Tell us Peter, As a SCIENTIST, when you come across an assertion with ZERO or little supporting evidence do you simple accept it and BELIEVE??? As Sagan always said: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 97.3% of our National Academy of Scientists are non-believers. This number has steadily increased over the years. Clearly our best and brightest scientists know the answer to this question. In science...NON-BELIEF is the default position on everything. "Either believe it, or not, there's no test that has shown it to be true." I really hope your not stating here that its rational to believe something simply because there is no way to test it. Not very scientific if that is the case. peace axeman
From the posted news link >"A family acquaintance told The Atlanta >Journal-Constitution that Christopher >Carey was a religious fanatic and a >controlling husband" Well, Duh. ("soft belief" definition: A belief that I don't defend, don't base important decisions upon nor attempt to prove) I hold a personal soft belief that much organized religion has evolved as it has because it is a really great tool for the men to use over the women. Scenario: Men get power by creating religion and declaring religion to be limiting to women. Men declare that lack of participation in said religion will result in all sorts of scary and horrendous things. Men love such religions and indoctrinate their children. Men declare any religion in which the women are above men on the org chart to be evil. Men kill women suspected of belonging to such religions. It's no better than racism to me. And as I said above, I won't attempt to prove or defend it...it's just spindrift in the back of my mind. JB
Traders debating the a/theism issue. I love it. Seems the overwhelming number of traders lean towards the atheist side. I don't think that's a coincidence. Someone should put up a poll in here: "Which better describes your belief system: atheism or theism?"
1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: "Lord, let me never be parted from you." If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God "desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him "all things are possible" (Mt 19:26). 1059 "The holy Roman Church firmly believes and confesses that on the Day of Judgment all men will appear in their own bodies before Christ's tribunal to render an account of their own deeds" (Council of Lyons II [1274]: DS 859; cf. DS 1549). 1057 Hell's principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. First of all we see all things are possible. I do not think God is bound by anyone's interpreting of the bible save his (he is the word). Two, you will be rendering an account of your deeds. The principal punishment being separation from the one you do not care about anyway. Is that punishment or just separation. Three, I was always taught that if you live your life the way you should and you truly desire salvation, God may have mercy on your soul. This doctrine has something to do about baptism by desire. This could be made up stuff but I have heard it frequently from Catholic school educated people. Four, this is where some lawyering comes in. Read the text on the link below regarding the Last Judgment. Is that a second bite at the apple. Perhaps it is a second chance for people not dying in a state of mortal sin. Or perhaps it is that-- if you die in a state of Grace you go to God immediately. If you are a not in a state of Grace --you get a shot at the last judgement to accept Jesus. I have always wondered what will happen to Jews since that can't offer animal sacrifices at the temple while the muslims have their mosque on the temple. Perhaps this last judgment is just a second shot for them. Or perhaps this Last Judgement is only for people who lived before Jesus. I am not sure. I invite all understandings. Because I have wondered about this for years. But that is why I was denying the absolute statements made by spect8or. http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#IV
I think most are atheists because when the day is over, when they see the sea of red and they're wiped out, they look up to the heavens and say "There is NO GOD!!! "
There are many deists and theists. But they will not get onto a post because, as I pointed out earlier, most of the guys on this thread cannot have a civil conversation with a Jew/Christian. If you were a Jew or Christian, would you want to converse with these Nietzche like rantings? (If a Christian said this kind of stuff, we'd be labelled as KKK or Jim Jones. Thx to a liberal media and educational system, it's okay to bash theists without justification...) "oh please give me a break religion is tyranny not freedom. there is no true freedom under a creator only subjugation and fear." "If we're to ever live up to our great, almost limitless, potential, as a species we need VISIONARIES. Scientific visionaries. Not religious crackpots." "We _cannot afford_ to let religious cavemen prevent us from realizing this great destiny with their primitive charges of our actions being "against god"!" "I think it's fair to say religious people will go along with anything if they can be convinced that it's in line with their religious system. See the suicide bombers from the middle east, for example."
1. The universe explodes from a singularity looking just as you would expect if there was a Creator. Oh, yes, that's the first thing I would expect. What is it about this universe that makes it "look like" there was creator? I can honestly not think of one thing. Because explosions do not lead to well-ordered systems! You know very well that if I threw a grenade into a room filled with watch parts and a functional watch shot out of the explosion, you'd crap in your pants. But when the universe explodes into well-ordered system, perfectly tuned for carbon-based life, you say, "Ho hum. Who cares? Happens every day..." If you don't trust me, then maybe at least you'll listen to a few top level scientists: "There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its highly ordered state." (Don Page, Nature, 7/7/83) "The big bang theory holds that the universe began with a single explosion. Yet as can be seen below, an explosion merely throws matter apart, while the big bang has mysteriously produced the opposite effect - with matter clumping together in the form of galaxies." (Fred Hoyle) And here's an interview with Eric Carlson, Ph.D., senior astronomer emeritus, Adler Planetarium, Chicago. HEEREN: âit's called âbig bang,â after all. Is it accurate to call it the big bang, or is that just what caught on? CARLSON: No, it's really not. In fact, I'm so glad you brought that up. Because ... this is an incredibly, highly ordered event, extremely highly orderedâand it's just the opposite of a chaotic event. HEEREN: Which brings up the question: Where did it get its initial order? CARLSON: Yeah, exactly. And see, that's part of the primal mystery. And that's what you run up against no matter where you turn, or how hard you push.... I don't see science as here to explain everythingâit's here to help us give us orientation, in the midst of a very great mystery. I just let my mind reel before all of this, and I honor the mystery. And I honor our efforts to understand those parts of it which we can.
Shoe: >But when the universe explodes into well-ordered >system, perfectly tuned for carbon-based life, you >say, "Ho hum. Who cares? Happens every day..." You really should get over this notion that the universe is "finely tuned for life". If not factually incorrect, it is at least blatently unprovable and goes against *all evidence* that we currently have(meaning we have found no signs of life anywhere but in our tiny corner of the universe). JB
Spec: >What is it about this universe that makes >it "look like" there was creator? I can honestly >not think of one thing. Shoe: >Because explosions do not lead to well-ordered systems! That wasn't an answer to his question. He didn't ask "why don't you believe in the big bang". I don't "believe" in the big bang either, but that doesn't mean that by default there is a creator. He wasn't asking for a challenge of other hypothesis, he was asking for you to defend yours. Can you? JB
>If a Christian said this kind of stuff, we'd be labelled >as KKK or Jim Jones What you continually fail to realize is that your belief system says it loudly every moment... "unbelievers will be doomed to (some version of) horrible pain and anguish for all eternity" And you think what *we* say is insulting? JB