Religion, what's the point?

Roane said:
He is a confused old man who rambles. He is more a polytheist or agnostic than atheist
Click to expand...
Roane said:
I refer you to the argument that all science is theory until we find out more.

Now apply that to models of God
Click to expand...
Roane said:
There is a YouTube video which highlights my point. You should watch it . @Fingeredmouse
Click to expand...
Scientific method is hypothesis to theory. Theory is an accepted and well substantiated explanation for an aspect of nature based on facts and validated through accepted scientific methodology.

Just saying he's a polythesist or agnostic (he's very famously on record regarding the latter: see the Dawkins Scale) doesn't make it so, not back your claims which are entirely contrary to everything I've read by Dawkins, or seen him say.

And vaguely waving your hand in the direction of YouTube?

Really does feel like you're taking the piss.
 
Roane said:
We can not deny faith completely, whether we are Muslim, Christian, atheist, scientist or whatever.

An element of faith is always something that exists.

But religion is not, or shouldn't be, any more reliable on faith as say science. There has to be a weight of evidence.
Click to expand...
Right. You are taking the piss.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Scientific method is hypothesis to theory. Theory is an accepted and well substantiated explanation for an aspect of nature based on facts and validated through accepted scientific methodology.

Just saying he's a polythesist or agnostic (he's very famously on record regarding the latter: see the Dawkins Scale) doesn't make it so, not back your claims which are entirely contrary to everything I've read by Dawkins, or seen him say.

And vaguely waving your hand in the direction of YouTube?

Really does feel like you're taking the piss.
Click to expand...

I was being facetious when I @ you tbf. In my head it was funny.

However do I need to post the link on the interview when asked who created us/universe and he said "why do you say who..." then goes on to say about super beings?

I don't actually mind posting references and will always do so when engaged in sensible discussion and not just throw away comments.

That said I am genuinely at work. And am posting in between doing stuff. As I'm writing this I've just had a staff member come into ask a question. It's distracting.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Right. You are taking the piss.
Click to expand...

He's not taking the piss. He's just too dim to engage with evidence he refuses to share with us because he's aware how utterly dim he'll look if he does. As such it easier to vaguely elude to youtube videos without sharing or cite some pages and then claim that was utterly random and do your own research. He is simply put out of his depth.
 
Roane said:
I was being facetious when I @ you tbf. In my head it was funny.

However do I need to post the link on the interview when asked who created us/universe and he said "why do you say who..." then goes on to say about super beings?

I don't actually mind posting references and will always do so when engaged in sensible discussion and not just throw away comments.

That said I am genuinely at work. And am posting in between doing stuff. As I'm writing this I've just had a staff member come into ask a question. It's distracting.
Click to expand...
Go and do your work then! Sheesh.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Right. You are taking the piss.
Click to expand...

Why?

As I've said earlier I reject the notion of "oh you got to have faith". It's cowardice on behalf of the religious people/institutes who go to this line.

The whole religious people have faith but atheists have evidence or logic or rationality is a false and philosophically fallacious understanding.

We the religious have rationality and we have logic too. Sure we have faith in the unseen, something which atheists mock and say ha it's unseen, we have evidence. Why? Because there is no inferences in the fossil record? Or is the theory of evolution completely undisputed or evidenced.

The Qur'an itself sets the challenge for me when it's says bring your evidence of you are truthful. That's the criteria we must apply.

Now we are all free to choose the path we want to. We have our own evidences and leaps of faith. But to say it's one sided is rubbish
 
Roane said:
I'm very simple terms we observe the natural world, look at the laws it's governed by, consider fine tuning and come to the conclusion of a creator.

We then propose theories and hypotheses about this creator and try and come to a conclusion
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you're saying here but that just could be me.
 
Roane said:
Why?

As I've said earlier I reject the notion of "oh you got to have faith". It's cowardice on behalf of the religious people/institutes who go to this line.

The whole religious people have faith but atheists have evidence or logic or rationality is a false and philosophically fallacious understanding.

