Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[G4Z]

Nope, nor would I be arrogant enough to attempt, given the size of the universe

Quite right, if you think God might exist then you have to conclude that unicorns might exist as well as flying teacups, FSM's and the incredible hulk (there are books!!!).

From my point of view, I can dismiss all of these as extremely unlikely to the point that I am happy to consider them fiction. Even considering the size and age of the universe. Of course if somebody rides past my office on a Unicorn, then I can adjust my view on that because we will have some evidence.

[Bazzlad]

From my point of view, I can dismiss all of these as extremely unlikely to the point that I am happy to consider them fiction. Even considering the size and age of the universe.* Of course if somebody rides past my office on a Unicorn, then I can adjust my view on that because we will have some evidence.

Glad you're so certain and quick to dismiss them even though you do not know the size or age of the universe (nor that there's only one) (nor how it came into existance), but a superior being - NO chance.

[Bazzlad]

No probs.

Attachment theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You wouldn't be good in the Army would you? I ask for a definition, you give me a theory.

Definition: To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example)

Theory: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.

Typical scientist, I ask for answers and you give me guesses.

[MadduckUK]

Of course if somebody rides past my office on a Unicorn, then I can adjust my view on that because we will have some evidence.

would probably be a horse with an ice cream cone on its head. beware false prophets

and a human will have put the cone there. not the horse.....

[fuddam]

Also some of what Fuddam has been expressing is quite extreme and uncommon as far as I'm aware - in that he has directly stated several times that he talks directly with god. Like others here I think that any literal interpretation of that is at best delusion and at worse mental illness. This may sound harsh but that's just the way it is - e.g. if there is a god I'm not sure why he'd speak to Fuddam in preference to people with greater needs, me, my uncle bob or Mother Theresa.

um, he speaks to all people, but if you have no interest in him, do you really think it's easy to hear? I suppose you want a big neon sign to light up the sky - well, lots of people, including myself, sometimes wish for such. Sometimes He DOES answer like that, but most of the times it's a lot more subtle / quieter.
Also, what makes you say you have greater needs than me? What do you know of my needs?
Right now He wants to speak to you, but it takes a sincere heart to find Him.

To quote Blaise Pascal, mathematical genius who became Christian at age 31:

Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.
In other words, the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see.

you don't have to like it, but that's how it is.

[fuddam]

From my point of view, I can dismiss all of these as extremely unlikely to the point that I am happy to consider them fiction. Even considering the size and age of the universe. Of course if somebody rides past my office on a Unicorn, then I can adjust my view on that because we will have some evidence.

rubbish. You would still not consider it evidence, but hallucination brought on by any number of factors. after all, when it comes to God, you have already decided He does not exist, therefore you will entertain any possibility which does not endanger that belief.

[fuddam]

Oh well, am off for the weekend starting early tomorrow. I have to fly to regions foreign to enjoy myself. Will be back next week.

as a parting gift /shot, here's something: bethinking.org | Resource: The Evidence for Christianity

first part:

. The great atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on the judgement day and God asked him, 'Why didn’t you believe in Me?' Russell replied, 'I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'
As I travel around North America and Europe speaking on university campuses, I think that most of the non-Christian university professors that I meet would probably say the same thing. And this attitude is in turn communicated to their students: 'There’s not enough evidence.'

[G4Z]

Glad you're so certain and quick to dismiss them even though you do not know the size or age of the universe (nor that there's only one) (nor how it came into existance), but a superior being - NO chance.

I think your wrong mate, I do have an idea how big it is (so big you can't imagine). I know that there are billions of galaxies each with billions of stars. I am quite aware how big it is, I also know how old it is (13.7 billion years).

I don't know exactly how it came into existence, but if your assumption is correct who created god?

[Bazzlad]

You don't know how big it is and you don't know how old the universe is you just agree with the most logical guess.

Who created God? Come on - easy.
Chuck Norris.

[iranu]

iranu, I couldn't agree more, but I, and many others believe that science and religion can sit side by side, without infringing into each other's domains. Until I see a unified field theory there's still room for God in the Universe

I agree that science and religion can sit side by side. Many a person has been driven by the desire to understand god's creation and become scientists. The real impasse comes when discoveries outstrip religious text or religious teaching. When this happens who has the greater claim? How does the "church" (for want of a better word) challenge a scientific theory that has mountains of evidence to back it up? One that not only predicts, but also has applications (which can help human beings) Which one yields? It's always been the "churches". This is another reason why you don't see much scientific output from the modern Islamic world compared with their golden age because they do have this conflict. Science is a very different practice in Islamic countries.

If religious text or teaching concerns itself with the natural world then it's going to come up against scientific method at some point. Asserting that the bible/koran/tanakh etc is correct really is a silly argument when arguing with regard to a scientific finding. The best and probably honest (and cleverest) thing to do is to say, "well you have to understand that the bible was written by men and they got alot of things wrong, they are fallible, but the central teachings are what's important".

Even if we do manage to create a working Unified Field Theory I'm pretty sure that there will still be reason to accept that god might exist. I doubt the question will ever go away.

