it.

Ush1

Melina Fierce Wardroom wrote: »

I do.

What sort of a 'scientist' are you?

Rubeter

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's the thing - nobody has made anyone do anything. That's why for me personally my beliefs while I know and understand them to be irrational (Because I know not everyone is going to share my beliefs), for me they are a source of strength, they give me hope. I can't rationally quantify hope using scientific methods (Psychology is often dismissed as pseudoscience because it's nigh on impossible to gather evidence, let alone quantify a standard for it. Even the long standing "bible" of psychological behaviours has engaged in it's own shifty goalpost behaviour in it's latest edition, and many psychologists no longer consider it a reliable source as it's become more about bending to pressure from American political correctness than an actual index of of behavioural disorders), but I know what it is when I feel it.

You missed out on one little word "to", not made you do things but made you to do things. As an omniscient being creating you he must know before creating you exactly what you will do and must therefore be creating you to do these things. If god creates someone but doesn't know what they will do then he is not omniscient and if you are created by something that already knows what his creation will do then there is no free will.

I have no interest in discussing the rationality behind certain religious beliefs, but this major philosophical question I do like, it was one of the very first things I questioned myself and I've never come across a reasonable way to marry omniscience, omnipotence and free will.

Czarcasm

Rubeter wrote: »

You missed out on one little word "to", not made you do things but made you to do things. As an omniscient being creating you he must know before creating you exactly what you will do and must therefore be creating you to do these things. If god creates someone but doesn't know what they will do then he is not omniscient and if you are created by something that already knows what his creation will do then there is no free will.

I have no interest in discussing the rationality behind certain religious beliefs, but this major philosophical question I do like, it was one of the very first things I questioned myself and I've never come across a reasonable way to marry omniscience, omnipotence and free will.

Ahh right, yep, you're right, I missed the "to", changes the whole context of the question.

It's one I struggle with myself tbh, the idea that God is indeed omnipresent and omnipotent, I'm constantly questioning the likelihood of this as even my faith has it's limits.

I choose to believe I have free will, because if I believe that I'm only an ant in an ant farm and there's an eight year old boy observing me and placing obstacles in my way to divert me on a course of his choosing, then laughing his hole off at my frustrated efforts to overcome those obstacles, well that's one child that deserves a good kick up the hole, and he'll get it if I ever meet him!

Rubeter

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ahh right, yep, you're right, I missed the "to", changes the whole context of the question.

It's one I struggle with myself tbh, the idea that God is indeed omnipresent and omnipotent, I'm constantly questioning the likelihood of this as even my faith has it's limits.

A fair answer, cheers.

I choose to believe I have free will, because if I believe that I'm only an ant in an ant farm and there's an eight year old boy observing me and placing obstacles in my way to divert me on a course of his choosing, then laughing his hole off at my frustrated efforts to overcome those obstacles, well that's one child that deserves a good kick up the hole, and he'll get it if I ever meet him!

That made me smile.

Seachmall

Seachmall wrote: »

So you, as a scientist, believe if you test the bread and wine before and after the eucharistic prayer that, while appearing the same, it's structure will have changed?

Not everything can be explained or proven so easily, some times you just have to accept it.

Ush1 wrote: »

What sort of a 'scientist' are you?

Physicist.

Ush1

Melina Fierce Wardroom wrote: »

Not everything can be explained or proven so easily, some times you just have to accept it.



Physicist.

So how do you believe it when clearly breaks the laws of physics?

Seachmall

Melina Fierce Wardroom wrote: »

Not everything can be explained or proven so easily, some times you just have to accept it.

Is that a yes?

You, as a scientist, genuinely believe that after the eucharistic prayer it is no longer bread and wine but the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ?

Zubeneschamali

Melina Fierce Wardroom wrote: »

some times you just have to accept it.

Would you accept that sort of excuse from a scientist claiming to have discovered cold fusion?

No, because actually, you really don't just have to accept it, and if it made a speck of difference in the world, you wouldn't.

The reason you can "just accept" this stuff is that it makes no odds at all if it's true or false, all the checkable predictions have been trimmed away over the centuries (because they were all false).

Ghost Buster

Melina Fierce Wardroom wrote: »

Not everything can be explained or proven so easily, some times you just have to accept it.



Physicist.

Why do you 'just have to accept it'? Isn't it more sensible to just admit that absolutely nothing has happened because it can be observed that absolutely nothing has happened. Utter nuts. Really.

