Conspiracy Theories and Athiesm

[CitizenSmif]

You do know virtually every historian says Jesus was a real person who existed during the time said in the Bible? That's because there were Roman historians who recorded his existence, the stories of his 'miracles', and his followers persecutions.

That's just one corroboration, or 'evidence', of the Bible. But what you and other people like you are essentially saying is that people can only think what you want. I don't care what other people believe, while people like you literally don't want people to believe in the Bible because it's 'not good'. And according to you, it's mentally 'restrictive' and 'controlling'. Your viewpoint is rather disturbing, and quite frankly, borders on totalitarian.

Whether a man called Jesus existed or not isnt the point, its the circumstances surrounding him and what people claim he did that is debateable - he could have been a magician for all you know, add in the aforementioned chinese whispers effect and boom, you have a ton of people believing in bullshit (and obviously thats only one example of alot of things which can explain this). Why is there only historical evidence, why hasnt he shown himself recently? Whats your opinion on why he hasnt come to Earth and proven himself to everyone in hundreds of years? (or any religious figure from any religion for that matter)

I dont want people to believe what I want them to - that is my exact point, people should think freely without having to worry if their friend from the sky approves of their actions or not, and I'm really not sure how you can call MY viewpoint totalitarian when I'm trying to get across the exact opposite. Please explain to me how its not restrictive or controlling when there are rules in place you must follow religiously or your a 'sinner'.

I remember watching some footage of people voting when Bush 'won' the presidency and a voter saying 'I don't know much about his politics but hes Christian so I'm voting for him', do you not see a problem with this? Also, hasn't all the 'terrorism' for the past few years been focused primarily on religion?

I would love to believe in it all, to have peace of mind knowing I'll be going somewhere fantastic when I die and have someone great looking out for me throughout my life but take a step back and look at the bigger picture - its a farce. What makes your religion more real than all the others?

 

[charlie.simm]

You can say a lot of things about popeye and his political views but this post simply makes sense, I don't care who you are:

Even if there was a big bang, where did all the matter that was part of this phenomenon come from. The matter that started the universe just didn't appear, did it?

Something had to "start" the universe. Even if you place the start of the universe on one photon, or atom or whatever. That particle had to either be designed and constructed or did it appear from nothing.

 

[toppymoney]

Chill the Fuck Out

I thought you realized how ignorant you looked in all the previous posts, obviously not yet - here's some more cookie crumbs for your pea brain.


Well.. personal attacks and you coming back to this thread would argue otherwise, wouldn't they?


I'm making FUN of you, never in my life will I have a thick enough skull to think that I could persuade someone who believes in fairy tales to make them happy, please get this straight.


66 reasons, written by 40 different people, over 2000 years and 3 continents, during a period which the natural world wasn't understood as it is today.

You basically just admitted that the only reason you believe in god as opposed to FSM is time spans and the word of humans who did not yet understand the natural world. Do you realize how wrong this is? You're taking beliefs from an era where people thought they would fall off the flatness of Earth. Sorry, you fall flat on your face with this reason - Any other good reasons Doc?


Reply has absolutely no correlation to what I said. If you can take a reading comprehension course and come up with a reply that's relevant to what was said, you can try again. I'll even quote what I said so if someone can decipher your meaning they may assist me.




Thanks Emp for putting him in his place, although he doesn't even know what his place is - so funny.



I was referring to parents who put unknowing children through religion at a time where they can't think for themselves. You might of turned out better if your parents let you make this decision at a later age.



Atheism isn't being promoted, science MINUS religion is starting to be. That's great news though, I thought this was still an issue in the USA. I'll take your word with a 1/2 grain of salt however, seeing as you don't even know your position, sciences position or christianity's position.

All done, now shoo, this thread was starting to be productive after you left.

We obviously have a crazy far leftest liberal trying to say that they're better than everyone else because they're right and Christians are wrong. Classic.

You need to grow the fuck up and respect the religions of others and realize that not everyone who belongs to a faith is some CRAZY person like yourself.

 

[turbolapp]

^^You tell them! If grown ups want to believe that a Giant slightly evil Santa elf like creature rules the world... it's their business! I also knew a woman who was totally sane. REally you would know anything was off about her (like some of the christians around here) She was totally normal. She did believe that she had once been impregnated by 4th dimensional aliens and that they came back and stole her alien newborn, however.

