Majority Scientists disbelieve GOD

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
See now you are lying to me.

Nope, try again, this time without eating the magic mushrooms, ok?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by New-Prototype
I don't mean this as an insult or anything, but religion is a sham! I believe that these thoughts and beliefs were only created so the people in the church can make money.

While your beliefs are your own, you use the term religion as if it is the same as theistic or having/worshiping a deity. This is not the case.

You you believe that religion was created for people to make money then perhaps you should study a little anthropology. Primative peoples had religions before he had money. This neither increases nor decreases the probability that (a) religion is correct, but it does poke a hole in the profit as the motive for religion creation belief.

 

[FZ+]

Good post radagast.

Yes, to label religion or irrational beliefs are money making shams is a gross oversimplification of the scenario. While it can be demonstrably true for certain beliefs (scientology ring a bell?), it can't be laid on as a blanket statement. To deny the genuine belief of the majority is a fruitless route to take.

New-prototype: While I agree that belief is something that is almost instinctive in man, I would put caution on the idea of disproving god. While science can shatter the conclusions of much of religion when it comes to what can be observed, it is often impossible to disprove any god from a spiritualist/metaphorical direction. The only conclusion that can be made is that the lack of evidence means there is no basis for belief in god.

Young fish old fish still in the tank and nothing has changed.

Here we go again. You puzzle me TENYEARS. If you only express such contempt for other people who attempt to look for the facts, and have such stubborn and irrational faith in your own ideas, while do you butt in like this at all? Why do you post, if you already proclaim that however many scientific proofs, and error checking and nothing to you? Why, while you reject the scientific method and the progressive, open thinking it stands for, do you pretend to be open minded? How, when you do not even appear to understand what science means, can you even criticise?
There may be hope for you yet.

(BTW, where's that prediction you said you were going to send me?)

 

[Iacchus32]

God (which is good) + greed (human ambition) = charlatan. This is the problem right here ... for "Many will come in my name to lead many astray."

Indeed it is much better to pose it as an open question and leave it at that -- thereby creating "a vacuum" -- than to play Russian Roulette with a potentially loaded weapon. I believe TENYEARS said something to this effect in another thread.

While we all know how Mother Nature abhors a vacuum, indeed, therefore if we learn how to pose the question, while holding our ground, and remaining humble and sincere (this is very important too), the answer should be forthcoming.

But we must understand, this is a means by which to address the question "internally." However, there may be a means by which Science can address this in an "external sense" as well? Perhaps by learning how to be "intuitive" and applying that to our experiments?

 

[TENYEARS]

You know I don't reject science, science is in accordance with the truth the only problem is science is not completely understood. I could do the gravity thing here, but not. If you knew what I know you would know why I have such great disdain for many so called scientists. I will send you what I promised - my gut feeling said not to send it then.

 

[Zero]

God (which is fictional) + greed (human ambition) = Christian. This is the problem right here ... for "Many will quote the Bible, as though it were anything other than fiction"

Indeed it is much better to pretend to be deep, and stick with fables, than to play Russian Roulette with actual facts, since most of them make a religious viewpoint seem foolish.

While we all know how Mother Nature abhors a vacuum, indeed, therefore if we learn how to pose the question, while holding our ground, and remain as obscure as possible, no one will be able to disprove our fantasies.

But we must understand, this is a means by which to address the question "internally." By 'Internally', we mean "in a way that makes no logical sense", therefore it cannot ever be disproven.

 

[Iacchus32]

What are you afraid someone might actually believe what I have to say? Pretty well put don't you think?

Of course I'm not sure what you mean by "remaining as obscure as possible?" Do you mean that Science shouldn't begin to explore the possibilities of intuition? And yet it's a well known fact that it exists.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What are you afraid someone might actually believe what I have to say? Pretty well put don't you think?

Of course I'm not sure what you mean by "remaining as obscure as possible?" Do you mean that Science shouldn't begin to explore the possibilities of intuition? And yet it's a well known fact that it exists.

