Can belief in God be separate from religious beliefs?

[zomgwtf]

How we weight various arguments makes all the difference in the world. I know of no evidence for a cosmic teacup. I know of no such claims. Why would I believe such a thing?

Exactly. You haven't made any choice. Just like you don't choose not to believe in Elves or fairy godparents. (I assume you don't). These things are not choices.

The fact that you've never heard of such a claim for a cosmic teacup leads me to believe you live a life sheltered from philosophy and debate etc..

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not defending any religion, nor do we allow anyone to push their religious beliefs here. We are talking about the essence of faith -a belief really in anything not recognized by science.

Science can only really address phenomena or claims that can be tested. While much religious dogma might be contradicted by science, the essence of faith is untouchable in this regard - that is, unless a God makes a showing. But the inability to test a claim does not falsify that claim. And many claims that at one time could not be tested, later could be. Rogue waves are probably one of the best recent examples of this. The claim has been around for centuries, but science has only been able to address the claim recently through oil rig sensors, and satellite data. Sure enough, they exist!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Exactly. You haven't made any choice. Just like you don't choose not to believe in Elves or fairy godparents. (I assume you don't). These things are not choices.

I could say I don't know, but if asked, I would tend to say I do not believe such a thing because I have no reason to.

The fact that you've never heard of such a claim for a cosmic teacup leads me to believe you live a life sheltered from philosophy and debate etc..

You miss the point, so lose the insults. The point was the I have no reason to believe in a cosmic teacup. I do have reason to believe in a God.

 

[zomgwtf]

Ivan I was countering your claim that philosophy/logic can not deal with the concept of God. It is wrong.

Anyways I hope I got my point across I'm in no mood to get banned so I think I'm done with this thread for now atleast.

Just a note however, I do not support 'bashing' religions. I do support critical debates though which this forum is not the place for. So I can say that I'm not siding with CosmicCrunch in that regard... or the opinion he has of science/God really. Just that I am against what you earlier claimed.

 

[zomgwtf]

You miss the point, so lose the insults. The point was the I have no reason to believe in a cosmic teacup. I do have reason to believe in a God.

No, that's MY original point. I have no reason to believe in God(s) THEREFORE NOT A CHOICE.

Honestly.

 

[zomgwtf]

I have to agree with the general idea behind what mgb is saying. Also CosmicCrunch you are wrong is saying that they weren't as intelligent as we are today (by my understanding of the word intelligence). Maybe they didn't 'know' as much as we do today but they were definitely as intelligent, maybe more so on average even?

Edit by Ivan: Insulting reference from previous post edited out.

 

[CosmicCrunch]

I'm not defending any religion, nor do we allow anyone to push their religious beliefs here. We are talking about the essence of faith -a belief really in anything not recognized by science.

Science can only really address phenomena or claims that can be tested. While much religious dogma might be contradicted by science, the essence of faith is untouchable in this regard - that is, unless a God makes a showing. But the inability to test a claim does not falsify that claim. And many claims that at one time could not be tested, later could be. Rogue waves are probably one of the best recent examples of this. The claim has been around for centuries, but science has only been able to address the claim recently through oil rig sensors, and satellite data. Sure enough, they exist!

religion in itself is a fill in the blank philosophy, there's been scientists who make break thru discoverys only to come to a halt cause they can't find the next answer so they fill in the blank with intelligent design. Then another scientist will come after the first and will logically figure out what last scientist couldn't learn and then he comes to a point of no more understanding also and then also puts intelligent design in the blank. the more we learn the less blanks we have to fill


and scientists do measure things directly and indirectly, what they can't conclude they don't leave to a higher being as being responsible and just leave it at that, (e.g. creation of the universe) do u have faith that we will figure it out one day

 

[Evo]

Wrong again. I could cite sources if you want. Keep trying you guys. In fact I could cite sources from both playing fields. I could site sources from thiest scientist doing research to make conclusions on particular religious beliefs and I could cite non-theist or neutral works to determine the opposite.

Yes, please cite sources of valid, mainstream scientific research that specifically states they are debunking religion. I don't care about loons that are trying to make stuff up to back a specific religious belief (ID).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, that's MY original point. I have no reason to believe in God(s) THEREFORE NOT A CHOICE.

Honestly.

You deem there is no reason to. That is not the same as literally having no reason; no evidence, no claims, no history, no legends, no myths. Surely you can understand the difference?