But how is that any different from you religious people that believe in a zombie that is your master and will one day return (much like the aliens)? Luckily, her other two kids were human.

 

[charlie.simm]

Leaving the "You're full of FAIL!!"/"No, you're full of FAIL!!!!!!" stuff aside, wouldn't it make sense to talk about the question that should have been asked right from the beginning (quoted again below)?

Even if there was a big bang, where did all the matter that was part of this phenomenon come from. The matter that started the universe just didn't appear, did it?

Something had to "start" the universe. Even if you place the start of the universe on one photon, or atom or whatever. That particle had to either be designed and constructed or did it appear from nothing.

 

[Midas Touch]

^^You tell them! If grown ups want to believe that a Giant slightly evil Santa elf like creature rules the world... it's their business! I also knew a woman who was totally sane. REally you would know anything was off about her (like some of the christians around here) She was totally normal. She did believe that she had once been impregnated by 4th dimensional aliens and that they came back and stole her alien newborn, however.

But how is that any different from you religious people that believe in a zombie that is your master and will one day return (much like the aliens)? Luckily, her other two kids were human.

For who? Her, the kids, humanity, or the Aliens? LOL!!

Of the latter, they might figure that the natural offspring of their surrogate could be useful at a later date for the continued propagation of their species. There's not only her offspring's future mental condition to consider in that case, but the future threat to humanity as a whole!! EEEEKK!!!!!!!!

Sincerely,

MT

 

[toppymoney]

^^You tell them! If grown ups want to believe that a Giant slightly evil Santa elf like creature rules the world... it's their business! I also knew a woman who was totally sane. REally you would know anything was off about her (like some of the christians around here) She was totally normal. She did believe that she had once been impregnated by 4th dimensional aliens and that they came back and stole her alien newborn, however.

But how is that any different from you religious people that believe in a zombie that is your master and will one day return (much like the aliens)? Luckily, her other two kids were human.

Touche, but im not going on a rampage dismissing other peoples beliefs. Keep your values to yourself, and don't try to pound your beliefs into someone elses head with a sledgehammer.

 

[xtreme5000]

Leaving the "You're full of FAIL!!"/"No, you're full of FAIL!!!!!!" stuff aside, wouldn't it make sense to talk about the question that should have been asked right from the beginning (quoted again below)?

I was reading a couple of intersting articles about the big bang and what not the other day (i'll try to find the source), and the basic premise was that if you look carefully at the universe, there seems to be nothing there. Net electric charge is 0, if you take mass to be condensed positive energy E= mc^2, and you take all the gravitational energies as negative, they cancel out essentialy leaving you with no energy either - so all that was needed in the beginning was a tiny fluctuation in nothing to create everything that we see today.

Also, questions like who created or what came before the big-bang are meaningless because starting/creating imply causality which implies time, and by definition time & space started at the big bang.

It's next to impossible for humans to imagine situations like the big bang, where most physics as we know it breaks down, and our notions of causality aren't meaningful - because our brains never evolved to think of these things. So, just because everything we observe in the universe has a cause&effect relationship does not mean we can apply that principle to the universe itself.

Just my 2 c...

 

[riddarhusetgal]

I was reading a couple of intersting articles about the big bang and what not the other day (i'll try to find the source), and the basic premise was that if you look carefully at the universe, there seems to be nothing there. Net electric charge is 0, if you take mass to be condensed positive energy E= mc^2, and you take all the gravitational energies as negative, they cancel out essentialy leaving you with no energy either - so all that was needed in the beginning was a tiny fluctuation in nothing to create everything that we see today.

Also, questions like who created or what came before the big-bang are meaningless because starting/creating imply causality which implies time, and by definition time & space started at the big bang.

It's next to impossible for humans to imagine situations like the big bang, where most physics as we know it breaks down, and our notions of causality aren't meaningful - because our brains never evolved to think of these things. So, just because everything we observe in the universe has a cause&effect relationship does not mean we can apply that principle to the universe itself.

Just my 2 c...

This is not a factual statement. Refer to the "particle" physics section of the PhysicsForums.com thread and you can get some clarification: High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics Forum

 

[riddarhusetgal]

Now that the minds unconcerned with reality have been phased out of this thread I have 2 very interesting series to share,

No. We just realize that zealots are zealots and there's no use in "arguing" with either.

If a zealot wears a preist's rob or a scientist's lab coat, BLIND FAITH, is BLIND FAITH.