Sh1tbag OToole

I love religious threads on boards.ie, each new one contains brand new well thought out original material throughout.

Ghost Buster

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

I love religious threads on boards.ie, each new one contains brand new well thought out original material throughout.

You must do. You read them and post in them:)

Sh1tbag OToole

Ghost Buster wrote: »

You must do. You read them and post in them:)

Its riveting stuff altogether. I'll be refreshing the page in anticipation of the next post

Ghost Buster

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Why do you 'just have to accept it'? Isn't it more sensible to just admit that absolutely nothing has happened because it can be observed that absolutely nothing has happened. Utter nuts. Really.

What I believe or don't believe is not something I have to justify to anyone in here to be honest.

Ghost Buster

Melina Fierce Wardroom wrote: »

What I believe or don't believe is not something I have to justify to anyone in here to be honest.

Im not asking you to justify anything...but isnt it reasonable to think that if absolutely nothing has, ever has been or ever can be observed to have happened to the wine and wafer then its a given that nothing has happened. Wouldnt an all powerful God be capable of making the magic a little bit more razzle dazzle. 'Are sure just take me at my word" doesnt cut it.

Benny_Cake

Seachmall wrote: »

Is that a yes?

You, as a scientist, genuinely believe that after the eucharistic prayer it is no longer bread and wine but the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ?

Transubstantiation, insofar as I can understand the philosophy behind it, holds that the "accidents" of bread and wine remain after consecration, ie;the bread and wine have all the attributes of bread and wine according the senses, but the substance of the bread and wine changes. So it would not be possible to prove or disprove transubstantiation by examining a host under a microscope, for example. At least, I think that's the case, it's all very complex and a lot of the phrases used are derived from Aristotelian philosophy.

Transubstantiation is probably one of the most frequently misunderstood aspects of Catholicism, not surprisingly, as many Catholics don't fully understand what it means either. It's not a belief I share, but I don't see why someone couldn't be a scientist and a believing Catholic. Several eminent Catholic scientists have already been mentioned on this tread.

Drumpot

These are very emotive topics, each to their own, but I suppose I would class myself Agnostic .

I am a catholic, but the more "informed" I become, the less comfortable I am with many elements of "my" religion. .

I find scientific comments on the question of whether or not there is a god , extremely arrogant to the point of annoying. . So much science exploration is "best guess" and rooted on the limited understanding/exploration of the universe. There is also a huge leap of faith required in certain scientific assumptions . . I watch an awful lot of science shows (not into it professionally, just enjoy shows on nature/universe) and I can categorically say that science is not all based on fact, its based on human understanding of our current surroundings and trying to come to a conclusion based on this very limited understanding.

Is the universe infinity ? How can it possibly be answered with the tools available to us ? Therefore how could they possibly make ANY comments on the probality of a higher power?

My issue with science is that its based on human logic that is certainly not fully developed (how much of our brain do we use)? Not just that, I don't see how we are any closer to understanding the secrets of the universe now then we were when people thought the Earth was the centre of the universe and it was square . . Using satellites to understand the secrets of the universe are like throwing a pebble as high as you can in the sky and using that to base all your assumptions on the intricate dynamics of our own planet.

I don't believe scienctific community are any closer to understanding the "is there or isn't there" god question, then they ever were . . I think as species humans are instinctively arrogant and blind to our own limited understanding of things we interpret around us. Hell we have only explored something like 40% of our own planet and our "brightes" speak of the universe and God in confidence that "based on our calculations" x = y, when in truth they understand little (when you consider the actual scope of the topic) more then the average Joe Soap . .

Is there a god ? I don't know . . I like to think so, but I have seen no proof one way or another that there isn't . .

SeanW

Sulla Felix wrote: »

The answers, theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic are answers to two very different questions and aren't mutually exclusive.

Question: Do you believe in God or Gods. Right now, this minute, not whether or not you think it's possible, or that the idea has a certain cultural value or that you're open to the possibility in the future. Do you believe in God?

Answer: Yes/No, or in the terms of this discussion, I'm a theist/atheist.

Next Question: Do you believe it is possible to know for certain, with ontological certainty, that a God or Gods exist. Not do you believe in one or not, just whether you think it is possible to KNOW if one or more exists or not.

Answer: Yes/No, or gnostic/agnostic.

