I wish I could be religious

naffa, I have just spotted the fish with legs in your signature. I loathe what that stands for and I would urge you to consider removing it.
 
Nitefly said:
Let us compare god to the loch ness monster.

We can search loch ness for ol' nessie and observe him with the scientific methods (measure his height, observe him etc). Since we have not been able to do so as of yet, it seems unlikely that nessie exists.

A 'god', however, might not be able to be measured by these scientific methods as he / she / it might exist outside of our space and time. Since science does not allow us to measure what lies outside of our space and time (yet), then we cannot fairly speculate what might lie outside of it, if anything at all.

Hence I can only haphazardly guess as to a 'god's' existence (i use the word god very loosely). If you believe one way or another, that's absolutely fine.
Click to expand...
Good point. I would like to point out though, as an anti theist, I'm not saying that there is no God, simply that given the evidence in existence (or lack of), I can come to the reasonable conclusion that there is no reason to believe there is.

Nitefly said:
naffa, I have just spotted the fish with legs in your signature. I loathe what that stands for and I would urge you to consider removing it.
Click to expand...
The Darwin fish? Please tell me what it stands for and if it's bad I will remove it (I just assumed it was an atheistic symbol with a satirical take on the Christian equivalent).
 
I just thought the Darwin fish was an evolved fish and mocking the ichthys a little bit? :confused:

I never meant to offend anybody though, so I'll happily remove it if it is offensive.
 
Why does one need to follow a religion to be spiritual?

I think religions have to many issues and don't exactly promote free thinking and progress when it comes to its subject, being deeper meaning in life, existence and so on, for that free thinking, science and spiritualism is where its at if you want deeper meaning, theres plenty of mystery left for science so thats where your ok to be spiritual, but most religion isn't even about being spiritual in a positive sense and often swings more towards control of the mind and stuff.
 
naffa said:
The Darwin fish? Please tell me what it stands for and if it's bad I will remove it (I just assumed it was an atheistic symbol with a satirical take on the Christian equivalent).
Click to expand...

It isn't offensive - simply disappointing.

I have spent quite some time (both on this forum and to many in person) helping others to overcome their difficulties or misunderstandings with evolution. Science is not just about learning, but teaching as well, and since I am fortunate to have spent more time learning about evolution than most could reasonably consider, I feel I have an obligation to teach and spread the knowledge that I have learned.

It follows that when I see somebody taking something as beautiful as the knowledge we have gained through evolution, something which I view with utmost respect and sincerity, and using it as cheap shot to attack somebody’s religious beliefs by mocking a symbol that doesn’t even have anything to do with creationism, it makes me very disappointed and sad. Science is here to help us understand things, not to belittle those who think differently. Darwin would be rolling in his grave.
 
We were created in Stars and are essentially made up of stardust!

Natual science is as beautiful as any human imagination could dare dream of.
 
Last edited:
If 'God' (in whatever form) exists then it's form is science imo, but a science that is yet to be defined, personally I don't beleive anything exists outside of the scientific spectrum, but at the same token I still beleive in the possibility of a 'higher' intelligent form than ourselves, regardless of whether religion is a good or bad thing I respect it as being an essential part of our evolutionary process.
 
lowrider007 said:
If 'God' (in whatever form) exists then it's form is science imo, but a science that is yet to be defined, personally I don't beleive anything exists outside of the scientific spectrum, but at the same token I still beleive in the possibility of a 'higher' intelligent form than ourselves, regardless of whether religion is a good or bad thing I respect it as being an essential part of our evolutionary process.
Click to expand...
Well, exactly, but not quite how I'd have put it.

If 'God' is real and can be proven to exist, then of course he's part of science, as we then possess the knowledge that (s)he exists, and possibly in what form.

BUT if the whole point is that one has faith, and it is the leap of faith which allows you eternal life (as said Jesus at some point - probably when he was talking to the fellow crucifee), then God will never become common knowledge. There's the rub! If he can be proved to exist, then he can't be real, and would disappear in a puff of logic.*

*EDIT: Or, we realise that at least the Christian model of theism is wrong and we get to know the real truth!
 
