Scientist who believes in God!

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: mrkun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Aside from the fact that I believe in Jesus, yes. Didn't know it had it's own term.

 

[KCfromNC]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi

What did I miss while I was away??

P.S. Sir(cough)Isaac(cough)Newton

Did somebody say something??

Yes, this is a good example of scientist who, while being religious, fell way outside the mainstream of religious thought of his day. In Newton's case, he also falls way outside the mainstream of current Christian dogma as well. I'm curious why answersingenesis is promoting unitarian beliefs - I didn't think that rejecting the trinity was part of their fundamentalist agenda.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
Honestly, as a rational thinker, I dont understand how someone could not believe in a god. I'm not saying which god. I'm not saying anything about an afterlife. I'm talking about a creator, and intelligent designer of some form.

I find it even more amusing that atheists somehow think they have it all figured out, when in reality, their claims are just as absurd as those of religious folks. You tell me that god doesnt exist? You're just as much of a fvcking idiot as the next guy who tries to tell me something about our existence.

On top of that, I find it even more amusing that people think they are going to figure something out that the human mind simply isnt capable of. Just as a dog doesnt understand that it is going to die, a human-being simply cannot, and never will, understand its existence. I guess people just cant accept the fact that there IS an answer, but they will NEVER actually be able to comprehend it.

so if because believing in nothing is absurd, whats your take on believing in a creator? what the hell created the creator. there is absolutely no answer to that. so alas, you are at the same point as the rest of humanity in that we cannot grasp or begin to understand the root of life, so different people create different answers to please their aching brain. thus the creation of religion.
i simply choose what is more logical, at least to my mind, mind you. it may be more logical for you to believe in a creator, as it seems it is for a lot of people, but the way my mind works and begs to dig deeper, my mind likes what your mind believes is absurd, and your mind likes what my mind believes to be absurd.
so deal with it. you won't be able to comprehend why I choose to have a lack of belief, and I'll feign a slight comprehension as to why most people choose to follow the path of belief that you do.

 

[BirdDad]

why is this even coming up?A lot of scientists believe in God.

 

[Turin39789]

"had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as

"What is the meaning of life?"
To perpetuate our genetic code

"Why am I here?"
To perpetuate my genetic code

"Why does mathematics work, anyway?"
Because it is based on the laws of the universe. Why doesn't astrology work anyway?

"If the universe had a beginning, who created it?"
Did it?

"Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?"
Why are the laws of the universe complicated? Because they are. Why is calculus made of math?

"Why do humans have a moral sense?"
To perpetuate our genetic code, also a part of our training/culture as we grow up.

"What happens after we die?"
decomposition
"

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
"Why do humans have a moral sense?"
To perpetuate our genetic code, also a part of our training/culture as we grow up.
"

well to go with that, I'd say it has nothing to do with genetics and rather purely based on being a product of environment. if nobody taught us right or wrong, we wouldn't have morals. religion created morals, not the other way around. not that it was something created within the past 2000 years. ancient chinese had morals, but they had their beliefs... ancient egyptians had morals, but they had their deity beliefs as well.

babies, not knowing any religion, have no morals. they will do what they need to do to get what they want.
Freud's best work was explaining that, although a lot of modern philosophers basically say he was an idiot these days.

 

[KoolAidKid]

<old and cranky>
The problem with the Internet is that they let everyone in.

I long for a discussion forum where:
1) All of the posters act like adults
2) People have well-reasoned opinions
3) People are open to other points of view

Although all three of those qualities would be great, I would settle for #3. I enjoy a heated debate as much as anyone, but these discussions (e.g., this thread, or take your pick in P & N) are mostly just pissing matches where internet machismo ensures that absolutely no one will alter their opinion in any way.
</old and cranky>

 

[mrkun]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Turin39789
"Why do humans have a moral sense?"
To perpetuate our genetic code, also a part of our training/culture as we grow up.
"

well to go with that, I'd say it has nothing to do with genetics and rather purely based on being a product of environment. if nobody taught us right or wrong, we wouldn't have morals. religion created morals, not the other way around. not that it was something created within the past 2000 years. ancient chinese had morals, but they had their beliefs... ancient egyptians had morals, but they had their deity beliefs as well.

babies, not knowing any religion, have no morals. they will do what they need to do to get what they want.
Freud's best work was explaining that, although a lot of modern philosophers basically say he was an idiot these days.

