Posted on 11/24/2008 12:56:31 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
bump
Science requires faith.
Imagine…no abortion.
On another note, religious beliefs give people hope and if you take that away then you make them depend on the government for hope alone which is sad.
there’s a reason why all the communists promoted atheism.
As an atheist, I find the billboards mentioned silly. The thing that I always bring up to other atheists is that they are as obsessed with everyone else NOT believing as many believers are obsessed with everyone else believing. I don’t see much difference—the rabid on both sides seem to be nervous about letting others make up their own minds.
That's a bit broad, isn't it? Not sure I get your point there--whose definition of misbehavior?
Repeating that I'm an atheist, I've always found this a moronic ideal. I've seen plenty of good coming from religious folks, and plenty of evil; ditto from atheists.
If there were no religion, I don't see how the world would just automatically be improved.
Frankly, I do not believe there must be a conflict be science and religion. The current generation of scientists has made it so because they are “physicalists” i.e. they are convinced there is a material explanation for everything.
There are few who do not see things this way and are trying find the link. I met this guy: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/hoffman.html
not too long ago and he had an amazing and convincing explanation.
First, he said to imagine the universe as you perceive it to be your “human interface” with reality. Similar to the screen on your computer, it represents what is happening, but is not a true representation of reality. Evolution guarentees that it cannot be. The amount of energy needed to perceive real reality would be a huge waste. Your perception is evolved so that your “hack” into reality is better than the “hack” of what you want to eat or what wants to eat you. Humans may not even have the capacity to understand reality.
Thus, trying to expain the universe by using what we are able to perceive is like trying to explain what is happening in a computer by what you see on the screen. The screen represents reality, but it is not. It is your “human interface” because you cannot communicate with the true reality of the computer.
Scientists can’t explain what the universe is composed of (although there are fuzzy theories) and they don’t even have a theory for what causes human consciousness. Of course if the brain is just a representation of reality, that is perhaps understandable. Could you explain the an icon on your computer if you weren’t willing to believe there was something beyond it?
That much said, there is a lot going on in religion that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Religious doctrine often can best be understood by thinking of it like a file of the pictures of your children on a computer screen. The file is important to you, you would not put it in the “recycling basket” and erase it. But you do not believe that this file really looks like that or really contains your pictures (they are a series of 1s and 0s of course). However, you take the representation seriously, but not literally.
Religios movements are unfortunately filled with a lot of people taking things literally that should only be taken seriuosly. Thus the conflict with science. Those who take things literally are not so open to being questioned. The scientists are equally guilty, but in a different way. Moreover, “faith” is often just an excuse for believing something about which one is uncertain. Scientists have “faith” too, but claim to be open to challenging it if given evidence to the contrary. Religions don’t usually appreciate this, but Christianity has proven remarkably adaptable on questions that scientists have answered (round earth revolving around the sun not in the center of the universe)
Hoffmann believes that scientists will spend another 20 to 30 years trying to figure our the “physical” explanation for things. Then enough of the old school will be dead and perhaps it will be possible to apply the scientific method to some of the ideas that religion has had for the past 10 millenia.
Applying the scientific method to religious concepts would be a revolution of extraordinary proportions. Too few scientists have been willing or able to go down this path. There will be opposition from both science and religion to doing so. But it is probably the only way to really begin to answer those huge open questions.
I think it is because some militant athiests believe that simply because a lot of people kill in the name of God, that if they stop believing in God they will stop killing.
You perhaps understand this is ludicrous because people always find some excuse to kill each other.
My off-the cuff definition of ‘misbehavior’ would run as follows: acting either with reckless disregard or with malice aforethought to harm others who have done no harm to you. A full account of why such behavior is not reasonable in the universe as we currently understand it would not be a quick write. Maybe another time. Note, though, that if someone rejects rationality as a criterion for judging conduct, the conversation is at an end anyway and it’s probably wise to make sure your gun is loaded when you’re dealing with that person.
Allow me to point out one critical difference. A Christian (and probably true for many or even most other religions) believe that there will be a point of judgment, and a salvation from that judgment. By presenting their views as persuasively as possible may lead to the salvation of another. What motive does an atheist have for similar behavior? I submit, nothing similar.
I disagree completely. An atheist's motive is to awaken someone from a delusion so they can actually deal with what IS as opposed to what they wish were so.
Agreed, and religion isn't about rationality.
So if there's no God, then there has to be an infinite number of universes. If there is an infinite number of universes, then pretty much anything that CAN happen will happen. Therefore, if it's possible for a God to exist, he probably does.
The magazine has an interesting story by Tim Folger which is titled “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator.” The article begins by noting “an extraordinary fact about the universe: its basic properties are uncannily suited for life.” As physicist Andrei Linde puts it, “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.”
-
Coincidence or design? Don’t you just love how hard some work to NOT believe in life being God-breathed? It is so obvious to most people who are not trying to justify their own reasons for their rebellion. It is their choice after all to believe or not believe in a Creator-God, as laid out for us in scripture. It’s all right there, but men striving for knowledge and power will continue to go to any lengths to prove there is NO God. Why is this?
Over and over again science proves that there is a pattern and purpose to life. I guess this goes against the sensibilities of the “Intelligent” who must see to believe. For the Christian, it is much the other way around, we believe. It is because of this belief that we see...
“Faith is believing what we cannot see and the reward for this kind of faith, is to see what we believe.” ~ St. Augustine
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.