Why are most scientists atheists?

Arizona · 11-27-09 at 05:44 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by bane666

but none of that changes the evidence of evolution (at least in my eyes)

I also believe evolution (likely) happened as you explain. I merely add a creating, steering energy behind it based on the unique order I experience in and around me. You think that same order is only caused by chances and numbers. In understand what you mean, but think (and that's where we differ) that this way of order is to much order. To much purpose. To much beauty. There must be a master-plan behind it.

This does not mean I don't believe our ancestors used to be monkeys. I think we see/experienced similar things in life. We just draw different conclusions of a possible force behind the evidence we both see. In the end, I think that's where most (somehow sane) people differ in their conclusions. Drawing different conclusions on the same evidence.

Arizona · 11-27-09 at 06:00 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by vosszaa

Sorry if i missed your statement cuz of lengthy discussion but in saying that GOD is "an accumulation of all forms of energy around us" doesn't sound so believable, at least to me.

Where do you get that idea from?

This post form earlier in this thread explains it a bit.

HTML Code:

http://tehparadox.com/forum/f11/why-most-scientists-atheists-638297/index11.html#post1895607

Where I got it? Hmmm… I guess from all the stuff I learned and read. Hinduism comes quite close to it I guess. Brahman is one of the three parts of God that actually represents all around us. Jesus tells us the kingdom in heaven can be found within us. He also said that he will always be with us. And the buddhism kind of taught me a little of letting go the attachment I have with my thoughts. Emptying them I cannot. But becoming aware of them, I can. Usually through group meditation in my case. I mean, I can come to a state that they still pop up. But being aware of them, I do not identify with them, which I (and I think most people) in general do. Fear comes up and people think they're afraid. They don't want to and think they shouldn't be. They pretend they don't feel the fear and act cool. They wonder if it works. That's all denial of what simply is. In the state I refer to, I can see the fear come up. I can see the urge to flee from it. I may get attached a little, but also see that. Instead of attaching, I just see and smile because of the beauty of that awareness. That awareness comes from emptiness. I sense the emptiness. But writing and talking about it is like pointing to the moon where the audience is watching the pointing finger. In the end you can only experience it yourself. I bet even some readers here know what I mean.

To stay in that awareness for longer then a few minutes, I hardly can. I wish I could, but that again is a label, a thought I should let go :)

Edit: Ah… almost forgot. One of the scriptures that really supported this view in my findings is (God saying) "I am the alpha and the omega." Pretty famous bible quote. Another one is where Moses asks God who he is and God answers "I am". Of course there's lots of interpretations for these two scriptures, but I found them fitting my view of God quite well.

Arizona · 11-27-09 at 06:01 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by morphious91

everyone looks for answers, everyone needs answers, when someone needs something to survive they get it or at least create compensation.

If someone believes god exists, then it does. God is in everyone who needs him to be there, so no one can disprove his existence to someone who believes in him or vice versa.

this thread gets all kind of people to participate. Nice going. Welcome to the participating part of the forum morphious. Cheers.

**vosszaa** · 11-27-09 at 06:19 AM

But then again if "Oblivion" is the ultimate goal in Buddhism(ofcuz it is) then what is the point of having "life"?

Why started a life form?(which in Buddhism they didnt say where the life came from or who created life) Why not let "zero" be "zero", why make a "zero" become "one" and then try to become "zero" again?

Bad thing about studying Buddhism in school is they never tell you the reason of being :(

EDIT: Oh wait, they did tell us the reason of being, it is the circle, circle of sin and karma. You reincarnate because you need to suffer your sin, your karma, until the circle has end(by becoming so clean) then you become oblivion.

Arizona · 11-27-09 at 06:36 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by vosszaa

But then again if "Oblivion" is the ultimate goal in Buddhism(ofcuz it is) then what is the point of having "life"?

Why started a life form? Why not let "zero" be "zero", why make a "zero" become "one" and then try to become "zero" again?

Bad thing about studying Buddhism in school is they never tell you the reason of being :(

EDIT: Oh wait, they did tell us the reason of being, it is the circle, circle of sin and karma. You reincarnate because you need to suffer your sin, your karma, until the circle has end(by becoming so clean) then you become oblivion.

