NOVA - Intelligent Design On Trial

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It's the believers who are staunch in their beliefs and are close-minded, not the atheists.

I'll refrain from over generalizing, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the case a lot of the time.

Even on this board, if you were to dig up all the religion/atheism debate threads, they are almost always started by atheists, and most of those are started with thinly veiled disdain and ridicule.

I recognize that there are zealots on both sides, but I don't see how the "believers" can be generalized as the ones who are always close minded

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'll refrain from over generalizing, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the case a lot of the time.

Even on this board, if you were to dig up all the religion/atheism debate threads, they are almost always started by atheists, and most of those are started with thinly veiled disdain and ridicule.

I recognize that there are zealots on both sides, but I don't see how the "believers" can be generalized as the ones who are always close minded

People still beleive in UFO's, Nessy..astrology, 9/11 conspiracy theories..ect...and they arent all religious people...so anyone who is still having issues understanding why someone would believe in god...then look no further than human nature..something even science has trouble explaining..

[evman150]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

People still beleive in UFO's, Nessy..astrology, 9/11 conspiracy theories..ect...and they arent all religious people...

I would argue there is a strong correlation between the two.

The link is, of course, credulity. The cause of credulity I will leave unsaid, though I think it obvious.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by evman150

I would argue there is a strong correlation between the two.

The link is, of course, credulity. The cause of credulity I will leave unsaid, though I think it obvious.

of course you would..people will do anything to prove a point...

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'll refrain from over generalizing, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the case a lot of the time.

Even on this board, if you were to dig up all the religion/atheism debate threads, they are almost always started by atheists, and most of those are started with thinly veiled disdain and ridicule.

I recognize that there are zealots on both sides, but I don't see how the "believers" can be generalized as the ones who are always close minded

You misunderstood what I meant by "close-minded".

I meant it in the sense of a willingness to change one's view. Those that follow the scientific method will admit their past views were in error, if sufficient evidence shows that to be the case. A good example of this would be Albert Einstein, who was an ardent opponent of quantum mechanics when that theory was in its nascent phase. Later in life, Einstein would admit that his earlier views on the subject were erroneous.

On the other hand, many of those who believe in a god are unshakable -- their belief is set in stone, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise. To them, their faith is beyond being questioned -- many will even acknowledge that they have no evidence to support their faith, but they continue to believe nonetheless.

The quotation I posted from Carl Sagan on the previous page explains this better than I can.

[Azure]

There is absolutely no evidence out there that will 'disprove' the existence of God.

You can't argue 'facts' about something that requires 'faith.'

Also, there are a lot of religious people that change their viewpoint. Just like there are a lot of atheists that find a belief in God.

Zealots exist on both sides....idiots exist on both sides. Only arrogance would keep you from realizing that.

[MarchHare]

There is absolutely no evidence out there that will 'disprove' the existence of God.

For the last time, the onus is not on atheists to disprove God. The burden of proof lies on those who are making the claim that God exists. If no evidence can be produced to that effect, then the logical position is to conclude that there is no God.

You can't argue 'facts' about something that requires 'faith.'

Which is exactly the point I was making in my previous post. A believer can always fall back to the tried and true trump card, "I know there's no evidence, but I have faith!" And at that point, any further debate is futile, because no amount of logic and reason can convince someone who is ardently faithful to abandon their view.

[Burninator]

I was having a discussion with a friend the other day about religion. She commented on how she doesn't believe in any of the mainstream religions because they "are antiquated and out dated" and she went on to say "I prefer to follow astrology." I was taken aback to say the least. People can believe in astrology if they want to, but saying you don't believe in Christianity because it is old and instead prefer and even older belief is bizarre. Anyways my interest in continuing the conversation shortened considerably when she tried to convince me that "it's pretty much proven by science" that there is an energy in the universe that controls everything from the planets orbits to fate. And that they can measure this energy. I said no there isn't any evidence for that, she said "yah there is". I sighed.

I usually tread lightly with these conversations as I don't want to offend anyone because some people get very offended when their beliefs are questioned. Unfortunately it makes for a dull and short conversation.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

For the last time, the onus is not on atheists to disprove God. The burden of proof lies on those who are making the claim that God exists. If no evidence can be produced to that effect, then the logical position is to conclude that there is no God.

