There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life
Scooby Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
You seem to believe that scientists cannot be 'religious' (whatever that means) and vice versa. This simply isn't true.
Newton: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done" and Einstein spoke of "a knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man" and finally Hawking: "However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God."
The God being referred to here is the same God that has been pondered for aeons. Alas, this God isn't accessible to all and as such the bearded, cloud riding God is offered up as an introduction and the allegory can be explored until one reaches one's limits of understanding.
Do you really think that religious figure-heads believe in fairies? Does Dr Rowan Williams believe in the same God as Mrs Smith next door? God is conceptual, allegorical and poetic. Both Scientists and the religious seek and knock, you know, and their specific vocation is almost irrelevant.
I really believe that numerous atheist-fundamentalist don't actually understand what they don't believe in.
Newton: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done" and Einstein spoke of "a knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man" and finally Hawking: "However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we should know the mind of God."
The God being referred to here is the same God that has been pondered for aeons. Alas, this God isn't accessible to all and as such the bearded, cloud riding God is offered up as an introduction and the allegory can be explored until one reaches one's limits of understanding.
Do you really think that religious figure-heads believe in fairies? Does Dr Rowan Williams believe in the same God as Mrs Smith next door? God is conceptual, allegorical and poetic. Both Scientists and the religious seek and knock, you know, and their specific vocation is almost irrelevant.
I really believe that numerous atheist-fundamentalist don't actually understand what they don't believe in.
Les
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 39,688
Likes: 0
From: Never do names esp. Joey, spaz or Mong
I was being facetious, james. 
People in general think all deities should be male female or mixed
If we ever discover the origins of it all, we'll give it a scientific name, but they'll still call it something human
People in general think all deities should be male female or mixed
If we ever discover the origins of it all, we'll give it a scientific name, but they'll still call it something human
Last edited by lightning101; Jan 16, 2009 at 03:02 PM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Yes, but don't you think that they only think along those lines because even though they lost their faith (if they ever had any of course), in their lives they will have come into contact with religion, and the concept of a supreme being. The seed has been sown.
It would be interesting to see what these brilliant minds thought if it were possible to bring them up and education without ever even hearing of the concept of a supreme being or Universal consciousness.
Geezer
It would be interesting to see what these brilliant minds thought if it were possible to bring them up and education without ever even hearing of the concept of a supreme being or Universal consciousness.
Geezer
). Once you've studied and understood how that (neurotheology) works you're in the driving seat. You'll be able to conceive of and philosophise about God in a way which is free from these inherent constraints. For example, Asimov hypothesised a Darwinian God in his short story The Last Question, Einstein you know about and Hawking and co. still chase a unified theory. The 'God Gene', which has aided human survival and is responsible for the hocus-pocus about which much of this debate has revolved, has also been responsible for the big questions which science has gone on to or is striving to answer. Ironic, isn't it? Alternatively, an answer accessible to all, is to say it was God's plan. One can then speculate on the meaning of God according to one's IQ.
Last edited by JTaylor; Jan 16, 2009 at 03:35 PM. Reason: speeling
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
Via the process of natural selection (clearly including the social-conditioning to which you allude), 21st century human beings have within them the 'God Gene' and a propensity for the supernatural emanating from frontal lobe stimulation (). Once you've studied and understood how that (neurotheology) works you're in the driving seat. You'll be able to conceive of and philosophise about God in a way which is free from these inherent constraints. For example, Asimov hypothesised a Darwinian God in his short story The Last Question, Einstein you know about and Hawking and co. still chase a unified theory. The 'God Gene', which has aided human survival and is responsible for the hocus-pocus about which much of this debate has revolved, has also been responsible for the big questions which science has gone on to or is striving to answer. Ironic, isn't it?
Alternatively, an answer accessible to all, is to say it was God's plan. One can then speculate on the meaning of God according to one's IQ.
). Once you've studied and understood how that (neurotheology) works you're in the driving seat. You'll be able to conceive of and philosophise about God in a way which is free from these inherent constraints. For example, Asimov hypothesised a Darwinian God in his short story The Last Question, Einstein you know about and Hawking and co. still chase a unified theory. The 'God Gene', which has aided human survival and is responsible for the hocus-pocus about which much of this debate has revolved, has also been responsible for the big questions which science has gone on to or is striving to answer. Ironic, isn't it? Alternatively, an answer accessible to all, is to say it was God's plan. One can then speculate on the meaning of God according to one's IQ.