If this is the case that religion created morals, then did the early humans not have morals? If they did, then they would had to have been born with religion. Unless you believe someone just "made up" religion at some point and taught it to others, who taught it to their children, etc.

Anyway, it would help a great deal if you defined what you mean by "religion" and "morality."

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: bignateyk
Honestly, as a rational thinker, I dont understand how someone could not believe in a god. I'm not saying which god. I'm not saying anything about an afterlife. I'm talking about a creator, and intelligent designer of some form.

I find it even more amusing that atheists somehow think they have it all figured out, when in reality, their claims are just as absurd as those of religious folks. You tell me that god doesnt exist? You're just as much of a fvcking idiot as the next guy who tries to tell me something about our existence.

On top of that, I find it even more amusing that people think they are going to figure something out that the human mind simply isnt capable of. Just as a dog doesnt understand that it is going to die, a human-being simply cannot, and never will, understand its existence. I guess people just cant accept the fact that there IS an answer, but they will NEVER actually be able to comprehend it.

Your logic is circular and contradictory.

A - Atheists think they have it all figured out, therefore they are nutjobs. They tell you god doesnt exist. Ultra religious are absurd as well. We can never understand our existence. We can know there is an answer, but we can't know what it is.

B - You do not understand how someone could NOT believe in a god, as creator/intelligent designer.
- Therefore, you have certainly figured something out.

A is in direct contradiction to B.

If you're going to claim that we cant find all the answers, and yet remain rational, its certainly a stretch to make the jump to there being an intelligent designer.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Turin39789
"Why do humans have a moral sense?"
To perpetuate our genetic code, also a part of our training/culture as we grow up.
"

well to go with that, I'd say it has nothing to do with genetics and rather purely based on being a product of environment. if nobody taught us right or wrong, we wouldn't have morals. religion created morals, not the other way around. not that it was something created within the past 2000 years. ancient chinese had morals, but they had their beliefs... ancient egyptians had morals, but they had their deity beliefs as well.

babies, not knowing any religion, have no morals. they will do what they need to do to get what they want.
Freud's best work was explaining that, although a lot of modern philosophers basically say he was an idiot these days.

Oh, it has a hell of a lot to do with genetics. What are our most basic, shared morals? Do not kill other humans, stay away from incest.

You will find these morals ingrained very deeply in the vast majority of the animal kingdom. Because both are a very bad way for genes to perpetuate themselves. You wont find many species that regularly kill their own or sleep with their sisters, because they are the fastest route out of the gene pool. Sure, theres exceptions, but theres reason for those exceptions...it holds as a general rule.


Then there's cooperation. Help your fellow beings.

While not nearly as widespread, youll find plenty of cooperation in the animal kingdom...we are not the only social animals. Those social animals do not fare very well if abandoned...their genes evolve in a social environment, and are tuned for that purpose.


Which brings us to the effect the environment has on morals and behavior. It's huge. The genetic code only produces proteins, it doesnt have a direct effect, ie there's no "Dont kill others" gene. But its our genetics that enable us to interact socially in a meaningful way. Our genes have an effect on our behavior above and beyond that which we could control consciously - your mind is a slave to your hormones and neurotransmitter balance, all of which are directly effects by your genes. Babies and children are not fully developed yet, and therefore they don't interact in the same way. Theyre not *missing* morals.

Perhaps the behavioral code of morality wasnt written down until a few thousand years ago, but the main ideas (the actual behavior) was surely there.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Turin39789
"Why do humans have a moral sense?"
To perpetuate our genetic code, also a part of our training/culture as we grow up.
"

well to go with that, I'd say it has nothing to do with genetics and rather purely based on being a product of environment. if nobody taught us right or wrong, we wouldn't have morals. religion created morals, not the other way around. not that it was something created within the past 2000 years. ancient chinese had morals, but they had their beliefs... ancient egyptians had morals, but they had their deity beliefs as well.

babies, not knowing any religion, have no morals. they will do what they need to do to get what they want.
Freud's best work was explaining that, although a lot of modern philosophers basically say he was an idiot these days.