I never said that atheists are 'required' to disprove God.

I said that because no evidence exists to disprove the existence of God, a lot of believers will have a hard time changing their viewpoint.

Which is exactly the point I was making in my previous post. A believer can always fall back to the tried and true trump card, "I know there's no evidence, but I have faith!" And at that point, any further debate is futile, because no amount of logic and reason can convince someone who is ardently faithful to abandon their view.

A believer should by rights never 'trump' any other 'card' than the 'faith' card.

Faith is the ONLY thing that has EVER existed in regards to a belief in God.

[MarchHare]

I said that because no evidence exists to disprove the existence of God, a lot of believers will have a hard time changing their viewpoint.

Which, of course, is silly. You can't "disprove" the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn either, but nobody would seriously suggest that anyone should treat them as deities that actually exist. Once again, stating that religious beliefs are valid because God cannot be disproved is a fallacious argument.

Faith is the ONLY thing that has EVER existed in regards to a belief in God.

You've never heard of St. Thomas Aquinas's "proofs" for the existence of God? Are you not familiar with the ontological argument for the existence of God?

Those are just two examples among many more. For centuries philosophers and theologians have been attempting to demonstrate God's existence through arguments that go beyond just faith. Clearly you are ignorant on this subject; here is a good starting point to better educate yourself on this.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

. To them, their faith is beyond being questioned -- many will even acknowledge that they have no evidence to support their faith, but they continue to believe nonetheless.

The quotation I posted from Carl Sagan on the previous page explains this better than I can.

All due respect to Carl Sagan (I loved his TV series), but he was wrong. Various religous people admit error all the time in light of new evidence. For example, many Christians do not believe that the Earth is only 5000 years old (or whatever it says in the Bible). If you look at how Christian churches managed themselves 1500 years ago and the things they preached then, it is substantially different now.

I have to admit... I just can't wrap my mind around the argument that states because there is no evidence for something, then it is only logical to disregard it as "non-existant". Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

There is no evidence for the Big Bang, but many scientists still believe in it (as I do).

[MarchHare]

I have to admit... I just can't wrap my mind around the argument that states because there is no evidence for something, then it is only logical to disregard it as "non-existant". Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense.

The default position is to conclude that something does not exist until evidence can be shown otherwise. There's no evidence that Santa Claus doesn't have a toy factory hidden in the ice and snow at the North Pole, but I think it's pretty safe to conclude that such a thing doesn't exist. There's also a chance that unicorns might be roaming in some unexplored area of the planet somewhere, but again, the default position is not to claim that unicorns exist because there is no evidence that they exist.

There is no evidence for the Big Bang, but many scientists still believe in it (as I do).

The bolded portion of that sentence is very wrong. If it wasn't so close to bedtime, I'd go hunting for my old university astrophysics textbook so I could make a more salient point. :P

Suffice to say, the Big Bang isn't something that was just dreamed up by cosmologists with no justification; there's ample evidence to support the theory (which is how it has survived the scrutiny of peer review and the scientific method for over 75 years). IIRC, it has something to do with the cosmic redshift, cosmic microwave background radiation, and a few other points that I can't remember at the moment. Searching for the answer on Google or wikipedia I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.

[Hakan]

Cosmic radiation from the big bang is still around today and detectable with fairly basic radio equipment.

There's not evidence out there to proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. I guess that's real too.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The default position is to conclude that something does not exist until evidence can be shown otherwise. There's no evidence that Santa Claus doesn't have a toy factory hidden in the ice and snow at the North Pole, but I think it's pretty safe to conclude that such a thing doesn't exist. There's also a chance that unicorns might be roaming in some unexplored area of the planet somewhere, but again, the default position is not to claim that unicorns exist because there is no evidence that they exist.

Of course there is evidence to disprove a hidden toy factory. We know enough about our own planet to discount things like that. We don't know enough about different planes of existing and our origins to discount the existence of a higher power. I'm not talking about unicorns and whatever... just a higher power.

