Atheism

Originally posted by Dolos

People cannot confide in science the way they can confide in religion because Science will always be evolving and the content of the Bible is never going to change.

I would say the way you've always talked about science and the way you've treated science falls in line with a kind of ersatz religious grace.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I would say the way you've always talked about science and the way you've treated science falls in line with a kind of ersatz religious grace.

I was a skeptic of religion ever since I heard the expression "Imaginary Friend for Grownups" at 6 years old while I was still attending church, at about the same time I uncovered the absurdity of Santa, the Tooth Faerie, and the Easter Bunny. Skepticism turned into atheism when I turned 13.

I just figure I should stop treating science like a Sci Fi Fantasy (which I still do, and it still invigorates me); as you've criticized me for, and leave out any self-conceptualized idols I create out of wild fantasy while learning about how things work. I've been prone to that, and that is not science. That is "Woo Woo"; a reference to a video inimalist posted an the other thread. I won't be subjected to the super-natural just because I start behaving in a Christian way, and truly believe that will help me. But I'm at a point where I'm not sure that would be a good idea either, as if I don't fully believe any actions I take will be meaningless, according to other members at my church.

Originally posted by Digi
Or because the scientific principles debunking them, that have been repeated ad nauseum, might turn out false somehow?

Originally posted by Dolos
I never said that was likely or unlikely, merely that it's not impossible. The main point I'm trying to get at is that if one is a Christian and decides to do scientific work, than this person must momentarily abandon any scientifically-illiterate presumptions and use empirically learned knowledge for his or her work. However, if it were just an extremely complex math problem, than religious beliefs needn't be compromised at all in order for the problem to be worked on because modern arithmetic has never been elaborated on in biblical text. My point is, religion doesn't have to get in the way of science - and science doesn't have to get in the way of religion if one can just be complacent with that kind of simplicity. More and more I seek simplicity.

Ok, so if they're doing a math problem they can still be religious. Woo.

But if they discover everything science has taught us, it can and should call into question numerous religious beliefs. To say otherwise is to live in a bubble, insulated from anything that disagrees with whatever preconceptions you might have. It is willful ignorance, which is the worst kind. It's actually much more forgivable to me to be unknowingly ignorant of that which opposes your worldview.

You're also still failing to address my central point, which is the LARGE overlap science and religion have in many areas. What about all of those beliefs that infringe upon territory that science can investigate? Are you just ignoring those?

Originally posted by Digi
So tell me: Are you saying we should believe religious and spiritual things because they might be proven true someday?

To me, it is more probable than not, that magical* unicorns, with properties that most resemble healing magic*, exist somewhere in this universe.

*To put it more smiply, it seems like magic but can be perfeclty explained by a specific science that is advanced enough to model the mechanisms by which the healing can occur.

But I don't actively go about my life thinking and dwelling on such a reality. That's pretty much how I treat my mostly diestic God (which is the type I believe in).

Originally posted by Digi
It is willful ignorance, which is the worst kind. It's actually much more forgivable to me to be unknowingly ignorant of that which opposes your worldview.

I don't think this "willful ignorance", or an altruistic and positively driven morality that is necessarily based on an unlikely or even contradictory worldview, is so terribly bad. It means one's at least aware enough to not let it inhibit the creative potential of an intelligent and mind through science. At the same time, this mind is given a whole community of spiritual and loving people (so long as they represent the non-extremist majority of theists) who'll help him to uphold these moral guidelines, and make this person all the more better for society - I know for me this will help me avoid forming false "woo woo" absolutes when looking at things like non-locality or as I have in the past.

You're also still failing to address my central point, which is the LARGE overlap science and religion have in many areas. What about all of those beliefs that infringe upon territory that science can investigate? Are you just ignoring those?

Ironically, I'm in error either way: If I'm theistic, I'm accepting the existence of things that are not only unsubstantiated, but scientifically falsified; but, if I'm an atheist, I am forming a view of the world that's based on rejecting the simple fact that even these falsities can be falsified.

By being an "insincere" scientist, I am doing science only out of necessity; whereas my beliefs may be unscientific, my work is very scientific in that the process of the scientific method is upheld regardless of my belief. There's a difference between practice and belief, one's scientific literacy can be in a purely practical sense, whereas their true beliefs are non-practical. The work in and of itself can still benefit society, and therefore my belief-system does not have to conflict with my ability to do science, because my work still bares out scientifically verifiable results.

