Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: biotech_bull who wrote (84096)	9/13/2008 10:03:38 AM
From: NAG1	Respond to of 544204

BB, As you say, no way to prove if there is a god or not. I haven't been following this thread much but I will throw my 2 cents in. If there is a supreme being that is the benevolent being that most religions make it out to be, I don't think it's focus would be on if you go to church on Sunday, synagogue on Saturday, pray towards Mecca 5 times a day or any other iteration of religion as we know it. I think a benevolent, supreme being would care more about being a good person and treating others with respect. If there is a heaven, good people get in, no matter how you decide to pray or not pray in my mind. Bad people don't, no matter what you do before or how you pray or confess before you die. Never made any sense to me that a Mafia person can live an evil life and just before he dies, do something to get into heaven, if it exists, and a person who lives a good life doesn't. Or someone who goes to the synagogue every Saturday but stabs you in the back the rest of the week gets a pass over someone that takes good care of his family and fellow man without going to the synagogue. Just my take on things. Neal

To: biotech_bull who wrote (84096)	9/13/2008 10:26:07 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 544204

"Science objectively admits to so many fundamentals being unknowable or unprovable" (And I'm not sure it's "so many") But you don't take a stand on the unknowable or unprovable in science it and "believe" in it absolutely or worship it. At least not in my science classes...

To: biotech_bull who wrote (84096)	9/13/2008 10:35:22 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 544204

These are an almost negligible minority of those who contend that God is unprovable, the broader/conventional definition of agnostics. There are a lot of semantic difficulties in discussing this topic. Nonetheless, I venture in. Your "broader/conventional definition of agnostics" may be accurate, in context, but it isn't very useful in practice in today's world. If we were to use your definition, almost everyone would be an agnostic, which tells us little of value. When you fill out a demographic survey, you can pick Catholic or Buddhist or Episcopalian or Deist, etc., and you can also pick Agnostic. Agnostics, for demographic purposes, are considered that subset of your version of agnostics who aren't (also) believers. Agnostics and Christians are mutually exclusive groups in common usage. In your framework, I suppose one could consider oneself both an agnostic and a Methodist, but for demographic purposes and for identity purposes, Agnostics, the identity group, comprise those agnostics who are not also believers. Your notion that their are two subsets of believers, those who who are agnostic and those who believe that what they believe is provable, boggles my mind. Religious belief means having faith--believing without proof, believing the unprovable. If the existence of god were provable, then faith wouldn't be required for belief. Belief wouldn't even be required. It would be fact. Religion without the need for faith is meaningless. With a provable deity, you have science, not religion. Mystery solved, case closed. So I think we have to operate off a definition of agnosticism that excludes believers. To do otherwise doesn't work.

To: biotech_bull who wrote (84096)	9/13/2008 3:25:15 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 544204

>>I personally think that the existence of God is unprovable or unknowable is the weakest argument against belief in God - Science objectively admits to so many fundamentals being unknowable or unprovable.<< BB - The difference is that scientists don't look at something they don't quite understand, then postulate the existence of some entity as vast and limitless in power as God to explain it. I think the burden of proof is on the postulators. It's not up to atheists to disprove the existence of God. By the way, there are reliable, clinical ways to induce the "god" feeling, whether or not there's a specific spot in the brain for it. Sitting in the dark, gathered around a fire in a circle drumming, with a leader of some sort speaking will do it. If you gather a bunch of people in a large space, play music that rises and falls in a particular way, and have a speaker whose voice also rises and falls in a particular way, a lot of the people in that space will begin to feel as if they are experiencing the presence of god. I can see how this might have been an evolutionary advantage, as people who have a good shaman, whom they believe to be superhuman, or at least, closer to divinity than they are, would tend to form a cohesive group. They would take care of each other better, and be more willing to fight as a group to repel competitors. LSD also reliably induces a feeling that one is in the presence of god. - Allen