The bible's contradictions visualized.
- Started
- Last post
- 73 Responses
- Morning_star0
@monospace
"I would confidently say that it is logic itself that drives atheist arguments and that the opposite, religious arguments and belief, shun logic altogether."Your confidence may be a little premature. The 'logical' stance is agnosticism. I.e. the belief in the possibility of god. The statement "God does not exist" is as full of faith as "God does exist".
- popfodders0
Famous Scientists Who Believed in God
http://www.godandscience.org/apo…Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Max Planck (1858-1947)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)- not necessarilymonospaced
- Einstein! LOL! You sir, are a riot.BRNK
- actually you are misinformedpopfodders
- Who gives a shit if scientists believe in God?DrBombay
- They do give a shit, they even make infographics about it. If you read that, read this too.Beeswax
- BaskerviIle0
@Morning_star, the logical stance is not to believe in anything made up. The onus is on the person that speaks of an invisible being to prove it exists. Not on the non-believer to disprove it (the concept didn't exist until someone invented it after all).
This whole thing breaks down for a couple of reasons though
Karl Popper's concept of Falsifiability:http://en.wikiped... The idea that a Hypothesis can only ever be proved wrong, never 100% true. However with the issue of faith, by definition there will never be any proof, so the two ideas conflict. You can never prove or disprove that there is such a things a god.
The only realm where a hypothesis can be proved 100% correct is in mathematics.So in essence you are right, an atheistic person, if they follow scientific method, should always be open to the fact that god may exist, because all possibilities are open until disproved.
to quote Tim Minchin:
Science adjusts its beliefs based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preservedno side will ever win this debate. Both sides just need to see it from the other's perspective and realise that both approaches have merit in some ways.
- Thank you for this intelligent and well reasoned response. Clearly you've done some reading/thinking on the subject; it's incredibly refreshing to come across someone who has.BRNK
- it's incredibly refreshing to come across someone who has.BRNK
- I agree with your assessment totally.BRNK
- Well said.
Morning_star - :) thanks. Yes I have. I consider myself a rationalist/humanist over atheistBaskerviIle
- Thanks, I didn't realize I had to explain it to that detail, but apparently some people require itmonospaced
- too bad for the god camp their "proofs" are so awfulscarabin
- "Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved" is a false claim though. I can exemplify.Beeswax
- popfodders0
http://www.time.com/time/magazin…
It may seem logical, in retrospect, that a combination of awe and rebellion made Einstein exceptional as a scientist. But what is less well known is that those two traits also combined to shape his spiritual journey and determine the nature of his faith. The rebellion part comes in at the beginning of his life: he rejected at first his parents' secularism and later the concepts of religious ritual and of a personal God who intercedes in the daily workings of the world. But the awe part comes in his 50s when he settled into a deism based on what he called the "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe" and a sincere belief in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists.But throughout his life, Einstein was consistent in rejecting the charge that he was an atheist. "There are people who say there is no God," he told a friend. "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. "What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos," he explained.
In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."
Einstein later explained his view of the relationship between science and religion at a conference at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. The realm of science, he said, was to ascertain what was the case, but not evaluate human thoughts and actions about what should be the case. Religion had the reverse mandate. Yet the endeavors worked together at times. "Science can be created only by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding," he said. "This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion." The talk got front-page news coverage, and his pithy conclusion became famous. "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
But there was one religious concept, Einstein went on to say, that science could not accept: a deity who could meddle at whim in the events of his creation. "The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God," he argued. Scientists aim to uncover the immutable laws that govern reality, and in doing so they must reject the notion that divine will, or for that matter human will, plays a role that would violate this cosmic causality.
- a feeling of humility toward the harmony of the cosmos is NOT religion, nor is it even faithmonospaced
- he felt sorry for atheists, he denigrated atheists. live with it.popfodders
- lol, he felt sorry for the nihilistic ones, the extremists, but he was pretty much an atheist posterboymonospaced
- BRNK0
@morning_star,
Agnosticism is not the logical mode because it would require an active curiosity in every single unsubstantiated, intangible claim. I'm not sure what you call that, but I call it a waste of energy. In my opinion the most logical approach is to believe in things to the degree of evidence there is for them, meaning having strong belief in ideas with a lot of evidence, moderate belief in ideas with some evidence, and no belief in things that have no evidence.Clearly, each person will have different criteria for judging what constitutes sound evidence and will employ a variety of different tools to arrive at their conclusions, but I think two things must be true in order for a position in this argument to be intellectually honest:
1. One must submit tangible, physical evidence of beliefs. I think this is required because all belief claims, especially ones about a god, are making real and substantive claims about the nature of the physical world. Positing intangible evidence in support of tangible claims is intellectually dishonest and an impediment to further logical discussion because as soon as one does that, one must allow for any other intangible as an argument (Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and the discussion comes to a frustrating, unresolved stalemate.