Let me put it this way: Suppose you are talking to someone about religion and he tells you "I'm certain that Jesus loves me and is waiting for me in heaven. I have no doubt about that."

What would you call him - theistic-gnostic? Because he's thinks he knows? Or does he just have very strong faith, making him super-duper-theistic? Does it matter?

No, the question is academic. Becuause his religious perspective is guided by a single idea - the personal certainty of theistic truth, it would be appropriate to give him the single barrelled term "Christian" and leave it at that.

While I do not share the views of the hypothetical Christian, obviously the theory is much the same. Everything to do with my religious position is guided by the idea that there are certain things we don't know, may never know: Certain things in my mind can only be decided by personal outlook and philiospohy which; not being guided by fact, are impossible to determine with certainty. So I've quit trying. Ergo I'm agnostic, end of story.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Balance fallacy.

Plus a two outcome state (God or no God) doesn't mean the probabilities of the two are equal. Otherwise I'd have a 50% chance of winning the lottery everytime I play.

On the surface that's true: If, for example, we have no idea how humans came to be on a planet called Earth, where we builot roads, computers, hospitals, beer etc. Then "we don't know so it's 50/50" would indeed be a fallacious view.

But the scientific record is much stronger than that: by science we know exactly how intelligent live evolved. But the how they have raised points to a much deeper question: Why? This is where the "balance" fallacy becomes less of a fallacy and more of a philosophical device for determining the answer: Unknown.

Funny though you should bring in the Lotto because that's what I would use to help explain agnosticism.

(Admittedly I got this from a television science show but:) the scientific record shows that the evolution of humans on Earth was based on an extremely long, highly imporbably, almost perfectly choreographed sequence of mega-catastrophes to befall the planet Earth, each of which should have destroyed the planet or at least made it permanently and irrevocably inhospitable to life. But instead each had the exact opposite effect, over the course of a few years or millions of years, each paving one step in perfect harmony with evolution and natural selection to end with us where we are today.

So to say that "we know that there is no God and natural selection explains everything" that would be fine if it was just like one day there's a pool of amino acids and then 4 billion years later there's intelligent life building roads and computers and studying the universe and medicine and technology. But the scientific record clearly states that it was more complicated than that.

Going back to the lottery example; suppose you bought a lottery ticket and won it. But not just one; say you bought a lottery ticket in each lottery scheme on Earth and won each one. And that you did the same thing next week, and the week after: that's what you're looking at. How long does this go on before you ask "What the heck is going on here?"

This is where the so-called Balance fallacy comes in: there are two explanations for both problems. One, as Richard Dawkins believes, it's just pure luck. Or as the religious believe, it was "God"s will.

I'm sure you can see why one might conclude that those are pretty dreadful explanations. As far as I am concerned, they balance not because they're equally good explanations, but because they are equally pitiful. Statistically impossible vs. likely fairy tale, there isn't really a whole lot to choose between them in my view.

If you believe you can have any certainty that there is nothng outside the physical realm, then that's perfectly fine. "There is no God" is a perfectly valid theological standpoint based on a modest review of the evidence. But I think it's more complicated than that hence I refer to my position as "agnostic" with no qualifiers.

Manach

Roman Catholic - but at least the Irish tradition of the sense of smugness for being holier than thou is carried on by that section of the anti-religious atheists who regard it as their defining characteristic.

Rubeter

SeanW wrote: »

(Admittedly I got this from a television science show but:) the scientific record shows that the evolution of humans on Earth was based on an extremely long, highly imporbably, almost perfectly choreographed sequence of mega-catastrophes to befall the planet Earth, each of which should have destroyed the planet or at least made it permanently and irrevocably inhospitable to life. But instead each had the exact opposite effect, over the course of a few years or millions of years, each paving one step in perfect harmony with evolution and natural selection to end with us where we are today.

So to say that "we know that there is no God and natural selection explains everything" that would be fine if it was just like one day there's a pool of amino acids and then 4 billion years later there's intelligent life building roads and computers and studying the universe and medicine and technology. But the scientific record clearly states that it was more complicated than that.

Going back to the lottery example; suppose you bought a lottery ticket and won it. But not just one; say you bought a lottery ticket in each lottery scheme on Earth and won each one. And that you did the same thing next week, and the week after: that's what you're looking at. How long does this go on before you ask "What the heck is going on here?"

