Dear Religionists

Wise words Chris. That was a good futurama episode.

However if the argumen is not that God is helping me, it's that he shouldn't be helping me because I don't worship him. Or ask him for help. Or beg. Or any of that stuff. I just go about my day and deal with what I have to deal with. If I need help I call upon my friends and family. If I need strength to keep going, I call upon my ego.
And if I need to save my life, I call 911.

God has a plan for you, you just don't know it yet. One day you might call out for Him in desperation and the answer will make you see how wrong you were on the spot.

You atheists make me giggle.

http://www.godsgiftforyou.com/bible/biblestudy/abs115.html

So much for inerrancy.  Admittal of mistranslation is grounds on its own to make the entire book suspect. 

Quote from: Lorddave on May 30, 2012, 03:31:42 AM

Wise words Chris. That was a good futurama episode.

However if the argumen is not that God is helping me, it's that he shouldn't be helping me because I don't worship him. Or ask him for help. Or beg. Or any of that stuff. I just go about my day and deal with what I have to deal with. If I need help I call upon my friends and family. If I need strength to keep going, I call upon my ego.
And if I need to save my life, I call 911.

God has a plan for you, you just don't know it yet. One day you might call out for Him in desperation and the answer will make you see how wrong you were on the spot.

Do you know the plan God has for me?

Also:
Any time I would cry out for God is likely the last time I'll cry out for anyone. It happens more often than deus ex machina.

It takes just as much non-faith to be religious as it does to be atheist (if not more non-faith).

It takes just as much non-faith to be religious as it does to be atheist (if not more non-faith).

Elaboration required.

Quote from: Pongo on May 30, 2012, 05:28:20 PM

It takes just as much non-faith to be religious as it does to be atheist (if not more non-faith).

Elaboration required.

I dunno if I can, religious people tell me it takes just as much, of not more faith, to me atheist and it confuses the hell outta me.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on May 30, 2012, 05:35:38 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 30, 2012, 05:28:20 PM

It takes just as much non-faith to be religious as it does to be atheist (if not more non-faith).

Elaboration required.

I dunno if I can, religious people tell me it takes just as much, of not more faith, to me atheist and it confuses the hell outta me.

That's because they confuse faith with will power. It takes more will power to learn and accept something complex than it does to accept something simple.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on May 30, 2012, 05:35:38 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 30, 2012, 05:28:20 PM

It takes just as much non-faith to be religious as it does to be atheist (if not more non-faith).

Elaboration required.

I dunno if I can, religious people tell me it takes just as much, of not more faith, to me atheist and it confuses the hell outta me.

It's kind of true.  The difference is, your faith is in science, so at least there's a solid reason behind it.  Their faith is mostly in a fairy tale, a folk story.

Science isn’t about why, it’s about why not!

Quote from: Pongo on May 30, 2012, 06:24:22 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on May 30, 2012, 05:35:38 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 30, 2012, 05:28:20 PM

It takes just as much non-faith to be religious as it does to be atheist (if not more non-faith).

Elaboration required.

I dunno if I can, religious people tell me it takes just as much, of not more faith, to me atheist and it confuses the hell outta me.

It's kind of true.  The difference is, your faith is in science, so at least there's a solid reason behind it.  Their faith is mostly in a fairy tale, a folk story.

Science isn't really about faith though.  Faith is a strong conviction that a particular thing is true, despite lack of evidence or even contrary evidence.  Faith is unreasonable by definition.

Science however is completely different.  If I put a pot of water on a fire and with a thermometer watch the temperature rise, do I have faith that the water will boil at 212 F? (assuming at sea level)  No, I don't have faith, I have knowledge.  Since that has been demonstrated over and over again, I can reasonably say that I KNOW the water will boil once it gets hot enough (given no other factors interrupt the heating process).

Religion has you believe that sprinkling the blood of a bird on your forehead cures leprosy.  That IS a matter of faith, since nothing about that claim has been objectively tested to be accurate.

