Very noble of you booshy, on behalf of the silent masses, I extend my sincere thanks and gratitude for the light you have shone into our lives.

Keep up that good work.

I didn't phrase it very well, I was speaking of an unbiased search for knowledge, one that isn't limited, restricted by or beholden to a closed paradigm like 'god made everything'.

There's little point looking for the origin of the universe when the answer, according to all the major religions, is 'god made it' is there, so why bother looking? All the scientists can make the pope (and the rest) happy and just move on to something else, right?

I did get what you were saying and was making a joke at how you worded it. That is why I put the smiley face.

Importantly, what Voltaire mostly wrote about was religious tolerance. He was critical of the church. Where he was correct is that today it is much more difficult to conduct attrocities in the name of god than it was in the past. At least among the nations that educate their populace.

I'm not so sure about the internet helping at all. There aren't any editors and there are far too many silly people spouting off random nonsense for those with sense to combat.

Most scientists are religious. Hence you are incorrect. Completely incorrect. Not even the slightest whiff of correctness.

You really should check with reality before stating your ideas out loud.

Again, your ideas on paradigms are completely and utterly incorrect in almost every way imaginable. Since I was once told that you should always say something nice when critiquing someone, I will add that you did spell "paradigm" correctly, which is good.

Most scientists are religious? I wasn't aware of that, and frankly find it somewhat dubious, can you link your source?

Which part of my 'ideas on paradigms' are incorrect? Perhaps I've got the religious paradigm wrong, can you tell me what you think it is and explain why the Pope told scientists to 'leave the origins of the universe alone as that is the work of god' if religion actually encourages open scientific inquiry has a non-restrictive paradigm?

They don't teach you how to look stuff in Australia? It is actually about 50%.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+percentage...+are+religious

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0921115923.htm

It is your entire conception of "what is a paradigm" that is wrong. I suggest starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm. Read the entire thing. If any part of what you think a paradigm is doesn't fit any single part of the link, then you are describing something that is not a paradigm.

Two problems. Both are fatal to your premise.

The first: A dead pope is not all religious people.

The second: It is funny, but I just looked up your quote on google, and the only reference to it was this: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...20/index4.html which linked to this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13340672.../#.UKez94avP0c in which we have a statement by Stephen Hawking about what a pope said which is a bit different than a quote by a pope.

Further research indicated that here is what the pope actually said: “Every scientific hypothesis about the origin of the world ... leaves unanswered the problem concerning the beginning of the universe."

This is an entirely true statement about the nature and state of science that anyone who has studied even Physics 101 knows. We can have no idea what happened before the end of the Planck epoch.

He's from the UK.

Looks like you saw the 50% in the top results and stopped reading there. The second link you posted doesn't even mention a percentage of religious scientists and talks instead about the percentage who don't think science and religion are necessarily in conflict. One of the pages further down the results puts the figure at 72% Atheist for the 'leading scientists'.

So 52% of scientists don't believe in god and you're saying that 48% is 'most' scientists? Even if it were the other way around, by the definition of 'most' that I understand, you 'are incorrect. Completely incorrect. Not even the slightest whiff of correctness'.

lol.

According to your link (which completely agrees with my understanding of what a paradigm is and how they are used) a paradigm defines:


. what is to be observed and scrutinized
. the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject (i.e. which questions are relevant)
. how these questions are to be structured
. how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted (i.e. which answers are meaningful)
. how is an experiment to be conducted, and what equipment is available to conduct the experiment.

So, if the religious paradigm is 'god made everything' (and you haven't offered a different religious paradigm) then tell me if this question is relevant: 'If god didn't make the universe, then how did it originate?' And whether that paradigm would justify inquiry into seeking an answer to that question?

Clearly not.

No, he was just the head of the most powerful organised religion on the planet.

This is interesting, on the face of it it looks like Hawking did in fact misquote the Pope and I made the mistake of taking his word for it. The question is why would he do that? Given his status, reputation and level of intelligence, I'd actually have to ask whether or not the 'official' transcript represents the discussion that actually happened.

It's also quoted here slightly differently to his blog-

To be fair, we should also consider that the Pope may not ever have given an instruction like that, but then we're talking about an institution that covered up massive child abuse. I'm more inclined to believe Hawking.

Is that the main objection to my post?

