Deep into Atheism

Dynamite Joe

Dynamite Joe

Well-Known Member
there is probably no youtube video about Neil Degrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Briane Greene and others that I didn't watch, in particular this video. So it is unlikely that you will come with something new.
You totally missed my point, which is very different than what you suggested.
I am not basing my faith on God of gaps as you are claiming.
What I meant is that science is lurking behind in terms of proving the existence of GOD, and there is a vey long way ahead before science reaches this point, that's why people rely on faith.
I can philosophically argue with you about the existence of God but I can't give any scientific proof because science is not there yet.
The funniest stuff I find when I saw this video for the first time, is that God is dark matter :)

Concerning for what the Church did, I never claimed that the Church didn't commit errors, actually I am a person who despises clergy and regard them as corrupt. However, there has been many good members that have tried to steer the Church in the right direction of the Christ teachings.

Finally, as I said previously I am not interested in this debate, I have debated with atheists for years and I shared my experience.
What I saw in most people with whom I argued, is that they think they are SMARTER than me because they don't believe in any form of deity, and they are ANGRY people ( I was insulted many times simply because I say I am a believer), and they are as FANATIC as religious people which is something weird because since they don't believe in any god they should be more open minded than people who hold religion dear to themselves.
Your presumption that “science is lurking behind in terms of proving the existence of God” is erroneous. Science is mainly concerned with the natural world and is not out to prove, nor disprove for that matter, superstition. In fact, such an assertion is classic God of the gaps fallacy. You’re filling in God in a gap that science has yet to explain. As Neil Degrasse put it, God becomes an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

Concerning your negative experience debating atheists. Regrettably, rather than having an open mind, many theists tend to be obdurate and easily offended when participating in such debates. I guess it’s a hard pill to swallow when someone points out to them their entire belief system is logically flawed. A realisation that their privileged position in the universe and self importance is merely a delusion. That the omnipotent eternal God who has them in mind is as real as Zeus. For the nonbeliever, it’s understandable there’s a level of contempt for those who stubbornly cling to superstition. Particularly towards learned people who should know better.
 
  • Advertisement
  • R

    ruins

    Member
    Its isnt about watching videos and scoring points over definitions and semantics.

    There are two very distinct ideas, either you believe that some all wise and knowing alien being created you and gave you rules to follow in order to lead a fulfilling life, or you believe that through chance this galaxy came to be and whithin it, through chance too, you came to be.
    Christianity does not believe in either of those. We have no alien being who gave us a set of rules to follow. We have explained this thoroughly in the deep into Christianity thread (I know you were not there at the time but if you get a chance, you can look up posts by me, DA, and others.

    We all know the root of all religious movements, since man tried to make sense of his surroundings: order and morality.
    Science is not here to prove that god exists as u claimed, science is here to tell you the story of everything around you.
    Forget for a moment your own religious bias, and think about religion as a concept and not your own identity. That concept is severly lacking when it comes to explaining life and its repercussions.
    We think of Christianity as a concept and it is quite coherent in explaining life and its repercussions, unless you think religion is supposed to explain to you how lightning forms. This latter religion is the one that Christianity has rejected for millennia, yet Dawkins wants to claim that honor.
     
    R

    ruins

    Member
    Your presumption that “science is lurking behind in terms of proving the existence of God” is erroneous. Science is mainly concerned with the natural world and is not out to prove, nor disprove for that matter, superstition. In fact, such an assertion is classic God of the gaps fallacy. You’re filling in God in a gap that science has yet to explain. As Neil Degrasse put it, God becomes an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

    Concerning your negative experience debating atheists. Regrettably, rather than having an open mind, many theists tend to be obdurate and easily offended when participating in such debates. I guess it’s a hard pill to swallow when someone points out to them their entire belief system is logically flawed. A realisation that their privileged position in the universe and self importance is merely a delusion. That the omnipotent eternal God who has them in mind is as real as Zeus. For the nonbeliever, it’s understandable there’s a level of contempt for those who stubbornly cling to superstition. Particularly towards learned people who should know better.
    When you were a delusional Christian, how did you seek help? Did you go through therapy? Also which particular knowledge of popes and bishops did you acquire to cure you from your delusion?