We the religious have rationality and we have logic too. Sure we have faith in the unseen, something which atheists mock and say ha it's unseen, we have evidence. Why? Because there is no inferences in the fossil record? Or is the theory of evolution completely undisputed or evidenced.

The Qur'an itself sets the challenge for me when it's says bring your evidence of you are truthful. That's the criteria we must apply.

Now we are all free to choose the path we want to. We have our own evidences and leaps of faith. But to say it's one sided is rubbish
Click to expand...
Anyone can believe whatever they want to and faith, or lack thereof, is everyone's own business, of course.

I agree with you on the concept of "faith". It feels like a cop out to me too, but I understand it's important to people.

But the scientific method is a real thing. It also requires no faith - certainly not in any semantic sense that is comparable. You can't compare theological contemplation and investigation of the "unseen" with the empirical models of science. The god hypothesis just won't withstand the rigours of the scientific model.

Oh and yes, the theory of evolution is evidenced more than any other scientific theory I can think of. Please don't tell me you think evolution is false or "just a theory".
 
Roane said:
We can not deny faith completely, whether we are Muslim, Christian, atheist, scientist or whatever.
Click to expand...
No scientists are not allowed to say faith when asked to prove their theories. Imagine a world where pharma companies can release a drug into the market on "faith" or saying "personally, we are convinced"
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Anyone can believe whatever they want to and faith, or lack thereof, is everyone's own business, of course.

I agree with you on the concept of "faith". It feels like a cop out to me too, but I understand it's important to people.

But the scientific method is a real thing. It also requires no faith - certainly not in any semantic sense that is comparable. You can't compare theological contemplation and investigation of the "unseen" with the empirical models of science. The god hypothesis just won't withstand the rigours of the scientific model.

Oh and yes, the theory of evolution is evidenced more than any other scientific theory I can think of. Please don't tell me you think evolution is false or "just a theory".
Click to expand...

No I don't think it's false. But there are many components to it, some changed some needing work and some that will never be observed (or haven't been up to now). That all takes some leeway with inference or "faith".

The one thing that is clear is science cannot explain away God. Maybe models of God but not the Creator, if you will.

Tbf science doesn't as a whole try and so that, and surprisingly I am happy to acknowledge that and accept it.

The issue is with the response "I don't know" to certain parts of religious belief from atheists and such. Irony being it's the go to line for likes of Dawkins when asked certain questions. The criteria for science is not applied to religious folk. Again I emphasise in some cases I understand why. But not everyone goes to the faith line. Some of us found religion based on evidences for us.

For me it's simple. Can the universe create itself? No. Did it come from nothing? No. That's illogical and for me the answer is a creator, with the fundamental question being purpose of life.

These are my views.
 
RedDevil@84 said:
No scientists are not allowed to say faith when asked to prove their theories. Imagine a world where pharma companies can release a drug into the market on "faith" or saying "personally, we are convinced"
Click to expand...


I think the word faith may be the issue. That is why I used inference before.

They may not say faith but they do have certain leeway or inference.
 
nimic said:
Right. Science can't explain away the tooth fairy either. Also how could the Universe exist without the tooth fairy? Did it create itself? Preposterous.
Click to expand...
You missed @Roane 's "blueprint" theory then.
As per that tooth fairy doesn't have a blueprint, so it doesn't exist. God has a blueprint, which obviously is all around us and hence it proves God's existence.
 
Roane said:
For me it's simple. Can the universe create itself? No. Did it come from nothing? No. That's illogical and for me the answer is a creator, with the fundamental question being purpose of life.
Click to expand...
Can the creator create itself? No. Did it come from nothing? No. We can keep going with that reasoning for a while.
 
Moby said:
Indians came to this realisation a while ago and decided to create dick shaped statues and put them in every temple. I remember the sudden realisation that throughout my childhood my family has made me go to temples and rub on massive black cocks. :lol:
Click to expand...

