TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Since I was a kid.I put God up there with Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. True story: I stopped believing in the Christian God (my parents are Episcopal) around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strangelove Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Since I was a kid.I put God up there with Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. True story: I stopped believing in the Christian God (my parents are Episcopal) around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. I never believed in santa claus really. Maybe its the way Mexican families do it or just my mexican family, but on christmas wed stay up all night partying. The adults would drink and talk and eat and the kids would blow up fireworks all night. We stayed up til 3 or 4 and sometimes til the next day. the gifts were already underneath the tree days before it was Xmas. We knew it was our parents who go us that stuff. I didnt think that was so bad. I grew up loving and respecting my mom and knowing she got me that stuff than being grateful to some man that didnt exist. I dont think thats a bad thing. If anything, it makes more sense. Maybe I was too rational when I was a kid. I guess i could have missed out on a lot of fun that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheForgetfulBrain Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Since I was a kid.I put God up there with Santa Claus and the Easter bunny. True story: I stopped believing in the Christian God (my parents are Episcopal) around the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. I believed in Santa Clause loooong after I stopped believing in a christian god. I was in my car seat when I stopped believing in said god, going over a mountain, trying to understand how exactly all that worked because it didn't make sense, and I told my mom it was making my head hurt, like there was a 'no access door' in my head that I couldn't get past and she told me to stop thinking about it - so I did. At which point, I became somewhat agnostic, with an athiest bent. I remember in 3rd grade quizzing my fellow students on whether or not they believed in god, and when a few of them said they didn't know, I remember proclaiming in glee, "Religion is dying!" Santa Claus, I believed in till 5th grade, when we had kindergarten pals for Christmas and one of the teachers told us, "You all know there is no Santa Claus - but don't go telling the kids that." I was flabbergasted and heartbroken - the possibility he wasn't real just never occurred to me. I remember storming to my mom's car when she picked me up that day, trying not to cry, yelling, "Why didn't you tell me!" Go figure. I guess I've always wanted so badly to believe in aliens or the supernatural or magic - just something outside of the boring every day. Except for religion - because that's always seemed just as improbable to me but not as interesting, yet many people actually sincerely believe in it. I dunno. Edited March 10, 2011 by TheForgetfulBrain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 When I was a kid I really really believed in alien abductions and other paranormal things (distinguishing "paranormal" from "supernatural"). Now, however, while I still think it ridiculously improbable that Earth is the only planet in the universe with intelligent life, I doubt any of it has ever visited us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr W Phallus Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 When I was a kid I really really believed in alien abductions and other paranormal things (distinguishing "paranormal" from "supernatural"). Now, however, while I still think it ridiculously improbable that Earth is the only planet in the universe with intelligent life, I doubt any of it has ever visited us. Considering the immense improbability of a planet having the necessary conditions to sustain life, there is actually a pretty decent chance that alien life doesn't exist. Having said that, there's a reasonable chance it might as well. The likeliness of us ever meeting on the other hand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheForgetfulBrain Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 I've often figured that there might be 'alien' life out there - it's just outside our perception. If we're expecting life to resemble that of humans... I don't know. Once you start questioning perception, you enter a whole other realm of possibility. You can't really 'know' anything for certain, once you question perception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slithy toves Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 maaaaaaaaaaan i'm too busy at work to even catch up on this thread. there is always later to argue metaphysical semantics i suppose... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 @withoutphallus: I disagree with your assessment of the probabilities. Sure it's (probably) unlikely on any given planet, but the universe is a really damn big place. Even if the chance of any given planet having life was 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 there would still be billions and billions of planets with life on them in the visible universe (though probably not in our galaxy). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 I've often figured that there might be 'alien' life out there - it's just outside our perception. If we're expecting life to resemble that of humans... I don't know. Once you start questioning perception, you enter a whole other realm of possibility. You can't really 'know' anything for certain, once you question perception. I actually accept as a core tenet that I have no way to know that my senses give me accurate information about the world, however I simply act on the assumption that they do because there's no other way to... be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotChops Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 I'm 99.9% sure there is no god (from any of the religions*), which I'd wager is maybe more than you are sure there is a god. I'm 99.9% sure your statistic is made up. well most scientist are atheists That's something I've never seen proven. I did watch part of Ben Stein's excellent documentary on the bigotry against religious people in the scientific world so I'm sure a lot keep it to themselves. As proven with the whole global warming lie, it's very easy for so-called scientists to be sheep to political and personal whims. That's not a documentary. This is a documentary. And one that I desperately urge you to watch. Look, I'm sorry, but this is exactly what I'm talking about. If you think that Intelligent Design is science, then you don't know what science is. And again, I would remind you that I did not believe evolution for 23 years. There is not a bias or bigotry in scientific community against religion, it's just that the two ideas are fundamentally the opposite. One says, "This is the way things are BECAUSE WE SAY IT IS and don't ask questions." The other says, "Don't take our word for it. CHECK FOR YOURSELF. ASK QUESTIONS!" The idea that you're supposed to believe in evolution simply because your teacher told you to is a fallacy. You can go through the evidence and repeat the tests for yourself. The same cannot be said for ID. PS: progressive Christians may welcome you to ask questions and study science -- my mother certainly does. But they all too frequently do it wrong. They start from a conclusion, and then examine the evidence; trying to reconcile the evidence with the preconceived conclusion. True science operates in the other way. Evidence first, then conclusions. Then repeat and repeat and repeat. And not all scientists are total atheists. Some of the science teachers who took the Dover, Colorado School Board to court over the forced inclusion of ID were(are) active church-goers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheForgetfulBrain Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) I actually accept as a core tenet that I have no way to know that my senses give me accurate information about the world, however I simply act on the assumption that they do because there's no other way to... be... Yeah, I mean it's a mostly philosophical concept - it would be fascinating to put some physical application to it, but I'm not sure how that would occur. Edited March 10, 2011 by TheForgetfulBrain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 True science operates in the other way. Evidence first, then conclusions. Then repeat and repeat and repeat. Not necessarily, sometimes you start with the conclusion (hypothesis), but if so then you try to DISPROVE your hypothesis, not support it. Nitpicky I know, and it doesn't undermine the core of your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZTF Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Assuming there is a sentient and sapient god, I still see no reason for worship or reverence. If an entity had the power and the intelligence to create and maintain a universe I seriously doubt that entity would be concerned with dogmatic prayers and rituals. You might say that religion and worship frames a person's morals and this is true. However, it is no more effective at creating a functional member of society then virtually any other type of education. I believe that the best form of "worship" for such a being would be to strive for a perfect, harmonious, and non-entropic state within the universe. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr W Phallus Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) @withoutphallus: I disagree with your assessment of the probabilities. Sure it's (probably) unlikely on any given planet, but the universe is a really damn big place. Even if the chance of any given planet having life was 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 there would still be billions and billions of planets with life on them in the visible universe (though probably not in our galaxy). Well I'm quite confident with what I said - I was paraphrasing what a doctor of physics told me (specifically particle physics I think). Like I said it is possible - he (the doctor (not The Doctor)) even said that he believed there probably was other life there - it is just less likely than you would expect given the size of the universe. He was the same guy who told me the fact about the Hebrew Bible having multiple possible translations, indecently, he used to 'teach' me General Studies. I kinda wish I could go back and get some proper references from him so I could read up about these things more. This is straying dangerously off topic though so *insert inflammatory religious comment here*. Edit: I agree with what ZTF is saying; if there really is an omnipotent, omniscient being that created the universe, then the likelihood of him caring about what the human race gets up to - other than as a fascinating species to study - is like humans passing judgement on the morality of bacteria, and punishing them accordingly. Edited March 10, 2011 by withoutphallus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Well for determining the number of intelligent civilizations extant in the galaxy at any given time we can use the Drake Equation (or a slightly modified version): N = R * fp * np * fe * fl * fi N = the number of intelligent civilizations at any given time R = the average rate of star formation in the galaxy fp = the fraction of stars that have planets np = the average number of planets per star that actually has planets fe = the fraction of planets capable of supporting life fl = the fraction of planets which are capable of supporting life that in fact develop life fi = the fraction of planets that develop life on which the life goes on to develop intelligence. We have a pretty good idea of R, we're getting close to figuring out what fp and np are, but for fe, fl, and fi we just have to guess and really we have nothing to base those guesses on. For all we know the number could be practically zero and the Earth is the only planet with life in the galaxy, or the Solar system is actually strange in that it only has one planet with intelligent life. We really have no way to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R__ Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Cult by Slayer Oppression is the holy lawin god i distrust in time his monuments will fall like ashes to dust is war and greed the master plan? the bibles where it all began its propaganda sells despair and spreads the virus everywhere religion is hate religion is fear religion is war religion is rape religions obscene religions a whore the pestilence is jesus christ there never was a sacrifice no man upon the crucifix beware the cult of purity infectious imbecility ive made my choice. 