thehomer:

Sorry, I may show respect to believers but not their beliefs especially those beliefs that are outrageous and ignorant.

I've often wondered why the mere mention of God draws so much RAGE from those who claim they are only disbelievers. Why?
Why is it "outrageous" to have an opinion on the supernatural? why does the atheist go into apoplexy at the mere mention of God? What is it about God that draws so much revulsion?

All i did was to sum up categorically the purpose of the thread and filter out many intended digression to arrive at my claim. Now, i think the atheist community is also guilty of what they have been criticizing the religionist of. When the arguement is running contrary to their views they hurriedly introduce MAY and MAY-not, while pushing hard to present it as fact.

All i expected was a numerical data and subsequent deductions from hawkins and not mere verbal and personal sentiments. Like we all are capable of making unverifiable claims driven by personal sentiments.

mazaje:

Mazaaaaaaaaaa. . .Yane?. . . .A yi hakuri mai gida na. . . . .Ba na hadama

Who tried to relegate creation to scientific inventions?. . .

To alarji yaushe zaka paso gida ne? Kai, she ki nan kawai sai zaman turai? Karde ka je ka dauko wata baturiya fa. Ai iina, sai mun maka hadin gida.

Ai ma kafi ni sanin halin turawan nan, tun ba matan su ba. Sai shegen fitina. Ka aure su ka janyo fitina.

You should know about the rights of the europeans better, who me as an African man with many ambition and fantasy can not be contented with. In fact, i like free-lancers or MTN pay as you GO. .

justcool:

LOL @ thehomer and Mazaje

I don’t need to reply your last posts. Your posts speak for themselves!! Be honest enough and admit that you are attacking God, the non-physical, and believer; just stop using science as tool for your attack because in so doing you make a mockery of science.

Of course you don't. Could it be because you don't really have appropriate counter arguments? I already pointed out to you that what I'm doing is granting you your particular God and pointing out the problems with such a concept. Sorry, but living in these modern times, scientific knowledge is the best tool for the job.

justcool:

I am not on Davidylan's side but I haven’t seen him talk down on science the way you guys do on religionists and their beliefs. He never attacked science as a whole; he attacked some scientific hypothesis and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There are many scientists that don’t believe in evolution too. The fact that he doesn’t believe in evolution doesn’t make him a science hater.

Well, I've seen him do worse than I have at the very least. What he attacked is a scientific theory. While there is nothing wrong with that, I at least expect that for him to do that, he should be well informed on what the theory actually is. Whether or not others do the same is simply a bandwagon fallacy. The question is whether he can present good reasons for saying otherwise.

justcool:

But even if he does, science is supposed to be a field of knowledge not a personal God. You get offended when somebody attacks your god(science) the same as a religionist gets offended when somebody attacks his personal. What then makes you different from a religionist? In so doing you clearly show that you are not scientist. You are just a religionists trying to degrade science into a religion.

I think you're mistaking guiding or educating someone for offense. I already pointed out to you that science is not an entity, but more like a process or a tool. The difference between myself and a religious believer is that I rely heavily on reason and evidence and would generally apportion my beliefs based on their strengths.

justcool:

You guys said some very funny things! The modern science which was born yesterday had been preserving the pyramids which had stood for thousands of years? Wow!! Talk about anachronisim! Somebody made mention of electricity. Well, it might interest you to know that the ancients discovered electricity. Find out how the Egyptians lighted the inside of the pyramids. The other talked about communicating from side of the glob to another via internet. It might interest you to know that the ancients did such communications and went even further! Please tell me how the ancient cultures were able to align their temples with the stars far far away from the globe?

No, what I said was that we now deliberately preserve those structures. They can be easily destroyed you know.
I would be glad to be enlightened on these ancients that were able to perform similar feats of communication and went further. Ancient people aligning temples with stars shows their remarkable powers of observation and inference not that their particular religious beliefs were true.

justcool:

It is the desire for God, for the supernatural that gave birth all forms of development even science, if you claim you cannot see the connection, I will not spoon-feed it to you.

You are still going on with the genetic fallacy I mentioned earlier.

justcool:

While would I different which god did what to you guys. You guys simply attack religionist, those who believe in the supernatural; those who you call deluded fools. And I showed the great feats that they achieved, now you want me to tell you which god did what. Does it matter? Didn’t you claim that no gods exist?

You need to identify the God otherwise you will keep switching between them as you've been doing and that is an evasive tactic.

justcool:

If somebody asks “what’s the science behind an airplane flying?” You tell him is ‘may’ or ‘might’. Or ‘might not’. This is hilarious!!!!!!!!!

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

justcool:

Your running away from people who want harm you; and your coming here to bash God because of that is simply cowardice.  This is your personal problem which has nothing to do with God or science. I know a lot of atheists in Nigeria living comfortably among the people.

Even if you say that not all great feats were inspired by the desire for God, the fact remains that these foolish religionists have done contributed enough in all field of human endeavour to deserve your respect! After all, the best scientitsts that we ever had were mostly theists. One can actually say that theists make better scientitists than atheseists bassed on histroy.

The religious contributors are respected for their scientific works and not their religious beliefs.
Really? The best scientists? How do you decide who were the best scientists?
Theists make better scientists? These are claims that you really need to support. Keep in mind that now religious believers are not really represented going by the statistics of the US National Academy of Sciences and the British Royal Society so how can you make such a claim?

justcool:

Leave science alone or at least get the basics before trying to use it as a tool.

The basics are quite clear and are being properly used. The question to you is whether you have grasped the basics.

davidylan:

I've often wondered why the mere mention of God draws so much RAGE from those who claim they are only disbelievers. Why?
Why is it "outrageous" to have an opinion on the supernatural? why does the atheist go into apoplexy at the mere mention of God? What is it about God that draws so much revulsion?

Finding certain claims outrageous does not mean that a person is enraged.
The problem is not that religious people simply believe in this God of theirs, but they also believe that they must alter public policy based on this, they must introduce their myths into science classes based on this, they must kill people they think are immoral based on this, the list goes on.

@mazaje

You are very funny my friend! You reply did not touch anything that I said, you failed to look at my post objectively. You are trying to make me sound ridiculous to no avail. I never said that the universe was created by "a male entity who interacts with humans , wants to be worshiped and speaks the human language is WHAT?." Why do you lie like that? If you are a scientist you should let facts speak against fact and not make up things or accuse fellow posters of saying thing that they never said.

I never said that the pyramids were not built by scientific principles.  Dude you are just making things up, and it is childish to resort to lying just make your opponent appear ridiculous. About electricity, I would simply have informed you if you are humble. But I will not spoonfeed you.

If you think that the best way to respond to the persecution that you face in Nigeria is by degrading science to a voodoo religion, then you are greatly mistaken. You cant stand up among your people and fight for your right and your beliefs?  I repeat I know people who are atheists in Nigeria; actually one of them is my friend, a very popular guy who is never afraid to let anybody know his beliefs. Every belief that people have affects others in one way or the other, it doesn't make then declare a war against others. My kids believe in Santa clause and the tooth fairy but I don't. Their belief affects me in many ways even financially because I have put money under their pillow when they lose a tooth. I have buy presents during Christmas and pretend that Santa bought them, I even had to dress up like Santa some Christmases. Sometimes during Christmas the mall is packed with kids waiting in line to see Santa; sometimes you cant buy anything at some malls because of this. You see how this affects everybody? But I haven't seen anybody declare a war of lies against kids just because of their belief in Santa.



Honesty is very important.

@thehomer

Since you know very much about science, I wont spoonfeed you. Do your research about the pyramids and how they are aligned with the stars. Even the pyramids of the Aztecs in south America were aligned with the stars.

Modern science has not built a structure that has lived as long as the pyramids. Indeed modern science does not even know how the Egyptians moved giant stones. Some have speculated that the extraterrestrial aliens helped the Egyptians. Some believed that the Egyptians know enough science to counter the effects of gravity, thereby making a stone that weighs thousands of thorns as light as a feather!

Either way, these men, the Egyptians were believers, they believed in the non-physical gods to which they built temples. Once again we see the deluded foolish believers being better scientists than non-believers!

I repeat theists make better scientists, going by historical record, -- from Issac Newton to Albert Einstein. Weren't these men theists? Please compare them to your almighty Hawkin!

