Stven Hawking SAYS SO!

[doughesson]

There is no God before the athiest looking in his mirror.

Or,the atheist could be proving the joke about ,"If you don't think that the Good Lord has a sense of humor,just look in the mirror".

[Acklan]

There is no God before the athiest looking in his mirror.

I cannot remember where I heard it but it is also said, "There are no athiest in fox holes".

[DeputyMarshal]

I typed a lengthy reply to ChiefKN this morning which my laptop promptly devoured... Let's try this again.

Theologians will tell you that reason alone is insufficient to explain the origins of the universe. In fact, the origins of the universe are only theoretical.

Theologians may well be right but, alas, they're only speculating.

Remember science has been wrong before...

The nice thing about science,however, is that is expects to be wrong and adapts when new evidence is discovered/understood. Religions, OTOH, tend to remain steadfast in their dogmas despite evidence that contradicts them.

The theory on the origin of the universe, even the "big bang" is now being questioned..

Not really. As theories go, the general Big Bang model remains well supported. There are numerous sub-theories about the finer details but the core theory has stood up well with new evidence. The real focus now is on what happened "before" the Big Bang. (Although "before" is something of a misnomer for things that happened prior to the existence of time as we know it.)

I'm an evolutionist, let me be clear about that. However, as you point out, it's a theory.

And a very well supported theory at that.

I think you need to take a step back. Calling a belief in faith "silly" is not only counterproductive but insulting.

I think you need to take a step back. I haven't called faith "silly." I merely observed that it's "irrational."

Finally, to deny that you are being judgemental is bizarre. When you state that one must have proof in a belief or it is "irrational" you are then passing judgement on that "proof".

It's not a matter of definitions, it's how you, as the observer, are judging that proof.

You could say that any statement is "judgemental" in some trivial way but that's the only way it applies. Rationality is an objective system independent of observer. There are no "opinion's" about logical deduction; just logical rules.

Faith exists without logical proofs. It is independant of reason which requires facts and objective evidence. That's the definition of "irrational." No "judgement;" just the English language.

irrational: not governed by or according to reason
reason: sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact
fact: something that has actual existence
faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

So if someone cannot see, prove, or explan something they have faith, or believe in, they are irrational?

Nobody has made that statement. Faith itself is, by definition, irrational. The question of whether someone is irrational is another, larger issue.

You appear to be very agressively trying to dismiss him as irrational. Why is that?

I've been no such thing. I haven't tried to dismiss anyone as irrational. (I will point out, however, the irony of your irrational inference. )

While the underlying concept of the word describes something that it's not based on logic all of the definitions have a negative connotation.

And there's the rub; the diffeence between denotation and connotation. There's seemingly a sort of unconscious hypocrisy where religious faith is concerned whereby people don't think twice about holding patently irrational beliefs while resenting any observation that those beliefs are irrational.

Faith can be described as irrational since it is not based in logic. That doesn't in and of itself make it a bad thing. Unfortunately doing so also brings the negative connotations with it..

Agreed. You summarize my point quite nicely.

I must object to your reasoning and logic on your two points.
1) macro evolution is not a red herring. It is a way to separate what has been scientifically proven from what is a theory.

Which is why it's a red herring. No part of the theory of evolution has been "proven." Making such a statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a "theory" is. So-called "macro evolution" is a straw man cooked up by Creationists that only obsures actual science.

2) Recent studies done by atheist organizations

Atheists organizations? Would you name some? In my experience, atheists tend to be rather disorganized sorts.

the "accepted" big-bang theory that states the universe and everything came into being approximately 14-15 billion years ago

Assuming such a study exists, that's possibly because classic Big Bang theory makes no such claim. I'd be very interested in seeing the study if you have a citation available.

There has never been a test or experiment that reproduced the theory of "macro-evolution".

Probably because the theory of macro evolution only exists to Creationists; not scientists.

-"Macro-evolution defies several accepted "laws" such as entropy, physics (having neighboring galaxies rotate in opposite directions when they were created by the same event), known astro-physics, and other "laws"

I can only suggets that you've been reading too many Creationists tracts and not enough actual science.

Couldn't say for sure.It would be interesting to see the reaction he'd get by announcing in the middle of one of the biggest religious gatherings in the world that there is no God in any shape,form or name.

It might be fun to watch but let me observe that it's just as irrational to state that "There is no God" as it is to state that there is. No evidence exists to support either conclusion.

I cannot remember where I heard it but it is also said, "There are no athiest in fox holes".

A speculation that has been widely disputed by men who have spent time in foxholes.

[voyager9]

I typed a lengthy reply to ChiefKN this morning which my laptop promptly devoured... Let's try this again.

And who do you think killed your laptop? It must be divine will!