[G4Z]

You wouldn't be good in the Army would you? I ask for a definition, you give me a theory.

Definition: To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example)

Theory: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.

Typical scientist, I ask for answers and you give me guesses.

Your definition of a theory is incorrect as has been raked over many times with the 'evolution is only a theory' rubbish. In this case it would seem it is being used to make predictions like any scientific theory should.

'Attachment Theory has become the dominant theory used today in the study of infant and toddler behavior and in the fields of infant mental health, treatment of children, and related fields. Many evidence-based treatment approaches are based on applications of attachment theory.'

Secondly, I am not a Scientist I just take an interest and in fact I was in the army for some time. (Weekend warriors!)

[kasavien]

Just to throw a furry little moggy into the rats with wings, Derren Brown Messiah is rather interesting, of particular interest is the part where he converts people to Christianity with a touch.

Enjoy

YouTube - Derren Brown The so called Messiah 1 of 8
YouTube - Derren Brown - The so called Messiah 2 of 8
YouTube - Derren Brown - The so called Messiah 3 of 8
YouTube - Derren Brown - The so called Messiah 4 of 8
YouTube - Derren Brown - The so called Messiah 5 of 8
YouTube - Derren Brown - The so called Messiah 6 of 8
YouTube - Derren Brown - The so called Messiah 7 of 8
YouTube - Derren Brown - The so called Messiah 8 of 8

[iranu]

I suppose you want a big neon sign to light up the sky -

Actually yes I would! That would be very handy.

To quote Blaise Pascal, mathematical genius who became Christian at age 31:

Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.
In other words, the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see.

you don't have to like it, but that's how it is.

And that's why I find it so strange. I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to even begin to "see the light" even if I went to church or prayed or read the bible daily. It's a completely alien concept to me. If I meet the big G after I die, I'd have an awful lot of questions to ask him before I was sent on my way. I hope he would have the good grace to grant me the answers before I was cast downwards.

Enjoy your weekend.

[G4Z]

rubbish. You would still not consider it evidence, but hallucination brought on by any number of factors. after all, when it comes to God, you have already decided He does not exist, therefore you will entertain any possibility which does not endanger that belief.

What makes you think that I would not change my view if presented with evidence? I think I have stated many times that my problem with these ideas is the lack of evidence, provide me some and I will have to reconsider.

NB - When I say evidence, I mean real evidence, not something concocted in my imagination or anybody else's imagination nor written in a bronze age book.

[Bazzlad]

Your definition of a theory is incorrect as has been raked over many times with the 'evolution is only a theory' rubbish. In this case it would seem it is being used to make predictions like any scientific theory should.

'Attachment Theory has become the dominant theory used today in the study of infant and toddler behavior and in the fields of infant mental health, treatment of children, and related fields. Many evidence-based treatment approaches are based on applications of attachment theory.'

I asked you to define love - you clearly have not, and especially not in a way that if can be quantified and measured.

Weekend warriors? TA?

[malfunction]

um, he speaks to all people, but if you have no interest in him, do you really think it's easy to hear? I suppose you want a big neon sign to light up the sky - well, lots of people, including myself, sometimes wish for such. Sometimes He DOES answer like that, but most of the times it's a lot more subtle / quieter.

A whisper would do - anything discernible. You say he talks to you (which I haven taken to mean that only you can hear him at the time - no actual sound is involved)... This has probably been covered elsewhere but the way you 'say' it reads as a literal interpretation - you have a conversation, words, etc - or am I wrong here?

Also, what makes you say you have greater needs than me? What do you know of my needs?

You've misunderstood me - I've no idea if or how our needs compare - I'm merely stating that you are unlikely to be the neediest / most deserving of attention from any god (first rule of kung fu and all that). Though I would, cheekily, say that if you talk to god every day your needs must be few indeed (regardless of what life throws at you then you surely accept it and understand it?)

Right now He wants to speak to you, but it takes a sincere heart to find Him.

I'd have to agree that I am not open to it and would rationalise the experience (and worry about my sanity) if I thought I was hearing the voice of god. I can give you a direct correlation - when someone near and dear to me died a couple of years ago I was greatly affected by it to the extent that I dreamt / hallucinated about him at night - the old standing at the end of the bed cliché, I wasn't sleeping well and indeed saw him in other people in the day - or rather recognised aspects of his character / behaviour and physical likeness in other people. I would say that this was because I was grieving and not particularly coping with his death and that because of my emotional state my mind was open to such suggestions - either by filling in things that weren't there or by simply making me more observant of certain factors. Others (and I don't necessarily include you here) would say that there were more spiritual connotations to these events and while they freaked me out at the time the explanation given here is truly how I feel about it.

To quote Blaise Pascal, mathematical genius who became Christian at age 31:

Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.
In other words, the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see.

you don't have to like it, but that's how it is.

It may be how it is to you but it's not how it is for me or for others here - all that passage says to me is "if you want it to be true it is" which for me is again emotive clap trap, similar to positive mental attitude / self help slogans. You might as well say "You can do it when you B&Q it".