Why is it a good thing to be like this, though? One's intellect and creativity can benefit two mediums (science and religion) - that are both beneficial to society in their own right. Religion benefits people in ways science can't, science benefits people in ways religion can't. Perhaps if more people were choosing to be illogically two-faced like me, than the world would be a better place.

Originally posted by dadudemon
*To put it more smiply, it seems like magic but can be perfeclty explained by a specific science that is advanced enough to model the mechanisms by which the healing can occur.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Your ancestors called it magic, and you call it science. Well I come from a place where they're one and the same thing.

I'll have anotha!

#Thor, #metabolism.

Originally posted by Dolos
Ironically, I'm in error either way: If I'm theistic, I'm accepting the existence of things that are not only unsubstantiated, but scientifically falsified; but, if I'm an atheist, I am forming a view of the world that's based on rejecting the simple fact that even these falsities can be falsified.

That's not really what atheism is. It can be a lack of belief. I don't need actively reject anything for it to be a non-entity in my worldview. So, you've never thought about a 5th-dimensional hyper-fairy named Stuart who created the universe. You are a Stuart atheist, not because you can actively reject his existence (you can't), but because you lack any belief in him whatsoever.

Originally posted by dadudemon
To me, it is more probable than not, that magical* unicorns, with properties that most resemble healing magic*, exist somewhere in this universe.

*To put it more smiply, it seems like magic but can be perfeclty explained by a specific science that is advanced enough to model the mechanisms by which the healing can occur.

But I don't actively go about my life thinking and dwelling on such a reality. That's pretty much how I treat my mostly diestic God (which is the type I believe in).

Ok, sure. But your hypothetical science unicorn doesn't need anything resembling the concept of God or spirituality, or anything other than material reality. To bring in such words or concepts is unnecessary, frivolous, or an attempt to maintain a sense of religion where none is needed.

Coincidentally, "Science Unicorn" is not too far off from my Halloween costume this year. Pics in about a month.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, sure. But your hypothetical science unicorn doesn't need anything resembling the concept of God or spirituality, or anything other than material reality. To bring in such words or concepts is unnecessary, frivolous, or an attempt to maintain a sense of religion where none is needed.

That would be correct for some versions of God, but not mine. Don't forget that I think God is within "science", as well. Meaning, with enough knowledge and capability, even the version of God that I believe in can be understood by scientific means. However, I believe that it would require virtual omniscience (don't get excited, Dolos, not that kind of "virtual"😉 to reach a point of practical understanding. As long as God creates rules by which God must interact with this universe, God is testable and verifiable even if God is mostly or completely deistic.

This idea is far from original. It seems to be explored a bit too often in Japanese Manga and Anime. 😐

Originally posted by Digi
Coincidentally, "Science Unicorn" is not too far off from my Halloween costume this year. Pics in about a month.

You're gambling, here: that's either going to be absurdly awesome or very dumb.

You are poo-pooing religion because it is unscientific, my main point of confliction with that line of thought is that being unscientific on a "choosing to be ignorant"-level doesn't necessarily prevent a person from doing science on a practical-level; and that religion helps people in ways science can't, and vice versa.

In regards to your definitions of atheism:

Atheism is a lack of belief in something as opposed to the rejection of it. You are not an atheist because you can actively reject his existence but because you lack any belief in God whatsoever.

Half full, half empty; same diff; from my point of view; your prerogative; etc.

Forget my last response, and replace with this one if you can:

Originally posted by Dolos
You are poo-pooing religion because it is unscientific, my main point of confliction with that line of thought is that being unscientific on a "choosing to be ignorant"-level doesn't necessarily prevent a person from doing science on a practical-level; and that religion helps people in ways science can't, and vice versa.

In regards to your definition of atheism:

You are not an atheist because you can actively reject God's existence, but because you lack any belief in God whatsoever.

Yes but, if one is conscientious of a belief than one must instantly choose to either reject or accept that belief. Think of theism in and of itself as the belief here. All theists reject other beliefs as well, they reject the belief of atheism. So in the same way that they are illogical to believe in God, regardless of scientific invalidation, they are also logical not to reject the possibility that said invalidation could be invalidated in and of itself.

Eerg, they need to lengthen the time limit on edits.