666 corruption breeds the pedophile dont pray for the priest confession finds the lonely child god preys on the weak you think your soul can still be saved i think your fucking miles away scream out loud heres where you begin forgive me father for i have sinned religion is hate religion is fear religion is war religion is rape religions obscene religions a whore the targets fucking jesus christ i would've lead the sacrifice and nailed him to the crucifix beware the cult of purity infectious imbecility ive made my choice. 666 jesus is pain jesus is gore jesus is the blood thats spilled in war hes everything hes all things dead hes pulling on the trigger pointed at your head through fear your sold into the fraud revelation revolution i see through your christ illusion the war on terror just drags along my war with god is growing strong his propaganda sells despair and spreads the virus everywhere religion is hate religion is fear religion is war religion is rape religions obscene religions a whore there is no fucking jesus christ there never was a sacrifice no man upon the crucifix beware the cult of purity infectious imbecility ive made my choice. 666 Basic facts: Religions, for the most part, are derived from shamanic practices, which are basically the same worldwide. This suggests that there is a "default" religion built into us, and these common practices are part of that. Fasting, meditation, drumming, and use of hallucinogens can be found at the base of pretty much every mainstream religion (yes, that includes Christianity... read the book of Ezekiel and tell me that isn't a mushroom trip!). Some of these practices remain alive in the modern religions today. They induce altered states of consciousness, which is where we get this "divine" information from. The prophets were tripping. We have no fucking clue where we came from. We are lacking the knowledge, so we fill in the gaps with bullshit. This goes for the science crowd and the Jesus crowd. The science crowd at least is willing to dig (literally!) for real answers, however. There is no historical proof outside the bible that Jesus existed. Does it matter? Not really. Even if the story is completely false it keeps some people able to deal with the fact that they're going to die one day. It's a good story either way. There is no real proof of the "big bang" either. We made it up because we don't know shit. To me, this is just as much bullshit as any other creation story. WE DON'T KNOW. GET OVER IT. There is a significant difference between Eastern religions and Western religions. Eastern philosophy is less about creation stories and rules, and more about philosophy and lifestyle. Why don't Buddhists care where we came from? They don't know, and they realize attachment to this question will lead to suffering, and distraction from the real goal: happiness. /Basic facts Knowing all of the above it's hard to convince me to follow someone else's lifestyle. I live how I want to live. I don't need a god, or a rulebook. I'm not a pedophile or a rapist (like many priests are). I don't rob the blind and the sick. I'm a decent person despite being an atheist with Buddhist and shamanic leanings. I forgot to add something important: Muhammad. This is the most recent religious prophet, and therefore we have the most factual information about him. Muhammad confirms my belief that the prophets were tripping. This was an illiterate man who spontaneously entered a state where he would sing the most perfect and beautiful Arabic ever heard. Anyone who has done hallucinogens knows that entering a powerful enhanced state like that can lead to such things. Not that I'm saying Muhammad specifically was using hallucinogens, but that he entered a similar state. Hallucinogens, after all, can only bring out what the brain is already capable of. Schizophrenia, hallucinogens, and religion all go hand in hand. On that note, the Quran is beautiful. I'm not a muslim, but I can accept the fact that it sounds beautiful, and it's very well written, even when translated to English. I've been to an Islamic prayer session, and I love the way the Quran sounds. They sing instead of just quote from a book like Christians. Edited March 11, 2011 by Badmin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Brain!!!!!!!!!!! Damn you. I don't want to get into a debate on perception of existence on a thread about beliefs but I do believe we need a different thread to discuss some of the other topics being discussed here. While the discussion of several topics is good, we're moving too far away from the core of the discussion here with life on outer space and the perception of existence and well one of my favourite questions which involves what constitutes the thought process. Ultimately I'll end up talking about how mitochondria could essentially be bacteria swallowed by the early proto-eukaryotes and ended up living symbiotically in virtually every existing living eukaryote. While I do agree with some of what you said ZTF, there's the thing that everyone is essentially different and for some people a certain amount of belief makes sense just like how irreligion in its various forms makes sense to many people here. It's not about truth, but more what sort of belief system makes you comfortable. Also I really don't think the Drake equation and Fermi Paradox fit in terms of a belief system because in the case of the former the