Life, Faith, Religion and a path to finding God?

Whilst the two make claims about our universe which are mutually exclusive …

They don’t

The “who” that you refer to that apparently “believers” in Physics defer to, “who” is that “someone else” exactly?

…

I am not a scientist

Well then, you tell me.

Some theories may also be termed “facts”

No.

Religious teachings about where we came from withstand no scrutiny

Let’s not confuse religous teachings with ideas about the existence of God. Though I’d be interested to know what you know of these teachings.

I have ‘faith’ that aeroplanes work, just like others have ‘faith’ in a deity or deities.

No this is not my use of the term faith. Aeroplanes do work, we’ve seen that. Gravity happens, we’ve seen that. The ‘faith’ comes in when you say, Well, I’ve no idea how it works, but i’m sure some very clever people have thought about it and I’m sure they are right.

When there are two conflicting theories about a physical phenomenon and you lack the understanding and knowledge to know which is right, yet you chose one over the otehr, what is that if not just a belief?

No this is not my use of the term faith. Aeroplanes do work, we’ve seen that. Gravity happens, we’ve seen that. The ‘faith’ comes in when you say, Well, I’ve no idea how it works, but i’m sure some very clever people have thought about it and I’m sure they are right.

While I see what you are saying there I prefer to change it to:

Well I’ve no idea how it works, but given time I can find out.

I’m never sure anyone is right and am willing to change my mind, depending upon evidence. As Tom Baker’s Doctor stated: “Being sure of any one thing is a sign of limited intelligence.” 😆

Well I’ve no idea how it works, but given time I can find out.

The underlying presumption here is that “someone” actually knows. This is not always the case. And certianly not with gravity

I’m never sure anyone is right and am willing to change my mind, depending upon evidence

Yup, though I would necessarily be so prescriptive that it needs to be evidence. For me…

I’m never sure anyone is right and am willing to change my mind,

Whilst the two make claims about our universe which are mutually exclusive …

They don’t

Wow somebodies been busy!

Judaism claims the world is only circa 6000 years old.
Christians believe that there is an afterlife and some even believe natural disasters are as a result of homosexuality! They also believe the laws of biology and physica can be suspended to facilitate the virgin birth and that the dead can be brought back to life.

If you cant see how these are at odds with those that think these things are not possible then its really quite concerning.

The “who” that you refer to that apparently “believers” in Physics defer to, “who” is that “someone else” exactly?

…

I am not a scientist

Well then, you tell me.

You raised the question of a “somebody” not me so I think it is your question to answer not mine.

I’m never sure anyone is right and am willing to change my mind,

But what would it take, therefore, to change your mind? I usually ask for a chat or discussion (like this one). Obviously you haven’t changed your mind regarding this discussion – why not? Normally when a person has a view of something and someone disputes it they ask for a reason why they should change their mind. Or if you see something that is contrary to your view you change your mind – usually. That is called evidence.

You raised the question of a “somebody” not me so I think it is your question to answer not mine.

How am i supposed to know who it is you believe about Physics?

But what would it take, therefore, to change your mind? I usually ask for a chat or discussion (like this one). Obviously you haven’t changed your mind regarding this discussion – why not? Normally when a person has a view of something and someone disputes it they ask for a reason why they should change their mind. Or if you see something that is contrary to your view you change your mind – usually. That is called evidence.

Depends really, I’ve changed my mind about some things based on this discussion. If by why not, you mean I haven’t changed my mind about the existence or not of a God. I’d be surprised if you could point me to where i stated my beliefs in that respect. If you mean have i changed my mind about people who do not believe in a god? Then now, but in this discussion I have not heard anything new, nor has it been presented in any way other than that which I have heard in any number of arguments over the years. The ‘there is no proof’ argument is not new nor is it particularly complex.

Well I’ve no idea how it works, but given time I can find out.

The underlying presumption here is that “someone” actually knows. This is not always the case. And certianly not with gravity

Then I must respond with either “No-one knows, yet.” (which may be the case with gravity – after all people are continuing their experiments and theories now) and possibly “It may be that we do not find out.” Neither requires unquestioning belief in the existence of one or more of an infinite number of speculated entities to do that thinking/magicking away for us.

