I honestly have very little interest in a debate about religion. It has been done to death.
My opinion is as simple as I stated: if people choose to use a variable "thought" that they then quantify with their own expectations and morality and choose to call it "God" then that is all they will ever use to negotiate their way through life.
Why does the wind blow? Goddidit. What causes tides? Goddidit. Why gravity? Goddidit. Why us? Goddidit.
It's not an answer, it's an excuse.
And that same excuse has been used to justify bigotry, discrimination, sexism, rape and murder.
Your personal god is your own and it doesn't apply to anybody else.
That is the extent of my interest in this discussion and any like it.
Sorry, Lyt.
Regarding the article though, 160,000 sold Bibles in a 5-million strong country fortunately doesn't mean much.
The Scandinavian countries remain staunchly irreligious and often see religion as something to be wary of.
Something that needs to be remembered regarding national statistics is that out here people are by default listed as being part of their national religion (some varying degree of Protestant Christianity) if at least one of their parents is listed as a member. Citizens have to opt themselves out in the national register and many choose not to simply because it has no real-world benefit and it's a hassle.
It's far more appropriate to gauge the religious folk by number of active church-goers.
Many other rituals such as baptism, Christenings and confirmation ceremonies are done out of tradition--Scandinavians tend to value tradition quite highly.
They also maintain many old Norse traditions as well, such as Valborgsmässoafton (or Walpurgis Night), performed at the end of winter/beginning of summer with the summer and winter counts battling it out to show that winter has come to a close.
These are wonderful traditions but that's all they are: social traditions.
If you don't want to accept the BBT evidence that many, many scientists (physicists, astronomers, etc) around the world, using the most advanced equipment humans have yet developed, have put together to test the theory, then I'm not going to exhaust myself trying to present it to you. I am of course no scientist, but I'm an intelligent critical thinker, and I have read up on much of the evidence, discoveries, and methods, and I am convinced that this is humanity's best model so far explaining the universe as we can observe it today.
Don't you think that discussing things with your father who is a theologian and pastor would introduce a degree of confirmation bias into the conclusions you draw? To balance that you will need to discuss the subject with scientists who support the big bang theory.
I will further suggest that the scientific validity of the BBT isn't the realm of theology or philosophy, and being a proponent of a particular religion doesn't lend credence to arguments against scientific theories that undermine its tenets. As far as science is concerned, the BBT has nothing to do with whether or not a god exists.
I reject that statement, as there is a large body of observable collected data in support of mathematical and physical models for the universe - this goes beyond mere suggestion.
I think you have your numbers mixed up. The Earth is placed at around 4.5-billion years - this is a lower limit for the age of the Earth based on tests. The universe post big-bang is placed at 13.5-billion years. I reject your claim that there is no evidence to support the age of the Earth - there's quite a bit actually. There are several radiometric dating methods used to test Earth sediment samples and test meteorites of varying materials that have landed on Earth. Scientists can plot the data gathered and demonstrate how it correlates to an Earth of around 4.5-billion years old.
I agree with you, and no scientist has ever claimed that, and if an atheist claimed it, then he is incorrect. BBT is not describing how the universe came into existence, it is describing how it is expanding. The 'bang' in BBT might be an unfortunate misnomer as people tend to think of bangs as having been caused by some sort of explosion. BBT is not about an explosion of matter from nothing ('nothing' is a pretty ludicrous concept in itself when used to describe an absolute state).
I'm not going to argue against this follow-on assertion because it is circular, as I explained before.
I don't know how you can state this. I gave the definition of atheism, and its "base": the rejection of the claim that a deity exists because there is a lack of evidence to prove that one exists. The things you have said above do not change this position.
From what have observed, the universe is largely devoid of life - Earth is the only example we have of a planet supporting life. As far as optimal design goes, it seems rather wasteful. I reject the notion that any competent scientist (physics, astronomy, etc) would suggest that the universe as we know is a 'finely tuned machine' for supporting life. Beyond our own solar system, we have no way of verifying that life exists.
If you are talking about the Earth as an example of life-supporting planet with good conditions to support that form of life as we know it, then yes, we got rather lucky on that one. It rather fits with a mathematical model of "randomness" that if you iterate a core set of variables enough times (i.e. near infinite) you will get an anomalous occurrence such as a planet that supports a form of life, and life forming in those conditions.
Aside from being inaccurate, that description is also far too simplistic. You seem determined to reject the scientific models that have been developed and simply rely on your own opinion. The random nature of the universe is observable. Galaxies collide, stars collapse or explode, quasars blast star-stuff out into the void; on a smaller scale, meteors careen around solar systems, trapped in gravitational tides, until they inevitably collide with a planet, and closer to home, causing mass extinction events. Is this all random or 'by design"? It is certainly observable and measurable (to the best of our current abilities).
- I clarified my statement here by updating my earlier post. It seems in the interim you quoted my earlier version but were addressing the part about throwing out logic.
The assertion is that atheism "throws out all logic". I reject that assertion. The logic is simple - it's binary: A) there is no scientific evidence that god exists -or- B) there is scientific evidence god exists.
When you accept that the answer the answer is A, you are an atheist. Those who accept B are misguided on the supposed evidence. The rest form a special category outside of that binary logic: C) There's no scientific evidence that god exists but I choose to believe god exists despite that (based on a whole range of other supposed reasons').
The default position is that something does not exist/isn't true until there is sufficient evidence to support it. The burden of proof is with the claimant making the extraordinary claim. Further, the claim that a god exists is an unfalsifiable theory, meaning it cannot be proven by scientific methods because it does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory - most notably, at least one observable instance or previously measured evidence of similar circumstances. Demanding that science prove that something does not exist is absurd.
