Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Religion vs atheism, why argue?


White-Coyote

Recommended Posts

I think the more, good critical thinking is taught in schools at an early age the more people will question religion and everything else. The issue I have with Ireland's current education system is that it doesn't promote this. I'm not sure what other countries are like but kids here are taught to pass tests rather than to be creative and question what's being taught.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, the world is changing at a pace that is out running every Educational System there ever was ...

~

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I think the more, good critical thinking is taught in schools at an early age the more people will question religion and everything else. The issue I have with Ireland's current education system is that it doesn't promote this. I'm not sure what other countries are like but kids here are taught to pass tests rather than to be creative and question what's being taught.

Indeed, here in the US critical thinking starts in kindergarten. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2018 at 1:50 PM, White-Coyote said:

Lol, prove it then.

 

Lots of gods have been disproven. The Greek and Roman Gods, Egyptian Gods and Yahweh. God didn't let there be light, that took about 400,000 years, God didn't create the heavens and the earth, gravity did and God didn't make adan from dirt and eve from his ribbon, evolution shaped us. 

Trying to prove a negative cannot happen, nothing exists to disprove. Its wrong to say God cannot be disproven when used to suggest existance is likely. There is simply no good reason to believe such an entity exists. 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

There is simply no good reason to believe such an entity exists. 

 

No good reason? Quite a few scientists disagree with you. Again, you're showing your bias and not facts.

Quote

A fine-tuned universe may be controversial but can’t be ignored

The suggestion that our universe has physical laws and constants inexplicably just right for life is in the ascendant. Expect a heated debate, says Geraint Lewis

''A fundamental concept is coming back to the fore – that the universe may be fine-tuned for life. The idea is that physical laws and constants are inexplicably just right to support it; any different and we wouldn’t be around to ponder this.

The notion that this might be so has been around for decades, but has sat on the sidelines, considered idle speculation or even outside the bounds of science.

Today, theories that would shed some light on this notion are in the ascendant, along with related ideas from cosmology and particle physics. That explains why cosmologists and philosophers from across the globe flocked to the Greek island of Crete last week to discuss, and argue about, fine-tuning.''

Link: https://lapis.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/lapis/files/VETU/VETU_SH_17/articles/Geraint Lewis_A fine-tuned universe may be controversial but can't be ignored_New Scientist.pdf

 

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, White-Coyote said:

What do you mean? 

What if Theism is harmful in the long run? 

Being outspoken now might be doing the human race a service? If it turns out fairy tales can come true it can happen to you? Then I did what I thought was needed.

13 hours ago, White-Coyote said:

We need them both, the ancient part is instinctual, I wouldn't want to be without it.

Yes we do need them both. But what if science shows that some people are bypassing the modern part out of a stumbling block in our evolution?

13 hours ago, White-Coyote said:

Why don't we just do that then?

Well I'm doing my part by living off grid, and I put my garbage in a proper receptacle. 

13 hours ago, White-Coyote said:

If we're waiting on the end of religion, all we're going to do is wait.

I'm not waiting. I'm spreading the goods news of the HDG.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNAmSknqMfGPmO7HF3lfV

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2018 at 8:05 PM, White-Coyote said:

The whole point of this thread is basically this, Why can't we just be OK with each other's opinions as long as no one is forcing us into them, maybe not just in religion. 

You just hit the nail on the head.  Forcing...  In Oklahoma, "churches" get free ride on property taxes, while atheist groups don't.  Atheists are thus put in the position of paying taxes to subsidize religion.  A muslim group was considered a "club" when OSU wanted to condemn its buildings for an expansion.  A court had to decide that Islam was a religion and that the law prohibited OSU from seizing church-owned property.  And now a group wants to put up a monument to Satan beside the Ten Commandments on State Capitol grounds.  On what basis can this be denied if the state is already favoring a religion?

When settlement of the western lands first began, the govt reserved 640 acres out of each township for the benefit of religion (meaning Christianity).  This was done in the Seven Ranges and Ohio Purchase in Ohio.