This is where the so-called Balance fallacy comes in: there are two explanations for both problems. One, as Richard Dawkins believes, it's just pure luck. Or as the religious believe, it was "God"s will.

I'm sure you can see why one might conclude that those are pretty dreadful explanations. As far as I am concerned, they balance not because they're equally good explanations, but because they are equally pitiful. Statistically impossible vs. likely fairy tale, there isn't really a whole lot to choose between them in my view.

If you believe you can have any certainty that there is nothng outside the physical realm, then that's perfectly fine. "There is no God" is a perfectly valid theological standpoint based on a modest review of the evidence. But I think it's more complicated than that hence I refer to my position as "agnostic" with no qualifiers.

Take a full deck of cards, shuffle them, now lay them out.
You will get a random sequence of 52 cards, now work out the odds of getting that exact sequence, it will be "extremely large number" to 1.
Now sit back in amazement that the odds of something so astronomically improbable happening has just happened right there in your living room.

This is why you cannot work out the odds of something happening that has already happened and say how amazing it is that it happened, a common mistake people make regarding the probability of us evolving.

Rubeter

Drumpot wrote: »

These are very emotive topics, each to their own, but I suppose I would class myself Agnostic .

I am a catholic, but the more "informed" I become, the less comfortable I am with many elements of "my" religion. .

I find scientific comments on the question of whether or not there is a god , extremely arrogant to the point of annoying. . So much science exploration is "best guess" and rooted on the limited understanding/exploration of the universe. There is also a huge leap of faith required in certain scientific assumptions . . I watch an awful lot of science shows (not into it professionally, just enjoy shows on nature/universe) and I can categorically say that science is not all based on fact, its based on human understanding of our current surroundings and trying to come to a conclusion based on this very limited understanding.

Is the universe infinity ? How can it possibly be answered with the tools available to us ? Therefore how could they possibly make ANY comments on the probality of a higher power?

My issue with science is that its based on human logic that is certainly not fully developed (how much of our brain do we use)? Not just that, I don't see how we are any closer to understanding the secrets of the universe now then we were when people thought the Earth was the centre of the universe and it was square . . Using satellites to understand the secrets of the universe are like throwing a pebble as high as you can in the sky and using that to base all your assumptions on the intricate dynamics of our own planet.

I don't believe scienctific community are any closer to understanding the "is there or isn't there" god question, then they ever were . . I think as species humans are instinctively arrogant and blind to our own limited understanding of things we interpret around us. Hell we have only explored something like 40% of our own planet and our "brightes" speak of the universe and God in confidence that "based on our calculations" x = y, when in truth they understand little (when you consider the actual scope of the topic) more then the average Joe Soap . .

Is there a god ? I don't know . . I like to think so, but I have seen no proof one way or another that there isn't . .

The proof science works is ALL around you.
Science gave you practically everything you use in your life.

Ghost Buster

Manach wrote: »

Roman Catholic - but at least the Irish tradition of the sense of smugness for being holier than thou is carried on by that section of the anti-religious atheists who regard it as their defining characteristic.

There must be heaps of these folk so!!!! Give me a link to half a dozen such posts in this thread. Or more if you really want to drive your point home.

Ghost Buster

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Transubstantiation, insofar as I can understand the philosophy behind it, holds that the "accidents" of bread and wine remain after consecration, ie;the bread and wine have all the attributes of bread and wine according the senses, but the substance of the bread and wine changes. So it would not be possible to prove or disprove transubstantiation by examining a host under a microscope, for example. At least, I think that's the case, it's all very complex and a lot of the phrases used are derived from Aristotelian philosophy.

Transubstantiation is probably one of the most frequently misunderstood aspects of Catholicism, not surprisingly, as many Catholics don't fully understand what it means either. It's not a belief I share, but I don't see why someone couldn't be a scientist and a believing Catholic. Several eminent Catholic scientists have already been mentioned on this tread.

So what we have is an invisible, undetectable god from a book which begins with talking snakes and ends with a dead man returned to life who rises up into heaven, events the likes of which have NEVER been reliably observed or recorded in modern times. Then we have the centre piece of Catholicism being a miracle where wafer and wine turns in flesh and blood only in a way which is totally undetectable also.
And this doesn't smell of bull****e to anyone?

uck51js9zml2yt

mcmoustache wrote: »

I think the outrage has certainly calmed down. This thread, for example, has been rather tame and the quality of posts has been higher than usual for these sorts of threads.