LOL, you don't present anything for us to actually believe in, so I have no fear at all!

"Intuition" exists...as a function of a bioelectric and biochemical process of the brain. It isn't magic, it is simply a way that the subconscious processes existing information in interesting ways.

 

[TENYEARS]

Zero, where exactly did you get that the good morning coffee club knowledge of the day. Is this a thought you brought into being yourself?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
You know I don't reject science, science is in accordance with the truth the only problem is science is not completely understood.

Science is pretty well understood, it's what science studies that is not always well understood. If it was, then we would understand all there is to know about objective reality.

I could do the gravity thing here, but not. If you knew what I know you would know why I have such great disdain for many so called scientists. I will send you what I promised - my gut feeling said not to send it then.

I can't help but get the feel you are dancing around a 'God of the Gaps' argument. Yes, a number of things are not known, but to somehow use god to explain this is a serious violation of Occams razor.

The neat thing about science, is that no matter how you feel about a given scientist and what they have to say, over the long run, the system (science) is self-correcting.

If you are speaking of what a scientist has to say about god (specifically say christian, but not a fundamentalist view) then they are outside the area of science, therefore not an authority (by virtue of scientific training). Science can only address things which falsifiable predictions can be made. For example, the (current) Catholic view of god is outside the domain of science because there are no testable and falsifiable predications about him/her that can me made.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL, you don't present anything for us to actually believe in, so I have no fear at all!

"Intuition" exists...as a function of a bioelectric and biochemical process of the brain. It isn't magic, it is simply a way that the subconscious processes existing information in interesting ways.

Yes, very "interesting." Logical no, but "interesting" nonetheless.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, very "interesting." Logical no, but "interesting" nonetheless.

Why is rational explanation 'not logical'?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by TENYEARS
Zero, where exactly did you get that the good morning coffee club knowledge of the day. Is this a thought you brought into being yourself?

What does that mean? 'brought into being myself'? All thoughts are our own, and all thoughts are a function of the influences we are exposed to. I take only partial credit.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, very "interesting." Logical no, but "interesting" nonetheless.

Bold statement, but just that until you can back it up.

Though the following isn't specific to you, Iacchus32, it has amazed me how many flat statements are made here with absolutely no justification. If something is given as an explanation of something they believe, I can see that. But to, in effect, simply say 'your wrong' with zero justification, smacks of forums a lot less prestigious than a physics forum.

As a fan of informal logic and argumentation I saw nothing that violated any rules of inference. Perhaps you could enlighten us further. Now that I think about it, there was no 'argument' presented, so no possibility of violating rules of inference, so exactly how could it be illogical? Wrong, quite possibly, but illogical?.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by radagast
As a fan of informal logic and argumentation I saw nothing that violated any rules of inference. Perhaps you could enlighten us further. Now that I think about it, there was no 'argument' presented, so no possibility of violating rules of inference, so exactly how could it be illogical? Wrong, quite possibly, but illogical?.

I only say this because I think this is how Zero -- being the "logical" person that he is -- "feels" about intuition. It works from the "other side" of the brain, therefore he can't claim that it's logical. But "interesting" nonetheless.

Oh, and please feel free to drop by my thread on What is Irrational?

 

[radagast]

I would agree that intuition isn't logical, but I wouldn't claim much of the natural functioning of the brain would be. It's only when we constrain it by specific rules, such as math, formal/informal logic, or perhaps certain areas of law, would I even hazard a guess that you can count on things being logical - of course I could be misinterpreting you meaning.

By the same token, I do accept (as true/probable) that intuition works from concrete, real world, brain functioning. That it's not some kind of metaphysically caused action.

I do feel people believe they act and think rationally, yet under close scrutiny, if emotion or ego is involved, they are rarely very logical. The folks on a.a.m pride themselves on their use and employment of logic, yet time and time again I've seen them make the same errors their detractors do.

I'll check out the thread soon, but it isn't small so...