“I don’t know.”/”I’m not sure” – I can live with those answers.

But what would it take, therefore, to change your mind?

Any number of things, but many times it is not a predictable process. When I was with a group of journalists who had been out of contact for 2 days and they started saying Diana had died, then I didn’t believe them. eventually more and more people started saying it, though i hadn’t been presented with any evidence, I then started to believe that she had. So it didn’t take evidence.

Sometimes, I see evidence published in peer-reviewed journals which strongly conflicts with my own experience and i don’t change my mind.

can’t really say why i change my mind. But in fairness, there has been no real discussion here from the atheists, just a repetition of the same point.

Neither requires unquestioning belief in the existence of one or more of an infinite number of speculated entities to do that thinking/magicking away for us.

This is not the point, as i have said before. I am not claiming that because we don’t understand physics we must believe in God, rather I am saying because we don’t understand physics, we have to believe Physics / Physicists

Depends really, I’ve changed my mind about some things based on this discussion. If by why not, you mean I haven’t changed my mind about the existence or not of a God. I’d be surprised if you could point me to where i stated my beliefs in that respect. If you mean have i changed my mind about people who do not believe in a god? Then now, but in this discussion I have not heard anything new, nor has it been presented in any way other than that which I have heard in any number of arguments over the years. The ‘there is no proof’ argument is not new nor is it particularly complex.

Nope, not my intention in this discussion.

Nope, not my intention in this discussion.

Good! ‘cos i doubt you would know what to change it from!
🙂

This is not the point, as i have said before. I am not claiming that because we don’t understand physics we must believe in God, rather I am saying because we don’t understand physics, we have to believe Physics / Physicists

I would use the word ‘believe’ in this context personally as ‘trust’. If my iPod turned into a block of cheese I would start doubting them. I would not use ‘believe’ as in ‘I believe what physicists say about how silicon chips work’ as I would for belief in deities.

I am saying because we don’t understand physics, we have to believe Physics / Physicists

you don’t ‘have’ to believe them. If it is a well documented theory and there is a highly-regarded paper/s on that theory you should (given you have the money and equipment) be able to recreate the experiment and see for yourself. In theory.

you don’t ‘have’ to believe them. If it is a well documented theory and there is a highly-regarded paper/s on that theory you should (given you have the money and equipment) be able to recreate the experiment and see for yourself. In theory.

No, the effect on the world is predictable and repeatable, the understanding of the how of, Gravity for example, is the thing you have to believe or not

the effect on the world is predictable and repeatable

it is the predictable and repeatable that begin to help people understand the mechanisms by which things happen. Using your own example (for a different point) above when you could begin to predict that people would say Diana is dead, you changed your thinking (does that work as a point?). Maybe the ‘answer’ to gravity has not yet been solved but we certainly know a lot more about it by repeating experiments and observing the effects. We begin to understand what can be considered within a theory of gravity and what should not be.

we certainly know a lot more about it by repeating experiments and observing the effects.

erm…No.

erm…No.

Sorry, I don’t believe you. Can you provide something to back up your assertation? 😀

If my iPod turned into a block of cheese I would start doubting them.

Which iPod do you have? I think mine is already made of cheese…

Is there anyway we can ever come to an agreement on this? Could we not just accept that some people believe in God / faith / religion / some sort of afterlife, and some people dont. Why the tedious, ongoing arguments? Or is the arguing the whole point?

erm…No.
Sorry, I don’t believe you. Can you provide something to back up your assertation?

Easily! I’ve been repeatedly explaining the flaws in your arguments, many many times, with entirely predictable and repeatable results. However, I still know nothing more about how you can all be so stupid.

🙂 (but only at AdamW)

Could we not just accept that some people like to discuss God / faith / religion / some sort of afterlife, and some people dont.

Just got back from a terrific ride.

barnsleymitch – Member

Is there anyway we can ever come to an agreement on this? Could we not just accept that some people believe in God / faith / religion / some sort of afterlife, and some people dont. Why the tedious, ongoing arguments? Or is the arguing the whole point?