He said:

If you can give me one reason that your god is more likely than FSM, I'm all ears. You might think about it for a little while, possibly come up with what you think is the answer, but you won't quite reach it. The conclusion will be that your god has nil percentage more to exist than the FSM. You will either laugh and think - boy I've been silly all these years or you might do what someone with no mental blocks does - mature.

Then he said:

We obviously have a crazy far leftest liberal trying to say that they're better than everyone else because they're right and Christians are wrong. Classic.

You need to grow the fuck up and respect the religions of others and realize that not everyone who belongs to a faith is some CRAZY person like yourself.

Does anyone else besides me see how if you stripped out the inferences here, what you get on both sides?

It's called zealotry.

@Zimok
You say you are interested in truth - that's the only reason why I got off sitting on my hands and responded here. Usually discussion around religion on WF descend to emotional name calling (a crime of passion I am guilty of!!), a false or null use of proper logic and/or an unwillingness to explore scienfitic data and leave out the politically-biased name calling (YOU'RE A STUPID LIBERAL...YOU'RE A DUMB CONSERVATIVE....etc etc)

Sadly also, people always mix politics and religion....

But to address your comment. It's a bold proclamation you have made and I am sincerely interested in whether or not it was just forum talk or something that you take seriously - every bit as seriously as making money....

You said,
"I am interested in the TRUTH".


Are you truly interested in the truth or are you interested in reading anything that confirms your pre-existing beliefs? This is a question that everyone committed to intellectual and moral growth (in the socratic tradition) must ask oneself. And it is HARD, HARD, HARD....


Are you open to accepting the conclusions of science and logic EVEN IF it concludes something so very different from your presently held beliefs or world view?

Most ill-informed christians assume that science is a bad thing when it comes to religion....

Most ill-informed atheists assume that religion is a bad thing when it comes to science.

Einstein said,
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

he also said,
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

A belief in a God represented by an old man in the sky who created the universe in 6 days, with all due respect, IS NOT RATIONAL.

A belief in a God who condones murderers running into a church and killing abortionists, in my opinion IS NOT RATIONAL.

A disbelief in a God due to the conclusions of The Big Bang Theory IS NOT RATIONAL. Note: just review the findings of the Cosmological society's last conference and you will see what I mean - google it. The apriori assumption is made AFTER the moment of Planck's constant. Before that - specifically 1/100th of a second, what happened?
To not question this IS NOT LOGICAL.

A disbelief in God based on Darwin's theory of Evolution IS NOT LOGICAL. The 14th chapter of The Origin of Species makes the apriori assumption that physical life began with reproductive faculties.
Therefore, the irrefutable assumption is that we are the product of SOMETHING with reproductive faculties.

In other words, if you tie in the Big Bang Theory with the Theory of Evolution, the implication is that SOMETHING produced the bang.

The false belief that many people who learn about the Big Bang Theory in high school has is that "nothing" happened before the big bang, "there was nothing"

BUT THERE IS NO LOGICAL OR SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THIS!!

If you accept a statement as fact, without empirical evidence, this is called FAITH!!

If you are commited to truth, logic and rationality, you accept the fact SOMETHING cannot come from NOTHING!

Further, DNA science has shown that DNA is a CODE. Code is an information mechanism. Using Perry Marshall's thesis, you have the following argument:


1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Max Planck, the father of quantum physics and winner of the Nobel Prize for his discover of quanta said quite clearly almost 100 years ago:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. "

DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR THIS!!
If you are truly interested in the truth, investigate this.

Go to Nobel.org and read about this man's research:
Nobel Prize in Physics 1918 - Presentation Speech


There's the Banquet/Acceptance speech from 1918. He was a genius. When they were giving the speech it was said:
"Planck's radiation theory is, in truth, the most significant lodestar for modern physical research, and it seems that it will be a long time before the treasures will be exhausted which have been unearthed as a result of Planck's genius."

In other words as a "genius" who spent his life exploring scientific truth, he probably had alot of insight into these matters!!!


Lastly, I would ask atheists to accept the fact that ATHEISM is a RELIGION. IT IS A BELIEF SYSTEM - PERIOD.

In America, this is actually a legal precedence for this:
"The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists."

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin
prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

he Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

The definition of belief is:
"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a propositionpremise to be true"

I am pointing this out because you made the non-factual statement that:

One is based on physics and the other is based on nothing. Guess which one of the two holds out.

Physics does not refute the basic tenants of religion.