Maybe we are just disagreeing on the definition of faith, I do not include believing in things that can be demonstrated objectively to be true as matters of faith, I call that knowledge.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 30, 2012, 07:17:52 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 30, 2012, 06:24:22 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on May 30, 2012, 05:35:38 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 30, 2012, 05:28:20 PM

It takes just as much non-faith to be religious as it does to be atheist (if not more non-faith).

Elaboration required.

I dunno if I can, religious people tell me it takes just as much, of not more faith, to me atheist and it confuses the hell outta me.

It's kind of true.  The difference is, your faith is in science, so at least there's a solid reason behind it.  Their faith is mostly in a fairy tale, a folk story.

Science isn't really about faith though.  Faith is a strong conviction that a particular thing is true, despite lack of evidence or even contrary evidence.  Faith is unreasonable by definition.

Science however is completely different.  If I put a pot of water on a fire and with a thermometer watch the temperature rise, do I have faith that the water will boil at 212 F? (assuming at sea level)  No, I don't have faith, I have knowledge.  Since that has been demonstrated over and over again, I can reasonably say that I KNOW the water will boil once it gets hot enough (given no other factors interrupt the heating process).

Religion has you believe that sprinkling the blood of a bird on your forehead cures leprosy.  That IS a matter of faith, since nothing about that claim has been objectively tested to be accurate.

Maybe we are just disagreeing on the definition of faith, I do not include believing in things that can be demonstrated objectively to be true as matters of faith, I call that knowledge.

It becomes faith when used in the context of atheism, as in using science as a crutch to support the notion that there is no God (or even that there's no reason to believe in a God).

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on May 30, 2012, 08:07:41 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 30, 2012, 07:17:52 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 30, 2012, 06:24:22 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on May 30, 2012, 05:35:38 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 30, 2012, 05:28:20 PM

It takes just as much non-faith to be religious as it does to be atheist (if not more non-faith).

Elaboration required.

I dunno if I can, religious people tell me it takes just as much, of not more faith, to me atheist and it confuses the hell outta me.

It's kind of true.  The difference is, your faith is in science, so at least there's a solid reason behind it.  Their faith is mostly in a fairy tale, a folk story.

Science isn't really about faith though.  Faith is a strong conviction that a particular thing is true, despite lack of evidence or even contrary evidence.  Faith is unreasonable by definition.

Science however is completely different.  If I put a pot of water on a fire and with a thermometer watch the temperature rise, do I have faith that the water will boil at 212 F? (assuming at sea level)  No, I don't have faith, I have knowledge.  Since that has been demonstrated over and over again, I can reasonably say that I KNOW the water will boil once it gets hot enough (given no other factors interrupt the heating process).

Religion has you believe that sprinkling the blood of a bird on your forehead cures leprosy.  That IS a matter of faith, since nothing about that claim has been objectively tested to be accurate.

Maybe we are just disagreeing on the definition of faith, I do not include believing in things that can be demonstrated objectively to be true as matters of faith, I call that knowledge.

It becomes faith when used in the context of atheism, as in using science as a crutch to support the notion that there is no God (or even that there's no reason to believe in a God).

But isn't that simply lack of knowlege?
Can one define faith as having no proof something exists?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 30, 2012, 07:17:52 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 30, 2012, 06:24:22 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on May 30, 2012, 05:35:38 PM

Quote from: Pongo on May 30, 2012, 05:28:20 PM

It takes just as much non-faith to be religious as it does to be atheist (if not more non-faith).

Elaboration required.

I dunno if I can, religious people tell me it takes just as much, of not more faith, to me atheist and it confuses the hell outta me.

It's kind of true.  The difference is, your faith is in science, so at least there's a solid reason behind it.  Their faith is mostly in a fairy tale, a folk story.

Science isn't really about faith though.  Faith is a strong conviction that a particular thing is true, despite lack of evidence or even contrary evidence.  Faith is unreasonable by definition.

Science however is completely different.  If I put a pot of water on a fire and with a thermometer watch the temperature rise, do I have faith that the water will boil at 212 F? (assuming at sea level)  No, I don't have faith, I have knowledge.  Since that has been demonstrated over and over again, I can reasonably say that I KNOW the water will boil once it gets hot enough (given no other factors interrupt the heating process).

Religion has you believe that sprinkling the blood of a bird on your forehead cures leprosy.  That IS a matter of faith, since nothing about that claim has been objectively tested to be accurate.

Maybe we are just disagreeing on the definition of faith, I do not include believing in things that can be demonstrated objectively to be true as matters of faith, I call that knowledge.

I was having this discussion with my Catholic girlfriend who argued that I have to have faith in the scientists who undertake these experiments and the results they make public, the specific example given was that when I see a picture taken by Hubble, I have to have faith that it really is a picture from Hubble.

My response was that I don't have faith, which is belief in the absence of evidence, but trust, which is belief in something earned through the evidence. I trust the picture from Hubble as the satelite has had decades worthm of evidence of sending back pictures, which are scrutinised by fellow observers and scientists, cross-checked with other observatories, both ground-based and orbital. Yes I could, theoretically be being lied to by a great conspiracy (perhaps one to keep the world flat) but the field of astronomy has earned the trust I give it.

Science however is completely different.  If I put a pot of water on a fire and with a thermometer watch the temperature rise, do I have faith that the water will boil at 212 F? (assuming at sea level)  No, I don't have faith, I have knowledge.  Since that has been demonstrated over and over again, I can reasonably say that I KNOW the water will boil once it gets hot enough (given no other factors interrupt the heating process).

The same science that doesn't know how the big bang happened?  What caused the first cause?  Where did all that matter come from in the first place?  Yes.  There is no need for faith in science.

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on May 30, 2012, 08:07:41 PM

Science however is completely different.  If I put a pot of water on a fire and with a thermometer watch the temperature rise, do I have faith that the water will boil at 212 F? (assuming at sea level)  No, I don't have faith, I have knowledge.  Since that has been demonstrated over and over again, I can reasonably say that I KNOW the water will boil once it gets hot enough (given no other factors interrupt the heating process).

The same science that doesn't know how the big bang happened?  What caused the first cause?  Where did all that matter come from in the first place?  Yes.  There is no need for faith in science.

It's takes faith to say "I don't know what caused the big bang"?  No, it would take faith to say that it was caused by an invisible man.  When science lacks the evidence, it tends to admit that they do not know yet.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 31, 2012, 03:41:24 AM

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on May 30, 2012, 08:07:41 PM

Science however is completely different.  If I put a pot of water on a fire and with a thermometer watch the temperature rise, do I have faith that the water will boil at 212 F? (assuming at sea level)  No, I don't have faith, I have knowledge.  Since that has been demonstrated over and over again, I can reasonably say that I KNOW the water will boil once it gets hot enough (given no other factors interrupt the heating process).

The same science that doesn't know how the big bang happened?  What caused the first cause?  Where did all that matter come from in the first place?  Yes.  There is no need for faith in science.

It's takes faith to say "I don't know what caused the big bang"?  No, it would take faith to say that it was caused by an invisible man.  When science lacks the evidence, it tends to admit that they do not know yet.

Scientifically wouldn't you call that a "cop out"?

Science isn't a belief system, why would it require faith? It's just like a complex list of things we know with room to add things we will discover in the future. It shouldn't even be compared to religion at all. Every time you walk outside and put on a jacket because it's too cold, you're doing science. It's just observing and testing the physical world.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 30, 2012, 08:39:38 PM

It becomes faith when used in the context of atheism, as in using science as a crutch to support the notion that there is no God (or even that there's no reason to believe in a God).

But isn't that simply lack of knowlege?

Isn't what simply lack of knowledge? 

Can one define faith as having no proof something exists?

It would seem to at least be part of the definition, wouldn't it?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 31, 2012, 03:19:16 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 30, 2012, 08:39:38 PM

It becomes faith when used in the context of atheism, as in using science as a crutch to support the notion that there is no God (or even that there's no reason to believe in a God).

But isn't that simply lack of knowlege?

Isn't what simply lack of knowledge? 

Using science to support the notion that there is no God.

