Are you an atheist? (12 Viewers)

[Rabbie]

Mike I have never denied that you need to take other peoples word to make any progress in this world. Indeed if you don't people would still be wondering if it was a good idea to use caves.

Humans make progress by building on other people's experience and not trying to start from scratch every time.

What fascinates me with your argument is its seeming point that because religion is based on faith then atheism cannot be. If I have misunderstood your argument perhaps you need to explain it better.

I would not deny that religion does bring comfort to a lot of people. It can also cause great harm to people through dogmatic applications of some of its teaching. For example by condemning the use of contraception and the sale of condoms the catholic church has not done as much as it might to slow down the spread of Aids and other STDs. Some of the Muslim teachings have been used to justify acts of Terrorism.

 

[Rabbie]

Rabbie,

In the previous post, but I will put it on its own for you

Mike

You asked Rich for the contradictions in the Bible and he gave you some. How's that ridiculing Atheism

The site he used. Rich knew exactly what he was doing.

I am afraid I don't get it. perhaps you can explain a little more clearly.

 

[Mike375]

Rabbie,

No argument from me with respect to problems/religion. But surely that should be no suprise since it would be obvious from postings. Having criticism or doubting a supernatural because of religion is like judging Access by the forums.

But in the context of this thread casting doubt on a supernatural because it depends on faith, just does not hold water because the opposing view requires faith and heaps of faith. In fact it requires more faith because the sources of information not only openly admit they don't know but even go to the extent of excluding the actual Big Bang and before. Hawkings is now into imaginary time.

Followers of evolution continue to display blind faith. Lizard to snake is not the only problem area. The problem area is where evolution requires that type of structural change. That is why Dawkin's "half an eye is better than no eye" is crap. Dawkins even goes so far as insulting the intelligence of his readers by saying someone with a cataract can see shadows, avoid prey etc. Well that is great if the starting point is "no eyes". So I say to you....you need a heap of faith.

I suspect in your case your views have come about because of very negative experience with religion. Of course you have your counterpart in the person who becomes very religious. But as I said above, to me religion is irrelevant when it comes to dscussing the possibilities of a supernatural.

 

[Rabbie]

Rabbie,

No argument from me with respect to problems/religion. But surely that should be no suprise since it would be obvious from postings. Having criticism or doubting a supernatural because of religion is like judging Access by the forums.

But in the context of this thread casting doubt on a supernatural because it depends on faith, just does not hold water because the opposing view requires faith and heaps of faith. In fact it requires more faith because the sources of information not only openly admit they don't know but even go to the extent of excluding the actual Big Bang and before. Hawkings is now into imaginary time.

Followers of evolution continue to display blind faith. Lizard to snake is not the only problem area. The problem area is where evolution requires that type of structural change. That is why Dawkin's "half an eye is better than no eye" is crap. Dawkins even goes so far as insulting the intelligence of his readers by saying someone with a cataract can see shadows, avoid prey etc. Well that is great if the starting point is "no eyes". So I say to you....you need a heap of faith.

I suspect in your case your views have come about because of very negative experience with religion. Of course you have your counterpart in the person who becomes very religious. But as I said above, to me religion is irrelevant when it comes to dscussing the possibilities of a supernatural.

As I don't believe in a Supernatural then I have to take a very very simple starting point for life. Thats why I can see the reasonablenes of "half an eye is better than no eye" because i believe the starting point was "No Eye". I can see the gradual steps to refined mammalian and Avian eyes

On the subject of lizard-Snake evolution have you seen this link. I am not saying it is the definitive answer but it is a possible answer.

 

[Mike375]

The site is used by bible bashers to shoot down atheism

There is also a large forum

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/

 

[Alisa]

What fascinates me with your argument is its seeming point that because religion is based on faith then atheism cannot be. If I have misunderstood your argument perhaps you need to explain it better.

Mike, unlike Rabbie, I am no longer interested in your argument that "faith" in authors or researchers is somehow akin to faith in the bible or god. That is ridiculous. When a scientific peer reviewed article is published, the reviewers look at the evidence that the researcher is writing about to make sure they are not making stuff up. When people do make stuff up, it is a big scandal and it all gets retracted immedietely. How can you compare "faith" (as you insist on calling it) in this process with faith in the bible, which has no corroborating evidence whatsoever? Religous claims are not based on evidence. They are not peer reviewed. They are not revised when they are shown to be wrong. This is a false argument. Let's move on.

 

[Alisa]

The site is used by bible bashers to shoot down atheism

There is also a large forum

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/

Are you trying to say that the bible doesn't contain contradictions? Because that is what Rich was trying to show you.

 

[Mike375]

As I don't believe in a Supernatural then I have to take a very very simple starting point for life. Thats why I can see the reasonablenes of "half an eye is better than no eye" because i believe the starting point was "No Eye". I can see the gradual steps to refined mammalian and Avian eyes

On the subject of lizard-Snake evolution have you seen this link. I am not saying it is the definitive answer but it is a possible answer.

Rabbie

Mosasaurs have been considered for quite a long time to have a connection with snakes. But the gap is huge. The other problem is snake fossils don't go back far enough.

The "half an eye being better than no eye" tends to go with life starting in all sorts of forms as opposed to theropods to birds, lizards to snakes etc.

I do believe in mutations resulting in species change and have no difficulty with monkey to man. However, I think evolution is a funding driven dogma, like religion and as such it is restricted in its scope.

