[Closed] Life, Faith, Religion and a path to finding God?

Ourmaninthenorth helped me find Cod.

next stop ****youville

You won't be allowed to talk like that in church!

I doubt there would be need to, not that I go to church.

got this from the Dalai Lama's Facebook feed(!) today.

The compassionate mind is very important. Fear, anger, jealousy are based on a self-centered attitude. By developing a sense of caring for others' well-being your heart automatically opens and that brings transparency, straightforwardness and honesty, which leads to friendship. We are social animals, and one individual's survival relies entirely on the rest of the community.

'good food, good sleep'

Precisely. It echoes something I once heard whilst watching an interview with a scientist (who's name I WISH I could remember) who was particularly scathing about superstition.

"Of course there's no meaning in life, but so what? I'm looking forward to a damn good lunch".

There you go...

ah the remote militant agnostic returns once again, I thought you'd got bored with this?

would you prefer that I believe in nothing? nothing unless it can be repeatedly proven 99% by controlled scientific test?
that I just follow your example? and have no Faith?

can you please give all the money back, relinquish your right to tax free status, stay out of the education systems with your nasty half baked fairy stories and while your at it stay out of politics and keep away from people in white coats who are trying to cure stuff and make people better.

MrNutt - Member

ah the remote militant agnostic returns once again, I thought you'd got bored with this?

No, no. Just with "talking" to you. Apart from this, of course, but you obviously need it underlining because you're too dim/gripped by an insane desire to hurt somebody, to understand it if you only read it once.

"When you are powerless and dont affect my life I will leave you alone to your beliefs."
I'm not wanting to be argumentative junkyard, but how does mr nutt affect your life? And what powers does he posess? I think we should be told, so we can either adore or avoid him, dependant on our viewpoints. 😉

Will no one think of the dinosaurs?

krag - Member

Will no one think of the dinosaurs?

😆 Outstanding. 😆

you meant religion/church etc not mr Nutt personally
Apologises for lack of clarity and I did not mean that to appear as if it was directed personally at Mr nutt

Hmmm the trouble with atheism is it's bad pr and generally [url= http://atheism.about.com/od/nihilismnihilists/a/atheism.htm ]nihilistic perception[/url] - which means that, if you regard atheism as a religion, defined as

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,

to quote the linked article

It is certainly arguable that atheism makes nihilism easier — for example, Nietzsche made the case that widespread atheism overthrew the only interpretation (theistic) of the world that was really popular. As a consequence, people got the impression that there wasn't really any meaning out there at all and so lost hope.

can you please give all the money back, relinquish your right to tax free status, stay out of the education systems with your nasty half baked fairy stories and while your at it stay out of politics and keep away from people in white coats who are trying to cure stuff and make people better.

Give all the money back = I can't say I'm all that comfortable with the concept of Tithe but I understand the provision for harder times, I agree vehicles such as the Vatican appear to drip with opulence whilst there is obviously many who could do better with the money than a few elect finely dressed romans.

relinquish your right to tax free status = I loathe taxation of any kind, voluntary donation through honest education would be a better although utopian option.

stay out of the education systems with your nasty half baked fairy stories = a lot of schools, colleges etc were founded by "the church" were they not? why not set up your own faith free school if you feel that passionate about it? oh yes, you don't believe in anything.

and while your at it stay out of politics = agreed, religion and politics is an incestuous union that only breeds deformed, backward and dysfunctional children.

and keep away from people in white coats who are trying to cure stuff and make people better = yes all medical research should be conducted upon Atheist Island where all staff are sterilized of their beliefs prior to arrival.

so apart from it being an appallingly written statement, that sounds as though its been shouted through the school railings by a 15yr old and whilst it is flawed in may ways I tend to agree with the body of it.

But that doesn't mean I am incapable of having a Faith. Nor does it mean I'm against Atheism.

DaRC_L, That article to which you have linked seems to suggest the exact opposite of "atheism=nihilism" to me.