Oh, it has a hell of a lot to do with genetics. What are our most basic, shared morals? Do not kill other humans, stay away from incest.

You will find these morals ingrained very deeply in the vast majority of the animal kingdom. Because both are a very bad way for genes to perpetuate themselves. You wont find many species that regularly kill their own or sleep with their sisters, because they are the fastest route out of the gene pool. Sure, theres exceptions, but theres reason for those exceptions...it holds as a general rule.


Then there's cooperation. Help your fellow beings.

While not nearly as widespread, youll find plenty of cooperation in the animal kingdom...we are not the only social animals. Those social animals do not fare very well if abandoned...their genes evolve in a social environment, and are tuned for that purpose.


Which brings us to the effect the environment has on morals and behavior. It's huge. The genetic code only produces proteins, it doesnt have a direct effect, ie there's no "Dont kill others" gene. But its our genetics that enable us to interact socially in a meaningful way. Our genes have an effect on our behavior above and beyond that which we could control consciously - your mind is a slave to your hormones and neurotransmitter balance, all of which are directly effects by your genes. Babies and children are not fully developed yet, and therefore they don't interact in the same way. Theyre not *missing* morals.

Perhaps the behavioral code of morality wasnt written down until a few thousand years ago, but the main ideas (the actual behavior) was surely there.

incest actually happens in the animal kingdom, don't compare us to other animals unless its the primate family because their behavior is most similar to ours. I believe incest has been documented (considering most primate tribes are typically comprised of mostly related individuals).
and killing is a tribal thing, you fight other tribes. not killing now is part of the fact that we are held down by moral obligations to not kill and not live by tribal standards. communities are the closest to tribes and we see more cooperation close to home than away from it, as we consider community close.
there are a lot of behaviors related to tribal relations and they can still be witnessed today, just minus the true tribes and no tribal competitions for dominance really exist anymore (except for state-to-state wars, but thats another topic altogether).

Originally posted by: mrkun
If this is the case that religion created morals, then did the early humans not have morals? If they did, then they would had to have been born with religion. Unless you believe someone just "made up" religion at some point and taught it to others, who taught it to their children, etc.

Anyway, it would help a great deal if you defined what you mean by "religion" and "morality."

religion is, oh come on... its one of the defined beliefs in a deity, or deities.
morals are the mind weighing different decisions in the head as to what is right and wrong as defined by what has been learned, normally through society but can be self-guided. a lot of morals are self-guided, but quite a few are also implanted through society.
regardless, yes, I do believe religion was created at some point. plain and simple, no other way other than religion was created, most likely as a way to control people and/or to help answer the minds most nagging questions about life.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: BD2003
The genetic code only produces proteins, it doesnt have a direct effect, ie there's no "Dont kill others" gene.

Actually, only a fraction of our DNA codes for proteins. The rest is commonly called "junk DNA", because we still don't really know what it does. Scientists used to think it was leftover evolutionary products, but some scientists now think it serves regulatory or some other similar function.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: KCfromNC

Originally posted by: redgtxdi

What did I miss while I was away??

P.S. Sir(cough)Isaac(cough)Newton

Did somebody say something??

Yes, this is a good example of scientist who, while being religious, fell way outside the mainstream of religious thought of his day. In Newton's case, he also falls way outside the mainstream of current Christian dogma as well. I'm curious why answersingenesis is promoting unitarian beliefs - I didn't think that rejecting the trinity was part of their fundamentalist agenda.

They use him as an example to counter the rampant claim that being scientific (or even logical) is a necessary contradiction to believing in something supernatural.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: destrekor
so if because believing in nothing is absurd, whats your take on believing in a creator? what the hell created the creator. there is absolutely no answer to that. so alas, you are at the same point as the rest of humanity in that we cannot grasp or begin to understand the root of life, so different people create different answers to please their aching brain. thus the creation of religion.

I agree to a point. I think, left to our own, we would make up all kinds of crazy ideas to explain our own existence. That happens all the time, all over the world.

