The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Poll

Hi, just wanted to ask, are you forum users theistic, meaning you believe there is a god of some sort? Or agnostic, meaning you or perhaps your dad once believed, but you think you now are unsure? Or are you atheistic, meaning you never believed in a god?

Theistic
5 (23.8%)
Agonstic
2 (9.5%)
Atheistic
14 (66.7%)
Prognostic
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 20

Author Topic: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?  (Read 16279 times)

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #25 on: 14/12/2011 15:18:50 »
God is to Christians three persons who self exist, have infinite knowledge and strength. And some do not interpret the six days of creation as being literally earth rotations. There are Christian evolutionists.

God also is not material and in finite space. God is more broadly present. Above time...

Can God make a rock bigger than for Himself to lift it? I'd say he could, but that would be foolish. It is like He made an large egg and has to lift it slowly. But it will be lifted.

Ancient humans would all have spoken the same language and believed in the same god. Genesis' Elohim and India's Purusha both lost one third of their angels. They must have the same root. Neither were known to be invented.

When did primitive men devise philosophy and construct god? Or is it innate? Are we to think man before controlled fire had no faith?
« Last Edit: 14/12/2011 15:22:30 by Titanscape »
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #26 on: 20/12/2011 07:39:57 »
The first question should be:

What is God?
or What is A God?

God did not create Mankind.
Mankind created God.

God is the overarching concept to group all things we don't understand yet ;)
As Science is growing, God is shrinking.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #27 on: 20/12/2011 08:05:54 »
ClffordK
Actualy he only spent 6 days on the job.
Oh, I forgot
Did he manage to make a PUB or SPA in those first 6 days too?

There is always the question whether God-Days are like Dog-Years.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #28 on: 20/12/2011 11:47:08 »
God is to Christians three persons .......

It took Christians quite a long time to arrive at the 'Holy Trinity' concept. About 300 years.

It was conceived to circumvent a major problem that Jesus (if such a person ever existed) had posed. By all definitions, of the time, the Son of God would be divine, a God. This conflicted with the One God theory, which was very basis of Judaism and Christianity.

It was just another 'divine' problem that theologians had to invent an explanation for, to maintain some credibility to the whole 'God' theory. Needless to say, Jews totally reject the concept of both Jesus and the Holy Trinity.

As Nizzle has said, ‘God’, and therefore religion, was invented by man to answer questions he could not answer at the time, but gods and religion presented their own problems, for which man had to invent answers.

The 'One God' of the Jews, Christians and Muslims was not the first god to be invented, nor the last.
 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #29 on: 21/12/2011 22:11:39 »
Using mythologies to explain the nature of consciousness to mankind - the mythologies are incorrectly interpreted by religions as being about, well, religion. The trinity modification shows the progression of consciousness throughout our life. The womb as the initial archetype (god), the breast as the first cliche (Jesus), and our bonded mate as the last kick at the can, sort of a refresher course to last us until we are finished (holy ghost).
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #30 on: 21/12/2011 23:41:02 »
Hi mates I don't often come over here for a chat because I am too busy with other things like the virtual U3A but I've just picked up on this one.  You don't have a category for me!  I am an out and out atheist.  I do not believe in any sort of God or afterlife or that there is anything outside of the basic and observable laws of physics chemistry etc i.e. there is no such things a paranormal events everything that happens without exception is normal. 

However, I do believe it is important to have a religion.  Your religion defines your basic ethical system that defines how you limit your own actions in relation to others and the planet where we live.  I also believe that it is vital that one interacts with other people in relation to this this and regularly spend some time in contemplation of one's activities in relation to this ethical system.  The performance of communal rituals is also a helpful community strengthener and discipline of thought.  As a result of this I am a practicing member of the Church of England and go to church most Sundays usually at 8am out of convenience.  The reason I chose C of E was firstly because it is the main local brand and secondly because they confirmed me as a member after I had explained my position clearly!

