Do you believe in God?

[stormbringer]

No, you're not. At best you're in a profession that uses soft science. Everything you've said so far about science is so wrong that if you are a trained and practising scientist, no sensible research director would hire you.

Besides, what do you think I am, a baker's boy?



So why are you trying to make out that atheists and/or scientists (your position is a little unclear) think they understand everything? It's an obvious strawman, and it's just not true.

Neither atheists or scientists are more prone to claim that they know everything than theists, and I'd say that of all people scientists *should* be the least likely. They're probably in the same boat realistically, but they have the most opportunity to learn all the things they don't know.



Nobody claimed it wasn't. But when people attempt to bring God into the scientific realm by saying things like "God exists", it's perfectly logical to use scientific reasoning to refute that. The scientific method is the best tool we have for establishing the existence of things.



Want to back that statement up with something? Or are you just making stuff up? You have no idea how qualified or otherwise people in this thread are.



Read what exactly? There are good theories about how gravity, bicycles and love work. You (as a scientist, no less!) still don't understand the concept of a theory.

There is no such thing as a final and definitive proof or explanation. All we ever have is "this is the best we've come up with so far". That's called a theory.

Take points 2 and 3 of Dalton's Atomic theory.



Those were perfectly reasonable given the observations at the time. Atoms appeared to be the smallest possible unit of matter, and atoms of the same element appeared to be identical. It wasn't until better experimental techniques evolved that it was possible to make observations that showed that these two points were in fact incorrect. Nonetheless, the theory still allowed for useful predictions about the behaviour of atoms.

The theories about gravity, bicycles and love are no different. They may be totally wrong for all we know, but they have value by allowing us to predict some useful things about the universe and how we can interact with it. That's about all a scientific theory is supposed to do.

Lol. You crack me up with your assumptions.
You have no idea what my skill level, my rank and my profession entails. You cant possibly. You only assume..

You have no idea how many contradicting theories are there at present regarding gravity bicycles whatever. God is a philosophical fact!
You have no idea that grand turismo is a video game. And as a video game, the vast majority of its following are teenagers and kids by default.


What i do find interesting here is the sheer number of atheists in a thread titled "do you believe in God?"

 

[Imari]

Lol. You crack me up with your assumptions.
You have no idea what my skill level, my rank and my profession entails. You cant possibly. You only assume..

Of course I do. I assume from the information that you have presented me that you have at best a layman's knowledge of science. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary, but until then I'll continue to trust what I observe.

You have no idea how many contradicting theories are there at present regarding gravity bicycles whatever.

I certainly do. What's your point?

God is a philosophical fact!

Great! What do we do now?

You have no idea that grand turismo is a video game. And as a video game, the vast majority of its following are teenagers and kids by default.

Ah, so would you like to provide some evidence of the ages of players of Gran Turismo currently? If people were kids when they started playing Gran Turismo 1, they're kids + 15 years now which unless they were very, very young makes them adults.

Besides, you're assuming that the age makeup of the Gran Turismo section of the forums is identical to the makeup of this thread. Do you have any basis for this assumption?

From what I've observed, the majority of respondents in this thread communicate in a manner that I would expect from adults. I feel comfortable assuming that either the majority of respondents are adults or are able to impersonate one to a degree that they can be treated as an adult.

What i do find interesting here is the sheer number of atheists in a thread titled "do you believe in God?"

Are atheists not entitled to answer that question? What's the point in asking if only people who would answer "yes" can respond?

Do you start to see where my lack of faith (ha!) in your critical thinking, a skill crucial to the successful application of the scientific method, might come from?

 

[PsuPepperoni]

Lol. You crack me up with your assumptions... You cant possibly. You only assume..

We prefer to call it faith.

God is a philosophical fact!

Agreed. Since gods are arbitrarily defined by their respective religions, I define my own god as the force that created the universe. The universe exists, therefore my god is a "fact." I believe it initiated the universe 14 billion years ago.

And as a video game, the vast majority of its following are teenagers and kids by default.

