We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Tony Benn slams BBC on air for "capitulating to Israeli pressure"
Comments
-
.
The fact that science doesnt yet know about the whole of physics is not proof that mysterious supernatural forces exist. It may simply be that we havent yet characterised what could well be perfectly explicible natural phenomena. So the only completely rational attitude to that "evidence" must be agnosticism.
I'm a serious Dawkins fan. All religion for me is Man made, however, I am open to a God like agency, but of course not of the anthropomorphic flowing beard brand.
I have been an avid reader of particle physics, cosmology and quantum mechanics for some years and the more I read the more I'm inclined to the sense the Universe is an information system that contained and enabled information to be bought about that allows a piece of the Universe (us) to observe itself. The Universe is in effect conscious because we are not separate from it of course.
In the end everything boils down to the process' at the quantum level, the very esscence of the Universe. The Universe self defined all laws that govern every movement at the smallest level, thus consciouness and for example light quanta are inseparable. All matter and forces are made of energy packets, the very same packets all connected together to make one Universe, and thus the parts we might ring fence as conscious are in fact all connected to the one great scheme.
In this sense a God agency exists at every level. It is not outside of nature, it is all one and the same scheme.0 -
I actually really don't care much one way or the other but If you believe in god, die, and there is no god, how exactly do you find out you are right or wrong?
You wouldn't. The key thing is that atheists will only find out if they've got it wrong, whereas believers will only find out if they've got it right. I rather like that.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
I'm a serious Dawkins fan. All religion for me is Man made, however, I am open to a God like agency, but of course not of the anthropomorphic flowing beard brand.
I have been an avid reader of particle physics, cosmology and quantum mechanics for some years and the more I read the more I'm inclined to the sense the Universe is an information system that contained and enabled information to be bought about that allows a piece of the Universe (us) to observe itself. The Universe is in effect conscious because we are not separate from it of course.
In the end everything boils down to the process' at the quantum level, the very esscence of the Universe. The Universe self defined all laws that govern every movement at the smallest level, thus consciouness and for example light quanta are inseparable. All matter and forces are made of energy packets, the very same packets all connected together to make one Universe, and thus the parts we might ring fence as conscious are in fact all connected to the one great scheme.
In this sense a God agency exists at every level. It is not outside of nature, it is all one and the same scheme.
That's all perfectly plausible. Does not explain though how it all came about, when, and why. The theory that it is infinite in time (if not also in space) is of course in itself evidence of the supernatural, in a sense, because firm science cannot explain how something can have no beginning, no end, no cause. Nor indeed can another theory that matter and energy can spontaneously create itself, and disappear just as mysteriously. Given these mysteries agnostics have a perfectly understandable point of view, whereas atheists are of course in denial. And militant atheists are themselves examples of extremists, whom they routinely criticise.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »And militant atheists are themselves examples of extremists, whom they routinely criticise.
I think it debases the theist's argument to attach the word "militant" to their atheist opponents.
I don't often hear of atheists indulging in civil disobedience or violence in the pursuit of their argument. Occasionally, yes, resorting to the courts to assert their rights. Is this militancy in any reasonable sense of the word?
And Dawkins, in fairness, does concede that a supernatural creator could (edit) exist. He only seeks to promote a debate on the relative probability of the existence/non-existence of such a being.GeorgeHowell wrote: »Nobody who knows which end is up disputes the theory of evolution in its entirety.
That's an interesting comment. Which elements can a "right end upp-er" seriously dispute, in your view?0 -
hugoshavez wrote: »I think it debases the theist's argument to attach the word "militant" to their atheist opponents.
I don't often hear of atheists indulging in civil disobedience or violence in the pursuit of their argument. Occasionally, yes, resorting to the courts to assert their rights. Is this militancy in any reasonable sense of the word?
And Dawkins, in fairness, does concede that a supernatural creator does exist. He only seeks to promote a debate on the relative probability of the existence/non-existence of such a being.
That's an interesting comment. Which elements can a "right end upp-er" seriously dispute, in your view?
I did not of course coin the term, but in order to maintain credibility atheists would be better in my view just to get on with being so rather than, as some apparently do, cast aspersions in various ways on those who are not atheists, That to me savours of the sort of intolerance that they level at some who follow various religions. If being an atheiest is to them a 'no-brainer' why bother to harp on about it ?
I am not a biologist and so can no doubt be blinded by science on this one. But my understanding is that fossil evidence etc does not necessarily fully support the smooth, inexorable, classic Darwinian theory of evolution. In other words that there are a number of missing links which are filled in by interpolation etc. So maybe there were fits and starts, brought about by outside influences, though I would personally think that those would and will eventually be fully explained by the laws of science.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »I did not of course coin the term, but in order to maintain credibility atheists would be better in my view just to get on with being so rather than, as some apparently do, cast aspersions in various ways on those who are not atheists, That to me savours of the sort of intolerance that they level at some who follow various religions. If being an atheiest is to them a 'no-brainer' why bother to harp on about it ?
I am not a biologist and so can no doubt be blinded by science on this one. But my understanding is that fossil evidence etc does not necessarily fully support the smooth, inexorable, classic Darwinian theory of evolution. In other words that there are a number of missing links which are filled in by interpolation etc. So maybe there were fits and starts, brought about by outside influences, though I would personally think that those would and will eventually be fully explained by the laws of science.
Seems reasonable. For what it's worth I think a geologist or archaeologist could explain clearly why such a tiny number of creatures die, and are preserved, in just the right conditions to be fossilised, preserved and discovered.
What examples of aspersion-casting lessen an atheist's credibility, would you say?0 -
hugoshavez wrote: »What examples of aspersion-casting lessen an atheist's credibility, would you say?
Anything that smarts of intolerance towards non-atheists in general. Because it seems to me that perceived intolerance on the part of (some of) those who follow religions is their main gripe.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Anything that smarts of intolerance towards non-atheists in general. Because it seems to me that perceived intolerance on the part of (some of) those who follow religions is their main gripe.
The people most intolerant of theists are theists of a slightly different persuasion.
Atheists tend not to be intolerant of theists, merely intolerant of their loudly proclaimed lack of intellectual rigour and their desire to infect other people with the same disease.0 -
The people most intolerant of theists are theists of a slightly different persuasion.
Atheists tend not to be intolerant of theists, merely intolerant of their loudly proclaimed lack of intellectual rigour and their desire to infect other people with the same disease.
Nice job, thanks for killing the argument.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »You wouldn't. The key thing is that atheists will only find out if they've got it wrong, whereas believers will only find out if they've got it right. I rather like that.
What if the believers find out they are right [there is a god] but find the wrong god to the one they were expecting?
What happens then?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards