The Atheist Holy War
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
Spade and I are working on that. Wanna join? We'll only tithe 5% to cover administration fees and we will only drive hybrid cars, nothing more than 3000 ft2 houses and cheep dog houses. No boats or other toys but our doors will be open after hours for women to visit.
(Ooops! Did I say that?)
Happy, Happy! Joy, Joy! I don't need to drink to be happy. With friends like mine, who needs enemas?
Is it just me or does age have anything to do with how badly cheese bungs you up? I just can't eat the stuff any more.
Quite right, Kreskin, Atheists usually keep an open mind on any issue. Thus I strongly support a woman’s right to abortion. But I am open to persuasion on the issue. Let biologists, doctors, scientists etc tell me that fetus is a human being since conception, I will become prolife.
Or even failing that, I can conceive of situations where I would oppose the right to abortion. e.g. suppose tomorrow a virus comes along which makes 90% of the women in the world sterile. Then I would support a ban on abortion, to help the continuing survival of the human race.
A religious person is usually not open to persuasion like that, especially a Fundamentalist. To him, abortion is always wrong, any time, any place, for anybody (except of course, if his/her own teenager daughter gets pregnant) and that is that.
Talloola, the surprising thing is that no enterprising Atheist has started a ‘non church’ and put his program on television, in the style of televangelists and solicited donations. But I suppose Atheists are too smart to fall for that (the way Fundamentalists fall for televangelists and send them the biggest check they can afford).
A proper scientific attitude would say that a cosmos with a god in it ought to be detectably different from one without, if it's not then god's irrelevant and might as well not exist, he doesn't make any difference.
Not necessarily, Dexter. I have said it before, science only deals with the questions ‘how’ and ‘what’. How the universe was created, how does it work, and what it is composed of. Science has nothing to say abut why the universe was created. And I think that is the proper function of religion, to try to explain why the universe was created.
Even if cosmos is different with God in it how would you know? You don’t have any standard to compare. To answer that question, you will need to compare two universes exactly alike, one with God and one without God and see the difference. So just by looking at one universe, I don’t think we can answer whether God exists.
god's irrelevant and might as well not exist, he doesn't make any difference.
Exactly my point, as far as science is concerned, God is irrelevant.
And in fact science can show quite convincingly that god's existence, given that he has the characteristics usually ascribed to him, fails as an empirical hypothesis, the data do not support the claim.
Here it depends upon what you mean by characteristics attributed to him. According to Hinduism, God is unknowable. According to Hindu philosophy, the only way to describe God is ‘neti, neti’ (not this, not this). We can way what God isn’t, but we really cannot way what God is.
Such a God cannot be tested by science. Indeed, I can easily hypothesize God which would be meaningless as far as science is concerned, yet may have some practical value.
Suppose I say that if you worship God, you will have a glorious, blissful afterlife, if you don’t worship him, you will disappear into oblivion. Can science prove or disprove that?
Or if you pray to God, he will point you towards the right direction in life. If you have a problem, pray to God, he won’t solve the problem for you, but will point you towards the most appropriate solution. Can science disprove that?
Suppose I say that God is about love compassion, charity. Can science disprove that? Or I could go to the other extreme, and say that God does not care about day to day lives of people. Can science disprove that?
In my opinion, if science can disprove God, that means the concept of God is not set up properly. Religion, God should address the questions which cannot be addressed by science, I think that is its proper role. Ideally, there should not be any overlap between science and religion.
because it doesn't explain anything, it's just a way of avoiding an explanation, the old god of the gaps argument,
But that is just the point, why should God explain anything? In the old days when they used God to explain lightening, motion of planets etc., that is not the proper use of the concept of God. As I said before, God should not deal with the question of ‘what’ or ‘how’, but only ‘why’.
but some individual scientists, the physicist Victor Stenger in particular, have tackled the existence claim and shown that it fails all empirical tests.
If it fails empirical attests, that means the concept was not set up properly. I have described one concept of God which cannot be proved or disproved by science.
he's not anything like the way he's usually portrayed.
Now here I agree with you. The way God is portrayed (he created the universe 5000 years ago in six days, or he wants homosexuals to be put to death or imprisoned etc.), that portrait of God can easily be disproved by science. But the deeper concept of God, as an entity which started the universe in the first place (this would be before the big bang), as something eternal, cannot be so easily disproved, even empirically.
Not necessarily, Dexter. I have said it before, science only deals with the questions ‘how’ and ‘what’. How the universe was created, how does it work, and what it is composed of. Science has nothing to say abut why the universe was created. And I think that is the proper function of religion, to try to explain why the universe was created.
Even if cosmos is different with God in it how would you know? You don’t have any standard to compare. To answer that question, you will need to compare two universes exactly alike, one with God and one without God and see the difference. So just by looking at one universe, I don’t think we can answer whether God exists.
god's irrelevant and might as well not exist, he doesn't make any difference.