I find that simulator users, especially within flight simulator communities, tend to be in a higher age group than users of typical video games, although I can't say that holds true for Gran Turismo.

What i do find interesting here is the sheer number of atheists in a thread titled "do you believe in God?"

Good point! That would be like Republicans turning up to vote on abortion rights.

 

[Scaff]

I agree. Im not a religious scholar. But i am a scientist by education and profession.

I'm going to be blunt, please provide a member of staff proof of this claim before you post again.

Failure to do so will be treated as an AUP

You have no idea how many contradicting theories are there at present regarding gravity bicycles whatever. God is a philosophical fact!
You have no idea that grand turismo is a video game. And as a video game, the vast majority of its following are teenagers and kids by default.

And you still have no idea what the word Theory actually means.

What i do find interesting here is the sheer number of atheists in a thread titled "do you believe in God?"

Why? Are you implying that if the answer to a question ifs no then you have no place in the debate?

That would seem to be more than a little close minded.

 

[stormbringer]

I'm going to be blunt, please provide a member of staff proof of this claim before you post again.

Failure to do so will be treated as an AUP
And you still have no idea what the word Theory actually means.


Why? Are you implying that if the answer to a question ifs no then you have no place in the debate?

That would seem to be more than a little close minded.

Failure to provide you my resume will result in an AUP? Do you consider that a reasonable request?
its not a problem, sir, please send your official to pick it up and also check out my office.

lastly, ill attempt to clarify by what i find interesting by the # of atheists in a thread titled "Do you believe in God?"

Lets say, i dont believe in some practice. say psychology.
You wont see me in a psych forum trying to negate their theories.
a title such as "do you believe in psychology?" does not hold any interest to me.
There are maybe 10-20 of you boys dissecting each sentence and semantics. No opposition. Is that normal?
Most replies are received within a few minutes of posting. Its like you guys are sitting there fishing and ready to pounce. Its can almost be percieved as emotional. thats what i find interesting.

I have mentioned before that these arguments are circular in nature and never ending. So I'll bow down to your threat, @Scaff. AUP away if you desire. i wont be returning here...you guys have a nice day.

 

[DQuaN]

You have no idea how many contradicting theories are there at present regarding gravity bicycles whatever.

Why do you keep going back to bicycles? Do you not understand them or something? How a bicycle works is incredibly simple. It's like saying we have no idea how a wheelbarrow works...

You have no idea that grand turismo is a video game. And as a video game, the vast majority of its following are teenagers and kids by default.

And there I was thinking Gran Turismo was a relative of the African Elephant.


Please stop with the tripe and go away and learn something.

 

[Scaff]

Failure to provide you my resume will result in an AUP? Do you consider that a reasonable request?
its not a problem, sir, please send your official to pick it up and also check out my office.

The AUP you agreed to follow when you joined clearly states:

"You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate."

You made the claim (and one that is fundamental to your position) as such the onus is on you to prove it. I am not asking you to do so publicly, but given that at least two members of staff who post in the thread are scientists (and have proven so) you would have no problem providing them with details of who you are, where you work and what you have published - they would then be able to verify your claim.

lastly, ill attempt to clarify by what i find interesting by the # of atheists in a thread titled "Do you believe in God?"

Lets say, i dont believe in some practice. say psychology.
You wont see me in a psych forum trying to negate their theories.
a title such as "do you believe in psychology?" does not hold any interest to me.
There are maybe 10-20 of you boys dissecting each sentence and semantics. No opposition. Is that normal?
Most replies are received within a few minutes of posting. Its like you guys are sitting there fishing and ready to pounce. Its can almost be percieved as emotional. thats what i find interesting.

You seem to be arguing for a thread in which only one side is allowed to post (or should post), yet you accuse others of being closed minded.

I could just as readily ask why you bother to post when you quite clearly do not wish to engage in discussion?

As for the timing of posting and fishing? Is that seriously the best that you can do, an argument based on how quickly people reply?

