[POLL]Your religion? - Page 6

On August 12 2012 06:36 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 06:01 HiyAfOu wrote:   On August 12 2012 03:31 FarmMylife wrote: Honestly I can see that believing in God and heavan from a logical or scientific point of view is kind or retarded. However if I try to get to heaven by doing good things I am not really hurting anyone. When I die if I was right then all is good and I end up in heaven, if the athiest was right then it wont matter anyways because I wont know. yet there are many scientists who believe in God. Hell, even Einstein believed: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html 98% of nobel prize winner in hard sciences are atheists/agnostics.

Could you provide a source?

I've found an article (kinda old, it's from 2005) that says it's close to 50%

http://www.livescience.com/379-scient...ef-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html

On August 12 2012 07:35 HiyAfOu wrote: Could you provide a source? I've found an article (kinda old, it's from 2005) that says it's close to 50% http://www.livescience.com/379-scient...ef-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html

YES PLEASE DO IGNORE THE WAY WE JUST ANNIHILATED YOUR DISGUSTING COMMENT.

INSTEAD OF REPLYING TO US CRITICS JUST JUMP STRAIGHT ON BAAL'S GROSS EXAGGERATION.

THAT IS THE BEST TYPE OF FORUM USER.

gotta love how all the so called atheists defend their beliefs like it's a religion, and stand at the ready to bash anyone who doesn't agree.

Class act people.

On August 12 2012 07:54 brambolius wrote: gotta love how all the so called atheists defend their beliefs like it's a religion, and stand at the ready to bash anyone who doesn't agree. Class act people.

Gotta love it how the so called non-pedophiles do the same thing.

Class act people.

On August 12 2012 07:35 HiyAfOu wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 06:36 Baalim wrote:   On August 12 2012 06:01 HiyAfOu wrote:   On August 12 2012 03:31 FarmMylife wrote: Honestly I can see that believing in God and heavan from a logical or scientific point of view is kind or retarded. However if I try to get to heaven by doing good things I am not really hurting anyone. When I die if I was right then all is good and I end up in heaven, if the athiest was right then it wont matter anyways because I wont know. yet there are many scientists who believe in God. Hell, even Einstein believed: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html 98% of nobel prize winner in hard sciences are atheists/agnostics. Could you provide a source? I've found an article (kinda old, it's from 2005) that says it's close to 50% http://www.livescience.com/379-scient...ef-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html

According to the US Federal Bureau of Prisons, in 1997 0.21% of inmates were atheist. ~99.7% of the inmates declared a belief in a god.

The percentage of atheist/agnostic in the NAS is ~93. Only 7 percent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in "god". Whilst only 3.3 percent believed in "god" in the UK’s Royal Society.

According to a study carried out by professor of sociology at Pitzer College, Phil Zuckerman "levels of religiosity and creationism tend to decline as income levels rise ..."

Thats not a response to Baals claims about Nobel laureats, but its of a somewhat similar nature. I could of course provide sources, but you seem like a smart man that could use google properly so ill leave you to it.

On August 12 2012 07:54 brambolius wrote: gotta love how all the so called atheists defend their beliefs like it's a religion, and stand at the ready to bash anyone who doesn't agree. Class act people.

Maybe when I'm older, I'll open up a Unicorn farm. If you believe, you can achieve!

someone mentioned that even Einstein believed in god... well from what i've read about him you are wrong - he was open minded to the idea of a supreme power but to me it looked like he didnt care if did or did not exist, being open minded and acknowledging something are two different things

@taco ... not sure if troll or .. you know

On August 12 2012 06:36 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 06:01 HiyAfOu wrote:   On August 12 2012 03:31 FarmMylife wrote: Honestly I can see that believing in God and heavan from a logical or scientific point of view is kind or retarded. However if I try to get to heaven by doing good things I am not really hurting anyone. When I die if I was right then all is good and I end up in heaven, if the athiest was right then it wont matter anyways because I wont know. yet there are many scientists who believe in God. Hell, even Einstein believed: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html 98% of nobel prize winner in hard sciences are atheists/agnostics. I honestly dont understand what goes through the mind of a theist hearing that number, how can they explain it, if i were told that when i believed in god it would have created great conflict in my beliefs, i mean pretty much all the bright minds in the world dont believe in god, that gotta ring some bells. My only onclussion is that theist do not even try to find the truth, so they just somehow block whatever evidence that doesnt match their irrational view of the world

coming from a Christian background myself, in the beginning it was really difficult to accept that there was no god. I would literally wince in pain, or feel nervous when I got these thoughts. When I read about scientoligists, struggling to take prescription pills, and the anxiety they go through, I think it's similar.