Why do people think that a "meaningless" life is something to get depressed about? Doesn't it free one from the constraints and demands of thinking that we MUST "believe" in something - usually a set of rule-based presuppositions based on unproven assertions about imaginary presences and so on?

"Of course life is meaningless, but so what..."?

Mmmm - nice cup of tea coming up.

krag - Member

Will no one think of the dinosaurs?

Mr Woppit - Member

Outstanding.

what is funnier Woppit, and what you don't realize is, Krag & I are good mates & share a flat, this was something that we were laughing about this morning.

Also you'll see his comment was humorous, Intelligent and he would say it to my face without any fear of reprisal, where as you, well, its clear to all what kind of person you are.

Mr Woppit - Member
DaRC_L, That article to which you have linked seems to suggest the exact opposite of "atheism=nihilism" to me.

Why do people think that a "meaningless" life is something to get depressed about? Doesn't it free one from the constraints and demands of thinking that we MUST "believe" in something - usually a set of rule-based presuppositions based on unproven assertions about imaginary presences and so on?

"Of course life is meaningless, but so what..."?

Mmmm - nice cup of tea coming up.

Do you think people MUST "believe" in something? is that why you're so hateful?

I suppose he feels superior in needing nothing to believe in.

PS: ... Yorkshire's finest, of course.

ooOOoo - Member

I suppose he feels superior in needing nothing to believe in.

Interesting, why do you think that I feel "superior"? I haven't suggested it...

I'm over here, by the way.

why did me quoting stoner get that reaction but no one commented when he first put it up?

unlike whoppit I am going and I will stay gone as it has become the bun fight it was always destined to become.
I will leave you to it
Good luck on your journey Mr Nutt I hope it leads to a place you are happy....be nice if it was also rationally verifiable 😆
IGMC

If any of you do know god or have any sway with the big guy, can you please get him to strike me down before I am compelled to hit refresh on this train wreck of a thread.

Ta.

See you, junk. Perhaps if Drac picks up on the discussion about nihilism it might go somewhere...

laters Junkyard, and cheers, me too.

personally I'm more of one for transrationalism as a singularity 😉

its good to be nice, but it's nicer to be good. 😀

Glad to see the British spirit is still riding high and that a nice cup of tea can solve all the worlds problems 🙂

But I'm just suggesting that perhaps people should be allowed to keep their beliefs and whilst some might like Yorkshire teabags others might like a proper pot with Lapsang souchong tea leaves or even a complicated tea ceremony but they are all ways to make a great cup of tea.

3, 2, 1....

spot on DaRC_L mines ether whatever's in the pot or earl grey with lemon & gin.

Ah! Well, I don't think anybody should be in a position of allowing or not allowing belief. People are entitled to believe what they like.

However, just like tea preferences, there's no reason why it can't be discussed, is there? The pitch and direction of the discussion will ebb and flow of course, whilst at the same time being essentially, meaningless. Isn't it?

8)

clearly you don't understand the difference between these two similar looking words:

discussion: an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.

disagreeable: contrary to one's taste or liking; unpleasant; offensive; repugnant. unpleasant in manner or nature; unamiable:

as you have been a hell of a lot closer to the latter than the former, but then I guess that was your aim, given your previous form.

My problem here is that a common criticism of religion is that there is a lack of evidence or understanding. Yet, those hwo criticise it also fail to recognise that their lack of understanding in any number of scientific concepts reduces their so called rationalism to a set of beliefs. To say that this happens 'because of evolution' or 'because of gravity' without being able to understand how the causal mechanisms in those processes result in the observed outcomes is just as much 'faith' based as saying 'because of God'.

I am that 15 year old!

I loathe taxation of any kind, voluntary donation through honest education would be a better although utopian option.

Thats all well and good however we have a democratically elected govt and its a bit difficult to simply withraw from it, unless you are an approved UK religion of course.

a lot of schools, colleges etc were founded by "the church" were they not? why not set up your own faith free school if you feel that passionate about it? oh yes, you don't believe in anything.

