Question about atheists

This is a discussion on Question about atheists within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; >See, your already assuming that the paranormal does not exist. Thats the only logical thing to do since there is ...

  1. #136
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    552
    >See, your already assuming that the paranormal does not exist.

    Thats the only logical thing to do since there is no verifyable evidence that is does.

    >Well a few signs now and then All I know is that God will give you the signs needed to believe in him if you trust that he will.

    If god wants me to believe in him hes gonna have to give me a completely unambiguous sign.

    >Perhaps, but unless if you can give a possible scientific explanation, then the assumption that it is supernatural is valid.

    Lack of an explanation doesnt mean that it makes sense to make up anything and believe it is true. Many things that people once thought were supernatural later turned out to have a scientific explanation.
    C Code. C Code Run. Run Code Run... Please!

    "Love is like a blackhole, you fall into it... then you get ripped apart"

  2. #137
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    470
    Thats the only logical thing to do since there is no verifyable evidence that is does.
    The point I'm making is that Clyde is rejecting Zeitoun just because he believes that the paranormal does not exist.

    If god wants me to believe in him hes gonna have to give me a completely unambiguous sign.
    I think it's best to at least trust God that he will give you a sign. This is a little better than most agnostics and probably better than having complete blind faith. However if the seers at medjugorje are correct, we will have an everlasting sign.

    Lack of an explanation doesnt mean that it makes sense to make up anything and believe it is true. Many things that people once thought were supernatural later turned out to have a scientific explanation.
    And many scientists thought that atoms were indivisible. You cannot play the game both ways. We cannot even know for certain using science that our TV's exists much less God. Yet generally atheism works mainly on the principle that believers have no evidence. We do have evidence but people have been conditioned not to believe.

  3. #138
    Board Conservative UnregdRegd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    154
    Clyde:
    Consider buddism, subtract belief in reincarnation, subtract belief in some kind of mystical soul, subtract all beliefs other than the guide to life part, and you are left with a religion that would truly be compatable with science. And what i think will be similar to the religions of the future.
    This sounds like philosophy, but then again philosophy covers much of the same ground as religion. As I understand it, philosophy is all about figuring out why things are as they are and how things could be or should be. If you begin pondering how society could order itself to be more equitable to the individuals who compose it, then you've begun a thread of philosophical thought. If you ponder whether there can be such a thing as absolute proof, you've again made a philosophical thought.

    I guess Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and most other religions could be studied philosophically, but I don't think "because God/Jesus/some prophet said so" is a very convincing argument in philosophy.

  4. #139
    Cat
    Cat is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,571
    Originally posted by *ClownPimp*
    Thats the only logical thing to do since there is no verifyable evidence that is does.
    And if the most important questions cannot have verifiable answers, should we give up on even considering them? There are questions that science, by its nature, will never be able to answer, should we simply ignore them?


    If god wants me to believe in him hes gonna have to give me a completely unambiguous sign.
    Why should god care if you believe he exists? Further, as with many things, it's not as important where you end up, but how you get there. Nobody can, or should, force you to seek spiritual answers; the door is always open, but nobody will throw you through it.

  5. #140
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    470
    I guess Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and most other religions could be studied philosophically, but I don't think "because God/Jesus/some prophet said so" is a very convincing argument in philosophy.
    Yes, christianity is well outside of philosphy and science. I don't think religion should impose over science. Justin makes a pretty good case for not trusting philosophy completely.
    http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html

  6. #141
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    552
    >I think it's best to at least trust God that he will give you a sign

    That would require that i believe he exists, which I dont. That is probably why its so easy for some people to believe oil smudges or carvings in a tree or inexplicable light are signs of the virgin mary because they want to believe and are looking for anything that they think could be a sign.

    >This is a little better than most agnostics and probably better than having complete blind faith.

    >And many scientists thought that atoms were indivisible. You cannot play the game both ways

    There is a difference. Scientists thought that because that is the only thing that made sense at that time given the knowledge they had. They had no notion of electrons and such. Also there may have been evidence that at first consideration suggested that atoms were indivisible.