    Given that you were a devout delusional person and got cured, sharing your experience may help cure the other delusional individuals here.

    Also, you never told us how come during your delusional time, you only went to Church once: how could you be so devout and delusional without going to Church?
     
    JustLeb

    JustLeb

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Its isnt about watching videos and scoring points over definitions and semantics.

    There are two very distinct ideas, either you believe that some all wise and knowing alien being created you and gave you rules to follow in order to lead a fulfilling life, or you believe that through chance this galaxy came to be and whithin it, through chance too, you came to be.

    We all know the root of all religious movements, since man tried to make sense of his surroundings: order and morality.
    Science is not here to prove that god exists as u claimed, science is here to tell you the story of everything around you.
    Forget for a moment your own religious bias, and think about religion as a concept and not your own identity. That concept is severly lacking when it comes to explaining life and its repercussions.
    Your presumption that “science is lurking behind in terms of proving the existence of God” is erroneous. Science is mainly concerned with the natural world and is not out to prove, nor disprove for that matter, superstition. In fact, such an assertion is classic God of the gaps fallacy. You’re filling in God in a gap that science has yet to explain. As Neil Degrasse put it, God becomes an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.

    Concerning your negative experience debating atheists. Regrettably, rather than having an open mind, many theists tend to be obdurate and easily offended when participating in such debates. I guess it’s a hard pill to swallow when someone points out to them their entire belief system is logically flawed. A realisation that their privileged position in the universe and self importance is merely a delusion. That the omnipotent eternal God who has them in mind is as real as Zeus. For the nonbeliever, it’s understandable there’s a level of contempt for those who stubbornly cling to superstition. Particularly towards learned people who should know better.

    To wrap up my contribution to this thread, I just want to clarify one issue: it is either I was not clear enough or you have a tendency to misinterpret my statement.
    I never said that the objective of science is to prove God, I don't think anyone, gov or organisation will pay money for any group of scientists to prove or disprove the existence of God.

    What I meant by "science has long long way ahead", is the accumulation of knowledge and experience over time, will allow at one point (far in the future) to be able to decide that based on what we know so far, the existence of God is the only logical explanation.

    This is my own belief, but I have no tangible evidence to prove it, just like no one has yet proven the extra dimensions of the String theory but many believe they are there simply because mathematical model fits.
    For me science and faith can coexist perfectly together, as that science is the human endeavor to discover the work of God that I believe HE exists.

    So this is more of a philosophical subject than a scientific one.
     
    My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Its isnt about watching videos and scoring points over definitions and semantics.

    There are two very distinct ideas, either you believe that some all wise and knowing alien being created you and gave you rules to follow in order to lead a fulfilling life, or you believe that through chance this galaxy came to be and whithin it, through chance too, you came to be.

    We all know the root of all religious movements, since man tried to make sense of his surroundings: order and morality.
    Science is not here to prove that god exists as u claimed, science is here to tell you the story of everything around you.
    Forget for a moment your own religious bias, and think about religion as a concept and not your own identity. That concept is severly lacking when it comes to explaining life and its repercussions.

    Atheists and theists differ only slightly in opinion. You're all made up of cheap abundant atoms, the dead materia scattered all over the universe.
    Suddenly you are rearranged, get a conscious and find yourself walking inside a puzzling mystery, the reality encapsulating your life on a planet in an endlessly vast and complicated universe.
    You are all bound to be puzzled, ask questions and are set on a quest to know and improve.

    Atheists ask the hows and rely on science using observations and physical evidence for answers to the mystery and to improve their short stay inside this reality.
    Theists ask the whats and whys and rely on religion using multi layered abstractions of language, together with personal experience and perceptions to attain the same.

    For the same reasons religion is neither interested in nor able to explain how gravitational waves are produced by merging black holes, the physical boundaries that Science, by design, defines for its own intentional objectives and scope of reach, will never allow for speculative answers we are all bound to ask regarding whats and whys, such as: "What made all this? What is my life? Why is me here, in all this? What comes next for me after this precious life experience? Why does a fresh breeze in a warm night make me love this beauty lying on my side of the bed, and whatever created the whole universe, the more? For what purpose did certain cosmological constant get to be this and not that much?"

