Theists and atheists ( P.S.)

[tim-from-pa]

I am agnostic.

"Love" is just a coctail of brain chemicals.

OK, I am good with agnostics. My question was to someone claiming to be an atheist.

 

[Deavonreye]

It's OK to admit you have no answer, no shame. I recognize your fear of responding for what it is.

Oh. . . . . . wonderful. . . . . . gonna be one of those...

Let me be clear. If you find any peer reviewed papers from "40% of working scientists" that claim that "because we don't know, then magic is the answer", then I will concede to your brilliance.

 

[Sparkey]

Re: COMPATIBILITY between Theists and atheists ( P.S.)

Deavonreye, ru familiar w/ "The Analogy of the Cave"?

@others - anybody else here read the link that the OP left? There was a specific issue addressed. Hint: We are part of the problem.

 

[Sam21]

Belief in an invisible God may seem strange, however belief that our world created itself is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Sparkey]

Belief in an invisible God may seem strange, however belief that our world created itself is utterly ridiculous.

When I was young a friend (called himself Gutenberg) and I would go onto Yahoo Chat for the purpose of debating (provoking) this issue.

Gutenberg had a formidable amount of knowledge on the subject and was conversant with each particular. Me? I'm no heavy hitter but would enjoy the provocation. Not the most Christian attitude on my part. When I read your post I was reminded of one of my initial shots: I would log and open with the general accusation, "You are hydrogen worshippers!"

Oh, Hydrogen! Invisible, tastless, odorless gas! When left to your own devices, you, great Hydrogen create life! Most would ignore me being too sensible to respond but at least one could be counted on to launch a counter-attack. That was what the whole thing was about anyway, right? If I didn't get any immediate response I would continue my ridiculous ridicule, "The problem with your cold god is the promise of cold, and nothing else."

"Hydrogen promises only the void and emptiness of space," I would declare. Gutenberg would be on-the-ready to argue more persuasively in responce to any who would take the bait. Nobody was converted. As far as I know, nothing good came from it.

To me, my message was clear: Atheists have no business trying to define what I believe. They were predisposed to oppose. It was easy for me to see that in "them" and impossible for me to see it in me. I gave myself permission to do what I resented. As I said, not very Christian of me, was it?

~Sparrow

 

[Deavonreye]

I don't think you'll find very many actual scientists who would state that the "universe created itself".

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

You will not find scientists "admitting" that at all. True, there may be a case where science has to say "I don't know", but that absolutely does not mean that "Therefore, a god did it."

The "supernatural" is of no value to a true scientific endeavor, and "magic" isn't any credible answer. This is why I say that such topics will seldom result in the theist and atheist coming to an agreement. A nice conversation, perhaps, but the two fields are incongruent.

To equate supernatural and magic is being somewhat misleading as the concept of magic gives one a totally different impression than saying something not subject to natural laws (supernatural) does.

The universe is but a large scale "controlled environment" whose inhabitants both living and inanimate are subjected to the laws that govern the environment that is the universe. The concept of there having to be a supernatural force that existed before as well as beyond the natural laws that govern the universe is a conclusion that has a lot of logic behind it ESPECIALLY considering the fact that science has yet and may never be able to reveal any other possible conclusion.

So an atheist can use insulting terms like "magic" and "invisible sky god" to attack the idea that the universe apparently HAD to have a supernatural beginning all they like, but that does not negate the logic of such a conclusion. AND, based on the knowledge will currently have, concluding that there had to have been a supernatural origin to the universe is the MOST logical conclusion possible whether one chooses to accept it or not.

 

[Deavonreye]

You're using "apparently HAD to have a supernatural beginning" as if it were absoute fact .. . . . and you cannot make that claim no matter how firm you are in your BELIEF. Again, just because a natural explaination is not forthcoming, you cannot jump to "it happened supernaturally/magically". And as I stated before, it is the same mindset as those who believe that Zeus was the cause of lightning bolts!

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

You're using "apparently HAD to have a supernatural beginning" as if it were absoute fact .. . . . and you cannot make that claim no matter how firm you are in your BELIEF. Again, just because a natural explaination is not forthcoming, you cannot jump to "it happened supernaturally/magically". And as I stated before, it is the same mindset as those who believe that Zeus was the cause of lightning bolts!

