Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is it ultimately pointless to engage in debate with those who believe in a deity

2

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Why, do you happen to know how the mind of a god/s would work?

    No - hence I have no basis to give any attributes at all to a possible god. I merely claim that given no knowledge whatsoever I cannot see how I or anyone could rule out a testable God, therefore it's just not true to claim as if it's an axiom (by definition true) that God is untestable.

    Your original quote:
    There is a scientific consensus on God. It is that god/s cannot be tested, therefore science has nothing else to say.

    It appears to be you who are claiming some knowledge of God's attribute or mind to claim that they're untestable!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    pH wrote: »
    No - hence I have no basis to give any attributes at all to a possible god. I merely claim that given no knowledge whatsoever I cannot see how I or anyone could rule out a testable God, therefore it's just not true to claim as if it's an axiom (by definition true) that God is untestable.

    Your original quote:



    It appears to be you who are claiming some knowledge of God's attribute or mind to claim that they're untestable!

    *MEGA SIGH*

    There is a difference between God and god/s.

    Geddit?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    pH wrote: »
    No - hence I have no basis to give any attributes at all to a possible god. I merely claim that given no knowledge whatsoever I cannot see how I or anyone could rule out a testable God, therefore it's just not true to claim as if it's an axiom (by definition true) that God is untestable.

    Could it be that the only ones we're left with are the untestable ones?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    *MEGA SIGH*

    There is a difference between God and god/s.

    Geddit?

    Oh, you switched between them in your original comment?
    There is a scientific consensus on God. It is that god/s cannot be tested, therefore science has nothing else to say.

    Now perhaps with correct capitals you'd restate your point, because I cannot see what the difference would be between discussing God and god. Unless the point you're making is that one of the words (God or god?) includes in its definition "untestable" then I really don't see where the "mega sigh" comes from or why the capitalisation is now important.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    pH wrote: »
    Oh, you switched between them in your original comment?



    Now perhaps with correct capitals you'd restate your point, because I cannot see what the difference would be between discussing God and god.

    No, I haven't switched. Someone more observant would have noticed that I addressed the God from whoever I replied to, and in the next sentence proceeded to lump that God in with all the other god/s, even the god/s no one has invented yet.

    I thought on this forum the distinction would be clear to all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    No, I haven't switched. Someone more observant would have noticed that I addressed the God from whoever I replied to, and in the next sentence proceeded to lump that God in with all the other god/s, even the god/s no one has invented yet.

    I thought on this forum the distinction would be clear to all.

    Right, let's get this straight.

    God is a specific God (the one in the bible) right?, and he's a member of the set gods (all possible gods), and you're now claiming that "God" (with a capital) is testable but belongs to a set whose entire contents are untestable. Someone more intelligent than you might have noticed that that's nonsense. [note to mods HE STARTED IT!] ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    pH wrote: »
    Right, let's get this straight.

    God is a specific God (the one in the bible) right?, and he's a member of the set gods (all possible gods), and you're now claiming that "God" (with a capital) is testable but belongs to a set whose entire contents are untestable. Someone more intelligent than you might have noticed that that's nonsense. [note to mods HE STARTED IT!] ;)

    Ok, this is getting tangled.

    God can be any correctly specified god. Of course, it will more than likely be the God of the desert, in this discussion. Certain faculties/claims/skills of this god can be tested-ish, to a certain extent, but whether he actually exists cannot be tested, and therefore science would be silent on the matter. This goes for all god/s and it also goes for magic teapots, etc.

    If you can provide a reliable, consistent scientific test for god/s, magic teapots, please provide one. Any of the tests that have been provided so far could be explained away by anything you come up with. ANYTHING.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    seamus wrote: »
    The point here is that God is generally defined as having parameters. In fact all of the Abrahamic religions give God some defining characteristics, almost all of which can be tested. To disprove the existence of that particular God, all you have to do is show that one of these characteristics cannot or does not exist. Such as "listens to prayers".
    If they're disproven and then you shift the goalposts and claim that, "God cannot be tested", well then you've proven that you're just in fact making things up and your original God never existed in the first place except in your head.