If you are truly interested in this discussion, I would suggest checking out the Philosophy section of PhysicsForums.com

Do you know what the term "physics" and "science" comes from? It was coined from the old English term "natural philosophy".

Philosophy Forum

If anything, a truly open minded "nonbiased" person who tries to assess what science has to say about "God" would be a CARD CARRYING AGNOSTIC at minimum.

There is NO RATIONAL EVIDENCE to falsify the assumption of an infinite being not bound by the quantum mechanical constraints of space and time.

You're familiar with the concept of infinity in math/science, correct?

Well, if infinity exists, it's impossible that something as "finite" as the big bang could have created "infinitely".

One of the a priori assumptions of physics is that space and time are infinitely divisible. Another cause for you to investigate.


Why? Because Christianity, Atheism, Islam, Humanist, etc are BELIEF SYSTEMS.

AGNOSTICISM is about KNOWLEDGE...

Why? Because ALL beliefs are based on:
1) one part "blind faith"
2) one part empirical evidence

If you choose to believe their is no God, then you are employing as much illogical, irrationality as someone who chooses to believe there is a god.

The only difference between you and the "believer" is that the "believer" uses direct, personal experience and intuition as "information inputs" with regard to his or her "belief equation" (if you will).

The reason (IMHO) that scientists link John Wheeler, Max Planck, Neils Bohr and Einstein were such giants is because they recognized this.

That's why Einstein (once again) said:

"‘The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.’


Quantum mechanical physics - based on the fundamental assumption of wave-particle duality, decoherence and nonlocality - asserts that we live in a universe were, quite literally ANTHING IS POSSIBLE.

Any a priori assumptions - i.e. "beliefs" - which lead one to exclude those ideas not aligned with one's present belief system (whether you are an Christian or an atheist) are "Stupid" or "Impossible" (ex. God, little green men what ever) is out of line with true scientific thinking.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

The Buddha was a human being. As a man he was born, as a Buddha he lived, and as a Buddha his life came to an end. Though human, he became an extraordinary man owing to his unique characteristics. The Buddha laid stress on this important point, and left no room for any one to fall into the error of thinking that he was an immortal being. This is important as he sets an example for what we too can achieve if we are to put effort in practicing his teachings.


Sincerely,

MT

...If this is a pick up line, it's working splendidly well... (closes door and yells "just checking my copeac stats honey!!") lol...

 

[LogicFlux]

Leaving the "You're full of FAIL!!"/"No, you're full of FAIL!!!!!!" stuff aside, wouldn't it make sense to talk about the question that should have been asked right from the beginning (quoted again below)?

Popeye would have to apply the same logic to a creator, recursively and infinitely. A creator had to start somewhere, who created the creator? Oh, the creator's creator. Well that creator had to start somewhere and had to have a creator. And on and on.

 

[Midas Touch]

Originally Posted by Midas Touch
The Buddha was a human being. As a man he was born, as a Buddha he lived, and as a Buddha his life came to an end. Though human, he became an extraordinary man owing to his unique characteristics. The Buddha laid stress on this important point, and left no room for any one to fall into the error of thinking that he was an immortal being. This is important as he sets an example for what we too can achieve if we are to put effort in practicing his teachings.


Sincerely,

MT

^^^^^^

...If this is a pick up line, it's working splendidly well... (closes door and yells "just checking my copeac stats honey!!") lol...

There you are Pallas!!! Damn!! GRINN!!!:bowdown: The Goddess Athena (In particular, the second from the last sentence at the linked site. )

Oh, by the way, how's that JV of ours going with the "Hummer" campaign you launched? LOL!!!



Sincerely,

MT

 

[riddarhusetgal]

Popeye would have to apply the same logic to a creator, recursively and infinitely. A creator had to start somewhere, who created the creator? Oh, the creator's creator. Well that creator had to start somewhere and had to have a creator. And on and on.

No. This has already been addressed. The "force" would be outside of the quantum mechanical continuum, similar for instance to the the additional dimensions predicted by string theory:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtdE662eY_M"]YouTube - Brian Greene: The universe on a string[/ame]

 

[riddarhusetgal]

And for anyone who wants to attend:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smPvHGJEKzw"]YouTube - World Science Festival: Faith and Science (excerpt)[/ame]


Check out The World Science Festival
Science Faith Religion | World Science Festival
World Science Festival

""The World Science Festival is a science festival held in New York City, and is planned as an annual event. The inaugural festival (May 28–June 1, 2008) consisted mainly of panel discussions and on-stage conversations, accompanied by multimedia presentations. A youth and family program presented topics such as sports from a scientific perspective and included an extensive street fair. A cultural program led by actor and writer Alan Alda focused on art inspired by science. The festival also included a World Science Summit, a meeting of high-level participants from the worlds of science, politics, administration, and business.

