O'Reilly -Tides prove God!

[Sukerkin]

Very well said, Rayban. I am as guilty as anyone of expressing exasperation at religious beliefs in intemperate terms at times.

It has not ever been my real intent to belittle those that elect to believe in their version of the 'creator deity myth' but has been the verbal equivalent of flinging my hands in the air at abstruse thinking.

People have the right to believe whatever they wish ... but then again, expecting absolute protection from the consequences of their beliefs is unrealistic.

 

[Archangel M]

I think that many of the "militant atheists" are as they are due to their own ego, a need to feel superior and a desire to be "right" and to prove others wrong. It's more about "them" than it is about anything more "elevated".

 

[elder999]

As a scientist, I have to say (again!) that it is simply not the place of science to prove or disprove a being who exists before, during,after and outside of the constraints of space/time.

As a religious person, I have to say (again!) that it is not the place of religion to conform to scientific law.

The two are, for the present time and foreseeable future, almost entirely exclusive.

Where there are instances that "evidence of God" exists, they are usually individual and experiential, and-to use the scientific parlance-non duplicable or disprovable. Where ther is a scientific explanation-like those for gravity-that explanation suffices, and is independent of anything that could be called, said to resemble or even remotely be construed as "God."

To do otherwise is silly, like Bill O'reilly-and has as much resemblence to true religious thought or science as he does to a real journalist.....for Christ's sake! :lfao:

 

[Ken Morgan]

As a scientist, I have to say (again!) that it is simply not the place of science to prove or disprove a being who exists before, during,after and outside of the constraints of space/time.

As a religious person, I have to say (again!) that it is not the place of religion to conform to scientific law.

The two are, for the present time and foreseeable future, almost entirely exclusive.

Where there are instances that "evidence of God" exists, they are usually individual and experiential, and-to use the scientific parlance-non duplicable or disprovable. Where ther is a scientific explanation-like those for gravity-that explanation suffices, and is independent of anything that could be called, said to resemble or even remotely be construed as "God."

To do otherwise is silly, like Bill O'reilly-and has as much resemblence to true religious thought or science as he does to a real journalist.....for Christ's sake! :lfao:

For gods sakes Elder, where have you been??? Your logic has been soully missed....

 

[Ken Morgan]

I don’t see militant atheism folks.

Atheists are not knocking on doors trying to convert anyone, they don’t beg you for money on the street corner, they don’t open buildings and erect huge signs proclaiming that religious people are idiots, they don’t shoot pro-choice doctors, and they’re not strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in a central market.

I see them writing books, doing interviews, and conducting debates where they defend their position with all the tenacity the theists defend their own point of view with If you disagree with their point of view, and have closed your mind to their arguments, turn off the TV, don’t read the book and don’t buy the magazine or newspaper. Simple.

I agree with the thought written above, to each their own and while I may disagree with what you believe, I will defend your right to believe as you wish, as long as you respect my parallel right.

 

[Archangel M]

they don’t open buildings and erect huge signs proclaiming that religious people are idiots,

Really?

[/IMG]
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

Close enough.

 

[Rayban]

Very very true Ken.

On a personal note I find organized religion simply as means of controlling the masses. That being said I will respect anyone who follows them so long as they respect my right to disagree (amicably).

At the end of the day you have no idea why a person has decided to follow a certain religion or belief. It's about as personal as it gets.

Where ther is a scientific explanation-like those for gravity-that explanation suffices, and is independent of anything that could be called, said to resemble or even remotely be construed as "God."

Even the brightest scientists call the Higgs Boson the "God" particle which theoretically bestows mass to larger particles.

This brings me to two realizations that I had a while ago about God and religion.

God: an unknown force responsible for the creation of the universe. Whether it is something like the Higgs Boson or a figure on a cloud somewhere out there. (Personally I think it quite arrogant that god is portrayed by many as a human male)

Religion: Introduces a set of moral principles that you can choose to live by. An example is the bible. I would imagine everyone picks and chooses which principles to follow and believe in and which they do not. I would be quite horrified if someone followed it word for word.
"disobedient children must be stoned to death"
"Women must be isolated when they are on their period"...etc
Yeah just try and follow that word for word.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Really?

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

Close enough.

Dude I can drive around my small Canadian city and find twenty religious signs in less then an hour. You pointed to two "paid" signs. Go for a drive and count the religious vs atheist signs you see, keep a running total. I'll bet you a beer it'll be ten to one for the religious side.

 

[Archangel M]

You said they don't...

erect huge signs proclaiming that religious people are idiots

I think you were wrong.

Look's like the atheists are as much into the evangelizing game as anybody else these days.

 

[elder999]

Even the brightest scientists call the Higgs Boson the "God" particle which theoretically bestows mass to larger particles..

