The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll

Mr ProgFreak wrote: This is why I say that I'm certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the kind of God that we're talking about when we use the word "Theism" doesn't exist. There may exist supernatural beings outside or beyond this universe, but even then two things would be clear: 1. They wouldn't interfere with life on earth, so their existence would be totally irrelevant to our personal lifes. 2. It still would not explain existence in general, and that question ("why do we exist") will probably never be answered. Even if you try to answer it through your (illogical) Christian God, you would next have to explain who created God, and why.

Negoba wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: This is why I say that I'm certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the kind of God that we're talking about when we use the word "Theism" doesn't exist. There may exist supernatural beings outside or beyond this universe, but even then two things would be clear: 1. They wouldn't interfere with life on earth, so their existence would be totally irrelevant to our personal lifes. 2. It still would not explain existence in general, and that question ("why do we exist") will probably never be answered. Even if you try to answer it through your (illogical) Christian God, you would next have to explain who created God, and why.   This is easiest thing for me to deal with that you've said in this whole discussion. By qualifying your statements a little, now we're getting somewhere.   My personal model of God and the Universe gets around the majority of your issues. But if I explained it, I think you would say "I don't want to bother with that," or that you see no value in pursuing it.

Now we're getting somewhere ... now if you would qualify your statements a little ...

AmbianceMan wrote: Dean wrote: AmbianceMan wrote:   Nice pic lol.  My fave, came out the year I was born.  Anyhoo, so you are saying that a mix of em waves is not em energy? Where the      did I say that? I said it does not have a single wavelength...   sin (a) + sin (b) = 2 sin ½(A+B) * cos ½(A-B) All you said was that "purple light does not have a wavelength".  So I was just wondering if you thought that multiple wavelengths does not count as em energy.  Sorry, just quoting you.  Maybe you just misstated.   What about brown?  Would that be similar?

far too much brown here already matey

AmbianceMan wrote: Dean wrote: AmbianceMan wrote:   Nice pic lol.  My fave, came out the year I was born.  Anyhoo, so you are saying that a mix of em waves is not em energy? Where the      did I say that? I said it does not have a single wavelength...   sin (a) + sin (b) = 2 sin ½(A+B) * cos ½(A-B) All you said was that "purple light does not have a wavelength".  So I was just wondering if you thought that multiple wavelengths does not count as em energy.  Sorry, just quoting you.  Maybe you just misstated.   What about brown?  Would that be similar?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html You can quiver now over the difference between violet and purple ...

ExittheLemming wrote: I have previously acknowledged, (as an Atheist), that what makes MY life bearable tends to be those elusive 'magical' things that capture my imagination e.g after all, as you say, life wouldn't be worth living without those critters that stubbornly refuse to be verifiable facts e.g. beauty, love, wonder, humour, art, imagination, horror etc However, the big difference is that although I cannot explain why say, The Long and Winding Road by the Beatles makes me weep, I have never felt even the faintest urge to crown my ignorance in such matters as 'transcendental' or 'spiritual' etc. There is but ONE world, and everything that can be wonderful, life affirming, horrifying and depressing is contained therein. The universe does not need a loft extension. BTW my sincerity and abrasive sense of humour are NOT mutually exclusive folks.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: There's no such thing as "your logic" vs. "my logic", "your reasonable doubt" Yes there are different perceptions of logic, what is logical for you may not be logical for me. Some peope say it's logic to believe there' is no life on another planets because we should have seen them, others (like me) believe that existing so many galaxies and for that reason billions of billions of planets, it's logical to believe we are the only ones.

You're talking about speculation in the absence of evidence. We can neither visit those planets to confirm our speculations, nor can we observe any traces that would indirectly confirm or contradict those speculations.

It's different with evolution ... we have plenty of evidence, both present and past, to help us decide whether the theory of evolution is true.

Iván wrote: And about reasonable doubt...12 juries are in the same rtial, they all see the same evidences, the same arguments, but six believe there's reasonable doubt and six believe there is not....It's a matter of perception.

The word "reasonable" is the key here ... I don't believe in the jury system, because I don't believe that jury members can be as impartial as the have to be. Either there is enough evidence to convict someone (in which case you don't need a jury) or there isn't (in which case there should not be a conviction).  Like this week in Italy (the Knox case) ... if the whole case is just based on circumstantial evidence (which some media claimed to be - I haven't been there myself, obviously), there should not have been a trial to begin with. 

