David, please provide your source for that survey.
"Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?"
The August 23, 2005 New York Times article addressing this issue elicited another question: "Can you be moral and ethical without believing in God?" Religious institutions are prone to spread the notion that belief in God is a prerequisite to knowing right from wrong.
The article points out that fewer than 10 percent of "leading scientists" professed belief in a personal God. If the religious are correct these "leading scientists" cannot know right from wrong; ergo, they cannot be good citizens. The fact that there are those who accept such nonsense lends credence to Nobel laureate Herbert A. Hauptman's statement, "This kind of belief [belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God] is damaging to the well-being of the human race."
The August 23, 2005 New York Times article addressing this issue elicited another question: "Can you be moral and ethical without believing in God?" Religious institutions are prone to spread the notion that belief in God is a prerequisite to knowing right from wrong.
The article points out that fewer than 10 percent of "leading scientists" professed belief in a personal God. If the religious are correct these "leading scientists" cannot know right from wrong; ergo, they cannot be good citizens. The fact that there are those who accept such nonsense lends credence to Nobel laureate Herbert A. Hauptman's statement, "This kind of belief [belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God] is damaging to the well-being of the human race."
David, please provide a link to that article as well as a link to the study you cited.
quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
David, please provide a link to that article as well as a link to the study you cited.
I REPEAT:
Nash, from past experience I have found it to be an exercise in futility to carry on a rational discussion with you. You categorically deny anything and everything that doesn't agree with your ideology and spin every bit of evidence that proves you wrong.
Hence, I will not waist time in "discussion" with you.
quote:I REPEAT:
Nash, from past experience I have found it to be an exercise in futility to carry on a rational discussion with you. You categorically deny anything and everything that doesn't agree with your ideology and spin every bit of evidence that proves you wrong.
Hence, I will not waist time in "discussion" with you.
I repeat. Provide one example of what you're talking about.
If you are going to come here and made broad statements, then don't get your feelings hurt when someone challenges you on them.
I simply asked you to prove your statements. If you are unable to prove them, why should anyone believe them? How can I spin evidence as you claim if you refuse to offer any?
quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
David, please provide a link to that article as well as a link to the study you cited.
Link
quote:Originally posted by Skeptik:quote:Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
I BELIEVE GOD will, for ETERNITY, deliver to atheist what he promised for non-believers.
I had no idea god had a delivery service. And what, exactly, is that, Shel? Pizza with anchovies? I HATE anchovies.
Perhaps warm, flat beer? Drank it in college all the time from dead kegs but no mo'.
YOU'RE going to HATE what GOD delivers to you for your disbelief.
quote:Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
YOU'RE going to HATE what GOD delivers to you for your disbelief.
I am curious. What does an all-loving, all-merciful, father-like figure who has blessed me with free-will plan to deliver to me for the innocuous misdeed of questioning God's existence (stroking his ego). It couldn't possibly be anything worse than a slap-on-the-wrist.
I might add that I will not hate. I am not a Christian.
Incidently, why does God want me to believe? Ego?
quote:Originally posted by davidnmiles:
I am curious. What does an all-loving, all-merciful, father-like figure who has blessed me with free-will plan to deliver to me for the innocuous misdeed of questioning God's existence (stroking his ego).
May I, David?
He will toss your ass in a lake of fire and watch you burn for a few minutes. Then a few minutes more. Then and hour. A few hours, days weeks months then years. Decades. Hundreds then thousands. Then a hundred thousand million billion years!
Aw, heck, an eternity.
Do you ever wonder how long it will take to stop hurting?
This all makes perfect sense when you really think rationally about it.
Skep,
Did you ever see Sam Kinison's take on Hell?
Sam' in Hell.
Sam: So, you're the devil, eh? Whatcha got for me?
Devil: Eternal torment.
Sam: I'm not scared of that! I was MARRIED! For TWO [FREAKING] YEARS! AhhhhhhhhhhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Bring it on, you ugly SOB!
Devil: Hm. Married, eh? I didn't know. Say, you looking for a job? I can use a man with your qualifications.
I miss Sam.
DF
Did you ever see Sam Kinison's take on Hell?