And Einstein's religious beliefs have been exaggerated imo

einstein didn't believe in the theistic 'personal' god. he thought the stories that religion's told were absurd and childish. he was more of a deist or pantheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

On August 12 2012 08:18 taco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 07:54 brambolius wrote: gotta love how all the so called atheists defend their beliefs like it's a religion, and stand at the ready to bash anyone who doesn't agree. Class act people. Gotta love it how the so called non-pedophiles do the same thing. Class act people.

Hate the emotivity you are displaying in this thread, but this is gold :D

On August 12 2012 06:32 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 05:48 Zorglub wrote:   On August 12 2012 05:10 Baalim wrote: my past was totally ignored by idiots bashing atheist so here it goes again. You are all fucking "atheist" (i know im using the word wrong here) about many things, do you declare that you dont know if unicorns, pegasus and lepperchauns exists?... No you fucking dont unless you aren an idiot, you are not agnostic about them, why you are about a god?. We have exactly the same amount of evidence for unicorns than for god, why is it reasonable to assume there is no big foot but it is rasonable to assume there is a white bearded man on the sky? Baal could you please try and answer a few questions from me in the most reasonable logical/scientific manner you can and without flaming? I would like to hear your explaination, but not if you start flaming like you usually do, please keep your temperement down and lets discuss this like adults. Where does thoughts originate from? How can you know and not know in the same time? (Your mind can discover/come up with something new, you supposedly didn't know before) According to science was everything that happened after the big bang determined by natural laws? If the same big bang happened again, would the exact same sequence of events take place again? I dont think im qualified to answer those questions accurately, but ill try my best. Our toughts originate from electric impulses in our neurons, kind of how computers "think", in a near future AI will match and surpass our intelligence, thoughts generated ellectrically in the same way. I dont understand your second question, how can you not know and know? elaborate plz. The third question i am totally not qualified to answer, natural laws like time and gravity were created at the time of the big bang afaik, and if the factors for the big bang are absolutely identical to the last quark i think it would repeat the same patter exactly again, could be totally wrong on this one, its just my semi-educated guess. What does this have to do with god?

Ok and how would an eletric impulse from a neuron ever get translated into something we recognize? I think that requires some kind of mind. We dont see or feel electric impulses, we see pictures and feel emotions right?

My second question referes to the fact that somehow the same mind of an individual can be stupid and wise, it can teach itself new things, but how can it do that when it itself supposedly did not know these things? Either it knows or it doesn't, but somehow it can know and not know in the same time, the mind is both the teacher and the pupil in the same time?

If everything is acting according to natural laws, then a godlike creature is part of natural law. Just because of the fact that creatures are able to manipulate their environment and thus change the future for other species and because evolution makes some species very powerfull compared to others. A species one million years ahead of us might be farming planets and harvesting stars. They would be gods to us, and that would be perfectly scientific.