Unfortunately, we cannot lose our religious baggage, so no matter how hard we try, thousands of years of indcoctrination is virtually impossible to let go.
The 'God Gene' obviously wouldn't be called that without this legacy, and who knows what we would think it was for if we had been able to study it objectively.
It's like at the end of 'The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy' when Arthur Dent comes up with the wrong question because the Earth has become contaminated
Geezer
Last edited by Geezer; Jan 16, 2009 at 04:24 PM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
From: Home
But there you go again - the 'God Gene' - the very concept is tainted by a history mired in belief in a deity.
Unfortunately, we cannot lose our religious baggage, so no matter how hard we try, thousands of years of indcoctrination is virtually impossible to let go.
The 'God Gene' obviously wouldn't be called that without this legacy, and who knows what we would think it was for if we had been able to study it objectively.
It's like at the end of 'The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy' when Arthur Dent comes up with the wrong question because the Earth has become contaminated
Geezer
Unfortunately, we cannot lose our religious baggage, so no matter how hard we try, thousands of years of indcoctrination is virtually impossible to let go.
The 'God Gene' obviously wouldn't be called that without this legacy, and who knows what we would think it was for if we had been able to study it objectively.
It's like at the end of 'The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy' when Arthur Dent comes up with the wrong question because the Earth has become contaminated
Geezer
Here's an article which I think you may enjoy.
Wired 14.11: The Church of the Non-Believers
"We are called upon, we lax agnostics, we non-committal non-believers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth; we are called out, we fence-sitters, and told to help exorcise this debilitating curse: the curse of faith.
The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there's no excuse for shirking."
You really do sound like a 'New Atheist', Geezer, which is perfectly acceptable. Your children and their children and so on are likely to inherit your philosophies and this same process will happen around the world. Assuming that the off-spring of New Atheists are successful, and organisations like The Brights take-off, humanity will 'advance' accordingly. Assuming Primum Movens is nailed down and future generations have learnt to intuate the infinite then there will be no need for God concepts and all will be well with Geezer's world.
Scooby Senior
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
From: North Wales
I don't wish to eradicate anything, however, I do not think there is a problem with questioning. After all, that is how science has progressed. If some credible evidence for God's existence came out, then I would have to rethink.
People can believe whatever they want, but if you claim something to be true, then back it up, simple as.
As for my kids, I tell them I don't believe, but they are free to believe whatever they want. My daughter does, my son doesn't, I still think the same of both of them.
As for the organisations you have pointed out, they do indeed seem as bad as the religions I dislike. That is not the way forward.
Geezer
People can believe whatever they want, but if you claim something to be true, then back it up, simple as.
As for my kids, I tell them I don't believe, but they are free to believe whatever they want. My daughter does, my son doesn't, I still think the same of both of them.
As for the organisations you have pointed out, they do indeed seem as bad as the religions I dislike. That is not the way forward.
Geezer
BBC NEWS | UK | Atheist ads 'not breaking code'
An atheist UK bus campaign which uses the slogan "There's probably no God" does not breach the advertising code, a watchdog has ruled.
The Advertising Standards Authority said it assessed 326 complaints. Some people claimed the advert was offensive to people who followed a religion.
But the body concluded the campaign was unlikely to mislead or to cause serious or widespread offence.
The campaign is backed by the British Humanist Association
An atheist UK bus campaign which uses the slogan "There's probably no God" does not breach the advertising code, a watchdog has ruled.
The Advertising Standards Authority said it assessed 326 complaints. Some people claimed the advert was offensive to people who followed a religion.
But the body concluded the campaign was unlikely to mislead or to cause serious or widespread offence.
The campaign is backed by the British Humanist Association
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
fatboy_coach
General Technical
15
Jun 18, 2016 03:48 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
Dec 28, 2015 11:07 PM
MightyArsenal
Wheels, Tyres & Brakes
6
Sep 25, 2015 08:31 PM
