Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[Bazzlad]

You say that but positive thinking has been proven a powerful tool - ie the placebo effect.

[malfunction]

You say that but positive thinking has been proven a powerful tool - ie the placebo effect.

I don't discount the placebo effect nor that having faith may help one through life... I can see that I might find death (of others and my own mortality) easier to deal with if I thought there was life after death - which raises another point - why mourn or fear death if you are sure you are "going up to the spirit in the sky"? I would say that - like love - we are 'programmed' to fear death (just as I believe we are 'programmed' to feel other emotions) and would link it into evolution theory - if it hurts don't do it, if it feels nice do it, etc - conditioning what we do in life to promote our own survival / promotion of our genes, etc

Edit: What I'm saying (again) is that just because you want something to be true it doesn't mean that it is (and I accept that believing something that isn't true can do you good - i.e. the placebo effect)

[G4Z]

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?

Well, I never said I could quantify it, which as you no doubt realise would be very difficult due to the subjective nature of it. I don't claim to be an expert in the area, however there are theories and they have applications therefore I think I am on safe ground to say we have some idea how it works and we are pretty sure it exists.

TA yep, but decided to leave because I didn't want to be part of Blairs oil wars.

[Bazzlad]

You're lucky you had done your 3 years eh?
Or was it God's doing?

[Agent]

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.

Defining anything is easy. Just grab a dictionary and you have your answer.
Take your pick

A definition of something is nothing more than how that word is used in society.

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

And thats all a good scientist would ever do. Everything is a theroy, essentially its not 100% possiable to prove anything, only that it happened on that occasion. However, we can come close to 'fact'. Take for example gravity - We know its there, and to this day there has been no evidence (AFAIK) to suggest that its not acted as we expect. Every time we throw something up in the air, it comes falling back to earth.
Any true scientist would admit that this might not happen one day, but the chances of it are so remote that we class it as 'impossible'.

Any scientist who gives you an answer that you wouldn't call a 'guess' isn't a scientist and is doing it to give you an answer you want to hear.

[iranu]

See post #152 for the "theory" definition. Its a common misconception. I guess that when you work with theories on a regular basis then it's easy to forget that the general meaning is not the scientific one. I must remember not to be so short with people when they offer this up.

With regard to the Love angle you may find this interesting.

Sex alleviates tension. Love causes it. - Medgadget - www.medgadget.com

I'll have to ask my friend who's a neuroscientist about the latest developments, I'm sure he'll shed some more light on the subject although I hope it's a reference that I can skim rather than alot of detail cos I find that I tend to feel a bit when all that medical/brain stuff is discussed . Since MRI has been available the pace of understanding the brain is getting much faster.

[Bazzlad]

Keep your nose out of this Agent

Yes I agree with what you're saying mate, but I'm getting people here telling me love is quantifiable and measurable enough for it to be able to scientficially prove that somebody loves somebody else.

And it's not.

[Bazzlad]

.....We didn't predict such a striking lateralization," Brown reported..."

See? Bloody scientists, always guessing. Global warming my arse.

[Agent]

Keep your nose out of this Agent

Yes I agree with what you're saying mate, but I'm getting people here telling me love is quantifiable and measurable enough for it to be able to scientficially prove that somebody loves somebody else.

And it's not.

Likewise, I don't believe you quantify 'love' in the way you're saying and 'prove' that someone loves someone else. Sure, you can say that it fall's into the definition of 'love', but emotions are a funny thing and only that person can know what they are feeling.
However, that goes for any emotion.

Being able to quantify and define something are two very different things though

[malfunction]

I'm getting people here telling me love is quantifiable and measurable enough for it to be able to scientficially prove that somebody loves somebody else.

And it's not.

I don't think anyone ever said that - personally I was pointing out that there are various scientific theories around emotions and motivations. Physical, chemical and electrical responses can be measured and quantified - as can verbal / descriptive responses in psychological terms.

No-one's arguing the existence of emotion though, only the existence of any god.

[ajbrun]

simple answer: because we are human, and subject to unique experience of life, we will see things differently. So we interpret the Bible differently

However, there are certain areas which are more prone to intepretation, and others less open to such. Eg, across all the Christian denominations, there is a uniformity on fundamentals: who God is, who we are in relation to God, who Christ is, how and why He died for us, the redemption from sin, the trinity.