This is a classic example of 'begging the question' - a proposition demanding proof is assumed without proof, and used as a premise for a statement. In this case your assumptive premise is that god exists, which then leads on to all these other claims about the nature of god. However, I can agree with the second part of the statement, as discussed above: "Trying to prove formlessness through science which deals with form in time is impossible."
This is loaded with logical flaws.
First you take the scientific model of the universe (moments ago we agreed scientific models cannot be used to prove the existence of a formless god so why use it as a base to argue that god exists);
Then you assume an absolute state of nothing (whatever that would be - science has made no claims) is the opposite of the scientific model of the universe;
Then you make the leap to "for the universe to be created", which presupposes it was indeed "created" out of nothing, by a creator who is apparently "something" (which undermines the claim of absolute nothing, unless he is exempt from logic as a special case) not subjected to the physical laws of the universe as we currently understand them.
Somehow this is meant to prove the existence of a creator god?
I think I adequately, albeit briefly addressed the BBT earlier in this post. Your understanding of it is wholly incorrect, you should go read more about it before you argue against it.
Join the MyGaming Steam group || Find out how to enter MyGaming Steam Community Giveaways
I am familiar with this story, and why it was contentious in the scientific community. It's actually an example of the scientific method working correctly. To summarise, proteins in soft tissue were known to last about a million years if preserved in the right conditions based on previous recoveries. However, there had never been an example of a soft-tissue protein surviving 65-million years. The initial findings were published and the mass media blew it out of proportion before the scientific community had a chance to properly confirm the initial claims. The scientists who made the claims were put under intense scrutiny, had their methods and data sets questioned, and it was demanded that they release everything to the scientific community so it could be peer reviewed and tested independently which they have now done). The initial scientists have built a rigorous scientific case to support their claim, but it has also not held up entirely to peer review, with other studies backing both sides of the conclusion.
Did you bring up that last point to try and prove that science can produce flawed results? There is no denying this - that's why things are tested rigorously to ensure the results are accurate, and remain accurate in light on new information.
I assume from your assault on the scientific model that you are a believer in creationism?
There seems to be this innate desire in some theists to try and attribute the 'creation' of the universe to a deity. This really misses the point of scientific investigation into our universe, which should ultimately be for the progression of the human race. I'd go so far as to say that's it's really irrelevant to scientific pursuits whether or not a god exists.
The problem theists seem to have with all of this is that it doesn't fit the model prescribed by their holy texts (assumed to be absolutely correct since it is the word of god) and therefore undermines it.
I'll reiterate that science is not concerned with proving or disproving the existence of god, only understanding our universe. Theists actually want to plead the special case for god, that he is somehow beyond our realm of physical understanding - unfortunately this means some theists want to bend science to suit their models of the world (based on the holy texts) or discredit it entirely because it does not fit.
This is the same sort of mentality that had ancient cultures worshipping the sun, the moon, lightning, sacrificing virgins to entice the rain gods, and more recently, had people believing that the Earth was flat. As our understanding of the world and the universe has become better through scientific investigation, so have these outdated religious concepts been cast aside.
I'd just like to add that I'm not trying to undermine anyone's personal faith or religion in this discussion, but I will stand up for my side of the argument in support of scientific method and the atheistic stance.
Join the MyGaming Steam group || Find out how to enter MyGaming Steam Community Giveaways
Indeed, but the thing with atheism is we have no problem with saying 'we don't know.' We don't know what caused the big bang and we're fine with it. A lot of people often take this to mean we believe everything came from nothing. I, for one, know that something caused the big bang. We just don't know what yet and I'm not going to ascribe they big bang to a supernatural being simply because we have not yet discovered what caused the big bang.
That's not saying I don't respect people who believe in creationism, but I just feel that even though I don't know what caused the big bang, I don't especially think creationism is the answer to the question.
And that's fine. I'm happy you find solace in your religion and in your bible. That does not, however, mean we can't make jokes that are religious in nature. It does not mean that any religious jokes are necessarily bible bashing either. You need to learn to differentiate between jokes that are mean-spirited and jokes that are not.
Because it's the exact same thing. If someone claims we're not allowed to make religious jokes because it offends him, someone else can just as well say the same thing about homosexual jokes.I am not talking about homosexuality or racism here, the topic at hand has nothing to do with it, so why bother mentioning it.
I had clinical depression in high school because I had trouble coming to terms with my homosexuality. I had a pretty rough time, made worse by the fact that I couldn't tell my parents what caused it, because they were religious fundamentalists who believe that homosexuals go to hell.
That does not mean I automatically take offence at the very existence of a homosexual joke, though. Obviously I'm not going to claim innocence in calling people out unnecessarily. I've had my fair share of past experiences where I called someone out for saying something that was not necessarily meant maliciously, but overall I have no problem with homosexual jokes as long as they're made in good spirit and I'm definitely not going to ask for all homosexual jokes or discussion to be banned.
Last edited by Graal; 07-06-2013 at 11:14 PM.
And I guess I don't give a damn if I offend people with things that are not intended to be offensive. I don't take offence at things that are not intended offensively either, because I'm an adult and I realise that if I take offence at such things, that's my problem, not anyone else's.
Good luck with your approach, though.
Like i said,this is exactly the reason religious discussion is banned on MyGaming (Yet not enforced)![]()
Last edited by DCWarhound; 08-06-2013 at 01:38 AM. Reason: I meant MyGaming,Not MyBB.
Connection to reality could not be established,please try again later