Fed Up with Religion and Fed up with No Religion - Any Alternatives?

Adam

As George Carlin suggests, worship the sun and pray to Joe Pesci, you're prayers will be answered at the same 50/50 rate and the sun won't make any demands of you.

Knight who says Meh

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You haven't met much scientists have you.

You havent meeted much grammers have you;)

marty1985

I'm gonna look into getting an Agnostics forum set up. What could possibly go wrong?

Philip Lombard

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Dimethyltryptamine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1jPeG1LlaQ

Mark200

marty1985 wrote: »

I'm gonna look into getting an Agnostics forum set up. What could possibly go wrong?

"I don't know."

Phill Ewinn

Join the bloody freemasons OP. You can do acts of charity while booking your place in hell. Win win

Temptamperu

I dont know what i am, and i really dont care. As far as i am aware i am a human being with the complex mind that is clever enough to understand the universe as it appears now and for that i am truly thankful.

Also i may be God :pac:

marty1985

Temptamperu wrote: »

I dont know what i am, and i really dont care. As far as i am aware i am a human being with the complex mind that is clever enough to understand the universe as it appears now and for that i am truly thankful.

Also i may be God :pac:

You need some time in the wilderness like Jesus, Moses or Buddha to figure it out.

Temptamperu

But you cant get internet in the wilderness

Zillah

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

If you are so sure then why spell it out in such elaborate detail- are you trying to convince others or yourself?

Others.

You realise you can just be a quiet atheist, right? Just because there are those of us who like arguing about it doesn't mean we represent all the people who don't believe in God (aka, a large number of "Catholics").

We also don't require a pledge of allegiance or anything like that. Frankly it seems you just want someone to join up with and think for you. Just keep looking into all the religions and cults, I'm sure you'll find the right one eventually.

Parsley

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

You haven't met many scientists have you.

Tell that to the dude that came up with Plate techtonics and was laughed at because he was "only" a geologist.

i have, actually. and the fact that plate tectonics is now accepted as being true, after evidence was provided and it was investigated, by scientists, makes complete shit of any point you're trying to make there.

marty1985

Guys I put in a request for an Agnostic forum where many many people can come and sit on my fence.

Please help me out if you can with a +1. I'd do it for you.

Amhran Nua

OneArt wrote: »

The whole point of Buddhism is to escape reincarnation.

I always thought that was kind of funny about Buddhism, sort of like climbing back into the trees. I mean, I like it here, seeking oblivion seems kind of counterproductive. Yes, they are the Protestants of Hinduism, but over the centuries there have been so many encrusted cults and demagogues that it's basically become its own religion, a process we're seeing now with the likes of Mormonism. Joe Smith, prophet of god, last seen unloading a revolver at the congregation he owed money to.

Still it's very interesting to look at the many different faiths and try to pin down the common threads between them, something I've worked at a bit now and again. Haven't really reached a whole lot of conclusions, but the journey is engaging.

marty1985 wrote: »

Faith is important to both though. Science has to put faith in one theory until it is replaced by another.

Nono, science doesn't need faith. Faith means you can't find evidence for what you're saying. Science doesn't exist without evidence. Hypotheses which become theories are temporary placeholders while we try to find reasons to fit the facts, we don't try to change the facts to fit our theories. When more facts arise, we change the equations. Faith never enters into the picture.

RichieC

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Nono, science doesn't need faith. Faith means you can't find evidence for what you're saying. Science doesn't exist without evidence. Hypotheses which become theories are temporary placeholders while we try to find reasons to fit the facts, we don't try to change the facts to fit our theories. When more facts arise, we change the equations. Faith never enters into the picture.

Theory in science should be explained in a sticky here and coming out with the "it's just a theory" should be an instant ban...

Amhran Nua

RichieC wrote: »

Theory in science should be explained in a sticky here and coming out with the "it's just a theory" should be an instant ban...

Common usage meets academic nomenclature I suppose, a bit like when that American politician had a caniption fit over the master/slave terminology used to describe hardware in computer servers.

What can you do sure.

dlofnep

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Then the other side we have the Athiests- There is no God. They run around all superior licking Dawkings ball sack proclaiming science to have all the answers and being all smug and superior. Yeah, guess what, you have basically subscribed to a belief system written in a book- sound familiar?

That is precisely what atheists do NOT subscribe to. We state that there is no evidence for a God/Afterlife, and therefore - do not have a requirement to believe in such a fantasy. We do not state that science has all the answers, but rather that it answers many questions, and is narrowing the gap to answer others through reasoned logic.

There is no belief system involved in atheism. Atheism is purely the lack of belief in a deity. Any theories on how the universe was formed, how life began, and how life became more complex are driven by scientific data rather than the word of a few goat-herders from Palestine.

So no, it does not sound familiar. In fact, it sounds like the polar-opposite to throwing critical thinking away, and engaging in some ridiculous tale of everlasting life.