When it comes to forms of words and creeds etc it is important to remember that almost all religious writings make a great use of metaphorical statements and once you understand the underlying aims of the metaphor the wording is quite acceptable.
 

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #31 on: 24/12/2011 08:02:20 »
I like Soul Surfer's reply, about valuable things in the Church of England.

I say about theology. It is a man made construct an "ology" made from direct line tradition and scriptures. So ideas from the fringes of the early church were rejected and the successors of the apostles who were not Jewish, explained the faith with logic, in face of disputes. So they only revealed that Christians always believed in three persons in God. For example, not in one place, there is a word about the Spirit having feelings, elsewhere, a will, and again somewhere else, a mind. Logically, he is a person.

And the early church tested the Apostle's writing by the Old Testament and the Spirit. Names like Elohim, rendered "God" in English is plural, and it is used in Genesis together with, "Let us make man" arguably, not referring to angels. And it is written in the OT, "Listen Israel, the Lord your God the Lord is united."

The Jews are people descended from those who did not hear much about Jesus first hand, or from the many who did not believe in Jesus. Many of us would be descended from the thousands of Hebrews who became believers and went to Europe.

Although logic is western thought, the Jews also have theology.
« Last Edit: 24/12/2011 08:05:15 by Titanscape »
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #32 on: 25/12/2011 12:12:58 »
However, I do believe it is important to have a religion.  Your religion defines your basic ethical system that defines how you limit your own actions in relation to others and the planet where we live.

Then you are surrendering your own thoughts about how we should treat each other to the teachings of your religion. You say it defines your ethical system, why is this important? Is it more important to have a defined ethical system than a good ethical system? You say you don't believe in god, and so must know that religion is man made. Why would you think that bronze age men knew best how run a society?

 

Offline daveman

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1002
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #33 on: 27/12/2011 11:52:55 »
CliffordK makes a good point, "What would A God be?"

Everyone's evaluation of what they believe is based on their interpretation of this.

We all know, that the rules of science, are NOT nature's rules, but our own, written versions of what we observe. And being of complex construct, we have found over time, that "the laws" have to be modified from time to time, and NO, the world is NOT flat.

It's been very much the same with religion.

We see even here, that our interpretations can be pretty flat. God manifests in concepts with physical characteristics, angels, devils, heaven and hell (as simple examples), because these are the best we can do with the the limited conceptual tools we have.

Are we atheists because we believe God is a purely emotional need (that wouldn't do), or because extremely limited definitions fall short (neither would this)?

Why do we believe or not in God? Such would have to be accompanied by WHAT it is that we do or do not believe in.

The simple definition "God as a superior being" is a flat one. Surely not good enough to stand as a basis for belief.
 

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #34 on: 13/01/2012 14:08:55 »
However, I do believe it is important to have a religion.  Your religion defines your basic ethical system that defines how you limit your own actions in relation to others and the planet where we live.

Then you are surrendering your own thoughts about how we should treat each other to the teachings of your religion. You say it defines your ethical system, why is this important? Is it more important to have a defined ethical system than a good ethical system? You say you don't believe in god, and so must know that religion is man made. Why would you think that bronze age men knew best how run a society?



Bronze age men, in a sense were clean, less sophisticated machinations and guile, even a kind of innocence. The culture of evil thought was then in idolatry.

Modern science has root in ancient natural philosophy, logic also. So why not justice and ethics. They developed sometimes in the same schools and universities. It's root is bronze age, a good thing, well tested! But our ancestors either knew of or developed it, perhaps by trial and error.

Justice and ethics, developed by England for England. Since this is an English forum.

We sit on the shoulders of giants and walk a well worn path.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #35 on: 13/01/2012 17:24:06 »

/snipped

Bronze age men, in a sense were clean, less sophisticated machinations and guile, even a kind of innocence. The culture of evil thought was then in idolatry.
I don't think there is much evidence for that view.  Some of the stories (and they are not much more than that) which we have received from bronze age civilisations show them to be very similar to us in guile, intrigue and perfidiousness. 