As "God" particles go, it's merely the flavor of a generation, and even the brightest religious scientists carefully place those quotation marks around "God" when denoting it as such......it's mostly tongue in cheek, especially for all those atheists.....

 

[Archangel M]

Dude I can drive around my small Canadian city and find twenty religious signs in less then an hour. You pointed to two "paid" signs. Go for a drive and count the religious vs atheist signs you see, keep a running total. I'll bet you a beer it'll be ten to one for the religious side.

Atheists who think they have to take (and fight for) "a side" is an example of that "militant atheism" IMO.

 

[SensibleManiac]

As a human you're used to things you have seen on earth. For example, "The need for a cause and effect."
The way you are looking at gravity is kind of obscure to what gravity really is. Gravity basically a force caused by the curvature of spacetime. Masses that exist in spacetime also cause a curvature of it, but gravity is a very WEAK force.(Which may not be true in other parts of the universe, who knows?)
So in short, obviously gravity has existed ever since mass has existed. And if someone where to believe matter and energy have always existed. Then one could say gravity has always existed; it just wasn't what it was until after Big Bang.(Which is where time began).

Time began at the big bang? You do realize that it is quite possible and probable that other universes exist as well?

I do have a problem with many of the arguments being provided here in that they are false.

Let's look at a few of them.

As a scientist, I have to say (again!) that it is simply not the place of science to prove or disprove a being who exists before, during,after and outside of the constraints of space/time.

As a religious person, I have to say (again!) that it is not the place of religion to conform to scientific law.

The two are, for the present time and foreseeable future, almost entirely exclusive.
QUOTE]

I am neither a scientist or a religious person and I have to say that the scientific method is the best method I have uncovered at understanding truth to date.

To say that it is not the place of the scientific method to uncover the truth about a being that is omnipotent is ridiculous.
I'm sorry but who has the right to say that we don't have the right to sanely apply reason to understand anything is employing a cop out to uncovering the truth.
I'm not saying that we cannot be limited in our understanding, we clearly are.

What I am saying is that reason is what seperates us from animals and that anyone who claims we shouldn't apply reason to attempt to understand anything is threatening to bring us to the level of animals or even worse still as religion has many times proven.

Again, who has the right to say it isn't the place to apply reason to attempt to uncover the truth and understand anything?
No one should have that right lest we be thrown back to the dark ages.
Again I'm not telling you what to believe only that you have no right to say what is science's "place".

"Militant atheism?"
I've yet to see anyone kill people in the name of atheism.

How many have we seen who have killed in the name of God?
This is a very valid criticism of religion.
Religions tend to espouse tribal thinking, this wouldn't be as bad if they didn't also espouse that their tribe is the one holding a monopoly on the truth, something that is very dangerous.
Atheism has been accused of the same thing, that is believing that they hold a monopoly on the truth, the problem with this is that they are at least espousing that we reach that truth through rational means.

I will always side with reason over fanaticism which everyone knows comes from emotions and not rational thinking.

I'll leave you with two quick quotes.

I believe the first one is by Voltaire,
Voltaire said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Reason is nothing less than the guardian of love." - Sam Harris

I thank everyone for keeping the discussion civil and for taking part.

 

[billc]

More have killed in the name of atheism, than religion. Scientific socialism, is that what those camps were for? the atheists killed for "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need," because religion is the opiate of the masses. Some of the greatest scientists in the world, explored the nature of the world to understand God and how he made things work. The murder of abortion doctors is the act of a lone religous extremist, the creation of gulags, and death camps is organized atheism at its worst, and they kill millions at a go.

 

[SensibleManiac]

More have killed in the name of atheism, than religion

Really?? can you find specific examples from history, something that I can find in a text book.

I can only think of one off the top of my head compared to many for the religion side.

 

[billc]

I have to go nighty night, but I will leave you with these, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il sung and his son, Mao, and all the little atheists aroundthe world who are trying to become big atheists.

 

[elder999]

I have to go nighty night, but I will leave you with these, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim Il sung and his son, Mao, and all the little atheists aroundthe world who are trying to become big atheists.

Hitler insisted he was Catholic.


Those others, of course, couldn't have been atheists. Like Hitler, they clearly worshipped themselves.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Yeah being totalitarian had/has nothing to do with it.

 

[billc]

I keep forgetting Ho Chi Mihn.

For all the atheists out there, here is a special offer from Andrew Klavan, author and screenwriter: God in 60 days,

I don't think there is a money back garauntee.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Atheists who think they have to take (and fight for) "a side" is an example of that "militant atheism" IMO.

You’re right we should just let religious people shove their beliefs down our throats, like they did for thousands of years. We like being told how to live our lives.

 

[Cryozombie]

"Militant atheism?"
I've yet to see anyone kill people in the name of atheism.

Ahem, Columbine.