Logic gives little answers to these questions. Life is to become aware of the oblivion. The experience is quite a trip. But it can only be experienced. I also wondered for example why up to two years old, a child seems to be perfect in just being. He then needs to learn how to behave and so learns what is wrong and what results in praise. He learns to label things, judge things where before things just were. As an adult we somehow have to let go of that labeling. So much of our behavior follows that early learned labeling. How often do we do things unconsciously just to get recognized or appreciated or accepted instead of just because we really really deep down in us want to do it. Of course, the child needs to learn what is good and bad at least to some extent (so to not eat the poisoned berries and avoid the snake), but as adults we somehow ONLY label and judge things and experiences and so leaving little to no room to actually experience something. Experience without the 'Oh, that feels good', or 'that's probably bad I think that but boy do I wish!'. Just experience. No labels, no thoughts about it, just the flow of energy or emotions. We tend to think and judge so much that we forget to actually live the experience. The ultimate moment of sex is one of those few moments that experience takes over. Or if we suddenly see something very beautiful or frightening. For very short often though. Quite quickly the thoughts start labeling again if it was good or bad or did I do good, should I do something now etc. etc. come up and bring you back to the reality of your thinking again.

To me, that's interesting stuff. Come to the bottom of what I really want. And why I do certain things. For appraisal? because I think I ought to? or because I truly want to?

**bane666** · 11-27-09 at 06:50 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by vosszaa

But then again if "Oblivion" is the ultimate goal in Buddhism(ofcuz it is) then what is the point of having "life"?

Why started a life form?(which in Buddhism they didnt say where the life came from or who created life) Why not let "zero" be "zero", why make a "zero" become "one" and then try to become "zero" again?

Bad thing about studying Buddhism in school is they never tell you the reason of being :(

EDIT: Oh wait, they did tell us the reason of being, it is the circle, circle of sin and karma. You reincarnate because you need to suffer your sin, your karma, until the circle has end(by becoming so clean) then you become oblivion.

everything we know is in comparison to other things
for example is an elephant large or small?
the answer is both- large compared to an ant, but tiny compared to the sun

is a 90 yr old man old or young?
well he is old compared to a 2 yr old but young compared to the age of the earth

to measure distance you need at least 2 points- one compared to the other

but what if "god" was the only thing in existence?
would god be big or small?
young or old?
near or far?
the answer is it couldn't be any of these things- because it would have no comparison

so the Hindu's believe that "god" broke off a small part of itself (our reality)
so it could experience itself subjectively
we have forgotten who and what we are
and when we remember (enlightenment) we return to what we really are- the godhead
our individualism is destroyed- in other words nothingness
but our true self "wakes up"

Hinduism loves to debate this type of stuff
but Buddhism (an offshoot) didn't think it was important
just the journey to enlightenment
and therefore focused on the method while forgetting the philosophy

**bane666** · 11-27-09 at 06:55 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Arizona

Logic gives little answers to these questions. Life is to become aware of the oblivion. The experience is quite a trip. But it can only be experienced. I also wondered for example why up to two years old, a child seems to be perfect in just being. He then needs to learn how to behave and so learns what is wrong and what results in praise. He learns to label things, judge things where before things just were. As an adult we somehow have to let go of that labeling. So much of our behavior follows that early learned labeling. How often do we do things unconsciously just to get recognized or appreciated or accepted instead of just because we really really deep down in us want to do it. Of course, the child needs to learn what is good and bad at least to some extent (so to not eat the poisoned berries and avoid the snake), but as adults we somehow ONLY label and judge things and experiences and so leaving little to no room to actually experience something. Experience without the 'Oh, that feels good', or 'that's probably bad I think that but boy do I wish!'. Just experience. No labels, no thoughts about it, just the flow of energy or emotions. We tend to think and judge so much that we forget to actually live the experience. The ultimate moment of sex is one of those few moments that experience takes over. Or if we suddenly see something very beautiful or frightening. For very short often though. Quite quickly the thoughts start labeling again if it was good or bad or did I do good, should I do something now etc. etc. come up and bring you back to the reality of your thinking again.

To me, that's interesting stuff. Come to the bottom of what I really want. And why I do certain things. For appraisal? because I think I ought to? or because I truly want to?

For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect. (AL I:44)

Arizona · 11-27-09 at 08:00 AM

Oops… maybe that statement is a bit to extreme.

Quote: Originally Posted by Haswell

A scientist can (rarely) say, "I was wrong"
You will never, ever, hear that from a religious person. They cannot be wrong. They are so certain they are right they dare not question themselves. its a breathtaking arrogance and one we encounter often. I am much more comfortable forming a world view based upon testing, experimentation and observation that is peer reviewed and constantly re- tested, than a story with no more validity than The Three little Pigs.

