In the musical 'South Pacific' there is a song sung by the character Lt Cable called 'You Got To Be Carefully Taught' he preceeds the song by stating "racism is not born in you! It happens after you’re born..." he then proceeds to sing the song. The lyrics are below. You've got to be taught To hate and fear, You've got to be taught From year to year, It's got to be drummed In your dear little ear You've got to be carefully taught. You've got to be taught to be afraid Of people whose eyes are oddly made, And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade, You've got to be carefully taught. You've got to be taught before it's too late, Before you are six or seven or eight, To hate all the people your relatives hate, You've got to be carefully taught! Written by Rodgers & Hammerstein 1949 Not a lot changes.
The last part of your comment Fez "As to faith, well faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven. It is an intellectually dishonest position to take. And I agree absolutely that one can neither prove or disprove God. Nor for that matter the Dragon that lives in my garage and guides me daily and is my comfort and saviour and moral guide. My non faith in god IS more valid. A religious person makes the positive claim and thus carries the burden of proof. Ditto not guilty until proven otherwise... you can't have it both ways." You make the same mistake that Dawkins makes. You assume yours is the "zero" position. You do not realise that it is only your faith in science that makes you argue as you do. God believers would argue that theirs is the "logical" position - that you cannot deny things exist and it must have taken a supernatural event / being /something to bring all into existence. Science can never explain the origins of everything so it is as intellectually dishonest to pretend it can. Yes you can argue about the details of religion and some take things literally whilst others do not. I expect it can be proved that there is no dragon in your garage unless you give him the same attributes as the god you do not believe in. Faith in non god is no more valid than faith in god. As someone said earlier you cannot prove love but we all know it exists. It is one coin with two sides - you have chosen one side (as I have) and others have chosen the other. I believe what I believe i.e that there is no god - but I accept that those who believe in god could actually be the correct ones. It is arrogant to argue otherwise.
Jesuit motto "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man", which is based on a quotation by Francis Xavier
So true Leo, sadly the parents and guides of these poor little sponges are usually barely more than children themselves, often full of hate and resentment, bigoted, tired and more often can't be bothered. Is it a wonder how some people turn out as adults
There is no evidence for god. The Torah, the Bible, the Koran are the claim. Theists say that they are in themselves 'evidence'. They are not, they are anecdotes at best and contradictory anecdotes at best. It is not logical to believe in god. Why must it take a supernatural event (etc.) to bring things into existence? Do not fall into the trap of theists, referring to whichever book of answers they happen to believe in. A religious person says: I don't know, goddunnit! A scientist says: I don't know, let's find out! Science hypothesises about the origin of everything, call it educated speculation if you will. However it most certainly does not claim to know all the answers and to suggest so is indeed the sort of intellectual dishonesty I expect from fundamentalist Christians in particular (Ham, Juby, Hovind, Comfort etc. ad nauseum). "Faith" in non-god is a complete non-seqitor. There is no evidence FOR god but plenty of evidence to show how things work naturally without the appearance of god. Thus my position is not in the least bit arrogant. Au contraire. Below is a link in which two very eloquent speakers argue the point. One is a University professor, the other is a well know atheist orator. Enjoy.
I 've seen better debates. This was just the "knock down the straw man" approach. I find all this slightly difficult to argue as I do not believe in god - however I will give it another go. Your position is completely based on science and logic. Fair enough - but it is only your choice that those are the most important aspects (and mine by the way). Where we differ is that I can accept that I could be wrong. It could well be that god really does move in mysterious ways. He can easily have set up a universe that grows through laws that he created. Humans have often in the past thought they understood things and then found that they were completely wrong. The whole subject of quantum theory where things can be in two completely different places at the same time and how two things millions of miles apart can interact would have seemed somehow magical even to brains like Einstein. We have no way of knowing what direction science will take us in the future - matter and energy are in fact one and the same - waves and particles too appear contradictory but are not. If there were a god it could simply be part of his plan that mankind would "evolve" to a position where the nature of god would be understood. OK - you and I do not believe that - but therein lies the rub. We do not BELIEVE that. We believe there is no god so we have faith in there not being a god which brings me back to the point you dismissed - we have faith in non-god. It is arrogant for one to think they are simply correct and millions of other people - many with intellects that dwarf ours are wrong. Atheist BELIEVE that everything must be able to be explained. Well perhaps they will be one day but not today. I am willing to believe what I believe and not disrespect what others believe - I think they wrong but they think I am. It is of course nice to put the burden of proof on the other party - but both sides are entitled to do that. You are entitled to disbelieve other people's personal experiences but you cannot prove they have not had them.
