The bacteria analogy is completely wrong. It is backwards, but then again we are talking about religion.

The human race learned about bacteria through science, as people get smarter there will be even more discoveries. It is simple evolution. The body, the mind.

Now, as people evolve, religion is becoming less necessary. There are still, what we call primitive, people who rely heavily on religion.
Faith as you like to call it, it doesn't sound as primitive, but it is still religion.

The studies say, as well as common sense, that the smarter the population the less need for faith.
Science, will never discover God because it only exists in the mind.

Everyone is not happy though, are they.

Your right to do so, or not, as you please.

Your right to beleive what you will, again. However, as you must agree, based on your statemetns, it is not rational. Its faith based.

Thats not true. Again, I dont say there is no god. I say based on the evidence, I conclude the chances of god's existence are small. Its not up to the rational thinker to test your extraordinary claim as to existence of god by proving gd doesnt exist. Will you test prove my extraordianry claim as to the existence of garden faeries? This is simply a ridiculous -irrational- line of argument.

There is unlikely to be a scientifiec answer that will disuade the faithfull, ever.

Because- faith is not rational, its the antithesis of rational.

This is the part rational thinkers dont/cant get. We arent wired like you.

Dipso, obviously you don't understand the analogy. Maybe one too many falls on the head while shreddin in the half pipe.

The point is that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a supernatural being. Science continues to evolve and make new discoveries. As new technologies develop and we delve deeper into the universe, we may in fact begin to find evidence of entities we currently consider supernatural.

Get it?

Um, yes they are. If you refer to religious zealots killing each other, I would say that zealots of any sort can be prone to killing each other, religious or no. Man twists various beliefs to evil.

Of course it is. For the 3rd time on this thread, I fully understand that my belief is not provable by science and I'm ok with that. Shall I say it again?

The funny thing is, atheist zealots are wired EXACTLY like theist zealots. Secondly, I am happy you are admitting that there is a definite chance there is a God. Congratulations. I admit there is a chance there isn't a God. Neither one of us can make any further assertions than this based on any evidence. See how easy that is?

The argument isn't irrational, trying to make a case that the absence of evidence disproves the existence of something is irrational, which is the core of atheism.

And where will that leave "god"?

I don't know Stuart. I don't pretend to understand exactly what constitutes God. God may be in a form that I cannot currently comprehend.

See, I firmly believe that people in 1,000 years will look back on our "advanced" science and regard it similarly to how we regard the science of those in 1,000 AD. I think our current knowledge will seem miniscule and rudimentary compared to theirs. They may well regard our ignorance of some supernatural force in the same way we regard the ignorance of bacteria 1,000 years ago.

See, the problem with your position is that you try to use scientific evidence to say that the chances of there being a God are next to zero. The mistake you make is that you are trying to address vastly complex ideas and forces with very rudimentary science. We understand so very little of how the universe works, yet you are ready to declare that there is no way God could exist. It's similar to a scientist in 1,000 AD declaring that since there is no evidence of bacteria, therefore none exist. That scientist would be wrong and he would be wrong not because of a flaw in logic, but he would be wrong because the scientific tools available to him are not sufficient to address the question posed.

Yes Rick. There is the same chance that your god exists as there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russell's Teapot and Pink Unicorns. There is the same amount of evidence to support these entities as there is your Invisible Friend. This argument can be demolished by a 10yo, it was discussed many times in the other thread.

You have a feeling that your god exists, and thats all it is. Your god is as real as any other god that mankind has held up since time immemorial.

We are wired differently. I am simply unable to suspend my disbelief in the manner you are able to.

I would say that I am not suspending my disbelief but rather fully appreciating the evidence around me, both spiritual and otherwise. You, on the other hand, discount any spiritual evidence and thus really won't ever understand where I'm coming from. That's ok, to each his own.

You're right, we are wired differently. In much the same way as Nostatic, I don't pretend to think I even begin to comprehend the functions and mysteries of the universe. As such, I am willing to concede that there is a lot out there that I don't know and cannot comprehend. You, on the other hand, seem to think you have it all sorted out and that you don't need any further evidence to declare your position correct. Getting back to the thread topic, you demonstrate exactly why atheists HAVE outlived their usefulness...

This is such a flawed argument. I offer no scientific evidence to say the chances of god are next to zero. None. Quite the opposite. SHOW me some evidence to support the idea of a god. Or a Pink Unicorn. I think you are arguing Spinoza's god, and I am much more receptive to that than the other kind of personal god who answers prayers.

Look, Rick, we have done "ITAG." Done it death, idont want to rehash it here, other might. You cant prove god's existence, and its not up to me to disprove gods existence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordiary support, remember? Yours is a faith based position. You are entitled to beieve what you want- but you will struggle to argue a faith based position rationally - in fact , I say its its impossible.

This isnt (wasnt intended to be) a god bashing thread, its about what defines a rational person beyond "a-theism". Could you defend Tarot Cards and Ouji boards with such vigour? Afterall, you acknowldegded the existence of "the supernatural". I say its nonsense, you might say different.