You're basically misinformed, greatly.

marty1985

Einstein's Theory Of Relativity was set out in 1915. The confirming evidence wasn't available until about 60 years later. They didn't know if he was right, but were prepared to go with it, and with the unresolved tension. They kept their belief that he was right. Einstein had faith that the evidence would come in the future, and he was right.

There will always be elements of faith in natural sciences, because so much cannot be proven.

Amhran Nua

marty1985 wrote: »

Einstein's Theory Of Relativity was set out in 1915. The confirming evidence wasn't available until about 60 years later.

He didn't pull it out of his bottom however, he formulated ideas to fit the facts best. Arbitrary rules didn't inform his theories, merely observation.

I mean we have a pretty good idea about why stars go supernova and I can't see anyone doing that particular lab experiment anytime soon.

Faith is where you need to believe something without evidence one way or the other. I'm a spiritual man, I think there is a place for faith in the world. But I don't confuse that with what science does, in any way.

marty1985

The definition is belief without proof. Evidence =/= proof.
Einstein's proof came with the confirming evidence 60 years later. He still had to believe, even if the proof wouldn't come for 60 years. He had to have faith that he was right.

Parsley

marty1985 wrote: »

He had to have faith that he was right.

no, no he didn't. he simply formulated a theory to fit facts based on observation. he had no need of 'faith'.

ed2hands

dlofnep wrote: »

That is precisely what atheists do NOT subscribe to. We state that there is no evidence for a God/Afterlife, and therefore - do not have a requirement to believe in such a fantasy. We do not state that science has all the answers, but rather that it answers many questions, and is narrowing the gap to answer others through reasoned logic.

There is no belief system involved in atheism. Atheism is purely the lack of belief in a deity. Any theories on how the universe was formed, how life began, and how life became more complex are driven by scientific data rather than the word of a few goat-herders from Palestine.

So no, it does not sound familiar. In fact, it sounds like the polar-opposite to throwing critical thinking away, and engaging in some ridiculous tale of everlasting life.

You're basically misinformed, greatly.

This for me is a good example of your typical post by an athiest on the A+A forum.

You put forth quite a valid and interesting point of view, but you just can't help yourself adding a bit of pointless condescention and ridicule to bring the whole lot into the gutter.

Mickeroo

marty1985 wrote: »

The definition is belief without proof. Evidence =/= proof.
Einstein's proof came with the confirming evidence 60 years later. He still had to believe, even if the proof wouldn't come for 60 years. He had to have faith that he was right.

Faith isn't really the right word here, it's like when people say "oh it's just a theory"

If Einstein's calculations didn't correspond with what evidence that was available at the time his theory wouldn't have been accepted as such.

Amhran Nua

marty1985 wrote: »

The definition is belief without proof. Evidence =/= proof.

Of course evidence is proof. You don't need to have white coated boffins literally recreating everything in labs filled with bubbling neon chemicals to have proof. Simply figuring out the rules that the evidence obeys is perfectly good science, as long as it does so consistently.

So lets spare one another the semantic word games and get down to the heart of the matter - do you feel that your beliefs are threatened by science? If so, why? If not, why do you feel the need to project the concept of faith - and I do have faith myself, so I can engage with you on that level - onto science?

dlofnep

marty1985 wrote: »

The definition is belief without proof. Evidence =/= proof.
Einstein's proof came with the confirming evidence 60 years later. He still had to believe, even if the proof wouldn't come for 60 years. He had to have faith that he was right.

Einstein was driven by science, and a great understanding of physics. It's not the same kind of 'belief' involved in religion which is purely 'blind faith'. To try and equate the two as equal is absurd.

marty1985

no, no he didn't. he simply formulated a theory to fit facts based on observation. he had no need of 'faith'.

I think the problem here is you view 'faith' as a dirty word without really knowing what it means.

Here are 2 of the 8 definitions put forward by Dictionary.com

2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

Part of the drive to position science against religion in a conflict is skewing the meaning of certain words to try to taint the other side. Faith does not always carry a religious meaning. The presentation of science as being inherently antireligious, and the champion of atheism, is false.

Faith isn't really the right word here, it's like when people say "oh it's just a theory"

This is exactly what the fundamentalists at the other end of the spectrum do. They misuse the term theory, they distort science and science suffers. They do this because people try to use science to antagonise them and create conflict. So, when you compare science and religion, you are not diminishing the power of religion. The irony is, you intensify some religionists' antipathy to science. Science loses because it is abused at both ends.

If Einstein's calculations didn't correspond with what evidence that was available at the time his theory wouldn't have been accepted as such.

Absolutely. We had evidence. We didn't have proof. Proof and evidence are often used as synonyms, and therein a lot of the confusion lies, but a certain amount of evidence is needed to become proof. Accepting his theory was based on faith, in the true sense of the word.

Of course evidence is proof. You don't need to have white coated boffins literally recreating everything in labs filled with bubbling neon chemicals to have proof. Simply figuring out the rules that the evidence obeys is perfectly good science, as long as it does so consistently.