I count myself an atheist though I know apparently rational people who believe in God. I am happy simply to say we perceive the world differently and that efforts to persuade believers of my position would be as fruitless as their attempts to persuade me to accept theirs would be. I do remain convinced that if there is a God who, as most believers say, has extensive powers, then he is either not very competent or not very pleasant.
If there were any evidence for the existence of God then you would not be able to see it - like some of the atheist scientists who you may respect. Their science is not in fact science because they are working from the starting point that there is no God - therefore they do not have the openness necessary to science. Belief involves doubt - just as only a blind man believes in light - someone who can see no longer needs to believe. If there is evidence for God then it will not be found in any book - but rather in nature herself. All of the scientific advances of the last 500 odd years, involving the finest minds of their ages, have failed to produce a clock which can compare to the accuracy of the stars. Nature is, in herself, perfect - with eg. a herbal plant for every known disease. The combined forces of science do not know how to make common earth from nothing - or why a seed has the ingrained potential to grow in one way and not in another. Is it scientific,or rational, to assume that something so perfect - so far beyond our capabilities - arose by accident ? Can you answer me this - because it is you that claims to have rationality on your side. The other problem is that you lump all believers together - you cannot imagine how I conceive the essence of God to be - whether I look for him on a cloud - or within like a Quaker. It is fully possible to be both a creationist and an evolutionist if you dispense with the idea that humans are something special - which I do.
I bolded the bits I have issues with and will try to answer them as best as I can, but I avoid discussing religion with people that have beliefs as it's their choice... 1. Why would we not be able to see it? Surely either are as likely? Simply saying there's a god but no one can tell he exists means that there equally could be no god and we'd be no wiser. 2. Not all scientists are against religion, and scientists with faith are starting with a disadvantage as they think they already know the final answer, they're just working their way towards it. Atheist scientists treat the universe as a puzzle with no end-state. 3. That's simply not true, computer models can accurately predict anything with known variables. 4.As far as I know, there isn't a plant to cure every disease. It'd be nice if the world was so simple, but it really isn't...Also religion hindered medical and scientific progress for centuries... 5. Yes, it's perfectly rational if you understand the mathematical concept of infinity. Sorry I didn't elaborate much on each point, my wireless keyboard is low on battery and I have to hit most keys several times to type them...
1. The 'you' was not for general consumption - but was an answer to a previous text - ie. a confirmed atheist would be unlikely to see evidence of God even if it slapped him in the face. 2. I did not refer to 'all' scientists - and are you sure that it is not atheists who believe they know all the answers. 3. Sorry but it is true and the stars need no variables. 4. OK. Not a plant to cure every disease - but something found in nature to alleviate every medical condition - though sometimes playing only a secondary role - all of our medicine was either plant or mineral based until well into the 19th cent. 5. Not quite sure what 5 refers to.
The fact that we don't know so much about nature and the universe is not evidence of the existence of God...it is simply evidence that we don't know. Personally, I'm very comfortable to live with ambiguity and uncertainty. I don't have to have an explanation for everything...whether that explanation be God or science. I do like learning new things and trying to understand the theories and discoveries of others but I don't feel compelled to try and reduce the world to logical exactitude or to be able to explain the nature and origin of everything.
1. Ok, but that's still a silly statement, as God is unfounded a scientist, even less so an atheist one, should never come to such a conclusion. 2. I didn't think you said 'all scientists', I was just expanding on the point. Atheists don't believe they know all the answers, that's the religious viewpoint ie: I have no idea how this works but I'm 100% sure God created it, along with everything else... 3. It's not true. Computers can calculate everything and replicate all star movements if needed. We've come a long way since the days of mechanical clocks, time-keeping is no longer an issue in the 21st century. 4. We have plants that provide some healing, but I don't see how that is the work of God, unless you believe in fate and predestination? An avenue which is incredibly dangerous to follow... 5. (to see the end of a quote, just click on the bottom of the quoted text and the box expands) It referred to this: Is it scientific,or rational, to assume that something so perfect - so far beyond our capabilities - arose by accident And yes, it is.