I have mentioned before that these arguments are circular in nature and never ending. So I'll bow down to your threat, @Scaff. AUP away if you desire. i wont be returning here...you guys have a nice day.

What a massive surprise.

Now if you were able to back up your claim, providing proof would not be an issue, that you seem happier to run away says rather a lot on its own.

 

[Denur]

lastly, ill attempt to clarify by what i find interesting by the # of atheists in a thread titled "Do you believe in God?"

It's quite simple actually. Atheists like me find this thread interesting, because of the impact religion can have on everyone's life, theist and atheist alike. It's things like laws regarding abortion, working on Sabbath, gay marriage etcetera, but also e.g. religion-inspired terrorism and minority prosecution.

 

[Imari]

You wont see me in a psych forum trying to negate their theories.

Except this is not a Christian thread, or a Muslim thread, or even a theist thread. It's a thread specifically addressing the differences between people who do and do not believe in god and discussion between those two groups. The thread doesn't work if you exclude one group.

If you want a "Let's talk about religion, no atheists please" thread, go start that yourself.

 

[phonyk]

A thread asking whether or not people believe in God would be pretty redundant if you weren't allowed to answer 'no'

 

[Exorcet]

Lol. You crack me up with your assumptions.
You have no idea what my skill level, my rank and my profession entails. You cant possibly. You only assume..

You're providing us with a lot of facts to back up these assumptions we're making.

You have no idea how many contradicting theories are there at present regarding gravity bicycles whatever.

How many are in dispute over the type of gravity we experience in everyday life instead of areas where we lack understanding like quantum gravity?

You try to make it sound like we have no understanding of gravity at all, which is ridiculous. For many practical applications, gravity is completely understood. g = 9.81 m/s^2 is good enough for a lot of engineering. We even relativity down for GPS systems. What's wrong with our understanding of gravity?

You have no idea that grand turismo is a video game. And as a video game, the vast majority of its following are teenagers and kids by default.

This goes back to the first comment in this post. Even if we assume this is true, where are you going with this? What does it make you?

What i do find interesting here is the sheer number of atheists in a thread titled "do you believe in God?"

I don't see what's so interesting. The only group that I would be surprised to see here were people who never thought about it and/or didn't care to discuss it. I can't really remember seeing a yes/no poll where one side was so uninterested despite having an opinion that not a single person voted.

 

[Duke]

I agree. Im not a religious scholar. But i am a scientist by education and profession.

I find that extremely difficult to believe, given your fundamental misunderstanding of words like "theory" and "scientific method". With no offense intended, honestly.

None of us here at GTP are qualified to actually debate this subject, just because were a community of compromising of mostly kids and teenagers following a video game.

The concept of God is completely variable and crosses all levels of culture and society. All written works and oral legends of religion are completely non-provable using any known repeatable scientific method. There is absolutely zero way to prove God exists other than "I know Him when I see Him."

So who on earth ISN'T qualified to debate the existence of God?

Lol. You crack me up with your assumptions. You have no idea what my skill level, my rank and my profession entails. You cant possibly. You only assume..

You have no idea that grand turismo is a video game. And as a video game, the vast majority of its following are teenagers and kids by default.

OK, the evidence is right here in your own post that you are no scientist. You attack your opponents by claiming they are making incorrect assumptions about you... and then you go on to make one of the most sweeping (and incorrect) assumptions recently made in this thread, and use that assumption as the "default" position despite zero evidence in favor of it. THEN, you base your alleged "qualification" to discuss the topic of God entirely on that unproven assumption!

Based on the evidence you've shown us, you, sir, are no scientist.

 

[Touring Mars]

Failure to provide you my resume will result in an AUP? Do you consider that a reasonable request?

I have mentioned before that these arguments are circular in nature and never ending. So I'll bow down to your threat, @Scaff. AUP away if you desire. i wont be returning here...you guys have a nice day.

