Question for the Atheist

jimintoronto said:
I laugh at the hypocrites ( of all religions ) who act as if they have access to some secret knowledge. The foundations of most religions are..Get the kids when they are young and indoctrinate them, before they develop independent thinking ability. Make the faithful feel GUILTY, and play on that for all it's worth. GET THE MONEY. PROMISE them everything you can think of, but all ways have the "weasel words " handy if the flock starts to ask " difficult questions " about the leadership of the sect. Make the dogma as complicated as possible, so the simple minded will be happy, and not asking WHY?

The signs are all there, if you bother to look. JimB.
Click to expand...
I wish to report a hypocrite, person of interest looks like you or me except for an elongated nose.
 

is it true some people are content with themselves without searching for themselves. I am a seeker, I seeker here, I seeker there, I seeker everywhere to my dismay finding amswers. Perhaps I know the answer, only the questions have changed to protect the innocent. My wife tells me I am anything but innocent?
It is all well and good to discuss matters of faith, god, bible etc. As a result of these discussion they all end the same no more aware than when the questioned was poised. It is fun learning from each other, spouting ideas and proclamations about the unknown, however, I doubt the things that are, are rarely as we suppose them to be. Have you ever been scared, down right terrified, I suspect I will hide.
 
gruntlabor said:
:) You certainly don't, and you certainly aren't, but I think you do believe in God --the god of Galileo, Newton, and Darwin, whose name is Science.
Click to expand...

No - this is entirely incorrect. Galileo, Newton, Darwin, were mere men. Humans. Not Gods, just thinkers. Brilliant people. Unless, of course, you have a very different definition of a God than I do.

There's also a lot of talk about "Science" in this thread that misunderstands what it is. There is no organization or membership to "science". Science is simply a process, a standard way of learning. There are millions of scientists doing work on the planet, and their allegiance is only to the process, not to any belief system. If you're suggesting that believing in a standard is akin to believing in a God, then a belief in God is rather flimsy.

Now, some scientists have not strictly followed the scientific process. Some have lied, some have misled. Usually you can follow the money and find their research is being funded by large corporations, or they want fame and the funding that comes with it. That's a crime like any other, but it doesn't bring "Science" into question. By definition, they've either not followed the scientific process, or they're flat out hiding results contrary to whatever it is they're announcing.

How did we get here? Well, personally I think the entire universe has a set of rules and likelihoods. We don't know them all yet, but they're there. We occurred because, mathematically, we were inevitable. Which is why I believe there just has to be life on other planets. We're the result of chemical interactions. These interactions will have occurred in many places, but weren't able to flourish so quickly went away. Really, for me, it's about extending the idea of "mother nature" out into the universe as a whole.
 

VaughanJB said:
No - this is entirely incorrect. Galileo, Newton, Darwin, were mere men. Humans. Not Gods, just thinkers. Brilliant people. Unless, of course, you have a very different definition of a God than I do.
Click to expand...
As always, you deliberately misunderstand --the Straw Man gambit. I did not say Galileo, Newton, and Darwin are gods. I said Science was their god, just as a sophist such as yourself might have a god, whose name is Persuasion. But I agree with your last paragrqph.
 
Last edited:
gruntlabor said:
As always, you deliberately misunderstand --the Straw Man gambit. I did not say Galileo, Newton, and Darwin are gods. I said Science was their god, just as a sophist such as yourself might have a god, whose name is Persuasion.
Click to expand...
Might I. Ask, what means did you conclude that science was the god of Galileo, Newton and Darwin? How do you know this to make such a claim?
 
Mr. Ed said:
Might I. Ask, what means did you conclude that science was the god of Galileo, Newton and Darwin? How do you know this to make such a claim?
Click to expand...
As rational empiricists, their motivations were more likely pursuing knowledge, understanding nature through observation and experimentation, and following evidence rather than dogma. But their personal spiritual or metaphysical beliefs are not necessarily known.
 
Mr. Ed said:
Might I. Ask, what means did you conclude that science was the god of Galileo, Newton and Darwin? How do you know this to make such a claim?
Click to expand...
:) Certainly you may. I make such a claim because those men, according to history, observed and experimented and tested. That they were devoted scientists I can't know for sure, of course. Nothing can be known for sure.
 
gruntlabor said:
:) I meant the term 'their god' figuratively, metaphorically, NOT literally.
Click to expand...
In this case, saying that "science was the god of Galileo, Newton, and Darwin" could be misleading. While these scientists made significant contributions to our understanding of the natural world, and they were undoubtedly passionate about their work, there's no evidence to suggest that they literally worshiped science as a deity.
Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be to say that science was their "passion" or their "life's work." This would more accurately convey their dedication to scientific discovery without implying a religious or spiritual component. 😊🔬
 