Also, I have never banned anyone because they argue with me. But it is important to refrain from personal insults, innuendo, and snide remarks, which are a violation of the guidelines and will earn a ban with enough violations.

 

[CosmicCrunch]

I have to agree with the general idea behind what mgb is saying. Also CosmicCrunch you are wrong is saying that they weren't as intelligent as we are today (by my understanding of the word intelligence). Maybe they didn't 'know' as much as we do today but they were definitely as intelligent, maybe more so on average even?

im referring to more ignorant in the world around us than we are now

 

[Evo]

religion in itself is a fill in the blank philosophy, there's been scientists who make break thru discoverys only to come to a halt cause they can't find the next answer so they fill in the blank with intelligent design. Then another scientist will come after the first and will logically figure out what last scientist couldn't learn and then he comes to a point of no more understanding also and then also puts intelligent design in the blank. the more we learn the less blanks we have to fill


and scientists do measure things directly and indirectly, what they can't conclude they don't leave to a higher being as being responsible and just leave it at that, (e.g. creation of the universe) do u have faith that we will figure it out one day

Please post the valid scientific research that backs your statements that credible scientists claim ID is a valid answer to anything.

Sorry, we don't allow this kind of misinformation here. And I warned you to stop the text speak.

 

[CosmicCrunch]

how bout neil degrasse tyson

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-102519600994873365#

happy?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

im referring to more ignorant in the world around us than we are now

As for your point, that is not the basis for faith, that is the basis for religion. It is important to understand the difference. I am not defending any particular religious belief, I am arguing the limits of logic as applied to faith of any sort.

Beyond that, there are endless rationalizations for getting around logical objections like yours. One can always logically invoke some aspect of "God" to explain away apparent contradictions with scientific evidence.

 

[Evo]

how bout neil degrasse tyson

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-102519600994873365#

happy?

Post the specific part that backs something you said. Be sure to explain where the part of his you are quoting backs the part of what you said. Posting a link to a video is not acceptable.

 

[zomgwtf]

You deem there is no reason to. That is not the same as literally having no reason; no evidence, no claims, no history, no legends, no myths. Surely you can understand the difference?

You deem there is no reason to believe in the cosmic teacup. You're making up a difference when one doesn't exist at all.

Cosmic teacup:
Has as much evidence supporting it as does a possible hypothesis of God. (none... unless you get into crackpot visions etc. which case I counter because I've had visions of the teacup ergo, evidence hence: I believe it)

Definitely has claims... Known also as Russells teapot or Celestial teapot... various names. Never heard of Bertrand Russell have you? Odd. It's a very popular argument utilized by people arguing with theists to show that the burden of qualifiable evidence is not on the shoulders of those who don't believe. It's on those that posit the beliefs. I think Dawkins has a version of it too.

Definitely has a history... it's been used since 1952 and has risen to become an extremely popular concept!

Err no legends or myths? I don't think this has anything to do with whether or not you choose not to believe in something or not.

In fact: I don't think ANY of what you say has ANYTHING to do with whether it's a choice to be an Athiest. Possibly with the exception of evidene... history and 'claims' however have no bearing on this. I have a feeling your making 'appeal to popularity' 'appeal to common practice' 'appeal to belief' fallacies. Very unfortunate cause you seem to have ventured very far down this path of accepting fallacy as decision makers...

 

[zomgwtf]

Yes, please cite sources of valid, mainstream scientific research that specifically states they are debunking religion. I don't care about loons that are trying to make stuff up to back a specific religious belief (ID).

Well then, I'm afraid that this will rule out using most of theistic scientific sources... Kind of unfair. They are not 'mainstream', I don't think (read: It's of my opinion) they are valid and you go on to call them loons making stuff up. The most recent article I've read was about Athiest to be 'defunct' genetically and evolutionarily speaking. It was a pretty interesting article but I don't think it meets your or Forum criteria. (the research conducted wasn't all that great)

What about the studies done on prayers? Would that qualify? You can hardly say that they are studying prayers for some other reason which doesn't have to do with specific religions...

I think you've already conceded that science DOES have something to say about religion though. I didn't bother pointing it out earlier, meh:

Perhaps what you mean is that science has inadvertantly debunked the myths, such as the age of the earth, how it was formed, how life evolved, etc.

My entire point was exactly that what you had originally claimed:

The pursuit of science has zero to do with religion.

was wrong. You changed the goalpost on me however and I obliged to jump through it however you've changed it again but limiting what qualifies as citable material so I don't know what to say now. I'll just accept that you conceded to me that your original point was wrong.