We have always had a battle to keep church and state separate.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Lots of gods have been disproven. The Greek and Roman Gods, Egyptian Gods and Yahweh. God didn't let there be light, that took about 400,000 years, God didn't create the heavens and the earth, gravity did and God didn't make adan from dirt and eve from his ribbon, evolution shaped us. 

Trying to prove a negative cannot happen, nothing exists to disprove. Its wrong to say God cannot be disproven when used to suggest existance is likely. There is simply no good reason to believe such an entity exists. 

 

I think it's fair to say no God's have nor can be disproven. Even if a God came down and convinced us it was a God and states it's the only God, it still doesn't prove the non existence of other God's.

Proving a negative is easy. For examplebthe Earth is not flat. I can provide loads of evidence to support that the Earth is not flat. Thus proving the negative the Earth is not flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

No good reason? Quite a few scientists disagree with you. Again, you're showing your bias and not facts.

 

That is a philosophical argument rather than a scientific one in my opinion.

There is more evidence to suggest life adapted to conditions. Variations of the Miller Urey experiment seems to suggest life would have fromed under a number of different conditions.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

No good reason? Quite a few scientists disagree with you. Again, you're showing your bias and not facts.

The article from New Scientist shows YOUR bias as it makes no mention whatsoever of any "entity" being responsible for the alleged fine tuning of the Universe. What it does do is question just what is meant by "fine tuned" and what that might mean for either a single universe or a multiverse. You're the one not showing facts, but only your biased interpretation of same. 

cormac

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

No good reason? Quite a few scientists disagree with you. Again, you're showing your bias and not facts.

 

"If our universe were not so fine-tuned, we wouldn't be here to have this discussion," is not deductive proof of anything.  It leaves open the possibility that we are what we are because of chance alone.  To be "proof," you have to answer that one, too.  What if this all came about by accident?

Doug

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If our Universe is so fine-tuned for life then why is it that the only evidence for same is found on a backwater planet in a backwater solar system on the edge of ONLY ONE of billions of galaxies. That's not remotely fine-tuned, that's gross incompetence on the part of whomever/whatever did the fine-tuning IMO. 

cormac

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add something that I been thinking about today. If a being who is powerful enough to create a freaking universe can't get one organic being right, why in the hell does such an incompetent being deserve worship?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Just to add something that I been thinking about today. If a being who is powerful enough to create a freaking universe can't get one organic being right, why in the hell does such an incompetent being deserve worship?

Because he was close?  :w00t:

cormac

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Just to add something that I been thinking about today. If a being who is powerful enough to create a freaking universe can't get one organic being right, why in the hell does such an incompetent being deserve worship?

Because it's easier than thinking about things. Humans have always been fans of whatever is easiest.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Podo said:

Because it's easier than thinking about things. Humans have always been fans of whatever is easiest.

That's not exactly what I'm getting at. You have the god/s/ess's that people have created which you're comment perfectly fits. But what I'm getting at is more "What If". I mean if there is a god and it literally created everything within this universe of ours, then we are exactly what we're supposed to be. Meaning that sin, etc are purely human fabrications. Even this being would be so far beyond our understanding and comprehension not a single one of us on this planet would have no clue as to it's will. Even if it had a will that is. Just ponder for a little being. I keep coming up with a blind god, primordial chaos. Something like a lovecraftian monstrosity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

That's not exactly what I'm getting at. You have the god/s/ess's that people have created which you're comment perfectly fits. But what I'm getting at is more "What If". I mean if there is a god and it literally created everything within this universe of ours, then we are exactly what we're supposed to be. Meaning that sin, etc are purely human fabrications. Even this being would be so far beyond our understanding and comprehension not a single one of us on this planet would have no clue as to it's will. Even if it had a will that is. Just ponder for a little being. I keep coming up with a blind god, primordial chaos. Something like a lovecraftian monstrosity.

Have you read the novel Calculating God? It is just a novel, but it is a very philosophical take on this exact what-if scenario. It's done by Robert J. Sawyer, I highly recommend it. The premise is that aliens make first contact with humanity, but in a purely scientific sense they have mathematically proven the existence of a creator entity.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Podo said:

Have you read the novel Calculating God? It is just a novel, but it is a very philosophical take on this exact what-if scenario. It's done by Robert J. Sawyer, I highly recommend it. The premise is that aliens make first contact with humanity, but in a purely scientific sense they have mathematically proven the existence of a creator entity.