"Getting back to the thread topic, you demonstrate exactly why atheists HAVE outlived their usefulness..." You HAVE been reading jeff's school girl debating book.

people are getting smarter? Could have fooled me...

Stuart your mistake is that I am not telling you there is a God. I have never stated that I have proof there is a God. I'm not the one attacking other people's belief system. That seems to be your endeavor.

My belief is God in not scientific, nor am I trying to prove God's existence scientifically. That isn't a flawed argument, it is a totally supportable argument. I'm simply admitting I have FAITH that there is a God. That faith is not based in physical evidence.

Where your argument falls apart is that you use a flawed and very embryonic understanding of our world to declare that there is no evidence. How do you know there is no evidence? How do you know evidence will not be discovered tomorrow, or next year or 500 years from now? The answer, simply, is you don't. It's a foolish and naive position to be taking.

You are the man who was born on an island in the ocean. He has lived on this island his whole life. He has mapped the island and knows every tree, every bush, every river and every animal on the island. He has swam around the island countless times. He has scanned the horizon for days on end and seen nothing but water. He has thus declared with complete confidence that there is nothing else in the world except his island. Unfortunately he just hasn't figured out how to make a boat yet. He might be right, it might just be water out there. Boy, there sure is a lot of ocean he hasn't seen yet though.

I wonder if this...debate...would be more effective if everyone layed out on the table a framework of their own personal belief/ethical/moral selves. Having this background *might* (snicker) prevent some of the strawman attacks that are occurring here...you can't claim that the other person thinks XYZ when they have clearly stated out what they actually believe.

Or, it'll become a pile of personal attack. Who knows. I also recognize that I'm pretty new here, and you guys might already know all about each other, but I don't think that is the case from what I've seen.

I'll start.

I'm a secular humanist. I do not believe at all in a Higher Being...no Hindu gods, no Judeo-Christan god, no angels nor demons. I believe in the innate raw talents and abilities that have made humans the most creative and powerful creatures on the planet, and I feel that things like the Ten Commandments and the Eightfold Path are moral codes that humans made for themselves, not something that was decreed upon us. I do believe that both are good moral codes for everyone (well, except for the Sabbath and the Lord's name parts, naturally).

However, I was also a research astronomer, and I saw things...amazing, incredible, awe inspiring things. The structures, colors, designs, depth that exists everywhere you look in the Universe can do nothing but ignite a strange passion in your heart. I studied Eastern philosophy early on, and I would (if I had to label myself) call myself a non-practicing Taoist. The Tao was that ethereal force that I felt connecting me with the Universe I was studying, and once I started feeling it there, I could feel it all over, all the time, in every interaction I had. It give me peace, and helps me make decisions as I interact with the world and other people.



OK...your turn!! :p

I believe in a higher power (however you find it) and am a practicing Shambhala Buddhist. As a chemist who did protein engineering research before chucking it all for the digital media world, I think I have a decent grasp of what constitutes rational analysis. Still, I've experienced things that make me believe that there is more to life than meets the eye/brain. I believe in qi and the dharma, but don't begrudge others who believe in a god, etc. I believe in art. There is a lot we don't know...

And you are the man who believes he has an invisible super hero friend.

Rick, can I summarise your argument his way? We cannot dismiss as low the probability that god exists because one day we might discover evidence that god does exist. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio....?

On the production of evidence, athiesm will be truly be redundant. You wont need to convince them further- they are rational people.

Call me foolish and naive, call my understanding embryonic, call me whatever you like Rick. Its prolly all true. But what do you say to the overwhelming majority of the scientific community who declare themselves atheist?

That you can stand there and argue this way armed with nothing more than a feeling that you have an invisible superfriend-not a scintilla else- and then call a naysayer who says "evidence please" foolish and naive is really, pretty astounding.

Wired differently, Im afraid.

I have been nothing if not "on point", stuart. Go back and read my replies to Mike, Darisc, and others. Seems to me you keep dragging this off point. Odd, in that you started this discussion, continue to drag it off point, and then turn right around and complain that others have. Maybe it has simply become too broadly defined for you, and you are feeling as though you are losing control of "your" thread. One of the dangers of posting here, I suppose. Try to get over it; it happens to all of us. This place tends to meander and ramble at times. Don't take it so seriously.

This is the second time you have mentioned this. As far as I know, I have never been responsible for closing a thread. At least I have never received any sort of notice from a moderator to that affect (I assume I would, but maybe not. Dunno...). Which thread in particular did I get closed? Or is this just another stuart-esque twist of the facts? I see the only thread that has been closed recently (in which I have participated) was the "obnoxious pipes" thread. That one continued on for some time after I quit participating, so I hardly think I got it closed. Maybe it simply boils down to your fervent desire to believe it was me.

I'm glad to see you remain flexible, and can shift gears so quickly on this one. I have, however, grown accustomed to your inventive little twists and distortions. I hope you are not giving up on them entirely; they rather define your Pelican persona.

