Poll: Who believes in God?

[ChroniC]

That makes no sense. Also notice the fact that you take the stance that the existence of God is unlikely. You couldn't possibly say either way, and you certainly shouldn't start from a biased perspective when attempting to prove something.

But in this case, everything exists. Six headed monkeys in the amazon exists, as i can't prove it. The giant spagetti monster exists. Your inteligence exists, etc etc.
See my point?

 

[p4radox]

Sorry, but that just doesn't go. "Why is the sky blue?" - I would hardly go to a theologian to have that particular question answered.

But the answer you'd get would be one based on all the usual scientific assumptions and caveats. It'd give you a good prediction of how the light is processed to create a coloured sky, and if the sky is indeed blue then it'd be counted as a pretty good model.

And in answer to your second point - I'm pretty sure that most geologists would consider their particular field of science to be completely incompatible with the biblical story of creation.

In a literal sense. There are many interpretations, and I'm quite certain there are plenty of geologists out there who are educated enough to realise this.

 

[p4radox]

But in this case, everything exists. Six headed monkeys in the amazon exists, as i can prove it. The giant spagetti monster exists. Your inteligence exists, etc etc.
See my point?

No I don't...

 

[tripitaka]

If you can't disprove something then the logical stance is to say that you don't know the veracity of the issue

That would involve gross oversimplification in thinking that there is only one possible stance of being unsure on the issue. You can be more or less sure about something given the evidence available, leading naturally to the fact that where there is no evidence whatsoever, the reasonable stance is total disbelief.

 

[sid]

But the answer you'd get would be one based on all the usual scientific assumptions and caveats. It'd give you a good prediction of how the light is processed to create a coloured sky, and if the sky is indeed blue then it'd be counted as a pretty good model.

So whats wrong with it then. Do you have any alternatives to Rayleigh scattering?

sid

 

[tripitaka]

Father Christmas isn't exactly a fantastic example for several reasons, amongst which are that to go to all the homes in the World in one night would require a sleigh that travels faster than any man-made craft ever, the size of the sleigh etc etc and then you have the simple and more pragmatic reasoning of actually having seen your parents putting out the stocking filled with presents.
.

Silly me. Obviously all that is ludicrous. Whereas virgin births, coming back from the dead etc are all far more reasonable foundations for belief.

 

[ChroniC]

No I don't...

You can't prove that six-headed monkeys exist...

Spelling error, edited. However the point still stands just because you cant prove it, doesn't mean its a possibility, but frankly thats why stuff like Scientology exist, the natural progression of the human tendency to create falicies to explain what they don't understand.

Scientology is a classic real time example of why god is a fable, who believe that something written by a science fiction writer is ever going to be true, his claims are wild an ridiculous, but they are remarkably similar and as provable as every religion on earth, so why is it wrong to think he wasn't correct.

 

[p4radox]

So whats wrong with it then. Do you have any alternatives to Rayleigh scattering?

sid

There's nothing wrong with it, just as long as you view at is it's meant to be viewed. That is: a decent model that gives accurate results. Someone might come along one day and spot an error in the logic, create a better model and the scientific community would move one. No one would doggedly stick to the outdated Rayleigh scattering model declaring it to be the absolute truth would they?

The beauty of science is its ability to evolve, but that's also its weakness. by definition it doesn't provide truths.

 

[TheOtherOption]

What do you pray for? Do you pray in the hope someone is listening and they might just do something, or pray with the intention of something being done?

It's just nice to think that you can at least hope someone is listening and taking heed of your wishes - whether it be for someones health or in memory of loved ones who've passed on.

 

[ChroniC]

There's nothing wrong with it, just as long as you view at is it's meant to be viewed. That is: a decent model that gives accurate results. Someone might come along one day and spot an error in the logic, create a better model and the scientific community would move one. No one would doggedly stick to the outdated Rayleigh scattering model declaring it to be the absolute truth would they?

The beauty of science is its ability to evolve, but that's also its weakness. by definition it doesn't provide truths.

No it disproves things by creating a better model, but by definition if a new model can't be found no matter how hard you try it can be could a relative conclusion to the subject, if you like a definitive answer.
So from your logic, you think that religion is a perfect model, and that the evidence weighed against it, isn't a reason to remake your model in a scientific manor? I do.