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote:  The fossils and DNA are there, for everyone to see and verify. It doesn't require an act of faith, evidence is the same for you and me. It's objective evidence which supports the theory of evolution and contradicts the theory of creationism and intelligent design, and thereby contradicts Christian belief. Yes, the fossils and DNA point towards evolution...and what? Not all of us believe Evolution and God are incompatible, I believe that Creationism as understood by a literal reading of the Bible and ID are not accurate, there are another options, like theory of the Catholic Church, that doesn't deny the possibility of evolution, but talks about God's creation of the the spiritual nature of the man.

The passage "under God's guidance" is the problem. Again, the evidence strongly suggests that there was no "guidance" involved other than natural selection. What the church has done is (or to be precise: the "liberal", modern churches) that they abandoned the Bible.



(It's not a lecture by Dawkins, and it's not about biology. The speaker is Dan Dennett, a philosopher, and the subject is the situation that clergymen of today find themselves in. I really found it very interesting, and I would be interested in your opinion)

Iván wrote: Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.  http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp In other words, the humans have two components, the physical may have evolved, but the spiritual not.

There's a lot of research in the field of neuroscience, and all that points towards a purely materialistic explanation of our brain functions (including empathy and spirituality, which are normally attributed to the concept of "souls"). In essence, this means that all the aspects that make us human, that are only found in humans, are very likely to have evolved from our animal ancestors, just like the other features of our bodies.

You can object, but there's no question that the concept of evolution by natural selection is not compatible with the concept of "souls", no matter which concessions a church may make (like "ok, we can't deny our relation to apes and other animals anymore, so let's meet them half the way").

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: People have a tendency to look for evidence that supports their current belief, and to ignore evidence that contradicts it ... kind of like this fallacy: If from X follows something I don't like -> X must be false. IF from X follows something I like -> X must be true. It's the same with evolution for Christians ... if they really think about it, the see that it contradicts their belief. That's why so many of them dismiss it - not because they are convinced that it's false, but because its implications make them uncomfortable. Not the Catholics which the only ones I can talk about (Ask my friend Epignosis about other Christian faiths), we believe evolution is possible, even some of us believe evolution is the most logical theory, but it proves nothing against the existence of God. Science can talk about the physical nature of the man, so the Catholic Church doesn't give a religious opinion about it. On the other hand science can't talk about the spiritual nature of the man but the Catholic Church can, so we give our position.. Iván

Science is dismantling religion, piece by piece. I simply don't feel the need to "sugar-coat" this ... you can try to ignore it, but you can't simply dismiss the arguments. To say we are forbidden to apply scientific principles to questions that used to be reserved for philosophers or theologists is offensive to me, and - in time - I think that most people will come around to accept the plausible alternative, as opposed to the dogmatic, ridiculous (because it contradicts reality) position.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Science is dismantling religion, piece by piece. I simply don't feel the need to "sugar-coat" this ... you can try to ignore it, but you can't simply dismiss the arguments. To say we are forbidden to apply scientific principles to questions that used to be reserved for philosophers or theologists is offensive to me, and - in time - I think that most people will come around to accept the plausible alternative, as opposed to the dogmatic, ridiculous (because it contradicts reality) position.

I don't think that science is dismantling religion, nor to I believe that it should even try. Most atheist arguments, (I'll not say evolutionists since Ivan has clearly stated that the Catholic Church is not against Evolution, nor are many of the Protestant churches), are in defence of religious counter arguments, but atheism is not a science even though we use scientific evidence support our views. When it comes to a science like evolution or cosmology then expanding and explaining the misconceptions inherent in the religious counter arguments using scientific evidence is a valid method, but when science is used to attack religious belief/doctrine itself then I think we have exceeded our brief - I also hold the view that it is counter productive ('Confront them with annihilation, and they will then survive; plunge them into a deadly situation, and they will then live. When people fall into danger, they are then able to strive for victory' - Sun Tzu ~ The Art of War). Religion is not subject to the scientific method so it does not have to stand up to scientific scrutiny, therefore creation is not a science and so cannot be disproved by science either. Proof of evolution is not the disproof of creation in exactly the same way as disproving evolution is not the proof of creation. This is why I will argue for science, but I will not argue against religion.  

Negoba wrote: I personally think humans have a need for spirituality, and that it will "evolve" for lack of a better word "adapt to the environment" being more accurate. Religion that denies the existence of science that we use every day will fizzle out...it's metaphors are no longer useful. However, there are needs and questions that I believe science cannot answer, not because it's flawed, but because it is designed to do only certain things. I believe spiritual (or even religious) ideas will continue to flourish as that is IMO part of the human condition.

I agree - that need for spirituality is a natural consequence of what we are (sentient ... for the want of a better word, though I think that is another word that is misused). Science can not replace that need, though it can drive the adaption to changing knowledge and understanding, however there will always be resistance to change - that is both understandable and expected.