    That is true except for the fact that we cannot fully claim that God does not answer prayers despite all the evidence suggesting it. There may well be a way in which a prayer is answered, in the longterm or in a way that is completely mysterious to us. In the same way we cannot 'test' God on anything because said God already has, by default, abilities outside of our scope and understanding. So what we can test is the whether or not a God that has been reported is still operating in the same way as the reports suggests. If we chose something like prayer answering then we would have to include all the events which happen to our test group and to the people with whom our test group have an immediate effect on.
    Also we need to conduct it over the course of the lifespan of everyone involved. Now these parameters are still not perfect but they allow us the opportunity to to include much more evidence for 'prayers which have been answered indirectly'. The evidence would of course be in part open to interpretation as inevitably most of the prayers will be deemed as being answered indirectly. That only represents a small part of the complexity involved in conducting a test of whether of not a God answers prayers. So without even going into the idea that we would miss evidence because God is mysterious the evidence that it would be possible to unearth is too complex in to be quantified. The straightforward study as suggested by Zillah is unnecessary from the outset as if it were the case that God was directly answering requests to say something as low as even 5% it would be easily observable in our daily lives.


  • Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    Certain faculties/claims/skills of this god can be tested-ish, to a certain extent, but whether he actually exists cannot be tested, and therefore science would be silent on the matter.

    So you can test aspects of this god, but not whether he actually exists?:confused:

    I think your point is that the hypothesis of an all-powerful God who doesn't interfere in the material world can't be tested? Is therefore definitionally "untestable" in the material world, as this definition of God doesn't impinge on it?

    But surely a God of that type is essentially the same as no God (a non-existant God also wouldn't impinge on the material world in exactly the same fashion as your "untestable" God).

    So, assigning "untestable" as an attribute of a subset of Godhood is meaningless, no?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pH wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but how can a Christian honestly do a scientific experiment? If you believe in an intervening God who answers your prayers how can you tell if any set of results are real or just God's current whim. Maybe he's rewarding you or punishing you or maybe he hasn't intervened this time, how can a Christian tell and have any confidence in their results.

    There aren't scientists who are Christians? That's what I meant.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Naz_st wrote: »
    So you can test aspects of this god, but not whether he actually exists?:confused:

    Well, it's like this. The bible claims that God answers prayers on a Thursday. So we test prayers on a Thurs and none are answered.

    Does that mean:

    A) God does not exist?

    or

    B) God does not answers prayers on Thursday?

    I don't believe the above experiment proves (A), nor was it testing this hypothesis in the first place. Perhaps it does damage to the claims of the bible and its followers, but to the existence of the deity itself? I don't think so.

    How are you supposed to test for it's existence? I don't think it is possible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Flaming Diving: Do not put the Lord your God to the test. So you expect to break God's law, and for Him to answer your prayers? Not effective.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Do not put the Lord your God to the test.
    Or in other words - "I do exist, but don't dare call my bluff".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Flaming Diving: Do not put the Lord your God to the test. So you expect to break God's law, and for Him to answer your prayers? Not effective.

    Which immediately begs the question, who the hell are you to claim to know this?

    Maybe God is a proud and sane God who loves to have his powers tested to prove how powerful and kind he is? Who are you and on what basis can you claim otherwise?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    pH wrote: »
    Which immediately begs the question, who the hell are you to claim to know this?

    Maybe God is a proud and sane God who loves to have his powers tested to prove how powerful and kind he is? Who are you and on what basis can you claim otherwise?

    William Lane Craig, CS Lewis blah blah etc. and all that crap.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Do not put the Lord your God to the test. So you expect to break God's law, and for Him to answer your prayers? Not effective.

    Does this rule extend to all study of whether the world proceeds according to natural processes?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Well, that doesn't prove he doesn't exist.