[DeputyMarshal]

And who do you think killed your laptop? It must be divine will!

Considering it was shortly after 5 am I'm going with bleary eyes, fat fingers, and way too little caffeine on board.

[ChiefKN]

I typed a lengthy reply to ChiefKN this morning which my laptop promptly devoured... Let's try this again.

I have an irrational faith in computers.

I think you need to take a step back. I haven't called faith "silly." I merely observed that it's "irrational."

I didn't say you did. You copied a response to someone else that I made... you then responded to that comment. My response to you, ugh... this is stupid, let me simplify this.

I know you didn't say that. However, you jumped on me for calling it immature, but failed to even respond to someone using the term silly. Regardless, who cares.

You could say that any statement is "judgemental" in some trivial way but that's the only way it applies. Rationality is an objective system independent of observer. There are no "opinion's" about logical deduction; just logical rules.

You can try to rationalize it as being trivial, but it's judgemental, pure and simple. You and I have dithered over the definitions of many different words, however, it's clear that you have made a judgment about the "proof" that those with faith have that support their faith.

Which is what started this lengthy (but enjoyable) back and forth.

Faith exists without logical proofs. It is independant of reason which requires facts and objective evidence. That's the definition of "irrational." No "judgement;" just the English language.

I think that applying the word, "irrational" here and not using it to describe unproven scientific theories is of a specific design. That design is to diminish religion. You can couch it however you want, but I think it's prejudicial and calculated.

Nobody has made that statement. Faith itself is, by definition, irrational. The question of whether someone is irrational is another, larger issue.

Again, I cannot find "irrational" in any definition of faith and the opposite is also true.

We've come to a stalemate. I anticipate your response, but I'm not sure I have the energy to continue this.. I'm not accustomed to defending faith or religious beliefs.

[DeputyMarshal]

I have an irrational faith in computers.

Okay, now that's silly. Computers are the evil spawn of Cthulu.

You can try to rationalize it as being trivial, but it's judgemental, pure and simple.

Agree to disagree on that one? I think we're at a divergent philosophical "angels dancing on the head of apin" impasse on that one.

it's clear that you have made a judgment about the "proof" that those with faith have that support their faith.

Good heavens, no. The faithful have no need to support their faith. They don't need any "proof" either. If they had "proof," it wouldn't be faith and the issue would be moot. Faith is irrational. That just means it stands apart from reason but reason isn't everything.

Which is what started this lengthy (but enjoyable) back and forth.

I'm glad we're both enjoying it. It's not a discussion I would have predicted having on FH.

I think that applying the word, "irrational" here and not using it to describe unproven scientific theories is of a specific design. That design is to diminish religion.

But theories are by theri nature "unproven." Is it irrational to presume that theories are facts? Absolutely. If I've led you to believe I think otherwise, mea culpa.

You can couch it however you want, but I think it's prejudicial and calculated.

If it's "prejudicial," it's only because I've had this discussion before and, so far, nothing new has been introduced so I'm pretty comfortable with its progress. As for calculated, only in the sense that I've chosen my terms carefully to try and avoid any confusion of meanings.

Again, I cannot find "irrational" in any definition of faith and the opposite is also true.

Look back at the chain of definitions in my last post. Those were extracted from Merriam-Webster.

I'm not accustomed to defending faith or religious beliefs.

Do they need defending? IMHO, faith most certainly does not. Were you assuming that I consider being irrational inherently a bad thing?

(There are certainly some religious beliefs out there that are pretty squirrelly but I'm not about to start throwing stones here. )

I've enjoyed our chat.

Pax!

aka Rev. Bob

[ChiefKN]

Do they need defending? IMHO, faith most certainly does not. Were you assuming that I consider being irrational inherently a bad thing?

(There are certainly some religious beliefs out there that are pretty squirrelly but I'm not about to start throwing stones here. )

I've enjoyed our chat.

Pax!

aka Rev. Bob

All theories or ideas get defended at some point. Religion and politics are often in the middle of these discussions.. I know I'm not telling you anything you haven't heard. Also, why its a violation of our bylaws to even bring them up in a meeting!

I also understand the nuance of "irrational" as you are using it and that its not a bad thing, its just a "thing". However, I think that it can be seen as an elitest approach to those with faith.

I think I've made it clear that I don't have faith in there being a supreme being. However, I think we should be careful not to mock what we don't understand or believe (no reflection on your posts, btw). Like I've said, through whatever cause, psychological or divine, I have seen people get incredible strength and healing through their religious beliefs. In fact, I respect many of the religions for the moral and ethical void they have filled in mankind's history, fully appreciating the evil that it has also brought.

I also enjoyed this, it really stretched the wrinkles out of my brain.