Faith is an inextricable part of science. All scientific inquiry incorporates faith regarding suppositions about the world and the scientific method, assumptions about the validity of the scientific model and the veracity of existing scientific knowledge. Science presupposes a rational and knowable foundation on which the universe was built, that it is ordered in an intelligible way, and that's a matter of faith. Remember, evidence can be a two way street.

The crux of the matter is this: science and religion are not in conflict (however much some want them to be). Faith is not a dirty word, it is an act of confidence in the facts we have, and on how we interpret them. Atheism and theism are contradictory, yes, but science and religion are complementary, and reason and faith are interdependent. Militant atheists who want to eliminate faith are misguided, usually by selective interpretation of facts and deliberate disinformation, because not only is it not desirable, it is not even possible. Because faith is an integral part of reason. That's why you cannot eliminate faith, and any scientist will tell you that.

So lets spare one another the semantic word games and get down to the heart of the matter - do you feel that your beliefs are threatened by science? If so, why?

I love science. I am sad to see it abused by militant atheism. I am agnostic. I don't believe religion to be true. I believe religion can be explained. I turn to science and evolutionary biology for that. I lack the conviction of atheists to say there is no God. If I look to science for an indication, it offers me none. There may be a God. There may not. I won't know.

I am sympathetic to religion, so I don't agree with mission of atheists to ridicule believers. I respect it as one of the greatest inventions to motivate behaviour, even though it is probably not true, and therein lies the genius of it. I think people who scorn religion as a mental weakness and stupidity are completely missing the point and just don't grasp the complexity of it. I hate the arrogance of militant atheists, and the ignorance of some devout believers.

If not, why do you feel the need to project the concept of faith - and I do have faith myself, so I can engage with you on that level - onto science?

You have religious faith? As I've been saying, that is not the only type of faith. Perhaps the two definitions given above would be worth looking at again. Perhaps some of you misconstrued my meaning, as the typical mode of religious conversation on Boards is Us V. Them. (As an aside, I saw one post rallying atheists against religious people that said "WE are scientists!")

Einstein was driven by science, and a great understanding of physics. It's not the same kind of 'belief' involved in religion which is purely 'blind faith'. To try and equate the two as equal is absurd.

I didn't. While I do not believe all religious faith is blind faith, whoever thought scientists act on blind faith? They act on faith in the evidence at hand, and wait for the confirming evidence, i.e. proof, which may come generations later.

Amhran Nua

marty1985 wrote: »

Faith is an inextricable part of science. All scientific inquiry incorporates faith regarding suppositions about the world and the scientific method, assumptions about the validity of the scientific model and the veracity of existing scientific knowledge.

You are conflating Faith, capital F, with faith, as in confidence. A scientist may, on the basis of his observations and experimentations, have confidence that his theories are correct. This may also be said as that he has faith in his abilities.

However in context it is very clear that this is entirely different to Faith, whereby one has belief rather than confidence in something without evidence, taken purely on the strength that someone else told you, or a burning bush whispered in your ear one dark night or something.

The difference between science and faith is you can test the veracity of any existing scientific knowledge any time you like.

Seriously, the semantic word games aren't doing you any favours here, unless English isn't your first language.

marty1985 wrote: »

The crux of the matter is this: science and religion are not in conflict (however much some want them to be).

I'm not disagreeing with you, so long as religion stays the hell away from science. They aren't joined at the hip, science can persevere quite happily without religion or faith. I suppose religion could do the same, but it wouldn't last too long after all its followers died of easily curable diseases that science would have fixed generations ago.

You can say all you like that science needs blind belief, but all that means is you have no comprehension of what science is. Since it's not that hard to understand, I can only assume you're being wilfully ignorant in order to strike out at militant atheists or something.

There's no talking your way around that one.

marty1985 wrote: »

You have religious faith?

Not really, most religions are wasps nests of human psychoses, weaknesses, and corruption, salted with drug induced hallucinations and what appear to be textbook cases of heatstroke given the iron rule of law for legitimacy. It would be accurate to say I have spiritual faith however.

marty1985

Amhran Nua wrote: »

You can say all you like that science needs blind belief, but all that means is you have no comprehension of what science is.

AhferGod'ssake.

Amhran Nua

marty1985 wrote: »

AhferGod'ssake.

That is what you're getting at though - conflating blind religious belief with science, again presumably to make militant atheists take a long look in the mirror. It's not going to work because your basic premise is wrong.

ed2hands

dlofnep

marty1985 wrote: »

I didn't. While I do not believe all religious faith is blind faith, whoever thought scientists act on blind faith? They act on faith in the evidence at hand, and wait for the confirming evidence, i.e. proof, which may come generations later.

Then why mention it at all, when attempting to compare and contrast faith in the circles of religion and science? It's moot.

Religious faith is completely blind, because it lacks a shred of evidence. Compare that to the theory of evolution - We can add great weight to it's credibility by examining transitional fossils and DNA. Religion does not have anything of comparable weight to give credibility to it.

Out of curiosity - What aspects of religion do you believe do not require blind faith?