Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[IndiReloaded]

Where's the evidence that gives these claims? Just curious. I've never heard such a thing in my experience with religion. I've read stories, never heard of though.

It's irrational to reject reality; it is also irrational to reject possibility.

LOL, I have to go to bed, but to the first, there are many examples young grasshopper. Too many for me to list right now, but there's the doctor in pakistan who was sentenced to death for telling his students that that muhammad was not muslim before he invented the religion (duh). He was tried for blasphemy & killed (his own students reported him, poor sod). There are LOTS of examples like this & not just muslims. Go and look up some of the gem quotes from intellectual giants like Pat Robertson or Gary Potter's 'pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil' (when the christians finally take over--one of his speeches to his flock).

As to the second, your statement is misguided b/c it supposes that all possibilities are equally probable. They aren't.

Good night all.

[Only-virgins]

I was originally trying to say that neither religion nor science are "complete." You state that "it is only a matter of time before we fill them with truth when we find it."

Do the religious not come from a similar position? The phrase sounds exactly like prophecy to me.

You also state that, "...as long as there is no fault in the person's logic and reasoning who is interpreting the data than science is flawless."

Who determines what constitutes a fault in a person's logic or reasoning? What standards do we have for this, and if they are established, how do we know the original creator is not biased in some way?

How is science "flawless" if it "never claims anything for 100% fact when any form of doubt exists."? How can doubt exist in a flawless system? How can science disprove a higher being (as a 100% fact) if it follows the above rule?

Science is great...

...but it's still got holes.

~Sphinx

Testing something is a damn good standard. Like I said. Science doesn't claim anything like religion. It makes an observation and tests it. It comes to a conclusion. religion has not answered a single question and it is obvious it is not reliable and will never produce a single answer. Science provides answers daily that are applied and found to be true by anyone who tests them. Science doesn't claim something to be 100% fact if there is doubt...that is the beauty of it. Doubt can exist in this system because of human current capabilities, for example...we can't know exactly what is on certain planets...not because science can not tell us but because currently we have no form of transportation to get us there. Religion can make up bogus stories that this planet is god's vacation spot..I don't care...but the point is that they make claims with out evidence...science only claims something to be true when it is with out a doubt found to be true. Science is the most efficient way to answer questions that plague humanity and it not only does everyday but proves itself everywhere around us.

I think this may be the misunderstanding, too.

I think Sphinx is referring towards OV's "OH YES THEY WILL DISPROVE RELIGION, IT'S ONLY A SHORT MATTER OF TIME" type attitude. I mean, nobody can really say that, right? That's predicting the future.

I didn't say science will one day disprove religion. It doesn't have too because religion has never proved itself in the first place. lol it makes no sense to try to disprove something that doesn't exist.

OV, just for clarity, where are you on this scale:

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of
C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto
theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe
in God and live my life on the assumption that he is
there.'
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am
inclined to believe in God.'
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's
existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic
but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists
but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I
cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable,
and I live my life on the assumption that he is not
there.'
7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same
conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

I normally wouldn't say, except I think it won't bias you. I sit at a solid #6. Number 7 has exactly the same problems as does #1, IMO.

I'm the highest there is. #7. It is my logic with probability. I don't think people realize how unlikely it is that god exists..I know you said "very low" probability but I think even that is a huge understatement. If I was to type the probability of the existence of ANY god I would use up all the bandwidth of the entire internet with zeros...and that doesn't even include that fact that the probability for different gods is pretty much infinite. Hell...I can dress god in a different colored T-shirt and that even adds to a different possibility. Which is why I never understood the idea behind believing in god just in case to avoid hell...simply since even if you do you most likely are still believing in the wrong god. Agnosticism at first was very appealing to me but I had a hard time accepting that I can't disprove that ninja turtles live in a different galaxy either. That isn't even important..most of all I believe that it is up to religion to prove itself and not for atheist to disprove religion...if you make a claim...you prove it. Science makes a claim, it goes to work to try and prove it. Religion makes a claim and points the finger at everyone and says "disprove it". ... that doesn't make any sense at all to me.

[anachronistic]

... haha, you'd be standing here for all eternity typing zeroes. Do it! Do it!

[Only-virgins]

... haha, you'd be standing here for all eternity typing zeroes. Do it! Do it!

I would starve to death first. lol

[IndiReloaded]

I'm the highest there is. #7. It is my logic with probability. I don't think people realize how unlikely it is that god exists..I know you said "very low" probability but I think even that is a huge understatement. If I was to type the probability of the existence of ANY god I would use up all the bandwidth of the entire internet with zeros...

..most of all I believe that it is up to religion to prove itself and not for atheist to disprove religion...

Okay. Tho I understand what you are saying (and actually completely agree with you), you are actually still #6 (approaching 7, asymptotically if you like, but still not quite there). The reason I say this is b/c you STILL resort to a probability, however infinitesmally small. You didn't make the leap to blind faith w/o reason.

The fellow who created this list only put in #7 as the flip side to #1, not because he thought it had any validity (just like #1 doesn't to a rational mind). #7 makes a statment of belief in the absence of any proof (he used the word KNOW in a very explicit way that I didn't define, but it requires positive proof). Most hardcore atheists (like the author, myself & apparently you) fall into the sixth category. FYI.

And yes to the bold. This is so obvious that its laughable its not followed, which actually makes it very frightening.

[vashti]

Not at all. Science allows the ability to test hypotheses, and discards theories when new data comes to light. In that, it is completely rational and nothing like prophecy. Science never claims to have 'all the answers' as does religion.

Just a small point: some of the more progressive religions likewise do not profess to have "all the answers".

I'm a 5 on your scale, BTW (but I try to live my life as though there is God, just to cover all my bases).