Exactly my point, as far as science is concerned, God is irrelevant.
And in fact science can show quite convincingly that god's existence, given that he has the characteristics usually ascribed to him, fails as an empirical hypothesis, the data do not support the claim.
Here it depends upon what you mean by characteristics attributed to him. According to Hinduism, God is unknowable. According to Hindu philosophy, the only way to describe God is ‘neti, neti’ (not this, not this). We can way what God isn’t, but we really cannot way what God is.
Such a God cannot be tested by science. Indeed, I can easily hypothesize God which would be meaningless as far as science is concerned, yet may have some practical value.
Suppose I say that if you worship God, you will have a glorious, blissful afterlife, if you don’t worship him, you will disappear into oblivion. Can science prove or disprove that?
Or if you pray to God, he will point you towards the right direction in life. If you have a problem, pray to God, he won’t solve the problem for you, but will point you towards the most appropriate solution. Can science disprove that?
Suppose I say that God is about love compassion, charity. Can science disprove that? Or I could go to the other extreme, and say that God does not care about day to day lives of people. Can science disprove that?
In my opinion, if science can disprove God, that means the concept of God is not set up properly. Religion, God should address the questions which cannot be addressed by science, I think that is its proper role. Ideally, there should not be any overlap between science and religion.
because it doesn't explain anything, it's just a way of avoiding an explanation, the old god of the gaps argument,
But that is just the point, why should God explain anything? In the old days when they used God to explain lightening, motion of planets etc., that is not the proper use of the concept of God. As I said before, God should not deal with the question of ‘what’ or ‘how’, but only ‘why’.
but some individual scientists, the physicist Victor Stenger in particular, have tackled the existence claim and shown that it fails all empirical tests.
If it fails empirical attests, that means the concept was not set up properly. I have described one concept of God which cannot be proved or disproved by science.
he's not anything like the way he's usually portrayed.
Now here I agree with you. The way God is portrayed (he created the universe 5000 years ago in six days, or he wants homosexuals to be put to death or imprisoned etc.), that portrait of God can easily be disproved by science. But the deeper concept of God, as an entity which started the universe in the first place (this would be before the big bang), as something eternal, cannot be so easily disproved, even empirically.
He probably appreciates the intense housecleaning done ahead of time. I know I'd appreciate if people would keep my work area clean.
Cheese is one of worst foods for that, and I guess age contributes to 'how' badly
it bothers one.
When I eat cheese I make sure I have a 'cheese opposition food', to combat what
the cheese will try to do.;-)
Naw, you didn't say that, I'm sure you were just thinking it.;-)
Sure, send me the 'non' registration form.
I suppose there are atheists that proselytise and some that don't. I don't think Les does. He simply challenges non-atheists and does that mostly for fun to see how well they can support their position.
Sir Potty assumes he can speak for science, but he seems to be under the impression that science only consists of subjects like math, physics, chemistry, etc. and does not include those such as anthropology, philosophy, psychology, etc. He's wrong, as usual. Apparently he has forgotten that PhD means doctorate in PHILOSOPHY. And he assumes that since science doesn't have any evidence that gods exist that science says they are meaningless and he's wrong there, too. It's probably more accurate that science would be cautiously indifferent to unknowns than dismissive. If a scientist is performing an experiment and they know there may be something that factors in but have no evidence for it, they would NOT dismiss it by saying it is meaningless, they would more than likely perform the experiment with an eye out for the unknown.
True atheists accept whatever evidence comes along even if it interferes with impressions they had before. Then they adjust their views accordingly. Deists/theists state there is a god or are gods and do not require any evidence and are not very accepting of anything that contadicts their views about what they believe.
I'll pass on the Non-Church of Atheism, thanks.
Sir Potty assumes he can speak for science, but he seems to be under the impression that science only consists of subjects like math, physics, chemistry, etc. and does not include those such as anthropology, philosophy, psychology, etc. He's wrong, as usual. Apparently he has forgotten that PhD means doctorate in PHILOSOPHY. And he assumes that since science doesn't have any evidence that gods exist that science says they are meaningless and he's wrong there, too. It's probably more accurate that science would be cautiously indifferent to unknowns than dismissive. If a scientist is performing an experiment and they know there may be something that factors in but have no evidence for it, they would NOT dismiss it by saying it is meaningless, they would more than likely perform the experiment with an eye out for the unknown.
True atheists accept whatever evidence comes along even if it interferes with impressions they had before. Then they adjust their views accordingly. Deists/theists state there is a god or are gods and do not require any evidence and are not very accepting of anything that contadicts their views about what they believe.
I'll pass on the Non-Church of Atheism, thanks.