The difference between us then, is that I think God actually is involved in this world, and there actually is a way to know the truth about our situation. Not because one of us stumbled upon the right answer, but because God desires that we understand what is going on, and how we got here.

Originally posted by: destrekor
i simply choose what is more logical, at least to my mind, mind you. it may be more logical for you to believe in a creator, as it seems it is for a lot of people, but the way my mind works and begs to dig deeper, my mind likes what your mind believes is absurd, and your mind likes what my mind believes to be absurd.

Well, then, I guess we can conclude that either

a) We came to different conclusions, but they are both logically valid based on the evidence we have.

or

b) One of us is deceiving ourselves.

Seriously, I'm not making the claim which of those is true. How could I? All our experiences are at least somewhat subjective.

Originally posted by: destrekor
so deal with it. you won't be able to comprehend why I choose to have a lack of belief, and I'll feign a slight comprehension as to why most people choose to follow the path of belief that you do.

That sounds fair. Besides, in the end, if we go and stand before God or if we rot in the ground, it really doesn't matter what either of us believe about it. All that matters is what's actually true. So place your bets, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
"had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as

"What is the meaning of life?"
To perpetuate our genetic code

If evolution is responsible for us, then yes, I would agree.

Originally posted by: Turin39789
"Why am I here?"
To perpetuate my genetic code

See answer 1.

Originally posted by: Turin39789
"Why does mathematics work, anyway?"
Because it is based on the laws of the universe. Why doesn't astrology work anyway?

That's not really an answer... why do the laws of the universe work?

Originally posted by: Turin39789
"If the universe had a beginning, who created it?"
Did it?

According to all scientific evidence including the Laws of Thermodynamics, yes. But that leads us to the question of what caused the beginning. And science has no answer for that.

Originally posted by: Turin39789
"Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?"
Why are the laws of the universe complicated? Because they are. Why is calculus made of math?

I think you missed the point. Or you dodged the question.

Originally posted by: Turin39789
"Why do humans have a moral sense?"
To perpetuate our genetic code, also a part of our training/culture as we grow up.

Sure, if evolution is true.

Originally posted by: Turin39789
"What happens after we die?"
decomposition
"

I think you know why this is a dumb answer, but I think you were just trying to be funny...

Ha.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: jagec
And yes, I'm a Christian, and a scientist. I hope that doesn't make me a Christian Scientist...

I worked closely with a Christian Scientist at one time. I didn't share his faith, but I respected him a great deal. I'd like to think that we can mostly get along well together despite whatever odious personal religious beliefs we might consider each other to hold.

As to the point of this thread, well, I can't honestly say that I don't get it, but I question it. It seems to me to be so much straining at honor by association again. Look after your own beliefs, regardless of how odious or unconventional or conventional others may regard them as being.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: mrkun

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Turin39789
"Why do humans have a moral sense?"
To perpetuate our genetic code, also a part of our training/culture as we grow up.
"

well to go with that, I'd say it has nothing to do with genetics and rather purely based on being a product of environment. if nobody taught us right or wrong, we wouldn't have morals. religion created morals, not the other way around. not that it was something created within the past 2000 years. ancient chinese had morals, but they had their beliefs... ancient egyptians had morals, but they had their deity beliefs as well.

babies, not knowing any religion, have no morals. they will do what they need to do to get what they want.
Freud's best work was explaining that, although a lot of modern philosophers basically say he was an idiot these days.

If this is the case that religion created morals, then did the early humans not have morals? If they did, then they would had to have been born with religion. Unless you believe someone just "made up" religion at some point and taught it to others, who taught it to their children, etc.

Anyway, it would help a great deal if you defined what you mean by "religion" and "morality."

Well, though it's hardly scientific, Golding's Lord of the Flies does offer some insight into human nature.

 

[BD2003]

incest actually happens in the animal kingdom, don't compare us to other animals unless its the primate family because their behavior is most similar to ours. I believe incest has been documented (considering most primate tribes are typically comprised of mostly related individuals).