Sam' in Hell.
Sam: So, you're the devil, eh? Whatcha got for me?
Devil: Eternal torment.
Sam: I'm not scared of that! I was MARRIED! For TWO [FREAKING] YEARS! AhhhhhhhhhhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Bring it on, you ugly SOB!
Devil: Hm. Married, eh? I didn't know. Say, you looking for a job? I can use a man with your qualifications.
I miss Sam.
DF
quote:Originally posted by Skeptik:quote:Originally posted by davidnmiles:
I am curious. What does an all-loving, all-merciful, father-like figure who has blessed me with free-will plan to deliver to me for the innocuous misdeed of questioning God's existence (stroking his ego).
May I, David?
He will toss your ass in a lake of fire and watch you burn for a few minutes. Then a few minutes more. Then and hour. A few hours, days weeks months then years. Decades. Hundreds then thousands. Then a hundred thousand million billion years!
Aw, heck, an eternity.
Do you ever wonder how long it will take to stop hurting?
This all makes perfect sense when you really think rationally about it.
Nah, he couldn't possibly be that horrible. I'll bet he just makes me eat pizza with anchovies (and mushrooms and green peppers). That would be almost as bad as an extended stay in a lake of fire. Please God. Just pepperoni!
Shel, being as it is his will that all are saved and he loved each and every Atheist enough to let his son suffer & die for them, I imagine none will hate it as much as God.
quote:Originally posted by _Joy_:
Shel, being as it is his will that all are saved and he loved each and every Atheist enough to let his son suffer & die for them, I imagine none will hate it as much as God.
Sounds bad for me. If God is brutal enough to let his son suffer and die a horrible death (when being omnipotent he could have taken more rational means of showing his love for humankind), he certainly will have no qualms about my suffering in a lake of fire. His inflated ego will not permit him to show mercy for a non-believer. What a guy!
quote:Originally posted by _Joy_:
Shel, being as it is his will that all are saved and he loved each and every Atheist enough to let his son suffer & die for them, I imagine none will hate it as much as God.
God doesn't hate sinners, God loves sinners, BUT he HATES sin..
"God doesn't hate sinners, God loves sinners, BUT he HATES sin.."
Shel or Joy, plese explain how this affects my future. Does this mean that I will be spending eternity in a lake of fire or not?
Please do not tell me that if I ultimately believe, I will have no problem. I have no intention of ever stroking God's ego by mumbling "I believe."
Shel or Joy, plese explain how this affects my future. Does this mean that I will be spending eternity in a lake of fire or not?
Please do not tell me that if I ultimately believe, I will have no problem. I have no intention of ever stroking God's ego by mumbling "I believe."
That's entirely up to you, david. 
"Ascribing crap status to that which you don't understand...."
1) In the unlikely event ANYTHING is said in this blog I don't understand, I'll shoot up red flares.
2) Interesting how ingrained this "I need to be smarter than you are" atheist crap is. Whups. Said crap again.
3)You don't take the obvious point. There is either a God or there is not. A scientist who believes in an indifferent God is still a believer in God.
4) The argument then reduces to whether the God both the scientist and I both believe in cares about us individually or not.
5) All this seems to be very bad news for atheism. Which (ahem) I remind you asserts there is no God at all.
1) In the unlikely event ANYTHING is said in this blog I don't understand, I'll shoot up red flares.
2) Interesting how ingrained this "I need to be smarter than you are" atheist crap is. Whups. Said crap again.
3)You don't take the obvious point. There is either a God or there is not. A scientist who believes in an indifferent God is still a believer in God.
4) The argument then reduces to whether the God both the scientist and I both believe in cares about us individually or not.
5) All this seems to be very bad news for atheism. Which (ahem) I remind you asserts there is no God at all.
Interesting discussion regarding Hell. let me tell you how I see the place---
It's very much like here and now. People have jobs and history is made and governments rise and fall and things continue to happen one following another.
With this difference, the idea there is absolutely no point for any of it or anyone doing it, forever and until the end of time, is universally understood.
Who is the most significant powerful person in Hell? No one gives a ****.
It's very much like here and now. People have jobs and history is made and governments rise and fall and things continue to happen one following another.