Nitefly said:
It follows that when I see somebody taking something as beautiful as the knowledge we have gained through evolution, something which I view with utmost respect and sincerity, and using it as cheap shot to attack somebody’s religious beliefs by mocking a symbol that doesn’t even have anything to do with creationism, it makes me very disappointed and sad. Science is here to help us understand things, not to belittle those who think differently. Darwin would be rolling in his grave.
Click to expand...

Gets a thumbs up from me.

Burnsy2023 said:
It's quite simple really. Religion fills in the gaps that science can't explain.
Click to expand...

I don't think I agree with this. Religion, for me at least, deals with issues that science cannot possibly contend with. Like the ideas of a creator, of spirit, of ultimate purpose.
 
Presuming existence is infinite in some way and knowing we have all existed at least once, then is it not possible that given enough time we can exist again in some way?

Think once you die time could pass instantly from your unconscious perspective, universes could come and go then at some point after many googol years the right conditions arise where your consciousness can live again, you may not even be anything like human or have the same kind of conciousness but you could exist again!

So there's an argument for life after death which is reasonably scientific in theory.
 
Nitefly said:
It isn't offensive - simply disappointing.

It follows that when I see somebody taking something as beautiful as the knowledge we have gained through evolution, something which I view with utmost respect and sincerity, and using it as cheap shot to attack somebody’s religious beliefs by mocking a symbol that doesn’t even have anything to do with creationism, it makes me very disappointed and sad. Science is here to help us understand things, not to belittle those who think differently. Darwin would be rolling in his grave.
Click to expand...

+1

I don't see Christians with a picture of Darwin's face with a penis photoshopped onto his forehead. It really is a cheap shot, naffa, it really is. Keep it there if you feel that it is right.
 
Gothic Draconia said:
It all depends on which definition you use for atheism. When i was born, i had a lack of belief as i had no beliefs. I was not even aware of religion.
Click to expand...

If that was the case, then you couldn't possibly have stated that "God does not exist". Only if you could, would you have been an atheist.
 
Gothic Draconia said:
Atheism does not mean a God does not exist. It simply means a lack of belief in a Deity (to use a common definition).
Click to expand...
How do you know you didn't believe in a deity? As a baby, stuff just happens to you, and you have no idea what's going on as to begin with your senses are pretty mushy still - you may even have fluffily believed in some godlike figure with a huge and very inviting pair of boobies.

Agnostic means "I don't know" and I think that sums up babies (and scientists!) rather well :D
 
Gothic Draconia said:
Atheism does not mean a God does not exist. It simply means a lack of belief in a Deity (to use a common definition).
Click to expand...

As far as I know, this is only a recent definition. The position of "lack of belief" lies closer to apathetic agnosticism in my opinion.

The splitting of atheism into "weak" and "strong" seems largely pointless, the middle-ground should lie entirely under agnosticism.
 
fez said:
I'd still like to hear how religion and science are compatable. The belief in religion directly contradicts most things in science. Saying that a miracle has occurred does not complement a scientific explanation of the event. A miracle by definition is something that is impossible to explain. Something that shouldnt have happened.

Honestly I am open to other views on this but I can't fathom how science and religion complement each other in the slightest.

Saying that god created everything is not an explanation for creation, it is merely laying an abstract blanket over the issue. Something akin to explaining how mavity works by saying that it just does.

So how was the earth formed? Ahh well god created it is not an explanation, its lack of understanding.

As has been the way throughout history, man has understood more, and as a result has started to see less magic in the way things function.

Anything that could be attributed to an act of god in my view is just something that we do not sufficiently understand yet.
Click to expand...


Take away organised religion for a moment and God could be compatible with science, if you see science as Gods way of explaining his infinite works, so to speak. I am Agnostic, I dont know what to beleive so I'm keeping my options open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom