There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life

[Volcs]

You do realise all those scientific theories are, at best and if perfect, only the simplest explaination for the observed data. Science does not and cannot state how something did occur, only the simplest way something could have occured, which is not the same thing in the slightest.

Putting faith in the scientific method to provide truth is no different than putting faith in any other belief. There's absolutely nothing wrong with doing so, we all have to believe something, but it is important to recognise the limitations of your beliefs.

If I'm understanding your argument, you're putting forward that science and religion are just two examples of human discourse and therefore hold equal validity? The difference here would be that science is what it is because it's the pursuit of verifying that our observations of the world are true (or not false) via experimentation in the context of theory, where as religion is just the upholding of long standing, unjustifiable beliefs.

I'll use two (stolen) examples.

1) Biologists say that DNA is the molecular basis for sexual reproduction. Each of us resembles our parents because we inherit a complement of their DNA.

2) The pope says that Jesus was born of a virgin and resurrected after death. He is the Son of God who created the universe in 6 days.

What are the chances that years of genetic research, that can demonstrably and repeatedly show the inherited links between generations is incorrect? We have the data that shows almost beyond doubt that DNA relates to inheritance. That is why I believe theory one - yes, I can't verify 100% that it is correct but the copious amounts of evidence available makes me think it's a pretty good bet.

What data do we have to support theory 2?

 

[muggs]

even if they was no God how can we enjoy our lives with all the crap/injustices going on in your face and in the world.

how can someone be happy in such a world, people claim their happy in this world., man but how are they happy?

Now stop worrying and enjoy your life. more like now stop being human and become a selfish **** and not give a crap about anything else but yourself.

 

[Tibbs]

Fair enough, your post wasn't clear that it was supposed to be us who were outraged with the anti-God posters. I'll try to remember to be cross enough to write someone a letter about it or something.

I don't want people to be outraged or anything as to me that is just another sign of the whole, imo, religion =war. I don't want people to be cross about it, but people will be. The same as how they were cross with me for being a non-believer.
I just think us non-believers are a lot more relaxed (maybe because we don't believe we are going anywhere after we die - just guessing!).
Thus the reason why this thread is about buses being sent round with atheist comment on. We wouldn't make threads about a thiest comment on a bus.
Anyone see what I'm trying to get at here?

 

[ethan]

We won't be seeing forget about Christmas and get on with it and enjoy your lives then

 

[Tibbs]

Do you think that maybe this is only because we've always put up with it? I can't remember a time when I wasn't bombarded every day with religious content.

I don't really care, but perhaps that is only because I'm completely desensitised to it.

Good point!

 

[4p]

In my opinion Religion/Beliefs is what caused/causes disputes and eventually wars.

In the newspaper a Christian charity worker was shot by the Taliban because she was enforcing Christian beliefs :s

 

[bigmouse64]

What, even this bit:

which is quite clearly bollards?

No, if I agree'd with everything I would have said, 'I completely agree with every single word you've just said.'

 

[Vonhelmet]

In my opinion Religion/Beliefs is what caused/causes disputes and eventually wars.

In the newspaper a Christian charity worker was shot by the Taliban because she was enforcing Christian beliefs :s

Allegedly. Lots of people are busy denying that it was anything to do with Christian beliefs.

Hell, even if she was, that's the Taliban for you. Hardly a fair representation of Islam.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I don't want people to be outraged or anything as to me that is just another sign of the whole, imo, religion =war. I don't want people to be cross about it, but people will be. The same as how they were cross with me for being a non-believer.

Sorry, I was exaggerating a bit. I just find it a bit odd that everyone is expecting Christians to be up in arms over this.

Thus the reason why this thread is about buses being sent round with atheist comment on. We wouldn't make threads about a thiest comment on a bus.

Was the OP a theist or an atheist?

 

[ethan]

If I'm understanding your argument, you're putting forward that science and religion are just two examples of human discourse and therefore hold equal validity?

Dolph may wish to answer this himself but they can hold equal value but in different ways. As far as the ultimate truth of things are concerned, they both (must) appeal to information beyond the range of the observable evidence.

2) The pope says that Jesus was born of a virgin and resurrected after death. He is the Son of God who created the universe in 6 days.

What are the chances that years of genetic research, that can demonstrably and repeatedly show the inherited links between generations is incorrect? We have the data that shows almost beyond doubt that DNA relates to inheritance. That is why I believe theory one - yes, I can't verify 100% that it is correct but the copious amounts of evidence available makes me think it's a pretty good bet.

What data do we have to support theory 2?

There is only heresay with option 1. There wasn't much to go in example 2 anyway. Example 1 simply points to this fact and all you have shown is that science was useful in this one particular and isolated example..

QUOTEThe difference here would be that science is what it is because it's the pursuit of verifying that our observations of the world are true (or not false) via experimentation in the context of theory, where as religion is just the upholding of long standing, unjustifiable beliefs.

Non verifiable but personal experience including beliefs, yes: though not necessarily untrue either

 

[Dolph]

If I'm understanding your argument, you're putting forward that science and religion are just two examples of human discourse and therefore hold equal validity? The difference here would be that science is what it is because it's the pursuit of verifying that our observations of the world are true (or not false) via experimentation in the context of theory, where as religion is just the upholding of long standing, unjustifiable beliefs.

I'll use two (stolen) examples.

1) Biologists say that DNA is the molecular basis for sexual reproduction. Each of us resembles our parents because we inherit a complement of their DNA.

2) The pope says that Jesus was born of a virgin and resurrected after death. He is the Son of God who created the universe in 6 days.

What are the chances that years of genetic research, that can demonstrably and repeatedly show the inherited links between generations is incorrect? We have the data that shows almost beyond doubt that DNA relates to inheritance. That is why I believe theory one - yes, I can't verify 100% that it is correct but the copious amounts of evidence available makes me think it's a pretty good bet.

What data do we have to support theory 2?

I don't know, I don't support theory 2...

However, given that religion != christianity, and there are a lot of religions that make no such claims that conflict so directly with observable evidence, all you've really demonstrated is that part of christanity is unlikely to be true.

 

[Vonhelmet]

If I'm understanding your argument, you're putting forward that science and religion are just two examples of human discourse and therefore hold equal validity? The difference here would be that science is what it is because it's the pursuit of verifying that our observations of the world are true (or not false) via experimentation in the context of theory, where as religion is just the upholding of long standing, unjustifiable beliefs.

You're still thinking of this in terms of the scientific method. You're trying to criticise religion using scientific criteria i.e. that religion is lesser than science because it doesn't rely on testing and experimentation. I could just as well say that science is lesser than religion because it doesn't rely on faith.

You can't argue that apples are better than oranges because oranges don't fulfil criteria that are unique to apples. It doesn't make sense. You can argue their relative merits as fruit, but that's different. Likewise, you can't criticise religion for not being scientific. If you want to pursue this further you need to consider the relative merits of science and religion as philosophical constructs or world views, which is a much broader issue.

I'll use two (stolen) examples.

1) Biologists say that DNA is the molecular basis for sexual reproduction. Each of us resembles our parents because we inherit a complement of their DNA.

2) The pope says that Jesus was born of a virgin and resurrected after death. He is the Son of God who created the universe in 6 days.

What are the chances that years of genetic research, that can demonstrably and repeatedly show the inherited links between generations is incorrect? We have the data that shows almost beyond doubt that DNA relates to inheritance. That is why I believe theory one - yes, I can't verify 100% that it is correct but the copious amounts of evidence available makes me think it's a pretty good bet.

What data do we have to support theory 2?

Why do we need data to support theory 2? It's a statement of a belief supported by faith. It falls within the remit of religion, not science, so the data you desperately seek is not needed by those that believe it.

 

[Tibbs]

Sorry, I was exaggerating a bit. I just find it a bit odd that everyone is expecting Christians to be up in arms over this.

Was the OP a theist or an atheist?

Well he said 'Although i dislike religious sorts forcing idealogical beliefs on me and anyone else, this article brought a wry smile to my face'


Also, I'm just speaking from experience. I worked in a place in which come 'church people' visited. Everytime they were in I would carry on with my work in another room. I got talked to in a very bad manner from someone when it was brought up if I were a believer.
It has happened a few times and I felt as though they were still pushing me.
'Oh, I'm actually a non-believer' (which I said one time)
'You'll go to hell for not believing in god' (church goer)
'Well I wouldn't as I don't believe there is such a place or person that exists' (me again)
'Well he will decide that' (church goer)

I didn't have a go at them for believing. These type of instances are what makes me believe it will start more arguements as believers would be more bothered about something like this than a non-believer seeing things about 'god' on buses.

 

[Vonhelmet]

These type of instances are what makes me believe it will start more arguements as believers would be more bothered about something like this than a non-believer seeing things about 'god' on buses.

And yet it was an atheist who started the thread... Do you see my point? Would a theist have come here bitching about the posters?

 

[Tibbs]

And yet it was an atheist who started the thread... Do you see my point? Would a theist have come here bitching about the posters?

Then again, you could look at it as him/her having a laugh about it ('Although i dislike religious sorts forcing idealogical beliefs on me and anyone else, this article brought a wry smile to my face').
I'm trying to understand if the majority of believers will laugh this off or be outraged?

I think believers and non-believers should call a truce and be happy about not advertising at all. If you want to go chuch, go, if not, don't go. Believe what you want but don't put posters up about it. Both should agree, no messages on transpot, newspapers, anything.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I'm trying to understand if the majority of believers will laugh this off or be outraged?

Like I said earlier, there's unlikely to be any outrage, except from the Christian Voice-esque people who get their knickers in a twist and say silly things at the drop of a hat. The rest of us will ignore it and may pray about it. Not all that exciting, huh?

 

[manic111]

If I'm understanding your argument, you're putting forward that science and religion are just two examples of human discourse and therefore hold equal validity? The difference here would be that science is what it is because it's the pursuit of verifying that our observations of the world are true (or not false) via experimentation in the context of theory, where as religion is just the upholding of long standing, unjustifiable beliefs.

I'll use two (stolen) examples.

1) Biologists say that DNA is the molecular basis for sexual reproduction. Each of us resembles our parents because we inherit a complement of their DNA.

2) The pope says that Jesus was born of a virgin and resurrected after death. He is the Son of God who created the universe in 6 days.

What are the chances that years of genetic research, that can demonstrably and repeatedly show the inherited links between generations is incorrect? We have the data that shows almost beyond doubt that DNA relates to inheritance. That is why I believe theory one - yes, I can't verify 100% that it is correct but the copious amounts of evidence available makes me think it's a pretty good bet.

What data do we have to support theory 2?

I agree with you that science may well have better method; its ability to change based on evidence is one of its great strengths, and a reason why I am a proponent of science over religion (despite thinking that both are often adhered to dogmatically and therefore for the wrong reasons).

I too believe theory one. I believe that this theory works fantastically as a theoretical and predictive model and that, so far, it adheres to the world that we experience.

However, it is here that many proponents of science lose me. They, like you have done, go on to propose that this is ,at the very least, more than likely the way that the world actually works. Some even say that it is definately the way that the world works.

What these people fail to realise is that DNA theory is just one of an almost infinite series of possibilities as to how the world actually works. It is a simple matter of the veil of perception. We do not have the ability to perceive the world in itself. The best that we can do is perceive the world passively and unchanged through our own eyes. The worst case scenario is that the world is a figment of our imagination.

Either way, the world must pass through our perception, and therefore we can only base our empirical beliefs on what we do perceive. If, therefore, there is some unperceivable mechanism in the mind independant world which is the actual reason behind scenario one, we can never know it. In fact, this could be further confused by Hume's proposal that there may be no causation in the mind independant world at all.

The best that science can ever do, then, is base itself on our perceptions. We can never compare our perceptions with the mind-independent world, since the only way that we can know the world is through these perceptions which are by their very nature mind-dependant. As a result, we simply cannot say whether scenario one is true, false, or partially true. The best that we can say is that it is a very good predictive model.

 

[Tibbs]

Like I said earlier, there's unlikely to be any outrage, except from the Christian Voice-esque people who get their knickers in a twist and say silly things at the drop of a hat. The rest of us will ignore it and may pray about it. Not all that exciting, huh?

Just out of interest, what would people pray about it? Like I said just interested as with me not believing, I have no need to look into stuff like that.

 

[bigmouse64]

Sweet Jesus, praise be to Allah. Shout out to Hare Krishna and my boy Buddha. BRAP.

 

[ethan]

I agree with you that science may well have better method; its ability to change based on evidence is one of its great strengths, and a reason why I am a proponent of science over religion (despite thinking that both are often adhered to dogmatically and therefore for the wrong reasons).

I too believe theory one. I believe that this theory works fantastically as a theoretical and predictive model and that, so far, it adheres to the world that we experience.

However, it is here that many proponents of science lose me. They, like you have done, go on to propose that this is ,at the very least, more than likely the way that the world actually works. Some even say that it is definately the way that the world works.

What these people fail to realise is that DNA theory is just one of an almost infinite series of possibilities as to how the world actually works. It is a simple matter of the veil of perception. We do not have the ability to perceive the world in itself. The best that we can do is perceive the world passively and unchanged through our own eyes. The worst case scenario is that the world is a figment of our imagination.

Either way, the world must pass through our perception, and therefore we can only base our empirical beliefs on what we do perceive. If, therefore, there is some unperceivable mechanism in the mind independant world which is the actual reason behind scenario one, we can never know it. In fact, this could be further confused by Hume's proposal that there may be no causation in the mind independant world at all.

The best that science can ever do, then, is base itself on our perceptions. We can never compare our perceptions with the mind-independent world, since the only way that we can know the world is through these perceptions which are by their very nature mind-dependant. As a result, we simply cannot say whether scenario one is true, false, or partially true. The best that we can say is that it is a very good predictive model.

We could still apply the rules of logic though and personally I don't ascribe to not being able to perceive "reality" as it is. I don't deny the mind has an effect though-but that is not the Case in all cases.