About communication, I will not spoonfeed you either; do your research or subscribe to the discovery channel.

Let me re-phrase my question: If a child asks you, "Uncle homer, whats the science behind a flying airplane?" What would your answer be?
Is this science or law of physics that allow airplanes to fly arbitrary or is it adamant and unchangeable? If its 'may' or 'might' what guaranties that the airplane may not fly today and tommorrow chose to swim or disappear.

I repeat, it is man's observation that changes or gets better over time. That which is observed, the laws of physics or the science behind them remains adamant and exact. If all conditions are met a million times, the same results will ensure a million times. If you cant grasp this then you are not a scientist.

Thanks

justcool:

@thehomer

Since you know very much about science, I wont spoonfeed you. Do your research about the pyramids and how they are aligned with the stars. Even the pyramids of the Aztecs in south America were aligned with the stars.

Spoonfeed? I'm not asking you for any information. I simply pointed out to you that the pyramids being aligned with the stars or whatever doesn't make their religious beliefs true. Or do you think it does?

justcool:

Modern science has not built a structure that has lived as long as the pyramids. Indeed modern science does not even know how the Egyptians moved giant stones. Some have speculated that the extraterrestrial aliens helped the Egyptians. Some believed that the Egyptians know enough science to counter the effects of gravity, thereby making a stone that weighs thousands of thorns as light as a feather!

Do you believe that they had this gravity countering knowledge? You may also note that those ancients couldn't build super-tankers, they couldn't build and launch satellites, they couldn't make digital computers so I wonder what you're driving at.

justcool:

Either way, these men, the Egyptians were believers, they believed in the non-physical gods to which they built temples. Once again we see the deluded foolish believers being better scientists than non-believers!

What do you mean when you say they were "better scientists than non-believers"?

justcool:

I repeat theists make better scientists, going by historical record, -- from Issac Newton to Albert Einstein. Weren't these men theists? Please compare them to your almighty Hawkin!

Whose almighty Hawking? I already asked you to check out the British Royal Society and the US Academy of sciences. You also need to let us know what you mean by a group of people being better scientists.

justcool:

About communication, I will not spoonfeed you either; do your research or subscribe to the discovery channel.

I think you need to show some evidence for that claim because it is an outrageous one. The discovery channel hasn't shown any stories about your ancients communicating round the world as we do. Saying you will not spoonfeed me when you are making an outrageous claim that needs to be backed up simply doesn't follow especially when your evidence for the claim is lacking.

justcool:

Let me re-phrase my question: If a child asks you, "Uncle homer, whats the science behind a flying airplane?" What would your answer be?
Is this science or law of physics that allow airplanes to fly arbitrary or is it adamant and unchangeable? If its 'may' or 'might' what guaranties that the airplane may not fly today and tommorrow chose to swim or disappear.

You are making a strawman argument here because I did not say or imply that the science behind a flying airplane was arbitrary neither did I say that it would choose to swim or disappear.

justcool:

I repeat, it is man's observation that changes or gets better over time. That which is observed, the laws of physics or the science behind them remains adamant and exact. If all conditions are met a million times, the same results will ensure a million times. If you cant grasp this then you are not a scientist.

Thanks

So when man's knowledge improves, do you think that the laws and theories are adjusted? You see, you are simply confusing the concept of science with the concept of reality.

thehomer:

Whose almighty Hawking? I already asked you to check out the British Royal Society and the US Academy of sciences. You also need to let us know what you mean by a group of people being better scientists.

It is already published that at least 70% of the members of NAS are overt atheists while only 7% believe in the existence of God. To then assume that we can 100% rely on the claims of the NAS by virtue of membership with regard to the question of the origin of the universe and life in general is nonsense. Like i said it is BAD SCIENCE to have arrived at a conclusion well before you test your hypothesis.
When the general belief of up to 80% of the NAS is that God doesnt exist, by default their "studies" are already geared towards confirming that conclusion!

Besides, the idea that somehow the living cell appeared after billions of years of manipulating non-living materials is tantamount to saying that over billions of years, sheet metal will develop into a fully functioning 4-wheel drive SUV. That's putting it mildly considering the level of complexity in the cell is thousands more than that in a car.

justcool:

@thehomer

Since you know very much about science, I wont spoonfeed you. Do your research about the pyramids and how they are aligned with the stars. Even the pyramids of the Aztecs in south America were aligned with the stars.

Modern science has not built a structure that has lived as long as the pyramids. Indeed modern science does not even know how the Egyptians moved giant stones. Some have speculated that the extraterrestrial aliens helped the Egyptians. Some believed that the Egyptians know enough science to counter the effects of gravity, thereby making a stone that weighs thousands of thorns as light as a feather!

Either way, these men, the Egyptians were believers, they believed in the non-physical gods to which they built temples. Once again we see the deluded foolish believers being better scientists than non-believers!

I repeat theists make better scientists, going by historical record, -- from Issac Newton to Albert Einstein. Weren't these men theists? Please compare them to your almighty Hawkin!

About communication, I will not spoonfeed you either; do your research or subscribe to the discovery channel.

Let me re-phrase my question: If a child asks you, "Uncle homer, whats the science behind a flying airplane?" What would your answer be?
Is this science or law of physics that allow airplanes to fly arbitrary or is it adamant and unchangeable? If its 'may' or 'might' what guaranties that the airplane may not fly today and tommorrow chose to swim or disappear.

I repeat, it is man's observation that changes or gets better over time. That which is observed, the laws of physics or the science behind them remains adamant and exact. If all conditions are met a million times, the same results will ensure a million times. If you cant grasp this then you are not a scientist.

Thanks

Okay, let's assumed I don't understand what you are trying to pass across to me. There are evidences to prove something really have effects on something or at least it must be observable  for you to know what you experienced. In those your experiences which you alone must have felt along the line become meaningful to you where only you can relate it in the physical. Let alone this prove that such experiences must have physical relevance before you as a human can explain them at all. The point from you starting to become conscious of them to the point where of the actual events took place beyond your understanding,it's within this world though not be tangible as such. What I am saying is that these might look supernaturals but they are not cause there is nothing like supernatural that natural can associate with. It doesn't add up, it equates to nothing other than natural. Supernatural is more or less in the term than in the actual meaning of it.

I am not trying to teach you anything here, just that this argument has led us to expository of our different perceptions with regards to understanding our universe, where explanations have to be the order of the day.   

Some people are annoyed about god being a myth but, that is the truth after reading those books which postulate it existence and as model to follow before you can have a part in the kingdom(the heavenly realm) and those who will be annihilated. The books are full of errors if what they depicted is what god is then, I needless not to waste my time looking at them. They were just stories which don't add up. Sorry for saying that, which look as  insult to your belief.

what actually make science very powerful in quest is that it is continuous discovery unlike religion that has defined everything through a single eye of god, who doesn't exist. If the way god has been depicted in those books is what it is most of those supernaturals professes in them would have materialized by now only to be the opposite.

One thing I have found in religion individuals(theists, Hindus,etc) as well as regionists is that they soon forget what the books profess when science proves them wrong.

all4naija:

Okay, let's assumed I don't understand what you are trying to pass across to me. There are evidences to prove something really have effects on something or at least it must be observable for you to know what you experienced. In those your experiences which you alone must have felt along the line become meaningful to you where only you can relate it in the physical. Let alone this prove that such experiences must have physical relevance before you as a human can explain them at all. The point from you starting to become conscious of them to the point where of the actual events took place beyond your understanding,it's within this world though not be tangible as such. What I am saying is that these might look supernaturals but they are not cause there is nothing like supernatural that natural can associate with. It doesn't add up, it equates to nothing other than natural. Supernatural is more or less in the term than in the actual meaning of it.

I am not trying to teach you anything here, just that this argument has led us to expository of our different perceptions with regards to understanding our universe, where explanations have to be the order of the day.

Some people are annoyed about god being a myth but, that is the truth after reading those books which postulate it existence and as model to follow before you can have a part in the kingdom(the heavenly realm) and those who will be annihilated. The books are full of errors if what they depicted is what god is then, I needless not to waste my time looking at them. They were just stories which don't add up. Sorry for saying that, which look as insult to your belief.

what actually make science very powerful in quest is that it is continuous discovery unlike religion that has defined everything through a single eye of god, who doesn't exist. If the way god has been depicted in those books is what it is most of those supernaturals professes in them would have materialized by now only to be the opposite.