No, what I am saying is that a supernatural (NOT MAGIC) beginning is the most logical explanation for the origin of the universe that exists. As of yet, there exists no more logical explanation. As for the Zeus with lightning bolts comparison, there really is none considering that we can explain lighting and realize that it occurs by natural means and does not violate the laws os nature and because even before the cause of lightening was discovered, LOGIC did not point out that Zues must be behind it. In the case for the origin of the universe, one does not need to be religious to conclude that supernatural (an intelligence not subject to the laws of nature) influences affected the beginning of space and time. In making such as comparison as the Zeus comparison, you MUST ASSUME that one day there will be a better explanation than a supernatural catalyst and mind you, you have no basis other than "faith" that such an explanation will be discovered.

 

[Mike S]

Oh. . . . . . wonderful. . . . . . gonna be one of those...

Let me be clear. If you find any peer reviewed papers from "40% of working scientists" that claim that "because we don't know, then magic is the answer", then I will concede to your brilliance.

Magic is your word, no one else's.

Scientists' belief in God varies by discipline: Study debunks notion that science is incompatible with religion msnbc.com, 8/22/2005

"About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do. The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found. The opposite had been expected. Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe."


Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science </NYT_HEADLINE> nytimes.com, August 23, 2005

"Dr. Collins, who is working on a book about his religious faith, also believes that people should not have to keep religious beliefs and scientific theories strictly separate. "I don't find it very satisfactory and I don't find it very necessary," he said in an interview. He noted that until relatively recently, most scientists were believers. "Isaac Newton wrote a lot more about the Bible than the laws of nature," he said. But he acknowledged that as head of the American government's efforts to decipher the human genetic code, he had a leading role in work that many say definitively demonstrates the strength of evolutionary theory to explain the complexity and abundance of life. As scientists compare human genes with those of other mammals, tiny worms, even bacteria, the similarities "are absolutely compelling," Dr. Collins said. "If Darwin had tried to imagine a way to prove his theory, he could not have come up with something better, except maybe a time machine. Asking somebody to reject all of that in order to prove that they really do love God - what a horrible choice."

Dr. Collins was a nonbeliever until he was 27 - "more and more into the mode of being not only agnostic but being an atheist," as he put it. All that changed after he completed his doctorate in physics and was at work on his medical degree, when he was among those treating a woman dying of heart disease. "She was very clear about her faith and she looked me square in the eye and she said, 'what do you believe?' " he recalled. "I sort of stammered out, 'I am not sure.' "

He said he realized then that he had never considered the matter seriously, the way a scientist should. He began reading about various religious beliefs, which only confused him. Finally, a Methodist minister gave him a book, "Mere Christianity," by C. S. Lewis. In the book Lewis, an atheist until he was a grown man, argues that the idea of right and wrong is universal among people, a moral law they "did not make, and cannot quite forget even when they try." This universal feeling, he said, is evidence for the plausibility of God.
When he read the book, Dr. Collins said, "I thought, my gosh, this guy is me."

Today, Dr. Collins said, he does not embrace any particular denomination, but he is a Christian. Colleagues sometimes express surprise at his faith, he said. "They'll say, 'how can you believe that? Did you check your brain at the door?" But he said he had discovered in talking to students and colleagues that "there is a great deal of interest in this topic."

 

[Sparkey]

It was my understanding of the OP's thread and link that this thread was opened to consider the nature of the confrontation that oftentimes goes on between the two camps: Theist and Atheist.

1.Is it desirable to end such confrontations?
2.Is it possible to end them?
and, "If yes, then how?"

We are currently providing evidence that both sides enjoy argument (call it debate if you want) with little or no expectation of success. It's almost as if there is a silent agreement, "Let's help each other entrench."



Although the discussion appears to be centered on "X", perhaps it is more rightly considered under the topic of "Y". In other words: Although the formal topic could be stated, "Is there a God or not??" Would it be possible to reformulate the question?

Any ideas along those lines, please? Can we collaborate to define and discuss the issue that the OP raised? (please?)

Cordially,
~Sparrow

 

[Mike S]

It was my understanding of the OP's thread and link that this thread was opened to consider the nature of the confrontation that oftentimes goes on between the two camps: Theist and Atheist.

1.Is it desirable to end such confrontations?
2.Is it possible to end them?
and, "If yes, then how?"

We are currently providing evidence that both sides enjoy argument (call it debate if you want) with little or no expectation of success. It's almost as if there is a silent agreement, "Let's help each other entrench."



Although the discussion appears to be centered on "X", perhaps it is more rightly considered under the topic of "Y". In other words: Although the formal topic could be stated, "Is there a God or not??" Would it be possible to reformulate the question?

Any ideas along those lines, please? Can we collaborate to define and discuss the issue that the OP raised? (please?)

Cordially,
~Sparrow

I think the answers to your questions are no, and no.

