Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says
- Thread starter olias
- Start date
I have deleted some of your content just to save some space, but saved what I consider relevant to my response. Just a full disclosure.
Last question first. I don't think most people are 100% certain on the subject of God. If you got them alone, I suspect most believers would admit that. I am not 100% certain and have stated that time and again.
How do I form my beliefs on the subject? Personal experience, most of which would mean little or nothing to someone else. Hence, I don't try to "sell" my beliefs.
Take for example your opinion on the housing bubble in Australia. You are reasonably certain it will bust based on your personal experience. Myself, having no knowledge of that market, have read nothing about it as it is of no interest to me, have no real opinion. I could however, just for the sake of argument, dispute your opinion. I've never been to Australia, never seen anything but a picture of film of it, don't know anyone who has traveled there. Should my opinon trump your personal experience? Does such a place even exist? Seems like a silly question, doesn't it? Yet it seems to me that is just what the atheist does in reference to God, argue for the sake of agrument. If the existance of a God is of no real interest to the atheist, and they have no personal experience with a God, then why all the moaning and groaning?
I still stand by my claim that religion is the real issue for atheists and they just can't seem to understand that the exisitance of a Creator and religion don't nessecarily walk hand in hand.
Cutten -- in answer to your question, yes I am always intellectually honest and when I am wrong, I have no problem admitting mistakes. I have done so a few times on ET.
But --- are you willing to accept that some of the the greatest minds we have in science acknowledge that our universe appears designed.
Do you understand that in order to counter the design argument... some scientists are now speculating there must be almost infinite universes.
I will start you off with a simple quote...
"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?
Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
But --- are you willing to accept that some of the the greatest minds we have in science acknowledge that our universe appears designed.
Do you understand that in order to counter the design argument... some scientists are now speculating there must be almost infinite universes.
I will start you off with a simple quote...
"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?
Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
No, not like you. I would require evidence to be taken more carefully.
I would suggest you examine more closely reasons why you think you have anything like a weight of evidence for a God in the first place.
Comparing weight of evidence for the existence of America as being in any way similar or even representative to a weight of evidence for your religious belief , is just plain silly.
I should think posts like yours being wrong in so many ways, go toward making quite a few people 100% sure there is no God..
The laws of physics do not allow for a thing or another thing, or another thing again to begin from nothing, especially when those things are nothing to do with the laws of physics, but are mere symptoms of unbridled pretence.
The universe is defined and exists. Calling the universe God is as much use as calling the universe Gilbert.
I think one reason people generally decry religion and its claims, whether they define themselves as atheists or not, is because religious belief is massivly disproportionate and way overemphasized in all forms of state and public life. Which in the end , is not and never has been in the country's best interests.
It is nothing to do with contempt for organized religion, but is to do with calling out the abundance of preposterous and absurd religious claims as bullshit, for it is actually quite easy to see that is just what they really are.