One thing I have found in religion individuals(theists, Hindus,etc) as well as regionists is that they soon forget what the books profess when science proves them wrong.

My friend,
Thanks for addressing my post; but with all due respect, the above does not make any sense. I too, do not believe in everything in the bible, neither do I believe in the Koran. I don’t subscribe to any religion. But all these things have nothing to do with God.
These religions and books are man’s perception of God not God Himself. The fact that some human perceptions do not add up does not make God non-existent.
There is no point sharing my experiences with, you simply will be unable to grasp them.

justcool:

@mazaje

You are very funny my friend! You reply did not touch anything that I said, you failed to look at my post objectively. You are trying to make me sound ridiculous to no avail. I never said that the universe was created by "a male entity who interacts with humans , wants to be worshiped and speaks the human language is WHAT?." Why do you lie like that? If you are a scientist you should let facts speak against fact and not make up things or accuse fellow posters of saying thing that they never said.

You addressed God meaning the creator of the Universe as a he, no?. . . .Your evidence that the universe has only one creator which is a he is WHAT?. . . .

I never said that the pyramids were not built by scientific principles.  Dude you are just making things up, and it is childish to resort to lying just make your opponent appear ridiculous. About electricity, I would simply have informed you if you are humble. But I will not spoonfeed you.

So you see, even the ancients that you are talking about relied on science to achieve some of their greatest feat, not on religion,the principle of erecting the pyramids are scientific. . .No religious principle was applied in its construction and surely no God or Goddess offered any advice to its construction. . .The people relied on the natural principle of science to bind all the bricks together and erect that structure. . . .

If you think that the best way to respond to the persecution that you face in Nigeria is by degrading science to a voodoo religion, then you are greatly mistaken. You cant stand up among your people and fight for your right and your beliefs?  I repeat I know people who are atheists in Nigeria; actually one of them is my friend, a very popular guy who is never afraid to let anybody know his beliefs. Every belief that people have affects others in one way or the other, it doesn't make then declare a war against others. My kids believe in Santa clause and the tooth fairy but I don't. Their belief affects me in many ways even financially because I have put money under their pillow when they lose a tooth. I have buy presents during Christmas and pretend that Santa bought them, I even had to dress up like Santa some Christmases. Sometimes during Christmas the mall is packed with kids waiting in line to see Santa; sometimes you cant buy anything at some malls because of this. You see how this affects everybody? But I haven't seen anybody declare a war of lies against kids just because of their belief in Santa.

The belief in Santa does NOT affect any body, people do NOT refuse to go to the hospital to get treated for their disease because of belief in Santa, people do not discriminate against each other because of belief in Santa, people do not go to war because of belief in Santa. . . .People do all these things in Nigeria in the name of religion. . . .Its a lie to say that atheist are not persecuted in Nigeria for being atheist, f you think am lying then try to be one fora day. . . .

Honesty is very important.

Sure, it is. . .If it means anything to you then you should admit that you are only guessing when you talk about knowing if the universe has a creator or claiming to know that the creator is a he. . .

justcool:

My friend,
Thanks for addressing my post; but with all due respect, the above does not make any sense. I too, do not believe in everything in the bible, neither do I believe in the Koran. I don’t subscribe to any religion. But all these things have nothing to do with God.
These religions and books are man’s perception of God not God Himself. The fact that some human perceptions do not add up does not make God non-existent.
There is no point sharing my experiences with, you simply will be unable to grasp them.

Thanks! That bold line concludes it all.

Nice sharing with you!

davidylan:

That's odd. I am a scientist as well and i know quite well that there are many things i can prove on the bench without the need to grab at a bible. the bible is simply to me a manual that guides a personal relationship with a God i know is real.

Even Stephen Hawking admitted that some of his assumptions are speculations. . . .He did even not go as far as saying that he knows what he is saying to be real, he made sure that any intelligent person that was watching knew he was offering his own opinion. . . .I know my car is real, why? Because it drives me around every day. . .I know my girl friend is real why, because she is lying right here beside me, you know that you are in a personal relationship with the God of the bible because. . . . ? Have you ever seen him, heard his voice, (The bible and people claim he talks to people and sometimes appears to them cos he is alive and real) or interacted with him on a personal level or is it the systematic indoctrination that makes you see things that aren't there remember you are not alone in this. . .There are believers that go further than you to the extent of killing themselves others because of how real this God is to them. Sweetnecter for example knows that the final revelation to mankind is the Koran and he also knows that the Koran and Allah are real, no?. . . .Here is the fact. . .There is no evidence to support the notion that this 'God' character of yours exists, let alone that appeals to it have any effect whatsoever. Human's have been creating Gods since the beginning of time and systematically making themselves and others accept this belief as reality. . . .All Gods are just another idea and conception created by men, yours inclusive. . . .Humans have always invented gods or other invisible entities and supernatural explanations to explain that which they don't understand. . . .Nothing new there. . .If the Koran was so damn convincing, why do the Christians reject it? If the Bible was so damn convincing, why do the Muslims reject it? If either (or any other text) was the word of creator of the universe, we would all believe it, surely? But when we look around we see that these books like any other book were just written by men to advance their own personal desires. . . .They have nothing to do with what ever it is that is responsibly for the existence of the universe as we know it. . .

davidylan:

I've often wondered why the mere mention of God draws so much RAGE from those who claim they are only disbelievers. Why?
Why is it "outrageous" to have an opinion on the supernatural? why does the atheist go into apoplexy at the mere mention of God? What is it about God that draws so much revulsion?

Its not about God, because there is no God that exist, its the belief about the existence of God that is real, and many people believe that people that do not share their beliefs are legitimate target for scorn, discrimination, harm etc all in the name of belief in God. . . .You are systematically indoctrinated to belief that any body that questions your beliefs is angry. . .I have asked you so many times if you are angry when showing the Muslims how ridiculous their beliefs are. . . .Are you angry when the name of Allah gets mentioned? An entity you believe does not exist as the Muslims claim. . . .It is clear to anyone who has followed your progress that you are not here to enlighten, but to try to point the finger at atheists, to denigrate and demean them for reasons of your own perhaps picking a fight with non-believers helps to silence your own deep-seated doubts? (See, I can presume things about you, too). What does that say about you, I wonder? I thought nonbelievers were a bunch of sour grape, 'evil people' that had a grudge. the reason so many religions teach their followers to avoid reading or hearing anything that contradicts with their belief is not simply from a desire to keep them from being lured in by evil teachers, but instead to hide the own shortcomings of their belief system.

davidylan:

It is already published that at least 70% of the members of NAS are overt atheists while only 7% believe in the existence of God. To then assume that we can 100% rely on the claims of the NAS by virtue of membership with regard to the question of the origin of the universe and life in general is nonsense. Like i said it is BAD SCIENCE to have arrived at a conclusion well before you test your hypothesis.
When the general belief of up to 80% of the NAS is that God doesnt exist, by default their "studies" are already geared towards confirming that conclusion!

Firstly, the members of the NAS do not believe that God does not exist by default. . . There are many Gods around and they are yet to find evidence for any of the Gods that people talk about. . . .They have looked and explored all over the world and some parts of the universe and have not seen the name or signature of any God any where. . .So basically, they have ruled out the truth of any religion and its God claims, a claim that is based on a text that contains errors of fact; Errors that, while they could not have been recognized as such by the men who wrote them, would have been glaringly obvious to a God who actually knew that, for example, the Earth was a sphere, or that the sun was powered by thermonuclear fusion. On the flip side, any God with an interest in being worshiped, or obeyed, or followed, or really, anything other than being ignored, would be able to write or inspire a holy book that all who read it found convincing; clear, perfect in its meaning, and/or undeniably true. No supposedly holy text that I have come across even gets close, but don't take my word for it; ask the more than two thirds of humanity alive today who are NOT followers of that particular text (whichever it may be). No single version of holy scripture is accepted by so much as a simple majority of humans alive today, much less of humans who ever lived. As I aforementioned. . .If the Koran was so damn convincing, why do the Christians and Hindus reject it? If the Bible was so damn convincing, why do the Muslims and Buddhist reject it?

Besides, the idea that somehow the living cell appeared after billions of years of manipulating non-living materials is tantamount to saying that over billions of years, sheet metal will develop into a fully functioning 4-wheel drive SUV. That's putting it mildly considering the level of complexity in the cell is thousands more than that in a car.