The festival is the brainchild of Columbia University physicist Brian Greene and his wife, Emmy Award-winning television journalist Tracy Day. It is held in partnership with major New York City cultural and academic institutions such as Columbia University, New York University and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The 2009 World Science Festival is scheduled to take place from June 10 to June 14."


He is The Voice Behind The PBS Special "Elegant Universe"

 

[Gablablah]

From the first video:

"If a galaxy is moving away, the spectral lines will shift toward the red end of the spectrum. The opposite happens if a galaxy is moving closer; they move closer toward the blue end. So cosmologists could not only calculate which direction the galaxies are moving, but also their speed. But what happens if we wind the film back, as it were? What happens is that all these moving galaxies lead back to the same point in space and time."

That is what the big bang model is - our universe expanded from a point in space about 14 billion years ago, which we can and have measured with sound scientific methods. People think the big bang is solely about what created the universe. That's not true. The big bang is the model of an expanding universe, and it has just as much to do with present time as it does the beginning. Whether it was Yahweh or some law of physics that set the whole thing in motion to begin with, we still know what happened since then, and we call it the big bang. This whole "big bang or creator" is a false dichotomy.

Questions about "where did it all come from" and "how can something come from nothing" are reasonable questions to be raised, but they certainly don't falsify the universe's time line or its expansion. Questions about origins are good, when they're actually genuinely being asked as questions. Sadly, most people who ask things such as "how did something come from nothing" are not interested in finding out about origin of matter. They're just taking jabs at people that they "already know" are wrong.

It's funny how those types of clever questions from doubters only seem to happen in fields of science where religion has made some substantial claim. You don't see many non-scientists drilling people on how photons of light magically travel 93 million miles from the sun to provide light on planet Earth, although no scientist has ever traced a single photon the entire way. Although if there were some major part of the Bible that said the Earth's light doesn't come from the sun, you might see some educational pamphlets and videos debunking the fairy tale of the sun's photons and their magical journey that no scientist seems to be able to answer.

 

[zimok]

Here we go

No. We just realize that zealots are zealots and there's no use in "arguing" with either.

I'm not here to argue, I'm here to present my opinions and until you came along, the only retaliation was childish word play and attacks which ENTIRELY missed the point of what I said.

If a zealot wears a preist's rob or a scientist's lab coat, BLIND FAITH, is BLIND FAITH.

I completely agree that blind faith is blind faith, but I have faith in the conclusions I reached because they resonate with reality. I don't believe in something because I wish to believe it, if sufficient evidence or reasoning could make me come to the conclusion that there is a god, I would change my opinion accordingly. Not something a zealot or someone with blind faith would say, would they?

It probably would take nothing short of me sitting down with the small minority of accredited scientist who believe, for them to explain to me how they reached their belief logically. Peoples personal experience or people who have been taught to believe don't interest me, I've heard enough of those to conclude the only water they hold is a 2L jug of emotions with holes in it.

Originally Posted by zimok
If you can give me one reason that your god is more likely than FSM, I'm all ears. You might think about it for a little while, possibly come up with what you think is the answer, but you won't quite reach it. The conclusion will be that your god has nil percentage more to exist than the FSM. You will either laugh and think - boy I've been silly all these years or you might do what someone with no mental blocks does - mature.

Originally Posted by toppymoney
We obviously have a crazy far leftest liberal trying to say that they're better than everyone else because they're right and Christians are wrong. Classic.

You need to grow the fuck up and respect the religions of others and realize that not everyone who belongs to a faith is some CRAZY person like yourself.

Does anyone else besides me see how if you stripped out the inferences here, what you get on both sides?

It's called zealotry.

My quote is looking for answers that I'm all ears to hearing, while the other guy is showing how smart he is because he can't present his arguments without saying "fuck" "grow up" and assuming I think I'm better than everyone else. I don't see myself as better than the ants I walk on, astronomy has made me incredibly humble. I might of came of as a bit fanatical by that point because it had been a hopeless discussion up to that point.