[IndiReloaded]

Hasn't Atheism gone just as far in claiming that anyone that gives even slightest thought that there might be a higher being is insane?

No, actually it hasn't. I've never read any study that has said this. This is an example of deliberate misunderstanding & hyperbole.

What I have read are studies suggesting a linkage between religiousity might be related to certain brain disorders, schizophrenia being one example.

This will cause certain elements of society to get upset & claim that these kinds of studies shouldn't even be done. But why not? Most atheists (who are scientists, not all are, of course) are frankly baffled by mindsets that choose to ignore data that is plain as the nose on their face. Mindsets that decry studies that disagree with their BELIEF, often without even reading & understanding the very research are choosing to disbelieve. No matter to the scientists, tho, because as OV says, proof goes both ways. If religiousity is related to certain brain states, then it will come out eventually b/c this type of evidence (unlike the existance of a god) is something that is actually testable.

Or to quote one of my favourite internet posters:

Truth is NOT a democracy.

[vashti]

I have read about a possible link between epilepsy and religiousity.. haven't heard about the schizophrenia, though.

[IndiReloaded]

Just a small point: some of the more progressive religions likewise do not profess to have "all the answers".

True, and scientists aren't really after the progressives. However, ALL religion still promotes blind faith to varying extents, which is still (to me) the opposite of rational inquiry. They are in direct conflict. You can't ask someone to 'just believe' something and tell them to think critically about it.

I'm a 5 on your scale, BTW (but I try to live my life as though there is God, just to cover all my bases).

Well, you're in good company. Pascal, Newton (and other scientists--tho NOT Einstein, as popular belief says!) also believed in the 'hedge bet', lol. But its still a silly argument to my mind, for more reasons than I can (or want) to go into, but mostly b/c who wants a god that would turn away good, reasonable, decent ppl simply b/c they won't give into blind belief? What's the big deal for requiring this, anyway? (rhetorical, I don't require an answer)

Have you read Pratchet's 'Small Gods'? Its a very funny fiction book about how gods are made (they are manmade inventions created thru belief). Its part of his Discworld series (about the world being carried by 4 elephants standing on the back of a turtle cruising thru space). Anyway, he follows this tiny turtle with a mission to become a Big God; poor thing keeps encountering humans who keep wanting to eat him ('there's good eating on those'). LOL.

[anachronistic]

No, actually it hasn't. I've never read any study that has said this. This is an example of deliberate misunderstanding & hyperbole.

What I have read are studies suggesting a linkage between religiousity might be related to certain brain disorders, schizophrenia being one example.

This will cause certain elements of society to get upset & claim that these kinds of studies shouldn't even be done. But why not? Most atheists (who are scientists, not all are, of course) are frankly baffled by mindsets that choose to ignore data that is plain as the nose on their face. Mindsets that decry studies that disagree with their BELIEF, often without even reading & understanding the very research are choosing to disbelieve. No matter to the scientists, tho, because as OV says, proof goes both ways. If religiousity is related to certain brain states, then it will come out eventually b/c this type of evidence (unlike the existance of a god) is something that is actually testable.

Or to quote one of my favourite internet posters:

Truth is NOT a democracy.

... and then we have a mass-slaying of Christians in the US upon discovery.

[Gigabitch]

Just a small point: some of the more progressive religions likewise do not profess to have "all the answers".

Yup. That's what we do at my church. In fact, a rather high percent of Unitarians don't believe in God at all. The religion is about community and social responsibility.

[IndiReloaded]

I did a quick scan on wiki for this, thanks Giga (I'll read more later as I really do need to do some work today--this issue is so damn important tho).

UU sounds like a tolerant, moderate alternative for those who have a need for the grouping that organized religion offers but without the fire and brimstone. Very cool, but I'd have to read more to decide whether this is just religion 'repackaged'. There's been a lot of that going on & for that reason I tend to be skeptical (tho UU seems to tolerate atheism just as readily as anything else, so interesting). UUs roots are in Christianity, by their own admission, which gives me pause.

[IndiReloaded]

... and then we have a mass-slaying of Christians in the US upon discovery.

Nice hyperbole! Again. When has a group of athesists EVER threatened any religion? Except to SAY that faith is NOT fact. Show me an example of an atheist group bombing a church. But I can give lots of examples of RF groups who have: threatened (and bombed) research institutions, sent death threats to vocal atheists & those studying evolution, shot doctors who perform abortions, beaten homosexuals... shall I go on?

[anachronistic]

You know what'd suck? If you were a catholic priest/nun, and at the end of your life, science disproved religion.

Man, that would be a kick to the groin!

Nice hyperbole! Again. When has a group of athesists EVER threatened any religion? Except to SAY that faith is NOT fact. Show me an example of an atheist group bombing a church. But I can give lots of examples of RF groups who have: threatened (and bombed) research institutions, sent death threats to vocal atheists & those studying evolution, shot doctors who perform abortions, beaten homosexuals... shall I go on?

Well, atleast you know I'm kidding... I hope you don't perceive all religious people in such a way. Not all of them are nutbags. Just seems as if you do. Which is rather discriminant if you ask me. I haven't heard of very many of those acts of terrorism being performed by christians... but more of muslims. What about atheists? Well, I really don't know.

Plugging a search into google, found me this

[url]http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/11/20/atheists-responsible-for-terrorist-bombings.htm[/url]

Really aren't any books on it. What evidence is there supporting the claim that atheists are NOT threatening religion? You watch the debates on youtube between theists and atheists, seems like it could set off a war.

[Gigabitch]

What if everyone creates their own reality, and only people who believe they're hell-bound end up burning in an eternal lake of fire?

I like that one quite a bit.