(Let's not make this a childish debate by comparing it to Santa and Spaghetti Monsters... seriously)

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Suffice to say, the Big Bang isn't something that was just dreamed up by cosmologists with no justification; there's ample evidence to support the theory (which is how it has survived the scrutiny of peer review and the scientific method for over 75 years). IIRC, it has something to do with the cosmic redshift, cosmic microwave background radiation, and a few other points that I can't remember at the moment. Searching for the answer on Google or wikipedia I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.

It's not a proven theory, it's just a theory that can't be disproven and is full of hypotheticals. In fact, there are many known "problems" with the Big Bang theory that go ignored because scientists accept that it is only a best guess to explain things (ie. the Horizon Problem, Dark Energy). Honestly, there are still more questions than answers about the origins of existence (why there is something instead of nothing). The science behind it is still wide open.

From NASA:

Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy...se/b_bang.html

It's an unproven theory that many scientists have put their faith in.

(Btw, I have a science degree and am classified as a scientist for my occupation. I'm not debating this from an anti-science point of view.)

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Cosmic radiation from the big bang is still around today and detectable with fairly basic radio equipment.

There's not evidence out there to proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. I guess that's real too.

Cosmic radiation is there, sure.

But where is the evidence that it was from the Big Bang?

[Hakan]

Well without getting into too large of a physics lecture. It's basically because the radiation is everywhere in the universe. This certain type of radiation isn't just an anomally, it's all around all the time buzzing at about 5 or 6 kelvin.

Scientists can calculate the energy loss from the radiation to pinpoint when the explosion were to occur based on the total emitted energy in the universe from the radiation.

It's an example of using actual evidence to create a theory.

Unfortunately I don't have any evidence to bring a credible theory that the flying spaghetti monster exists.

That's the difference. Science vs. un-science.

And that's the debate. I don't want un-science being taught to children because it's nothingness. It's whatever some crackpot cooks up. Today it's God, tomorrow Flying Spaghetti monsters, yesterday it was Eugenics and then it was genocide.

[Hakan]

Oh and by the way, all theories are unproven. That's what makes them theories.

And if you have such little faith in theories then I wouldn't use your computer, fly on a plane, turn on your car, or use any technological device because all of the mechanics, electronics and functionings incorporated in that technology are based on theories, not facts.

[evman150]

FlamesAddiction, this one's for you:

"Anything you don't understand you attribute to God. God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it."

****, I mean why even bother trying to understand something when obviously we can't? "It's not a proven theory"....you sound like those moronic evangelicals who say that about evolution. Let's all just live in caves and communicate with grunts.

And for a "scientist" (I'd like to know what you do and what your degree is in, just because my interest is piqued), you seem pretty anti-science.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I recognize that there are zealots on both sides, but I don't see how the "believers" can be generalized as the ones who are always close minded

Nobody is as open-minded as they think they are. Especially not in subjects like this.

The problem is both sides are speaking different languages to each other. It's like that embarassing lady in the 7-11 who, when the foreign cashier doesn't understand what she said, just repeats it louder. Rinse and repeat, perhaps adding wild gesticulating and flecks of spittle.

Further, not are they speaking different languages I honestly believe they are talking about two seperate things. I think people of faith need to re-evaluate what it is religion says about the world. It is no longer "The Book Of All Things". It doesn't tell us how the universe began. It doesn't tell us how life started. The purpose of religion is not to explain the natural world. It's to explain the human world, the human condition, and the human experience, things which science does a poor job (in my opinion) of explaining with any real meaningfulness.

Further I think the dogmatic atheists would do well to allow their science to explain the natural world and stop there, staying away from telling people about the nature and meaningfulness of their personal experience.

The world changed unbelievably quickly for religion in the last three centuries, and even more so in the most recent, and it's only now beginning to adapt. It was thrown overboard and it's just struggling to keep afloat. That a lot of what religion used to do for people is no longer necessary doesn't invalidate the concept of or disprove the existence of God.


edit: To clarify, I don't mean to suggest atheists can't make heads or tails of their personal experience. Religion is one system of thought that attempts to explain it; there are many others (including secular ones).

[evman150]

Seems to me like religion is running out of things to explain away.