    It demonstrates that God, as defined, does not exist. Maybe a different celestial entity exists, but I've proved the non-existence of the prayer answering God I defined at the start.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Zillah wrote: »
    It demonstrates that God, as defined, does not exist. Maybe a different celestial entity exists, but I've proved the non-existence of the prayer answering God I defined at the start.

    If God is defined as only existing through answering prayers, then yes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Flaming Diving: Do not put the Lord your God to the test. So you expect to break God's law, and for Him to answer your prayers? Not effective.

    The God of the desert is not my god. If I was to follow a god, I could do better than that psychopath.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    The God of the desert is not my god. If I was to follow a god, I could do better than that psychopath.

    Odin ftw!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭toiletduck


    Is it ultimately pointless to engage in debate with those who believe in a deity?

    Well yes I suppose. I mean in the BP&C thread I don't think some of the creationists will ever give in. Doesn't mean that it can't be entertaining and educational though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    Well, it's like this. The bible claims that God answers prayers on a Thursday. So we test prayers on a Thurs and none are answered.

    Does that mean:

    A) God does not exist?

    or

    B) God does not answers prayers on Thursday?

    I don't believe the above experiment proves (A), nor was it testing this hypothesis in the first place. Perhaps it does damage to the claims of the bible and its followers, but to the existence of the deity itself? I don't think so.

    First off, you can't have it both ways: you can't test "aspects" of this God concept if you can't first test if he exists. (You pretty much demonstrate that in your above hypothetical test).

    It's like saying "let's test if invisible pink unicorns eat dead goats on wednesdays" and then upon noticing the continued presence of dead goat carcasses on Thursday mornings, concluding either:
    a) Invisible pink unicorns don't exist
    b) Invisible pink unicorns do exist but don't eat dead goats on Wednesdays
    c) Invisible pink unicorns do exist but don't eat dead goats on Wednesdays if they think people are watching
    etc

    You're not "testing" anything.

    In order for something to be testable, it has to be falsifiable.

    So you can only test falsifiable claims made by believers about their Gods. E.g. God always answers prayers on Thursdays.
    How are you supposed to test for it's existence? I don't think it is possible.

    I agree that the Deistic view of a vague "creator" concept that doesn't interfere with anything is not falsifiable, and untestable. My only point on this non-interfering view is that it's materially the same as non-existing, as both would appear identical.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Naz_st wrote: »
    First off, you can't have it both ways: you can't test "aspects" of this God concept if you can't first test if he exists. (You pretty much demonstrate that in your above hypothetical test).

    It's like saying "let's test if invisible pink unicorns eat dead goats on wednesdays" and then upon noticing the continued presence of dead goat carcasses on Thursday mornings, concluding either:
    a) Invisible pink unicorns don't exist
    b) Invisible pink unicorns do exist but don't eat dead goats on Wednesdays
    c) Invisible pink unicorns do exist but don't eat dead goats on Wednesdays if they think people are watching
    etc

    You're not "testing" anything.

    In order for something to be testable, it has to be falsifiable.

    So you can only test falsifiable claims made by believers about their Gods. E.g. God always answers prayers on Thursdays.



    I agree that the Deistic view of a vague "creator" concept that doesn't interfere with anything is not falsifiable, and untestable. My only point on this non-interfering view is that it's materially the same as non-existing, as both would appear identical.

    I actually agree. Perhaps you said it better than I was. God is not falsifiable. Therefore science is silent on God.

    Better?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Well, it's like this. The bible claims that God answers prayers on a Thursday. So we test prayers on a Thurs and none are answered.

    Does that mean:

    A) God does not exist?

    or

    B) God does not answers prayers on Thursday?

    I don't believe the above experiment proves (A), nor was it testing this hypothesis in the first place. Perhaps it does damage to the claims of the bible and its followers, but to the existence of the deity itself? I don't think so.