Sure it does, which is why I said theres exceptions to every rule. The most direct comparison is to other primates since they are so evolutionarily close, but that doesnt mean we dont share quite a bit in common behavior wise with other animals. Its not as apparent because these things are *so* basic that you wouldnt even consider them to be worth mentioning, but primates and their behavior didnt just spring up out of nowhere. Ready about the social dynamics of a wolf pack, and youll find quite a bit in common with our own behavior.

and killing is a tribal thing, you fight other tribes. not killing now is part of the fact that we are held down by moral obligations to not kill and not live by tribal standards. communities are the closest to tribes and we see more cooperation close to home than away from it, as we consider community close.

You'll find ants fighting other ants, and lions fighting hyenas, but you'll be very unlikely to see much outright murder within animal packs/colonies until you get to primates - the huge exception being competition over mates...women cause problems all the way down the animal kingdom.

there are a lot of behaviors related to tribal relations and they can still be witnessed today, just minus the true tribes and no tribal competitions for dominance really exist anymore (except for state-to-state wars, but thats another topic altogether).

All of which has long been a part of animal behavior, long before humans even evolved.

religion is, oh come on... its one of the defined beliefs in a deity, or deities.
morals are the mind weighing different decisions in the head as to what is right and wrong as defined by what has been learned, normally through society but can be self-guided. a lot of morals are self-guided, but quite a few are also implanted through society.
regardless, yes, I do believe religion was created at some point. plain and simple, no other way other than religion was created, most likely as a way to control people and/or to help answer the minds most nagging questions about life.

Our codes of ethics and morality didnt just spring up out of nowhere. You'll find quite a bit of similarity in morality between completely unrelated populations/tribes/religions/whatever. Not because they were all "implanted" from the same source, but that they all independently came to *mostly* the same conclusions about morality that everyone else did, because theyre good for survival.

Actually, only a fraction of our DNA codes for proteins. The rest is commonly called "junk DNA", because we still don't really know what it does. Scientists used to think it was leftover evolutionary products, but some scientists now think it serves regulatory or some other similar function.

Of course...I was just simplifying. Theres plenty of ideas as to what the introns are there for - trash, regulatory sequences, alternative splicing, and a whole mess of other stuff.

Now I'm hearing that theres possibly no such thing as a silent mutation (a point mutation the third base of the codon), because even though the amino acid sequence may turn up the same, the different bases can change the timing of transcription and alter the folding of the protein. As if genetics wasnt complicated enough already.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: BD2003

incest actually happens in the animal kingdom, don't compare us to other animals unless its the primate family because their behavior is most similar to ours. I believe incest has been documented (considering most primate tribes are typically comprised of mostly related individuals).

Sure it does, which is why I said theres exceptions to every rule. The most direct comparison is to other primates since they are so evolutionarily close, but that doesnt mean we dont share quite a bit in common behavior wise with other animals. Its not as apparent because these things are *so* basic that you wouldnt even consider them to be worth mentioning, but primates and their behavior didnt just spring up out of nowhere. Ready about the social dynamics of a wolf pack, and youll find quite a bit in common with our own behavior.

and killing is a tribal thing, you fight other tribes. not killing now is part of the fact that we are held down by moral obligations to not kill and not live by tribal standards. communities are the closest to tribes and we see more cooperation close to home than away from it, as we consider community close.

You'll find ants fighting other ants, and lions fighting hyenas, but you'll be very unlikely to see much outright murder within animal packs/colonies until you get to primates - the huge exception being competition over mates...women cause problems all the way down the animal kingdom.

there are a lot of behaviors related to tribal relations and they can still be witnessed today, just minus the true tribes and no tribal competitions for dominance really exist anymore (except for state-to-state wars, but thats another topic altogether).

All of which has long been a part of animal behavior, long before humans even evolved.

religion is, oh come on... its one of the defined beliefs in a deity, or deities.
morals are the mind weighing different decisions in the head as to what is right and wrong as defined by what has been learned, normally through society but can be self-guided. a lot of morals are self-guided, but quite a few are also implanted through society.
regardless, yes, I do believe religion was created at some point. plain and simple, no other way other than religion was created, most likely as a way to control people and/or to help answer the minds most nagging questions about life.

Our codes of ethics and morality didnt just spring up out of nowhere. You'll find quite a bit of similarity in morality between completely unrelated populations/tribes/religions/whatever. Not because they were all "implanted" from the same source, but that they all independently came to *mostly* the same conclusions about morality that everyone else did, because theyre good for survival.