2. One must have an open mind, active curiosity, and persistently question the world around. This may seem contradictory to my opening retort, but it is not. I mean this in as far as it applies to physical, evidentiary claims.
In my opinion curiosity is the key feature that separates the engaged theist and the engaged atheist. It seems that while the engaged non-believe is constantly clamoring for more information, more context, more explanation to frame the world, the engaged theist is resolved to mull over incantations from the bronze age and concede that the mysteries of the world are such because god is mysterious and inexplicable.
I hope I didn't offend anyone with this little treatise. Not that I care if I've offended anyone per-se, but I hope so because I'm interested in an intelligent debate (I know, the internet is not the place for such things).
- plash0
Ill leave this here.
http://video.google.com/videopla…
- popfodders0
"The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres." - Einstein
- BRNK0
Popfodders,
You can always be counted on to copy and paste some article or another rather than employ even the slightest mental effort to write something for yourself. Thank you for contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way, as always!!!!!- actually, I fucking bumped the thread assfacepopfodders
- to top off that you're HIGHLY misinformed about Einstein, laughable you liberals.popfodders
- You are so caught up in liberal vs conservative it is amazing. If someone is a christian, they are conservative. Automatically.DrBombay
- Poptards being Poptardsutopian
- Morning_star0
@BRNK
Agnosticism is a position that allows for the possibility of god. It is also true to say the it allows for the possibility of no god. It is a position that states that nothing can be known of anything beyond physical phenomena.
My earlier point was that from an agnostic viewpoint, stating there IS NO god is as unknowable as stating there IS a god. Both are beyond material proof and require the same amount of belief.
Personally, Timothy Leary says it best. Think for yourself and question authority.
- plash0
lets science do science and
let religion do religion. Both can happen at the same time...- yes, except that science seeks the truth while religion assumes itmonospaced
- Truth is subjective.
Morning_star - right... sure it ismonospaced
- BRNK0
@Morning_Star
By your definition I'm an agnostic because I'm always open to new evidence, in fact I think it's necessary to constantly question all things... however I think that the Judeo-Christian definition of god is a contradiction in terms and a logical fallacy. It's impossible, for instance for there to be an all-powerful god and free will. It's impossible for there to be an all-loving god and all the horrible acts that happen in this world. An advocate of these ideas must either admit that their god is not all-powerful, not all-loving, or that their definition of him is wrong.I think that's what emboldens many atheists to state that "There is no god." They may not be closed to new ideas about the foundational state of the univers, or the forces that govern it, but they recognize that the popular definition of god is an impossibility. I personally don't make such claims because I think it's important to allow for latitude in the definition of god.
I think you and I are largely in agreement, though.
- Ha! Fonts on the brain. Univers should be universe. :)BRNK
- gramme0
NOBODY HAS LISTENED TO ANYTHING I'VE SAID SINCE CA. 2005.
head > < desk
- gramme0
"Repugnant is the creature who would squander the ability to lift an eye to heaven, conscious of its fleeting time here." – Maynard Keenan (no joke!)
- 'Fuck your god, your lord your christ. He did this, took all you had'
MJKlocustsloth - ;)locustsloth
- 'Fuck your god, your lord your christ. He did this, took all you had'
- Morning_star0
That's 'Right in two' if i recall correctly. And Maynard can do no wrong in my book, even the new Puscifer album is surprisingly good.
- showpony0
i love dogmatic atheists. adorable.
- Peter0
I'm sick of atheists never pushing a religious belief down my throat
- lolmonospaced
- Most atheists I know are very dogmatic and vocal about their unbelief.gramme
- Gramme, guessing it's either in response to ur own pushing or you've only talked to a handful that happened t b the exceptionPeter
- Even if someone mentions God as as a part of the context here, an atheist pops up and asserts his opinion. Try it in another thread.Beeswax
- thread. You'll see.Beeswax
- coldarchon0
I just hope this Steve Wells is not a sectarian from Jehovas Witnesses or Islam.
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-…
Because they only want to show the contradictories to distract from their own contradictories ..
- mg330
- chrisRG0
It took at least 2000 years for the humanity find out about DNA.
God probably do not exist, pretty much like the Santa claus, but it will take at least more 20.000 years to propagate that, because Religion is still necessary in so many places.- necessary is probably not the right word ... right now the world needs some new ideas, not ancient onesmonospaced
- also, 2000 years? you mean, since Jesus? I'd say it took us about 100,000 yearsmonospaced
- yeap... you're right 10k is a good number. by necessary I meant poor countries/communitie... while the new dont appear, they need it!chrisRG