On this I will agree with you, do I know how the universe came about? The answer is no. . . .But here is the thing. . .Religion takes everything that is good about people and turns it around and calls it evil. Curiosity is the worst evil of all according to their "holy" book. I believe curiosity is one of the best things about humans and other intelligent animals. It is our curiosity that has allowed us to survive as a species. There are newer books out there that will tell a better story of the world around you than age long mythical books that were written by people who thought their God lived in the skies and they could erect structures to go and see him in the skies, books that are nothing but mind control systems. . .

mazaje:

You addressed God meaning the creator of the Universe as a he, no?. . . .Your evidence that the universe has only one creator which is a he is WHAT?. . . .

It is English that we are speaking here; I didn’t make the rules of English. English is a very gender-specific language, the rule is to address God as “He”; not necessarily because He is male. This is just the rule of the language. Just as you say “father time”, “mother nature”; it doesn’t mean that time is a father or that nature is a mother. You can address time as “He” and nature as “she”; you can even address things that are dear to you, like your country or nation as “she.”  Even boats and etc. are addressed as “she”; it doesn’t mean that they are female. It’s just the nature of the language.

mazaje:

So you see, even the ancients that you are talking about relied on science to achieve some of their greatest feat, not on religion,the principle of erecting the pyramids are scientific. . .No religious principle was applied in its construction and surely no God or Goddess offered any advice to its construction. . .The people relied on the natural principle of science to bind all the bricks together and erect that structure. . . .

I never repudiated the importance of science; I am a chemist/ Engineer. My point is that science is a tool limited to the physical, and should not be used to debunk God which is non-physical. True religionists know the importance of science; and true scientists know the importance of spirituality, and also know that science the fact that science exist does not preclude the existence of God and the non-physical.

My point for mentioning the Egyptians is that atheists here make it sound as if all believers are ignorant fools. There are imminent scientists who are believers too.

The Egyptians employed science in building the pyramids, but it was the urge for the non-physical that drove them to build the pyramids. Science is simply a too that one needs in the physical; being restricted to the physical, it cannot prove or disprove anything that is non-physical.

If one choses to not to believe in the non-physical, he should not attribute his non-belief to science. Such would be deception.

mazaje:

The belief in Santa does NOT affect any body, people do NOT refuse to go to the hospital to get treated for their disease because of belief in Santa, people do not discriminate against each other because of belief in Santa, people do not go to war because of belief in Santa. . . .People do all these things in Nigeria in the name of religion. . . .Its a lie to say that atheist are not persecuted in Nigeria for being atheist, f you think am lying then try to be one fora day. . . .

Let’s not let this deviate us from the topic at hand. Everybody gets persecuted for their beliefs. Christians persecute Muslims and vice-versa. Even among each religion, they persecute each other; some Catholics persecute Protestants and vice-verse. Sunni Muslims persecute other Muslims and vice-verse. If anything the people that are persecuted the most in Nigeria are the ritualists, traditional religionists and new agers or groups like Rosicrucians, Eckists and even adherents of the Grail Message(Cross bearers). The average Nigerian believes that members of these groups worship the devil. This is worse than not believing in God. Yet these people all flourish in Nigeria. I am a cross-bearer and I know the persecution I go through, even in my own family.

You cannot let persecution turn you into a hater.

From my own observation, and being very honest, religionist pretty much leave atheists alone. It is the atheists that are usually very aggressive in their evangelism. Tell me why Hawkings should bring in God in his scientific discovery or speculation? Who is being the aggressor here? How many religionists, after making their religious discoveries claim that scientific laws do not exist?

mazaje:

Sure, it is. . .If it means anything to you then you should admit that you are only guessing when you talk about knowing if the universe has a creator or claiming to know that the creator is a he. . .

If we are only guessing then why do you guys take Hawkings guesses as scientific laws that have proved that God does not exist? At first you guys were treating Hawkins like a God; now do you agree that he is only speculating? If so, then thanks for your honesty. But you should also be honest enough to admit Hawkins was out of place by attacking God with his speculations. He is being unnecessarily aggressive!

You can believe or see my beliefs as speculations, that perfectly okay; you haven’t done anything wrong by doing that. I can also see my beliefs as infallible truths; that okay as long as I don’t force it on people or try to use it to disprove science or radicle another person’s belief.

You can also hold Hawkins speculations as infallible truths; that's okay, you haven’t done anything wrong; you can also share this opinion of yours with others. But you will be out of line when you force it on others or ridicule others because of their divergent opinion.

I never asked you to believe in God, or a creator; you are free to believe what you want to. But when you radicle others who do not share your beliefs, then you are definitely wrong.

You must be honest enough to admit that Hawkins is misusing science. Science is used as a tool for the understanding, comprehension of the physical world; not to prove or disprove what is non-physical.

Thanks

all4naija:

Thanks! That bold line concludes it all.

Nice sharing with you!

Thank you too! And I hope you understood what I mean. I didn't mean any offense. The fact remains that bringing in my personal non-physical experiences will not help us here. I wish not to create a personality cult of myself or anybody.

Its better to let facts speak against facts, rather than bringing in what is very personal. There are of your experiences that I will not be able to grasp; the same you may not to able to grasp some of mine. If you cant find the non-physical in your own experiences, then you would not be able to find it in mine either.

So don't take it in a bad way. I appreciate your contributions.

davidylan:

It is already published that at least 70% of the members of NAS are overt atheists while only 7% believe in the existence of God. To then assume that we can 100% rely on the claims of the NAS by virtue of membership with regard to the question of the origin of the universe and life in general is nonsense. Like i said it is BAD SCIENCE to have arrived at a conclusion well before you test your hypothesis.
When the general belief of up to 80% of the NAS is that God doesnt exist, by default their "studies" are already geared towards confirming that conclusion!

You have taken my response out of context. Why not check out the context and what I was specifically referring to? Note that I wasn't saying that their numbers therefore show that God did not create the universe or anything like that. Another thing you should realize is that one's religious or non-religious stance shouldn't decide their conclusions because doing so would be a systematic error.

davidylan:

Besides, the idea that somehow the living cell appeared after billions of years of manipulating non-living materials is tantamount to saying that over billions of years, sheet metal will develop into a fully functioning 4-wheel drive SUV. That's putting it mildly considering the level of complexity in the cell is thousands more than that in a car.

No, that is a bad analogy since a living cell is in no way like a sheet metal neither is it like a fully functioning 4-wheel drive SUV.

justcool:


It is English that we are speaking here; I didn’t make the rules of English. English is a very gender-specific language, the rule is to address God as “He”; not necessarily because He is male. This is just the rule of the language. Just as you say “father time”, “mother nature”; it doesn’t mean that time is a father or that nature is a mother. You can address time as “He” and nature as “she”; you can even address things that are dear to you, like your country or nation as “she.”  Even boats and etc. are addressed as “she”; it doesn’t mean that they are female. It’s just the nature of the language.

Now we are back to semantics abi?. . .Ok. .No wahala. . . .My question still remains. . .Do you have any evidence to show that what ever is responsible for the existence of the universe as we know it is a single entity? Last time I checked every religion keeps making outlandish claims that their own imaginary God created the universe no? Most of them even have ridiculous creation stories to tell us that their own God created the universe, but thanks to science and what it has revealed the educated ones amongst them have abandoned such creation stories to the realm of allegory. . . .

I never repudiated the importance of science; I am a chemist/ Engineer. My point is that science is a tool limited to the physical, and should not be used to debunk God which is non-physical. True religionists know the importance of science; and true scientists know the importance of spirituality, and also know that science the fact that science exist does not preclude the existence of God and the non-physical.

How do you know that what ever is responsible for the existence of the universe is non physical?. . .The problem with your assumption is that Most scentist do not believe in God or spirituality. . .Over 90 percent of the NAS which is one of the most prestigious body of scientist today do not believe in any God or spirituality. . . .Their is no community of science that is better than the NAS and over 90 percent of them do not believe in any God. . .So your claim that true scientist know the importance of spirituality is false. . . . .

My point for mentioning the Egyptians is that atheists here make it sound as if all believers are ignorant fools. There are imminent scientists who are believers too.

