The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

^ Indeed.
THAT is why Deism is the philosophy that fits me best. I've always thought science and faith can co exist.
And I have no doubt they do.

I don't remember the number, but it was a majority of scientists DO believe in god.
In fact, I think the Big Bang is a terrible way to discredit god. If anything it helps give credence.
I mean: There was nothing....then it exploded?
Or there was a tiny universe seedling, which then exploded? A universe in another dimension collapsed and the force tunneled through a worm hole to ours? I've heard all these, but none can actually explain why, or what was before.

Big Bang is basically what started the universe, and from that point its going on by itself.
Deism claims god put the universe in motion, and from that point it goes on by itself.
Parallel? The Big Bang = God?

This also explains how God and evolution can co-exist.
Note: This has nothing to do with the Bible, fundamentalism, or religion. Faith is fine. Organized religion though.....


Edited by JJLehto - June 17 2009 at 20:36

Being athiest is not about understanding science and logic, its about understanding their implications.

You can be a genius of math and science and have less of a synthetic understanding of the implications of your analytic breakthroughs and your peers than a 12 year old boy.

Atheism is about synthesis of scientific, historical and cultural analysis.

Religion and Metaphysics generally is firstly an empirical, impressionistic way of thinking, What created everything? There must have been a prime mover, etc... It looks at issues in isolation from other issues, it doesn't see that the individual is a synthesis of the particular and universal.

The priest isn't considered as a social phenomenon, but as the reveler of scripture, that is, empirically, from that immediate impression.

The bible is not considered as the product of social forces and classes in a certain period, but as a revelation, as it immediately impresses upon readers,

God is not a concept which is subjected to the synthesis of human history, the human organism, the contradictions and social forces in human society and in its evolution.

In light of this synthesis, the idea of God from its basis in the material world is neither to laughed or cried about, but simply understood.

^ I'd bet money that guy has a mental block or something to prevent his scientific outlook from coloring his religious beliefs. I think you can be highly scientific and highly religious but you have to force yourself to separate those outlooks heavily. Except for diehard apologists, not many people apply strict scientific scrutiny to their religious beliefs and come out strengthened in faith by it.

Edited by stonebeard - June 17 2009 at 18:49

Zargus wrote: Religion is for people who don't understand Science and logic.

Crap well I better quit my engineering degree then. Apparently, I'm doomed to failure.

jimmy_row wrote: Zargus wrote: Religion is for people who don't understand Science and logic. Science and logic are for people who don't understand religion.

Logic has nothing to do with being antithetical to religion.

limeyrob wrote: I haven't decided yet but if there is a God then He's got a wicked sense of humour. First of all he creates such wonderful surroundings then creates man to screw it all up. I wonder what He is planning at the moment? Why do I say 'He' when I don't wish to imply gender?

If there's a single God then it has to be a chick...for that very reason, look at all the games that have been played on humans.  If God was a dude, He would have just blown us all up a long time ago instead of watching us deal with this stuff (+ my backup point:  a "masculine" God would never allow John Cusack to have a successful acting career).

Edited by jimmy_row - June 17 2009 at 09:38

I haven't decided yet but if there is a God then He's got a wicked sense of humour. First of all he creates such wonderful surroundings then creates man to screw it all up. I wonder what He is planning at the moment?

Edited by limeyrob - June 17 2009 at 05:28

My own opinion: people who are overzealous in their beliefs (atheism, religion, or otherwise) are just covering for their own weak will power. Just like an alcoholic, can't even sit at a bar if he's trying to recover, neither can these people even begin to entertain ideas other than their own, otherwise they will be broken down.

Edited by Deathrabbit - June 17 2009 at 00:39

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy wrote: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

But seriously, I've been drifting further and further away from organized Western religions.  I've been reading up on several of the Eastern religions, and they don't quite seem to fit me right either, so I'd say I'm closest to agnostic.  From a scientific point of view, I like to think that anything is possible until proven otherwise, so I don't shoot down any religion's views.  I just don't believe that, in the probably unlikely case that there really is a higher being, any of the religions have managed to quite work out the details correctly yet.

Slartibartfast wrote: Now cut that out, you're giving me a complex.