 

[Mike375]

Mike, unlike Rabbie, I am no longer interested in your argument that "faith" in authors or researchers is somehow akin to faith in the bible or god. That is ridiculous. When a scientific peer reviewed article is published, the reviewers look at the evidence that the researcher is writing about to make sure they are not making stuff up. When people do make stuff up, it is a big scandal and it all gets retracted immedietely. How can you compare "faith" (as you insist on calling it) in this process with faith in the bible, which has no corroborating evidence whatsoever? Religous claims are not based on evidence. They are not peer reviewed. They are not revised when they are shown to be wrong. This is a false argument. Let's move on.

But the peer review automatically takes into consideration the subject matter.

If what you were saying was correct then there would be no diagreement with scientists on the Big Bang.

I don't think Hawking and Co could simply avoid situations so their theories can fit if the science was in other areas. Earlier in the thread you said science takes every scenario into account. Hawking and Co are just the opposite. They have said repeatedly that all physics breaks down at the Big Bang and so they have to opt out of the game at that point.

 

[Alisa]

But the peer review automatically takes into consideration the subject matter.

If what you were saying was correct then there would be no diagreement with scientists on the Big Bang.

I don't think Hawking and Co could simply avoid situations so their theories can fit if the science was in other areas. Earlier in the thread you said science takes every scenario into account. Hawking and Co are just the opposite. They have said repeatedly that all physics breaks down at the Big Bang and so they have to opt out of the game at that point.

You are not making sense. Probably my aspergers acting up again.

 

[Mike375]

Are you trying to say that the bible doesn't contain contradictions? Because that is what Rich was trying to show you.

Of course it does but the site is junk and is used by Bible thumpers.

Contradictions in the Bible add to its credibility. It is like file notes we have to make on all dealings with an insurance prospect/client. The gov't auditors get all suspicious when the file notes don't have a thing out of place.

 

[Mike375]

You are not making sense. Probably my aspergers acting up again.

What part do you need me to elaborate on. I thought it was simple.

I suspect your efforts to avoid the airy fairy stuff of Hawking and Co is causing you stress.

 

[Rich]

Contradictions in the Bible add to its credibility.

Unbelievable......................................

 

[KenHigg]

Unbelievable......................................

No, that's: Unbelievabable....

 

[Alisa]

Contradictions in the Bible add to its credibility. It is like file notes we have to make on all dealings with an insurance prospect/client. The gov't auditors get all suspicious when the file notes don't have a thing out of place.

I am going to use that one the next time the IRS audits me and asks my why my income doesn't correspond to my bank account balances. After all, the contradiction should add to my credibility as an honest tax payer. No?

 

[Mike375]

I am going to use that one the next time the IRS audits me and asks my why my income doesn't correspond to my bank account balances. After all, the contradiction should add to my credibility as an honest tax payer. No?

Does not work that way for numbers

The following is at the end of a Word.doc that the salesman uses.

The following is a direct copy from the various notes I have made following meetings, phone calls with yourself and insurance companies. Since these are the “real thing” they will probably have spelling and punctuation errors and these can’t be fixed as once the note is entered it can’t be changed. These notes should be read since they contain notes I have made that reveal how I have seen and understood your situation and of course it is my understanding of your situation that is reflected in policy recommendations.

 

[Mike375]

Unbelievable......................................

You would expect contradictions in the Bible since it is written by many people. The fact that the contradictions are there also tells you that the Bible has not been "rewritten"

Actually the biggest hole in the Bible is that it portrays a god that is in fact quite limited. The Bible is full of stories where God has to test people or try and find ways to explain things to people. Then there are the events like the Flood. For God to have used such a method indicates limited power. The standard answer is that God needed to demonstrate to people. However, an all powerful God would not need to demonstrate.

 

[Mike375]

Alisa

Paul Davies with some real 2+2 = 4 science

Q: In the book you mentioned that Hawking’s scenario calls for the origin of the universe to be fuzzy in a quantum way. There’s not necessarily some sort of “hard start” for the universe.

A: Right. Once you apply quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole, everything becomes fuzzy. But I want to go beyond ordinary quantum fuzziness, which I think needs an additional step, and introduce fuzziness into the laws themselves.

Most people think that although you have many quantum histories, you’ve got the same underlying physical laws. But I argue in the book that we should abandon the notion of fixed, fundamental laws and instead advance the notion that the laws themselves have a fuzziness or ambiguity. We can still appeal to this feedback mechanism that we and others – Cramer as well – have introduced from quantum mechanics, but extend it to the laws as well as the states of the universe. So that’s the radical step: the idea that there are fuzzy laws as well as fuzzy states.

 

[Rabbie]

Mike, unlike Rabbie, I am no longer interested in your argument that "faith" in authors or researchers is somehow akin to faith in the bible or god. That is ridiculous. When a scientific peer reviewed article is published, the reviewers look at the evidence that the researcher is writing about to make sure they are not making stuff up. When people do make stuff up, it is a big scandal and it all gets retracted immedietely. How can you compare "faith" (as you insist on calling it) in this process with faith in the bible, which has no corroborating evidence whatsoever? Religous claims are not based on evidence. They are not peer reviewed. They are not revised when they are shown to be wrong. This is a false argument. Let's move on.

I agree entirely with you. When I said I was fascinated by Mike's argument I meant that I find it (a bit) interesting that he thinks his "faith argument" is actually valid when it is in fact irrelevant to the debate. I also find his justification for the inconsistencies in the bible amusing. Surely the Bible is meant to be the word of God and if I understand the argument correctly God doesn't make mistakes. But perhaps Mike knows better. If I was religous I think I would find it insulting to have my God compared to someone putting notes in an insurance file.

 

[Mike375]

The Bible was inspired by the word of God not written by God.

Having to have faith it what you read with regards to the type of topics on this thread is relevant because the basis of the thread is about faith.

This sort of stuff from Paul Davies is what you are having faith in.....So that’s the radical step: the idea that there are fuzzy laws as well as fuzzy states.