On 4/24/2011 9:04 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Anyway, I was saying the *religious* people wouldn't even believe it,
> not the atheists.
>
Worse than that. The religious people would, in many cases, dispense 
with crucifying the next one, they would just flat out try to kill them, 
having concluded that this "god" didn't fit their preconception of what 
god was supposed to look/act like. A few of the real right wing nuts 
even said as much themselves.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 4:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Also, at the end, when God is revealed, two of the seven virtues are to
>> disappear from the world: hope& belief, because they won't be possible
>> any more.
>
> So I stop believing in god if he actually shows up? I think you have
> that backwards.
>
Why would you need to "believe", if you have evidence? Its even one of 
the arguments some theologians use for what is "valuable" about 
religious faith.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 9:06 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/23/2011 22:05, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sure, but that's different than when it comes to religion.
>
> I was citing it more as a cause, you see. For so long people have been
> persecuted for heresy that maybe it has just become a normal part of
> culture to avoid discussing it.
>
Goes beyond that. Even bringing up the subject in the US in the wrong 
places/situations results in people screaming that you are persecuting 
them, and most of the rest of the people in the room jumping to defend 
them (even if they don't share the same faith). Its almost like, among 
some Christians, there is a *need* to be persecuted. And, in fact, for 
the "end of timers", this is a requirement. If they acknowledged that 
they are actually a) over privileged, b) over protected, c) more 
powerful than most other groups, d) more numerous, etc., their entire 
theological position that the end of times is coming that the first sign 
of it being increased persecution of their faith, simply wouldn't be 
true at all.

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 16:48, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Why would you need to "believe", if you have evidence?

I believe I'm sitting in a chair. I believe you are an actual person.

Belief doesn't disappear. Baseless belief disappears.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/24/2011 16:44, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Problem is the "rational evidence" part. How do you tell someone playing at
> god, with super advanced tech, or even abilities maybe, and that they "are"
> god in any real sense.

 > There isn't a lot of room for someone coming up with evidence.

If you hven't read Robert Sawyer's "Calculating God" novel, I highly 
recommend it. It's basically a story involving finding scientific evidence 
of a creator of the universe, without it actually contradicting what we know 
scientifically. (I.e., it's not just "god is lying to us" sorts of things.)

Very thought-provoking.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 07:43:25 +0200, Nekar Xenos wrote:

> I believe that God created the rules of science so ultimately science
> won't contradict God.

Then who created God?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:06:11 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/23/2011 22:05, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sure, but that's different than when it comes to religion.
> 
> I was citing it more as a cause, you see. For so long people have been
> persecuted for heresy that maybe it has just become a normal part of
> culture to avoid discussing it.

Yeah, but it's gone to the point where (as Patrick seems to say) that now 
whenever someone asks questions about religion, there is an immediate 
reaction of "you're persecuting me!".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:00:05 +0200, andrel wrote:

>> That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational
>> evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it?
> 
> yes

Rational - as in scientifically backed evidence, you'd reject?  I still 
find that quite unusual.

>> I find that *highly* unusual.
> 
> I don't think it is, I just say it. No matter what evidence they come up
> with (other than the person/thing itself, see below) I would always
> assume that they made a mistake or used a false assumption, even if I
> didn't see immediately what was wrong.

I have to admit that for me it would take something pretty solid, 
something where I might be inclined to assume that there was a mistake or 
a false assumption, but until such was proven to exist, I wouldn't really 
have a reason not to rationally concede that God exists.

>>> I don't think that there is too much difference in attitude between
>>> them and me. Other than that I understand the world and they don't. So
>>> I am defending the truth and they a fallacy.
>>
>> Then you're arguably just as religious as they are.
> 
> I know some people in this group have trouble accepting that I am a
> religious atheist, but that is what I think too.

I can see that, but for my view, I see 'religious atheism' as being self-
contradictory, because for me atheism has to do with rationality, and 
rationality is more or less the opposite of religion.

So I find your position quite interesting, and am interested in hearing 
more. :)

>> Otherwise, you'd
>> have to be open to a rational explanation or evidence for God.  For me,
>> I don't see it today, but if credible evidence were presented, I
>> wouldn't just look away from it and say "no, that cannot be".  That
>> doesn't mean I'd accept it unchallenged, either, though.
> 
> I was going to say that if a Godperson/thing came up to me and said it
> existed, I would still not believe it. But Darren beat me to it.

Well, I wouldn't believe it either, there have been plenty of crackpots 
who have claimed to be the 'second coming' (for example).  That doesn't 
constitute proof of any kind.

>>>> That undermines not only teaching real science, but the ability for
>>>> students to think about problems in a rational way.
>>>
>>> Are Americans worse programmers than Japanese?
>>
>> I have no data to support one being better than the other.  Do you?
> 
> When Japan became industrialized a couple of decades ago, they started
> with copying things and then imported foreigners that were in thinking
> not bound to the traditional ways, i.e. creative and daring. Only then
> were they able to design new things. Or at least that was the chauvinist
> western view a couple of years ago.
> 
> The thing to test here is if Japanese programmers are improving and
> native US ones getting worse. Perhaps comparing them to countries whose
> inhabitants do not accept any authority (like the Netherlands ;) )

I'm not seeing how this comes back to my comment above about the ability 
for students to think about problems in a rational way....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 18:08:45 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/24/2011 16:48, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Why would you need to "believe", if you have evidence?
> 
> I believe I'm sitting in a chair. 

Either you are or you're not.  Belief doesn't come into this.

> I believe you are an actual person.

This is a much more complex statement, though - evidence suggests that 
you (and Patrick, and everyone else here) is an actual person.  Belief 
may play into this.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 16:44:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 4/23/2011 10:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:45:04 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> I think there's a fundamental difference, if you're like most of the
>>>> atheists I know - you're willing to be convinced given sufficient
>>>> evidence.
>>>
>>> No, I am not, that is the point. There being a God is to such an
>>> extend contradictory to being me, that I will never accept any
>>> evidence(, hence my reference to that book of my father). I think you
>>> will find that true for other atheists as well.
>>
>> That is different - so you're saying that if someone presented rational
>> evidence for a God, you wouldn't accept it?  I find that *highly*
>> unusual.
>>
> Problem is the "rational evidence" part. How do you tell someone playing
> at god, with super advanced tech, or even abilities maybe, and that they
> "are" god in any real sense. Hell, to most of the people over thousands
> of years a Jedi would constitute a god, but we would, if any such person
> showed up, be looking at blood samples to work out how the hell they did
> it, not bowing to them in worship, a fact true even for most religious
> people. First, you need a coherent definition of god, then you can talk
> about what constitutes evidence.

Interesting, I hadn't looked at it that way, but that makes a lot of 
sense to me (andrel, is this the sort of thing you're talking about?)

> Since most of the stuff in religious texts fall into these categories:
> 
> 1. Things any two bit magician can replicate. 2. Things we could
> replicate now, with preparation. 3. Things we could at least imagine
> replicating, if we had certain technologies.
> 4. Things we couldn't replicate, like making a new universe, and then
> showing someone around in it, and which are probably not possible.

The first three things you state are things that make sense to me.  #4, 
though, I'm not sure 'probably not possible' seems a little wishy-washy 
to me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message