Quote

Can one define faith as having no proof something exists?

It would seem to at least be part of the definition, wouldn't it?

True but not the importaint part.

Faith is the substance of things hoped, the evidence of things not seen. A lot of you fancy scienticians out there are tryin to disprove thu truths thats in the bible with your fancy scientician formulas and intellectial mumbo jumbo.

Faith is the substance of things hoped, the evidence of things not seen. A lot of you fancy scienticians out there are tryin to disprove thu truths thats in the bible with your fancy scientician formulas and intellectial mumbo jumbo.

How do you know they're true?

Faith is the substance of things hoped, the evidence of things not seen. A lot of you fancy scienticians out there are tryin to disprove thu truths thats in the bible with your fancy scientician formulas and intellectial mumbo jumbo.

This reads like a parody of a religious person.

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on May 31, 2012, 04:54:59 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 31, 2012, 03:41:24 AM

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on May 30, 2012, 08:07:41 PM

Science however is completely different.  If I put a pot of water on a fire and with a thermometer watch the temperature rise, do I have faith that the water will boil at 212 F? (assuming at sea level)  No, I don't have faith, I have knowledge.  Since that has been demonstrated over and over again, I can reasonably say that I KNOW the water will boil once it gets hot enough (given no other factors interrupt the heating process).

The same science that doesn't know how the big bang happened?  What caused the first cause?  Where did all that matter come from in the first place?  Yes.  There is no need for faith in science.

It's takes faith to say "I don't know what caused the big bang"?  No, it would take faith to say that it was caused by an invisible man.  When science lacks the evidence, it tends to admit that they do not know yet.

Scientifically wouldn't you call that a "cop out"?

Only as much of a cop-out as a detective walking into a murder scene and telling people he doesn't know who killed the man.

The big gaping wound in his chest, the evidence of a struggle and a missing wallet imply strongly that there has been a murder, but he does not yet have enough evidence to work out who killed him, but he can speculate that the missing wallet means it was a thief, the fact that there are tyre tracks nearby means that the assailant escaped by car and the cartridge nearby suggests he was shot. None of these speculations is based on faith, the detective has just linked the evidence together into a narrative that makes sense, even though it is incomplete and could change drastically as more evidence is found.

In our case, the origin of the universe is our murder scene, scientists are the detective and things like the universal redshift, the Cosmic Background Radiation, and the large proportion of light elements are the evidence he found at the scene.

EDIT: Oh and don't start stretching this metaphor to 'ah hah! A murder requires a murderer!' otherwise I'll stop using interesting metaphors and go for 'a geologist is looking at a cliff which has just collapsed, he analyses the erosion rate etc'

Quote from: hoppy on May 31, 2012, 10:23:33 AM

Faith is the substance of things hoped, the evidence of things not seen. A lot of you fancy scienticians out there are tryin to disprove thu truths thats in the bible with your fancy scientician formulas and intellectial mumbo jumbo.

This reads like a parody of a religious person.

Did you even check who wrote that post?

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on May 31, 2012, 04:54:59 AM

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on May 31, 2012, 03:41:24 AM

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on May 30, 2012, 08:07:41 PM

Science however is completely different.  If I put a pot of water on a fire and with a thermometer watch the temperature rise, do I have faith that the water will boil at 212 F? (assuming at sea level)  No, I don't have faith, I have knowledge.  Since that has been demonstrated over and over again, I can reasonably say that I KNOW the water will boil once it gets hot enough (given no other factors interrupt the heating process).

The same science that doesn't know how the big bang happened?  What caused the first cause?  Where did all that matter come from in the first place?  Yes.  There is no need for faith in science.

It's takes faith to say "I don't know what caused the big bang"?  No, it would take faith to say that it was caused by an invisible man.  When science lacks the evidence, it tends to admit that they do not know yet.

Scientifically wouldn't you call that a "cop out"?

I'd call it intellectual honesty.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 31, 2012, 06:45:40 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 31, 2012, 03:19:16 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 30, 2012, 08:39:38 PM

It becomes faith when used in the context of atheism, as in using science as a crutch to support the notion that there is no God (or even that there's no reason to believe in a God).