Science does have much to say about religion, regardless of how many mainstream scientists set out with those intentions or how you personally view them. Science can't comment on God or deities for the reason already posted by Ivan.

EDIT: I feel as though you are equating belief in a religion with concept of God. Incorrect comparison to make.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I do have reason to believe in a God.

What's the reason?

 

[Hurkyl]

If I claimed that my sister is visiting, would you deny that was evidence in favor of the "Hurkyl's sister is visiting Hurkyl" hypothesis?

If I claimed there was a cosmic teacup, would you deny that was evidence in favor of the "cosmic teacup" hypothesis?

I expect your answers are "no" and "yes", respectively. I challenge you to explain why the answers are different.

 

[Evo]

Well then, I'm afraid that this will rule out using most of theistic scientific sources...

You've completely lost me.

I said that I do not believe that any credible scientist has done accredited peer reviewed scientific research specifically to debunk religion.

I know Dawkins argues against religion, but he has not actually done any scientific research specifically to debunk religion.

So, are you saying that there is actually valid documented scientific research for this purpose?

No, you aren't, I know you better.

Don't forget that I am an atheist, but I don't tolerate nonsense or misinformation either.

 

[zomgwtf]

If I claimed that my sister is visiting, would you deny that was evidence in favor of the "Hurkyl's sister is visiting Hurkyl" hypothesis?

If I claimed there was a cosmic teacup, would you deny that was evidence in favor of the "cosmic teacup" hypothesis?

I expect your answers are "no" and "yes", respectively. I challenge you to explain why the answers are different.

I don't think this changes the fact that it's not a choice.

 

[zomgwtf]

You've completely lost me.

I said that I do not believe that any credible scientist has done accredited peer reviewed scientific research specifically to debunk religion.

I know Dawkins argues against religion, but he has not actually done any scientific research specifically to debunk religion.

So, are you saying that there is actually valid documented scientific research for this purpose?

No, you aren't, I know you better.

Don't forget that I am an atheist, but I don't tolerate nonsense or misinformation either.

You originally had only claimed that science doesn't deal with religion basically. I said this wasn't true. You changed your position to include that scientists don't go out with the intent to debunk religion. Which, also isn't true, but doesn't matter to the original point I was making.

Namely:
Science does have something to say about religions.

 

[Evo]

You originally had only claimed that science doesn't deal with religion basically. I said this wasn't true. You changed your position to include that scientists don't go out with the intent to debunk religion. Which, also isn't true, but doesn't matter to the original point I was making.

Namely:
Science does have something to say about religions.

Nuh-uh. Read my posts. They have all been consistent in that there is a requirement that there is no intentional, named research specifically to discredit religion. I was very careful to make sure this was not misunderstood.

Can you post links to where I did not make this clear?

 

[zomgwtf]

Nuh-uh. Read my posts. They have all been consistent in that there is a requirement that there is no intentional, named research specifically to discredit religion. I was very careful to make sure this was not misunderstood.

Can you post links to where I did not make this clear?

Specifically this:

The pursuit of science has zero to do with religion. Gods, goddesses, trout that created the world, science doesn't address these beliefs. If you are talking about myths in religious writings, most people do realize they are just stories and not to be taken literally. The ones that *do* take them literally are a fringe that do not represent the mainstream believers.

Religion and God are not the same thing. I took this to mean that 'the pursuits taken in science have nothing to do with the realm of religion.'

 

[Evo]

Specifically this:

The pursuit of science has zero to do with religion. Gods, goddesses, trout that created the world, science doesn't address these beliefs. If you are talking about myths in religious writings, most people do realize they are just stories and not to be taken literally. The ones that *do* take them literally are a fringe that do not represent the mainstream believers.

Religion and God are not the same thing. I took this to mean that 'the pursuits taken in science have nothing to do with the realm of religion.'

Exactly. The pursuit of science does have zero to do with religion.

The pursuit of science is science. If it happens to contradict religious myths, that has nothing to do with the science itself.

Zom, you disappoint me, you're better than this.

 

[zomgwtf]

Exactly. The pursuit of science does have zero to do with religion.

The pursuit of science is science. if it happens to contradict religious myths, that has nothing to do with the science itself. I addressed that in another of my posts.

Zom, you disappoint me, you're better than this.

