Seems like the atheists are trying to create their own religion of non believers by clouding faith with science....I am a student of science but still find myself believing in a higher power. Of course, I still question.
Documentary: The Unbelievers (Official Trailer)
- Thread starter wurd2
- Start date
and this is horseshit plain and simple. the issue is that you and wurd seem to think that a rational person can't believe in God. and that is simply horseshit.
there are plenty of scientists who believe in God. Who have made contributions to their field of science would you call those people irrational? there are scientists on both sides of the God question so your hyperbole is neither accurate nor justified.
but, as usual you two are so closed minded on the subject that trying to discuss it with you is a waste of time and energy.
Francis Collins is probably the best example of a scientist that has made profound contributions to his field and is religious.
However, he freely admits that it is FAITH and not an evidential or rationale position. He also doesn't deny the profound discoveries of science such as evolution. Clearly Collins is a highly intelligent person, and I've never eluded to believers necessarily being unintelligent. But absolute faith, the kind of faith of theism is not a rational position. I don't think Collins would argue that point either.
I don't know how Theistic believe can be considered rationale.
Do you deny that religious claims are intentionally inscrutable?
Last edited:
who said you did? as far as collins goes, congratulations to him. but I hardly think he speaks for the entire religious scientific community.
of course you don't
this questions doesn't even make sense. you, who seem to claim to be the end all of rationality shouldn't even be asking the damn question. if there were one single religion I suppose the question would make sense. but "intentionally"? do I think it IS inscrutable? some of it certainly since a lot of it has to be taken on faith. but we already know you put no stock in that so again, there is no point in further discussing it with you.
RDJ said:
I think belief in God is irrational, but I do not for one second think that because someone believes in God, he or she is therefore an irrational person.
As Sam Harris said, it is possible for an Islamic man to understand the deep scientific intricacies of how to assemble a nuclear warhead, yet still believe that he will be granted 72 virgins in the afterlife depending on the circumstances of his death.
It's called compartmentalization.
RDJ said:
You can't argue that because we have religious scientists, religion and science are therefore compatible modes of investigation. If they were, we wouldn't need the distinction between the two discourses in the first place.
Serious question:
Are you onboard with having creationism in the science classroom?
RDJ said:
It might be a waste of time and energy discussing these things, but disagreements do not imply closed minds.
.
q f t
believers who attempt to explain away certain parts of the bible by using an education that’s been afforded by science are using the weakest of arguments :nonono:
And yet here we are in a thread discussing an evangelistic documentary put forth by anointed authorities.
How about "anointed?"
Does one of us need to visit the optometrist?
.
No,
I realize there is no anointed authority of atheism, I was just pointing out the irony in your original statement and trying to be funny.gamatt said:
I see. There really isn't any irony because the term evangelize is actually specific to preaching the gospel or preaching towards conversion to Christianity. If anything, Dawkins and Krauss are doing the exact opposite.
.
Ok, well by the dictionary definition yes that's what it means, but I'm being more general as in, you evangelize someone to come over to your point of view. I hear that word used in business that way all the time.
Anyway, I'm not wading into this any further, enjoy your documentary.
gamatt said:
In this loose sense of the term evangelize, I would agree that Dawkins and Krauss are evangelizing. They want the general public to get excited about science and in turn get others excited about it. I guess we can say they want science appreciation and involvement to go viral.
.
I wasn't saying he was, only agreeing that there are a few highly contributing scientist that are religious. However, they typically understand that despite being rationale and scientific minded individuals elsewhere in this one area they rely on FAITH instead of their rationality.
I'm not just trying to be a contrarian. I have no doubts that you would be completely skeptical of bizarre claims in any other realm. I simply removed that protective shield from religion and apply the same levels of scrutiny equally.
Whether there is more than one religion or not I don't think that changes that there are/were goals of creating religion. You are correct in that I don't put any stock in ABSOLUTE or BLIND faith which is the type required by theism. So if you agree that portions of your religion are inscrutable why does that not bother you? Perhaps you want to believe what you've been taught and believed all/most of your life is true?
Would you not be suspicious if someone came to you with a story that not only couldn't be validated but that could not be proven false either merely by the architecture of the story and than demanded something of you based upon that story?
Last edited:
Sherlock holmes said it best, which is ironic, but he said "I fit theories to facts, not facts to theories". So long as people want to believe in something, they will seek out the facts to support it. However if you remove yourself from that frame of mind and look purely at the facts as they exist today, they will support completely different theories.
IronSnake said:
Thank you for posting this.
I am baffled by the minds of those who feel that because a particular belief makes them feel good, it is therefore more likely to be true. And conversely, I am just as perplexed by those who discard beliefs merely because the implications of them being true are undesirable.
Reality does not work like this. It is the way it is regardless of our preference as to how it should be.
.
Users who are viewing this thread