Quote
Modern science has root in ancient natural philosophy, logic also. So why not justice and ethics. They developed sometimes in the same schools and universities. It's root is bronze age, a good thing, well tested! But our ancestors either knew of or developed it, perhaps by trial and error.
  the scientific method is very in opposition to the ancient method of acquisition of knowledge - it it based upon repeatable observations not a priori innate knowledge

Quote
Justice and ethics, developed by England for England. Since this is an English forum.
  Whilst our justice might have more of a claim to be English our ethics spring from various roots all around Europe both ancient and modern

Quote
We sit on the shoulders of giants and walk a well worn path.
  I presume we don´t both sit and walk at the same time.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #36 on: 13/01/2012 18:46:23 »


Quote
Justice and ethics, developed by England for England. Since this is an English forum.
 

Whilst our justice might have more of a claim to be English our ethics spring from various roots all around Europe both ancient and modern



Indeed. In Scotland it happens to be Roman, and the Romans were polytheists.
 

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #37 on: 20/01/2012 15:57:04 »
Scientists don't always use science to determine a resolve in matters of faith. Like Catholic Doctors. They sometimes join a guild or association. And there are some who replied in faith to Dawkins.

The Bible is a good basis to look for a definition of god. It mentions God and gods, and the god of this world.

Collins Cobuild dictionary says,God, the name given to the spirit or being who is worshipped as the creator and ruler of the world, especially by Jews, Christians and Muslims. Webster's mentions the universe and omniscience and supernatural powers.

I would describe God as the first existence, making order out of not only disorder but of nothing except himself. Creating space, time and matter. Self existent. A grand planner, ordering justice and love. A relational being. Omnipresent, mighty.
« Last Edit: 20/01/2012 16:03:07 by Titanscape »
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #38 on: 24/01/2012 09:33:34 »

Collins Cobuild dictionary says,God, the name given to the spirit or being who is worshipped as the creator and ruler of the world,


Wow! That pretty much settles it then.

I am converted...... Praise be to Collins God.



Apologies to the religious, I would not normally poke fun at your beliefs (everyone is entitled to their beliefs), but this apparent assertion by Titanscape that Collins/Websters dictionary is evidence of the existence of God, is astonishing.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #39 on: 24/01/2012 10:18:33 »
If there was a creator of the universe.
And, the 9 × 1021 stars.

Do you think the "creator" would care whether people go to church every Sunday to worship him?  Would he even be bothered by the Earthlings any more than a kid might be bothered by the ants in an ant farm?  Does one even care if the ants in one's ant farm worships the owner?
 

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #40 on: 27/01/2012 13:21:53 »
The dictionary is not evidence for God's existence, some earlier posters complain of no definition of what a god is.

To some people the size of the universe means there must be a god, to others it means there cannot be one. Stars can't relate and respond... persons attract God's love. God being omniscient and omnipresent can relate to us. That is why we exist.

The universe helps one see how big God is. And how much he has for us. And we may have neighbours...
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #41 on: 28/01/2012 21:12:41 »
How can anyone take seriously the idea of a god who creates evil people and then punishes them eternally for being evil? Gods were invented as authority figures which moral philosophy (often rather bad philosophy) could be tied to in the hope that it would carry more weight. It worked: most people have a reverencial personality, as can be seen from the many fans of royalty and celebrity. They go wild at the sight of actors, and yet actors are just people with no personality of their own (in most cases) doing a mindless job - the real stars should be the writers, but they are rarely noticed.

So, if you're a bit of a philosopher and have ideas about some rules that could improve the way people behave to make the world a nicer place, what should you do? You tell people what your ideas are, and they ignore you, pointing instead to some half-baked garbage linked to some phantom or other which scared them once upon a time by shouting back at them when they called into a cave. Clearly the way to make an impression with your philosophical ideas is to tie them to a spirit, and the bigger and more powerful that spirit is, the more seriously your ideas will be taken, though you may need a bit of luck to get your god established as the market is already well stocked. Still, if the ideas are attractive, it might be able to force its way through just by dint of having the best philosophy built into it.