    How are you supposed to test for it's existence? I don't think it is possible.

    God, being an entity that answers prayers on Thursday, does not exist.

    I think your reasoning is a little off here. Put it this way: You and I are biologists looking for an animal that villagers have said lives in the jungle. It's like a monkey but has a blue horn on it's head. It's called Orangazure. We search extensively for weeks and find no sign of such a creature. When I express doubts about its existence you point at another monkey and say "Well that could be the Orangazul except maybe the Orangazul doesn't have a blue horn".

    When we perform a test we're not testing for all hypothetical definitions of God, we're testing a specific one. Just like when we're searching for an animal, we're searching for a particular animal, not all hypothetical animals that we'll give the same name to.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Naz_st wrote: »
    So you can only test falsifiable claims made by believers about their Gods. E.g. God always answers prayers on Thursdays.

    But if those testable claims are an element of the definition of that God, then surely by disproving the claim we disprove the God? eg, a God that always answers prayers on Thursdays.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    I find it amusing that a lot of the posters here are as fanatical as the mad over the top religous loonies.

    It's ironic, not much seperates them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    I actually agree. Perhaps you said it better than I was. God is not falsifiable. Therefore science is silent on God.

    Better?

    Not much, you've left out the important bit "I can think of a God ..."

    as in:

    I can think of a God that is not falsifiable. Therefore science is silent on [that] God.


    Once again, there is nothing inherently unfalsifiable about a God, just specific definitions of "God", which if one was choosing to be cynical, one might say that the entire point of the definition was to make it unfalsifiable, which comes back to my original point that the statement "It's possible for humans to invent concepts which are unfalsifiable" is undoubtedly true, but I still don't understand quite what you think it has to do with God.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Is it ultimately pointless to engage in debate with the religious ?

    Yes.

    My personal opinion on this is you have to be - to put it nicely - amazingly naive to be religious.

    I've also noticed no matter what absolutely rational or logical arguments you put forward about why some of their beliefs don't make sense, they don't want to know.

    Society in general is in denial about how ridiculous religion is (e.g. people say "we are all entitled to our beliefs" rather than "religious people are deluded but relatively harmless"), so I think it's better to just waste your energy on anything other than debating with a religious person.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    I find it amusing that a lot of the posters here are as fanatical as the mad over the top religous loonies.

    It's ironic, not much seperates them.

    That's always the case - the extreme on one end is the same as the extreme on the other.

    Look at the hardcore anti-scientolology people - they are just as unstable as any scientologist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    Eh... actually quite a lot separates us Micky. First of all, we don't believe in magic space fairies who go around impregnating women in stables. There are many many examples that I can list out, but I won't, since the list may go on for infinity.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Overblood wrote: »
    Eh... actually quite a lot separates us Micky. First of all, we don't believe in magic space fairies who go around impregnating women in stables. There are many many examples that I can list out, but I won't, since the list may go on for infinity.

    No, I think he means people who have passionate but opposing views on things (e.g. x is definitely right versus x is definitely wrong) are normally similar sorts of people.

    It's a generalisation but from my own experience being involved in pressure groups, I have noticed people with extreme views on things tend to be a bit unstable, regardless of whether they are 'right' or 'wrong'.

    As I say, just a generalisation!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Overblood wrote: »
    Eh... actually quite a lot separates us Micky. First of all, we don't believe in magic space fairies who go around impregnating women in stables. There are many many examples that I can list out, but I won't, since the list may go on for infinity.

    That's great. Neither do Christians! You see, we DO have things in common.


  • Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    I actually agree. Perhaps you said it better than I was. God is not falsifiable. Therefore science is silent on God.

    Better?

    Yes. As generally defined, God is not falsifiable. And science simply ignores God as an explanation for anything.
    Zillah wrote: »
    But if those testable claims are an element of the definition of that God, then surely by disproving the claim we disprove the God? eg, a God that always answers prayers on Thursdays.