    >We cannot even know for certain using science that our TV's exists much less God. Yet generally atheism works mainly on the principle that believers have no evidence. We do have evidence but people have been conditioned not to believe

    As Clyde has repeatedly said, its not about certainty, its about probability. Given the information at hand, what is the most likely to be true.

    Believers dont have evidence. Believers have things they chose to use as evidence to support their beliefs. That so-called apparition certainly isnt evidence for the existence of god or the virgin mary or whatnot. It was just light. Believers' bias led them to see it as the virgin mary. The interpretation of the light is completely subjective, therefore cannot be used as evidence for anything.

    >And if the most important questions cannot have verifiable answers, should we give up on even considering them? There are questions that science, by its nature, will never be able to answer, should we simply ignore them?

    The problem I have is how people go about finding answers to those questions. In my opinion, if science cant ever answer a question (just because it cant answer it at present doesnt mean it never will) then the question doesnt deserved to be asked. Like our good friend the invisible kangaroo. Science will never be able to determine if there are invisible kangaroos sitting on top of my monitor. Given the fact that the nature of the question makes it unanswerable (by rational means), the question doesnt deserve consideration.

    If in your search for meaning you ask questions that are inherently unanswerable, then the question doesnt deserve consideration. Any so-called answers found by non-rational means are just self-delusions are dubious at best.
    C Code. C Code Run. Run Code Run... Please!

    "Love is like a blackhole, you fall into it... then you get ripped apart"

  7. #142
    Cat
    Cat is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,571
    Originally posted by *ClownPimp*

    If in your search for meaning you ask questions that are inherently unanswerable, then the question doesnt deserve consideration.
    So a question like "who am I?" is something we should never ask ourselves? Science is a very narrow and limited look at the universe. Art, beauty, purpose, etc. are well outside of its bounds.

    And yes, most of the really important questions (like "who am I?") cannot be answered. But it's the journey and not the destination -- simply because we cannot ever truly arrive at an answer doesn't mean the pursuit of that answer isn't rewarding in its own right.

    It's like self-improvement. You'll never be perfect, but aren't you better off for moving closer to that ideal? Sure, you'll never reach it, but you're still better off than when you started.

    Similarly, a journey of introspection (perhaps beginning with "who am I?") will never end, but you will grow as a person as you struggle to understand.
    Last edited by Cat; 08-10-2003 at 07:45 PM.

  8. #143
    ¡Amo fútbol!
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,136
    Originally posted by Cat
    ...I later came to see how the apparent paradox resolves; the two lines of inquiry are different and complementary. Both are necessary, each complements the other and each is necessary.
    Exactly my view.


    As for your beauty isn't a scientific process, psychologists have already found that universal beauty is directly related to the symmetry of the face. The more symmetrical, the more beautiful the person is considered.

  9. #144
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    470
    That would require that i believe he exists, which I dont. That is probably why its so easy for some people to believe oil smudges or carvings in a tree or inexplicable light are signs of the virgin mary because they want to believe and are looking for anything that they think could be a sign.
    It does not require that you believe that he exists for certain. I suppose that you have to look for a sign to see it. It's not too much different than anything else. But odd paterns on a tree are entirely different than light seemingly taking the form of the virgin Mary on the route where she fled from Herod. On top of that, she predicted 50 years ago and in another visionary site that she would return to egypt. I'm suprised that you don't find inexplicable light a sign. We believe in so many things only because they reflect light yet you do not believe in something that is the source of light.

    As Clyde has repeatedly said, its not about certainty, its about probability. Given the information at hand, what is the most likely to be true.
    It is most likely that the apparition was the Virgin Mary. This of course does not mean that we should throw out our theories of evolution by any means.

  10. #145
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    552
    >So a question like "who am I?" is something we should never ask ourselves?

    I dont think "who am I?" cannot be answered through science (although you might not like the answer).