possibilities could be anything from 0 to maybe a googol of possibilities that life could exist on another planet. Fermi Paradox on the other hand is pretty much defined as follows . The Fermi Paradox is the apparent contradiction between the high probability of extraterrestrial civilizations' existence and the lack of contact with such civilizations (or observation of such civilizations). I believe that's probably what you were trying to get at withoutphallus? There are a great many hypothesis explaining why this could be. However in order to better understand this we need to stop looking at life, intelligence and sentience in human terms. Right now we pretty much assume that a microbe possess no sentience. But suppose we can say that a microbial bacteria possesses sentience, then by extension we can say a virus possesses some sentience. This in turn leads us to say that a prion (they're even lower than a virus think mad cow or kuru.) possesses sentience. But a prion is essentially amino acids and no genetic material, just amino acids (which do play a role in the synthesis of RNA and DNA but aren't genetic directly). Amino acids are also the building blocks of proteins. So we're essentially saying that a simple protein possesses sentience. Now how can we examine such life when it shows none of the 'traditional' signs of life. Similarly we are now aware through years of research that plants posses intelligence. They do 'feel', sense and to some rudimentary extent have emotions like animals do. This does change a lot of things from what we pretty much assume is life. Now life on earth is organic (carbon compounds), but it doesn't mean that life on another planet is going to be organic. It might as well be inorganic by our current standards. Also do you define the Earth as living or non-living. If you define it as living do you say it's living because of the life on it, just like how a mould culture on a dead vegetable can make us consider the whole item 'dead veg+culture' as living? Or can we say that the Earth is living because we are on a different timeline to the Earth. We see elephants as slow animals because they're much larger than us but to the fruitfly/drosophila, the most common genetic experiment subject, or a housefly we are slow moving beings since their entire lifespan is in a day. As Brain argued it is perception, though not in the sense he argued that pretty much conforms us to these beliefs. I mean really we are confined by our thoughts, right now a lot of us in this thread even those who don't accept God pretty much are denying certain thoughts from the other. I'm not saying it's wrong to say someone is wrong or prove them wrong but my point is that we are very strongly confined by the way we think and it's due to the way humanity has evolved. The fault is there in everything we do from the very simple task of doing mundane things like walking a dog to how we deal with our beliefs. Of course perception, awareness, sentience are all topics but for a far different discussion. I dunno but I do think this thread is getting derailed (it's inevitable with threads on philosophy and religion), though it is obvious that we'd like to talk about this. Perhaps we should move part of this discussion to another thread. Rename the randomness thread to I dunno Science, philosophy and superfriends? So we can get all these discussions in one roof. Edit: I forgot to add this link. It's something written by Arthur C Clarke towards the later years of his life. It's amusing really. http://www.setileague.org/editor/clarke2.htm Fits with the whole life on other planets thing. Edited March 10, 2011 by WTF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 PS: progressive Christians may welcome you to ask questions and study science -- my mother certainly does. But they all too frequently do it wrong. They start from a conclusion, and then examine the evidence; trying to reconcile the evidence with the preconceived conclusion. True science operates in the other way. Evidence first, then conclusions. Then repeat and repeat and repeat. And not all scientists are total atheists. Some of the science teachers who took the Dover, Colorado School Board to court over the forced inclusion of ID were(are) active church-goers. Ethan is right though there are several rules of inference and you can start from the conclusion, examine the evidence and get to the answer. It's how it works in Maths. Physics is just an extension of Maths. What is key in non-mathematical equations though is observation. Observation is key but under the correct conditions. Otherwise we'll end up like the Greeks who believed that mice came from cheese. As for the scientist-atheist aspect it really depends on what science is their focus. While it is semantics, people theorizing any science can be a scientist and it's not limited to these laws. So it's difficult to say within reason that all scientists are atheists. However one could say that most physicists and mathematicians are atheists. The important things for proving any theorem generally are you need a set of given conditions, a statement and an environment as specified by the question put forth. How you go about proving it requires you to know the theorems and axioms preceding it. Otherwise it's like those people saying how they can prove 1 or any number for that matter can equal zero. There's a stupid childish way of doing it, but that's not the truth and that's what those looking for falsification of any theorem whether they be interested in the science or not go for. Your basic point is right though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 There is no real proof of the "big bang" either. We made it up because we don't know shit. To me, this is just as much bullshit as any other creation story. WE DON'T KNOW. GET OVER IT. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works. Sure, the big bang theory could very well be wrong (and probably is at least somewhat inaccurate, even if the core of it is correct), but it's not just "made up", it's a conclusion that was arrived at based on theories that work very well to explain the nature of the universe as we are capable of observing it today. Those theories predict a big bang. Since the theories are correct to the extent we're capable of measuring, we conclude that the other predictions are correct as well, until such time as we find evidence to disprove the theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) @R___ lol I agree with some of your points though not with Buddhism. Buddhism is primarily about breaking the cycle of rebirth and attaining Nirvana. So where you come does matter as does where you go to. Of course it depends on if you're going by Hinayana or Mahayana tendencies. I mean the Jataka tales are all pretty much about the different lives of the Enlightened one before he achieved bodhisattva after renouncing himself as Prince Siddartha. Personally Buddhism and Jainism have more similarities than people would like to believe and believe me meeting a skyclad is well different. Hinduism is another where people aren't aware that the true one is actually Sanatana Dharma. Dharma or Duty is what's important in it. However it got diluted over the years and there's multiple sects. The one thing they do agree on is the trinity and the roles of creation, protection and destruction. Also at one point science and religion weren't that far apart because it was all a quest for truth. I mean early scientists believed that through science they could get closer to God. God and Truth were highly interchangeable in early society. I'll disagree that the prophets were totally tripping, it was more like they wanted to bring their people together and give them hope and some answers. The answers weren't the best, but no religion was formed to hurt mankind. I do agree that we do not know, several things. But you can't find answers by saying that we won't find them or by accepting established answers so people do need to dig like you said. As for the big bang, it's a theory that's half there. I mean it's like opening your oven and finding that you have a cake that just needs 10 more minutes. All we need to do is find out how the cake existed there. I mean we can't use the Portal - the cake is a lie thing here. We do know about the cake cause right now we're eating it. It's just where did it come from. We know the basics of how the cake can be made as well, we have the recipes for it. But not the exact one. That's the analogy I've got for you. There are definitely fallacies and inaccuracies but there's sufficient proof that something happened. We might not know the early Epochs but we are able to view what happened a little later thanks to our observatories. I mean there's still some light from a few years after Planck Epoch that reaches us even today. p.s. I don't think anyone here ever really wanted to change another's opinions but rather wanted people to accept one another for who they are. You know the whole agree to disagree thing . Edited March 10, 2011 by WTF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R__ Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) There is no real proof of the "big bang" either. We made it up because we don't know shit. To me, this is just as much bullshit as any other creation story. WE DON'T KNOW. GET OVER IT. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works. Sure, the big bang theory could very well be wrong (and probably is at least somewhat inaccurate, even if the core of it is correct), but it's not just "made up", it's a conclusion that was arrived at based on theories that work very well to explain the nature of the universe as we are capable of observing it today. Those theories predict a big bang. Since the theories are correct to the extent we're capable of measuring, we conclude that the other predictions are correct as well, until such time as we find evidence to disprove the theory. As someone who is dating a scientist, and worked in a lab, I think you shouldn't jump to conclusions so fast. A "theory" is exactly what it is: a theory. Not a fact. Meaning we made it up. Edited March 10, 2011 by R__ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 There is no real proof of the "big bang" either. We made it up because we don't know shit. To me, this is just as much bullshit as any other creation story. WE DON'T KNOW. GET OVER IT. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how science works. Sure, the big bang theory could very well be wrong (and probably is at least somewhat inaccurate, even if the core of it is correct), but it's not just "made up", it's a conclusion that was arrived at based on theories that work very well to explain the nature of the universe as we are capable of observing it today. Those theories predict a big bang. Since the theories are correct to the extent we're capable of measuring, we conclude that the other predictions are correct as well, until such time as we find evidence to disprove the theory. As someone who is dating a scientist, and worked in a lab, I think you shouldn't jump to conclusions so fast. If you don't want me to conclude that you don't understand how science works then don't make statements that show a lack of understanding of how science works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Scientists: always jumping to conclusions after centuries of research. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R__ Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 This may surprise some of you, but I know 3 Christian scientists. I asked one of them how he reconciles the two, and he told me he doesn't consider religion and science to be related at all. He sees his scientific studies as a way to understand the wonderful creation of God. I disagree, but that's just me. He's the scientist and the Christian . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 A belief in god is not directly at odds with science except in as much as an affirmative belief in the existence of god requires the kind of magical thinking that is directly at odds with the scientific mindset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.