The massive black cocks were statues i take it?
 
Roane said:
No I don't think it's false. But there are many components to it, some changed some needing work and some that will never be observed (or haven't been up to now). That all takes some leeway with inference or "faith".

The one thing that is clear is science cannot explain away God. Maybe models of God but not the Creator, if you will.

Tbf science doesn't as a whole try and so that, and surprisingly I am happy to acknowledge that and accept it.

The issue is with the response "I don't know" to certain parts of religious belief from atheists and such. Irony being it's the go to line for likes of Dawkins when asked certain questions. The criteria for science is not applied to religious folk. Again I emphasise in some cases I understand why. But not everyone goes to the faith line. Some of us found religion based on evidences for us.

For me it's simple. Can the universe create itself? No. Did it come from nothing? No. That's illogical and for me the answer is a creator, with the fundamental question being purpose of life.

These are my views.
Click to expand...
It's essential that science says "I don't know". It's fundamental to the whole method.

You're entitled to your views. However, I'd answer your questions above differently:
Can the universe create itself? We don't know. Did it come from nothing? We don't know.

To me, the illogical aspect is jumping from "I don't know" to "Therefore: a creator".

It's at that point the infinite regression problem of an endless chain of creators kicks in, and that's a problem for theists not atheists, contrary to your statement earlier in this thread.

Note: And Dawkins is still not a polytheistic creationist as an aside. Your earlier point that he is agnostic is technically true and he very clearly discusses and concedes this point. See the Dawkins Scale, where 1 is "I am absolutely certain there is a god" to 7, where "I am absolutely certain there is not". He is, however, practically in any meaningful sense, an atheist and it is, frankly, his scientific mind set that has him a self declared 6.9 on his own scale.
 
Last edited:
Roane said:
If a person doesn't believe in God or a creator good luck to them.

However to put God in the category of mythical beings and werewolves etc is ludicrous
Click to expand...

This the problem. That's exactly the category where I put god but to your mind this is unthinkable.

Unfortunately, I don't believe you can ever have an authentic conversation with an atheist on the existence of god, while you hold that view, because your positions are so diametrically opposed.

If someone sees everything through the prism of religion then they're likely to misinterpret what an atheist like Dawkins is saying.
 
Withnail said:
Unfortunately, I don't believe you can ever have an authentic conversation with an atheist on the existence of god,
Click to expand...
How can anyone have any conversation when one can't agree on what are facts and what are beliefs/myths
 
Roane said:
For me it's simple. Can the universe create itself? No. Did it come from nothing? No. That's illogical and for me the answer is a creator, with the fundamental question being purpose of life.
Click to expand...

Who created the creator?
 
Carolina Red said:
That's because it's impossible to prove a negative. It does nothing to further the argument that there is a god.
Click to expand...

Science itself puts forward an argument for God. And I don't mean abwhitebbeardes guy with a robe but a creator.

If science believes that everything that exists has a cause and that the universe has a beginning. Therefore it must have a cause.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
It's essential that science says "I don't know". It's fundamental to the whole method.

You're entitled to your views. However, I'd answer your questions above differently:
Can the universe create itself? We don't know. Did it come from nothing? We don't know.

To me, the illogical aspect is jumping from "I don't know" to "Therefore: a creator".

It's at that point the infinite regression problem of an endless chain of creators kicks in, and that's a problem for theists not atheists, contrary to your statement earlier in this thread.

Note: And Dawkins is still not a polytheistic creationist as an aside. Your earlier point that he is agnostic is technically true and he very clearly discusses and concedes this point. See the Dawkins Scale, where 1 is "I am absolutely certain there is a god" to 7, where "I am absolutely certain there is not". He is, however, practically in any meaningful sense, an atheist and it is, frankly, his scientific mind set that has him a self declared 6.9 on his own scale.
Click to expand...


I disagree, youaybe surprised to hear.