The Egyptians employed science in building the pyramids, but it was the urge for the non-physical that drove them to build the pyramids. Science is simply a too that one needs in the physical; being restricted to the physical, it cannot prove or disprove anything that is non-physical.

Really?. . . .Science has disproved many Gods and will continue to do so. . .Humans have always invented Gods or other invisible entities and supernatural explanations to explain that which they don't understand. But then science comes along and tells them to stop sacrificing virgins to please some imaginary fertility Gods, science has shown people that there are no weather Gods that need pleasing, and we can do better by using irrigation and planting weather resistant crops instead of wasting time sacrificing animals to please the weather Gods. . .When sick science has shown that all you need is to live and eat rightly to avoid some kinds of diseases instead of praying to some Gods for healing or sprinkling the bloods of some animals on sick people to heal them. . .Where are the Gods of thunder and lighting? Once the scientific explanation was provided for these two phenomenon the Gods of thunder and lighting all died natural deaths , no?. . .

If one choses to not to believe in the non-physical, he should not attribute his non-belief to science. Such would be deception.

Actually I don't attribute my non belief to science per say. . . .My non belief lies on one single fact and that fact is that all Gods that men worship were created by humans. . . .

Let’s not let this deviate us from the topic at hand. Everybody gets persecuted for their beliefs. Christians persecute Muslims and vice-versa. Even among each religion, they persecute each other; some Catholics persecute Protestants and vice-verse. Sunni Muslims persecute other Muslims and vice-verse. If anything the people that are persecuted the most in Nigeria are the ritualists, traditional religionists and new agers or groups like Rosicrucians, Eckists and even adherents of the Grail Message(Cross bearers). The average Nigerian believes that members of these groups worship the devil. This is worse than not believing in God. Yet these people all flourish in Nigeria. I am a cross-bearer and I know the persecution I go through, even in my own family.

I feel your pain man. . .I have witnessed first hand persecution of some Grail message adherents back in the days. . .A friend's brother became an adherent of the grail message back in the days,and his relationship with his family ended immediately. . .I have seen some guy lose his closeness to his family because he married a woman that is an adherent of the grail message. . .So you see, religion in its very nature is like racism because it encourages segregation by telling a group of people that they are God's friends for accepting a culture and ts stories while those that disbelieve are his enemies for not accepting their culture and stories. . .People talk about freedom of religion but in reality there is no such thing. . .Once you leave the religion of your parents,most times your relationship with them ceases. . .

From my own observation, and being very honest, religionist pretty much leave atheists alone. It is the atheists that are usually very aggressive in their evangelism. Tell me why Hawkings should bring in God in his scientific discovery or speculation? Who is being the aggressor here? How many religionists, after making their religious discoveries claim that scientific laws do not exist?

If we are only guessing then why do you guys take Hawkings guesses as scientific laws that have proved that God does not exist? At first you guys were treating Hawkins like a God; now do you agree that he is only speculating? If so, then thanks for your honesty. But you should also be honest enough to admit Hawkins was out of place by attacking God with his speculations. He is being unnecessarily aggressive!

To hell with Hawkings. . .I have stated that his opinions are mere speculations, as long as he can not provide evidence for his assertions then he remains a lair. . .

You can believe or see my beliefs as speculations, that perfectly okay; you haven’t done anything wrong by doing that. I can also see my beliefs as infallible truths; that okay as long as I don’t force it on people or try to use it to disprove science or radicle another person’s belief.

You can also hold Hawkins speculations as infallible truths; that's okay, you haven’t done anything wrong; you can also share this opinion of yours with others. But you will be out of line when you force it on others or ridicule others because of their divergent opinion.

I never asked you to believe in God, or a creator; you are free to believe what you want to. But when you radicle others who do not share your beliefs, then you are definitely wrong.

You must be honest enough to admit that Hawkins is misusing science. Science is used as a tool for the understanding, comprehension of the physical world; not to prove or disprove what is non-physical.

Thanks

Again to hell with Hawkings and his speculations. . . .I don't care, as long as he doesn't provide evidence for his assertions then he remains a lair. . .But one thing I give him credit for is that he made it clear that he was just offering his personal opinions. . . .When people hold on to ridiculous beliefs I can't help but laugh at them. . . .That's just me for you. . .

mazaje:

Now we are back to semantics abi?. . .Ok. .No wahala. . . .My question still remains. . .Do you have any evidence to show that what ever is responsible for the existence of the universe as we know it is a single entity? Last time I checked every religion keeps making outlandish claims that their own imaginary God created the universe no? Most of them even have ridiculous creation stories to tell us that their own God created the universe, but thanks to science and what it has revealed the educated ones amongst them have abandoned such creation stories to the realm of allegory. . . .

No I do not have any scientific evidence; God is non-physical, beyond science. I have said this in this thread many times but you seem not to be listening.

I don’t have any scientific evidence that God exists; neither do you have any scientific evidence that God does not exist. Science is powerless here because we dealing with an idea that is non-physical, beyond the realm of science.

The deceiver or the trickster is the person trying to claim that science has discovered that God does not exist. Science does not deal with the non-physical.

The fact that some religions stories appear to be myths or do not correspond to reality does not mean that God does not exist. God and religion are two different things. Religion is man’s perception of God, not God Himself.

Remember even science has had its share of wrong and weird theories, which later scientists debunked. Does this mean that science does not exist? If science is allowed the privilege of making mistakes, why deny religion this privilege?

Once we discover a false or inconsistent religious view, every atheist picks up a stone and throws at the existence of God. God and religion are two different things!

mazaje:

How do you know that what ever is responsible for the existence of the universe is non physical?. . .The problem with your assumption is that Most scentist do not believe in God or spirituality. . .Over 90 percent of the NAS which is one of the most prestigious body of scientist today do not believe in any God or spirituality. . . .Their is no community of science that is better than the NAS and over 90 percent of them do not believe in any God. . .So your claim that true scientist know the importance of spirituality is false. . . . .

Again how do you know it’s not non-physical?

I don’t care about NAS, that just a body of scientists. I spoke about the best scientists—Newton, Einstein, and etc. Looking back on history it appears that the most brilliant ones, the ones that made most impact and discoveries were theists. Of course greater number scientists today are atheists. But proves nothing, I’m not talking about number; I’m talking about those that made the most contribution to science, those that took science to a higher level, or those that made the greatest discoveries in the history of science.

mazaje:

Really?. . . .Science has disproved many Gods and will continue to do so. . .Humans have always invented Gods or other invisible entities and supernatural explanations to explain that which they don't understand. But then science comes along and tells them to stop sacrificing virgins to please some imaginary fertility Gods, science has shown people that there are no weather Gods that need pleasing, and we can do better by using irrigation and planting weather resistant crops instead of wasting time sacrificing animals to please the weather Gods. . .When sick science has shown that all you need is to live and eat rightly to avoid some kinds of diseases instead of praying to some Gods for healing or sprinkling the bloods of some animals on sick people to heal them. . .Where are the Gods of thunder and lighting? Once the scientific explanation was provided for these two phenomenon the Gods of thunder and lighting all died natural deaths , no?. . .

Science has not proved and can never prove that God does not exist.

Sacrificing virgins and God are two different things. The religionists that sacrificed virgins were just misguided believers; their perception of God was very misguided. The same there were many misguided scientists(Alchemists) that thought that they can change base metals to gold. These scientists, today we call the pseudo scientists, were misguided in their knowledge of science, but this does not mean that whole field of science is false and laughable.

Despite, their misguided views, Alchemy laid foundation for the formidable science that we know today as chemistry. The believes with weird beliefs today may evolve and their childish beliefs may lay the foundation for a very formidable field of knowledge tomorrow.

mazaje:

Actually I don't attribute my non belief to science per say. . . .My non belief lies on one single fact and that fact is that all Gods that men worship were created by humans. . . .

I’m happy that you are honest enough not to attribute your non-belief to science.
You are very entitled to your view that God does not exist. It’s very okay to hold that view, if that what you really believe. But is wrong to try and use science to sell your views; and it is equally wrong to mock, ridicule or persecute those of divergent views.

