What price religion?

Quote from stu:

I venture to say you will have an impossible job on your hands subjecting religion to an equal and substantial level of scrutiny which science demands of itself.
More...

I agree with this for the most part. However, I personally believe that the gap is not as far apart as most believe when you throw in the supernatural/spiritual side of life...

As I've said before, I don't believe in blind faith where one believes and finds no supporting supernatural, circumstantial or behavior modifying changes in his life. In this sense, religion is "testable" to a certain extent, but of course not in the "laboratory/clinical" sense.
 
Quote from spect8or:

... more than obviously man-invented genesis creation bit...
More...

This statement is obviously based on a built-in bias that materialists get from talking to young earth believers and from assuming the wrong observational point. If you read Genesis from the standpoint of the observer being on earth (which is what the text states), I believe that you will see most if not all of your objections vanishing.

In the '666' thread I showed that Genesis matched the astronomical and geological record extremely well. Stu raised some objections which I researched and rebutted at the end of the '666' thread if you want more information.
 
>The English (Webster's) definition of agnostic is "one
>who believes that any ultimate reality is unknowable,"
>snip>

>To complicate things, many people use "agnostic" to
>mean someone who has doubts about God's existence
>or isn't sure if he exits or not.

Well Peter, you know damn well that the reason people "complicate things" and use the term according to your second meaning is because that meaning is also listed as valid in every dictionary I could find (5 -- including Websters -- see below). It seems a bit disingenuous to try to make is sound as though the second meaning is a corrupted form when you would have to know from your lookup that it is no such thing.

TA Huxley himself (who coined the term agnostic) actually updated it's meaning later in his life to not insist on unknowability. I quote from Huxley:

“That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow.”

>By the book, an agnostic answers the question, "Does
>God exist?" with "there is no valid answer to that question;
>it is unknowable."

Check the dictionaries one more time and you will see that the agnostic may just as freely "by the book" answer the question "I believe it is knowable and I still don't know".

>which is different both from believing in, or not
>believing in something.

Yes it is, but it's a distinction without a difference at the core. Belief at it's core is binary -- "non" after all is just a logical operator. If one does not hold belief then there is only non-belief. Non-belief can be for a variety of reasons including doubt AND/OR the opinion that the question is unanswerable.

To put it another way, an agnostic (by either valid definition) is a subcategory of non-believer who state the reason for their non-belief as stemming from indecision, doubt, lack of knowledge or attribute it to the unanswerable.

>To say that results of 72% atheist and 21% agnostic = 93%
>non-believer is simply wrong, equally misleading as calling
>the results 72% atheist and 28% non-atheist.

I find both of those statement to be factually correct and not misleading in any way. If someone is willing to be misled by either of those then that person is not willing or interested enough to study the facts.

We'll just have to disagree.

JB

Source: (Websters)
one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess atheism; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god;
 
>Paul Davies for example definitely believes the evidence
>leans towards design in the universe but is a committed
>agnostic from what I've heard. We simply don't know
>how many of the above agnostics believe that design is
>a distinct possibility but simply don't believe it's possible
>to determine it's measurability and authenticity.

Leaning is not believing. Paul is an agnostic and a non-believer by "the book" and by his own position.

JB
 
>I have cited many top level scientists that believe in
>design yet are not committed Christians/Jews....

And as described, those would not be atheist/agnostic and would fall within the 7%. They have determined a creator of some kind was at work and just haven't committed to one or another.

There is nothing holding the 7% to jewish or christian faiths.

JB
 
Quote from Turok:

>Paul Davies for example definitely believes the evidence
>leans towards design in the universe but is a committed
>agnostic from what I've heard. We simply don't know
>how many of the above agnostics believe that design is
>a distinct possibility but simply don't believe it's possible
>to determine it's measurability and authenticity.

Leaning is not believing. Paul is an agnostic and a non-believer by "the book" and by his own position.

JB
More...

Very true. He's definitely not a believer from what I've heard. But my point is that he's in that agnostic category and is VERY skeptical of the materialism that axe promotes, yet probably would get lumped in axe's 93% number.

No big deal - I just think that axe should have presented all 3 categories, that's all...
 
Quote from Turok:

>I have cited many top level scientists that believe in
>design yet are not committed Christians/Jews....

And as described, those would not be atheist/agnostic and would fall within the 7%. They have determined a creator of some kind was at work and just haven't committed to one or another.

There is nothing holding the 7% to jewish or christian faiths.

JB
More...

Some would. Some wouldn't.

From the quotes, I believe that many of these scientists would fall in the Davies (or maybe even Hoyle) category...
 