    >And yes, most of the really important questions (like "who am I?") cannot be answered. But it's the journey and not the destination -- simply because we cannot ever truly arrive at an answer doesn't mean the pursuit of that answer isn't rewarding in its own right.

    I think that is the ultimate goal of science, determining who we are. It is obvious that science searches for the answer to the question "how", but as Clyde said earlier, "how" and "why" might actually be the same question. The big difference is the process science and religion goes about finding
    Last edited by *ClownPimp*; 08-10-2003 at 08:53 PM.
    C Code. C Code Run. Run Code Run... Please!

    "Love is like a blackhole, you fall into it... then you get ripped apart"

  11. #146
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    552
    >It is most likely that the apparition was the Virgin Mary. This of course does not mean that we should throw out our theories of evolution by any means.

    Science has repeatedly disproven supernatural causes for unexplained events. So it is not most likely the virgin mary, it is most likely a natural phenomenon.
    C Code. C Code Run. Run Code Run... Please!

    "Love is like a blackhole, you fall into it... then you get ripped apart"

  12. #147
    Cat
    Cat is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,571
    Originally posted by *ClownPimp*
    I think that is the ultimate goal of science, determining who we are. It is obvious that science searches for the answer to the question "how", but as Clyde said earlier, "how" and "why" might actually be the same question.
    Only if you presuppose that there is no deeper meaning in the universe. If you presuppose that there are only sounds and no music, only paint and no art, then there IS no why, and all questions become "how". If you assume the whole is no more than the sum of its parts, then questions of "why" are pointless.

    In such a world, life is only a cruel farce; we're puppets who don't even realize we're slaves to meaningless causality.
    Last edited by Cat; 08-10-2003 at 09:59 PM.

  13. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    i like pizza

  14. #149
    the hat of redundancy hat nvoigt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Hannover, Germany
    Posts
    3,139
    Religion does cause harm, Northern Ireland, Israel, 9/11, witch burnings, Spanish Inquisition, intereference in science's development and education to name but a few.
    People using religion as a easy explanation cause harm. I don't think you will find the place in Bible or Quoran where it says "and crash a plane unto the unbelievers so they may die in thousands". That's simply not in there. Fanatics and idiots will always find a reason to kill. If it weren't for religion, they would kill for pink cows or world peace.
    hth
    -nv

    She was so Blonde, she spent 20 minutes looking at the orange juice can because it said "Concentrate."

    When in doubt, read the FAQ.
    Then ask a smart question.

  15. #150
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    552
    >People using religion as a easy explanation cause harm. I don't think you will find the place in Bible or Quoran where it says "and crash a plane unto the unbelievers so they may die in thousands". That's simply not in there. Fanatics and idiots will always find a reason to kill. If it weren't for religion, they would kill for pink cows or world peace.

    Yes, but people like osama bin laden wouldnt be able to line up millions of people willing to fly those planes into those buildings. Religion is the tool he uses to convince millions that the west is the enemy and everyone remotely associated with the west must die. Without religion his message would fall on deaf ears.

    >Only if you presuppose that there is no deeper meaning in the universe....
    In such a world, life is only a cruel farce

    Why must you believe that there is some "deeper meaning" to our existence for life to be meaninful?

    > we're puppets who don't even realize we're slaves to meaningless causality.

    if that is what science determines, I can live with that.
    Last edited by *ClownPimp*; 08-11-2003 at 02:12 AM.
    C Code. C Code Run. Run Code Run... Please!

    "Love is like a blackhole, you fall into it... then you get ripped apart"

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Alice....
    By Lurker in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-20-2005, 02:51 PM
  2. Debugging question
    By o_0 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-10-2004, 05:51 PM
  3. Question about pointers #2
    By maxhavoc in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-21-2004, 12:52 PM
  4. Question...
    By TechWins in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-28-2003, 09:47 PM
  5. Question, question!
    By oskilian in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-24-2001, 12:47 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21