People should be left to evolve.

mazaje:

I feel your pain man. . .I have witnessed first hand persecution of some Grail message adherents back in the days. . .A friend's brother became an adherent of the grail message back in the days,and his relationship with his family ended immediately. . .I have seen some guy lose his closeness to his family because he married a woman that is an adherent of the grail message. . .So you see, religion in its very nature is like racism because it encourages segregation by telling a group of people that they are God's friends for accepting a culture and ts stories while those that disbelieve are his enemies for not accepting their culture and stories. . .People talk about freedom of religion but in reality there is no such thing. . .Once you leave the religion of your parents,most times your relationship with them ceases. . .

Good! You see why I get concerned when Hawkins tries to use science to diprove creation by God. Why God! This word arouses the sensitivity of believers. When did science become the endeavor to prove anything about God? Is this not making God a religion?

What Hawkins did, in my perception, is nothing but religious persecution.

mazaje:

To hell with Hawkings. . .I have stated that his opinions are mere speculations, as long as he can not provide evidence for his assertions then he remains a lair. . .

Again to hell with Hawkings and his speculations. . . .I don't care, as long as he doesn't provide evidence for his assertions then he remains a lair. . .But one thing I give him credit for is that he made it clear that he was just offering his personal opinions. . . .When people hold on to ridiculous beliefs I can't help but laugh at them. . . .That's just me for you. . .

Good!

I would like to see somebody defines this god of creation for me without relating it with religion? With regards to how nature plays out in every event, I would also want to know about this entity called god of creation part in all things? In all, why is this god so elusive?

I am being inquisitive, I would kindly want to know with no shade of animosity.

Thank you!

justcool:
. . . . I don’t have any scientific evidence that God exists; neither do you have any scientific evidence that God does not exist.. . . .

davidylan:

Neither does the atheist have any empirical evidence that God doesnt exist at all . . . infact the only argument the atheist has is that the theist has not provided God's home address to him.

MyJoe:

That won't do. They'd want to shake hands.

Now, how such can qualify to be God in anyone's view beats me.

justcool:

. . . .
Good! You see why I get concerned when Hawkins tries to use science to diprove creation by God. Why God! This word arouses the sensitivity of believers. When did science become the endeavor to prove anything about God? Is this not making God a religion?

What Hawkins did, in my perception, is nothing but religious persecution.

Good!

This is a major problem one often encounters when discussing with theists. Rather than the discussion being on the actual ideas, it shifts to one of tone and feelings. So what if the word God arouses the sensitivity of believers? Does this mean non-believers cannot refer to God? How about the idea of a God? Recall your references about how science arose (though it was a fallacious line of argument).

If you think Hawking's documentary was a religious persecution, then I think you have really lowered what a religious persecution is. Do you think that speaking against slavery is religious persecution? How about writing against slavery?

thehomer:

This is a major problem one often encounters when discussing with theists. Rather than the discussion being on the actual ideas, it shifts to one of tone and feelings. So what if the word God arouses the sensitivity of believers? Does this mean non-believers cannot refer to God? How about the idea of a God? Recall your references about how science arose (though it was a fallacious line of argument).

If you think Hawking's documentary was a religious persecution, then I think you have really lowered what a religious persecution is. Do you think that speaking against slavery is religious persecution? How about writing against slavery?

It is not a question of feeling; rather, it is a question Hawkins lacking objectivity, and introducing pseudo terms. The word "God" is not a scientific word; rather, it is a religious word.  Using the word "God" in his scientific speculations is completely misguided, out of place, and perspective. Non believer can refer to God, but no body has the right to use science to sell their beliefs.

Speaking against slavery is a persecution to any religion that practices slavery as one if its fundamental religious rites, and such religions should rightly be persecuted. within the right context -- in the political context of human right violation. At the moment, speaking against slavery, will no longer be persecution because all religions of the world today have abandoned slavery. Unlike belief in God, the practice of slavery is not the fundamental rite or demands of any religion.

So your analogy is totally out of place and misguided.

justcool:

It is not a question of feeling; rather, it is a question Hawkins lacking objectivity, and introducing pseudo terms. The word "God" is not a scientific word; rather, it is a religious word. 

I thought you said that God and religion are two different things?. . . .

mazaje:

I thought you said that God and religion are two different things?. . . .

I don't see how I contracted my myself. Didn't I say that religion is man's perception of God? People use religion(Spirituality, and etc) in their quest for God or to experience the non-physical, not science; science is directed towards the physical. This is what I mean by "the word God is a religious word"; this does not contradict the fact that God and religion are two different things.

The word "Gravity," is scientific word. The explanations about gravity that science gives is man's perception of the natural phenomenom which science calls "gravity." But this phenomenon and Gravity(scientists perception of the phenomenom) are two different things. The scientists perception can be wrong and changes over time as they study the phenomenom; but the actual phenomenom remains adamant and unchangeable. You cannot say that Gravity does not exists just because some scientists have a misguided perception of it.

A better conclusion should be that "This phenomenon which science calls Gravity is definitely not the way science describes it to be." The same way, one who finds the religionists veiw of God faulty can say "This phenonmenom that the religionists call God is definitely not the way they describe it to be." But to deny the existence of a phenonmenom just because people's description of it is false is like throwing away the baby with bath water.

justcool:

It is not a question of feeling; rather, it is a question Hawkins lacking objectivity, and introducing pseudo terms. The word "God" is not a scientific word; rather, it is a religious word.  Using the word "God" in his scientific speculations is completely misguided, out of place, and perspective. Non believer can refer to God, but no body has the right to use science to sell their beliefs.

I think you need to show how Hawking lacked objectivity and the pseudo terms he introduced. Can religious people use the word sun? How about stars? I think this is the idea of non-overlapping magisteria that has been shown not to be useful. Hawking was simply referring to the sort of God that is available in so many religious texts.
Actually, we use science and reason to sell our beliefs all the time except when it comes to religious beliefs. This I think is the source of most of the problem. Consider why people are willing to sit in a metal tube hurtling through the air at velocities greater than 700km/hr. Think of why we vaccinate our children.

justcool:

Speaking against slavery is a persecution to any religion that practices slavery as one if its fundamental religious rites, and such religions should rightly be persecuted. within the right context -- in the political context of human right violation. At the moment, speaking against slavery, will no longer be persecution because all religions of the world today have abandoned slavery. Unlike belief in God, the practice of slavery is not the fundamental rite or demands of any religion.

Wow. Speaking against slavery is persecution if a religion says people should keep slaves? While you are being consistent, I hope you realize that some of the conclusions that follow from this is that punishing people for wrong doing is persecution.
Actually, slavery is a right in many religions.

justcool:

So your analogy is totally out of place and misguided.

Actually, you have simply shown how valid my analogy is since you consider speaking against slavery to be considered as a religious persecution.

@thehomer
I was in Nigeria for a while, and I forgot about this thread.

thehomer:

I think you need to show how Hawking lacked objectivity and the pseudo terms he introduced. Can religious people use the word sun? How about stars? I think this is the idea of non-overlapping magisteria that has been shown not to be useful. Hawking was simply referring to the sort of God that is available in so many religious texts.
Actually, we use science and reason to sell our beliefs all the time except when it comes to religious beliefs. This I think is the source of most of the problem. Consider why people are willing to sit in a metal tube hurtling through the air at velocities greater than 700km/hr. Think of why we vaccinate our children.

Forgive me but I think here you are just begging the question. I have dealt with those issues clearly enough in this thread. I just want to remind you that the word “sun” and “stars” existed before modern science.  We can trace their etymology more towards religion than to modern science. Besides you completely missed the point!!! The point is not the words per-se but under which context the word is being used. Or which definition of the word that is used. In scientific research or writing one can use the word ‘sun’ as long as he/she uses it in its scientific context; i.e. referring only to its scientific definition. In science you can only refer to Jupiter as being a planet not as being the god of good fortune. Using science to discover the existence or non-existence of Jupiter as the god of fortune or the ruler of the gods is pseudo-science; as long as science is concerned Jupiter is a planet. When science deals with Jupiter, it deals with Jupiter as a planet, otherwise we will be dealing with mythology and not science.

Now under what context is Hawking dealing with God? The word “God” has no scientific definition and it remains a pseudo term when used in scientific research.

He would have been more objective if he had given us a scientific definition of the word God, a scientific definition!

Words have many definitions!! Science can define the sun as a star in the center of our solar system; while to some religionists, the sun is a god in the sky. Science can use the word ‘sun’ as long as it sticks to its definition of the ‘word.’ But a word that has no scientific definition is a pseudo term when used in science.

