Do you believe in God?

[Mecky]

You can see air though. Why is the sky blue etc....

 

Actually, it's molecules of different density attaching itself to air, but I know what you mean

[Lockjaw]

Actually, it's molecules of different density attaching itself to air

 

Blimey! Tell me more.

[janie48]

No response to my post then?

 

No surprise.

 

No conviction.

Total conviction! though you obviously don't think so.

My not replying to posts meant nothing personal. I have reached the point now where I feel that everything I say is completely dismissed or disregarded.

I have no further desire to engage in discussions that repeatedly suggest having a belief is delusional, even if the comments are subtly hinting at it.

Is it any wonder that earlier contributors on the thread chose not to continue posting.

 

I've said this before at some point either on this lengthy thread or on some other one but I will say it again I have nothing against atheists and I count some of my closest friends and relatives among them, but as you may have gathered I don't like dogmatic radical atheism. I compare it to radical fundamental Christianity and I see similarities between the two extremes that come very close to bigotry which is a trait I have little time for.

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2013 at 13:54 ----------

 

Yes, there certainly is!

That is the point of science:

To search for those things which presently accepted scientific theory does not explain adequately, and to search for an explanation.

 

Newton's theory of gravity explained nearly everything. The planet Mercury didn't orbit exactly as Newton predicted, though the "error" was tiny. People looked for errors in the observations -- no, it wasn't that. Maybe an undiscovered planet was disturbing Mercury's orbit -- no, none was found.

At last, Einstein formed a new theory to account for gravity, and explained Mercury's orbit to high precision.

 

That's how science works; it never has the final word, which may not be doubted. If someone produces evidence of the existence of a "super-being", I'll listen and consider it.

 

However, I do not accept that all written in a book is true, when the evidence of that truth is a sentence in that book itself (2 Timothy 3:16 )

Science and religion are reconciled they work together, religion has the same curiosity and thirst for scientific knowledge.

 

The Universe is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years old.

 

Have you seen the Wonders of the Universe series with Professor Brian Cox?

No I missed that series.

 

They don't worship him, they acknowledge him.

 

Does anyone know what denomination Janie is?

You are wrong,some hindus worship Jesus.

If you had had the manners to ask me I would have replied an interdenominational Christian, but a persons religious background is irrelevant.

Edited April 17, 2013 by janie48
last sentence needed correcting.

[Obelix]

Actually, it's molecules of different density attaching itself to air, but I know what you mean

 

Er no, it really isn't......

 

Light is scattered due to Rayleigh scattering from things that are about the same size as the wavelength of light. "Air" molecules scatter blue light more efficiently than red light, ergo the colour of a blue sky is the result of this scattered sunlight which is predominantly blue in colour.

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2013 at 14:11 ----------

 

I've said this before at some point either on this lengthy thread or on some other one but I will say it again I have nothing against atheists and I count some of my closest friends and relatives among them, but as you may have gathered I don't like dogmatic radical atheism.

 

The trouble is you appear label everyone who disagrees with you and tag them with the "militant atheist" name, and make it quite clear you feel considerable disdain for them. That is both unhelpful to your argument and is going to make people feel much less well inclined towards you. In light of that I find it very hard to believe your assertion that you have nothing against atheists, as it is quite clear from many conversations that you do.

 

---------- Post added 09-04-2013 at 14:12 ----------

 

Science and religion are reconciled they work together, religion has the same curiosity and thirst for scientific knowledge.

 

If religion wants to play in the realm of science then it has to follow the same rules. It can't claim an exception from those rules because it's special which is what you seem to be asking for.

[spilldig]

Do they?

 

Let's go into it then, let's weigh up what they say that's the same and see if those similarities outweigh the differences. Let me stress I'm not arguing, but I want to get into the nitty gritty of your statement to see how much you've thought about it and how much is pop rhetoric.

 

Well I think they do.

[PaliRichard]

Well I think they do.

 

Now come on don't spoil it.

 

Compared to some Theists on here you are one of the more honest ones but this smacks slightly of avoidance tactic.

 

You said you thought all religions teach the same thing, I asked you to expand.

 

You responded by saying 'you shall not kill'.

 

I put to you this was not taught by most religions to which you did not respond.

 

So rather than give one line answers that don't actually marry with the evidence lets go into exactly why you think religions all teach the same thing - by into it I mean give examples from religious texts in context of the religious teaching.