To be fair, it is not an unreasonable request. Your resume is not required, just a little more detail about what kind of scientist you are and what areas you specialize in would suffice - for me at least. As a professional research scientist myself, I'm genuinely interested to know what it is that you do, but since you appear reluctant to clarify your statement, even privately, then I guess I have no choice but to remain skeptical.

 

[Liquid]

Amazing! A double story from the same person at the same time!

"Yeah, god's real."
"Care to prove it?"
"Nope."

"Yeah, I'm a scientist."
"Care to prove it?"
"Nope."

 

[Famine]

Could be a "Christian scientist"...

 

[homeforsummer]

None of us here at GTP are qualified to actually debate this subject, just because were a community of compromising of mostly kids and teenagers following a video game.

Speak for yourself. I'm almost 30 and rarely play the videogame after which the site is named.

Perhaps you're not really qualified to debate the subject - you seem less interested in the debate than you do dismissing what others have said - but realistically anyone, anywhere can partake in a philosophical debate. That's the great thing about philosophy. Qualifications may exist, but you don't really need one to be philosophical.

i wont be returning here...you guys have a nice day.

I have even less belief in this statement than I do in the existence of God.

 

[Carbonox]

None of us here at GTP are qualified to actually debate this subject, just because were a community of compromising of mostly kids and teenagers following a video game.

I recommend you spend less time in the GT6 section, which has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

 

[DQuaN]

Speak for yourself. I'm almost 30 and rarely play the videogame after which the site is named.

Indeed, 33 here and don't even have (or have ever had) a PS3. That shows you how up to date with Gran Turismo I am!

 

[Danoff]

Indeed, 33 here and don't even have (or have ever had) a PS3. That shows you how up to date with Gran Turismo I am!

Also 33, and I currently have no sony video game systems hooked up (my PS2 is in a box in the basement).

 

[PsuPepperoni]

There are maybe 10-20 of you boys dissecting each sentence and semantics.

I know right? Damn atheists always analyzing things and critically thinking. I can't wait for those boys grow up.

 

[EvanJamesLee]

Agnostic, this way I don't have to argue with people. You believe in God? Cool. You don't? Cool.

 

[Danoff]

Agnostic, this way I don't have to argue with people. You believe in God? Cool. You don't? Cool.

...and yet everyone argues with you.

 

[EvanJamesLee]

...and yet everyone argues with you.

Cool, who is arguing with me?

 

[Danoff]

Cool, who is arguing with me?

Religious people who want to convert you? Or atheists who can't understand why you'd hold out the possibility that religion might be right?

 

[EvanJamesLee]

Religious people who want to convert you? Or atheists who can't understand why you'd hold out the possibility that religion might be right?

No, not really. I have good religious and atheist friends. The only people I do argue with are the Jehovah's Witnesses and I don't argue over religion. I just want them to stop bothering me.

 

[Divinus]

Weak Agnostic. To me theists and atheists both make claims that currently lack proof. The burden of proof is with the first making the claim but either claim is impossible to be proved.
Th: There is a tea pot orbiting the sun. (Can't prove)
At: There is no tea pot orbiting the sun. (Can't prove)
Therefore
Ag: I don't know if there is a tea pot orbiting the sun.

Same rational to the question "will I ever know?" and the strong agnostic position is left out.

This is a subject I like to discuss because I really want to understand the motivations behind any position/religion and understand the position/religion in itself because AFAIK one (or more, or none) could be right.

 

[Famine]

Weak Agnostic. To me theists and atheists both make claims that currently lack proof. The burden of proof is with the first making the claim but either claim is impossible to be proved.

Not really, no.

The term is "non-falsifiable". It refers to a claim that cannot ever be disproven - and is thus impossible to be proved. Something that leaves no room to be disproven is non-falsifiable.

Atheists don't make any claims about deities. Theists do (that they exist) - and they are non-falsifiable claims. Nontheists do too (that they don't exist) - and they are also non-falsifiable. Atheists don't - they go where the proof is.