With this difference, the idea there is absolutely no point for any of it or anyone doing it, forever and until the end of time, is universally understood.
Who is the most significant powerful person in Hell? No one gives a ****.
Certain of my fundy friends seem to believe that an affirmation of faith, in a public setting, along with a renunciation of sin is sufficient for eternal glory.
On the other hand, a person who renounces God is condemned to spend forever in a lake of fire. Hmmm.
I'm told that, in heaven, I won't know my wife any differently than any other person. That doesn't sound very "heavenly" to me. And I'll sing praises of glory for all eternity. I'm sorry, my attention span would go "tango-uniform" after a very few minutes of that. I'd be looking for a baseball game or a sports bar somewhere.
Does God not look deeply into your heart to determine why you do one thing, and not another? Is it not of interest to God to understand why?
A question for thought: A devout man of the cloth molests and sodomizes a young boy. The man of the cloth repents and accepts forgiveness. The man of the cloth, having accepted remission of his sins, dies.
The boy, on the other hand, having been betrayed in the most vile way by a man he trusted, renounces God due to the actions of this man. Ultimately, he dies.
In this scenario, one goes to heaven, the other to hell. Any argument or discussion?
On the other hand, a person who renounces God is condemned to spend forever in a lake of fire. Hmmm.
I'm told that, in heaven, I won't know my wife any differently than any other person. That doesn't sound very "heavenly" to me. And I'll sing praises of glory for all eternity. I'm sorry, my attention span would go "tango-uniform" after a very few minutes of that. I'd be looking for a baseball game or a sports bar somewhere.
Does God not look deeply into your heart to determine why you do one thing, and not another? Is it not of interest to God to understand why?
A question for thought: A devout man of the cloth molests and sodomizes a young boy. The man of the cloth repents and accepts forgiveness. The man of the cloth, having accepted remission of his sins, dies.
The boy, on the other hand, having been betrayed in the most vile way by a man he trusted, renounces God due to the actions of this man. Ultimately, he dies.
In this scenario, one goes to heaven, the other to hell. Any argument or discussion?
quote:"Ascribing crap status to that which you don't understand...."
1) In the unlikely event ANYTHING is said in this blog I don't understand, I'll shoot up red flares.
2) Interesting how ingrained this "I need to be smarter than you are" atheist crap is. Whups. Said crap again.
3)You don't take the obvious point. There is either a God or there is not. A scientist who believes in an indifferent God is still a believer in God.
4) The argument then reduces to whether the God both the scientist and I both believe in cares about us individually or not.
5) All this seems to be very bad news for atheism. Which (ahem) I remind you asserts there is no God at all.
Writing by the rockets' red glare...
Who ever said he's smarter than you? Who needs to?
Thanks, Captain Obvious, you're right. Either there is or there ain't. Good point. You get a cookie.
I see you're getting the point about a personal god vs. an impersonal god. This is an important point, as Deists like Thomas Jefferson accepted an impersonal god who set the Universe moving and then stopped taking part in it's operations. Pat Robertson thinks differently.
Atheism asserts no such thing. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. One so brilliant as yourself should have known this already, and I'm sure you won't make the same mistake twice.
DF
I get a cookie? Great. How about milk?
quote:Originally posted by davidnmiles:
"God doesn't hate sinners, God loves sinners, BUT he HATES sin.."
Shel or Joy, plese explain how this affects my future. Does this mean that I will be spending eternity in a lake of fire or not?
Please do not tell me that if I ultimately believe, I will have no problem. I have no intention of ever stroking God's ego by mumbling "I believe."
GGOD does NOT condemn you, you condemn yourself...sounds like you think you are in an ego race with God. You are an adult with free will, so do as you choose, you are not on my conscience.
"Atheism asserts no such thing..."
DAVID's atheism seems to, as does Dawkin's, for that matter.
As for me, it matters little whether some see sympathetic birds or indifferent ones. Birds is birds.
DAVID's atheism seems to, as does Dawkin's, for that matter.
As for me, it matters little whether some see sympathetic birds or indifferent ones. Birds is birds.
"Any argument and discussion..."