Thanks. I'll have to look into it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

No good reason?

Yes no good reason.

17 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Quite a few scientists disagree with you.

And more agree. Opinions are like armpits everyone has at least a couple. 

17 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Again, you're showing your bias and not facts.

No I'm showing facts your showing bias and hope. The article states that there will be debate. Its a bit slow on that prediction. I've seen the debates obviously you have not. Again Sean Carroll has cleared this misconception up sufficiently. You should listen to both sides of that argument for a more well rounded opinion. 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, danydandan said:

I think it's fair to say no God's have nor can be disproven.

So you agree that Thors hamner creates thunder Zeus throws lightning bolts and Yaweh made a man from dirt a woman from his rib and created the earth first and in 6 days?

3 hours ago, danydandan said:

Even if a God came down and convinced us it was a God and states it's the only God, it still doesn't prove the non existence of other God's.

I do feel the very fact that we have created over a thousand gods in our written history alone shows that we make gods up and discard them which i honestly feel offers an insight that as a species we tend to make gods up pretty regularly and discard them as understand grows. I think that very fact is too often overlooked in a zealous attempt to self validate personal belief systems that are motivated by emotion rather than evidence. 

3 hours ago, danydandan said:

Proving a negative is easy. For examplebthe Earth is not flat. I can provide loads of evidence to support that the Earth is not flat. Thus proving the negative the Earth is not flat.

 

Can you prove that unicorns do not exist? Or as Bertrand Russell put it in that interview can you prove there is no teapot in orbit with Mars?

You can offer more sound reasoning. We have far better theories than goddidit too. Just like a flat earth believer who will debate you fiercely there is no good reason to consider a creator as a realistic option yet many do. Numbers professing belief is really the only reason why religious outlooks are supported. Real world evidence is completely non-existent yet evidence supports a natural universe. We can find better evidence but that doesnt mean people will so much as consider it over personal beliefs with generations of investment in that belief.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the universe is fine tuned for humans then why is it so hostile to our survival?

You can't live in space without extraordinary shelter & clothing. From our studies of the planets in this solar system, only one is capable of supporting human life. and that, only barely.

Hela,, the friggin planet itself is mostly inimical to human life without clothing & shelter; 2/3's of it's surface needs specialized gear to explore it; weather, volcanism, and severe tectonic activity can squash us like insects. And between toxic plant life, insects and reptiles (not to mention the larger predators), we're lucky man survive so long!

 

If we ever get into deep space and meet other star faring races, they will probably be terrified of the impossible-to-kill barbarians from a death-world.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JMPD1 said:

If the universe is fine tuned for humans then why is it so hostile to our survival?

You can't live in space without extraordinary shelter & clothing. From our studies of the planets in this solar system, only one is capable of supporting human life. and that, only barely.

Hela,, the friggin planet itself is mostly inimical to human life without clothing & shelter; 2/3's of it's surface needs specialized gear to explore it; weather, volcanism, and severe tectonic activity can squash us like insects. And between toxic plant life, insects and reptiles (not to mention the larger predators), we're lucky man survive so long!

 

If we ever get into deep space and meet other star faring races, they will probably be terrified of the impossible-to-kill barbarians from a death-world.

 

I think you are not looking at it from the right angle. The physical laws that govern the universe are 'just right' for the development of life. Relatively small changes in certain parameters would make it uninhabitable by the likes of us and we wouldn't be here. What should one make of this?

As physicist Paul Davies puts it, there is a Goldilock Enigma:

1zdotuv.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

I think you are not looking at it from the right angle. The physical laws that govern the universe are 'just right' for the development of life. Relatively small changes in certain parameters would make it uninhabitable by the likes of us and we wouldn't be here. What should one make of this?

As physicist Paul Davies puts it, there is a Goldilock Enigma:

1zdotuv.jpgted 

 

 

 

 The universe wasn't created for us to live in. We developed according to the laws of the universe. He has it right. Your assuming in a backwards direction.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.