I disagree.

Assuming this definition of agnostic (there are several),
if a person believes that knowing the existence of
god is NOT knowable, then it would be funny to say
they therefore BELIEVE in god.

If your position is that god is unknowable, then you are
most likely not a BELIEVER or you would be either insane
or extremely irrational. BELIEVING in something that you
are sure is unknowable is a contradiction.


(A)gnosticism deals with knowledge, and (a)theism
deals with belief.

I do not KNOW if god exists, and I therefore do not BELIEVE
god exists (by default). This is why I am called an
"agnostic atheist". Also referred to as a "weak atheist".

Agnostics are commonly considered non-believers, even
by religious people. They are typically thrown into the same
pile as atheists, and many of them are in fact atheists,
and simply dont realize it because they lack a BELIEF in god.


peace

axeman


Quote from peterfigliozzi:


The English (Webster's) definition of agnostic is "one who believes that any ultimate reality is unknowable," which is different both from believing in, or not believing in something.

By the book, an agnostic answers the question, "Does God exist?" with "there is no valid answer to that question; it is unknowable."

To say that results of 72% atheist and 21% agnostic = 93% non-believer is simply wrong, equally misleading as calling the results 72% atheist and 28% non-atheist.

To complicate things, many people use "agnostic" to mean someone who has doubts about God's existence or isn't sure if he exits or not.
More...
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:



Can't Christians and Jews be motivated by higher purposes such as improving their character, seeking truth, desiring to raise a strong family, etc. just like you guys?

More...


Yes, they can and I bet most are. But those are EMOTIONAL reasons, aren't they?

A pure seeker of truth must PUT ASIDE what he WISHES was the case and make his best guess at what IS the case.

Thus I speculate that the vast majority of believers find "God" because they are LOOKING FOR HIM; because he helps them "make sense" of all the apparently pointless suffering in the world, of the longing for "purpose" in life. That is why so few theists I have met are content with some vague, distant, non-interventionist god; they NEED the personal, listens-to-your-prayers variety.
 
Jem you are way off base here.

"Most if not all Jews and Christians acknowledge that belief is based on faith. They/we are not arguing it is a fact subject to verification by rigorous testing. No one says you must believe in God because it is a fact. (few do)."

So you are saying that most religious people FREELY ADMIT
that their belief is completely irrational??? I call bullshit.
MOST theists I come across DO try to tell me that god is FACT,
that jesus is FACT, that all this is FACT and they even try to prove it.

" Everyone says you must believe in the dogma of evolution because it is a fact. "

Complete nonsense. Science CLEARLY states that speciation
is THEORY, and that microevolution is fact. (super strong theory).
Stop trying to muddy the waters.


"Religion is willing to admit it is a fire breathing dragon to a scientist. Why can't scientists admit they have fire breathing dragons? "

I never hear theists admit anything of the sort!
They continuously try pass off religion as ABSOLUTE FACT.
They wont budge an inch. This is the TRUTH period as far
as they are concerned.
What percentage of theists FREELY ADMIT that their religion
could be 100% wrong?? Now what percentage of scientists
admit their science could be 100% wrong.
I would wager the percentage would be VERY SMALL for the theists.
The scientists have to admit that their science can be wrong, because
its part of the definition of science. EVERYTHING in science is
considered falsifiable or its NOT science.
So what your saying could not be further from the truth as far
as im concerned.



"Who is more messed up. I still seem to sense that you believe that one day a monkey turned into a man. You have great faith but zero facts. "

Strawman and pure ignorance. Evolution does NOT claim
that monkey turned into man. Your playing very fast and loose here.

But ill assume your talkiing about speciation.
To say there are NO facts supporting this
form of evolution is simply naive. There IS supporting evidence
for this. Its not a scientific "fact" (the strongest of theories),
but there IS evidence for it.


"I propose a new challenge. You put forth your evidence for the fact that monkeys turned into men and I will put forth my evidence for the existence of God. Does anyone think that evolution is more scientific."

Again...evolution does NOT claim monkey turned into man.
You need to study up on evolution.

But even specition is FAR more scientific than any religion.
Your really going off the deep end if you believe this.
We only need to look at the DNA mappings of animals to see
how close apes fall to humans. No, we did not evolve from apes.
This is a common theistic strawman, but we DO seem to have
a common ancestor. This shred ALONE far outweighs anything
ive heard religion bring to the table.

[snip bible mythology]

I hope your not making the ASSUMPTION that the biblical stories
are true and are going to base your court evidence on it.
It will be challenged immediately.

peace

axeman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top