Atheists & agnositcs: How do you view religious people?
- Thread starter Ziggy
- Start date
How old is that footage?, Dawkins has become somewhat more vociforus in his declaration that there is no God in recent months.
To begin with the Universe is not necessarily finite, that would depend entirely on the Universal model you wish to ascribe to. The current favorite of theoretical physicists and cosmologists is multiversal and infinite.
Also I am not referring to your beliefs personally.
As to what someone like Dawkins preaches, the belief they hold that God by any
definition doesn't exist and that Science can and will answer that question eventually. They have no prove or evidence that science can answer how something come from nothing or whether God exists or not but they have a faith based belief that it will anyway.
Dawkins with his Meme theories and dogmatic approach to theism and his attempt to turn science into a new religion is abhorrent to me.
Critise religion by all means, don't believe in God by all means, but don't presume to know something you do not. This is why I am agnostic, I can say I do not believe in a christian God or a Hindu pantheon or a pagan demon and give reasons and evidence why I do not believe, but I cannot state that God by all definitions doesn't exist and I am inclined to think that as the vast majority of people are theist to one degree or another it bears more investigation before I can agree with the likes of Dawkins.
Last edited:
Ok, show me him saying that, unequivocally, God does not exist and I'll have a look.
I would also be interested to know which theoretical physicists we're talking about, which theory or theories we're talking about, and if you know of any works I can get my hands on to read about them. Regarding the hypothesis that our universe is not finite.
I don't believe that Richard Dawkins does believe that there is absolutely no possibility of a God existing, as I said above.
The argument as to whether the universe was created by a divine intelligent creator is totally separate from religion. Don't insult the question of whether there is such an entity as 'God' by linking it to religion.
Like I said, I believe it less likely that our universe was the product of a design, let alone of a designer that intervenes in human affairs, than likely.
I would also be interested to know which theoretical physicists we're talking about, which theory or theories we're talking about, and if you know of any works I can get my hands on to read about them. Regarding the hypothesis that our universe is not finite.
I don't believe that Richard Dawkins does believe that there is absolutely no possibility of a God existing, as I said above.
The argument as to whether the universe was created by a divine intelligent creator is totally separate from religion. Don't insult the question of whether there is such an entity as 'God' by linking it to religion.
Like I said, I believe it less likely that our universe was the product of a design, let alone of a designer that intervenes in human affairs, than likely.
Just google "infinite universe" plenty to read.
I am on a phone at the moment so a detailed explanation on the various hypotheses will have to wait until tomorrow.
I didnt say god was exclusively linked to religion either, quite the opposite. If you have read anything I've written it should be clear that I think religion gets in the way of a good discussion on the pros and cons of a godhead.
I woukd have thought however as you stated that you knew about cosmology that you would have been at least aware of infinite universe theories and the multiverse etc.
I am on a phone at the moment so a detailed explanation on the various hypotheses will have to wait until tomorrow.
I didnt say god was exclusively linked to religion either, quite the opposite. If you have read anything I've written it should be clear that I think religion gets in the way of a good discussion on the pros and cons of a godhead.
I woukd have thought however as you stated that you knew about cosmology that you would have been at least aware of infinite universe theories and the multiverse etc.
Its all part of this M theory that Hawking has just published a book on. I have yet to read it myself but seems intriguing.
I would say that I agree with you about the universe, I don't believe in any overall designer either. I quite like my own idea that the universe is god, but that's for another day.
Edit.
There are three possibilities currently about the shape of the universe. The Universe may be described as Open which means it has a negative curvature and as this type of universe has no boundary it is infinite in it's spacial extent.
alternatively the Universe may be a closed universe and has a positive curvature again this has no boundary, but as it is closed (like living on the interior surface of an ever expanding sphere) you will always end up where you began thus it is finite.
The third and the one that most physicists are currently happiest with is the Flat Universe and is like a sheet of paper, it also has no boundary but as it has no curvature it is infinite spatially.
Last edited:
Yes, true. Certainly not the same thing as agnostic atheism though (but unclear whether that was your implication).
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
As vonhelmet points out assumption is a position of faith - you might not phrase it that way normally but the net effect is the same.
Incidentally or otherwise I'm broadly agnostic about the tires on your car being road legal - I've got no opinion on the matter and unless I took a look at them or had further evidence about their condition I wouldn't venture an opinion on their legality. While I appreciate the analogy it would be a faith based position if I took any stance on it, there isn't enough evidence for me to make an informed decision hence any firm position I did take would have to be based on something else e.g. faith/belief/whatever you want to call it.
I rather suspected you would disagree - I'd say you've taken a position on an unanswerable question (unanswerable at least currently and probably for all time) therefore it's a faith based position. If the position is simply of neutrality then it's not really atheism since that requires either an implicit or explicit disavowal of god - if you're doing neither then it implies you're either agnostic or possibly ignostic but you need a different term than atheism to describe it accurately (side note: I find the 'nostic terms fascinating when trying to define peoples positions accurately).
However we'll go round in circles on this point, I'm unlikely to change my view as I think it's correct, you're unlikely to change your viewpoint as you believe your definition to be correct so I'd prefer to knock the definition game on the head for this topic and put it out its misery.
