A question for the theists

[Park Life 70]

 

No worries fella...Here's another....

 

 

In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this religious feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. (Albert Einstein, 1930)"

 

Context is very important with Einstein though. He was not a believer in any organized religion or a personal God, that is the crux of the present discussion.

 

Your right, from what I know his interest was more in the mystical....As I posted earlier, my beliefs are more to do with spirituality and mysticism (summat I think Pat was touching on) than some organised religion thing.

But the quandry is that dig deep enough and you will find most religions are mystical and unexplainable at their core...Catholacism probably has as much to do with black magic and ritual as it has to do with Christianity..

[ChezGiven 0]

 

No worries fella...Here's another....

 

 

In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this religious feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. (Albert Einstein, 1930)"

 

Context is very important with Einstein though. He was not a believer in any organized religion or a personal God, that is the crux of the present discussion.

 

Your right, from what I know his interest was more in the mystical....As I posted earlier, my beliefs are more to do with spirituality and mysticism (summat I think Pat was touching on) than some organised religion thing.

But the quandry is that dig deep enough and you will find most religions are mystical and unexplainable at their core...Catholacism probably has as much to do with black magic and ritual as it has to do with Christianity..

 

Vintage.

[Guest alex]

To borrow from Richard Buckley: "I think people should worship people. I really do."

[Park Life 70]

More from the crazy Jew:

 

"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. (Albert Einstein, 1941)"

 

 

All the quotes are here:

 

 

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einst...on-theology.htm

Edited February 28, 2007 by Parky

[Fop 1]

I completely agree with you re. the Universe. But I don't see why it should necessarily be explained or rationalised, which both Scientists and followers of Religion attempt to do.

 

I like Einstein’s view best I think, of “God” in the order of things, not in the conventional sense of any “God”.

 

Although I guess that drove him to his unifying theory, which was far too much even for him.

 

and made him shit himself when it came to Quantum

 

Aye but the man should be defined by his sucesses not his failure, I think the prior out weigh the latter significanlty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I completely agree with you re. the Universe. But I don't see why it should necessarily be explained or rationalised, which both Scientists and followers of Religion attempt to do.

 

I like Einstein’s view best I think, of “God” in the order of things, not in the conventional sense of any “God”.

 

Although I guess that drove him to his unifying theory, which was far too much even for him.

 

and made him shit himself when it came to Quantum

 

 

He also said, "In the future a good science will be indistinguishable from poetry"....Stick that in yer emperical pipe and smoke it!

 

I should think he might have done, there's much beauty in science, in the physical and in the abstract too, he certainly recognised that.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

So it would appear Parky on the one hand spends most of his time questioning the accepted constructs, but on the other, subscribes to Patrokles's ignorance is bliss mindset when it comes to the big questions.

 

[Park Life 70]

So it would appear Parky on the one hand spends most of his time questioning the accepted constructs, but on the other, subscribes to Patrokles's ignorance is bliss mindset when it comes to the big questions.

 

 

 

 

You bugger!

 

 

 

 

I don't question Einstein much tbf...Although I have issue with the 'speed of light constant'...But haven't we all?

Edited February 28, 2007 by Parky

[NJS 3960]

When the major religions were formed their view of the world and the "universe" made a sort of sense. Now we know that view is nonsense.

 

Take away the ludicrous history and celebration of violence and genocide in the bible and the Koran and you are left with a few "be nice to each other" platitudes that all human civilisations whether thay are "Chosen" or not have generally lived by - like everything else about us morals have evolved - they were not handed down on stone tablets.

 

As I said before literal biblical creationists strike me as more honest than those who accept "the truth" - one view of God in context makes sense - that same God in the context of the universe is ridiculous.

 

On science Vs Religion itself - my view is simple - you seek knowledge and hopefully find uses for it or you give up any sense of intelligence and recite "God did it" to anything troublesome. If it makes you happy then fair enough but stop telling rational people how to live their lives.

[TheInspiration 1]

In response to the first question, I don't see why if there is a God there cannot be life on other planets. I wouldn't see why our miniscule part of the universe has to be the only important part. I don't really want to debate religion versus science here, by the way. There are many questions about Christianity I like to ask as I cannot answer them myself.