Basically, forget the second part of the last two posts. I concede on theism being unscientific. However, my stance is that theism is a special case in which it is logical to be unscientific when conceptualizing it because, when one does such a thing, they are able to maximize their creativity and intellectual potential in the bettering of society in both scientific and religious mediums. It's better to be able to work in both mediums due to the fact that science and religion help in their own unique ways. Okay?

Originally posted by dadudemon
That would be correct for some versions of God, but not mine. Don't forget that I think God is within "science", as well. Meaning, with enough knowledge and capability, even the version of God that I believe in can be understood by scientific means. However, I believe that it would require virtual omniscience (don't get excited, Dolos, not that kind of "virtual"😉 to reach a point of practical understanding. As long as God creates rules by which God must interact with this universe, God is testable and verifiable even if God is mostly or completely deistic.

This idea is far from original. It seems to be explored a bit too often in Japanese Manga and Anime. 😐

You're gambling, here: that's either going to be absurdly awesome or very dumb.

I think such a deistic God would further complicate things. How would It come to have existed? At least the religious types use an a priori argument of "God Just Is" to justify the problem of initial complexity (poorly, imo, but anyway). Your potentially knowable god has no such luxury.

And I don't gamble with Halloween. It's going to be all kinds of awesome. 😐

Originally posted by Digi
I think such a deistic God would further complicate things. How would It come to have existed?

This seems like an unseriousness question because you probably know the answer/argument for that question.

Originally posted by Digi
At least the religious types use an a priori argument of "God Just Is" to justify the problem of initial complexity (poorly, imo, but anyway). Your potentially knowable god has no such luxury.

Ah, I see. So you did know the answer. uhuh

I just don't understand why you would allow for an eternal being that cares about our genitals, our sins, and our most private thoughts to be eternal but a mostly deistic God for some reason cannot possesses such an attribute.

Bring me to your level, bro.

Basically, Dawkins puts it better than I can, here:

YouTube video

Side note: that's also why I think the Trinity concept is just dumb.

Originally posted by Digi
And I don't gamble with Halloween. It's going to be all kinds of awesome. 😐

You had better or I will be as pissed as Mumm-ra the Everliving at your fail.

I believe I will be going as Tyler Durden this Halloween.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I just don't understand why you would allow for an eternal being that cares about our genitals, our sins, and our most private thoughts to be eternal but a mostly deistic God for some reason cannot possesses such an attribute.

Bring me to your level, bro.

Well, I DON'T allow for a theistic deity to be eternal, I was just saying that's how they explain it to themselves. I was just curious how you dealt with the same problem, since the "God is eternal" argument seems incompatible with your deistic god.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You had better or I will be as pissed as Mumm-ra the Everliving at your fail.

Nerd costumes often fall for the same trap - only a certain subset "gets" it. Mine is the best of both worlds. Awesome to the casual observer (or rather, amusingly absurd), but profoundly more clever to those who will get the added reference.

fdog

William Lane Craig: The Evidence for Jesus's Resurrection. Southampton Guildhall, October 2011

YouTube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iyxR8uE9GQ

William Lane Craig: (3/7) Evidence for Jesus's Resurrection - Southampton, UK 2011

YouTube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reztgdHOd7g

Richard Dawkins Vs. William Lane Craig Debate

YouTube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uaq6ORDx1C4

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=448058&pagenumber=426#post14416334

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=448058&pagenumber=428#post14465073

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=448058&pagenumber=428#post14464614

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=448058&pagenumber=428#post14462909

Originally posted by Digi
Well, I DON'T allow for a theistic deity to be eternal,

I thought you said you just recently became a Born Again Christian?

awesome

TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Originally posted by Digi
I was just saying that's how they explain it to themselves. I was just curious how you dealt with the same problem, since the "God is eternal" argument seems incompatible with your deistic god.

Well, as a necessity, "a being that transcendds time and space" must be eternal. Regardless of whether or not such a being takes a massively proactive participation role or not is what I am debating with Christians and other theists.

Originally posted by Digi
Nerd costumes often fall for the same trap - only a certain subset "gets" it. Mine is the best of both worlds. Awesome to the casual observer (or rather, amusingly absurd), but profoundly more clever to those who will get the added reference.

fdog

Be sure and post pictures (I think you already said you would...but I am having a moment).