The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

[joecct]

Religious people believe in things that have been observed or credibly documented exactly zero times.

Fatima 1917 where the sun danced in the sky. Observed by 1,000's of people.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Some religious people pray and then have their prayers answered. I suppose that is not "credible" to you. Yet if a person prays for specific thing "x" and then "x" does occur, why would that not be credible?

Because correlation does not equal causation. If I pray for the sun to set at 6:07 p.m. today and, lo and behold, it does, that doesn't mean my prayers caused the sun to set!

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Fatima 1917 where the sun danced in the sky. Observed by 1,000's of people.

Seventy-thousand people claimed to be staring at the Sun and seeing it dance in the sky. Damaged retinas will do cause that sort of "vision", as will sun dogs and various other atmospheric distortions. Given that there's no video or film of a dancing Sun, and that the Earth is still in one piece and not on fire or a singular frozen ball of rock and ice, it's safe to say that the Sun stayed put and the Earth continued on its normal rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Because correlation does not equal causation. If I pray for the sun to set at 6:07 p.m. today and, lo and behold, it does, that doesn't mean my prayers caused the sun to set!

If two NFL teams play against each other, and both have players praying for victory, has God smote one team and answered the prayers of the other or did one team simply prevail due to either luck or better game planning and playmaking?

 

[joecct]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Seventy-thousand people claimed to be staring at the Sun and seeing it dance in the sky. Damaged retinas will do cause that sort of "vision", as will sun dogs and various other atmospheric distortions. Given that there's no video or film of a dancing Sun, and that the Earth is still in one piece and not on fire or a singular frozen ball of rock and ice, it's safe to say that the Sun stayed put and the Earth continued on its normal rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun.

Ah, but you can't place limits on God. Otherwise He ceases to be God.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Ah, but you can't place limits on God. Otherwise He ceases to be God.

But this was never supposed to be the work of God, it was supposed to be the work of an angel that only the two little girls could see and hear.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Ah, but you can't place limits on God. Otherwise He ceases to be God.

Well, first of all, don't mix up Her gender...

But given the choice between gods who answer to physics or physics that answers to god, I'll stick with the former. Otherwise there's no point in trying to make any sense of the universe, since we have no ability to ever trust any test result.

 

[joecct]

But this was never supposed to be the work of God, it was supposed to be the work of an angel that only the two little girls could see and hear.

Christ's Mother, not an angel. And it two girls and a boy.

Kep - God can have no limits. He cannot violate the laws, for He created them. But, because He is God, He can transcend them.

We have an imperfect understanding of the laws, and of Him. When we do fully understand Him, we'll be dead.

Maybe the end times will occur when we fully understand God while we're still mortal. Heck I don't know. But I'll find out when I stand in judgment before Him.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Well, first of all, don't mix up Her gender...

But given the choice between gods who answer to physics or physics that answers to god, I'll stick with the former. Otherwise there's no point in trying to make any sense of the universe, since we have no ability to ever trust any test result.

Curious why having a God would negate the test results, nulify information gained from tests, or stifle curiosity. As I see it (not a physicist, quite obviously) all the tests, etc are humans attempting to define or understand what God has/had created.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?


Some religious people pray and then have their prayers answered. I suppose that is not "credible" to you. Yet if a person prays for specific thing "x" and then "x" does occur, why would that not be credible?


There is no good reason why science and religion need to be seen in opposition. They are complementary. One deals with the world without, the other with the world within.

Read it again. "Religious people believe in things that have not been proven." That does not mean that everything religious people believe has not been proven, nor does it mean that religious people *only* believe in non-proven things. But you know what we would call a "religious person" who only believes in things that have been documented and proven? An atheistic scientist.

Fatima 1917 where the sun danced in the sky. Observed by 1,000's of people.

Uh-huh. When I was in about 5th grade, we took a class field trip to the city planetarium. They projected a single white light onto the dome and asked how much it was moving. 95% of the class swore that it was dancing around. Then they slowly brought up the lights to show that it was actually a special light bulb that was firmly taped into place. The fact that 95% of human eyewitnesses claim something is not the same as "credibly documented."

 

[burd]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

It is interesting how those of us who cannot attest to a "God" react to those who can. Although our conclusions about the existence of God could hardly be more different, I find myself comfortable with 5mn's belief system, which seems to be founded on his understanding of the philosophy of the Word. But it seems to me that many believers are defending their position with an arsenal of circularity and logical fallacies, all fortified with a protective wall of confirmation bias. Joecct and FF's recent posts seem to fall in that category, but that perception is probably not justified either and may be my own confirmation bias at work.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

It is interesting how those of us who cannot attest to a "God" react to those who can. Although our conclusions about the existence of God could hardly be more different, I find myself comfortable with 5mn's belief system, which seems to be founded on his understanding of the philosophy of the Word. But it seems to me that many believers are defending their position with an arsenal of circularity and logical fallacies, all fortified with a protective wall of confirmation bias. Joecct and FF's recent posts seem to fall in that category, but that perception is probably not justified either and may be my own confirmation bias at work.

I grew up with 2 parents who were the product of deeply involved church families. Both rejected their churches. One abhors anything related to church or God which I hear at every opportunity presented now I am older. None of this was discussed when I was younger. I found God and a church by myself, much to the dismay of both parents.

I have a strong faith but I am comfortable that people don't believe . I am aware I have no proof that God exists. I know it is possible that God is a human construct. It doesn't bother me that others think so. I have no burning need for others to believe as I do or to convince them. I figure God has a way to work all that out.