 

Just a curious question - how would the Big Bang randomly create such a whopping massive universe from nothing? It's easy to not believe in God. I myself believe in the Big Bang as it is a logical way to start the universe, but that brings questions such as what existed before, and how it happened as it needed a cause etc.

[NJS 3960]

In response to the first question, I don't see why if there is a God there cannot be life on other planets. I wouldn't see why our miniscule part of the universe has to be the only important part. I don't really want to debate religion versus science here, by the way. There are many questions about Christianity I like to ask as I cannot answer them myself.

 

Just a curious question - how would the Big Bang randomly create such a whopping massive universe from nothing? It's easy to not believe in God. I myself believe in the Big Bang as it is a logical way to start the universe, but that brings questions such as what existed before, and how it happened as it needed a cause etc.

 

I agree that its "possible" that there is a God who oversees more than one planet or indeed the universe but as I've said before thats not the God most people believe in. The major religions betray theie "gang-forming" roots by emphasising the "one true faith" and "chosen" parts of their dogma which makes their gang pretty small for this planet let alone any other possible planets.

 

On your second point we've come a long way in the past 50 years in understanding the universe but nobody denies theres still some huge questions. I read today that a landmark in the building of CERN has been reached which will hopefully provide more answers. We should have hope and dare I say it faith that we will be able to find these answers - what we should not do is give up and just say "something bigger than us did it".

[BlueStar 0]

Some of the stuff in the psuedo-scentific Museum of Creation in the US cracks me up.

 

Edited February 28, 2007 by BlueStar

[Renton 17628]

Some of the stuff in the psuedo-scentific Museum of Creation in the US cracks me up.

 

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but that looks like a triceratops with a saddle on it.

 

If I'm ever unfortunate to be in the Cincinnati area that museum is a must in the laughter stakes.

[TheInspiration 1]

In response to the first question, I don't see why if there is a God there cannot be life on other planets. I wouldn't see why our miniscule part of the universe has to be the only important part. I don't really want to debate religion versus science here, by the way. There are many questions about Christianity I like to ask as I cannot answer them myself.

 

Just a curious question - how would the Big Bang randomly create such a whopping massive universe from nothing? It's easy to not believe in God. I myself believe in the Big Bang as it is a logical way to start the universe, but that brings questions such as what existed before, and how it happened as it needed a cause etc.

 

I agree that its "possible" that there is a God who oversees more than one planet or indeed the universe but as I've said before thats not the God most people believe in. The major religions betray theie "gang-forming" roots by emphasising the "one true faith" and "chosen" parts of their dogma which makes their gang pretty small for this planet let alone any other possible planets.

 

On your second point we've come a long way in the past 50 years in understanding the universe but nobody denies theres still some huge questions. I read today that a landmark in the building of CERN has been reached which will hopefully provide more answers. We should have hope and dare I say it faith that we will be able to find these answers - what we should not do is give up and just say "something bigger than us did it".

No of course we should not give up hope, but do theists really start believing in God because there are further explanations needed? Many struggle with such questions while at the same time hold a strong belief and faith - it's not as if they don't question their religion a lot. The majority of Christians will be convinced to go further down to personal experience and the like. It's something personal, so it can't really be wiped away by someone who has no experience imo.

 

I think until there are many more big, important questions that are answered with a very viable theory, then there is no need for the "the idea of God is nonsensical"-esque responses.

 

Can I also ask why is there such hostility and need for outright attacks on religious followers? And don't such people often whine about people shoving religion down their throats? This is what I don't understand about people like Dawkins - did they have a bad experience when it came to religion? It seems it doesn't take long on this forum before Christians get portrayed negatively in a post (in which it isn't long before religion being stupid is also stated), when it's because of a small minority and the majority of Christians are all good people.

[NJS 3960]

Can I also ask why is there such hostility and need for outright attacks on religious followers? And don't such people often whine about people shoving religion down their throats? This is what I don't understand about people like Dawkins - did they have a bad experience when it came to religion? It seems it doesn't take long on this forum before Christians get portrayed negatively in a post (in which it isn't long before religion being stupid is also stated), when it's because of a small minority and the majority of Christians are all good people.

 

Terrorists who truly believe a place in paradise awaits.

Barbaric mysoginy of Islam.

Sectarian conflicts worldwide.

Bishops in the house of lords.