Others have said it but it is worth repeating - this board is amazing - we are debating with pretty good humoured arguments some very contentious issues; discussions about religion, even amongst friends can turn heated whereas here people put forward honest arguments and a thread that started purely commenting on the horrors of Charlie Hebdo have us sharing views on life the universe and everything. All are contributions that make you think
The problem with God and science is the same -irriducibility. If God exists what is she made of and how did he come into existence? In terms of religious philosophy it is clear that not all interpretations can be correct unless there are a myriad of after lives and we go to the one that we believe in. It should not be forgotten that the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims is the same god. These religions (let alone the numerous sects that have evolved) just differ in their belief of prophetic revelations. I must admit that, in terms of the Judaic/Christian God I am swayed by the Gnostics, who argued that the world was created by a fallen angel, who wanted to show that he was as powerful as God. God is indifferent to what happens on Earth as Earth is nothing to do with Him/Her. There is some scriptural support for this argument.
Oh dear. Oh well. Poe is the word that springs to mind. I never said I could disprove anything, (certainly not god, I made that abundantly clear) but I did say that there is no (= nothing other than anecdotal) evidence for god which is, basically, no evidence at all. You keep forgetting that I was a man of faith. Then I read more of the bible and as a YEC friend insisted I should (and he was right) and he also argued, correctly imho, that I either accept the whole or dismiss it. Well that was none too difficult really. So no, I don't "believe" there is no god, I just accept that there is no evidence for god and that the three main bronze age books of faith are fallible, contradictory, blood thirsty and morally repugnant fairy tales that couldn't possibly be the inspired, perfect, and holy word of an omniscient, all seeing all powerful, merciful, loving god even if it does exist. I just don't believe that there is. It's not the same argument or meaning that you suggest and it's not that difficult to understand.
It's easy to understand - who said otherwise? We come from a similar position of ex-believers and I too regard the 3 bronze age books as you call them to be as good as Grimm's Fairy Tales. I no longer have faith and believe there is no god to worship. I am still "spiritual" in a sense but that involves only believing that there is beauty and something special about much of our world. Apart from the historical facts such that Jesus and Mohammed etc lived I think the rest is what people want to believe. I think mankind has (had?) a need to find a god - especially back in days when there were no scientific explanations so people had to find their own explanation for the magic around them. God was an easy invention. There is nothing in this universe that the creation of a god helps to explain or a problem that it helps solve. However unlike you I just accept I could be wrong. I doubt that I am but cannot prove there is none and given that millions of people believe and many of them are very intelligent people I regard it as rude to assert categorically they are wrong, I just believe they are and they believe I am. No big deal. I have to say I don't think much of the god that mankind has created.
1 If there were a god then he would be able to choose whether or not he left evidence for people to find. Some argue that if he left incontrovertible evidence it would destroy free will and he does not want that - if they were correct then maybe we would not find evidence. 2 Science is in fact science as it is simply means knowledge although scientific "method" involves creating theories and then proving them. Some scientists start from a belief there is and some that there is not a god. 3 The stars have had 13 and a half billion years to evolve so give science that time and maybe our clocks will be better Seriously though time is as Einstein proved "relative". It moves differently depending on movement. Our most advance clocks are now based on nuclear decay which is the same process as exists in the stars so in fact our clocks are now as accurate as the stars. Using two identical clocks and sending one into space while the other remained static scientists found they then differed on the return of the travelling clock. Time is a fourth dimension and is not immutable. 4 Nature is not perfect. It is experimental and evolutionary. Where things go wrong they die out and more successful species survive. Nature is vastly complex and many diseases benefit from things that grow but so what? It does not suggest it is god made or not 5 Science is not "complete" - again it is evolutionary - it has billions of things it has not yet answered - but at the same time it's record is pretty impressive on many fronts. 6 It is perfectly rational to argue that nature works by trial and error and that successful "accidents" survive. People have argued that there must be a god because for example an eye is so complex that it could not have sprung into being. Read though the scientific answer to this - you will find that forms of eyes have developed from simple light sensitive clumps of cells to ever more complex structures - that is how nature evolves. 7 Finally I understand that there are many forms of god people believe in. However this argument is primarily about the existence or not of a sentient being that somehow involves him/herself with this Earth.
Who started this thread?!!!! Anyway... anyone seen the film or read the book 'Contact'. ? That is a great discussion point. There may well be superior beings who operate in ways beyond our awareness.... transcendentally...