I didn't mean to imply they were particularly close (aside from the agnosticism), just noting that if agnostic atheism is the position for the thinking man then apathetic agnosticism is the one for the lazy e.g. me.
brainwashed and stupid
i do not respect their beliefs, i actually laugh at them for being so utterly stupid to belive in crap that isnt there.
fairytail
I find it quite ironic that someone whole spells fairytale wrong has the audacity to call others stupid simply because they view their reality differently.
brainwashed and stupid
i do not respect their beliefs, i actually laugh at them for being so utterly stupid to belive in crap that isnt there.
fairytail
As Castiel says, rather ironic considering... A question for you: How do you feel about the various multiverse theories? Parallel universes? Alternate realities where there are infinite 'yous' doing infinitely different things? Even if you've come to accept the possibility now, how did you feel about this 20-30 years ago (if you were even alive then; and I suspect you weren't)?
To be honest, multiverses, parallel universes, infinite versions of me and things like antimatter and so on seem as impossible to me as life after death or some kind of godhead. Regardless, science is beginning to prove these things exist. Given that quantum theory asserts that the universe only exists while you are looking at it, and that we can now 'prove' (or at least demonstrate) that particles behave differently when viewed... That's pretty mind blowing stuff, right? Your entire world, your universe, is dependent upon you actually seeing it. What about the bits you can't see? What about when you go to sleep?...
We've not even scratched the surface, and mind = blown. Yet you find the core concept of religion so laughable and utterly stupid as to dismiss it entirely out of hand like that? Wow, tbh.
Yes i'm aware of the orthodox church views of magic which are hypocritical because Jesus and all the other prophets were occultists/mystics.
Basicaly the dogmatic church forbid its followers and stripped there teaching of all mystical and occult practices because were the followers able to practice them and achieve a direct connection to the divine the church and priestly class would have gone out of business.
wait your talking science there, not religion. i know full well science showed i think the red sea becoming flooded or something over that way and related it to possibly be the great flood where the ark was needed. doesnt mean it was to do with god cleansing the land like in the bible STORIES, a natural dam broke or there was a wave from something else. there is a documentry on it if anyone is interested. the walking on water was given a scientific explanation also. time has moved on from religion and we are now in the scientific age, that is how i can dismiss religion. ive endured the being forced to church by school and having to listen to preached crap and from a young age i knew it was all bs and it is.
the parallel universe thing with like versions of me? nar i dont believe it and i am unique. we circle a star in a galaxy of many stars in space where there are many other galaxies. there is no feasable connection with me being here and a copy of me being 30 galaxies away. there will be other life supporting planets, hell yes, life.. almost certainly. life there will likely have evolved differently. it would be interesting however to look at fossils to see if life elsewhere followed a simalar path to how life evolved here. we gotta remember that dinosaurs died out and that it could so easily have gone their way, they could have be the intelligent beings
im open minded where i need to be
wait your talking science there, not religion. i know full well science showed i think the red sea becoming flooded or something over that way and related it to possibly be the great flood where the ark was needed. doesnt mean it was to do with god cleansing the land like in the bible STORIES, a natural dam broke or there was a wave from something else. there is a documentry on it if anyone is interested. the walking on water was given a scientific explanation also. time has moved on from religion and we are now in the scientific age, that is how i can dismiss religion. ive endured the being forced to church by school and having to listen to preached crap and from a young age i knew it was all bs and it is.
the parallel universe thing with like versions of me? nar i dont believe it and i am unique. we circle a star in a galaxy of many stars in space where there are many other galaxies. there is no feasable connection with me being here and a copy of me being 30 galaxies away. there will be other life supporting planets, hell yes, life.. almost certainly. life there will likely have evolved differently. it would be interesting however to look at fossils to see if life elsewhere followed a simalar path to how life evolved here. we gotta remember that dinosaurs died out and that it could so easily have gone their way, they could have be the intelligent beings
im open minded where i need to be
You seem to have rather missed my point. You say you're open minded about the things you 'need' to be, but multiverse theories (there are several) are actually rather well advanced and afaik well regarded. You dismissed those as easily as you dismissed the various (and varied) religious allegories.
For example, in general multiverse/parallel universes wouldn't exist in this universe; that's sort of their definition. So there wouldn't be another you in this universe, however many galaxies away. Rather there would be (are?) infinite 'yous' in infite other universes outside of this one, perhaps branching off at every decision, every pivotal moment (thousands a day, even) throughout your life.
This is current scientific thinking, not religion. You're correct. But your failure to take these into consideration, or show them more than passing regard, rather compounds your original disdain of religious theories I think. Whilst I would agree that institutionalised religion in its various guises may not always be as complete as they could be, I do think they rather posses a kernel of truth. Buddhist cosmology 2,500 years ago was discussing multiverses, atoms, photons and the like before the West barely conceived of science itself.
While the allegorical nature of Abrahamic biblical stories may have become enshrined in local lore and customs, that doesn't mean they weren't a tool for the passing on of knowledge over time; even if they did regrettably become contorted through the ages.
Food for thought, is all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,499
- Location
- London, UK
They dont bother me i dont bother them, just like i treat the gays.
Are you sure? I thought science had already proved that in certain situations something can come from nothing.
Really?, Virtual Particles are a specific hypothesis and have not been proven or even validated.
Most quantum models are deterministic so do not contend that virtual particles (those that some say hypothesise something from nothing) come into existence uncaused.
There is significant debate over whether these particles exist at all, and most importantly even in indeterministic interpretations such as the Copenhagen Interpretation they do not arise out of nothing but as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the subatomic vacuum which constitutes an indeterministic cause of their origination and as such is not a true creation of something from nothing.
There is, among some theorists at least, some debate over what constitutes 'Nothing'. Somewhat akin to debates within religions over what constitutes God.
If you have some other contention to prove how the universe began from nothing I would like to hear it