On August 12 2012 07:31 XeliN wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 05:48 Zorglub wrote:   On August 12 2012 05:10 Baalim wrote: my past was totally ignored by idiots bashing atheist so here it goes again. You are all fucking "atheist" (i know im using the word wrong here) about many things, do you declare that you dont know if unicorns, pegasus and lepperchauns exists?... No you fucking dont unless you aren an idiot, you are not agnostic about them, why you are about a god?. We have exactly the same amount of evidence for unicorns than for god, why is it reasonable to assume there is no big foot but it is rasonable to assume there is a white bearded man on the sky? Baal could you please try and answer a few questions from me in the most reasonable logical/scientific manner you can and without flaming? I would like to hear your explaination, but not if you start flaming like you usually do, please keep your temperement down and lets discuss this like adults. Where does thoughts originate from? How can you know and not know in the same time? (Your mind can discover/come up with something new, you supposedly didn't know before) According to science was everything that happened after the big bang determined by natural laws? If the same big bang happened again, would the exact same sequence of events take place again? Those are questions which currently are unanswerable to any degree of certainty. But I'll try to address a line of reasoning i suspect you may be using (if im wrong apologies!) Is there a need for some form of external causation to give rise to things, whether it be existence, conciousness, the universe, physical laws, etc. and can this in a detatched way be considered a higher intelligence, power or force, external or not contingent on the universe. If your reasoning in postulating this is in partly based in "there is a huge amount of things we do not understand about out universe, its laws and aspects within it" then this is almost self defeating as while you may dismiss claims of "it is likely there is no ultimate force behind our existence" on such a basis, claims of "it is likely there is an ultimate cause, higher intelligence behind our existence" are equally undermined. It is this reason largely why i am agnostic in regards to "god" in the most detatched sense. to any form of religion, claims of his character, being, nature of what he, it, she, they might be or otherwise I am staunchly atheist. Or to surmise I am receptive to the notion that some external or pre-existent cause may be neccesary for our existence, although our lack of scientific understanding makes this by no means whatsoever clear. But religion and all things even palely resembling it are bullshit. - in my own humble opinion

Do we know anything that happens without a cause?

Do we know of anything that can come from nothing?

How did the big bang happen, and what caused it? (and before you ask about what caused god, i'd say he has been here forever, but lets leave that discussion out for now)

According to science something must have caused the big bang, and something must have caused the cause of big bang and something must have caused the cause of the cause of big bang..... Do you see where this ends up?

How did the big bang happen, and what caused it? (and before you ask about what caused god, i'd say he has been here forever, but lets leave that discussion out for now) According to science something must have caused the big bang, and something must have caused the cause of big bang and something must have caused the cause of the cause of big bang..... Do you see where this ends up?

Okay, so this logic applies to everything but god, according to you? So the only thing you have to say to someone who brings up this clear contradiction in your thinking is "I believe god is forever. the end."

I'm sorry but that is intellectually dishonest. Why can't the universe have a same kind of foreverness to it?

Also, your tone implies that you expect science to be able to answer every single question, and if it doesn't, apparently it's invalid, which is very flawed thinking considering the idea of a god has absolutely nothing backing it up. Why don't you turn some of that arm-chair scrutiny the other way and judge the idea of god with the same logic?

On August 12 2012 19:53 Syntax wrote: Show nested quote + How did the big bang happen, and what caused it? (and before you ask about what caused god, i'd say he has been here forever, but lets leave that discussion out for now) According to science something must have caused the big bang, and something must have caused the cause of big bang and something must have caused the cause of the cause of big bang..... Do you see where this ends up? Okay, so this logic applies to everything but god, according to you? So the only thing you have to say to someone who brings up this clear contradiction in your thinking is "I believe god is forever. the end." I'm sorry but that is intellectually dishonest. Why can't the universe have a same kind of foreverness to it? Also, your tone implies that you expect science to be able to answer every single question, and if it doesn't, apparently it's invalid, which is very flawed thinking considering the idea of a god has absolutely nothing backing it up. Why don't you turn some of that arm-chair scrutiny the other way and judge the idea of god with the same logic?

I am talking science now, we can take the God discussion later. According to science everything has a cause right? So according to its own rules and logic, something had to be the first cause, but that is self defeating or circular logic, if everything has to have a cause.

The universe could have the same kind of "foreverness" about it, but not if you insist on everything having a cause. It only works if you introduce an entity without a cause, whom religions call God, and scientists call superstition/supernatural/placebo and/or probability/chance/luck/nature. In ancient times this entity had the very fitting name "Prime mover or primus mobile".

I expect science to come up with the best possible explanation, if it can not do that, then it is not the best possible way to describe reality.

On August 12 2012 20:06 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 19:53 Syntax wrote:   How did the big bang happen, and what caused it? (and before you ask about what caused god, i'd say he has been here forever, but lets leave that discussion out for now) According to science something must have caused the big bang, and something must have caused the cause of big bang and something must have caused the cause of the cause of big bang..... Do you see where this ends up? Okay, so this logic applies to everything but god, according to you? So the only thing you have to say to someone who brings up this clear contradiction in your thinking is "I believe god is forever. the end." I'm sorry but that is intellectually dishonest. Why can't the universe have a same kind of foreverness to it? Also, your tone implies that you expect science to be able to answer every single question, and if it doesn't, apparently it's invalid, which is very flawed thinking considering the idea of a god has absolutely nothing backing it up. Why don't you turn some of that arm-chair scrutiny the other way and judge the idea of god with the same logic? I am talking science now, we can take the God discussion later. According to science everything has a cause right? So according to its own rules and logic, something had to be the first cause, but that is self defeating or circular logic, if everything has to have a cause. The universe could have the same kind of "foreverness" about it, but not if you insist on everything having a cause. It only works if you introduce an entity without a cause, whom religions call God, and scientists call superstition/supernatural/placebo and/or probability/chance/luck/nature. In ancient times this entity had the very fitting name "Prime mover or primus mobile". I expect science to come up with the best possible explanation, if it can not do that, then it is not the best possible way to describe reality.

You're really downplaying everything science has brought us today. From your refrigerator to your car to the internet you use to communicate with someone half way around the world, science brought you this.

If science is not the best way to describe reality, what is? Science is a fair and humble approach/learning process, using the most sophisticated and modern tools available. What exactly are you criticizing? Because from what it seems, you are saying there is a better alternative than the scientific method, which is a huge claim. Explain.

BTW: no one is saying that the big bang came out of no where or that it didn't have a cause, YOU'RE saying that. Science not knowing what happened before the big game does not equal science claiming to know the big bang came out of nothing. I mean, really? You honestly think that scientists, who are clearly the people most aware that we know NOTHING about our reality, claim to know for certainty that the big bang came out of "nothing". No one's saying that, dude.

On August 12 2012 21:54 Syntax wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 20:06 Zorglub wrote:   On August 12 2012 19:53 Syntax wrote:   How did the big bang happen, and what caused it? (and before you ask about what caused god, i'd say he has been here forever, but lets leave that discussion out for now) According to science something must have caused the big bang, and something must have caused the cause of big bang and something must have caused the cause of the cause of big bang..... Do you see where this ends up? Okay, so this logic applies to everything but god, according to you? So the only thing you have to say to someone who brings up this clear contradiction in your thinking is "I believe god is forever. the end." I'm sorry but that is intellectually dishonest. Why can't the universe have a same kind of foreverness to it? Also, your tone implies that you expect science to be able to answer every single question, and if it doesn't, apparently it's invalid, which is very flawed thinking considering the idea of a god has absolutely nothing backing it up. Why don't you turn some of that arm-chair scrutiny the other way and judge the idea of god with the same logic? I am talking science now, we can take the God discussion later. According to science everything has a cause right? So according to its own rules and logic, something had to be the first cause, but that is self defeating or circular logic, if everything has to have a cause. The universe could have the same kind of "foreverness" about it, but not if you insist on everything having a cause. It only works if you introduce an entity without a cause, whom religions call God, and scientists call superstition/supernatural/placebo and/or probability/chance/luck/nature. In ancient times this entity had the very fitting name "Prime mover or primus mobile". I expect science to come up with the best possible explanation, if it can not do that, then it is not the best possible way to describe reality. You're really downplaying everything science has brought us today. From your refrigerator to your car to the internet you use to communicate with someone half way around the world, science brought you this. If science is not the best way to describe reality, what is? Science is a fair and humble approach/learning process, using the most sophisticated and modern tools available. What exactly are you criticizing? Because from what it seems, you are saying there is a better alternative than the scientific method, which is a HUGE claim. Explain.

I am not saying science is worthless, I think it is very valuable. What I am saying is it can not stand alone, it is not sufficient in itself to give the best/most possible explanation for our reality. It is very good for some things, but it can not explain everything, we also need other methods in order to describe our reality in the most accurate way. Because of the way science works (trying to be objective at all times), it inevitably cuts of the whole subjective side of reality, and this side is still real to the individual, even though it might not be real to the objective reality.