I am interested in how people feel science and faith need be separated or are mutually exclusive. I don't see the separation at all. Just because I believe God created things doesn't mean there aren't rules in the creation. The thought of trying to figure out how the universe started, could it start by itself, etc is too big for me and I am too lazy to mentally explore it

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

It is interesting how those of us who cannot attest to a "God" react to those who can. Although our conclusions about the existence of God could hardly be more different, I find myself comfortable with 5mn's belief system, which seems to be founded on his understanding of the philosophy of the Word. But it seems to me that many believers are defending their position with an arsenal of circularity and logical fallacies, all fortified with a protective wall of confirmation bias. Joecct and FF's recent posts seem to fall in that category, but that perception is probably not justified either and may be my own confirmation bias at work.

When you read responses in this thread, do you assign different voices to people? In that I mean, do you give a temperament to Person A as being condescending while Person B may come across as patient, and yet Person C as whiny? It's happened to me more than once, and then I re-read the statement put forth in another voice. In threads such as this one, it's made all the difference for me.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Kep - God can have no limits. He cannot violate the laws, for He created them. But, because He is God, He can transcend them.

I don't understand the second statement or the third statement. If God has no limits then God has no "cannots." If if transcendence does not violate a law how is it transcendent?

OK, I kind of understand the third statement if it is like a category error.

But I would still say the second statement gets at the heart of the ontological impossibility of a limitless god. A god who cannot "not be" is not limitless. But a god who can "not be" but chooses not to is performing a contingent action (choosing), whereas God is supposed to be outside of time and outside of causality, not to mention perfect and changeless, therefore god self-contradicts.

This leaves us with only one choice: God exists outside of all logical structures; God is truly, utterly boundless. But if that is so then God has no attributes at all, or She has no attributes without also having their negations. God basically violates the Law of the Excluded Middle. But since all thought depends on that to get any purchase on reality, that throws away all human thinking.

As I said, you can go with that, but that's not a reality that is in any way interesting to me.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

When you read responses in this thread, do you assign different voices to people? In that I mean, do you give a temperament to Person A as being condescending while Person B may come across as patient, and yet Person C as whiny? It's happened to me more than once, and then I re-read the statement put forth in another voice. In threads such as this one, it's made all the difference for me.

We all do this. Personally, I assign you all animal shapes.

 

[burd]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

When you read responses in this thread, do you assign different voices to people? In that I mean, do you give a temperament to Person A as being condescending while Person B may come across as patient, and yet Person C as whiny? It's happened to me more than once, and then I re-read the statement put forth in another voice. In threads such as this one, it's made all the difference for me.

I probably do without thinking about it, and that certainly gets in the way of understanding.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I don't understand the second statement or the third statement. If God has no limits then God has no "cannots." If if transcendence does not violate a law how is it transcendent?

OK, I kind of understand the third statement if it is like a category error.

But I would still say the second statement gets at the heart of the ontological impossibility of a limitless god. A god who cannot "not be" is not limitless. But a god who can "not be" but chooses not to is performing a contingent action (choosing), whereas God is supposed to be outside of time and outside of causality, not to mention perfect and changeless, therefore god self-contradicts.

This leaves us with only one choice: God exists outside of all logical structures; God is truly, utterly boundless. But if that is so then God has no attributes at all, or She has no attributes without also having their negations. God basically violates the Law of the Excluded Middle. But since all thought depends on that to get any purchase on reality, that throws away all human thinking.

As I said, you can go with that, but that's not a reality that is in any way interesting to me.

This made my head hurt.

Add me to the list of people who assign voices and have to read things twice- or sometimes I skip things

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

It is interesting how those of us who cannot attest to a "God" react to those who can. Although our conclusions about the existence of God could hardly be more different, I find myself comfortable with 5mn's belief system, which seems to be founded on his understanding of the philosophy of the Word. But it seems to me that many believers are defending their position with an arsenal of circularity and logical fallacies, all fortified with a protective wall of confirmation bias. Joecct and FF's recent posts seem to fall in that category, but that perception is probably not justified either and may be my own confirmation bias at work.

Thanks...to that end...

It's happened to me more than once, and then I re-read the statement put forth in another voice. In threads such as this one, it's made all the difference for me.

Jesus and the preceding OT has a 'church' interpretation that has been part of religious perception ever since Paul (in fact, Paul was part of that definition). It has been assumed to be the general story ever since. It is this 'church' interpretation on which debates get hung up.

I am of the belief that if one is to do just what you said with the Bible...reread it and put it in another voice...it could well take on more clarity. In other words, as Jesus was in fact God and came late...that a far more appropriate picture is that God is simply love and is defined by the Word.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

When you read responses in this thread, do you assign different voices to people? In that I mean, do you give a temperament to Person A as being condescending while Person B may come across as patient, and yet Person C as whiny?

I do it all the time, but to be fair, some posters make it very easy to pigeonhole their tone.

 

[LynahFan]

I grew up with 2 parents who were the product of deeply involved church families. Both rejected their churches. One abhors anything related to church or God which I hear at every opportunity presented now I am older. None of this was discussed when I was younger. I found God and a church by myself, much to the dismay of both parents.

I have a strong faith but I am comfortable that people don't believe . I am aware I have no proof that God exists. I know it is possible that God is a human construct. It doesn't bother me that others think so. I have no burning need for others to believe as I do or to convince them. I figure God has a way to work all that out.

I am interested in how people feel science and faith need be separated or are mutually exclusive. I don't see the separation at all. Just because I believe God created things doesn't mean there aren't rules in the creation. The thought of trying to figure out how the universe started, could it start by itself, etc is too big for me and I am too lazy to mentally explore it

God and science aren't mutually exclusive, in the same way that a unicorn and a dog are not mutually exclusive. The existence of the dog is not proof that the unicorn does NOT exist. And, if we someday found even a single scrap of evidence that the unicorn does exist, the dog would not disappear in a poof of contradiction.