Anyone who disagrees with the above is not Christian. They are something else (eg the Mormons, JW's etc) but not Christian.

Another POV: we are imperfect beings trying to understand a perfect truth. We cannot get it right all the time. We cannot claim to have the perfect answer. Which human would you seriously trust to have perfect knowledge on any subject, eh? None, right.

The subjective element is actually good It keeps us humble. In all spheres of life - well, it should.
Knowing I am fallable keeps me reliant on God for guidance, keeps me from arrogance (in theory), keeps me from being judgmental (in theory) - it is the cornerstone of why we cannot judge others. In essence, we are freed from that burden - hah! I love it. It means there is always another way to look at things, more to learn, more to understand, a reason to recognise the opinions of others etc.

Sorry, but that's not quite what I was meaning. I understand that the bible could be interpreted different by different people. What I am asking is that since all christians have a relationship with god in that they are able to communicate with him, then how come different interpretations exist at all? Surely you'd be able to ask god for clarification?

I can understand non-christians interpreting it differently (they wouldn't have god to guide them), but then why do so many christians have so many different opinions about what it all means literally?

[yamangman]

Can we kick Bazzlad out of this thread? It was reasoned and for the most part well thought out until he chipped in.

[pauldarkside]

Can we kick Bazzlad out of this thread? It was reasoned and for the most part well thought out until he chipped in.

I always thought of this as an arena for discussion, tolerant of opinion and question. If you dislike a particular post, perhaps you ought to ignore it or offer an alternative view.

I've thoroughly enjoyed keeping up with the comments in this thread. Whilst I do not agree with everything said, I'm open-minded and keen to learn peoples views on the subject. I've certainly no wish to belittle or berate anyone for trying to express their thoughts.

[kasavien]

I always thought of this as an arena for discussion, tolerant of opinion and question. If you dislike a particular post, perhaps you ought to ignore it or offer an alternative view.

I've thoroughly enjoyed keeping up with the comments in this thread. Whilst I do not agree with everything said, I'm open-minded and keen to learn peoples views on the subject. I've certainly no wish to belittle or berate anyone for trying to express their thoughts.

Seconded, i've found this thread thoroughly interesting, more so than my coursework at least.

Also my post earlier about Derren Brown although attempting to be light hearted i was hoping that someone might pick up on it. From what i gathered from watching it he was very much of the opinion that having a faith is very much just in the head, which he demonstrated by making atheists believe in god. I have no idea how he did this apart from that he used his normal techniques of psychology, suggestion etc. My point is, has the same sort of thing happened to people that have faith believe in a god, have they just been conditioned over time to believe in a deity through suggestion and psychology etc although over a longer time period than Derren was using?

[JPreston]

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!'
...

It's telling that your source describes Bertrand Russell simply as a 'great atheist philosopher'. Forget he was one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, a prolific historian, Nobel prizewinner, prominent campaigner for socially progressive issues throughout the 20th century - he wrote Why I Am Not a Christian, oh the humanity! Clearly he is really just a revered prophet of atheism.

And speaking of Bertrand Russell quotes, look no further than my sig for a particularly apt one.

[Bazzlad]

Can we kick Bazzlad out of this thread? It was reasoned and for the most part well thought out until he chipped in.

I made some reasoned posts thank YAMANAGAMANAGAMAN, then I was informed that, due to turning up late, I was taking the discussion in a circle, so I added a little bit of humour to the thread, and faded out - after all my entire argument is that you cannot prove God doesn't exist, whereas this thread is about proving God exists, which as Religion is a faith, and all faith is blind faith, is equally impossible, although some, myself included, would argue that is by design.

So shut up.

Malfunction mate,

I don't think anyone ever said that - personally I was pointing out that there are various scientific theories around emotions and motivations. Physical, chemical and electrical responses can be measured and quantified - as can verbal / descriptive responses in psychological terms.

The animus:

Take the assumption that you can't prove love.
I'd say you could, quite easily. First define love, and it should be simple.

That was where the whole emotion thing came from the fact that although somebody loves you, science cannot prove it, thus science cannot prove all - but again, we're going round in circles.

The real question is:
Would an airplane on a treadmill take off if the treadmill was powered by Atheist's and Christian's arguments?