You mean this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...ve-in-God.html UK, right? The UK in which they do study atheism as part of their curriculum http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...15/uk.schools1??? The UK in which hardly anyone attends church services and most people do not affiliate themselves with a particular religion, let alone roman catholicism?

There isn't some other UK that I'm not aware of, is there?

Don't miss my post right above yours.

I'd respond to your new assertions but they're even more off topic than the first lot. If you want to move that post to my 'Should all UK parents should pull their kids from Religious Education?' thread I'd love to answer it there.

From the second link, "Approximately half of the original survey population expressed some form of religious identity, whereas the other half did not."

If it were even 10% of leading scientists, your premise would be incorrect. Religious people would be incapable of being real scientists.

The "most" was for emphasis' sake.

Yet, somehow religious people are studying the origins of the universe at major US institutions. That is sufficient to make your premise incorrect.

Your ability to maintain a claim in the face of evidence to the contrary is amazing.

You will have to explain how "all religious people are xxx" and me showing you that "some religious people are not xxx and here are examples" in reality somehow fits together in order to say "clearly not."

Granted, I know that you have already admitted that philosophy and argument are not your strong points, but it is required here that you at least make the attempt.

So? He has nearly nothing to do with what people in your neck of the woods believe.

Ahh, when all else fails it is conspiracy theory time. Bejesus, I wish you were on their side.

It was a public statement made in actual public at a conference that many people attended. Not one has come forward to state that the records are inaccurate. Here is the text from two conferences on cosmology held by the roman catholic church:

http://www.nyskies.org/articles/pazmino/pope&sci.htm

48% certainly isn't most, but 52% certainly is.

This has been a big part of your argument for a while. If it is untrue/misquoted, would you take back your accusation that religion is trying to hold back learning?

Absolutely not, are you serious? My view on that didn't rely on one incident alone nor does that misquote change anything about the religious paradigm being 'god made everything' .... Religion, Christianity in particular, has a long history of suppressing learning and executing and torturing inquiring minds.

I don't trust the Catholic version of what was said in that conversation and can't imagine any reason why such an esteemed Physicist as Hawking would lie about it. However, since there's doubt, I won't use that particular quote without qualifying it.

I missed that.


Not if they were prepared to abandon the religious paradigm. At no point have I ever said that 'all religious people' are incapable of unbiased learning, that was your incorrect interpretation. Scientists capable of imagining another cause for natural phenomena that didn't require a god would be using an open paradigm. Scientists that could only ask questions and understand answers that conformed with the paradigm that god made everything, well, they'd be church scholars, insular, restricted and limited.

I think the organised religions hinder learning, not the individual worshipers. How the instruction that 'god made everything' affects you as an individual is going to be down to you personally but as an overall concept, it hinders learning.

Forget it, I'd rather discuss the topic. Welcome back by the way, for a while you got a bit Hainsey.

In light of the explanation above regarding the difference between the 'religious paradigm' and 'all religious people', do you still feel you need to mention the above?


Ditto.

Ditto

Don't mistake me acknowledging the superior intellect of a couple of the posters here for me considering myself illogical and unable to string together a coherent sentence. I'm quite comfortable in this debate this with you.

Explain?


I won't use that quote again without qualifying it and I thank you for digging up that article. However, for now I'm leaning towards taking Steven Hawking's word over that of the Catholic Church. With good reason.


Hawking maintains that "At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the Pope". One assumes that's where the instruction was given, it would certainly have provided the opportunity.

Or perhaps you're saying that Hawking made it up because he's trying to besmirch the church? Nah, that would be a little 'conspiracy theory' wouldn't it.

You do realize that there are some religious people who believe in dinosaurs and the big bang, right?

As for us atheists who took the time to study the big bang theory, we recognize that where the singularity started from is actually physically off limits. We can make a guess, if we like, but it would be no better of a guess than just saying "god did it."

You would need to provide some actual evidence for this before it would be believable. Like most scientific atheists, I require evidence, not just hand wavey belief.

Yes. When you state that two populations are different, you are required to present evidence.

No, I require evidence before I decide that this group of oranges is different from that group of oranges. I need you to present the actual evidence.

Incorrect. You are making the positive claim, therefore it is up to you to prove that claim. Since it is a claim about "hindering" you need to show me the hindering. Not an argument of "well, explain this random thing that happened" or "well, it makes sense to me that such and such."