    In brief, at its ultimate aim, science is good for the species, religion is good for the individual.
    Science may one day take your species at the speed of light as far as to a distant planet in Andromeda, and help it terraform it. While a good, high caliber religious experience might lift someone to dimensions of insight and mental enlightenment with an end result that is at least as, if not more, fulfilling and satisfying for the individual.
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    Atheists and theists differ only slightly in opinion. You're all made up of cheap abundant atoms, the dead materia scattered all over the universe.
    Suddenly you are rearranged, get a conscious and find yourself walking inside a puzzling mystery, the reality encapsulating your life on a planet in an endlessly vast and complicated universe.
    You are all bound to be puzzled, ask questions and are set on a quest to know and improve.

    Atheists ask the hows and rely on science using observations and physical evidence for answers to the mystery and to improve their short stay inside this reality.
    Theists ask the whats and whys and rely on religion using multi layered abstractions of language, together with personal experience and perceptions to attain the same.

    For the same reasons religion is neither interested in nor able to explain how gravitational waves are produced by merging black holes, the physical boundaries that Science, by design, defines for its own intentional objectives and scope of reach, will never allow for speculative answers we are all bound to ask regarding whats and whys, such as: "What made all this? What is my life? Why is me here, in all this? What comes next for me after this precious life experience? Why does a fresh breeze in a warm night make me love this beauty lying on my side of the bed, and whatever created the whole universe, the more? For what purpose did certain cosmological constant get to be this and not that much?"

    In brief, at its ultimate aim, science is good for the species, religion is good for the individual.
    Science may one day take your species at the speed of light as far as to a distant planet in Andromeda, and help it terraform it. While a good, high caliber religious experience might lift someone to dimensions of insight and mental enlightenment with an end result that is at least as, if not more, fulfilling and satisfying for the individual.
    Science is not a religion, and should not be compared and contrasted with religions, as alternative. For the record. At least you did not say "I believe in Science" :)
     
    My Moria Moon

    My Moria Moon

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Science is not a religion, and should not be compared and contrasted with religions, as alternative. For the record. At least you did not say "I believe in Science" :)
    And I spoke to the east and you replied to the west. How about we have a rendez-vous in the northern south. :)
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    And I spoke to the east and you replied to the west. How about we have a rendez-vous in the northern south. :)
    Now did you expect anything less? :)
    I only wanted to make sure you aren't comparing Science with Religion, so to present it as an alternative. That's all, and all is good in the world. :)
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Atheists and theists differ only slightly in opinion. You're all made up of cheap abundant atoms, the dead materia scattered all over the universe.
    Suddenly you are rearranged, get a conscious and find yourself walking inside a puzzling mystery, the reality encapsulating your life on a planet in an endlessly vast and complicated universe.
    You are all bound to be puzzled, ask questions and are set on a quest to know and improve.

    Atheists ask the hows and rely on science using observations and physical evidence for answers to the mystery and to improve their short stay inside this reality.
    Theists ask the whats and whys and rely on religion using multi layered abstractions of language, together with personal experience and perceptions to attain the same.

    For the same reasons religion is neither interested in nor able to explain how gravitational waves are produced by merging black holes, the physical boundaries that Science, by design, defines for its own intentional objectives and scope of reach, will never allow for speculative answers we are all bound to ask regarding whats and whys, such as: "What made all this? What is my life? Why is me here, in all this? What comes next for me after this precious life experience? Why does a fresh breeze in a warm night make me love this beauty lying on my side of the bed, and whatever created the whole universe, the more? For what purpose did certain cosmological constant get to be this and not that much?"