[ThNozzleman]

The comparison to smoking is bizarre.

I wasn't defending others being christian. I guess this discussion is a bit too philosophical for some on these boards.

I guess if you are so threatened by a belief in a supreme being that you have to call those beliefs silly, then you have more important issues.

I'm threatened by no such thing; in fact, I find it quite amusing (until the overzealous start dicking with my life and the lives of others with their do-goodery). And my comparison was sound; I used it to counter the logical fallacy you presented as evidence (appealing to the masses). Just because millions of people smoke cigarettes doesn't make it good for you...and just because millions of people believe the magic of religion (in spite of zero evidence supporting it) doesn't make the act reasonable.

[voyager9]

And my comparison was sound; I used it to counter the logical fallacy you presented as evidence (appealing to the masses). Just because millions of people smoke cigarettes doesn't make it good for you...and just because millions of people believe the magic of religion (in spite of zero evidence supporting it) doesn't make the act reasonable.

It's a bit of apples and oranges.

There is overwhelming evidence that smoking is in fact BAD for you. Whereas there is zero evidence one way or the other for the 'magic of religion' as you put it.

[scfire86]

To take it one philosophical step further,
-The big-bang was not observed.
-The big-bang cannot be reproduced (if it were it would most certainly destroy everything in the massive gravitational collapse leading to the bang)
-"Macro-evolution defies several accepted "laws" such as entropy, physics (having neighboring galaxies rotate in opposite directions when they were created by the same event), known astro-physics, and other "laws"
----Therefore, it does not meet the requirement of true science in that it is not observable, reproducible, or conforming to scientifically proven laws. So let's call it what it is; "Macro-evolution" is as much of a religion (actually called naturalism) as creationism.

As we understand those laws today. That could change at some point in time.

[scfire86]

Couldn't say for sure.It would be interesting to see the reaction he'd get by announcing in the middle of one of the biggest religious gatherings in the world that there is no God in any shape,form or name.
I doubt that wheelchair has that many horses under the hood to allow him to escape.

Would it be any different than an African-American muslim saying "Allah akbar" at a KKK rally? Or even a christian church?

Your proposal (and mine) only prove to folks like me why religion is more harmful than beneficial.

[ChiefKN]

I'm threatened by no such thing; in fact, I find it quite amusing (until the overzealous start dicking with my life and the lives of others with their do-goodery). And my comparison was sound; I used it to counter the logical fallacy you presented as evidence (appealing to the masses). Just because millions of people smoke cigarettes doesn't make it good for you...and just because millions of people believe the magic of religion (in spite of zero evidence supporting it) doesn't make the act reasonable.

Just stick with calling it silly. I don't expect any deeper comments from you.

[BSFD9302]

These debates have been going on for millennium. But there is a paradox that exist with science and religion. It is possible for a scientist to not believe in God. And if that is his or her belief so be it. That is not mine. But for the religious to dismiss scientific results is a contradiction in terms. Correct me if I am wrong but I was always taught that everything is of God's will. Everything is of God's making. Therefore the factual scientific discoveries (not the theoretical) would be part of God's will. Even the theoretical discoveries would be God's will giving man the ability to think. God gave man the mind of discovery and curiosity. So when science discovers something then under Biblical belief it is God's will. I know some religious people that dismiss all scientific advancements, even health care issues. But these are the same people that drive cars, wear Nike, watch TV and fly to other countries for vacation. I call them hypocrites. Everything they do is connected to science. Up until a short time ago given the history of our world, man believed that lightning, the harvest and the flight of birds were a miracle of God. We now understand what makes all of these things happen, but does that make them any less a miracle of God? I think in today's world the two need to coexist and should. Besides I believe religious belief in God (or whatever the language interprets) envelopes those things that cannot be measured or quantified, faith, hope, love, charity and morality to name a few.

[HuntPA]

There are several atheist organizations:
Atheist Alliance International
American Atheists
Atheist Student Alliance
Freedom From Religion
. . . .etc

But back to the original article. . . .
I believe that the main issue that I have with the whole debate is that one side will willingly acknowledge that this is theological debate while the other says that it is science versus religion. After reading this post, I would have to say that most involved are intelligent enough to realize that the origins of the universe can never be scientifically proven. This means that it will always be a debate of theories, beliefs, and conjecture.

I state this just so that, hopefully, no one will take this banter and become overly upset, angered, or otherwise bent out of shape. I enjoy a good philisophical debate as it exercises a part of my brain that is dormant most of the time.

[DeputyMarshal]

There are several atheist organizations:

I was looking for "atheist organization" that conduct scientific research -- not extremist crackpots -- that's where most of those groups fall. The run of the mill garden atheist doesn't belong to any atheist organization. (BTW, Freedom from Religion isn't an "atheist" organization.)