But isn't that simply lack of knowlege?

Isn't what simply lack of knowledge? 

Using science to support the notion that there is no God.

Quote

Quote

Can one define faith as having no proof something exists?

It would seem to at least be part of the definition, wouldn't it?

True but not the importaint part.

I'm sorry, I have no idea where you're going with this.

I refer to science as a crutch to support the notion that there's no reason to believe in God, because it automatically assumes that the only method one can use to understand the world around us is science, despite the fact that science is necessarily limited in what it can show us, and excludes out of hand the possibility that there are other rational systems that might shed deeper light on the subject.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 31, 2012, 09:24:37 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 31, 2012, 06:45:40 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 31, 2012, 03:19:16 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 30, 2012, 08:39:38 PM

It becomes faith when used in the context of atheism, as in using science as a crutch to support the notion that there is no God (or even that there's no reason to believe in a God).

But isn't that simply lack of knowlege?

Isn't what simply lack of knowledge? 

Using science to support the notion that there is no God.

Quote

Quote

Can one define faith as having no proof something exists?

It would seem to at least be part of the definition, wouldn't it?

True but not the importaint part.

I'm sorry, I have no idea where you're going with this.

I refer to science as a crutch to support the notion that there's no reason to believe in God, because it automatically assumes that the only method one can use to understand the world around us is science, despite the fact that science is necessarily limited in what it can show us, and excludes out of hand the possibility that there are other rational systems that might shed deeper light on the subject.

Ah, that's what you meant.  I thought you meant something else.

Well, since science is nothing more than repeatable tests, the only thing I can see science not being able to show us is Chaos.
What method do you feel can show us more or something science can't?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 31, 2012, 09:24:37 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 31, 2012, 06:45:40 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on May 31, 2012, 03:19:16 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 30, 2012, 08:39:38 PM

It becomes faith when used in the context of atheism, as in using science as a crutch to support the notion that there is no God (or even that there's no reason to believe in a God).

But isn't that simply lack of knowlege?

Isn't what simply lack of knowledge? 

Using science to support the notion that there is no God.

Quote

Quote

Can one define faith as having no proof something exists?

It would seem to at least be part of the definition, wouldn't it?

True but not the importaint part.

I'm sorry, I have no idea where you're going with this.

I refer to science as a crutch to support the notion that there's no reason to believe in God, because it automatically assumes that the only method one can use to understand the world around us is science, despite the fact that science is necessarily limited in what it can show us, and excludes out of hand the possibility that there are other rational systems that might shed deeper light on the subject.

Science is the study of the natural world, it doesn't make the claim that the supernatural doesn't exist, but since there is no way to test this to be true, science simply can't say anything about it.

Science will never be able to prove or disprove God, since by definition god lies outside the laws of physics, outside of reality.  Therefore atheists such as myself cannot use science as a crutch to show that there is no god.  I just admit that there is another name for something that exists outside of reality, I call it make believe.

Well, since science is nothing more than repeatable tests, the only thing I can see science not being able to show us is Chaos.
What method do you feel can show us more or something science can't?

I've expounded on the philosophical reasons for believing in God many times. 

Science is the study of the natural world, it doesn't make the claim that the supernatural doesn't exist, but since there is no way to test this to be true, science simply can't say anything about it.

Yes... well, that's one way of rewording exactly what I just said.

Science will never be able to prove or disprove God, since by definition god lies outside the laws of physics, outside of reality.

I'm sorry, but that's utterly ridiculous.  Obviously if God exists, he exists within reality. 

Therefore atheists such as myself cannot use science as a crutch to show that there is no god.  I just admit that there is another name for something that exists outside of reality, I call it make believe.

And that's exactly the pompous, short-sighted atheist attitude I was talking about!

All the evidence directly contradicts the stories of specific gods. So I have good reason to not accept any of the dogmatic religions.

When it comes to diestic type beliefs all I have to say is "I have no reason to believe those things exists. So I do not believe they exist, though I do accept that it might be possible."