Ahem… *cough* here goes:

Quote: Originally Posted by Arizona

"I consider myself a religious person and hereby honestly state that "I was wrong" about certain beliefs I had in the past and I absolutely don't mind admitting in the least that I can be absolutely wrong about religious views and experiences I have today."

**bane666** · 11-27-09 at 08:02 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Haswell

And you have evidence for this how? I cannot disprove what does not exist. I assume, for the sake of argument, you are referring to the Judaic-Christian God? Would your claims make any more sense if you were referring to Zeus? How about Zoroaster?

(or post) code?

zoroaster did exist- he was a real flesh and blood person
i think you meant to say ahura mazda (and yes the car company is named after this god)- the god zoroastra worshipped

good post

Arizona · 11-27-09 at 08:09 AM

Bugs bunny exists.

tehWatcher · 11-27-09 at 08:34 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by anomander

Why people put these "scientists" on a pedestal these days is beyond me they love to preen and posture but to be honest they are grasping at straws and making wild assumptions all the time about what they supposedly know about mankind and the universe only to back-track a few years later when something turns up that doesnt fit with their views(and lets not go into the ignoring of data and blatant lying similar to whats been uncovered in the global-warming fracas).Yes of course these people are intelligent and doing great work but if we blindly follow what they say isnt that as naive as a medieval christian would be?

(these "scientists" are no more intelligent or profound than the rest of us in fact some of them less so because they are the bullied nerds from school who couldnt get the cute girls and so they just want to bring us all down or feel important for a change)

Well. Lets address these in order.

If by 'people' you mean everyone, that is not correct. Many choose to look up to science and scientists simply for the fact that, for everything else, conclusions reached by science are correct, testable and repeatable in the majority of cases when done properly and without bias. Those results contribute to everyone's betterment in the majority of cases.

As for 'preening and posing'. There is, I agree, a certain elitist mentality among many in the sciences. Especially those in more public positions. However, it does not follow that such a mentality means we 'grasp at straws' as you put it. Nor do we make 'wild assumptions about what we know'. We make 'wild assumptions' about what we see based on past knowledge to provide a framework in which to properly address a hypothesis.

We are much more rigorous and disciplined in our thinking than the majority of the population. Not all the time, to be sure, however if such thinking were easy or common there would be no need for scientists, as everyone would be capable of effective deductive reasoning and, therefore, be qualified to practice the sciences since nearly anyone can memorize facts and figures. However, not everyone thinks clearly.

As for what you call 'back-tracking'. I'm afraid not. If the conclusions of today's research were not able to be changed with regards to future research then science would never advance. And scientists, being locked into only one answer to a question, would still be being persecuted by the Church. It is not 'our views' that dictate the conclusion, but the results of experimentation framed as a hypothesis developed as a result of clear thinking.

Let's get into the lies from the 'global warming fracas'. To sum that up, that is a result, not of 'all scientists' as you imply, but from a panel of about 2800 which form the IPCC. Seeing as how nearly 30,000 scientists signed a petition against global warming I fail to see how all scientists could be responsible for lying about that subject.

Finally, no one, of any integrity, is asking or requiring 'blind obedience' of 'the masses', especially not scientists. What is expected, however, is recognition of the fact that Science Works. It is a system of thought that enables further and deeper understanding of the Universe by experimentation and refinement of those experiments.

As for your jab at scientists. If the best you can muster is a tired-old cliche and some stereotyping, you don't have a very strong position. However, lets take a closer look at it.

I had to laugh when I read it. Part of what you're saying there is that, since a 'nerd' is bullied that he is 'less intelligent' or 'profound' than one that doesn't get bullied.

Isn't it, however, because they are intelligent and/or insightful about the sciences the very reason they are being 'picked on' by those less able to relate to them?

That is why they are perceived as a 'nerd' to begin with correct? Because some do not fit in well with their non-science-minded peers. However, that is not always the case and many scientists have a very active and enjoyable social life.

I will not bother picking apart the rest of that foolishness as it would only further reduce your credibility.

Arizona · 11-27-09 at 08:53 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Haswell

Do you have any other idea on what (likely) happened? Evolution is a matter of history, theres no indication it happened any other way than it factually did.

Oh boy, I must say your writings come across almost aggressive and more persuasive than inquiring, but here goes.

