Logic

[bedub1]

Nice quip, but nothing to do with real religious belief, sorry.

Lol. Your religions isn't real by mine is!

Could be, could be... It is religion, not scientific proof, after all.

So what do you mean by "real religious belief"?

[crispybits]

This is true, to a point. However, people are always seeking additional knowledge and seeking to put htem into an understandable framework. It is human nature to beleive that our own ideas and beliefs are a tad bit "more correct" in a sense than others. Teh problem comes not in having that belief, but in believing that you then have the right to dictate how others believe and think.

I agree entirely. I don't have any more right to tell anyone not to believe in God as I have to tell them that their favourite ice cream flavour should be strawberry or that they should think that Mohammed Ali is the greatest sportsman ever to have existed. I would even take it further than that, in that for as long as their actions have no significant and detrimental affects on me I also have no right to tell them what to do or what not to do. Obviously this gets a little more complicated as actions may also have indirect consequences, but the principle still holds even if the debate expands.

The one factor that is often missing when it comes to proof of religion, though is the internal. Things can happen to an individual.. either an individual alone or even just within the individual that may be very valid, but just not seen by others or, in some cases, easy to explain to others. That does not make for valid science conclusions, but it does make for logical belief -- those beliefs might be in religion or they might be a belief that spurs someone to spend 20 years researching and trying to prove something scientifically.

I would not deny that any religious person has a belief in their chosen brand of deity or deities or spiritual system. I would not deny any logically based statement that confirms this, nor would I deny any logically based statement from someone saying they do not have any belief in such things. Belief is, after all and as you say, entirely a personal state, and therefore only the person experiencing that state can know anything about that state, except for what could be inferred by others who have experienced similar or identical states.

The problem at hand though is that affirming a belief in something, as you showed with your pink animal analogy, does not necessarily make it true. And this is where the conflict appears between believers and unbelievers or "believers in something different than what I believe" when speaking on matters of faith, matters which cannot be arbitrated to be true or false by observation and/or peer review. And if I cannot affirm the truth of my beliefs except by appeal to personal states, then I cannot claim it as anything even remotely resembling an objective truth.

[PLAYER57832]

This is true, to a point. However, people are always seeking additional knowledge and seeking to put htem into an understandable framework. It is human nature to beleive that our own ideas and beliefs are a tad bit "more correct" in a sense than others. Teh problem comes not in having that belief, but in believing that you then have the right to dictate how others believe and think.

I agree entirely. I don't have any more right to tell anyone not to believe in God as I have to tell them that their favourite ice cream flavour should be strawberry or that they should think that Mohammed Ali is the greatest sportsman ever to have existed. I would even take it further than that, in that for as long as their actions have no significant and detrimental affects on me I also have no right to tell them what to do or what not to do. Obviously this gets a little more complicated as actions may also have indirect consequences, but the principle still holds even if the debate expands.

Yep, this is a pretty firm principle of mine. I believe you will find I put that forward pretty consistantly, and while you of course don't know my in "real life", I do hope I live up to that there.

The one factor that is often missing when it comes to proof of religion, though is the internal. Things can happen to an individual.. either an individual alone or even just within the individual that may be very valid, but just not seen by others or, in some cases, easy to explain to others. That does not make for valid science conclusions, but it does make for logical belief -- those beliefs might be in religion or they might be a belief that spurs someone to spend 20 years researching and trying to prove something scientifically.

I would not deny that any religious person has a belief in their chosen brand of deity or deities or spiritual system. I would not deny any logically based statement that confirms this, nor would I deny any logically based statement from someone saying they do not have any belief in such things. Belief is, after all and as you say, entirely a personal state, and therefore only the person experiencing that state can know anything about that state, except for what could be inferred by others who have experienced similar or identical states.

The problem at hand though is that affirming a belief in something, as you showed with your pink animal analogy, does not necessarily make it true.

Correct.

And this is where the conflict appears between believers and unbelievers or "believers in something different than what I believe" when speaking on matters of faith, matters which cannot be arbitrated to be true or false by observation and/or peer review. And if I cannot affirm the truth of my beliefs except by appeal to personal states, then I cannot claim it as anything even remotely resembling an objective truth.

Most people don't really try to claim that, at least not in a scientific sense.. except, some atheists do. That is the conflict.

I am threatened less by a person of faith saying "I believe x because my father told me so". I don't agree, but I tend to know I cannot counter that directly, unless there is clear evidence to be shown (and often not even then). HOWEVER, a lot of atheists (and speaking of a couple of people here specifically, as well as outside in the "wide world") seem to think that lack of evidence means they have the right to assert their ideas in not just a religious faith way, but as a furthering of science. That is just plain wrong. It is, akin to blasphemy of science. So, too, is the idea that faith must be entirely independent of science. Human thought is not independent of faith. Science is a tool that helps us distinguish our biases, but bias is not the same as faith. Without faith, there is no science.