Depends what you mean by “we”.

I fully accept that people believe in stuff that I find ridiculous.

“Why the tedious… arguments”. – Probably because although religion has had it all it’s own way for centuries, “atheism” (sometimes dubbed the “New” atheism – although I don’t notice any difference with what went before) has suddenly found a voice and religion is suddenly complaining about it. Personally, I think that the starting point for this can be traced back to the publishing of “The God Delusion”. The internet has enabled the argument to be taken forward on a huge scale, with speed.

It is fortunate that the supporters of various kinds of superstitions are no longer able to torture and burn people as witches… This has happened due to the progress of human ethics, often in the face of serious opposition from the supporters of ignorance.

Just my opinion, of course – attack at will, I won’t be “offended”. 8)

has suddenly found a voice and religion is suddenly complaining about it.

But no one here is complaining about atheism.

sometimes dubbed the “New” atheism – although I don’t notice any difference with what went before) has suddenly found a voice and religion is suddenly complaining about it. Personally, I think that the starting point for this can be traced back to the publishing of “The God Delusion”. The internet has enabled the argument to be taken forward on a huge scale, with speed.

I agree on this. However, I find it strange that ‘New Atheists’ have nothing to say that hasn’t been said over and over again prior to Dawkins. Yes, there is a new champion of Atheism, but nothing in the God Delusion was new.

I fully accept that people believe in stuff that I find ridiculous.

but do you also accept that you believe in stuff which other people find ridiculous. (pre-emptively, I’ll point out that most god believers do not think atheism is ridiculous)

(pre-emptively, I’ll point out that most god believers do not think atheism is ridiculous)

So, logically, as they don’t think atheism is ridiculous, is it reasonable to conclude they don’t believe in God then?

Or was this another troll?

but do you also accept that you believe in stuff which other people find ridiculous
My cat didn’t pee on the sofa, so no.

So, logically, as they don’t think atheism is ridiculous, is it reasonable to conclude they don’t believe in God then?

/quote]

What? Why would that be the case? You use the term ‘logically’ in a very loose way.

as they don’t think atheism is ridiculous

You might also conclude that they think it’s fine for people to believe all kinds of things, you might conclude that they think God made folks atheists because he didn’t want them in heaven anyway, you might conclude that they think there can only be a faith if there is a non-faith. Others will no doubt have other possible scenarios. why can you only see one ‘logical’ conclusion?

Honestly, Dawkins and Pat Condell, The same tired arguments. Does any one have an original idea of their own?

Pat Condell is an incredibly useful resource. In future, to avoid expressing exasperation with those who seem likely to think that there’s wind because the trees are waving about, I might just say “Go to Youtube and search on “Pat Condell” – you’ll find everything I want to say about your beliefs there”.

CharlieMungus – Member

Honestly, Dawkins and Pat Condell, The same tired arguments. Does any one have an original idea of their own?

Well, when you get one Charles, DO let us know…

Lazy response Woppit, I’ve made my case, it’s a synthesis of a range of ideas. It is not just a dump of someone else’s ideas.

Seems like Dawkins and Condell are your gods.

Your second sentence simply shows that you are not listening to the argument. Apart from pointing out the stupidity of trying to assert that an Atheist has “gods”, even suggesting that he/she would regard evidential humans as such, it is a fine example of the suspicion that one often gets that one is trying to talk sense to idiots.

Actually, I recommend that you go to Youtube and search on “Pat Condell” – you’ll find everything I want to say about your comments there”…

CharlieMungus – Member

Honestly, Dawkins and Pat Condell, The same tired arguments. Does any one have an original idea of their own?

Does any one have an original idea of their own?? It would seem only aetheists can! Religious people aren’t allowed to have any original ideas of their own. Religious dogma takes care of that! (Religion goes a bit like this; You WILL believe, you WILL have faith, you WILL NOT question, OR ELSE you will be struck down and burn in Hell with Satan). Original “ideas” from relious types, that’ll be a first! 😆

We must stop talking about this as it’s blasphemous! 😆