I'm not sure any of us consider civility to be a waste of time, stuart. I'm surprised to see you admit that you feel as if it is. How does one come to consider civility a waste of time? Hardly seems a rational position.

Yes, I believe there is a supernatural being which is not visible to us. I believe that being created our universe and everything in it. I believe that being has an interest in me and what goes on in my life. So, I suppose you could say that I believe in an invisible, supernatural friend. I'm ok with that. Shall we stay on topic now?

That's probably the closest you have come to stating my position. My position is that our very limited knowledge of the workings of the universe is in no way enough to make as brash a statement as you make. It would be like asking you to prove general relativity without any knowledge of math.

You seem enamored with the idea of being rational. Agnostics might be characterized as rational, atheists are decidedly irrational.

I would say the same thing to them that I say to you. They have a right to believe or not believe whatever they like. It isn't for me to tell them what to believe. If they think that their understanding of science and the universe is sufficient to declare that there is no God, however, then they too are naive and foolish. All of the scientists in Columbus' day believed the earth was flat...they were all wrong.

It's not astounding at all since I'm not the one making claims about there being no evidence. You are. There will continue to be no evidence....until we find evidence. Science has found fish alive in the ocean thought to be long extinct. There was no evidence for their existence....until we found evidence.

See, my position is completely sound and defensible because I simply am able to admit and fully accept that my belief is just that...a belief.

You, on the other hand, seem to have some sort of violent reaction to the idea that you (gasp) also have a belief. You cannot accept that your position is exactly the same as the "God botherers" you so abhor.

When you step into the realm of science you must be bound by the laws and principles of science. My belief is completely outside of science and I am completely ok with that. You try to cloak yourself and your belief in science and thus must be subject to the rigors of science.

That is why your argument makes no sense. Again, the man on the island analogy applies...our understanding of the universe is probably even less than that man's understanding of the rest of the world outside his little island. Your assertion that there is nothing else out there because you haven't seen it yet is just as naive as his assertion that there is nothing out there but water.

I'm sorry if this upsets you, but resorting to belittling my belief system just confirms the deep flaws in your position.

Something is going to happen...


KT

Good, that is exactly the context in which it was intended. I dont see that I belittled your belief system.

On topic? Your post speaks for itself, it does not require my comment.

Edit. Makes me wonder though- what can I say about your belief system without belittling it. All I can say really is that it is faith based. If I question the logic of your beliefs I will, I suspect, be belittling them.

Well, too bad. This sort of nonsense has been afforded the notion of respectability for far too long. You believe there exists an invisible super power who created everything and with whom you have a personal realtionship, and who presumably is prepared to alter the laws of the cosmos on your behalf if you ask. Whats makes this delusion accepatble in our socitey is that its a group delsuion- lots of other people share it, or variations of it. Almost certainly, this is a delusion passed on to you through family. Had you been adopted as a child to Saudi Arabia, or Dehli, you would have an entirely different delusion.

Rick- its just laughable that you can attempt to run an argument that atheism is logically implausible or irrational because one day we might know differently about god. We account for that when we say we cannot rule out the notion of god/pink unicorns/FSM/teapots. We infidels will change our minds as soon as evidence of any of these is produced.

In the meantime, we know from ITAG there is to date NO evidence, just your feeling, to suggest that god exists. Thats OK. Just realise that it is simply ridiclous to try to to argue that atheism is a similar but opposite belief.

Atheism- RATIONALISM- is a lack of belief, an inability to accept things based on faith- that is without evidence- And that while that includes gods- its also includes tarot cards, fortune tellers, creationists, JWs, witches, seances, ouji boards, pyschics, astrologers - its all the same to the rational mind.

I've ruminated over this for many years. There persists in my mind the fact that we, who are constantly evolving in our underpinnings of understanding of the universe, have in the past, as well as now, worshipped a higher power to whom we ascribe that which we are in awe of and do not understand.

When, particularly in western culture, we can understand that which was formerly mysterious, i.e. fit it into a theory consistent with western concepts of science, the spiritual mystery disolves for many who then see the mystery as solved and the concept of a higher power, for most, is rendered moot.

However, the deeper our technology enables us to probe, micro and macroscopically, the more obvious it becomes to the observer that the complexity of the whole may be beyond the scope of our ability to percieve and "understand" the whole picture.

Western culture deals primarily in pragmatism; we work to understand the phenomena then "put it to work" to serve the material needs of our culture (which is based in economics) while off-handedly dismissing spiritual considerations as mumbo jumbo that has little or nothing to do with the average human's every day life.

Who is concerned with the question "Within what did the "big bang", that created the universe, occur?"

I personally belirve that we mere motals are infinitesimally small actors on an infinitely large stage, free to act as we will, free to question or to not question the direction of the drama we are a part of.

Indeed it is. Any remaining semblence of thoughtful discussion is about to go out the window.