    Sure, of course. But it seems to me that very few Gods have testable (falsifiable) claims as definitional elements of their existence!:)
    pH wrote: »
    Once again, there is nothing inherently unfalsifiable about a God, just specific definitions of "God"

    I agree in theory, but in practice, as I said above, it's seemingly a universal characteristic of Gods to be inherently unfalsifiable. I guess you could put forward specific examples of where this is not the case (perhaps the Greek God Helios, being defined as having a chariot pulling the sun up in the morning, and since this doesn't happen he is proved not to exist as defined). But take the concept of omnipotence, which seems universally attributed to monotheistic Gods, and in the normal use of the concept "God", I think that any God thus defined is inherently unfalsifiable, and ergo untestable.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Naz_st wrote: »
    Yes. As generally defined, God is not falsifiable. And science simply ignores God as an explanation for anything.

    Surely it's anti-science to rule out other possibilities?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    I find it amusing that a lot of the posters here are as fanatical as the mad over the top religous loonies.

    It's ironic, not much seperates them.

    Define fanatical please.


  • Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Surely it's anti-science to rule out other possibilities?

    No, it's anti-scientific to accept non-scientific, supernatural explanations for things.

    E.g. the whole "God did it" argument. If we applied that statement to any scientific question we have then we would never advance our knowledge of the world.

    Also, "ruling out possibilities" is part and parcel of the scientific method. I mean it's a fundamental process of what science is. Ruling out incorrect hypotheses when they don't conform to the observed results or when the predictions they make prove to be false. You really couldn't have been more wrong with that one...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It's anti-science not to consider this as a real possibility and to see if there is a logical reason that it could be so, rather than just dismissing it off the cuff. That's why the promotion of atheism should have nothing to do with science, and rather atheists should stop claiming that they somehow are superior due to being "more scientific". What a load of tripe.

    BTW, you as an atheist, and scientists as well... scientists, have nothing to suggest that a Creator is an incorrect hypothesis, therefore it shouldn't be ruled out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Jakkass wrote: »
    BTW, you as an atheist, and scientists as well... scientists, have nothing to suggest that a Creator is an incorrect hypothesis, therefore it shouldn't be ruled out.

    There's also nothing to suggest that a creator is a correct hypothesis, therefore it shouldn't be ruled in.

    Easy on the commas, btw.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭Liber8or


    I departed the Christian Forums to have a quick look at the A&A Forums and found this thread thrashing through more details and I thought I would say something since it derives from a statement I made.

    Ultimately, I feel it is impossible to debate about a subject which uses "Faith" as evidence and precursor for answers.

    Christianity utilises and accentuates the idea of "Faith" upon those susceptable to it's preachings. This is the very reason why Science and Religion clash. Science is the endeavour to discover the "Why", Religion is the exertion to ignore the "Why".

    However, it is in the endeavour we discover subtle similarities between both Science and Religion which inevitable leads to more subversive themes.

    [Science] attempts to answer questions people ask, such as why do i fall? What are these lumps? Does life exist on other planets? That is the primary function of Science, the challenge to understand the World around us and better ourselves.

    [Religion] would rather you ignored these questions and listen to the answers the Bible and Mass gives you. Things are a lot easier when people conform and adapt to a single way of thinking. It makes life easier and most importantly controllable.

    However, Religion can not avoid people asking questions, even the people within its own ranks. It is inevitable that man/woman will question things, no matter how ignorant or uneducated that person is. The only difference is the complexity of the question, be it, how far do I walk to get water, to how can I get the water to come to me?

    So Religion, in response to these questions must come up with an answer or fear of losing the masses. We come to "Faith". This quintessential five letter word of genius proportion that is the master key and will fit into the lock of any question standing before it. "Faith" asks you to trust in this "Eternal Being". "Faith" begs of you to be humble and bow down to the "will of God". "Faith" can and will make the coffee for you, but only if you trust in it and don't ask it to hurry up.

    Science, however does not know everything, but it knows that and attempts to keep going and give as much answers as it can offer. It does this through "Proof", verifiable, undeniable evidence that clearly answers a question. If it does not answer the question, it simply tells you that but will try and find out. Religion, on the other hand, says "Have Faith".

    From here on, this debate really changes between "Faith" vs Proof.

    What is "Faith"? "Faith" is the acceptance of not knowing the answers for why "God" does this, or "God" does that, or why "he" does nothing at all. It is a submission a Christian makes, an exception to the rules of reasoning you give to Religion, a "spiritual" contract you make allowing it to choose when to prove the existence of "God" when it so pleases.
    Ultimately, it is an admission of ignorance on both the believer's part and religion itself. You choose to make yourself ignorant to allow this rule to execute on the premise that it will become evident. This is a binding contract between the individual and the religious establishment upon accepting the ideas of the said religion.

    What is "Proof"? "Proof" is the results or evidence of examination and analysis of a particular question. The "Proof" allows someone to stand up and say "X" or "Y" because of "Z". "Proof" can be questioned as can "Faith", however "Proof" will yield results, "Faith" will reveal promises. "Proof" invokes and encourages human instinct, the instinct of curiousity and ability to question things. Alongside intelligence, "Proof" works in synthesis to human questioning. Therefore, "Proof" directly opposes ignorance and counts for everything ignorance encourages.

    Hence, "Proof" professes intelligence, education, inquiry, examination. "Faith" professes exception, ignorance, lack of clarity and an unwillingness to explore.

    With these two opposing ideologies, we have an explosive counter-balance of results.
    Science using "Proof" encourages free thinking and answers with evidence. Religion supports "Faith" and the acceptance of promises and gifts, which ultimately can not be proven until another object based on "Faith" known as "God" chooses to allow it to appear.

    The synopsis of this argument truly boils down to Intelligence vs Ignorance. Always has and always will. There are people who would rather not question things, would rather accept the World around them as it has been told for them to see it. "God" made the trees and the birds etc. However, there are those who look past the shroud of ambiguity and begin the long endeavour to discover why we have trees and birds instead of accepting a book which says the opposite.

    Science and Religion will always argue, and unfortunately, in an educated environment Religion will fall because of "Faith". It's golden card, was accepted in an age of non-existant education and conformists attempting to avoid punishment and submit to fear, but not anymore. Instead, mankind looks for alternative options, verifiable ones and has decided to move on from the archaic in exchange for "Proof".

    Finally though, Science can not win in open debate. Infact, our wildcard is by ignoring ignorance. If we feed it, pay it attention it survives, like a virus or parasite. Science should ignore religion, move past it, give it no attention and strive forward leaving it in the dark ages. We all know religion is in decline, just look around us and the power the Vatican has, it used to be able to topple nations, now it can not even topple a table without looking for permission from surrounding states. Mankind is evolving, changing its ways and its treatment of archaic ways. Science will always be ahead, with Religion chasing its tail, hoping, "praying" for some "Faith" to come its way...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Science and Religion don't argue. It's Atheists and people of faith. Atheists are not the equivalent of science. I personally have no issue with modern science. Actually it seems to me that atheists abuse science to pursue their own goals even when science has no stance on the God question at all.

    As for ignoring the why, I think that's what atheists try to do. Science explains the how, religion and philosophy tries to explain the why.


  • Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's anti-science not to consider this as a real possibility and to see if there is a logical reason that it could be so, rather than just dismissing it off the cuff.
    No, it's not. I don't think you get what the Scientific Method is, but it's worth reading up about it so you know where scientists (as distinct from atheists btw) are coming from.
    That's why the promotion of atheism should have nothing to do with science, and rather atheists should stop claiming that they somehow are superior due to being "more scientific". What a load of tripe.
    Where did I suggest that atheists are "superior due to being more scientific"?:confused:
    BTW, you as an atheist, and scientists as well... scientists, have nothing to suggest that a Creator is an incorrect hypothesis, therefore it shouldn't be ruled out.

