Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says

[Ricter]

Quote from Gabfly1:

The question is, where does one draw the line without additional and compelling information? There are countless half-baked theories about any number of things, not just limited to religion. Until they are absolutely disproven, are we expected to hold them in our minds as distinct possibilities? Can you imagine the mental clutter? It becomes a question of materiality. And just because the idea of a creator is somewhat material in your life does not mean that the issue carries equal or similar weight for someone else. Someone may firmly believe in unicorns. (Did you watch this week's episode of The Middle?) Speaking for myself, I tend to disregard matters for which there is no evidence and which have no immediate or expected impact on my life. You may accept my disregard as disbelief because they are the same for all intents and purposes in this regard. If genuine evidence to the contrary presents itself, then I will certainly consider the matter again. But until then, it remains a nonissue.

I personally handle the countless possibilities, the asphyxiating (sp) clutter, the same way I handle the endless advertisiing (also typically "half-baked") in my environment: I tune it out reflexively. Occasionally the improbable, to my gut feeling, emerges from the noise at someone's insistence, like the idea that 9/11 was perp'd by our own government, and I'll say, "really? Show me." But I really don't experience "countless" ideas anyway, I go to my man cave when it's too noisy.

I think I grok you now. I should probably drop this argument... some are certain of what IS, some are certain of what ISN'T, and myself... I'm certain that the certainties are actually probabilities. ; )

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from stu:

Absolute certainty is not required. Uncertainty is in itself a constituent part of confirming a universe from nothing . Which by the way did I mention, the laws of physics allow for.

Yes, the laws of physics allow for it. The laws of physics allow for many things because all the theories in physics begin with postulates. The postulates can't be proven. If you accept the postulate you can go on to construct a theory based on those postulates. If you reject the postulates then the theory is meaningless to you. One must make assumptions that the numbers you're working with are the right numbers, and it all works fine until someone comes along with a different set of numbers.
x+y=4 must mean x=2 and y=2. Perfect. Wait, x=3 and y=1 gets you 4 as well. Oh no, x=2.5 and y=1.5...OMFG x=3.9 and y=.1 They all equal 4, and how many different sets of numbers can you come up with to equal 4? Pick your theory my friend. At the end of the day no one theory is any better than the other, and just because you personally like one over the other doesn't make everyone else wrong.

 

[vk60546]

Quote from Free Thinker:

so 99% of biologists that study this for a living are naive and autistic? you could try education. education does a funny thing to superstition. education renders superstition rather silly.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Ken Miller's talk on Intelligent Design at Case Western University

How do you know what these biologists study? What percentage of them do you think will be able to explain Darwinian evolution?

What I find curious, is that these scientists will believe in the resurrection (of the species) before they will accept intelligent design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_taxon

 

[olias]

Quote from vk60546:

Science should be about a quest for knowledge, but why is it that so many scientists tend to ignore the and censor those who disagree with them?

For example, Michael Behe, a PHD in molecular biology, writes that the complexity of life forms cannot be explained by Darwinian Evolution.

Yet, why is it that Darwinian Evolution is still considered scientific?

In my view, scientists of today tend to hide behind numbers to support their position. They are not likely to draw their own conclusions after their own research. Darwinian evolution is one example how so many scientists could claim to agree with it without being able to explain it, much less to show how it's true.

I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but I have noticed human beings seem to have a tendency to cling to their positions regardless of the evidence. Their ego makes it hard to let go and change their mind. But when this happens, this is not true science. True science is a beautiful thing.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

What is there to explain that you would ever want or be prepared to hear?

The laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing.
The diametric opposite of absurd intelligent design arguments.
The laws of math allow 1+1 to = 2.

I notice you are not cross dressing into your res-judy schizoid alias today.

You seem to become more and more the grumpy old atheist everyday. How tough has life been for you?

That is pretty kung fu. Of course you lie again... i have not problem understanding that some scientists say the universe could start from nothing. I am just asking you to cite to those scientists so that we can all be learning in context.


The funny thing is, is that the universe came from nothing argument is the argument string theorist use to combat the design inference. The very point being made here.

In order to combat the fact that the laws of our universe manifest a designer - scientist propose there are infinite other universes that pop up.
....

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

It is religion, in the sense that it is a definition of what is "true", a definition created by Man. It may have enormous utilitarian value, I don't discount it, but it is still an arbitrary definition.

What you have defined there as religion - is not science.
The real use of philosophical statements like "true" in the end, is only in as far as they can be tested by science.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

You seem to become more and more the grumpy old atheist everyday. How tough has life been for you?

That is pretty kung fu. Of course you lie again... i have not problem understanding that some scientists say the universe could start from nothing. I am just asking you to cite to those scientists so that we can all be learning in context.


The funny thing is, is that the universe came from nothing argument is the argument string theorist use to combat the design inference. The very point being made here.

In order to combat the fact that the laws of our universe manifest a designer - scientist propose there are infinite other universes that pop up.
....

You alter specifically and in context what a physicist says in his own video
I hardly think you would be writing the things you do if you wanted to understand, let alone learn something.

 

[stu]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Yes, the laws of physics allow for it. The laws of physics allow for many things because all the theories in physics begin with postulates. The postulates can't be proven. If you accept the postulate you can go on to construct a theory based on those postulates. If you reject the postulates then the theory is meaningless to you. One must make assumptions that the numbers you're working with are the right numbers, and it all works fine until someone comes along with a different set of numbers.
x+y=4 must mean x=2 and y=2. Perfect. Wait, x=3 and y=1 gets you 4 as well. Oh no, x=2.5 and y=1.5...OMFG x=3.9 and y=.1 They all equal 4, and how many different sets of numbers can you come up with to equal 4? Pick your theory my friend. At the end of the day no one theory is any better than the other, and just because you personally like one over the other doesn't make everyone else wrong.

The math proves your postulate incorrect. It makes 'everyone wrong' who says x+y=4 must mean x=2 and y=2.
What are you trying to say?

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from stu:

The math proves your postulate incorrect. It makes 'everyone wrong' who says x+y=4 must mean x=2 and y=2.
What are you trying to say?

It means everyone IS wrong. We know the answer is 4, or 6, 20, 10,000...whatever, we're here, the universe exists. We know that and only that. How it came to be is the question. The tone of your posts seem to say that x MUST=2 and y MUST=2, while ignoring all of the other possibilities. That's what I'm trying to say. Perhaps I'm mis-interpreting the tone of your posts, but you sure come off as a my way or the highway kinda' guy when it comes to this subject matter.

 

[littlfish]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

Plenty of evidence that God exists. All of creation, everything you see, hear, smell, taste and touch is a testament to Gods existence.

A logical mind sees a painting and knows their must have been a painter. If the painting is not signed and you cant find the painter, do you say "the painter does not exist because their is no proof"? Isnt the painting a testament to the painter?

Now your turn. What proof is there that God DOESNT exist?

Very well stated.