The church did lots of things which we now agree are innapropriate, whether they set them up to improve access to young children or not the fact remains that they are state funded and as such should educate children nor abuse and indoctrinate them.

and keep away from people in white coats who are trying to cure stuff and make people better = yes all medical research should be conducted upon Atheist Island where all staff are sterilized of their beliefs prior to arrival.

Are you 15?

But that doesn't mean I am incapable of having a Faith

Who said it did?

My problem here is that a common criticism of religion is that there is a lack of evidence or understanding. Yet, those hwo criticise it also fail to recognise that their lack of understanding in any number of scientific concepts reduces their so called rationalism to a set of beliefs. To say that this happens 'because of evolution' or 'because of gravity' without being able to understand how the causal mechanisms in those processes result in the observed outcomes is just as much 'faith' based as saying 'because of God'.

No its not.

CharlieMungus - Member

My problem here is that a common criticism of religion is that there is a lack of evidence or understanding. Yet, those hwo criticise it also fail to recognise that their lack of understanding in any number of scientific concepts reduces their so called rationalism to a set of beliefs.

That's a good point. However, I think that the evidence (that there hqas been theoretical peer-group reviews, following rational experiment to obtain sound results etc.) suggests that the probability of finding one's "belief" to be confirmed, is very high.

This is opposed of course, to the probability that the superstitious view is correct, which is so low as to be undetectable as a measurement...

PS: Fortunately, there are websites and books available that will explain these ideas in "layman's" terms so that it doesn't need to be a "belief".

TV too - smiley ex-TOTP keyboardist and professor Brian Cox, for instance...

Essentially I think that this thread pretty much sums up why the world and humanity has issues, specifically with Religion.

In summary: People have opposing view's and no-one is willing to give ground, in the first instance this is because they think their opinion is correct and seek to defend it but ultimately opinions become irrelevant and it ends up being about pride. Everyone involved gets emotional about it because there is a perception that 'being right' somehow inflates ego and/or status and they therefore do what all emotionally driven beings do - fight about it, uncontrollably. That is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the last 13 pages of posts and pretty much man's attempt to put themselves at the centre of things (pride) throughout history. Clearly this doesn’t work. We have wars with one another, we abuse and defile one another and ultimately descend into chaos. Basically, humans are crap at being in control but are absolutely desperate to seen to be. Why are we crap at it? Well in my opinion it's because we're not supposed to be. That's not the way we were designed. Instead, we were designed to be in relationship with the one who made us, loves us and knows us best. God.

The other issue I have with the God debate, which is true for the way it's presented here, is that it's always one-sided. No-one ever talks about the Devil and his role in all this. To me, the greatest trick the Devil has pulled off is to convince people that he doesn't exist (case in point with this discussion I would suggest). Moreover that God is instead responsible for everything bad that occurs in the world. This simply isn't the case. The Devil has as his purpose the demise of God's kingdom. If I was to try and bring down a kingdom I would certainly try and attribute vile things to that Kingdom, especially when it is not responsible for them. I would also confuse the situation by creating very similar Kingdom's, so that the True Kingdom lost much of its appeal. Isn't that what's going on here with religion? If I was to be asked "if God loves us then why do people die before their time from cancer, murder, drink driving or any other tragic event?" I would certainly look to the Devil just as much I would God and I would also suggest that it is primarily down to mans 'pride' and desire to be in control than it is about God's failure to love us. With this in mind, what sort of loving God would give us free will only to ignore it when the chips were down, take control over our lives, when we've not asked him to nor believe he even exists and enforce on us things which we didn't ask him to do? You could say "isn't that what a responsible parent would do? and yes you'd have a point put better still shouldn't the parent be teaching the child how to make choices that will benefit them - to do this we need to be in relationship with our parents not suggesting they don't exist or if they do exist don't love us.

Don't get me wrong I find it equally hard to understand how it all works. Why some people who I/we pray for get healed and others don't. We are of course assuming that being here on earth is our 'best option' (which I'm hoping isn’t the case otherwise Heaven won't meet expectations) instead of accepting that maybe for some being in Heaven is a better option but even so it's a tough one to take.