You're under the assumption that religious beliefs don't mingle in the realm of religion. Obviously the persuit of science isn't religious but it does many time venture into the realm of religion and say something about that religion.

EDIT: As well I've lost most of the tolerance I've had for religions after reading an article on a creationist wesite intended to target children which presented the idea that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans. They completely bashed mainstream scientific thought in multiple fields specifically intending to sway the opinion of a moldable child mind. Yet didn't supply one strand of evidence to support their idea, only that their 'holy know it all creationist scientist' have proven them wrong! Disgusting.

Ignorance no longer has a place of respect in my mind.

 

[Hurkyl]

Ignorance no longer has a place of respect in my mind.

Hrm. Doesn't stereotyping all religious people based on the actions of a few count as ignorance?

 

[zomgwtf]

Hrm. Doesn't stereotyping all religious people based on the actions of a few count as ignorance?

Where did I stereotype all religious people? By saying I've lost most tolerance I've had for religions?? Give me a break.

 

[Evo]

You're under the assumption that religious beliefs don't mingle in the realm of religion. Obviously the persuit of science isn't religious but it does many time venture into the realm of religion and say something about that religion.

Like what? I already addressed the fact that science has proven that misconceptions about the age of the earth, the origins of life, evolution, etc... are wrong according to religious myths. But the fact is, that scientific study was not done with the purpose to disprove any religious teachings. It was simply the pursuit of truth.

 

[zomgwtf]

Like what? I already addressed the fact that science has proven that misconceptions about the age of the earth, the origins of life, evolution, etc... are wrong according to religious myths. But the fact is, that scientific study was not done with the purpose to disprove any religious teachings. It was simply the pursuit of truth.

Ok Evo, the fact that science mistakenly corrects religious dogma every now and then doesn't meant that science has something to say about religion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You deem there is no reason to believe in the cosmic teacup. You're making up a difference when one doesn't exist at all.

Cosmic teacup:
Has as much evidence supporting it as does a possible hypothesis of God. (none... unless you get into crackpot visions etc. which case I counter because I've had visions of the teacup ergo, evidence hence: I believe it)

Okay so by visions, do you assume also that any claimed direct experience is a "vision", and not real?

Definitely has claims... Known also as Russells teapot or Celestial teapot... various names. Never heard of Bertrand Russell have you? Odd.[b/]

I told you to lose the insults and innuendo. I won't ignore the next one.

Yes, I have certainly heard of Bertrand Russell. No, I haven't read the fad books by Dawkins so I wasn't up with the latest pop arguments. I have certainly encountered the essential argument many times before.

It's a very popular argument utilized by people arguing with theists to show that the burden of qualifiable evidence is not on the shoulders of those who don't believe. It's on those that posit the beliefs. I think Dawkins has a version of it too.

Okay, let er rip. You require quantifiable evidence, and others don't. How does your argument have any meaning? You still set the standards by choice. If you choose to require quantifiable evidence in order to believe anything, that is your choice.

Definitely has a history... it's been used since 1952 and has risen to become an extremely popular concept!

I meant the history of the world, which is filled with eons of belief in a God. Some choose to believe based on tradition as much as anything.

Err no legends or myths? I don't think this has anything to do with whether or not you choose not to believe in something or not.

That is your choice. That is a defined limit on your view of evidence. In fact, many legends and myths have proven to have a basis in fact; a few turned out to be absolute fact, such as the stories of the great apes, which were once considered by most of the western world to be mythical. So the limit is clearly arbitrary and not absolute, in practice. Myths and legends can be true. You can easily overlook good anecdotal evidence by your method. So the strength of a legend or myth - how compelling is the anecdotal evidence? - plays a logical role if one tries to evaluate claims. The fact is that you may feel differently if someone you trust and admire came to you with an unprovable story. You may be compelled by something other than logic to make your choice. So it is a choice. You might also choose to have faith in that person based on your personal knowledge of them.

In fact: I don't think ANY of what you say has ANYTHING to do with whether it's a choice to be an Athiest. Possibly with the exception of evidene... history and 'claims' however have no bearing on this. I have a feeling your making 'appeal to popularity' 'appeal to common practice' 'appeal to belief' fallacies. Very unfortunate cause you seem to have ventured very far down this path of accepting fallacy as decision makers...

I am saying that your argument depends entirely on how you weight evidence. Your choice is not about being atheist or not, to believe or not, it is about what evidence you are willing to consider, and how you weight that evidence.