On August 12 2012 21:54 Syntax wrote: BTW: no one is saying that the big bang came out of no where or that it didn't have a cause, YOU'RE saying that. Science not knowing what happened before the big game does not equal science claiming to know the big bang came out of nothing. I mean, really? You honestly think that scientists, who are clearly the people most aware that we know NOTHING about our reality, claim to know for certainty that the big bang came out of "nothing". No one's saying that, dude.

I am not saying that. According to science it could not have come from nothing, I don't think that is possible in science. But then you run in to the problem of everything having to come from something else, so where did it originate from?

On August 12 2012 22:05 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 21:54 Syntax wrote:   On August 12 2012 20:06 Zorglub wrote:   On August 12 2012 19:53 Syntax wrote:   How did the big bang happen, and what caused it? (and before you ask about what caused god, i'd say he has been here forever, but lets leave that discussion out for now) According to science something must have caused the big bang, and something must have caused the cause of big bang and something must have caused the cause of the cause of big bang..... Do you see where this ends up? Okay, so this logic applies to everything but god, according to you? So the only thing you have to say to someone who brings up this clear contradiction in your thinking is "I believe god is forever. the end." I'm sorry but that is intellectually dishonest. Why can't the universe have a same kind of foreverness to it? Also, your tone implies that you expect science to be able to answer every single question, and if it doesn't, apparently it's invalid, which is very flawed thinking considering the idea of a god has absolutely nothing backing it up. Why don't you turn some of that arm-chair scrutiny the other way and judge the idea of god with the same logic? I am talking science now, we can take the God discussion later. According to science everything has a cause right? So according to its own rules and logic, something had to be the first cause, but that is self defeating or circular logic, if everything has to have a cause. The universe could have the same kind of "foreverness" about it, but not if you insist on everything having a cause. It only works if you introduce an entity without a cause, whom religions call God, and scientists call superstition/supernatural/placebo and/or probability/chance/luck/nature. In ancient times this entity had the very fitting name "Prime mover or primus mobile". I expect science to come up with the best possible explanation, if it can not do that, then it is not the best possible way to describe reality. You're really downplaying everything science has brought us today. From your refrigerator to your car to the internet you use to communicate with someone half way around the world, science brought you this. If science is not the best way to describe reality, what is? Science is a fair and humble approach/learning process, using the most sophisticated and modern tools available. What exactly are you criticizing? Because from what it seems, you are saying there is a better alternative than the scientific method, which is a HUGE claim. Explain. I am not saying science is worthless, I think it is very valuable. What I am saying is it can not stand alone, it is not sufficient in itself to give the best/most possible explanation for our reality. It is very good for some things, but it can not explain everything, we also need other methods in order to describe our reality in the most accurate way. Because of the way science works (trying to be objective at all times), it inevitably cuts of the whole subjective side of reality, and this side is still real to the individual, even though it might not be real to the objective reality.

Okay so you're claim is that science doesn't give the best possible explanation for reality. This is based on what? What else has brought us everything we use today? Every single piece of technology was brought through science. What is this other method you imply about? It must've done some wonders for humanity that i'm not realizing. What subjective side to reality are you talking about? Anything that can be quantified is reality, anything that cannot, is not reality. Period. If i say i feel ghosts, which is my own 'subjective' experience, does that mean that ghosts are real and that science just doesn't get it because it's 'too objective?' You're not making sense to me because to scrutinize science which is based on pure emprical data (data that is absolutely falsifiable and peer reviewed by scientists around the world) and claim that it isn't good enough based on _______ is just striking me as odd to the say the least. What is this mysterious idea you are beating around the bush about that is apparently on par with science?