Actually, only a fraction of our DNA codes for proteins. The rest is commonly called "junk DNA", because we still don't really know what it does. Scientists used to think it was leftover evolutionary products, but some scientists now think it serves regulatory or some other similar function.

Of course...I was just simplifying. Theres plenty of ideas as to what the introns are there for - trash, regulatory sequences, alternative splicing, and a whole mess of other stuff.

Now I'm hearing that theres possibly no such thing as a silent mutation (a point mutation the third base of the codon), because even though the amino acid sequence may turn up the same, the different bases can change the timing of transcription and alter the folding of the protein. As if genetics wasnt complicated enough already.

you said a lot of things and I am kind of tired of arguing individual points because each argument is very closely related to another and it gets to be one person rehashing the same arguments while the other rehashes theirs. it hasn't come to that point yet, but it will and I just have this left to say:

yes, other animals have behaviors that are similar to ours, but I merely related to primates because they share the most behaviors with us and thats natural because we are so closely related to them, and its not any kind of stretch to believe we would retain a lot of the behaviors of our primate ancestors.

you also proved my point about primates. primates act a lot differently than a lot of other animals, and they have murdered over mates. and thats a behavior that is shared with humans through today. but humans have more things on our minds than merely mating, as religion and society has seemed to take mating away as a natural requirement of life (quite a few people go without children their entire lives). Things such as money and religion have been causes for murder for almost the entire course of mankinds history. This is another point that doesn't require any stretch of imagination to link together: the behavior of murder over a (seemingly) necessary requirement for life.

and yes, different tribes will share morals, but this is something that is hard to explain either way. Psychologists and anthropologists will likely explain it as still a product of environment, and the shared environment of each tribe in the end is similar to every tribe (environment in this case because the social circles, not necessarily the land and weather). But I am sure a biologist somewhere can explain it as a product of genetics.
I like to follow the theory of moral behavior as being a social circle thing. I find interest in anthropology, and connecting that with my own behaviors, the behaviors I have witnessed from others in life, and the way my mind works and my appreciation for life and its intricacies (as well as hatred of those same intricacies), just leads me towards the anthropologist explanation. however I have heavy interest in the biological aspect of human evolution and the evolution of the mind and consciousness, but alas I cannot even believe myself if I tried to pull off understanding how our minds work biologically.

 

[mercanucaribe]

He found religion to satisfy his own emotional needs. He even admits that. Just because you can come up with questions about the meaning of life, what happens after death, etc etc, and then come to the conclusion that the simplest answer is "God", does not mean that either the question or the answer is valid.

 

[flashbacck]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Rob9874
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

Who cares? Lots of scientists say they believe in god.

OK, so I didn't put much explanation behind it. This is a new commentary, from cnn.com's main page today, by Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., the director of the Human Genome Project. A pretty prominent scientist, who actually presents an intellectual argument against atheism in his book. Of course the atheists here aren't interested. They're not interested in hearing both sides and deciding for themselves . They just pay attention to anything that supports their blind faith that there is no God.

And religious funduhmentalists aren't interested in hearing what atheists have to say. So what's your point?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: flashbacck

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Rob9874
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

Who cares? Lots of scientists say they believe in god.

OK, so I didn't put much explanation behind it. This is a new commentary, from cnn.com's main page today, by Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., the director of the Human Genome Project. A pretty prominent scientist, who actually presents an intellectual argument against atheism in his book. Of course the atheists here aren't interested. They're not interested in hearing both sides and deciding for themselves . They just pay attention to anything that supports their blind faith that there is no God.

And religious funduhmentalists aren't interested in hearing what atheists have to say. So what's your point?

i want to throw my opinion here too:
I used to believe in god. However I was never prevented from deciding from myself as I grew up, never went to church and that allowed me to develop my own beliefs. I decided to believe in nothing and decided that I am athiest. I find no harm in that. Not to mention, everyone tries and tells me I will change my mind once the first bullet passes by me. I say otherwise because I have spent many a lone night digging deep in my brain, making a mess of things in my head and reorganizing them as if it were a bedroom. I have very clear thoughts and a very stable mind. I know my own mind and I know how I behave and I know what flaws I have. So I argue I will not revert to believing in something when the fear of death becomes present. I don't know why I should.