How can we impress our audience? Let's throw the latest science in wherever we can. We can describe how babies are made, a man planting his seed in a woman as if she is a flower pot and the seed growing into a baby. We don't mention the egg, of course, because that won't be discovered until the 1800s.

How can we prove that our holy book really comes from God? We write it in hypnotic verse and then issue a challenge to anyone out there to put together a verse of their own of the same quality and power as any one of ours. When someone meets that challenge, we up our challenge to three chapters. When someone meets that challenge, we up our challenge to a whole holy book. When someone points out that they could easily meet that challenge too if they could be bothered to put the time in, we change our challenge to a new one and draw on logical misreasoning to give it power: God made a fly, but you can't, therefore our holy book comes from God. Go and make a fly to prove us wrong!

We have an idea to reduce the carnage of the blood feud, so we tie that to our god. Our god, we claim, gives us the rule that we can only kill one member of the rival family in return for one of ours being killed rather than killing many of them. Our god allows me to kill the son of the man who kills my son, even though his son is a really good person who does not approve of what his father did. We point out in the text of our holy book that people will object to this, but we insist that it is right because it will reduce the total amount of carnage. This is a pragmatic and very human fix for the blood feud problem. A real god would insist that the only person who should be killed is the original killer, and he'd do the job himself with a bolt of lightning before the original killing ever took place. Even so, we don't need to worry about morality - our fix is worth a go, so let's just go with it and hook the unthinking masses with it.

Oh, and if they get ideas about our religion not being true, let's kill them - we don't want them drifting away to anything more rational than our half-baked philosophy.
 

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #42 on: 29/01/2012 01:59:49 »
God doesn't create evil people, the assumption is incorrect. Assumptions usually are. People are free, that is the idea, we are given responsibility. Unlike smaller creatures.

Talking about blood feuds goes beyond assumption. This is not rational thinking.

The idea people believe a philosophy by trickery of one who says he got the ideas from god, can you give an example?

Christian faith rests on powers, not only philosophy. The cross of Christ is not really a philosophy.

In order to grow and be prepared entry to Heaven and God's presence, we need choose good amidst the choice of evil and receive power.

Why are all religious philosophers said to be half baked?
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #43 on: 29/01/2012 20:12:54 »
God doesn't create evil people, the assumption is incorrect. Assumptions usually are. People are free, that is the idea, we are given responsibility. Unlike smaller creatures.

People who are "evil" are not to blame for being the way they are - they do not have free will. Many holy books even go on about God "hardening their hearts" as an explanation for why they turn bad. There is simply no valid excuse for sending anyone to hell.

Quote
Talking about blood feuds goes beyond assumption. This is not rational thinking.

I took it directly out of a holy book, one of the biggest ones. It lays down the law that the blood feud is allowed so long as you don't kill more than one member of the other family in return for one of yours being killed. It lays this down as a God-given rule, justifying it on the basis that it's for the best, despite the evidence from other cultures today where it is completely outlawed and demonstrably leads to far fewer innocent people being killed. This makes it more than clear that one of the big religions is man made and did not come from God.

Quote
The idea people believe a philosophy by trickery of one who says he got the ideas from god, can you give an example?

I just gave you an example of one. You want more trickery? How about throwing a stick on the ground and having it turn into a living snake that slithers away? That's in your holy books. What's that doing in the Bible other than to con people into believing a message is valid because it is manifestly backed by supernatural powers? It is actually a real magicians' trick and not just a fantasy: if you hold up a ground snake (not a tree snake) vertically for a while, it will black out and go rigid. You can then coat it in wet earth and let it dry to disguise it as a stick. So long as you hold it vertically, it remains in that state, but when you throw it on the ground it soon recovers, cracks the earth off itself and moves away. (Tree snakes have their heart just below the head, whereas ground snakes have theirs in the middle.)

Quote
Christian faith rests on powers, not only philosophy. The cross of Christ is not really a philosophy.