Also, there are tons of scientific explanations for our different subjective experiences that occur... granted there are still pleeeeeeentyyyyy of mysteries in the universe still (which make everything so damn interesting ^^) but give it time and sooner or later many of the questions we don't know now might be answered in the near future. Just look at our recent past, people use to think the sun was god lawl

On August 12 2012 22:21 Syntax wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2012 22:05 Zorglub wrote:   On August 12 2012 21:54 Syntax wrote:   On August 12 2012 20:06 Zorglub wrote:   On August 12 2012 19:53 Syntax wrote:   How did the big bang happen, and what caused it? (and before you ask about what caused god, i'd say he has been here forever, but lets leave that discussion out for now) According to science something must have caused the big bang, and something must have caused the cause of big bang and something must have caused the cause of the cause of big bang..... Do you see where this ends up? Okay, so this logic applies to everything but god, according to you? So the only thing you have to say to someone who brings up this clear contradiction in your thinking is "I believe god is forever. the end." I'm sorry but that is intellectually dishonest. Why can't the universe have a same kind of foreverness to it? Also, your tone implies that you expect science to be able to answer every single question, and if it doesn't, apparently it's invalid, which is very flawed thinking considering the idea of a god has absolutely nothing backing it up. Why don't you turn some of that arm-chair scrutiny the other way and judge the idea of god with the same logic? I am talking science now, we can take the God discussion later. According to science everything has a cause right? So according to its own rules and logic, something had to be the first cause, but that is self defeating or circular logic, if everything has to have a cause. The universe could have the same kind of "foreverness" about it, but not if you insist on everything having a cause. It only works if you introduce an entity without a cause, whom religions call God, and scientists call superstition/supernatural/placebo and/or probability/chance/luck/nature. In ancient times this entity had the very fitting name "Prime mover or primus mobile". I expect science to come up with the best possible explanation, if it can not do that, then it is not the best possible way to describe reality. You're really downplaying everything science has brought us today. From your refrigerator to your car to the internet you use to communicate with someone half way around the world, science brought you this. If science is not the best way to describe reality, what is? Science is a fair and humble approach/learning process, using the most sophisticated and modern tools available. What exactly are you criticizing? Because from what it seems, you are saying there is a better alternative than the scientific method, which is a HUGE claim. Explain. I am not saying science is worthless, I think it is very valuable. What I am saying is it can not stand alone, it is not sufficient in itself to give the best/most possible explanation for our reality. It is very good for some things, but it can not explain everything, we also need other methods in order to describe our reality in the most accurate way. Because of the way science works (trying to be objective at all times), it inevitably cuts of the whole subjective side of reality, and this side is still real to the individual, even though it might not be real to the objective reality. Okay so you're claim is that science doesn't give the best possible explanation for reality. This is based on what? What else has brought us everything we use today? Every single piece of technology was brought through science. What is this other method you imply about? It must've done some wonders for humanity that i'm not realizing. What subjective side to reality are you talking about? Anything that can be quantified is reality, anything that cannot, is not reality. Period. If i say i feel ghosts, which is my own 'subjective' experience, does that mean that ghosts are real and that science just doesn't get it because it's 'too objective?' You're not making sense to me because to scrutinize science which is based on pure emprical data (data that is absolutely falsifiable and peer reviewed by scientists around the woorld) and claim that it isn't good enough based on _______ is just striking me as odd to the say the least. What is this mysterious idea you are beating around the bush about that is apparently on par with science?

These mysterious ideas have been around for as long or even longer than science. They are called spirituality/religion/philosophy/ethics etc., they can give answers, theories or clues about all the stuff science can not answer, and yes they have done wonders for humanity you just dont realize it. Without these, all the other stuff you mentioned as "triumphs of science" would not have been possible.

The subjective side I am talking about is for ex. intuition, emotions, feelings etc. but I guess they are not real, because they can not be peer revieved by anyone except the subjective individual experiencing them?

Also, there are tons of scientific explanations for our different subjective experiences that occur... granted there are still pleeeeeeentyyyyy of mysteries in the universe still (which make everything so damn interesting ^^) but give it time and sooner or later many of the questions we don't know now might be answered in the near future. Just look at our recent past, people use to think the sun was god lawl

For all practical purposes, the sun is God to us. It gives us everything we need, it makes us who we are, without it we were not here and if it stops shining, we are dead in approximately 8 minutes. So yes the sun is God to us, it literally gave us our lives, and it gives its own life for us every day (sounds like The Son doesn't it?).

why would you group spirituality/religion with philosophy/ethics?
Care to elaborate?