Th: There is a tea pot orbiting the sun. (Can't prove)
At: There is no tea pot orbiting the sun. (Can't prove)
Therefore
Ag: I don't know if there is a tea pot orbiting the sun.

The reality would be:
Theist: I believe there is a teapot orbiting the Sun.
Nontheist: I believe there is no teapot orbiting the Sun.
Atheist: I don't believe there is a teapot orbiting the Sun without any evidence.
Agnostic: We can't know that there is or isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun.

Of course a teapot can be detected orbiting the Sun - it's just quite difficult - so the agnostic will always be wrong and so will either the Theist or the Nontheist. One of them will be right, but only by accident, because they've chosen to operate on belief not evidence, and the evidence confirms the teapot, not the belief.

 

[Divinus]

Not really, no.

The term is "non-falsifiable". It refers to a claim that cannot ever be disproven - and is thus impossible to be proved. Something that leaves no room to be disproven is non-falsifiable.

Atheists don't make any claims about deities. Theists do (that they exist) - and they are non-falsifiable claims. Nontheists do too (that they don't exist) - and they are also non-falsifiable. Atheists don't - they go where the proof is.

Well I believe I was considering a diferent interpretation of the term atheist:

Mine: "In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. [Yours:] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist." Wiki atheism

My atheist was your nontheist.
Regarding this, using the second definition above an atheist is the same as an agnostic: "the absence of belief that any deities exist"

Not really, no.

The reality would be:
Theist: I believe there is a teapot orbiting the Sun.
Nontheist: I believe there is no teapot orbiting the Sun.
Atheist: I don't believe there is a teapot orbiting the Sun without any evidence.
Agnostic: We can't know that there is or isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun.

Of course a teapot can be detected orbiting the Sun - it's just quite difficult - so the agnostic will always be wrong and so will either the Theist or the Nontheist. One of them will be right, but only by accident, because they've chosen to operate on belief not evidence, and the evidence confirms the teapot, not the belief.

About this I would like to make some corrections. We agree about the theist and the non-theist (previously considered by me as an atheist)

Now your vision of the agnostic is one of a strong agnostic and in my example I used the weak vision (but forgot to specify so my bad)

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

Wiki Agnosticism

I do agree that a strong agnostic is wrong for the reasons you point out and in your example it is well represented.


So:

Theist: I believe there is a teapot orbiting the sun.
Non-Theist (My previous atheist): I believe there is no teapot orbiting the sun.
Strong Agnostic (Your previous agnostic): We can't know know if there is a teapot orbiting the sun.

Weak Agnostic: We currently don't know if there is a teapot orbiting the sun but with evidence we can arrive at an answer.

Atheist: I don't believe there is a teapot orbiting the sun.

It seems we think alike, but we don't have our concepts aligned. I think your vision of an atheist is of a Weak Agnostic. My hint was your reference to the "evidence".

 

[Famine]

Evidence denies belief - one cannot rationally believe in things that really exist because belief is what you have in the absence of evidence.

Atheism is just a facet of evidence-led absence of belief when applied to deities.

Of course when you get to specific individual deities whose descriptions and properties preclude their existence, none of the above terms really apply. They don't and cannot exist - as determined by the evidence.

 

[Dotini]

Evidence denies belief - one cannot rationally believe in things that really exist because belief is what you have in the absence of evidence.

Atheism is just a facet of evidence-led absence of belief when applied to deities.

Of course when you get to specific individual deities whose descriptions and properties preclude their existence, none of the above terms really apply. They don't and cannot exist - as determined by the evidence.

This is a perfectly true statement as far as it goes, but it ignores one very important fact about evidence. The great bulk of humanity, mostly billions upon billions of ignorant, impoverished people, can rely only upon their fallible senses to know reality. From the evidence of their eyes, ears and most of all from the thrill of their emotions, they come to believe in their gods. A pervasive environment of close family and tribe, *temple*, communal prayer, fasting, music and song, all organized to lift them up from oppression, are powerful evidences of their belief system. Like giant blocks of stone in a pyramid, they are hard to move.