[crispybits]

Can you give me an example of a scientifically accepted theory based on atheistic faith? Just one scientific theory that rules out completely the existence of God as a necessary condition of it's truth. That's all I want, if not then you cannot claim that anyone has successfully managed to "assert their ideas in not just a religious faith way, but as a furthering of science". I'm not saying nobody has tried, but there are snake oil salesmen within every community, including the atheist one.

[PLAYER57832]

Can you give me an example of a scientifically accepted theory based on atheistic faith? Just one scientific theory that rules out completely the existence of God as a necessary condition of it's truth. That's all I want, if not then you cannot claim that anyone has successfully managed to "assert their ideas in not just a religious faith way, but as a furthering of science". I'm not saying nobody has tried, but there are snake oil salesmen within every community, including the atheist one.

You misunderstand me. I am NOT saying that science rules out God, at all. I am saying, because I hear it frequently (particularly from certain people here) that atheists make that claim. It ranges from "if there were a God, we would have seen more evidence" to "if there were a God, God would have ..." Or, simply "we have explained everything so far by science, so why would anyone [intelligent] believe in God".

I am saying that this is wrong and, further, very unscientific.

If you don't believe me, try reading through the "is God logical", etc. (near the beginning, before it got into evolution, for the most part).

[crispybits]

Broadly I agree, however with the caveat that while scripture freely talks about knowledge and reason, knowledge and reason is not free to talk about God, except in an almost meaningless intellectual debating sense. So in defence of those who say that there is no scientific evidence for God or similar, often (but not always) they are responding to someone making religious claims about those things that are within science's domain. It is very difficult to start from a position of believing that X does not exist and then start a discussion around it, unless you are effectively trolling a community who you know believe that X does exist.

For example, I don't believe that Xenu, a powerful overlord present in the historical accounts of Scientology''s origin story exists. I would not bother to start a thread here or anywhere else with that premise because what would be the point? I might, if I was feeling mischevious and was amongst a group of scientologists start a discussion in that vein, but I would be trolling them, for the conversation could have no other purpose. However, if a scientologist came here now and started preaching to me about the existence of Xenu, then I might use scientific and logical justifications to help me formulate arguments against Xenu's existence.

[jonesthecurl]

I stand corrected, and bow to your intellect.
Well I would if I could find it.

You have the same issue with your weiner?

That stands when it's not corrected.

[jonesthecurl]

is a conclusion not drawn from Big Bang, Evolution, Atheism, or a Holy Book.
Just an observation that if everything had a beginning, that is by definition the beginning.

That's a pretty big "if". You assume everything has a beginning, because that is our current experience and, in fact, most people have a hard time envisioning another possibility. However, that we have a hard time seeing another possibility is no more valid an argument than someone in the middle ages thinking that sailors might sail off the edge of the world if they kept going.

No I don't. As i said, if there's no beginning, there's no need for a creator.

[jonesthecurl]

Now you can give me stuff about God being "outside time" if you like. But I don't see where or how it is necessary, nor where it fits into the above.

I am not sure of your point here, however, the above is not really logic, because you make assumptions that cannot be proven or founded. It is logical to think of those things as possibilities, but not to say they must absolutely be true.

God is just irrelevant to the above.

Sorry Player I thought that was one of your arguments. I seem to have you mixed up with someone else there.

[Frigidus]

Now you can give me stuff about God being "outside time" if you like. But I don't see where or how it is necessary, nor where it fits into the above.

I am not sure of your point here, however, the above is not really logic, because you make assumptions that cannot be proven or founded. It is logical to think of those things as possibilities, but not to say they must absolutely be true.

God is just irrelevant to the above.

Sorry Player I thought that was one of your arguments. I seem to have you mixed up with someone else there.

I seem to remember Woodruff arguing that, actually...and I'm not even sure he believes in God.

[PLAYER57832]

Broadly I agree, however with the caveat that while scripture freely talks about knowledge and reason, knowledge and reason is not free to talk about God, except in an almost meaningless intellectual debating sense.

This is somewhat true for Roman Catholicsa nd a few other groups. It is absolutely not true for most Protestants, for a wide range of other religious groups. Note that Judiasm is tied specifically to high levels of scientific research. That is not a cooincidence.

Though westerners are often ignorant of the fact, early Muslims were at the forefront of scientific and mathematical investigation in the ancient world.

So in defence of those who say that there is no scientific evidence for God or similar, often (but not always) they are responding to someone making religious claims about those things that are within science's domain. It is very difficult to start from a position of believing that X does not exist and then start a discussion around it, unless you are effectively trolling a community who you know believe that X does exist.