Sure. People often see existence as a light switch, and reality is either on or off, black or white.
God has RESOURCES. I wouldn't worry too much about Him sorting out fairness between the bad priest and the injured boy.
Sure. People often see existence as a light switch, and reality is either on or off, black or white.
God has RESOURCES. I wouldn't worry too much about Him sorting out fairness between the bad priest and the injured boy.
The topic, "God Prefers Atheists"
African Lions prefer zebras and wildebeast..SO what's your point...??
African Lions prefer zebras and wildebeast..SO what's your point...??
quote:Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Certain of my fundy friends seem to believe that an affirmation of faith, in a public setting, along with a renunciation of sin is sufficient for eternal glory.
On the other hand, a person who renounces God is condemned to spend forever in a lake of fire. Hmmm.
I'm told that, in heaven, I won't know my wife any differently than any other person. That doesn't sound very "heavenly" to me. And I'll sing praises of glory for all eternity. I'm sorry, my attention span would go "tango-uniform" after a very few minutes of that. I'd be looking for a baseball game or a sports bar somewhere.
Does God not look deeply into your heart to determine why you do one thing, and not another? Is it not of interest to God to understand why?
A question for thought: A devout man of the cloth molests and sodomizes a young boy. The man of the cloth repents and accepts forgiveness. The man of the cloth, having accepted remission of his sins, dies.
The boy, on the other hand, having been betrayed in the most vile way by a man he trusted, renounces God due to the actions of this man. Ultimately, he dies.
In this scenario, one goes to heaven, the other to hell. Any argument or discussion?
I'd say you either never experienced injustice as a child or use such an experience as an excuse to do things you shouldn't. Once we grow up, we have choices and we alone are responsible for those choices. JMHO
"GGOD does NOT condemn you, you condemn yourself...sounds like you think you are in an ego race with God. You are an adult with free will, so do as you choose, you are not on my conscience."
Sounds like I am home free. You don't condemn me and God does not, has not and will not condemn me. I am condemning myself. Since I have no intention of doing anything unpleasant to myself as a result of my condemnation, I have nothing to worry about. Thanks for putting my mind at ease. God isn't so horrible afterall.
Sounds like I am home free. You don't condemn me and God does not, has not and will not condemn me. I am condemning myself. Since I have no intention of doing anything unpleasant to myself as a result of my condemnation, I have nothing to worry about. Thanks for putting my mind at ease. God isn't so horrible afterall.
quote:
DAVID's atheism seems to, as does Dawkin's, for that matter.
I cannot speak for David, but if you had actually read The God Delusion, you would know that Dawkins does not state "there is no god". He goes into the topic of making such statements in some detail.
He may be convinced of that, and he may have come to that provisional conclusion (as have I), but that is far from making a positive statement that one might rightfully ask him to prove.
DF
Good Evening:
First off, I would like to respond to LMM:
Sorry LMM, but there is no hell. There is only survival or nothingness. Hell is a made up place. The closest thing to hell there is is the miserable lives of some poor individuals on this confused world.
In this life you choose survival or nothingness. By your fruits you are known. Your words mean nothing. How you live your life, your ultimate desires for goodness, your actions... these things determine survival. Belief in this or that theology also means nothing. God looks to the ultimate motive, not the confused and polluted theology of the individual.
This is why most everyone will survive this world. Even the athiests.
Al
First off, I would like to respond to LMM:
Sorry LMM, but there is no hell. There is only survival or nothingness. Hell is a made up place. The closest thing to hell there is is the miserable lives of some poor individuals on this confused world.
In this life you choose survival or nothingness. By your fruits you are known. Your words mean nothing. How you live your life, your ultimate desires for goodness, your actions... these things determine survival. Belief in this or that theology also means nothing. God looks to the ultimate motive, not the confused and polluted theology of the individual.
This is why most everyone will survive this world. Even the athiests.
Al
"there is no god".
I frequently make this statement because there is little point in qualifying what I mean in the course of normal conversation.
The statements, "God exists" or God doesn't exist" are meaningless. There is absolutely no way of obtaining empirical evidence that demonstrates the veracity of either statement.
Should I ever be presented evidence for the existence of God, I will instantly add this fact to my body of knowledge.