It is my perception that Hawkins is using a scientific context to define or describe a word that is strictly religious and has no scientific definition.

Even a blind man can see that Hawkins lacked objectivity. He moved from context to context; the findings he made within a scientific context, he used it to qualify a religious context!! This is a terrible blunder in logic!

Believers made it clear that God is non-physical. Science made it clear that it is limited to the physical. Thus using science to pronounce judgment the non-physical is a terrible blunder. You are simply using a tool beyond that which it is designed for. It’s like trying to think with your limbs; your limbs are made for walking not thinking. When one wants to think he should employ his brain! The fact that your feet cannot think does not mean that thinking does not exist. A dog might as well tell you that the color green does not exist just because its eyes are not refined or designed to see the color green.

Science as a tool is not designed for the non-physical! It is simply misguided and lacking in objectivity to use science to pronounce judgment of that which is non-physical. It is simply beyond the reach and realm of science. Science cannot prove that the non-physical exists neither can it disprove that it does exist. Using science to judge the non-physical is pseudo-science; it would be voodoo.

thehomer:

Wow. Speaking against slavery is persecution if a religion says people should keep slaves? While you are being consistent, I hope you realize that some of the conclusions that follow from this is that punishing people for wrong doing is persecution.
Actually, slavery is a right in many religions.

Actually, you have simply shown how valid my analogy is since you consider speaking against slavery to be considered as a religious persecution.

Persecution in the context that I used it simply means to speak against something or fight against an idea. Not all persecutions are wrong, as long as we are dealing with persecution in the context of just speaking or acting against something or an idea.

The fact that something is being persecuted does not make that thing right or wrong. Both good deeds and evil deeds can be persecuted.

Persecuting an idea that any group holds as the fundamental core-belief of the group is tantamount to persecuting that group, as long as they hold on to that idea. Speaking against slavery is persecution against any group – religious or not – that holds the practice of slavery as one of the fundamental practices of that group.

Indeed so many religions were persecuted, and rightly so, for their practice of slavery. In time many religions evolved and dropped such monstrous and unfair practices. Hence speaking against slavery today is no longer persecution to such religions, since have abandoned slavery.

justcool:

@thehomer
I was in Nigeria for a while, and I forgot about this thread.

I hope you enjoyed your trip.

justcool:

Forgive me but I think here you are just begging the question. I have dealt with those issues clearly enough in this thread. I just want to remind you that the word “sun” and “stars” existed before modern science.  We can trace their etymology more towards religion than to modern science. Besides you completely missed the point!!! The point is not the words per-se but under which context the word is being used. Or which definition of the word that is used. In scientific research or writing one can use the word ‘sun’ as long as he/she uses it in its scientific context; i.e. referring only to its scientific definition. In science you can only refer to Jupiter as being a planet not as being the god of good fortune. Using science to discover the existence or non-existence of Jupiter as the god of fortune or the ruler of the gods is pseudo-science; as long as science is concerned Jupiter is a planet. When science deals with Jupiter, it deals with Jupiter as a planet, otherwise we will be dealing with mythology and not science.

Now under what context is Hawking dealing with God? The word “God” has no scientific definition and it remains a pseudo term when used in scientific research.

He would have been more objective if he had given us a scientific definition of the word God, a scientific definition!

Words have many definitions!! Science can define the sun as a star in the center of our solar system; while to some religionists, the sun is a god in the sky. Science can use the word ‘sun’ as long as it sticks to its definition of the ‘word.’ But a word that has no scientific definition is a pseudo term when used in science.

It is my perception that Hawkins is using a scientific context to define or describe a word that is strictly religious and has no scientific definition.

Even a blind man can see that Hawkins lacked objectivity. He moved from context to context; the findings he made within a scientific context, he used it to qualify a religious context!! This is a terrible blunder in logic!

But, the Christian God was described in the Bible and I think scientists can read the Bible can't they? Or shouldn't words in the Bible be accepted as meaning what they say? As far as we can tell, the Christian God is supposed to have been described in the Bible. If you think he wasn't, then one must ask how you came to know about him.

justcool:

Believers made it clear that God is non-physical. Science made it clear that it is limited to the physical. Thus using science to pronounce judgment the non-physical is a terrible blunder. You are simply using a tool beyond that which it is designed for. It’s like trying to think with your limbs; your limbs are made for walking not thinking. When one wants to think he should employ his brain! The fact that your feet cannot think does not mean that thinking does not exist. A dog might as well tell you that the color green does not exist just because its eyes are not refined or designed to see the color green.

Science as a tool is not designed for the non-physical! It is simply misguided and lacking in objectivity to use science to pronounce judgment of that which is non-physical. It is simply beyond the reach and realm of science. Science cannot prove that the non-physical exists neither can it disprove that it does exist. Using science to judge the non-physical is pseudo-science; it would be voodoo.

The question that follows here would be how do are you able to tell that that some non-physical being is present? Is there any field or tool available to describe the presence of non-physical beings?

justcool:

Persecution in the context that I used it simply means to speak against something or fight against an idea. Not all persecutions are wrong, as long as we are dealing with persecution in the context of just speaking or acting against something or an idea.

The fact that something is being persecuted does not make that thing right or wrong. Both good deeds and evil deeds can be persecuted.

Persecuting an idea that any group holds as the fundamental core-belief of the group is tantamount to persecuting that group, as long as they hold on to that idea. Speaking against slavery is persecution against any group – religious or not – that holds the practice of slavery as one of the fundamental practices of that group.

Indeed so many religions were persecuted, and rightly so, for their practice of slavery. In time many religions evolved and dropped such monstrous and unfair practices. Hence speaking against slavery today is no longer persecution to such religions, since have abandoned slavery.

The problems with the way you're using persecution here would lead one to conclude that voicing a contrary opinion may be construed as persecution. Another problem is that persecution is generally used to show that what is happening is unjust or improper. With the way you're using it, the conclusion would be that whatever act wins out in the end is the right one while the one that fails is the wrong one. This sort of conclusion I wouldn't disagree with.

thehomer:

I hope you enjoyed your trip.

My trip afforded me a rich experiencing; I'm grateful to the Almighty.

thehomer:

But, the Christian God was described in the Bible and I think scientists can read the Bible can't they? Or shouldn't words in the Bible be accepted as meaning what they say? As far as we can tell, the Christian God is supposed to have been described in the Bible. If you think he wasn't, then one must ask how you came to know about him.

Right the Bible and other scriptures described Him as non-physical. It would be both misguided and absurd to search for Him with physical tools.

If Hawkins had taken a physical event described in the bible, (an even that supposedly happened in the physical world) and analyzed it scientifically, then he would appear more objective. Even if he concluded, from his scientific speculations and discoveries, that such an even is impossible within the physical world, he would still appear objective and not misguided; because he would be analyzing a physical event with a physical tool.

He would only be using the tool, science, where it belongs; within its realm of operation. But using science to judge the non-physical is like using a spade or a basket to collect water.

thehomer:

The question that follows here would be how do are you able to tell that that some non-physical being is present? Is there any field or tool available to describe the presence of non-physical beings?

The non-physical can only be felt by the non-physical. So many people, including I myself, have felt it. It is simply beyond science, beyond the grasp of physical means or the physical organs.

Everyman living physically on earth wears many nonphysical bodies along with his/her physical body as the outermost covering. While on earth the individual perceives predominantly with the physical body, yet every now and then receives impressions from the beyond through his/her non-physical body. Through neglect and spiritual inactivity, some people have allowed their non-physical bodies to become numb and completely inactive; hence they only perceive with their physical bodies which is incapable of noticing the nonphysical.

Science relies on physical observation and analysis, it relies heavily on the brain and the physical organs; hence the non-physical is beyond its (science’s) realm of operation.
Knowledge of the existence of God is afforded to man through his spirit which is non-physical. The spirit being spiritual can feel, perceive, or make connection with the power of God. Through this connection the spirit perceives the omnipotence that lies in the power of God; the spirit then can decipher God, as much as its nature and maturity allows it, through His power.

Such a man who stands in the power of God will always know deep within him that there is a God, even if he cannot put it in words; he knows this in his spirit which baths perpetually in the power of God. Many people feel this daily and hourly, be it only in forms or premonitions, promptings and inclination; all these could be a result of something that is alive within their spirits. So most people that are inclined to believe in an Almighty God are not fools, they are only yielding to something that their spirit feels.