Sorry, happens all the time here. Too many atheists are just flat convinced that religious views are not just another alternative, but childlike views that humanity will soon emerge from, unless we return to another dark age.

For example, I don't believe that Xenu, a powerful overlord present in the historical accounts of Scientology''s origin story exists. I would not bother to start a thread here or anywhere else with that premise because what would be the point? I might, if I was feeling mischevious and was amongst a group of scientologists start a discussion in that vein, but I would be trolling them, for the conversation could have no other purpose. However, if a scientologist came here now and started preaching to me about the existence of Xenu, then I might use scientific and logical justifications to help me formulate arguments against Xenu's existence.

Uh.. you have the history of the "God" threads essentially backwards. They arose primarily because so many atheists were flat out attacking anyone with religious belief.

At different points, I have found myself attacked by all fronts.. because I embrace both religion and science. HOwever, the real truth is that most people here do embrace both, to some extent or another, even if you exclude atheism as a religion.

[crispybits]

This is somewhat true for Roman Catholicsa nd a few other groups. It is absolutely not true for most Protestants, for a wide range of other religious groups. Note that Judiasm is tied specifically to high levels of scientific research. That is not a cooincidence.

Though westerners are often ignorant of the fact, early Muslims were at the forefront of scientific and mathematical investigation in the ancient world.

Because religious people are advancing science does not mean that science has any authority over religious faith beliefs. Unless there are papers which I am not aware of that have been thoroughly peer reviewed and accepted into the mainstream scientific world view that make a definite and necessary link between such-and-such a piece of science and the actual existence of God.

Too many atheists are just flat convinced that religious views are not just another alternative, but childlike views that humanity will soon emerge from, unless we return to another dark age.

Yes many are, but you're discounting the fact that we come into these discussions with pre-conceived notions. A good scientist will be open to other alternatives, but will still come into a debate with a notion that he currently prefers as the best fit. It is up to those that wish to challenge those preconceptions to present evidence or compelling argument against them and for their own preconceptions.

Uh.. you have the history of the "God" threads essentially backwards. They arose primarily because so many atheists were flat out attacking anyone with religious belief.

At different points, I have found myself attacked by all fronts.. because I embrace both religion and science. HOwever, the real truth is that most people here do embrace both, to some extent or another, even if you exclude atheism as a religion.

No individual thread can be viewed in isolation. Many devout christians have started threads on christian forums over the years about the problem of evil or similar. They are not attacking religion, but trying to understand it. And they do so from the background that much discussion and debate has already taken place. Just like threads here must be viewed in the context of just one small part of a continued debate. Yes the threads are an attack on religious belief, but they are caused by someone professing that religious belief in the first place. It would be nonsensical for me to start a thread about how, for example, Oprah Winfrey is not a white middle aged man from Australia unless there was a history of other people claiming that she is.

[jimboston]

I stand corrected, and bow to your intellect.
Well I would if I could find it.

You have the same issue with your weiner?

That stands when it's not corrected.

No... I meant that you couldn't find it when you are standing.

[jonesthecurl]

I stand corrected, and bow to your intellect.
Well I would if I could find it.

You have the same issue with your weiner?

That stands when it's not corrected.

No... I meant that you couldn't find it when you are standing.

I generally use it in a horizontal position.

[Symmetry]

I stand corrected, and bow to your intellect.
Well I would if I could find it.

You have the same issue with your weiner?

That stands when it's not corrected.

No... I meant that you couldn't find it when you are standing.

I generally use it in a horizontal position.

It's graphically an ex vs why axis of probabilities for me. When why is strongest and closest to 1, and probability that she is an ex is close to 0, their is a more vertical correspondence. When why approaches 0 and the degree of ex approaches 1, horizontal.

I will die alone.

[Lootifer]

Yes, one shouldn't close his mind off to any possibility entirely, but making a claim of belief based on available evidence is normal and what we do constantly even without realizing.

For instance, did you ponder the possibility that your keyboard might turn into a giant trout that will then proceed to slap you mercilessly when you typed that sentence?

Would pondering such a thing have any value? or would you say it's pretty safe to say that untill you start seeing news reports about keyboard -> fish transmutations on the local news you might as well claim "I don't believe my keyboard can turn into a trout" ?

Thats where the apathetic agnostic comes in: [sub-conscious talking]

"My keyboard could turn into a trout and slap me, but f*ck it, im not gunna worry my conscious with the possibility, hes got better things to do, like watch midget pron"

[PLAYER57832]

This is somewhat true for Roman Catholicsa nd a few other groups. It is absolutely not true for most Protestants, for a wide range of other religious groups. Note that Judiasm is tied specifically to high levels of scientific research. That is not a cooincidence.