@Zimok
You say you are interested in truth - that's the only reason why I got off sitting on my hands and responded here. Usually discussion around religion on WF descend to emotional name calling (a crime of passion I am guilty of!!), a false or null use of proper logic and/or an unwillingness to explore scienfitic data and leave out the politically-biased name calling (YOU'RE A STUPID LIBERAL...YOU'RE A DUMB CONSERVATIVE....etc etc)
Sadly also, people always mix politics and religion....

I completely agree, thanks for joining us.

But to address your comment. It's a bold proclamation you have made and I am sincerely interested in whether or not it was just forum talk or something that you take seriously - every bit as seriously as making money....

You said,
"I am interested in the TRUTH".

Money/AM is only a passive interests that I'm figuring out to allow me to gain financial independence & freedom to travel - my love for it doesn't extend beyond having those two abilities. To answer your question, Science, Truth & Life play a far greater role in my mind than any other subject.

Are you truly interested in the truth or are you interested in reading anything that confirms your pre-existing beliefs? This is a question that everyone committed to intellectual and moral growth (in the socratic tradition) must ask oneself. And it is HARD, HARD, HARD....

I think you might of meant to say, am I only interested in reading things that support my pre-existing beliefs?(I'm not correcting you, I just assume this is what you meant to say) - No, I'm not. I used to pray every night as a child, until I read enough of the opposing view to change my beliefs. I've always been interested in hearing all validly presented and concrete points.

You say it's HARD, HARD, HARD - I say it's only hard if you have an emotional investment in the subject, which I don't, about anything.

Are you open to accepting the conclusions of science and logic EVEN IF it concludes something so very different from your presently held beliefs or world view?

All my previous comments would answer with a resounding "Yes".

Most ill-informed christians assume that science is a bad thing when it comes to religion....

I could assume 100 different meanings by that statement and I don't know what counts as an ill-informed christian but I would assume the pope wouldn't be one of them. Care to explain why Galileo was under house arrest for presenting the heliocentric model?

Might it be because it was the start of exposing radical flaws in matters of central importance(lol) to religion? Thankfully these discoveries can't be wished away as I'm sure the pope wanted them to.

Galileo is actually a pretty weak example - Why have countless forward thinking people been put to death by religion? I contest your statement with this - Putting someone to death(a scientist) as a direct command from the highest role in religion(which shouldn't be ignorant of its own beliefs) would justify the my opinion that religion sees science as a "bad thing" of epic proportions.

Most ill-informed atheists assume that religion is a bad thing when it comes to science.

• When it's religious arguments that are baseless compared to its scientific counterpart, yes that's a bad thing
  
• When it's religious indoctrination towards the fragile mind of children that evolved to believe what they are told. Yep, bad thing again.
  
• When it's museums of creation that are popping up purposefully to go against what science knows to be true, yes sir, that's a bad thing.

If religion wants to meddle in the arena of science it will have to go through the same scrutinizing machinery that we reach "truth" by, it will have to be subject to every scrutiny imaginable, it has to play by the same rules if it wants to have the same respect. So far this has proven VERY difficult for religion.

Einstein said,
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

he also said,
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

Oh quotes from Einstein, lets see what else he said,

In the letter, Einstein writes "the word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

&

"For me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he wrote.

SOURCE

A belief in a God represented by an old man in the sky who created the universe in 6 days, with all due respect, IS NOT RATIONAL.

A belief in a God who condones murderers running into a church and killing abortionists, in my opinion IS NOT RATIONAL.

Agree & Agree.

A disbelief in a God due to the conclusions of The Big Bang Theory IS NOT RATIONAL. Note: just review the findings of the Cosmological society's last conference and you will see what I mean - google it. The apriori assumption is made AFTER the moment of Planck's constant. Before that - specifically 1/100th of a second, what happened?
To not question this IS NOT LOGICAL.

Gablahblah(Post #296) answers this beautifully, so I will save a bit of typing on this one.

A disbelief in God based on Darwin's theory of Evolution IS NOT LOGICAL. The 14th chapter of The Origin of Species makes the apriori assumption that physical life began with reproductive faculties.

True, it's not logical to dismiss god simply on this point, but it's a pretty big spike in the coffin of core religious beliefs. The belief that we are special creations from god, a belief that was entirely dispelled by asking the right question and giving it the right answer.

Suddenly we aren't gods special creation anymore, suddenly god doesn't care about us. He leaves us to fight, compete and die.

