... Helmut, think about what you just said for a moment. This is what I'm seeing from it:
"Trev-MUN is the one stating opinion as fact, more so than Einoo.
"
Not even really taking into account Misty Rose said because that "you'll become what you hate*" quip kinda put me off, but let me get this straight. You're telling me that actual surveys, quotes by the Associated Press from Vatican cardinals and published statements from popes, and the existence of mathematical proofs by highly respected logicians are "
a more profound opinion " ... meaning I have
no factual basis for my post whatsoever?
... Psheah,
right. So apparently, all that evidence to support what I've said is just "stating a more profound opinion as fact" compared to what Einoo has ... which, to me, sounds like this:
"RELIGION IS WRONG AND IT'S HORRIBLE! THIS IS THE TRUTH! LOOK! CARL SAGAN SAYS SO! SPREAD THE WORD!!^&#*^!!!1 (nekorbspac)"
As if Carl Sagan was the go-to authority on religion and politics. e_e
* For Misty Rose: You're practically saying that if Einoo becomes what he hates, that he'll be religious--and therefore implying that all religion states opinion as fact and is close-minded. What the? That's a pretty generalized statement too (and you're possibly supporting the idea that the opinion is factual), given religion encompasses everything including deism.
(But I personally consider atheism to be part of the greater religious sphere, just maybe as a black hole. Atheists don't have solid rational, scientific, or logical support for what they say but they swear by their position anyway. They're not really so much "reasonable and logical" like they say, so much as they are putting faith in the idea that noving divine exists.)
The problem I have with what you said is that it implies that all religion is close-minded. Several religions openly defy that stereotype and I've seen much display of open mindedness from all corners of religious belief.
---
To put it bluntly, I am
beyond tired of atheist militants who proudly proclaim that theirs is the only belief of logic and reason where religion is just make-believe and superstition ... when the reality is, they can't keep some of their most profound thinkers (like Anthony Flew) convinced*. They don't have decisive arguments that put to rest the argument for theism, or even give theist logic and reasoning a run for its money. Because of that, you get atheists who conclude anyone who doesn't accept their beliefs to be "blindly religious" or "not as intelligent." Absurdism at its finest.
In the end, I feel that atheists really ARE religious, because they so fervently believe they're right even when there's no to little ground to stand on. We call that faith. They like to think science is on their side, but it's not--there's no scientific theories going either way. However, when I see polls that show a majority of scientists do believe in God (or gods, or what have you), that tells me somehing profound. Atheism and science go together as well as oil and water.
At this point, and probably this point will remain indefnitely, science simply can't conclusively prove or disprove much of anything that religion
typically covers. That leaves logic and reason, postulations and productive thought without evidence or methodical study, which is what science is--and there's potent arguments from all sides in philosophy. No one's winning. And for the record, I consider winning presenting a philosophical argument that makes one's case blindingly and obviously true to pretty much everyone.
* Anthony Flew was a major British athiest who published many books arguing against theism. However, he recently (like a few years ago) announced that he has come to believe there is evidence and a case for an "Aristotlean god" of intelligence and capability--essentially he's now a deist, but as he reminds Christians, he's not "one of them."
When I brought this up in a past argument the atheist militant I was fighting sniffed arrogantly that "he's just a senile old man afraid of death and pining for a comfortable make-believe afterlife." He totally ignored that Anthony Flew is a deist, whom if I understand correctly, are skeptical of any and all interpretations of the divine, and deism is more or less one's opinion about the divine, not the existence of an afterlife. Not only that, but Flew's skepticism towards atheism (irony!) was building over the decades. I guess atheists just can't accept that some people, especially profound thinkers, have turned away from their "truth." >_>
EDIT:
Check this out. I came across this earlier when I was linked to a discussion on Intelligent Design, which makes this slightly unpainted toast except for whom the quotes come from. If you think the poll I keep mentioning is bunk, here's two posts.
Quote:
My view of things is that evolution is too elegant for God not to use. A lot of people I know were surprised to discover that in addition to having a degree in molecular biology--and working on another in physics--I am very religious. They have problems squaring that circle. How can you be a scientist and believe in God? is the question. Very easily, from my point of view. I see the Universe as being like a house. Science can tell us what the house is made of, it can tell us how the house was built, but it cannot tell us why the house was built, or who built it. Only religion--or in the broader sense, metaphysics--can do that.
Quote:
Yup. Exactly. Speaking as a computer scientist, I consider the apparent natural development of the universe to be evidence that there's someone behind the scenes pulling the strings. Because really, if I had unlimited power and infinite time, that's how I'd like to build software. The whole thing's far too bloody elegant and comprehensible.
More interestingly, the problem of God's existence seems to be undecidable. Which, of course, means that the whole religion thing ultimately comes down to faith.
Apparently, there's a reason why I like Schlock so much.
Log in
Wiki
FAQ
Search