This means that it will always be a debate of theories, beliefs, and conjecture.

Agreed. We can see where the evidence takes us and what the evidence suggests but we have no direct observation.

I enjoy a good philisophical debate as it exercises a part of my brain that is dormant most of the time.

Ditto.

[doughesson]

Most US Navy wardrooms have a gentleman's agreement that religion,politics and women should not be discussed during meals.
This is because the officers will at some point have to depend on one another and not decide because someone has a different point of view that "I ain't helping that sorry SOB" or similar sentiment.
Some people will always be thin skinned baloons in a world full of sharp objects and we will have to have such strictures in place to avoid conflict between people who should work together under stress.

Would it be any different than an African-American muslim saying "Allah akbar" at a KKK rally? Or even a christian church?

Your proposal (and mine) only prove to folks like me why religion is more harmful than beneficial.

[HuntPA]

We can see where the evidence takes us and what the evidence suggests but we have no direct observation.

This brings up an interesting point to the debate. How much is the interpretation of the evidence influenced by one's end viewpoint? For a case in point.
Evidence - The Grand Canyon exists in Arizona

Interpretations:
Evolution:
This is a classic case of water erosion taking eons of time to wear through several strata of rock. This shows how the rock was formed by deposit of the sediment, compression, and rock formation. This is followed by extreme time frames of erosion wearing through the rock as a very slow uplift raised the top surface.

Creation:
This is a classic case of catostrophic flooding carving a channel in a very short amount of time. Because the top of the canyon in the middle is a higher elevation than the beginning of the river in Utah, the river could not have eroded through as the water would have needed to flow uphill for some period of time. Whereas the Mount St. Helens eruption formed features very similar. The ash dopsited in layers very similar in appearance to the canyon. The back up of water was then breached carving a canyon through the layered levels of ash that mimicked the way that the Colorado River flows through the canyon.

Both views can look at the same evidence and use it to bolster their own theory. Some smart person once had a couple theories about this phenomenon. I think that he called it Relativity.

[DeputyMarshal]

This brings up an interesting point to the debate. How much is the interpretation of the evidence influenced by one's end viewpoint?

That only works if the "viewpoints" are objectively and equally valid.

In the case offered, the "Evolution" viewpoint is backed up by substantial science. (I'm not sure how an example of physical geography and long term erosion get labeled as the evolution viewpoint...)

The "Young Earth Creationist" (pronounced "ignorant crackpots") viewpoint lacks any credible scientific support. It's a classic example of trying to rationalize the data to fit a preconceived conclusion. Nevermind that the conclusion contradicts numerous other well supported theories in several other disciplines.

Both views can look at the same evidence and use it to bolster their own theory.

The difference is that the Y.E. Creationists don't have a "theory;" they have a collection of tall tales concocted to fit their presupposed conclusions.

[HuntPA]

That only works if the "viewpoints" are objectively and equally valid.

In the case offered, the "Evolution" viewpoint is backed up by substantial science.

According to my theory, there was a world wide flood approximately 4400 years ago. During the receding of the waters, a giant lake was formed in the Yellowstone basin. The recently deposited sedimentary rock forming the area now including the Grand Canyon was still relatively soft and was the weak spot. The water then rushed through the narrow hole in the dam creating a canyon through many layers of sedimentary rock. This hypothesis is confirmed in the events immediately following the eruption of Mount St. Helens and the geological features created thereafter.

The flow of the Little Colorado River into the Colorado river is at a direction against the flow of the Colorado. This indicates that the convergence of the rivers is relatively young. River geology dictates that as rivers converge, the meeting points of the rivers form an acute angle where the flows merge over time. Younger rivers can form obtuse angles where the flows converge in directions of opposite flow. Erosion then changes the direction of flow of the rivers so that the convergence angle is moved to acute. This has been observed in river formation and flow change after geological upheavil, subsidance, or other catasrophic change that changes the flow of the two rivers so that they intersect.

To me it makes much more sense in scientific terms that the Grand Canyon is a result of recent events and not millions of years.

I am an engineer and have a very analytical mind. While I have great faith, I also understand that there should be evidence to substantiate my beliefs and evidence from what I believe to be the history of the world. I have looked into these evidences and have been convinced that understanding the facts from different viewpoints will alter the conclusions drawn from the interpretations of the said facts. I have found more than enough evidence and even more hole is the old earth accounts that point me that indeed my theory is correct. I also do not have all of the answers or claim to know about all of what we have as part of our physical universe. I do have great faith that the Bible is true in its account of the Creator and creation. I put this in here so that you understand my assumptions while looking at information and how that affects my interpretation of what is seen. Also, I want to make sure that people understand that I am not here to preach either.