 

[zimok]

Therefore, the irrefutable assumption is that we are the product of SOMETHING with reproductive

faculties.

This is not logical what so ever, it's the "irrefutable assumption" that someone who believes in god would make. Lets examine your reasoning with an example, by your logic for an eye to evolve it would require its creator to also have an eye (or two).

Here's how eyes evolved,

God doesn't need a pair of eyeballs for something as amazing as an eye to evolve entirely on its own, why would you need a god to explain another biological process such as reproductive faculties? Wouldn't it be entirely more logical to assume it's due to a natural process that occurred in the primordial soup of our Earth, rather than saying "god did it"?

In other words, if you tie in the Big Bang Theory with the Theory of Evolution, the implication

is that SOMETHING produced the bang.

I trust you know the terms "ockham's razor" and "infinite regression. Using the same age old argument that christians used on our "special" creation didn't stop it from being dead wrong, your statement, following this logic is also flawed.

The false belief that many people who learn about the Big Bang Theory in high school has is that "nothing" happened before the big bang, "there was nothing"

BUT THERE IS NO LOGICAL OR SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THIS!!

Very weak argument - No, they teach that our current understanding and physics don't explain yet what happened. That's no reason to give up and say god did it, people who say this are the same people who desperately cling to every unexplained gap in science. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." -Carl Sagan.

If you accept a statement as fact, without empirical evidence, this is called FAITH!!

You have been the only one with faith so far. I can't even believe you use the word empirical evidence with all you've stated above.

If you are commited to truth, logic and rationality, you accept the fact SOMETHING cannot come from NOTHING!

Lately science has been going directly against what you state. Quantum mechanics and vacuum fluctuations would like to have a word with you. Hawking puts it eloquently in the quote bellow,

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately
uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129)

Further, DNA science has shown that DNA is a CODE. Code is an information mechanism. Using Perry Marshall's thesis, you have the following argument:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

Sigh, more baseless assumptions made with faith.. Heading down this road in discussion would of led to the same Q/A in this video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY]YouTube - God and DNA[/ame]

If you have any comments after watching, please state them.

 

[zimok]

Max Planck, the father of quantum physics and winner of the Nobel Prize for his discover of

quanta said quite clearly almost 100 years ago:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force

which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. "

We must assume that a conscious and intelligent mind holds matter together? The quantum world or its mechanics weren't in the realm of scientific study 100 years ago, why do you insist on bringing arguments that are out of date and flawed in our time?

There's is NOTHING scientific about that statement, all I see is a man desperate to put an explanation on something that in his time couldn't be explained. This was a downfall of Newton too, are you going to quote him next?

DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR THIS!!
If you are truly interested in the truth, investigate this.

Go to Nobel.org and read about this man's research:
Nobel Prize in Physics 1918 - Presentation Speech

If I'm looking for truth, I won't follow a mans opinion. Again, this is something that someone who WANTS to believe pursues. I don't want, need or prefer to believe in anything - which is why I see right through flawed statements such as this one.

Can you imagine how that would go today if a physicist would be studying quantum mechanics and say, something similar and attribute the vibration of the strings to god? He would be laughed right out of the scientific community.

Imagine a physicist today, studying quantum mechanics that would say something along the lines of "the vibration of the strings must be an intelligent and conscious mind" - he'd be laughed right out of the scientific community for making unfounded assertions based on faith, and rightfully so!

There's the Banquet/Acceptance speech from 1918. He was a genius. When they were giving the speech it was said:
"Planck's radiation theory is, in truth, the most significant lodestar for modern physical research, and it seems that it will be a long time before the treasures will be exhausted which have been unearthed as a result of Planck's genius."

In other words as a "genius" who spent his life exploring scientific truth, he probably had alot of insight into these matters!!!

You stress the fact that he was a genius as if that makes quotes any more than what they really are, opinions of faith. If that's the type of evidence you need to believe in god, go for it. Just don't kid yourself into thinking this is in ANY way scientific.

Lastly, I would ask atheists to accept the fact that ATHEISM is a RELIGION. IT IS A BELIEF SYSTEM - PERIOD.

At this point I'm really starting to dislike your style of capitalizing phrases. Yes - Atheism by most definitions does make the arrogant claim that there's no god, much like religion makes the arrogant and self centered claim that there is one. I actually agree with you on this point.