Ultimately, trying to argue someone into relationship with God is futile - that's not what I'm trying to do here at all. Instead, faith is a gift free to us from God that is open to everyone but like every gift it is up to the individual whether they choose to accept it or not. My question would be this 'What have you got to loose?" The world is already an unfair, tough place to live and if those 'God botherers' are even somewhere close to hitting the mark then Hell ain't going to be much better either. BUT way beyond all that 'why not allow yourself to explore the notion that the God who created you and who loves you might actually want to be in relationship with you so that all the stuff you struggle with in this unfair world, he can help you deal with' until such a time that you die and then go to spend eternity in the place that we were actually designed to reside, under His protection, in His presence and no doubt pinning it down the best singletrack he's ever created, without arm pump!

Just my thoughts on the matter - fire at will!

That's not the way we were designed.

You were doing quite well up to there... 😐

[i]My problem here is that a common criticism of religion is that there is a lack of evidence or understanding. Yet, those hwo criticise it also fail to recognise that their lack of understanding in any number of scientific concepts reduces their so called rationalism to a set of beliefs. To say that this happens 'because of evolution' or 'because of gravity' without being able to understand how the causal mechanisms in those processes result in the observed outcomes is just as much 'faith' based as saying 'because of God'.[/i]

Unfortunately Charlie, someone else has already said this in a much more accessible way;

'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'

Arthur C Clarke.

Plus, gravity and evolution are rather quiet on the stoning of homosexuals, and they both continue to work, even on the Sabbath...

[i]'why not allow yourself to explore the notion that the God who created you and who loves you might actually want to be in relationship with you so that all the stuff you struggle with in this unfair world, he can help you deal with' until such a time that you die and then go to spend eternity in the place that we were actually designed to reside, under His protection,[/i]

Because I don't believe it.

[i]Basically, humans are crap at being in control but are absolutely desperate to seen to be. Why are we crap at it? Well in my opinion it's because we're not supposed to be. That's not the way we were designed. Instead, we were designed to be in relationship with the one who made us, loves us and knows us best. God[/i]

Which god though?
The Greeks use to have loads, the Hindu's still have plenty, where do they fit in?

Yes come on, let's find some common ground; which gods do you not believe in?

'why not allow yourself to explore the notion that the God who created you and who loves you might actually want to be in relationship with you so that all the stuff you struggle with in this unfair world, he can help you deal with' until such a time that you die and then go to spend eternity in the place that we were actually designed to reside, under His protection,

Because I don't believe it.

lol lol and thrice lol 😆

that would look great on the back of a Tshirt

Of course, religious people of any type know what it's like to be Atheists. They don't believe in all the [i]other[/i] gods.

To become Atheists completely, all they need to do is disbelieve in one god more...

Because I don't believe it.

Why not ask God if he exists or indeed if what I posted about Him is in the slighest bit true!? If you don't believe He exists then you've lost nowt, other than entertaining the notion for a few seconds that is - about the length of time it takes to respond to a post on STW in fact. Seems like you can only gain from asking the question.

Like I said though, that's entirely up to you (hard to say that without sounding patronising - sorry).

Why not? Perhaps you didn't get it on the first pass: Because [i]He doesn't believe it.[/i]

Which god though?
The Greeks use to have loads, the Hindu's still have plenty, where do they fit in?

Only the God in the Christian Bible (of Abraham, Moses and Paul etc) offers us relationship and reconciliation with him through his son Jesus. This offer of a personal relationship with him is the fundamental difference between Christianity and other 'world' religions - as I understand it.

You do realise that there is no actual evidence that the alleged Nazarene is anything more than a character that someone made up in a story, don't you?

Plus of course, the obvious point that you will get nowhere claiming that any particular god as outlined in a book written by ignorant bronze-age tribal shamans can offer anything at all. This is not going to be taken seriously by someone who [i]does not believe it[/i].

Why not? Perhaps you didn't get it on the first pass: Because He doesn't believe it.

Yep I got it, but I'm not saying he has to at all, hopefully I have made that clear - but didn't folk think the world was flat until someone opened their eyes to the possibility that it wasn't????