I frequently make this statement because there is little point in qualifying what I mean in the course of normal conversation.
The statements, "God exists" or God doesn't exist" are meaningless. There is absolutely no way of obtaining empirical evidence that demonstrates the veracity of either statement.
Should I ever be presented evidence for the existence of God, I will instantly add this fact to my body of knowledge.
quote:Originally posted by alwilliams767:
Good Evening:
First off, I would like to respond to LMM:
Sorry LMM, but there is no hell. There is only survival or nothingness. Hell is a made up place. The closest thing to hell there is is the miserable lives of some poor individuals on this confused world.
In this life you choose survival or nothingness. By your fruits you are known. Your words mean nothing. How you live your life, your ultimate desires for goodness, your actions... these things determine survival. Belief in this or that theology also means nothing. God looks to the ultimate motive, not the confused and polluted theology of the individual.
This is why most everyone will survive this world. Even the athiests.
Al
Thanks for that. What about re-incarnation?
or, as it's also known, "re-meat-iation".
DF
DF
FWIW.
What is our eventual condition after we die? Do we eventually land up in Heaven, Hell, Purgatory. Do we simply disappear and cease to exist in any form? Do we just sleep for a long time after death before waking up for a final judgment? Are we reincarnated into new bodies?
Different Judeo-Christian faith groups and writers over the past few thousand years have proposed a variety of scenarios, covering these options and more! All have based their beliefs on their interpretations of the Bible. Generally speaking:
The Roman Catholic Church bases its belief on Heaven, Purgatory and Hell on some main biblical passages in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) and the 14 books of the Apocrypha, supplemented by church wisdom.
Conservative and mainline Protestant denominations tend to base their belief on the literal interpretation of certain passages of the Bible, and symbolic interpretations of others. They arrive at very different beliefs because they select different passages to read literally.
Liberal Christians believe that the beliefs of the authors of the Bible evolved greatly over the approximately one millennia years during which the Bible was written. Thus, there is little internal consistency in the Bible about the afterlife. Many liberals remain agnostic on the existence and nature of any form of afterlife.
Skeptics, Humanists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. generally accept that there is no afterlife. After death is personal annihilation. After death, our influence lives on only in our children and in other lives that we have touched.
Faced with such a diversity of beliefs about life after death -- even within Christianity -- some people conclude that nobody really knows what happens when a person dies. But most Christians hold tenaciously to the beliefs taught by their own particular denomination. This satisfies one of the main needs that many people have of their religion: to give them a sense of security in the face of an uncertain and frightening world.
What is our eventual condition after we die? Do we eventually land up in Heaven, Hell, Purgatory. Do we simply disappear and cease to exist in any form? Do we just sleep for a long time after death before waking up for a final judgment? Are we reincarnated into new bodies?
Different Judeo-Christian faith groups and writers over the past few thousand years have proposed a variety of scenarios, covering these options and more! All have based their beliefs on their interpretations of the Bible. Generally speaking:
The Roman Catholic Church bases its belief on Heaven, Purgatory and Hell on some main biblical passages in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) and the 14 books of the Apocrypha, supplemented by church wisdom.
Conservative and mainline Protestant denominations tend to base their belief on the literal interpretation of certain passages of the Bible, and symbolic interpretations of others. They arrive at very different beliefs because they select different passages to read literally.
Liberal Christians believe that the beliefs of the authors of the Bible evolved greatly over the approximately one millennia years during which the Bible was written. Thus, there is little internal consistency in the Bible about the afterlife. Many liberals remain agnostic on the existence and nature of any form of afterlife.
Skeptics, Humanists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc. generally accept that there is no afterlife. After death is personal annihilation. After death, our influence lives on only in our children and in other lives that we have touched.
Faced with such a diversity of beliefs about life after death -- even within Christianity -- some people conclude that nobody really knows what happens when a person dies. But most Christians hold tenaciously to the beliefs taught by their own particular denomination. This satisfies one of the main needs that many people have of their religion: to give them a sense of security in the face of an uncertain and frightening world.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, "I was dead for billions of years before I was alive without the slightest inconvenience".