 

Like I said I don't necessarily disagree wholeheartedly with your idea, I just want to know if you actually think that or whether you've read a book or two that says 'there are many rooms in God's house' or something similar which you've latched onto.

 

I would also like to you to respond to my statement that most religions don't teach you shall not kill.

 

Now if you want your credibility (with me) to remain in tact I request that you answer the points/questions put to you, otherwise I will have to conclude that you are no more honest than the likes of borderline who blatantly avoids answering questions because he knows, deep down, that he is living a lie.

[SnailyBoy]

I've said this before at some point either on this lengthy thread or on some other one but I will say it again I have nothing against atheists and I count some of my closest friends and relatives among them, but as you may have gathered I don't like dogmatic radical atheism. I compare it to radical fundamental Christianity and I see similarities between the two extremes that come very close to bigotry which is a trait I have little time for.

 

 

How can facts be considered dogmatic? You've demonstrated more than once an ignorance on basic facts of the cosmos, yet quite readily given your beliefs on the subject.

 

I'm curious, do you actively seek out information on such subjects, or is there a fear that it may cast doubt on your beliefs, so you ignore it?

[Lockjaw]

Total conviction! though you obviously don't think so.

My not replying to posts meant nothing personal. I have reached the point now where I feel that everything I say is completely dismissed or disregarded.

I have no further desire to engage in discussions that repeatedly suggest having a belief is delusional, even if the comments are subtly hinting at it.

 

It's an opinion though, janie. My opinion. Feel free to show me why I'm wrong. That's what we're here for isn't it?

 

On your general point, that may be how you perceive your position and actions but, as an observer, all I see is someone quite happy to engage with most posters until a tricky question is asked or point is made, when she then begins with the accusations and dodges.

 

Again, I'm not trying to insult you and I am genuinely sorry it comes across that way but those are my honest observations. I'm still after that holy grail of understanding exactly why people believe in this stuff and have this "faith".

 

 

 

ETA: Having now read the rest of the thread I see I've repeated a fair bit of what Obelix & Snaily Boy subsequently said, or implied. I do have my own opinions - honest!

Edited April 9, 2013 by Lockjaw

[janie48]

 

The trouble is you appear label everyone who disagrees with you and tag them with the "militant atheist" name, and make it quite clear you feel considerable disdain for them. That is both unhelpful to your argument and is going to make people feel much less well inclined towards you. In light of that I find it very hard to believe your assertion that you have nothing against atheists, as it is quite clear from many conversations that you do.

 

 

 

If religion wants to play in the realm of science then it has to follow the same rules. It can't claim an exception from those rules because it's special which is what you seem to be asking for.

 

How can facts be considered dogmatic? You've demonstrated more than once an ignorance on basic facts of the cosmos, yet quite readily given your beliefs on the subject.

 

I'm curious, do you actively seek out information on such subjects, or is there a fear that it may cast doubt on your beliefs, so you ignore it?

What I see in both these posts is the example of a side of atheism I sincerely hope isn't a reflection of the majority.

In fact judging from the last few days and comparing the latter part of this thread with the earlier time it was active, I don't think it is.

[PaliRichard]

How can facts be considered dogmatic? You've demonstrated more than once an ignorance on basic facts of the cosmos, yet quite readily given your beliefs on the subject.

 

I'm curious, do you actively seek out information on such subjects, or is there a fear that it may cast doubt on your beliefs, so you ignore it?

 

She didn't say she thought facts were dogmatic she said dogmatic radical atheism.

 

Now although I think her terminology is slightly confused and I believe she means anti Theism what she says does describe many radical anti Theists who themselves blindly use the word 'science' as if it is some sort of weapon.

 

Many of these don't know the first thing about scientific enquiry, they just don't like religion and think if they cite science it becomes a kind of get out of jail free card.

 

These particular anti Theists have far more in common with the religious radical element than they would ever care to admit to, or even acknowledge.

 

I think Janie is honest, she doesn't always know the ins and outs, but she does always acknowledge when she realises she's wrong. My personal opinion is that she sometimes grabs the 'wrong end of the stick' and at times mistakes honest questions for insults, but I don't think she avoids evidence because it is a threat to her faith - there are many, many Theists on this forum that do, but I really don't think she is one of them.