On Wed, 11 May 2016 02:20:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 09:16:35 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 10/05/2016 22:29, T wrote:
On 05/10/2016 02:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 22:05:56 +0100, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 01:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
I love to discuss quantum physics in relation to outer space in
discussions about belief in God. How is time measured in space, how do
we know time has always been constant there since many people like to
put a number on the age of the universe and use that as evidence to
estimate the age of the Earth.

I've had some VERY interesting discussions like that!

Hi Muggles,

Something I have found interesting is Einstein's take on
quantum physics. He did not believe it to be correct
because "God is not random". And indeed the theory
which is starting to replace quantum physics, called
String Theory, is not random.

I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.


Oh dear, you are so deluded that you even change the meaning of words
to suit yourself.

Atheism
noun
"a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".

"Athiesm, just another faith based religious belief"

More correctly, perhaps - and definiely much more difficult to argue :
"Atheism is just another faith based belief"

It takes a whole lot more "faith" to believe there is no god - no
master planner, no engineer of the universe, and no higher powwer than
one's self, than to believe in a god - taking "faith" to mean
" confidence or trust in a person or thing; or the observance of an
obligation from loyalty; or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement;
or a belief not based on proof; or it may refer to a particular system
of religious belief, such as in which faith is confidence based on
some degree of warrant"

When the literary theorist Stanley Fish chastised atheists such as
Richard Dawkins, he wrote, "Science requires faith too before it can
have reasons", and described those who don't accept evolution as
belonging to "a different faith community "


From "the atlantic":Paul Bloom
| Nov 24, 2015


People defer to authorities not just to the truth of the religious
beliefs, but their meaning as well. In a recent article, the
philosopher Neil Van Leeuwen calls these sorts of mental states
"credences," and he notes that they have a moral component. We believe
that we should accept them, and that others (at least those who belong
to our family and community) should accept them as well.

None of this is special to religion. Researchers have studied those
who have strong opinions about political issues and found that they
often literally don’t know what they are talking about. Many people
who take positions on cap and trade, for instance, have no idea what
cap and trade is. Similarly, many of those who will insist that
America spends too much, or too little, on foreign aid, often don’t
know how much actually is spent, as either an absolute amount or
proportion of GDP. These political positions are also credences, and
one who holds them is just like someone who insists that the Ten
Commandments should be the bedrock of morality, but can’t list more
than three or four of them

Many scientific views endorsed by non-specialists are credences as
well. Some people reading this will say they believe in natural
selection, but not all will be able to explain how natural selection
works. (As an example, how does this theory explain the evolution of
the eye?) It turns out that those who assert the truth of natural
selection are often unable to define it, or, worse, have it confused
with some long-rejected pre-Darwinian notion that animals naturally
improve over time.

There are exceptions, of course. There are those who can talk your ear
off about cap and trade, and can delve into the minutiae of selfish
gene theory and group selection. And there are people of faith who can
justify their views with powerful arguments.