DF
DF
quote:Originally posted by _Joy_:
I'd say you either never experienced injustice as a child or use such an experience as an excuse to do things you shouldn't. Once we grow up, we have choices and we alone are responsible for those choices. JMHO
Okay, I did, and I don't. I get that.
But the question is not (necessarily) based on a real event. It's a question I drop in my small group meeting to generate discussion. Which is what I'm trying to do here, apparently without a lot of success.
quote:Originally posted by Ironic Pentameter:quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
David, please provide a link to that article as well as a link to the study you cited.
Link
The article that David cited as proof of scientists declining belief in God used the same James Leuba study that I provided.
Link
However, the recent update of the study done by historian Edward J. Larson shows that belief among scientists is not declining, it is about the same as it was 80 years ago. That link again.
Link
This point is confirmed in the article that David cited and you linked from the New York Times.
Link
" According to a much-discussed survey reported in the journal Nature in 1997, 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians said they believed in God - and not just a nonspecific transcendental presence but, as the survey put it, a God to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."
The survey, by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia, was intended to replicate one conducted in 1914, and the results were virtually unchanged. In both cases, participants were drawn from a directory of American scientists."
David's own article proved his statement about the decline of belief among scientists wrong. Also found in the article,
"Dr. Collins said he believed that some scientists were unwilling to profess faith in public "because the assumption is if you are a scientist you don't have any need of action of the supernatural sort," or because of pride in the idea that science is the ultimate source of intellectual meaning.
But he said he believed that some scientists were simply unwilling to confront the big questions religion tried to answer. "You will never understand what it means to be a human being through naturalistic observation," he said. "You won't understand why you are here and what the meaning is. Science has no power to address these questions - and are they not the most important questions we ask ourselves?"
Please read the bold section twice, those are very important points. It is an excellent article when read in it's full context, that is why I asked David to cite it. Thanks for linking it.
Hey, I just gave my honest answer, zip. That is discussion, just not as long...haha.In my best Mike Myers Coffee Talk voice...discuss amongst yehselves.
Sure, Dawkins throws himself through hoops at times with creations such as "provisional positions" on the subject of God.
Then he takes his "provisional position" and makes a dog-and-pony show of it with BBC specials ridiculing the faithful.
It's dishonest. That's the worst thing that can be said about a scientist.
As for anyone else that's waiting for "data" to form an hypothesis---Go ahead, do that. In the interim why are you debating with me?
Then he takes his "provisional position" and makes a dog-and-pony show of it with BBC specials ridiculing the faithful.
It's dishonest. That's the worst thing that can be said about a scientist.
As for anyone else that's waiting for "data" to form an hypothesis---Go ahead, do that. In the interim why are you debating with me?
Ms,
Obviously, you don't know what a scientist means when he uses the term "provisional conclusion". It means that all the evidence fits the conclusion, but contrary evidence might someday be found.
We know that dinosaurs and people never lived together because of the fossil/geological record. It's 100% consistent, so far, but someone might, some day, find human fossils with dinosaurs. Hence, it's a provisional conclusion that dinos lived before people.
It is completely honest. It's the very definition of honesty and open-mindedness. The concept of "proof" only exists in mathematics and law.
To claim certain knowledge in the unknowable, now that is dishonest. To claim, for example, that one KNOWS there is a god, for whom there is no evidence, is dishonest.
And I'm discussing this with you because this is a discussion forum. What did you think we do here, swap knives?
DF
Obviously, you don't know what a scientist means when he uses the term "provisional conclusion". It means that all the evidence fits the conclusion, but contrary evidence might someday be found.
We know that dinosaurs and people never lived together because of the fossil/geological record. It's 100% consistent, so far, but someone might, some day, find human fossils with dinosaurs. Hence, it's a provisional conclusion that dinos lived before people.
It is completely honest. It's the very definition of honesty and open-mindedness. The concept of "proof" only exists in mathematics and law.
To claim certain knowledge in the unknowable, now that is dishonest. To claim, for example, that one KNOWS there is a god, for whom there is no evidence, is dishonest.
And I'm discussing this with you because this is a discussion forum. What did you think we do here, swap knives?
DF