Religion is a massive package of very little other than philosophy, and the stuff about the cross is swimming in philosophy too. Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins, they say, but I've never needed that extreme kind of saving as I've never done anything bad. That's why I rejected religion as a very young child - it insulted me by telling lies about me, and I was determined never to let its lies become true. God, by contrast, is a mass murderer, so why would I want to give him the time of day?

Quote
In order to grow and be prepared entry to Heaven and God's presence, we need choose good amidst the choice of evil and receive power.

There are genetic factors which make it more likely for some people to turn bad, and upbringing factors which do likewise - get the wrong combination of these things like Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, the boys who killed James Bulger, etc. (all brutalised in childhood) and you don't have much hope. We do not choose whether we are good or bad - we have no free will. If we're lucky, we are driven away from wanting to do bad things, but it is not to our credit that we are good any more than bad people are to blame for being bad.

Quote
Why are all religious philosophers said to be half baked?

Because the laws they come up with which they then push through their made up religions are riddled with serious faults. They doubtless mean well, and they may well bring about an improvement in society when their faulty laws replace earlier faultier ones, but because they tie them to a perfect supernatural source they get stuck with those faulty laws forever (or at least until someone starts up a new religion which is sufficiently attractive to overpower the old one).
« Last Edit: 29/01/2012 20:16:10 by David Cooper »
 

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #44 on: 30/01/2012 00:27:51 »
People who are "evil" are not to blame for being the way they are - they do not have free will. Many holy books even go on about God "hardening their hearts" as an explanation for why they turn bad. There is simply no valid excuse for sending anyone to hell.

People have choices, and can choose evil, and change their minds. I did. At least I quote Solomon, "Discipline and self correction lead to life." And there is the whole teaching about grace for sin leading to life.

Jesus taught cleanness, murder, adultery, fornication, thefts, slanders, blasphemies and lies are unclean and love is clean and does no harm, but builds up in acts of kindness..., so if you are characterized by uncleanness you would do harm, you won't enter life. But if you have grace, you have a way out. Each to his source returns.

Hitler was an interesting case, as one who was psychopathic, his conscience destroyed as a boy, outside his choice. He was impaired of that organ that gives the ability to change one's mind in an absolute turn around. And he wanted power at the same time. His guilt depends on his not humbling himself in admission to insanity.

I struggle right now to recall and describe why God hardened Pharaoh's heart. It had some purpose to set Israel free with power. Surely there is mercy for Egypt, as it can be said they'd have repented if they had Jesus's teachings and works.

It lays down the law that the blood feud is allowed so long as you don't kill more than one member of the other family in return for one of yours being killed. It lays this down as a God-given rule, justifying it on the basis that it's for the best, despite the evidence from other cultures today where it is completely outlawed and demonstrably leads to far fewer innocent people being killed. This makes it more than clear that one of the big religions is man made and did not come from God.

Which god? And which book? I only acknowledge the Christian Bible.

That's in your holy books. What's that doing in the Bible other than to con people into believing a message is valid because it is manifestly backed by supernatural powers? It is actually a real magicians' trick and not just a fantasy

Moses did more than just a snake trick with the snake and later moved just under three million people from slavery, after some major plagues. The Bible accounts too much power to Moses, a pillar of fire by night, from which came a voice, angels, battles...

Elijah used fire from above to destroy some idolatry... Paul the apostle used gifts, they weren't tricked, these things were tested by them. They knew if their secret thoughts were revealed...

Religion is a massive package of very little other than philosophy, and the stuff about the cross is swimming in philosophy too. Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins, they say, but I've never needed that extreme kind of saving as I've never done anything bad. That's why I rejected religion as a very young child - it insulted me by telling lies about me, and I was determined never to let its lies become true. God, by contrast, is a mass murderer, so why would I want to give him the time of day?

To enter life, you have to be perfectly holy. Philosophy comes after the cross, and you don't need much of it if you don't like it.

Your culture of what is right and wrong and how to teach children aright comes from Jesus, in the cross is prevention and cure.