Presidents who consult God before starting wars.

Faith schools teaching creationism.

Churches wanting exemptions from laws to be able to preach bigotry.

Anti-abortion campaigns.

Anti-condom campaigns relating to AIDS.

Anti-contraception campaigns in the third world which increase poverty.

Anti-stem cell research campaigns.

Child abuse with related cover-ups.

Being told I have no morals because I'm an Atheist.

Despite my denial of its existence many theists "hope and pray" I will burn in hell for eternity - what a very generous notion for a fellow human.

 

 

Thats my list off the top of my head - as for Dawkins I think he feels the "dismissal" of evolution (which isn't exclusive to the USA) to be a huge crime which I agree with but feel he doesn't go far enough with the above.

[Fop 1]

This is what I don't understand about people like Dawkins - did they have a bad experience when it came to religion?

 

Meh, Dawkins just wants to sell books.

 

Not bad reads (especially if you know nought about it), but they should always be read with that held firmly in mind. In some respects he bends "the truth" and misrepresents things as much as Intelligent Design nutters do.

[Renton 17628]

This is what I don't understand about people like Dawkins - did they have a bad experience when it came to religion?

 

Meh, Dawkins just wants to sell books.

 

Not bad reads (especially if you know nought about it), but they should always be read with that held firmly in mind. In some respects he bends "the truth" and misrepresents things as much as Intelligent Design nutters do.

 

I don't agree that money is his mtivation tbh. I think he passionately believes that the world would be a better place if we embraced rationality, and I agree in the main.

 

Can you give an example where he misrepresents the truth as much as an ID believer btw? I've noticed he sometimes adopts a strawman attitude towards theists (most of whom condemn without having read a word he has said tbf), but I have never known him to deliberately distort facts in the way creationists and the ID fraternity do. I'll be interested to see what lies I have missed in his books.

[Renton 17628]

Might I add, it's interesting that it was a theist who thought it was necessary to bring up Dawkins; they seem somewhat obsessed by him. Why? Insecurity?

[Guest alex]

The whole Bible story, it's not vaguely believable is it? That's my main problem with it tbh

[Gemmill 34183]

I know I post this every time this discussion comes up, but I never tire of reading it.

 

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/talkingsnake.html

[Fop 1]

This is what I don't understand about people like Dawkins - did they have a bad experience when it came to religion?

 

Meh, Dawkins just wants to sell books.

 

Not bad reads (especially if you know nought about it), but they should always be read with that held firmly in mind. In some respects he bends "the truth" and misrepresents things as much as Intelligent Design nutters do.

 

I don't agree that money is his mtivation tbh. I think he passionately believes that the world would be a better place if we embraced rationality, and I agree in the main.

 

Can you give an example where he misrepresents the truth as much as an ID believer btw? I've noticed he sometimes adopts a strawman attitude towards theists (most of whom condemn without having read a word he has said tbf), but I have never known him to deliberately distort facts in the way creationists and the ID fraternity do. I'll be interested to see what lies I have missed in his books.

 

Yes he does that too (although I've not read his latest book yet and am therefore talking about earlier stuff), but he also presents or implies a lot of stuff as "fact" at times when it is not (even in a scientific context never mind a layman’s context).

 

 

Although it probably is too harsh to say that he wants to sell books purely for monetary reason (although I'm pretty sure that's at least part of the reason - you don't marry Romana on some musty old Professors wage tbf ), but also to get his "word" out there as well.

 

Don't get me wrong he's a clever guy that's come up with some very interesting stuff, and broadly I agree with most of what he says, but equally a certain amount of what he says (or has said) can be taken to task not by any religious community, but even by the scientific community itself (and in some cases has).

 

So I’d broadly take him as a positive force (and if you look at the lengths gone to and the money thrown at what is effectively educated ignorance by the Intelligent Design lobbies , the world needs people like him), but I’d be wary of taking his stuff as “the word of God” as some people I know have.

[Fop 1]

I know I post this every time this discussion comes up, but I never tire of reading it.

 

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/talkingsnake.html

 

 

Talking snakes were all wiped out by talking ferrets on the Isle of Man.