When theisits and atheists meet and share their beliefs, it shouldn't be confrontational - though it often is - but neither is it usually a productive dialogue. It usually goes something like this:

Theist: "This is my belief."
Atheist: "This is my belief."
Repeat endlesslly, or until everyone gets bored.

Atheists and theists operate within two completely different frames of reference, the gap between which they usually cannot bridge.

With the interaction between G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, however, Lewis the atheist became Lewis the staunch Christian apologist after reading Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. In that case the gap proved bridgeable through reason and persuasion, but how often does that happen, really?

Though, another example, I guess, is Anthony Flew, who left his atheism behind to become a believer in God, as he said "more of less based on scientific evidence." He concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe, as a super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.

 

[Sparkey]

We all like to pretend we know stuff. Yep! :yes

This isn't the science forum so no, I don't care for replies. Theists and Atheists both examine Science though. Can we comprehend the answers?



[video=youtube;EpSqrb3VK3c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpSqrb3VK3c&feature=related[/video]

 

[Mike S]

We all like to pretend we know stuff. Yep! :yes

This isn't the science forum so no, I don't care for replies. Theists and Atheists both examine Science though. Can we comprehend the answers?



[video=youtube;EpSqrb3VK3c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpSqrb3VK3c&feature=related[/video]

Or actually, in fact, know stuff.

Questions were asked in the op, and now answered. If replies aren't cared for, questions shouldn't be asked.

 

[Sparkey]

Or actually, in fact, know stuff.

Questions were asked in the op, and now answered. If replies aren't cared for, questions shouldn't be asked.

No clue where you are coming from - you're welcome to your opinion, of course.

 

[Sam21]

You're using "apparently HAD to have a supernatural beginning" as if it were absoute fact .. . . . and you cannot make that claim no matter how firm you are in your BELIEF. Again, just because a natural explaination is not forthcoming, you cannot jump to "it happened supernaturally/magically". And as I stated before, it is the same mindset as those who believe that Zeus was the cause of lightning bolts!

There is no such thing as a natural explanation for our world. I am convinced that all humans recognize our world as a creation, they either accept it or deny it,however there is no doubt in my mind that all men recognize our world as a creation. Human beings deny reality that they do not want to accept so it is no wonder that some people will deny the creation because it is not what they want to believe.

 

[Mike S]

No clue where you are coming from - you're welcome to your opinion, of course.

Thank you.

My series of posts were in response to comments made from the view of a science oriented/atheist (not sure quite what) denigrating religious positions of faith, implying no self-respecting scientist would hold such beliefs. I don't see a conflict between science and faith. There are many scientists who are very religious, and many men of faith who have great respect for science.

 

[Mick]

Theists and Atheists (P.S.)

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless futile conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

theo_sci

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

From the link in the OP:

Conflicts between theists and atheists, often amounting to “we are better than you†accusations, are common; one can verify this by browsing the Internet. The aggressive combatants are usually neither professional scientists nor professional theologians.
Is it desirable to end such confrontations?
Is it possible to end them?
If yes, then how?

If, indeed, the Internet discussions are "conflicts" between "aggressive combatants" then it would be easy to answer the first question in the affirmative.

But if we tone down the emotional language, those conflicts between aggressive combatants could also be described as "debates between participants with firmly held opinions" and I can think of no reason why it would be desirable to end them. Many people (including me) find them both interesting and stimulating.

 

[pastorbiggums]

could'nt we just all admit no one knows whats in the afterlife ?

 

[Deavonreye]

No, what I am saying is that a supernatural (NOT MAGIC) beginning is the most logical explanation for the origin of the universe that exists. As of yet, there exists no more logical explanation. As for the Zeus with lightning bolts comparison, there really is none considering that we can explain lighting and realize that it occurs by natural means and does not violate the laws os nature and because even before the cause of lightening was discovered, LOGIC did not point out that Zues must be behind it. In the case for the origin of the universe, one does not need to be religious to conclude that supernatural (an intelligence not subject to the laws of nature) influences affected the beginning of space and time. In making such as comparison as the Zeus comparison, you MUST ASSUME that one day there will be a better explanation than a supernatural catalyst and mind you, you have no basis other than "faith" that such an explanation will be discovered.

And as we discovered that lightning DIDN'T come from an angry Zeus, so we will eventually discover a completely naturalistic explaination for life. It is "giving up too easily" by assuming that there was a force that was outside of natural laws . . . because then you would have to define by what laws THAT being is governed by and why that being created a different existence than itself.

There are those who postulate that there wasn't a "beginning of life", but that it always existed in one form or another. Multiverses, for example. The point is, . . . your "supernatural" is still the same as "magic". A being who "speaks and things immediately form in their place, and fully grown"?