God does not murder anyone, He is not hateful. Dying of old age is not murder. Soldiers killing is sometimes, not murder, killing in self defense in not murder...

We do not choose whether we are good or bad - we have no free will. If we're lucky, we are driven away from wanting to do bad things, but it is not to our credit that we are good any more than bad people are to blame for being bad.

People can totally change of their own volition and determination, and be corrected late in life. Newton, the author of Amazing Grace is an example. Paul the apostle another, I have made the choice myself and keep self correcting. Our childhoods are a strong influence, but we can decide.

They doubtless mean well, and they may well bring about an improvement in society when their faulty laws replace earlier faultier ones, but because they tie them to a perfect supernatural source they get stuck with those faulty laws forever (or at least until someone starts up a new religion which is sufficiently attractive to overpower the old one).

Moses did bring an improvement, law. Jesus corrected errors within it, according to the original design. Moses' law came with an oral law.

Jesus gave grace and truth. The law still useful. A progression back from the evil and ignorance of Adam and the ancients we are descended from. Like a painting, where you must let part dry before the next part is placed in. Cultural learning. Holiness the objective, non higher than Christ.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #45 on: 30/01/2012 23:48:32 »
It isn't important to point out which religion the blood feud thing related to (Islam), so I won't.

People have choices, and can choose evil, and change their minds. I did.
They choices they make are not made through free will - they are driven into making them though genetic and environmental factors.
 

Offline Titanscape

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #46 on: 31/01/2012 01:14:27 »
I wonder what a good psychologist would say about free will? I have beliefs, ideals, admiration, conscience and weakness, and wrong examples from a young age. Inner conflict, and I really look at myself and examine myself sometimes and make changes. I think the inner conflict itself is the hardest thing to overcome.

But also recall turning to Jesus with everything I had, and making a complete turn around, resulting in the memorably rewarding clear conscience! That fuels my fight. That is why I am a theist, helped by tradition and revivalists, but experiencing this from Jesus anchors my belief in Him. Not just dry theology or seeing God in nature...
« Last Edit: 31/01/2012 01:16:15 by Titanscape »
 

Offline Gordian Knot

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #47 on: 31/01/2012 17:04:07 »
Ah the Free Will nut. Much more complicated than I was aware of. Some branches of modern science, especially Neuro-Scientists, have concluded that free will isn't all that free. Then there is the view from physics.

Stephen Hawking on Free Will:
Under the assumption of physicalism it has been argued that the laws of quantum mechanics provide a complete probabilistic account of the motion of particles, regardless of whether or not free will exists.[51] Physicist Stephen Hawking describes such ideas in his 2010 book The Grand Design. According to Hawking, these findings from quantum mechanics suggest that humans are sorts of complicated biological machines; although our behavior is impossible to predict perfectly in practice, "free will is just an illusion."[48] In other words, he thinks that only compatibilistic (deterministic) free will is possible based on the data.

There is apparently quite a debate going on between scientists and philosophers about what free will is, and how real, or unreal it is. Here is another example from Nature Magazine.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html#B1

It seems patently obvious to us as individuals, that free will in the short term is available to us. We can choose to do things, and choose to not do other things. Science is suggesting that Free Will, the big picture, however, is largely an illusion. The debate between science and philosophy goes on.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #48 on: 31/01/2012 20:38:45 »
We make decisions about everything we do based on one rule: we always try to do the best thing. There's absolutely no freedom in that beyond the random (when we can't determine which choice is the best), and we aren't good at making random decisions either because we don't have a random switch in our heads.

Anyone who believes in free will needs to show that we break the above rule - a single example will do, no matter how simple it is. I hope someone can do it, because I like the idea of free will, but I don't believe it can happen.
 

Offline Gordian Knot

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #49 on: 31/01/2012 23:04:51 »
We make decisions about everything we do based on one rule: we always try to do the best thing.

Really? Where is your data to support that comment?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Theist, Agnostic or Atheist?
« Reply #49 on: 31/01/2012 23:04:51 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums