Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[MMI]

This kind of question is far beyond my knowledge, I admit. I wouldn't even know where to start looking, to be honest. It's my understanding, though, that self awareness is a function of the brain, and that awareness can be constrained or removed by blocking off certain parts of the brain without killing the organism. It appears to be a fully biological function. The work goes on, though.

Call me when the work is done and a better explanation is ready.

Meanwhile, Believers can continue to believe God gives life without fear of scientific contradiction.

But aren't the theists explanations also unproven and untestable? Science, at least, is still searching for the answers. Theists say "God did it" and let it stand atthat.

Yes, they are unproven and untested. They are also incapable of proof or testing in scientific terms. But believers have their answers, founded on faith and evidenced, in this case, by two young, vital, children. Why search for more? No-one has a better answer.

I would add that, belief is always being tested in different (non-scientific) ways and is frequently lost as people ask, "If there is a God, why does evil happen?" That is one of the important questions that believers want answers for. Science says, "Shit happens: get over it." If that's the best hope for the future science can offer, what a bleak existence it will be - grim suffering without purpose. Have you been to East Germany, or Hungary?

Maybe self-delusion is the only sensible way to deal with it.

As I said, this is ONE possible explanation, one which does not require a supernatural entity. The plain and simple truth is, we don't know! There's nothing wrong with not knowing. It's how we learn, by trying to know! Once you inject superstition and the supernatural you take away any reason to learn the truth.

You don't know. But you're trying to know. Very good. But it's beginning to look like any attempt to understand that you don't approve of is an attack on truth.

Certainly, why not? We can imagine anything we wish. Just provide some evidence so the rest can follow along. Or print it in a book of fairy tales.

Hmmm, If you say that all existence can be explained according to one set or another of incredible suppositions opposed to all the normally understood rules of science, dreamt up because the classical rules of science had no explanation, but an elegant series of mathematical equations can be produced to demonstrate that the explanation is a good one, that's fine ... even if the story has to be changed every time it is criticised, but if I say it is explained by the fact that a incredibly powerful being created it, and that this being revealed himself to individuals who recorded this in the scriptures has to be dismissed as a fairy tale. Why is your fantasy better than mine? Numbers aren't everything.

Testable evidence for what? The Big Bang? Way out of my area of expertise, I'm afraid. Try Stephen Hawking. I trust him. At least in this field.

I doubt he is willing to consider questions from this website, but why should I trust him, anyway? You don't trust the Pope.

Imagine 1,000,000 coins strewn across the Sahara desert from a plane, all lying flat with the head showing. The theist claims it's a miracle and praises his god. The scientist picks up a coin and shows the theist that it has two heads, no tail. The theist says that it's just one coin and the rest have tails. So the scientist picks up another coin. No tail. Then another, and another, and another. Every coin the scientist finds has two heads, no tail. Is it absolutely necessary to pick up every single coin to prove that they all have two heads, or can he make a reasonable assumption based on the evidence? The theist claims he must check each one, yet for every coin the scientist picks up, the theist is tossing another coin out into the sands.

My parable for the day.

Are you suggesting all theists are cheats (and scientists are not)? It is very difficult to conduct a debate in the face of such contempt.

Or is the truth of the matter the fact that God caused all of the million coins to be double-headed, and neither scientist nor theist realised? Or perhaps - and I'm trying to offer a scientific explanation - the side of the coin lying face down was both heads and tails, and it only turned out to be double-headed once the scientist turned it over.

They HAVE been refuted! Repeatedly.

Some have, agreed. The fundamental ones have not even been questioned by science ... and cannot be

All right, maybe it's not hocus pocus, but it's not science, either. It's philosophy, something I have no understanding of, nor any desire to learn.

Still philosophy. If I can see it, hear it, touch it, it's real. At least to me. If I punch it in the nose it'll know that I'm real.

But again, these are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.

These responses demonstrate how narrow your "scientific" ... no, wait, I'll call it "atheist" perspective, because I can't see anything truly scientific in your position now ... how narrow your atheist perspective is, and how dogmatic: reality is what I say it is.

If the only purpose of your god is to start the ball rolling and get out of the way then I agree, we are at a stalemate. But that is NOT the only purpose of the gods of humanity, is it? Every theist believes that his god in some way interacts with the universe, sometimes on a daily basis. And THAT is disprovable. Every claim that theists have made which it is possible to test, has been tested and found wanting.

That's a moot point.

But the fact that God's existence has not been disproved shows the inadequacy of science to do the job, and that it is still reasonable to believe. It would, of course, be unreasonable to continue to believe in what had been disproved.

If you mean that I believe the scientific method to be superior to theological revelation, than yes, I agree.

But your position is not based on scientific rigour, but atheist prejudice. Science does not deny god because it cannot test him.

Of course there are controversies! That's how science progresses. Different interpretations of the available evidence, and further search for evidence to prove, or disprove, a particular interpretation.

If you allow controversies among scientists, why do you not allow disagreement between religious scholars?

I'm stating, not suggesting, that the faithful are NOT using the same evidence. They are not using ANY evidence, other than their holy books and the teachings of the priests.

There's the evidence of life in your little grandaughters, of course.

I HAVE considered the question, going from belief, to doubt, to a loss of belief. I find the theological answers to be without scientific merit. Philosophically, perhaps they can be interesting, but without evidence they cannot be considered science.

Then, by that argument, are the Big Bang, Steady State Theory, String Theory, M Theory and the rest, all unscientific too?

I don't believe that, if you have believed, and you have lost your faith, that you have a lack of belief, as you put it. I believe you have changed your belief, from one where god exists to one where he doesn't. You can't just "empty" yourself of an idea unless you just switch off. I don't believe you have switched off, but if you have, your opinion would not be worthy of discussion.

I am not claiming that gods do not exist. I am merely stating that I do not believe they exist. There is nothing for me to prove. It is up to those who ARE making the claim to provide the evidence to back that claim up.

I think it is up to you to justify (if not to prove) your change of belief.

I disagree. The scientists who devised the geocentric universe were trained in the Church, the only place to get an education. They tried to fit all of their findings into the dogma. It was only when their explanations became so convoluted as to be unusable that they even tried looking for a different explanation.

The Church only "reconciled" itself when it had no choice. The evidence was overwhelming. So they shifted from placing the Earth at the center of the universe to placing the Sun at the center of the universe.


Of course. It only took 400 years for the RCC to apologize to Galileo, after all. And now, after fighting tooth and nail against evolution the RCC has finally come out and said, "Oh, wait! My bad! There's no conflict between us and evolution! So sorry." Of course, it may have something to do with people leaving the churches in droves.

I leave it to den to deal with this.