    In brief, at its ultimate aim, science is good for the species, religion is good for the individual.
    Science may one day take your species at the speed of light as far as to a distant planet in Andromeda, and help it terraform it. While a good, high caliber religious experience might lift someone to dimensions of insight and mental enlightenment with an end result that is at least as, if not more, fulfilling and satisfying for the individual.
    i disagree. from a theological perspective we as human beings are attracted towards existential truths, and these truths are addressed on all levels, there are concrete truths that can be concretely and empirically measured, while there are other types of truths that require a different approach. both in religion and in science man is at the pursuit of truth. in fact you could even postulate that this has been the driving force behind the rise of mankind. we are able to understand truth, and postulate about what the next unexplored step is, then go to explore it and validate it, and then make a new step forward.

    the people who usually try to drive wedges between religion and science are people who are not concerned with truth, and it follows that you should be very weary of them, because abiding to truth is the precursor to all evil, whereas its opposite is the foundation for utopia. there could be neither sin nor crime where truth is not violated. and in fact this is one of the essential teachings of both Christianity and science, respect truth. now it is probably true that very few people subscribe to this perspective, but you can rest assured these are truly the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

    the subject is goes much deeper in theology, especially with all truth originating from God, and this becomes even deeper with Christ's revelation on the subject as in "Ego Sum Via, Veritas et Vita", the Christian notion of the Logos, the ties between truth, freedom and Love, and the evil that is associated with the absence of truth.
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    i disagree. from a theological perspective we as human beings are attracted towards existential truths, and these truths are addressed on all levels, there are concrete truths that can be concretely and empirically measured, while there are other types of truths that require a different approach. both in religion and in science man is at the pursuit of truth. in fact you could even postulate that this has been the driving force behind the rise of mankind. we are able to understand truth, and postulate about what the next unexplored step is, then go to explore it and validate it, and then make a new step forward.

    the people who usually try to drive wedges between religion and science are people who are not concerned with truth, and it follows that you should be very weary of them, because abiding to truth is the precursor to all evil, whereas its opposite is the foundation for utopia. there could be neither sin nor crime where truth is not violated. and in fact this is one of the essential teachings of both Christianity and science, respect truth. now it is probably true that very few people subscribe to this perspective, but you can rest assured these are truly the salt of the earth and the light of the world.

    the subject is goes much deeper in theology, especially with all truth originating from God, and this becomes even deeper with Christ's revelation on the subject as in "Ego Sum Via, Veritas et Vita", the Christian notion of the Logos, the ties between truth, freedom and Love, and the evil that is associated with the absence of truth.
    Religion and science are two separate things completely, I am not driving a wedge, it would have to be a pretty large wedge :)
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Religion and science are two separate things completely, I am not driving a wedge, it would have to be a pretty large wedge :)
    i find myself inclined to quote our very @My Moria Moon in reply to your travesty:
    "And I spoke to the east and you replied to the west. How about we have a rendez-vous in the northern south. :)"
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    i find myself inclined to quote our very @My Moria Moon in reply to your travesty:
    "And I spoke to the east and you replied to the west. How about we have a rendez-vous in the northern south. :)"
    Okay then :)
    I will leave two to it lol
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    Christianity does not believe in either of those. We have no alien being who gave us a set of rules to follow. We have explained this thoroughly in the deep into Christianity thread (I know you were not there at the time but if you get a chance, you can look up posts by me, DA, and others.
    The alien metaphor is an oversimplification of the matter. But do tell me, how come life cannot pop out in the universe through chance, but one can devellop a cancer through chance. Both are probabilistic matters, one of we know the mechanics, the second we are still looking.

    We think of Christianity as a concept and it is quite coherent in explaining life and its repercussions, unless you think religion is supposed to explain to you how lightning forms. This latter religion is the one that Christianity has rejected for millennia, yet Dawkins wants to claim that honor.
    I am not asking religion to explain to me how lightning form. The way you and @Dark Angel portray religion in your posts is extremly niche-y and completly disconnected from how the average joe sees it.
    The average joe does indeed see it as a bunch of rules to follow in order to get to heaven, everybody’s seeking the holy grail.
    Dawkins has a personnal problem with christianity, i’ll give u that, he omits most other religions from his writings and speeches, which i found ofd from the get go. But i think tis is the case of his environment, he might not hav been subjected in his daily life to other religions and knows them only through the literature.

    Lezim ne3zmo chi nhar 3al manta2a yetfarraj ?
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    To wrap up my contribution to this thread, I just want to clarify one issue: it is either I was not clear enough or you have a tendency to misinterpret my statement.
    I never said that the objective of science is to prove God, I don't think anyone, gov or organisation will pay money for any group of scientists to prove or disprove the existence of God.

