The Religion, Atheism and Science Discussion

[rice_pudding]

This is one of the better logical arguments for the existence of a supreme being I have found. If you have half an hour spare in this fast world - well worth a watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev ... re=related

A question for you Matt. Do you think science and religion/faith are two irreconcilable groups, destined to forever be polar opposites? Or do you think they can go beyond amicable co-operation, and find a new "third way"? I ask this because I've always felt that life is more than science arrogantly dictates, but that supernatural phenomena may have scientific explanation. What I mean is we could all have souls, and yes we may go to heaven or hell, but why can't there be a scientific process behind that? What if science discovered the human soul?

Just thinking out loud I guess.

Rob

[Paul Wolfe]

I always wondered why scientists can't accept the idea that all the order they find in science is based on a divine plan? For me it be much harder to believe that all the order found in science came about by a random big bang and evolution...

[rice_pudding]

Paul,

As time goes by I can't help but become gradually more disenfranchised with modern academia be it science, history or archaeology etc. They all seem to be far too doctrinal in their thought process and shackled by conventional wisdom. I'm much more of a 'deductive logic' kind of guy, and perhaps something of a revisionist when it comes to history

When evidence points to something they don't like, they come up with even more outlandish explanations to fit their own logic. It get's pretty pathetic when experts will cut off their nose to spite their face I've had my share of real and hypothetical debates with people over all manner of subjects, and it frustrates the hell out of me

I played devils advocate with a friend once (an atheist history student), proposing an experiment in which scientists discover consistent evidence of something that, in the realm of human understanding, we would interpret as a human soul. He was adamant that the result would simply never happen or that there would eventually come to light a rational explanation. But at what point does the uncanny become rational?

I don't know... for some of these people it seems like a rule book, and anyone who goes against it is either uneducated, mistaken or crazy and certainly not a credible man of science. I know many scientists are religious, but I could never foresee 'God' being an accepted fact explanation for the masses. If someone ever found irrefutable evidence of a God, I'm sure many people would rather spend a lifetime looking for a different 'rational' explanation, or trying to find fault with the results, than simply accept it and move on.

I don't really sit anywhere on the debate, and don't really care what anyone wants to believe, I'm just playing devils advocate. But I do hate stupidity when you wrap it up in intellectual snobbery

Rob

[Paul Wolfe]

I played devils advocate with a friend once (an atheist history student), proposing an experiment in which scientists discover consistent evidence of something that, in the realm of human understanding, we would interpret as a human soul. He was adamant that the result would simply never happen or that there would eventually come to light a rational explanation. But at what point does the uncanny become rational?

I may have said this before (I'm old and my memory is feeble ), but I once had a discussion regarding morals with a friend. To me, having moral beliefs is kin to having a soul...

Anyway, he adamantly refused to believe in God (at the time, he may have changed, I don't know) because, "there's too much scientific evidence to prove God doesn't exist." Never produced the 'evidence', though. So I asked him if we should go out and steal something or maybe kill someone for fun. When he said no, I asked why and he said, "Because killing and stealing are wrong." To this I replied, "Why?" His answer was that they just are. My answer to that is that if there is no God and no life after this one, then why not just do what we want, whenever we want? If there is no 'higher power' to answer to, then there would be no consequences for doing something that is 'wrong'.

I believe that the fact that human nature tells us that stealing and killing are wrong (that's why we are naturally outraged by these things) is proof of a 'higher power' (God) and a life after this one. We instinctively believe in right and wrong, how does evolution cause that to happen?

[The_Scratch]

I have no imaginary freinds.

'nuff said.

[Paul Wolfe]

I have no imaginary freinds.

'nuff said.

That's too bad.

[Tito]

i got alot of imaginary friends!!!!!!!!well having 3 or 4 different personalities wouldnt help much i guess! ;^)

[The_Scratch]

I champion Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and above all... the man.... Charles Darwin.

[Paul Wolfe]

I champion Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and above all... the man.... Charles Darwin.

That's what is so great about freedom of choice, you can choose to believe whatever you choose to believe. Even though you and I choose to believe polar opposites, I hope we can continue to get along.

[Stiltzkin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1CBiKBz_4g

[RRFan4Ever]

Why is it that people can accept that there may be many things that they cannot understand or explain scientifically speaking (such as the methodologies relating to cancer and patho-physiology for treatment) but tbey cannot or refuse to accept any premise (or promise) that religion has to offer?

Myself, I accept both.

But finding a common belief system with others to spread the word of Jesus can be a twisted and spiteful excuse for intolerance and hate (not to mention control) and I think that people can be spiritually uplifted and uplifting without having to step in a church.

[DJRockAngel]

On that note..I give you a joke to lighten the mood....

A football player and a hockey player meet St Peter at the Pearly Gates...Peter says,"Answer this question and I will let you in...What is the meaning of Easter?"

The football player says, "Candy basktes and chocolate bunnies!" "You lose", said Peter..

Peter asks the hockey player and he says, "Jesus died on the cross for our sins and 3 days later he resurrected. If he sees his shadow, we have 6 more weeks of hockey season!!!!"

[cthomp]

Anyone ever see this before?



http://www.theignorantfishermen.com/201 ... 6017435189

[Stiltzkin]

So I asked him if we should go out and steal something or maybe kill someone for fun. When he said no, I asked why and he said, "Because killing and stealing are wrong." To this I replied, "Why?" His answer was that they just are. My answer to that is that if there is no God and no life after this one, then why not just do what we want, whenever we want? If there is no 'higher power' to answer to, then there would be no consequences for doing something that is 'wrong'.

I believe that the fact that human nature tells us that stealing and killing are wrong (that's why we are naturally outraged by these things) is proof of a 'higher power' (God) and a life after this one. We instinctively believe in right and wrong, how does evolution cause that to happen?

this is actually pretty easy because it has to do with human selfishness and the workings of the human brain
which originates from the apes/animals we really are

let's start at the beginning of the evolution, when there really was no perception of right and wrong.
Let's say somebody kills someone that means something to somebody else.
Now, the said killer has no perception of right and wrong, but the other somebody will loose someone
that makes him feel good in some way so naturally(or should I say, selfishly) this person become enraged
and decides to retaliate against the other somebody.

Now, this goes on for years and years, generations and generations...

Humans/Animals aren't really that stupid, they learn from their deeds.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Lets hope there is a God, because a I want to be treated well!