Due to the fact that modern man places his brain on a high pedestal, modern man considers a thing worthwhile only when it is intelligible or easily comprehended by the brain; many people, prompted by the certainty of a God which they feel within them, seek to find this God with their brains or to make that which they feel in their spirit more intelligible. Hence they drag what is holy to dirt for the brain being physical can never fully describe or qualify God.

This is why many believers present all sorts of ridiculous pictures of God, and also why many give the scriptures all sorts of wired and earthly interpretation. They seek so hard to make what is non-physical earthly, or they try to understand the non-physical with physical means. These believers are as misguided as Hawkins who seeks to qualify the non-physical by physical tools.

Just because some people do not perceive with their non-physical bodies does not mean that those who perceive are deluded fools. As scientist you know that every creature perceives reality differently from other creatures. The range of colors that dogs perceive is different from the range that humans perceive. The same is applicable to sound and etc. Where a man may not perceive any sound, they dog may perceive unbearable noise. Where a man perceives no odors, the dog may perceive a very strong odor! And even within the same species, perception still differs! Some men see better than others, some men are color blind. Somebody can lose his ability to see, speak or work out of indolence. The man who closes his eyes for a year may not be able to regain his sight immediately after opening it, for a while he will lose the ability to see. A man who keeps his limbs inactive for a very long time may lose the ability to walk.

Hence due to lack of spiritual movement, some people have made their spirits along with their non-physical bodies unable to perceive the power of God that flows through creation. Such an individual has severed his connection with God and hence cannot perceive Him.

But the fact that he doesn’t perceive a thing does not mean that others do not, or that that thing does not exist. Even science has confirmed that each creature only perceives as much as its organs of perception allow it.

thehomer:

The problems with the way you're using persecution here would lead one to conclude that voicing a contrary opinion may be construed as persecution. Another problem is that persecution is generally used to show that what is happening is unjust or improper. With the way you're using it, the conclusion would be that whatever act wins out in the end is the right one while the one that fails is the wrong one. This sort of conclusion I wouldn't disagree with.

I never said that whatever wins out in the end is the right one. Persecution, in the context that I’m using it, is a neutral word; it doesn’t entail that that which is persecuted is always right or wrong. I know generally people use certain words in different contexts; but in my context, I’m using persecution as a neutral word.

Anybody who attacks the beliefs of others persecutes, it doesn’t matter whether the belief is right or wrong.

Persecution doesn’t necessarily have to be unjust treatment. To bother somebody constantly is a form of persecution. Hence one can, in this context, say that the police persecute criminals.

Here is dictionary’s definition:

per•se•cute
    ˈpɜr sɪˌkyutShow Spelled[pur-si-kyoot]  Show IPA
verb (used with object), -cut•ed, -cut•ing.
1.
to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
2.
to annoy or trouble persistently.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/persecute

1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, intimate orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/persecute

Using scientific speculations to arrive at the conclusion that the fundamental belief of the religionists is wrong is a form of persecution. Indeed speaking against such fundamental beliefs religious can be construed a form of religious persecution.


Thanks

justcool:

My trip afforded me a rich experiencing; I'm grateful to the Almighty.

Right the Bible and other scriptures described Him as non-physical. It would be both misguided and absurd to search for Him with physical tools.

If Hawkins had taken a physical event described in the bible, (an even that supposedly happened in the physical world) and analyzed it scientifically, then he would appear more objective. Even if he concluded, from his scientific speculations and discoveries, that such an even is impossible within the physical world, he would still appear objective and not misguided; because he would be analyzing a physical event with a physical tool.

He would only be using the tool, science, where it belongs; within its realm of operation. But using science to judge the non-physical is like using a spade or a basket to collect water.

Except when he was e.g wandering the garden of Eden, in a burning bush, wandering with the Israelites as a pillar of fire and as a cloud pillar etc.

On the issue with Hawking, it is exactly what he has done. He is talking about this physical universe and the fact that a God doesn't need to be introduced into the equation.

justcool:

The non-physical can only be felt by the non-physical. So many people, including I myself, have felt it. It is simply beyond science, beyond the grasp of physical means or the physical organs.

Everyman living physically on earth wears many nonphysical bodies along with his/her physical body as the outermost covering. While on earth the individual perceives predominantly with the physical body, yet every now and then receives impressions from the beyond through his/her non-physical body. Through neglect and spiritual inactivity, some people have allowed their non-physical bodies to become numb and completely inactive; hence they only perceive with their physical bodies which is incapable of noticing the nonphysical.

Science relies on physical observation and analysis, it relies heavily on the brain and the physical organs; hence the non-physical is beyond its (science’s) realm of operation.
Knowledge of the existence of God is afforded to man through his spirit which is non-physical. The spirit being spiritual can feel, perceive, or make connection with the power of God. Through this connection the spirit perceives the omnipotence that lies in the power of God; the spirit then can decipher God, as much as its nature and maturity allows it, through His power.

Such a man who stands in the power of God will always know deep within him that there is a God, even if he cannot put it in words; he knows this in his spirit which baths perpetually in the power of God. Many people feel this daily and hourly, be it only in forms or premonitions, promptings and inclination; all these could be a result of something that is alive within their spirits. So most people that are inclined to believe in an Almighty God are not fools, they are only yielding to something that their spirit feels.

Due to the fact that modern man places his brain on a high pedestal, modern man considers a thing worthwhile only when it is intelligible or easily comprehended by the brain; many people, prompted by the certainty of a God which they feel within them, seek to find this God with their brains or to make that which they feel in their spirit more intelligible. Hence they drag what is holy to dirt for the brain being physical can never fully describe or qualify God.

This is why many believers present all sorts of ridiculous pictures of God, and also why many give the scriptures all sorts of wired and earthly interpretation. They seek so hard to make what is non-physical earthly, or they try to understand the non-physical with physical means. These believers are as misguided as Hawkins who seeks to qualify the non-physical by physical tools.

Just because some people do not perceive with their non-physical bodies does not mean that those who perceive are deluded fools. As scientist you know that every creature perceives reality differently from other creatures. The range of colors that dogs perceive is different from the range that humans perceive. The same is applicable to sound and etc. Where a man may not perceive any sound, they dog may perceive unbearable noise. Where a man perceives no odors, the dog may perceive a very strong odor! And even within the same species, perception still differs! Some men see better than others, some men are color blind. Somebody can lose his ability to see, speak or work out of indolence. The man who closes his eyes for a year may not be able to regain his sight immediately after opening it, for a while he will lose the ability to see. A man who keeps his limbs inactive for a very long time may lose the ability to walk.

Hence due to lack of spiritual movement, some people have made their spirits along with their non-physical bodies unable to perceive the power of God that flows through creation. Such an individual has severed his connection with God and hence cannot perceive Him.

But the fact that he doesn’t perceive a thing does not mean that others do not, or that that thing does not exist. Even science has confirmed that each creature only perceives as much as its organs of perception allow it.

How does this non-physical realm interact with the physical realm? You may also need to realize that non-believers who meditate actually are able to feel all sorts of sensations but they simply accept that it is physical and based on the brain. You're introducing this non-physical realm and I simply have to ask for some evidence of it.

justcool:

I never said that whatever wins out in the end is the right one. Persecution, in the context that I’m using it, is a neutral word; it doesn’t entail that that which is persecuted is always right or wrong. I know generally people use certain words in different contexts; but in my context, I’m using persecution as a neutral word.

Anybody who attacks the beliefs of others persecutes, it doesn’t matter whether the belief is right or wrong.

Persecution doesn’t necessarily have to be unjust treatment. To bother somebody constantly is a form of persecution. Hence one can, in this context, say that the police persecute criminals.

Here is dictionary’s definition:

Using scientific speculations to arrive at the conclusion that the fundamental belief of the religionists is wrong is a form of persecution. Indeed speaking against such fundamental beliefs religious can be construed a form of religious persecution.


Thanks

Just to be clear, is it okay with you that persecutions continue?

What we don't know about shouldn't be apportioned to God or gods! Just like the Neutrinos are know to be faster than the speed of light yet thorough research is still being carried out to finalize why this sub-atomic particles exhibit such character. I think what we done know should be researched rather than taking it as one infallible ideology like the religion's.