 

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Most of us scientists believe in God. We just spell it 'n' 'a' 't' 'u' 'r' 'e'.

There's no difference between those 2 except to atheists and fundies.

Then why is it necessary to use the word "god"? To most people this conjures up images of a deity, which is a problem. And yes, I'm aware that intellectual giants like Einstein and Stephen Hawking used the word "god" in this manner from time to time. I just think it's irresponsible, and only serves to give the fundies ammunition is a war of strawmen, hyperbole and flat out lies.

I doubt that Einstein cared or that Hawking cares what you or fundies think about the matter. "God" is the most appropriate word in this context, i.e. when discussing the universe as the one all everything creating itself. The fact is that it's the fundies and the atheists who are wrong about what the ancients meant by God.

how are atheists interpretations of what the religion's define as God wrong? religions clearly define a creator, a supernatural being above the laws of the universe.


and to go on the record, Einstein did not believe in a deity, so when one states he believes in god, one should clearly define it with a lowercase g, because its not a lifeform nor a creator, just a set of laws.

Notice how I said earlier that the opinions of rabid atheists and fundie religionists are something I don't care about. Now... why they appeal me to their definitions?

And no, the capital G is correct. I wasn't referring to a set of laws, I was referring to the universe itself. Expand. Your. Closed. Mind.

how does one presume my mind is closed? i respect and let people believe in what they want, I merely have my own set of beliefs. What do you want me to do? Start going to church and believing in this God figure?

And no, I refuse to believe there is a difference between how a capital G changes the idea between the laws of the universe and the universe itself. All the scientists who believe in the universe god are merely believing in the laws of the universe that determine the natural course of changes that happen in the universe. I have never seen it mentioned that they believe the universe ITSELF is God, but merely they refer to NATURE as god. But the Universe is not nature, nature is merely the governing laws of the universe and the actions that are actually carried out.

don't tell me to open my mind. It's as opened as it can get. You don't know how my mind operates and how I behave. You merely misinterpreted either me, the Einsteinian belief, or both.
now, if some scientists deviate from Einsteinian belief and change their understanding to be that the Universe is God, then that's different. I am merely arguing what the Einsteinian belief is.

Nice post thumbs up!

 

[angminas]

Originally posted by: KoolAidKid
<old and cranky>
The problem with the Internet is that they let everyone in.

I long for a discussion forum where:
1) All of the posters act like adults
2) People have well-reasoned opinions
3) People are open to other points of view

Although all three of those qualities would be great, I would settle for #3. I enjoy a heated debate as much as anyone, but these discussions (e.g., this thread, or take your pick in P & N) are mostly just pissing matches where internet machismo ensures that absolutely no one will alter their opinion in any way.
</old and cranky>

<young and cranky>

I pretty much agree, except I don't enjoy heated debate. I remember when I used to think that giving smart-ass answers to 8 different quotes in my post while putting words in my opponent's mouth and thoughts into their head was cool and constructive. I wish somebody wiser than I had smacked me in the head and taught me better. For a while, I never posted anything while angry for at least 24 hours after writing it, so I would end up being a schmuck less often. It was a lot better than continuing the way I was going, though I've moved beyond that somewhat. One of the reasons I tend to avoid long threads on ATOT is because the last few pages are always a trollfest.

PSA (not to KAK)- if you're deconstructing your opponent's post line by line, you're probably just as wrong as they are. If you enjoy thinking you're pwning newbs, you're probably a newb as well.

It wouldn't let me preview this post, so I'm sorry if it's all messed up.
</young and cranky>

 

[Eeezee]

I'm a scientist (high energy physics)

I believe in God

In fact, I believe the definition of "Creationism" should not be belief that God created humans exactly as they are today, but rather that God created the universe. Maybe he set in motion the events that led to humans evolving. I'm surprised more people don't take on that viewpoint, since it's essentially bulletproof. Claiming that God created the Big Bang and then seeded the beginnings of life on Earth does not require a huge stretch of the imagination.