I think that ann just wanted to take a pop at atheists. A new phenomenon has been the "I'm an atheist but I find other atheists annoying. Not only am I smarter than a religious person, I'm less annoying than atheists" type. To maintain that illusion, they need to see smugness everywhere in the same way that a rascist sees blacks everywhere. A few smug responses in the thread would be enough to see "".

are u really serious that think your smarter than a religious person. is it a specific person or all religious people?..or are you just referring to a general atheistic belief

Turtwig

SeanW wrote: »

(Admittedly I got this from a television science show but:) the scientific record shows that the evolution of humans on Earth was based on an extremely long, highly imporbably, almost perfectly choreographed sequence of mega-catastrophes to befall the planet Earth, each of which should have destroyed the planet or at least made it permanently and irrevocably inhospitable to life. But instead each had the exact opposite effect, over the course of a few years or millions of years, each paving one step in perfect harmony with evolution and natural selection to end with us where we are today.

So to say that "we know that there is no God and natural selection explains everything" that would be fine if it was just like one day there's a pool of amino acids and then 4 billion years later there's intelligent life building roads and computers and studying the universe and medicine and technology. But the scientific record clearly states that it was more complicated than that.

Going back to the lottery example; suppose you bought a lottery ticket and won it. But not just one; say you bought a lottery ticket in each lottery scheme on Earth and won each one. And that you did the same thing next week, and the week after: that's what you're looking at. How long does this go on before you ask "What the heck is going on here?"

That is a terrible explanation/view of evolution. TV show's like to put narrative slants on things e.g how deadly something is, how amazing this is, how lucky that was. when in reality whether such a narrative can be applied is unclear. The term "improbable" is an intuitively applied one. However, intuitions aren't always an accurate way of reflecting reality. We have no idea what the initial conditions of everything were so we cannot state how probable or improbable life is. It appears improbable, but it might not be. We don't know one way from the other.

Evolution, is not a case of ideals. If it's anything it can be a really ugly process. I prefer examples in medicine as they show the trade/benefit aspects to evolution better. You might possess a gene that confers an advantage by way of immunity towards a widespread plague. Naturally in an environment where this disease is thriving the immunity gene has the best chance of survival and reproduction. In a few generations that gene is widespread in the population because those who didn't possess it have mostly died out and significant % of its population have immunity to the disease plaguing them. That's the viewpoint from which lots of tv shows will present evolution. Something good for all us; something inherently beneficial to humans, because if it wasn't for evolution we wouldn't be here. But consider the gene having more than one function, of which they very often do. Suppose, for simplicity, that people who possess two of these genes will carry a life long debilitating illness that will in turn also kill many of its sufferers. The only thing evolution cares about here is which gene populations reproduce. It doesn't matter if your inherited gene makes you immune to cancer but causes a fatal aneurysm in your brain around 25 years of age.There's no real lottery here, whatever is fittest to reproduce in its environment will reproduce and survive; whatever isn't: mostly dies. Any gene which confers a statistical advantage towards reproduction will likely remain in a population. Regardless of the other effects that gene has on its population. In Ireland Cystic Fibrosis is highly prevalent. Putting it simply. If a person has one CF gene they'll mostly lead a healthy life, have a strong immunity to cholera and a possible increased resistance to TB. If however they have two CF genes then they've got a condition known as Cystic Fibrosis. I guess from their perspective the lottery exists when they are being born. But from evolution's perspective there is no lottery the outcome just happens.

The mistake you are making is to consider evolution as one long chain of improbable sequences. It's actually more a case of one step at a time where each step is highly influenced by the previous step and environment around it. The analogy biologists uses is tossing coins. People view it as randomly getting 60 heads in a row. Whereas what happens is we don't toss the next coin until we already got a 'head' in the coin previous to us. Organisms can live/die and when add a mutation this won't change. However, we can't toss the next coin if the organism's mutation has caused it to be unfit to reproduce. So effectively we're not going to make any steps in mutation unless the organism survives the first mutation. Then we apply the next mutation. Same problem. If the organism dies we go no further and toss no more coins. If it lives we apply the coin toss of another mutation and so on ad infinitum.

This is the basic idea behind pretty much all emerging networks. From a simple set of rules you can grow the appearance of a complex network. Natural selection is one such set of rules.

This video uses an example more relatable to the complexity of life to show natural selection at work.