There's some important distinctions between the two that I feel like pointing out but I'll leave it at that for now.

In America, this is actually a legal precedence for this:
"The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists."

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin
prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

he Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

The definition of belief is:
"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a propositionpremise to be true"

Yes, I agree. This point needn't be discussed further.

I am pointing this out because you made the non-factual statement thathysics does not refute the basic tenants of religion.

Can you bring up my quote when you're quoting me? I don't know what you're referring to.

If you are truly interested in this discussion, I would suggest checking out the Philosophy section of PhysicsForums.com

Do you know what the term "physics" and "science" comes from? It was coined from the old English term "natural philosophy".

Philosophy Forum

If anything, a truly open minded "nonbiased" person who tries to assess what science has to say about "God" would be a CARD CARRYING AGNOSTIC at minimum.

I never stated I was an atheist. You made that assumption, just like you assume there is a god.

 

[zimok]

There is NO RATIONAL EVIDENCE to falsify the assumption of an infinite being not bound by the quantum mechanical constraints of space and time.

Except that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.(yes, this again)

There's no rational evidence to prove the assumption(that's all you have, an assumption) of an infinite being not bound by the quantum mechanical constraints of space and time.

You're familiar with the concept of infinity in math/science, correct?

Well, if infinity exists, it's impossible that something as "finite" as the big bang could have created "infinitely".

It's not infinite, it's expanding at near the physical speed limit of light. There's multiple theories on this, but now's not the place and none of them support any supernatural beings.

One of the a priori assumptions of physics is that space and time are infinitely divisible.

Another cause for you to investigate.

This is evidence of what? Are you just stating random characteristics of our universe at this point in an effort to make the rest of your arguments look stronger? Tell me what I would investigate of this factor that would even hint at the supernatural?

Why? Because Christianity, Atheism, Islam, Humanist, etc are BELIEF SYSTEMS.

AGNOSTICISM is about KNOWLEDGE...

Why? Because ALL beliefs are based on:
1) one part "blind faith"
2) one part empirical evidence

If you choose to believe their is no God, then you are employing as much illogical, irrationality as someone who chooses to believe there is a god.

Agree.

The only difference between you and the "believer" is that the "believer" uses direct, personal experience and intuition as "information inputs" with regard to his or her "belief equation" (if you will).

There's another difference, one needs to know NOTHING except the flawed emotional experience from his flawed senses. The atheist or nonbeliever needs a knowledge of a vast amount of things that people don't normally care or contemplate. This goes hand in hand with my next claim which is - the vast majority of scientists don't believe in god.

The reason (IMHO) that scientists link John Wheeler, Max Planck, Neils Bohr and Einstein were such giants is because they recognized this.

That's why Einstein (once again) said:

"‘The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.’

This quote doesn't support or do anything for your claims. We already know what Einstein thought about god and supernatural silliness as a direct result of human weaknesses. If you didn't know, you do now.

Quantum mechanical physics - based on the fundamental assumption of wave-particle duality,

decoherence and nonlocality - asserts that we live in a universe were, quite literally ANTHING IS POSSIBLE.

You are fishing in shallow waters with that claim. Quantum physics says that anything that CAN happen COULD happen, that doesn't mean to say that it supports supernatural beings now does it?

Any a priori assumptions - i.e. "beliefs" - which lead one to exclude those ideas not aligned

with one's present belief system (whether you are an Christian or an atheist) are "Stupid" or "Impossible" (ex. God, little green men what ever) is out of line with true scientific thinking.

Elaborate on this one. I think I know what you're trying to say but I don't want to guess.

All in all Riddarhusetgal, you're basically fighting against yourself when everything you said is taken as a whole. The only difference between you and me is you have faith where I have none. There must be something in your life that makes you want to believe, whether it's the denial of your impending death or of a loved one, whether it's being indoctrinated as a child to believe and somehow, amazingly you are able to have these two co-existing belief systems of rationality + faith.

Whatever it is, it boils down to faith. Faith has no place in logical argument, I caught myself agreeing with you on so many points but every disagreement came from you adding a bit of extra information that I see no need or place for. I'm not claiming science does or will ever have all the answers, I do claim that faith in something without proof will never lead to anything except mental roadblocks. What happens if science explains how the big bang came to be? Will you change your belief then? Or will you just say something along the lines of what you said for evolution, that it's not rational to exclude god on the new found scientific creation of the universe.

Veni, vidi, vici.