UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[SebC]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

"dong evil" LOL

that mistake destroyed any other point that was being made

that one is a classic

sorry CB, but I hope I am laughing with you on this one

OMG, I didn't even notice that.

[MarchHare]

I was debating posting this in the Funny and Cool photo thread, but thought it would be a better fit here:

[Notorious Honey Badger]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I was debating posting this in the Funny and Cool photo thread, but thought it would be a better fit here:

[photon]

I think we had that one before somewhere, and I don't think it's real (in that someone made it to parody creationist explanations).

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by photon

I think we had that one before somewhere, and I don't think it's real (in that someone made it to parody creationist explanations).

Poe's law.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I was debating posting this in the Funny and Cool photo thread, but thought it would be a better fit here:

[MoneyGuy]

That's clearly a parady at creationists; I find it funny.

As for 6,000 years, many, many theists (you'll never see me calling them "religious") are old-earth believers (maybe we're in the majority).

Just so the athiests know that I consider all sides and come to my beliefs by rational consideration of the facts and what we can infer, I'm currently reading Athiest Universe by David Mills. He makes a good case for athiesm, although I don't agree with his conclusions, and some of what he says about theists is total rubbish.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Just so the athiests know that I consider all sides and come to my beliefs by rational consideration of the facts and what we can infer,

Here's three facts for a religious God.

1) ZERO
2) NADA
3) NONE

Hope this helps

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by T@T

Here's three facts for a religious God.

1) ZERO
2) NADA
3) NONE

Hope this helps

I'm not religious in the normal sense and don't buy into any of the religious stupidity that goes on but it amazes me that so called science worshippers have such a closed mind to the possibility that there is more to this life than what we understand with our five senses.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not religious in the normal sense and don't buy into any of the religious stupidity that goes on but it amazes me that so called science worshippers have such a closed mind to the possibility that there is more to this life than what we understand with our five senses.

The key point is a "religious God" or rather a human fabricated god. Surely there may be more out there as far as spirituality is concerned, there just isn't any evidence for it. I keep an open mind and may be more agnostic then atheist, I am hedging my bets for an afterlife, I am just not holding my breathe.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

I keep an open mind and may be more agnostic then atheist

They aren't separate positions, one's a position on knowledge (or knowability) and the other is a position on belief.

You can be both agnostic and atheist, or agnostic and theist for that matter.

To determine if you are an atheist just answer the question "do you believe in one or more gods". If the answer is not yes, then you are an atheist.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

science worshippers have such a closed mind to the possibility that there is more to this life than what we understand with our five senses.

Well given that science has already discovered and accepted things that are beyond what can be understood with our five senses, I think this characterization is unfair (not to mention poisoning the well).

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by T@T

Here's three facts for a religious God.

1) ZERO
2) NADA
3) NONE

Hope this helps

Yeah, that's brilliant. You claim to know there is no God yet you can't provide one bit of evidence that proves your belief ands disproves proves mine or that of the many brilliant minds of science* who believe as I do. I'm also reading A Case For a Creator sort of in tandem with Athiest Universe. You're reply is the reason I generally don't comment in these threads, I guess it was a mistake to think I might find some reasonable discussion. My mistake.

*Before you point it out, yes I know there are more unbelieving scientists than theistic scientists.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by photon

Well given that science has already discovered and accepted things that are beyond what can be understood with our five senses, I think this characterization is unfair (not to mention poisoning the well).

Why? I think scientists' minds are often closed to the possibility of a creator. Maybe they think it discredits their work. There are many scientists, however, whose belief in God strengthens with each discovery.

[photon]

Saying that there are no facts for a religions God is not the same as claiming there is no god.

Incidentally I would not recommend A Case for a Creator, from what I understand it gets science completely wrong (both in what science says and what it uses for its own arguments).

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by photon

Saying that there are no facts for a religions God is not the same as claiming there is no god.

Incidentally I would not recommend A Case for a Creator, from what I understand it gets science completely wrong (both in what science says and what it uses for its own arguments).

Wrong science? It's written by a skilled interviewer who was an athiest attempting to disprove God who interviewed some of the most brilliant scientific minds of our time. He went in with a preconceived notion and had it dispelled. Your contention is wrong.

[troutman]

Another Case Not Made: A Critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator (2005)

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...d/creator.html

Strobel is frankly misleading about his experts' qualifications. While spending paragraphs touting each of his interviewees' "doctorate-level" educations, he fails to point out that most of them do not have doctorates in the fields dealing with the issues on which they were interviewed. Rather, most of them have doctorates in philosophy or theology, and perhaps undergraduate degrees in a related science. Strobel clearly meant to insinuate that he picked doctorate-level experts in the fields dealing with the issues they were interviewed about; but, with a few exceptions, this is not the case. This does not bode well for his claim of standing "in the shoes of the skeptic."