Actual evidence. Something out of a scientific journal, perhaps.

It hasn't been so much of a debate as you making claims, me telling you that your claims are not based in fact, me adding that they would not be convincing to a theist, and then you stating the claim again.

You will note that this is the general sequence of your conversations with the atheists here.

The UK is a non-catholic state (except for maybe liverpool). The protestants don't care what the pope says and, given half a chance, do exactly the opposite on principle. They go out of their way to eat steak on fridays during lent.

One doesn't assume such things. That would be rude.

Let us imagine the scene, shall we? Pope says "Mr. Hawking, I'd prefer if you stopped looking for this beginning of time thing." Mr. Hawking considers this for about 1/2 of a second before realizing that he isn't catholic.

After thinking for a few more seconds, he realizes that even devout catholics don't do what the pope says. Perhaps back in the time of the spanish inquisition, but no longer.

No, I'm saying that he is exactly the same as everyone else (except for the wheelchair thing and other obvious yet irrelevant things) and misunderstands the limits of epistemology and ontology. Given that he had presumably sat through the pope's speech at the conference, had he been a trained philosopher he would have understood that the pope was making an argument for the scientists following the national academy of science's guidelines, "In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science."

Perhaps there have been new developments, but I am aware of no genuine scientist who is trying to (in a scientific manner) determine what happened before the big bang. The data just isn't there.

Agreed. Your paradigm includes 'god did it' and 'something else caused it'. That's the difference between you and religion. You're prepared to consider alternatives to a divine cause for natural phenomena, religions aren't.

'Religions' doesn't mean 'all religious people'.


I need to provide evidence, beyond what I've already provided, that religions hinder learning? Er... no. You know exactly what religions have done to hinder learning, if you don't, pick up a history book.

Ok, although this is another one where I think you're being a little disingenuous because it's not hard to understand and they're not 'populations'. If I say 'Conservative party' am I describing absolutely every individual Tory or am I describing an organisation with a certain philosophy? Obviously I'm describing an overall philosophy that determines generally how Tories think and the aims of their organisation but I can't know how every individual Tory voter thinks simply because they're conservative.

Can I provide evidence of the difference between the Conservative Party ethos and how individual Tories think? Of course not.



Actually, it's me making the claim, you failing to understand it, me repeating the claim. Hence the requirement for the further explanations above of something really quite simple to understand.

It's happened, just like it happens to you so please don't try to spin this. It might convince people reading this but it means nothing to me and won't persuade me of anything. Save your time.


And this is proving what? That the Pope's resistance to scientific inquiry of the origins of the universe doesn't have a significant impact and isn't generally representative of the religious obstruction to unbiased learning?

Not in the uk it doesn't, you're right. In the UK it's mostly the Church of England doing it. (A church with millions of worshipers that only exists cos one fat bloke couldn't' stand his wife... lol)

lol, what? It's rude to conclude that a conversation that Hawking reported as happening didn't happen at the time he said it happened?

Wah...

Eh? This is your logic for how the conversation didn't happen?

Hawking clearly isn't exactly the same as everyone else and you are certainly not qualified to decide what he's capable of understanding. That you think you understand what the Pope said (whilst in the same post pointing out that I can't know what the Pope said) better than Hawking who was actually there and without doubt possesses an intellect far greater than either you or I, is laughable.

Your most vague and qualified statement of the post, and also quite incorrect. Coming up with theories when there's no data is exactly what Theoretical Physicists do.

This entire post has been the worst one you've made yet IMO. I try not to say things like that as a rule but I'm getting a bit fed up of turning the other cheek. A nice religious analogy to finish with.

So, whats your point?

Mormans aren't Christians first of all. So there is NO WAY they can truly understand the bible, let alone talk accurately with any credibility about it or God.

Secondly, you did not ask anything, you just posted a quote of someone else, and I might add that you seem as confused in your posting as the guy who you are quoting.

Would you say that inflamatory remark about christians who have not bothered to read the entire bible?

And mormans do consider themselves christians. They just believe that jesus visited the americas after he visited the middle east. Seems rather mean to think that their additional books are less valuable than yours.

What inflammatory remark?

Christians who have not read the bible or more than likely not born-again, just people who call themselves Christians.

I am not saying that they do not believe that they are Christians, but there are certain things required in order to be born-again, specifically Romans 10:9,10.