Paco Dennis said:
In this case, saying that "science was the god of Galileo, Newton, and Darwin" could be misleading. While these scientists made significant contributions to our understanding of the natural world, and they were undoubtedly passionate about their work, there's no evidence to suggest that they literally worshiped science as a deity.
Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be to say that science was their "passion" or their "life's work." This would more accurately convey their dedication to scientific discovery without implying a religious or spiritual component. 😊🔬
Click to expand...
(spits on floor) Boy, am I ever sorry I used that phrase.
 
jimintoronto said:
I laugh at the hypocrites ( of all religions ) who act as if they have access to some secret knowledge. The foundations of most religions are..Get the kids when they are young and indoctrinate them, before they develop independent thinking ability. Make the faithful feel GUILTY, and play on that for all it's worth. GET THE MONEY. PROMISE them everything you can think of, but all ways have the "weasel words " handy if the flock starts to ask " difficult questions " about the leadership of the sect. Make the dogma as complicated as possible, so the simple minded will be happy, and not asking WHY?

The signs are all there, if you bother to look. JimB.
Click to expand...
I became a Christian in adulthood, of my own choice. Reading the Bible I find truth in it, looking at Jesus Christ's life it is the most wonderful thing I ever heard. The Bible requires careful study and understanding, to me a guide for life.
I tell of my faith if anyone wants to know, otherwise I feel it is each person's choice entirely.
I am not a hypocrite nor special any way. I believe every person is valuable to God and has the option to pray to Him.
 
Paco Dennis said:
While these scientists made significant contributions to our understanding of the natural world, and they were undoubtedly passionate about their work, there's no evidence to suggest that they literally worshiped science as a deity.
Click to expand...
That's not what "making something your god" (or your idol) means. You've surely heard people say things like "money is my god" or "gold is my idol." It doesn't mean they worship it as a deity... just "worship" it as having more value than it should have. It's a very commonly used metaphor.
 
oldaunt said:
I once read somewhere that a human is an animal with morals. I never forgot that, and to this day, I wonder about many humans. They claim to be godly yet they have little on the side of morality.
Click to expand...
I believe we are above even the angels as the Bible says. Greatly prized by God. However we have within us two sides, the capacity for great goodness and for great evil. We have the choice which one we live. Each person has full responsibility for their actions.
 
Yes, I understand using this statement as a metaphor. I am interested in Ed's question being answered. He asked , what means did you conclude that science was the god of Galileo, Newton and Darwin? How do you know this to make such a claim? It is a real question. I think he means this literally. How would anyone conclude that is what these people worshipped and thought was holy? They were not really the same thing as believing in God. They could believe in God and believe in science too. But Ed has a valid point. It is a fuzzy question and can't be dismissed as frivolous.
 
Paco Dennis said:
Yes, I understand using this statement as a metaphor. I am interested in Ed's question being answered. He asked , what means did you conclude that science was the god of Galileo, Newton and Darwin? How do you know this to make such a claim? It is a real question. I think he means this literally. How would anyone conclude that is what these people worshipped and thought was holy? They were not really the same thing as believing in God. They could believe in God and believe in science too. But Ed has a valid point. It is a fuzzy question and can't be dismissed as frivolous.
Click to expand...
:) Please see message #207
 
gruntlabor said:
As always, you deliberately misunderstand --the Straw Man gambit. I did not say Galileo, Newton, and Darwin are gods. I said Science was their god, just as a sophist such as yourself might have a god, whose name is Persuasion. But I agree with your last paragrqph.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, I may misunderstand something, especially when they're vague. But to suggest it's deliberate simply sounds like your annoyed for no good reason.

Now, if you take my previous post in its entirety, then you have the answer directly applicable to what you bemoan here. Perhaps you only read the first couple sentences.
 
I had a friend when I was 20 and this guy carried around a copy of James Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake". It was heavily book marked and marked in colored pencil of red and green and blue. He could find passages anywhere in the book that had to do with hat was being discussed at the present time. He thought they were prophetic messages from a literary "god" of sorts. I guess, mankind has done that with many different books. now we just ask the computer what we think, and it tells us. :)
 
VisualBrian said:
If everything is or can be god, then nothing is god and it's a useless term
Click to expand...

I agree that whatever "god" refers to is not for use. It didn't arise to be used by us to serve practical purposes. From what I understand, it has much more to do with being than doing, it's about understanding what we are and our place in the world.
 
VaughanJB said:
How about we revert to the dictionary?

  • 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
    2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity

    I don't see how the scientific process qualifies.
Click to expand...

The dictionary can no more be an authority on what god is or the role it plays in people’s lives any more than the Bible or any other book can.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top