I read quite some stuff that makes me wonder if evolution was the single way we humans came to this point we are now here at earth. I still think evolution is the most plausible explanation, but personally don't hang to much value to that conclusion. Graham Hancock wrote some interesting stuff about how the oldest civilizations we recognize really are leftovers from much higher civilizations that disappeared. The missing link stories are nice. I don't think that evidence is strong enough to… wait, I must say I don't really know enough about it but I could (that's what you asked right?) imagine it to one day resulting in us starting to belief creationism at some stages happened. Maybe we even have origins from out of space who dumped us here or got stranded or helped us out. Don't really think that is true but for sure don't think you can exclude our future from finding that outer-space involvement did happen.

I ask you, do you think it is possible (not plausible, I already know your answer to that; possible) that science one day finds evidence that the evolution was NOT the way we came to be but for instance except for some mutations that did happen, creationism is really how nature was created?

Quote: Originally Posted by Haswell

Thats no mere trick. its just making things up to fit wishful thinking. And what is this 'order' you talk of that cannot and is not fully explained in naturalistic terms? Why invoke the supernatural by talking about a 'steering, creating energy'?

If I say: "I merely add a creating, steering energy behind it based on the unique order I experience in and around me" 'That's no mere trick?' Not sure what you mean there.
I'm not making it up that I belief in a God. It is just my belief. Wishful thinking? Maybe, but I pondered that a lot while considering staying within the Christian doctrines or moving on. I moved on because I belief my own 'what I belief' is stronger than a fake 'what I belief' which would be required to stick to the Christian doctrines in my case. What I'm saying is that I think I know quite well that I'm searching for the truth. Not believing something for the sake of it being easy of wishful. If you read some of my earlier posts, I can understand fully you disagree but to state that I belief these things 'cause they are easier to belief than other things' would be an insult if I'd care enough.

Quote: Originally Posted by Haswell

Evolution has nothing to do with chance. if you believe that about evolution then you do not know evolution.

Hmmm… bane666, care to comment?

Quote: Originally Posted by Haswell

I think you want to get out in the real world and observe all this 'beauty' and purpose'.

Not really, but maybe deep down. It is nice to see beauty and purpose though, don;t you think? To the extend it would cloud my vision of some truth out there, I already spoke about that earlier in this post.

Quote: Originally Posted by Haswell

Some plan, Some Beauty, some order. If you insist on master plan then you need to posit and prove a master planner.

Nah, I don't really need to. I also don't insist. I 'merely' think there is one. I do enjoy the debates and informing myself about the topic though.

Quote: Originally Posted by Haswell

But your idea of a 'planner' is based upon what you don't yet know and this is no good reason to make up 'energies' and master plans.

It is more based on what I do know, than what I don't know. But maybe you're right. Maybe it's also based on what I don't know. At least the search gave me quite some answers. Or at least it feels that way.

Quote: Originally Posted by Haswell

Then you have drawn an erroneous conclusion from obvious evidence. You are just making things up. What evidence do you have for your 'energies' and 'master plans'?

I can only say again, we see different 'obvious' things. What am I making up? That I belief in a God? You're confusing me. Like I started, these sound more like accusations than like inquiries.

About the evidence, boy, I wrote so much about why I belief in this creator, this question sounds like starting it all over again. Dinner's ready.

Quote: Originally Posted by Haswell

You dont use the same evidence though do you? You are making things up above and beyond that which is evident. You should not make claims you cannot substantiate.

Not sure what you refer to when you say making things up. That I belief in a God? Some of the things I learned or experienced? I may be wrong but nowhere intentionally made things up.

Quote: Originally Posted by Haswell

Go on. Admit it. You're a creationist.

Lol and yup I still am.

**anomander** · 11-27-09 at 09:41 AM

Oh dear people .........i just wish i had put maybe some people should get a sense of humour and recognise a bit of self-mockery but its too late now i suppose .........someone dust off the does the govt have aliens in area 51 or is wrestling "real" threads again ...im having flashbacks

tehWatcher · 11-27-09 at 10:00 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by anomander

Oh dear people .........i just wish i had put maybe some people should get a sense of humour and recognise a bit of self-mockery but its too late now i suppose .........someone dust off the does the govt have aliens in area 51 or is wrestling "real" threads again ...im having flashbacks

I rest my case.

Your implication that I am the problem and not what you said is a very well-known tactic called an Ad Hominem and is the last refuge of someone that has no where else to turn. Since you seemed unable to counter my reply, you are now attacking me directly. Classy.