70 odd years ago science believed there was no begining to the universe then it changed to say there was a beginning and will be an end. Incidentally the Qur'an said the universe had a beginning 1400 years ago. But that's another discussion

Once we know it had a beginning them science also says there is no beginning without a cause. We can further go into the arguments on fine tuning and how its a fundamental for life. What is that cause and who did that fine tuning.

The cause had to exist before the beginning, let's say the big bang was the beginning.

Infinite regress makes no sense scientifically. Because a cause for the cause for the cause....means there would be no beginning.

Now no scientist would say the universe evolved into being and it being random chance is BIG numbers. The logical conclusion therefore would be a creator. What other option is there?

As for the being and Atheist argument. Dawkins and all his I'll broadly agree with the fine tuning argument. Yet their stance is we don't know to the question what happened before the big bang. That by definition is agnosticism
 
Roane said:
Science itself puts forward an argument for God. And I don't mean abwhitebbeardes guy with a robe but a creator.

If science believes that everything that exists has a cause and that the universe has a beginning. Therefore it must have a cause.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t equate to the existence of a god.

Also, what beginning are you referring to?
 
Fairies: No one’s been able to prove they don’t exist, therefore they do exist.
Or some backwards ass logic like that.

As some poster above said, and I’ll paraphrase: religious folk are confusing their faith for facts. And, if the Koran said the world started 1400 years ago then how does the Koran explain the pyramids, Hadrian’s Wall or the Roman colosseum?
And if the Koran is wrong about the 1400 years then what else is it wrong about?
Or to put it another way; why would any reasonable person believe it?
 
Roane said:
No I don't think it's false. But there are many components to it, some changed some needing work and some that will never be observed (or haven't been up to now). That all takes some leeway with inference or "faith".

The one thing that is clear is science cannot explain away God. Maybe models of God but not the Creator, if you will.

Tbf science doesn't as a whole try and so that, and surprisingly I am happy to acknowledge that and accept it.

The issue is with the response "I don't know" to certain parts of religious belief from atheists and such. Irony being it's the go to line for likes of Dawkins when asked certain questions. The criteria for science is not applied to religious folk. Again I emphasise in some cases I understand why. But not everyone goes to the faith line. Some of us found religion based on evidences for us.

For me it's simple. Can the universe create itself? No. Did it come from nothing? No. That's illogical and for me the answer is a creator, with the fundamental question being purpose of life.

These are my views.
Click to expand...

Who created the creator?
 
Roane said:
I disagree, youaybe surprised to hear.

70 odd years ago science believed there was no begining to the universe then it changed to say there was a beginning and will be an end. Incidentally the Qur'an said the universe had a beginning 1400 years ago. But that's another discussion

Once we know it had a beginning them science also says there is no beginning without a cause. We can further go into the arguments on fine tuning and how its a fundamental for life. What is that cause and who did that fine tuning.

The cause had to exist before the beginning, let's say the big bang was the beginning.

Infinite regress makes no sense scientifically. Because a cause for the cause for the cause....means there would be no beginning.

Now no scientist would say the universe evolved into being and it being random chance is BIG numbers. The logical conclusion therefore would be a creator. What other option is there?

As for the being and Atheist argument. Dawkins and all his I'll broadly agree with the fine tuning argument. Yet their stance is we don't know to the question what happened before the big bang. That by definition is agnosticism
Click to expand...

Nealy every religion.has a origin story. The Egyptians back in the day, Norse mythology, greek mythology, Hinduism(broad term historically speaking, buddhim kind of has a vague origin stories for infinite universes but in buddhism its infinity at play there is no first cause for everything. Just from my memory im not sure i can think of a religion without an origin story although there surely must be.
 
Roane said:
I'm very simple terms we observe the natural world, look at the laws it's governed by, consider fine tuning and come to the conclusion of a creator.

We then propose theories and hypotheses about this creator and try and come to a conclusion
Click to expand...

Theories and hypotheses are falsifiable. The claim of a supernatural creator is not.

You’re a joke the way you keep spilling out falsehoods like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.