Though westerners are often ignorant of the fact, early Muslims were at the forefront of scientific and mathematical investigation in the ancient world.

Because religious people are advancing science does not mean that science has any authority over religious faith beliefs. Unless there are papers which I am not aware of that have been thoroughly peer reviewed and accepted into the mainstream scientific world view that make a definite and necessary link between such-and-such a piece of science and the actual existence of God.

Never claimed there was.

Too many atheists are just flat convinced that religious views are not just another alternative, but childlike views that humanity will soon emerge from, unless we return to another dark age.

Yes many are, but you're discounting the fact that we come into these discussions with pre-conceived notions. A good scientist will be open to other alternatives, but will still come into a debate with a notion that he currently prefers as the best fit. It is up to those that wish to challenge those preconceptions to present evidence or compelling argument against them and for their own preconceptions.

A GOOD scientist never forgets that bias exists.... and does everything in their power to get beyond it. The fact that it has become "fashionable" in some circles to pretend that religion is just something that mature people, societies essentially "outgrow", is a big part of why young earth ideas are taking such a strong hold.

Its up to scientists to educate the populace as to WHY their ideas are correct, not simply say "oh, religion.. of course, you will never understand real science" or worse.

In fact, the disdain/arrogance a lot of scientists show for people not in the field or not obviously in the field has a LOT to do with why so many people can now leave highschool and yet not really understand the basic geology and other evidence that very much supports evolution and very much disproves all current young earth ideas. (aside from the "God made the Earth, but made it look old" type argument). Lacking the information, they are subject to all sorts of manipulation, not just by unscrupulous leaders claiming religion as a basis.

Uh.. you have the history of the "God" threads essentially backwards. They arose primarily because so many atheists were flat out attacking anyone with religious belief.

At different points, I have found myself attacked by all fronts.. because I embrace both religion and science. HOwever, the real truth is that most people here do embrace both, to some extent or another, even if you exclude atheism as a religion.

No individual thread can be viewed in isolation. Many devout christians have started threads on christian forums over the years about the problem of evil or similar. They are not attacking religion, but trying to understand it. And they do so from the background that much discussion and debate has already taken place. Just like threads here must be viewed in the context of just one small part of a continued debate. Yes the threads are an attack on religious belief, but they are caused by someone professing that religious belief in the first place. It would be nonsensical for me to start a thread about how, for example, Oprah Winfrey is not a white middle aged man from Australia unless there was a history of other people claiming that she is.

Except, in no case is there any scientific justification for claiming belief in God is just wrong, illogical or unscientific. Anyone asserting such is doing a serious disfavor to science, far more than to religion. THAT is the real issue.

[crispybits]

I agree 100% with that (and if you watch my debates closely unless I'm obviously making a little bit of fun I never say "God doesn't exist", and actively encourage religious faith as long as it's recognised by the believer that it's a handbook for the supernatural rather than the natural, and put into the context that it is one of many posible explanations and so doesn't have ultimate universal authority)

I'll onlyy generally even get involved in threads about religion when a religious person is claiming that their faith gives them authority over others on grounds of natural world or societal issues without any other justification than "God says so". I'm more than happy for them to have whatever beliefs they want about the stuff we don't and can't know, just like I also have my own beliefs about that stuff, and if they put the religious discussions into this context and admit the limits of their claims then they don't get any disagreement from me because I tend to keep that stuff private unless directly asked.

Trouble is, they don't. It's not just the fault of non-theists that the debates pan out like they do (though we have to take our share of responsibility), but theists also cause harm, and in my opinion some cause more harm than non-theist refusal to engage will ever do by making unfounded claims and dressing them up as science. Science doesn't and never will claim to have any authority over religious faith / supernatural matters, but (as with the young-earthers) religion often attempts to claim authority over scientific matters.

Edit - just one bit I had to pull out having re-read:

A GOOD scientist never forgets that bias exists.... and does everything in their power to get beyond it. The fact that it has become "fashionable" in some circles to pretend that religion is just something that mature people, societies essentially "outgrow", is a big part of why young earth ideas are taking such a strong hold.

While I agree, we can never go into a debate without a lot of preconceptions, because to do so would force every single debate back to first principles and would make meaningful debate almost impossible on anything but the simplest of issues. While a good scientist will try and avoid bias wherever possible, they have to operate from a set of principles and preconceptions based on science. If a religious claim is made over an area of science, then they are more than welcome by the scientific method to go right back to any of the fundamental principles of science if necessary, but they still have to show natural (rather than supernatural) evidence in order for their claims to be accepted as scientific truth.