    A scientific hypothesis BY DEFINITION has to be testable:
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Flaming Diving: Do not put the Lord your God to the test. So you expect to break God's law, and for Him to answer your prayers? Not effective.

    Did I misinterpret your thoughts on this point?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Zillah wrote: »
    Define fanatical please.

    As you wish,

    overenthusiastic.

    I have read through a few posts/threads:

    I am an Atheist am I smarter than a ten year old person who belives in a god, any god?

    I am an Atheist, I wouldn't date or sleep with someone who belives in a God, any god. Would you? (That was my favorite one)

    I am Atheist, should I bother debating anyone with a different belief system?

    I am an Atheist, I am (a) God.

    etc etc and so on.

    Please...

    I know plenty of people who don't give a toss about a God or any God, but they sure as hell don't bore me with why they do, don't whatever.

    The Atheists that do are fanatical in my opinion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭darjeeling


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Science and Religion don't argue. It's Atheists and people of faith. Atheists are not the equivalent of science. I personally have no issue with modern science. Actually it seems to me that atheists abuse science to pursue their own goals even when science has no stance on the God question at all.

    I'd just like to know whether that squares with this:
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Flaming Diving: Do not put the Lord your God to the test. So you expect to break God's law, and for Him to answer your prayers? Not effective.

    Part of Genesis can be interpreted as God flooding the surface of the planet in recent historical times. Scientists have tested this and concluded that this interpretation is wrong. Scientists have derived and tested naturalistic models of earthquakes, hurricanes and other calamities, and these have supplanted earlier ideas of divine intervention. Were these scientists acting in defiance of the injunction against putting God to the test?

    Edit: So would Naz_st, I see. Faster than me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    You misunderstand, Atheism leads to Scientific inquiry, not vice versa.

    Then why did modern science emerge in Christian Europe?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    The Atheists that do are fanatical in my opinion.

    I'm bored of you. Does that mean you're a fanatic?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    pH wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but how can a Christian honestly do a scientific experiment? If you believe in an intervening God who answers your prayers how can you tell if any set of results are real or just God's current whim. Maybe he's rewarding you or punishing you or maybe he hasn't intervened this time, how can a Christian tell and have any confidence in their results.

    Watch some Christians scientists working and you will find out. However, I don't know how your parody of a Christian can honestly do a scientific experiment. You do know that you have parodied rather than represented Christian beliefs, right?
    Zillah wrote: »
    Hypothesis: God "A" exists. He is all powerful and praying to him when you are sick makes you better.
    Methodology: Have religious cancer patients pray, and receive no medication. Have group of athiests not pray, but receive medication.
    Result: Mass grave full of dead fools.
    Conclusion: God "A" does not exist.

    That's not the Christian God.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Húrin wrote: »
    That's not the Christian God.

    That's nice.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Zillah wrote: »
    I'm bored of you. Does that mean you're a fanatic?

    Thats real good.:pac:

    I do find your "I know what you are, but what am I" type response funny, Juvenal but amusing.


  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    As you wish,

    overenthusiastic.

    I have read through a few posts/threads:

    I am an Atheist am I smarter than a ten year old person who belives in a god, any god?

    I am an Atheist, I wouldn't date or sleep with someone who belives in a God, any god. Would you? (That was my favorite one)

    I am Atheist, should I bother debating anyone with a different belief system?

    I am an Atheist, I am (a) God.

    etc etc and so on.

    Please...

    I know plenty of people who don't give a toss about a God or any God, but they sure as hell don't bore me with why they do, don't whatever.

    The Atheists that do are fanatical in my opinion.

    I think you're missing the point ie how much fun it is to bother religious folk :P


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    I think you're missing the point ie how much fun it is to bother religious folk :P


    :pac::pac:

    Damn, wish I knew some religous folk:pac:


  • Advertisement
Advertisement