 

 

http://www.harryprice.co.uk/Famous%20Cases...yharryprice.htm

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

The whole Bible story, it's not vaguely believable is it? That's my main problem with it tbh

 

It's a metaphor though

[TheInspiration 1]

Might I add, it's interesting that it was a theist who thought it was necessary to bring up Dawkins; they seem somewhat obsessed by him. Why? Insecurity?

Nope - must have a low opinion of theists then. I brought him up because he is the most prominent figure in atheism and I was unsure as to why he was so obsessed. That is all.

[TheInspiration 1]

Can I also ask why is there such hostility and need for outright attacks on religious followers? And don't such people often whine about people shoving religion down their throats? This is what I don't understand about people like Dawkins - did they have a bad experience when it came to religion? It seems it doesn't take long on this forum before Christians get portrayed negatively in a post (in which it isn't long before religion being stupid is also stated), when it's because of a small minority and the majority of Christians are all good people.

 

Terrorists who truly believe a place in paradise awaits.

Barbaric mysoginy of Islam.

Sectarian conflicts worldwide.

Bishops in the house of lords.

Presidents who consult God before starting wars.

Faith schools teaching creationism.

Churches wanting exemptions from laws to be able to preach bigotry.

Anti-abortion campaigns.

Anti-condom campaigns relating to AIDS.

Anti-contraception campaigns in the third world which increase poverty.

Anti-stem cell research campaigns.

Child abuse with related cover-ups.

Being told I have no morals because I'm an Atheist.

Despite my denial of its existence many theists "hope and pray" I will burn in hell for eternity - what a very generous notion for a fellow human.

 

 

Thats my list off the top of my head - as for Dawkins I think he feels the "dismissal" of evolution (which isn't exclusive to the USA) to be a huge crime which I agree with but feel he doesn't go far enough with the above.

I think you've got good points on the whole there. I don't see how teaching creationism is really going to hurt anyone, and do you think Bush would definitely not go to war had he not believed he was told by God to?

 

It's easy to criticise mad people in religion - it's something religious followers will do all the time. There are a lot of aspects of religion I could be critical of. I think Patrokles has got it spot on - he's not argued from any biased viewpoint, and stated it how it is. Scientists cause a lot of evil with their works. Atheists can be incredibly rude and hypocritical - in many cases you can make similar cases about such people as you can for religious followers. Note how I said atheists as opposed to atheism - some people seem to get the idea religion is the root of all evil. That is like saying religion actually encourages it, and also if it didn't exist, there would be no evil at all.

 

One of your reasons was that you hate being told you have no morals because you're an atheist. Now anyone who follows the religious teachings properly would tell you that is not the way to go. That said, I can still make comments like hating being called stupid for following a religion - shall I hate atheism? Of course not. Richard Dawkins had a blasphemy challenge on his website - inviting people to uplod videos of themselves blaspheming simply for fun sounds like a lovely thing to do - does he therefore think he is free to criticise people not following morals from religious texts when he wouldn't either?

 

There are plenty of really silly people in religion who will do exactly what their religion tells them not to do. Shall I start disliking Christianity for it? Being hostile to the people is a whole lot different to attacking the religion and all its followers. At the same time as attacking religion, people always either deliberately ignore the many good things coming out of it, or are just ignorant of it. I think there's more than enough good things it brings (and by that I don't mean "gives people hope" etc.) than to at least not despise it...

[NJS 3960]

The blasphemy challenge wasn't Dawkin's "thing" - the link may be there but it was created by someone else.

 

The thing you have to realise is that being even able to say what he does is relatively new (and still would have him killed in some places). As he has argued there has been a "taboo" about all out criticism of religion for years. I think the harsh reaction he gets from people like you shows that you're not used to it and I've seen articles saying atheists should back off out of this misguided respect. As I say I don't care what people believe at a personal level but that shouldn't give them any more rights than other people.

 

A good example was the catholic adoption thing. 1.7% of the citizens of the UK are church-going catholics and according to "official" figures 6% are gay. On a simplistic democratic basis the catholic church has absolutely no right to demand exemptions from laws which affect more people than it "represents". I know this was specific to agencies run by them but the same applies to the CofE who wanted to be exempt from the same laws with regards to sex education in their faith scools. They want to continue teaching that homsexuality is "evil". The fact that a large number of the assaults and even murders carried out on gays have this kind of "excuse" and the people actually quote religion means I'd have the bishops on an accesory charge.