 

[yantorsen]

Whilst I don't directly agree with dampcat's assumption that people with faith are weak minded, he does hit somewhere near the mark. As these people who believe devoutly in a supreme being that created the heaven and the earths do not really believe that God exists, they believe in the belief that a God exists. There is no proof whatsoever that God exists, but people's belief is real, churches are real, the bible etc, if people were true believers in God, they would not need bibles, churches, vicars, priests etc, they would believe how they want to believe, anything short of believing what you have come to of your own observations is merely following someone else's word, someone else's belief, not your own.
word of others.

you describe blind belief not beleif

 

[Vita]

Yes.

 

[p4radox]

No it disproves things by creating a better model, but by definition if a new model can't be found no matter how hard you try it can be could a relative conclusion to the subject, if you like a definitive answer.

I had trouble understanding that but:

There's no such thing as a definitive answer unless you place faith somewhere.

So from your logic, you think that religion is a perfect model, and that the evidence weighed against it, isn't a reason to remake your model in a scientific manor? I do.

Where does my logic say anything about religion being a model, never mind a perfect model?

There is no "evidence weighted against" religion, that simply makes no sense.

Science and religion are two seperate entities. One fulfills one purpose, one fulfills another. You couldn't analyse religion with the scientific model anyway.

 

[V4NT0M]

you describe blind belief not beleif

Aka Religion.

For example, there is no reason to worship God or Jesus other than "they said to do so"!

 

[yantorsen]

You only need to open a news paper or switch on the tele to see the contradictions against an all loving God.

No, because God was so loving he gave everybody free will. Free will means bad stuff happens, but I'd rather have free will with all the bad stuff than be a god worshipping robot.

 

[yantorsen]

Aka Religion.

no, not at all.

 

[yantorsen]

I believe each of them (including other spiritual texts) only scratch the surface of the actual truth.

kind of what I beleive.

 

[Surfer]

Sorry, but that just doesn't go. "Why is the sky blue?" - I would hardly go to a theologian to have that particular question answered.

sigh... thats a 'how' question that LOOKS like a 'why' question... (most why questions are like that) So of course you wouldnt go to them.

If I was a Christian, I could certainly ask "How did God create the world."

Then you get the standard 7 day story then(or some other story depending on what religion it is). Its a story its not meant to be taken literally from our perspective.

I think for most people who are religious/have faith its about the message not whether the grammar and punctuation is correct..

And in answer to your second point - I'm pretty sure that most geologists would consider their particular field of science to be completely incompatible with the biblical story of creation.

The operative word here being story.

 

[semi-pro waster]

That would involve gross oversimplification in thinking that there is only one possible stance of being unsure on the issue. You can be more or less sure about something given the evidence available, leading naturally to the fact that where there is no evidence whatsoever, the reasonable stance is total disbelief.

Reasonable is not always equal to logical, while it might seem reasonable to dismiss something due to a lack of evidence it isn't necessarily logical to do so. To repeat the tried and tested line - "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" unless you wish to put your faith in science as being able find all possible evidence and use a form of logical positivism as I alluded to earlier. By all means attach whatever weight you want to various theories and evidence but don't expect people to agree that you are being logical about it when it isn't so.

Silly me. Obviously all that is ludicrous. Whereas virgin births, coming back from the dead etc are all far more reasonable foundations for belief.

I didn't say previously that I believe in Biblical stories as 'truth' so I'm going to call strawman for arguing against something I hadn't suggested but it was a poor example so I highlighted the point. Some of the stories in Bible might be true, some might be allegorical but that has little to do with Father Christmas being a poor comparison.

 

[sid]

There's nothing wrong with it, just as long as you view at is it's meant to be viewed. That is: a decent model that gives accurate results. Someone might come along one day and spot an error in the logic, create a better model and the scientific community would move one. No one would doggedly stick to the outdated Rayleigh scattering model declaring it to be the absolute truth would they?

The beauty of science is its ability to evolve, but that's also its weakness. by definition it doesn't provide truths.

Not yet but once everything observable is explained? then do those models become absolute truths?

sid