As for Mormans; Just because someone considers himself a Christian does not make them a Christian. Being a Christian is not a Label. It's not just saying "hey, I'm a Christian". They have to be born-again.

I do know that there are lots of Christians probably who are in the Morman religion, but the Morman Doctrine is not a Christian biblically based doctrine.

It's a Doctrine that was received from an Angel called Moroni.

Now, if you are a Christian, a bible believing Christian, then you should believe this:

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Gal 1:7 Which is not another (of the same kind); but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

The Morman Doctrine is a perversion of the true gospel of Christ. It came by way of an angel from heaven, and this angel was not one of Gods angels, it was from the devil.

The problem, Pletho is that you live in "Reality Via the Truth of God's Word"* and the Rest of us live in reality, full stop. There are so many things you just said there that are just unsubstantiated nonsense but it would never matter to you because you have stubbornly convinced yourself that the version of Christianity you adhere to is the only correct one.

I mean honestly, how can you say that an religion came from the devil (meaning literally the satan of christian theology) with a straight face and expect to be taken seriously in rational society?

I would also point out that, having been a member of a born again church for several years, your assertion that if someone hasn't read the cover to cover bible they probably aren't born again is daft.

Of course, none of this will matter to you either, because you can simply tell yourself that:

A. I am persecuting one of God's people (you) just as the bible said would happen in the last days

B. I myself am of Satan, trying to steer you on a dark path

or

C. All of the above.

The "Reality" you live in is so far removed from what a typical persons (be they theist or atheist ) definition of reality is that it boarders on a mental health issue. I can remember one thread in particular where you discussed gay demons that infected pure souls and made them homosexuals.

That they aren't really christians.

I've yet to meet a born again christian who has sat down and read the bible from cover to cover in a search for meaning.

You cannot fulfill this without also fulfilling Mathew 5:18-19.

I assume you are not eating bacon at the very least.

umm...

If only christians can truly understand the bible... one question:

There are certain areas where christian interpretation of the bible differs markedly from jewish interpretation. Do you mean to imply that christians understand the (OT portions of the) bible better than jews?

I guess another question would be: If the bible can only be accurately understood by christians - then what's the point of the bible? Christians already beleive in God, don't they? And by your argument, anyone else can't really refer to the bible independetly from christians who explain to him what the it means anyhow. So why have it in teh first place?

I don’t know why many religious people believe in free will. I think this comes from pride. You don’t want to accept someone else is controlling you. For someone to have free will 2 conditions must be met: a) the decision must not be predicted (even if you are God) ; b) in order for point a to be true randomness should not be the cause of the impossibility of prediction. Free will is incompatible with determinism and with randomness no matter what whisful thinkers will tell.

How can someone go to heaven if they have free will? In heaven you can only make good. Someone who has free will won’t make only good. And if you can predict that someone will make only good and not bad things then he doesn’t have free will (he still isn’t a robot because robots don’t have a will at all).

Problem of evil is easily solved if we assume the devil has more power than religious tells us it has. If we assume God is force of good (he doesn’t have free will, he can only make good) and the devil force of evil (he can only make bad), and the 2 powers both have high powers we can say good things happen because of God and bad things because of the devil.

Humans don’t have free will, they have something from God and something from the devil. Adam and Eve were created by God to only make good. They didn’t know what evil is (until the devil taught them). God didn’t know what will happen since he can’t control the devil. The devil is the one who sends people in hell. Someone can go to heaven only if he has faith in God, because he must be perfect to be in heaven and not matter how many good deeds he makes he can never be so good to go to heaven without faith. If he isn’t perfect and doesn’t have faith the devil will send him in hell. Even though God doesn’t have absolute power he can do something like reincarnation possible so people can reincarnate until they will have faith in a good force that will make possible for them to go to heaven.

Here's an example of free will. Go to the shop and take something of the shelf. You are presented with 2 choices. Pay for the item or steal the item. Either way it is your decision, your free will to do which ever you choose to do!

2 examples of atheists of yours that said free will doesn't exist are Einstein (well, he thought QM is deterministic, but even if QM is random free will still doesn't exist) and Stepen Hawking.

There are people who know about free will better than I so I will give you some links:

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/0...d-this-is-why/

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2011/1...-of-free-will/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47...mness-1451006/

You may want to read about determinism.