    What I meant by "science has long long way ahead", is the accumulation of knowledge and experience over time, will allow at one point (far in the future) to be able to decide that based on what we know so far, the existence of God is the only logical explanation.

    This is my own belief, but I have no tangible evidence to prove it, just like no one has yet proven the extra dimensions of the String theory but many believe they are there simply because mathematical model fits.
    For me science and faith can coexist perfectly together, as that science is the human endeavor to discover the work of God that I believe HE exists.

    So this is more of a philosophical subject than a scientific one.
    Philosophical postulations about the existence of an intelligent entity are one thing. Where theists often go wrong is the presumption of God’s existence and validating it with pseudoscience, or conversely forcing their beliefs into science. Moreover, theists don’t merely claim an existence of a ‘God’, but rather subscribe to a very specific notion of a personal God. They can name him, tell you how he created the world and mankind, and so forth. What is not debatable is the fact that all manmade religions, without exception, are irreconcilable with science.

    Your absolute belief in a personal God is very different than a theoretical framework such as string theory. To believe in a personal god with no evidence differs greatly from an attempt to model the four fundamental interactions and unify classical and quantum physics.

    Anyway, I agree with you this a philosophical subject, not a scientific one.
     
    Dynamite Joe

    Dynamite Joe

    Well-Known Member
    presenting the opinion of a particle physicist who studied the shroud of Turin does not make it my own personal belief. here is the clip in question. pretty interesting for anyone who is not brain dead.
    Shroud of Turin and the event horizon, really?
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    The alien metaphor is an oversimplification of the matter. But do tell me, how come life cannot pop out in the universe through chance, but one can devellop a cancer through chance. Both are probabilistic matters, one of we know the mechanics, the second we are still looking.
    that is not an honest argument. almost everything in the universe is probabilistic, however the probability for random mutations to be fatal is high to the point where the universe needs to be more than a trillion years old for the beneficial mutations to stack up to where we are today. and at the rate they are happening fatal mutations would wipe out the whole species by the time it takes to developing a single positive trait.

    that is if you could overcome the impossible infinitesimal probability that protein transcription, transfer and decoding could form simultaneously out of the blue. even then, given that the whole process on the DNA and protein level is at the service of information, it puts yet another dent in the random mutation theory.

    I am not asking religion to explain to me how lightning form. The way you and @Dark Angel portray religion in your posts is extremly niche-y and completly disconnected from how the average joe sees it.
    The average joe does indeed see it as a bunch of rules to follow in order to get to heaven, everybody’s seeking the holy grail.
    we are not making things up. we are sharing the Christian perspective on these issues. when we discuss Christianity we discuss the real thing, not the off perception exhibited by some or many.

    Dawkins has a personnal problem with christianity, i’ll give u that, he omits most other religions from his writings and speeches, which i found ofd from the get go. But i think tis is the case of his environment, he might not hav been subjected in his daily life to other religions and knows them only through the literature.
    or he may be personally offended by Christianity as is the case with almost everyone else. there is a perplexing phenomenon that materializes itself in hating Christ without reason, this is not new, this has been the case across all ages. this is the reason why even on a political level all the contradicting ideologies ally themselves against Christianity, and the real reason why islam and the left are always in an alliance when they have nothing in common, except this one single particularity that brings them together. you may try to rationalize it, but at the end of the day it is a spiritual thing. and i have always repeated that on the forum, the mere mention of Christ brings forth the true of people, beware of those who hate Christ with no reason, they are not good people.
     
    Last edited:
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    Shroud of Turin and the event horizon, really?
    if you cannot assimilate that the particle physicist in that clip and @Dark Angel are not the same person, then you should not be part of this discussion.
     
    Dark Angel

    Dark Angel

    Legendary Member
    But both men have imaginary friends.
    it actually was a woman physicist which goes to show how blindly you drive your argument in your bitter prejudice. you have not even seen that clip, yet you are willing to argue indefinitely out of ignorance about it. you are a fallen character in more ways than one.

    hatred is also a very imaginary concept, yet that is the one god that you worship. to each his own.
     
    Top