Further, the opinions expressed by his experts are minority opinions in their fields. Of course, minority opinions can and do become majority opinions. But if you are conducting an investigation concerning a particular field of study, you don't simply interview those with minority opinions and treat their opinions as representative of that field. This provides further evidence that Strobel's pretense of playing the skeptic is a complete farce. Even disregarding everything else I say in this review, Strobel's masquerade as a skeptic should arouse the suspicion that there is more to the story than Strobel would have you to believe.

Clearly, even if Strobel's experts are biased, they are not necessarily wrong. But given their obvious bias, considering other sources with different points of view is necessary for objectivity.

Amazon reviews are amusing, and all over the map:http://www.amazon.com/Case-Creator-J...DateDescending

Being a biologist I read the chapters that pertained to biology (since that's what I'm most comfortable with) over a one hour span. By the end of those 60 minutes I wanted to shoot myself in the face. Chad M. Estep "Chad Estep"

Seek and ye shall find! If anyone is skeptical about how our universe was created, they need to read and study this book and the Bible! Science and Anthropology are discovering more and more about creation and finding that the Bible is also the definitive source of truth about these matters. At times the book is difficult to understand from a layperson's point of view, but there are many understandable sentences that describe what really happened and how God is the master-mind of the Universe. We all need to pay more attention to this. Lettie E. Osborne "Doting grandma"

Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Latest-Results-Purpose-Universe/dp/1591020182/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325110629&sr=1-1

In the past few years a number of scientists have claimed that there is credible scientific evidence for the existence of God. In 1998 "Newsweek" went so far as to proclaim on its cover, 'Science Finds God.' Is this true? Are scientists close to solving the greatest of all mysteries? Is this the end of the age-old conflict between science and religion? Physicist Victor J. Stenger delves into these fascinating questions from a skeptical point of view in this lucid and engrossing presentation of the key scientific facts.

Stenger critically reviews the attempts of many contemporary theologians and some scientists to resurrect failed natural theologies in new guises. Whether these involve updated arguments from design, "anthropic" coincidences, or modern forms of deism, Stenger clearly shows that nothing in modern physics, biology, or cosmology required supernatural explanation and that those who claim evidence for intelligent design in the universe have made a number of fundamental scientific errors.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Why? I think scientists' minds are often closed to the possibility of a creator.

Vulcan comment was about things we understand with our 5 senses, not about the possibility of a creator.

And I would say you are demonstrably wrong about scientists' minds.. A perfect example is the universe itself, it was less than 100 years ago where a steady state eternal universe was the prevailing view (for lack of any substantial theory or evidence). When the Big Bang theory came around, a great many scientists found it distasteful because it, on the surface, seems to imply a creator.

However that did not stop them from accepting the theory.. They had to because that's what the evidence compelled them to do.

Science appears closed to the idea of a creator not because it doesn't like the idea, but because there's no evidence yet for it.

If the evidence changed, then science's position would change.

Proposing unexplainable deus ex machina doesn't actually explain anything. EDIT: I meant unexplainable.

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Maybe they think it discredits their work.

What happens to scientists that come up with radical new things that go against the rest of science (that actually are demonstrated to be right)? They win Nobel Prizes.

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

There are many scientists, however, whose belief in God strengthens with each discovery.

Just because one's belief is strengthened by something does not make that thing correct.

And their beliefs may be strengthened, but they're strengthened in a "spiritual" way, not in a scientific way (i.e. how one sees god in the beauty of a waterfall or a tree, but that waterfall or tree doesn't actually constitute evidence of god).

[photon]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Wrong science? It's written by a skilled interviewer who was an athiest attempting to disprove God who interviewed some of the most brilliant scientific minds of our time. He went in with a preconceived notion and had it dispelled. Your contention is wrong.

From what I understand of what the book says with respect to science, it is wrong. Just because one person interviewed some scientific minds does not mean a) that he understood the science right b) that he remembered it right or c) that it was relevant to his conclusions.

If you want, you could post a few of the more compelling things from Strobel's book and we can discuss them.

Why are Strobel's conclusions compelling to you, but someone who has gone in the other direction (was a theist attempting to prove god but then lost their faith as a result of their research and interaction with brilliant minds) not?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not religious in the normal sense and don't buy into any of the religious stupidity that goes on but it amazes me that so called science worshippers have such a closed mind to the possibility that there is more to this life than what we understand with our five senses.

I have a very open mind about the possibility of there being a god or god, but I have yet to see any compelling evidence to indicate one exists. Just because I don't believe in a god doesn't mean my mind is completely closed to the possibility of there being one.

If irrefutable evidence of the existence of a god ever came to light, I would change my religious views immediately. Can many believers make the reverse claim?