My point in suggesting he pursues it, is that I know how life-changing it is to know Jesus and know how much he loves me.

Surely, if you had discovered the best set of disc brakes going, that there were unlimited stocks and that someone was giving them away for free you'd tell people wouldn't you!?

Yes, but the disc brakes would not need anything to back up the fact that they exist by being anything other than clearly existant.

People accepted that the earth was not flat after it was claimed, then demonstrated that it is spherical.

So far, there has been no demonstration whatsoever that there is any such thing as a god. Of whatever type.

What evidence do you have that jesus loves you, by the way?

Only the God in the Christian Bible (of Abraham, Moses and Paul etc) offers us relationship and reconciliation with him through his son Jesus. This offer of a personal relationship with him is the fundamental difference between Christianity and other 'world' religions - as I understand it.

So does this mean all the other gods exist but you should only choose the Christian one for the reasons you mentioned?

Bhakti yoga in hindu vaisnavism has 4 modes of a personal relationship with the personality of god.

The Hindus have a good selection. One has an elephant's head. Another, several arms (but only two legs, for some reason). Another one looks like a relatively normal human, except that it's got bright blue skin...

Allegedley.

Then of course there's the cosmic spaghetti monster and his noodley appendages.

Klingon to your mockery woppit, It seems to be a language you truly believe in.

That's a good point. However, I think that the evidence (that there hqas been theoretical peer-group reviews, following rational experiment to obtain sound results etc.) suggests that the probability of finding one's "belief" to be confirmed, is very high.

But this demonstrates my point exactly. The one thing they actually know about gravity is that it works in a way in which they don't really understand, and that the current model does not adequately describe or predict the phenomenon. An example follows...

PS: Fortunately, there are websites and books available that will explain these ideas in "layman's" terms so that it doesn't need to be a "belief".

The thread on flight demonstrated this nicely. Concepts such as flight or gravity are oversimplified by analogy and metaphor to the extent that they are jsut wrong and most people continue with that misconception about the phenomenon without actually understanding anything about it. What else is this but a faith, the idea that someone much smarter has worked in the area and published in peer-reviewed journals is akin to saying, well, I'm sure the pope / archbishop of canterbury knows more than I, so I'm sure it's true. All you know about gravity is the effect it has in your demonstrable environment, and you probably have some misconceptions bout this as well, yet you accept it as a construct, even thought it is undefined, to you.

I won't even start on electrons, string theory or evolution. Don't get me wrong,I'm not saying these things don't exist, but i recognise that my belief is exactly that only.

The Arthur C. Clarke quote is not a the same thing i am saying, so sither you are being deliberately ironic, you misunderstand me, you misunderstand the Arthur C. Clarke quote, you have taken it out of context or you misunderstand my point.

You do realise that there is no actual evidence that the alleged Nazarene is anything more than a character that someone made up in a story, don't you?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that there was not

1) a being that did all the things outlined in the Gospels, including miracles.
2) a person who went around preaching those things, but was after all only a man.
3) no person at all.

>Concepts such as flight or gravity are oversimplified by analogy and metaphor to the extent that they are jsut wrong and most people continue with that misconception about the phenomenon without actually understanding anything about it.

Eh?
People may take flight for granted, but it's easily demonstrable - that's different to "oversimplified by analogy and metaphor". What misconception? - it's just bloody physics, regardless of your choice of diety(s).

>What else is this but a faith
Sorry, you're showing your ignorance (that's not a put down, that's in 'lack of knowledge')

As for gravity, that's taking a little longer to work out..

>All you know about gravity is the effect it has in your demonstrable environment, and you probably have some misconceptions bout this as well, yet you accept it as a construct,

Better trying to understand the world around you, rather than attempting blissful ignorance.

You "love" your parents right? or your children?
Define "love"... break it down into its constituent parts smart ass.. Logicalize that spock!...

There are things we do not understand.

Therefore God must be true 🙄

charlie - yes, your ideas about knowledge/gravity sound a lot like "we don't know what caused the universe to exist and so therefore it must have been god". A rationalist would say - "We don't know how the universe started. Yet." My response to your multiple-choice question - "c".

jond's example of flight is a good one. It is easily demonstrable how a plane flies - differential wing air pressures, forward thrust etc., rather than a "god" picking the plane up and moving it about...

Kevevs - is that directed at me? What I mean is - the exchange of any emotion (in this case "love") is predicated on the presence of a giver and a receiver. How does theboycopeland know that his "jesus" is present to engage in the exchange? What is the evidence that it is anything more than his own wish fulfillment, given that the figure is, historically, unlikely to have existed?

I can't figure out who are the biggest control freaks: militant aetheists or evangelical christians?

Atheists are interested in understanding reality, not controlling it. Of course, if we can derive useful technologies and knowledge along the way...

I think that it is fantastic that the debate of Jesus' life & miracles continue to provoke such strong thougths/ reactions some 2000 years after he was born...

God continues to reveal his world (and all its intricate beauty) to us yet we remain blind & self-centred in our own importance/ intelligence.

it's just bloody physics

There are things we do not understand.

Therefore God must be true

Really? Is that what you understood my post to say?? I've never even said "God must be true" Let me ry one last time for you.

Some people believe in God, other people believe in physics some believe in both. Neither understands much about them or how or why they work. For many, they are both an absraction. But the physics believers 'know' that someone else has worked it all out, except that they haven't.

Get it now?

Better trying to understand the world around you, rather than attempting blissful ignorance.

I don't think anyone here has said otherwise. It's just that some people chose not to explore some ideas. They start with an idea which is a result of their environment rather than any detailed study and refuse to explore it. This cuts both ways.

If you could come up with a theory and set of predictions that could be verifiable demonstrated that there was a high probability that it was turtles all the way down, then yes, you may as well say that it's the same as saying it's just physics 🙂

I do understand the point you're trying to make though.

jond's example of flight is a good one. It is easily demonstrable how a plane flies - differential wing air pressures, forward thrust etc., rather than a "god" picking the plane up and moving it about...

I am not suggesting God picks up planes and moves them about. I'm not sure where you got this idea. I was saying that the earlier defence about there being loads of stuff in books and on the web about how this stuff works is not valid, as it is demonstrable that there are lots of misconceptions being published and taught about this domain.

If you could come up with a theory and set of predictions

exactly!! I doubt that some of the folks here could do that, let alone in any comprehensive way. They are sure that someone else has done it and so that is good enough. That is faith or a belief.

[i]That is faith or a belief.[/i]

Indeed it is, but I think to some extent you're beginning to conflate different meanings of the word. This is neatly described in the OED definition of faith-

Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.

I for instance have a faith and belief that my cat won't have peeded on the sofa when I get home. For me, the importance of a faith or belief is based on whether, on exploration, it seems reasonably rational. For the cat's sake it better be.

Well, I don't want to be anti-semantic, but pulling out the dictionary definiton just pulls the argument in a differetn direction. If you are unhappy with "faith" then "belief" will do. But you know what i mean.

the importance is to whether the faith or belief is reasonably rational

and in terms of your cat peeing, you probably know enough about your cat to be able to make that decison.

Ahhh I see the tea break is over
Anyways the main problem I have with both camps, the atheist and Abrahamic gods, is their hubristic certainty that they are right!

There is enough that science does not know to allow for some sort of theistic interpretation, any other viewpoint is viewing science as dogma which suggests a semi-religious zeal in believing in science. This arrogance just gets theists backs up.
There is also plenty wrong with the religions (particularly the Abrahamic ones of Christianity, Judaism, Islam), or people's interpretation of their dogma. A greater humility would be appropriate behaviour and probably closer to the spirit if not the words of their books.

Yes it is in people nature to want to believe that they are right - what any spiritual tradition should do is to modify their behaviour towards a better less fanatical or dogmatic view of the world. Sadly many religions (and I include atheism in this) do precisely the opposite.

And just don't get me started on the Devil... people commit evil acts! Blaming it on the Devil is a bit like a 4 year old denying they wrote on the wall, when they were the only one in the room and it says "<insert 4 years old name> was here."

BTW I have little faith in our cats, particularly when it's cold / wet / snowy 👿 grrrrrr

CharlieMingus - surely it is about levels though?

Using the argument you present you end up eventually at solipsism. I believe I exist but nothing else. Absolutely everything becomes an issue of 'faith' which makes the word itself meaningless.

Usually I go with the phrase: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.". If someone says that their house is painted blue then I'm happy to believe them unless proven otherwise. If someone says their house is painted blue and levitates ten feet off the ground with no visible means of support then I am likely to demand proof.

I think this is really playing with the word 'belief'. My acceptance of fluid dynamics as a model for how certain things work is not a faith in the same manner as a religious one.

I think this is really playing with the word 'belief'.

Well, i'm not too concerned waht you call it. But belief seems a good word for accepting that things happen because of certain things, without having any understanding about waht those certain things are, and faith is what it sounds like when you trust that other folks have worked it out for you. But as I said, I don't really want to get involved in a semantic argument. Call it what you like. We are talking about the same thing.

There is enough that science does not know to allow for some sort of theistic interpretation, any other viewpoint is viewing science as dogma which suggests a semi-religious zeal in believing in science.

Sorry but that is nonsense. Gaps in science does not allow for theistic interpretation as all this does is end up with a "god of the gaps" something which even most theists find unacceptable.

Also a scientific viewpoint and an athiest viewpoint are not the same thing. Many scientists are also theists and many athiests believe in all sorts of non scientific nonsence.

Call it what you like. We are talking about the same thing.

No you're not. What you are saying is like those who conflate the colloquial definition of the word "theory" with the scientific definition. It's the same word but with two very very different meanings.

No you're not. What you are saying is like those who conflate the colloquial definition of the word "theory" with the scientific definition. It's the same word but with two very very different meanings.

Well, now why don't you tell me what I mean then. and what others mean when they say theory

Sorry but that is nonsense. Gaps in science does not allow for theistic interpretation as all this does is end up with a "god of the gaps" something which even most theists find unacceptable.

I would say it allows for some sort of god as architect rather than god of the gaps.

Also a scientific viewpoint and an athiest viewpoint are not the same thing. Many scientists are also theists and many athiests believe in all sorts of non scientific nonsence.

Really? Is that what you understood my post to say?? I've never even said "God must be true" Let me ry one last time for you.

Some people believe in God, other people believe in physics some believe in both.

Whilst the two make claims about our universe which are mutually exclusive then it boils down to what I have said.

Neither understands much about them or how or why they work. For many, they are both an absraction. But the physics believers 'know' that someone else has worked it all out, except that they haven't.

The "who" that you refer to that apparently "believers" in Physics defer to, "who" is that "someone else" exactly?

Get it now?

I think I was right the first time!

The trouble is that atheists use science to define their arguments

No, [i]some[/i] athiests use science to define their arguments. Some theists do the same.

Well, i'm not too concerned waht you call it. But belief seems a good word for accepting that things happen because of certain things, without having any understanding about waht those certain things are, and faith is what it sounds like when you trust that other folks have worked it out for you. But as I said, I don't really want to get involved in a semantic argument. Call it what you like. We are talking about the same thing.

But the issue is the whole argument you are positing is just that - a semantic one. I have 'faith' that aeroplanes work, just like others have 'faith' in a deity or deities. Your argument all hinges around the meaning of the words 'belief' and 'faith'.

I am not a scientist so I may be wrong, my understanding is:

A theory is testable, repeatable and withstands objective peer scrutiny.

Some theories may also be termed "facts" but in scientific terms are still "theories"

Theories without any underpinning are hypothesis. They may be rubbish and not stand scrutiny or testing. They can then be refined or dispensed with, any prediction could be one of these.

Religious teachings about where we came from withstand no scrutiny hence cannot be theories, they are hypothesis's and cannot be compared (as those with an interest in teaching creationism are want to do by corrupting the minds of the youngest and most vulnerable in our society)