Why has religion retained its appeal?

[Annie Bynnol]

The idea that you can justify the beliefs in religion by attacking the reasoning of intellectuals is a very bizarre, as both have long been superseded.

[Robin-H]

Then what about particles miraculously spring into existence from out of nowhere and the universe having always existed?

 

What about them? Particles do spring into and out of existence from 'nowhere' - that is an observable fact. I think what you meant to dispute was them springing into and out of existence of out 'nothing', and then, like we've already discussed, that is one theory that has a particular definition of 'nothing' that you can very well disagree with.

 

I don't think I have said that I know I am right about either claim.

[danot]

The idea that you can justify the beliefs in religion by attacking the reasoning of intellectuals is a very bizarre, as both have long been superseded.

 

I'm not justifying religion. Why would you think that?

 

I'm not religious, but for what it's worth, my personal position on scientists who peddle tenuous theories just to ruffle theist feathers and/or intellectuals that use logical reasoning to discredit creationism is one of complete disillusionment in both cases. I dont believe in God anymore than I believe in magic. But I'm genuinely interested in what makes intellectuals reject God yet consider the plausibility of particles miraculously spring into existence from out of nowhere or the universe having always existed?

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2018 at 18:31 ----------

 

What about them? Particles do spring into and out of existence from 'nowhere' - that is an observable fact. I think what you meant to dispute was them springing into and out of existence of out 'nothing', and then, like we've already discussed, that is one theory that has a particular definition of 'nothing' that you can very well disagree with.

 

I don't think I have said that I know I am right about either claim.

Virtual particles don't miraculously spring into existence from out of nowhere, they require a pre existing particle. The link you provided states as much.

[Annie Bynnol]

I'm not justifying religion. Why would you think that?

 

I'm not religious, but for what it's worth, my personal position on scientists who peddle tenuous theories just to ruffle theist feathers and/or intellectuals that use logical reasoning to discredit creationism is one of complete disillusionment in both cases. I dont believe in God anymore than I believe in magic. But I'm genuinely interested in what makes intellectuals reject God yet consider the plausibility of particles miraculously spring into existence from out of nowhere or the universe having always existed?

 

The confusion for me in all this is terminology.

Who are the "intellectuals" you speak of?

Scientists "...who peddle tenuous theories..." would be quickly outed by their colleagues.

'Creationism' is usually associated with a recent American phenomena.

The developing science of quantum physics is creating all kinds of weird and wonderful ideas, some of which are counterintuitive and are not yet reconciled with all observations- yet.

The science and maths is far too difficult for most of us, and sometimes the attempts at explaining to us mere mortals by should not be taken literally.

Black holes are not black or are they holes but it does describe a phenomena which exists and we can begin to grasp.

[Robin-H]

I'm not justifying religion. Why would you think that?

 

I'm not religious, but for what it's worth, my personal position on scientists who peddle tenuous theories just to ruffle theist feathers and/or intellectuals that use logical reasoning to discredit creationism is one of complete disillusionment in both cases. I dont believe in God anymore than I believe in magic. But I'm genuinely interested in what makes intellectuals reject God yet consider the plausibility of particles miraculously spring into existence from out of nowhere or the universe having always existed?

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2018 at 18:31 ----------

 

Virtual particles don't miraculously spring into existence from out of nowhere, they require a pre existing particle. The link you provided states as much.

 

I guess it depends what you mean by 'nowhere'. I'm not using it to mean 'nothing'. Virtual particles are commonly described as popping into existence from nowhere, for example these particles pop up in a vacuum.

 

It's like if a balloon suddenly appeared next to the balloon I already had, you could describe it has appearing out of nowhere.

 

What does this have to do with the overall point?

[danot]

The confusion for me in all this is terminology.

Who are the "intellectuals" you speak of?

Scientists "...who peddle tenuous theories..." would be quickly outed by their colleagues.

'Creationism' is usually associated with a recent American phenomena.

The developing science of quantum physics is creating all kinds of weird and wonderful ideas, some of which are counterintuitive and are not yet reconciled with all observations- yet.

The science and maths is far too difficult for most of us, and sometimes the attempts at explaining to us mere mortals by should not be taken literally.

Black holes are not black or are they holes but it does describe a phenomena which exists and we can begin to grasp.

 

I'm referring mainly to SF intellectuals that use logical reasoning to discredit creationism and Lawrence Krauss is the scientists that I'm referring to. My ealier posts in the last few pages will explain better.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2018 at 19:44 ----------

 

I guess it depends what you mean by 'nowhere'. I'm not using it to mean 'nothing'. Virtual particles are commonly described as popping into existence from nowhere, for example these particles pop up in a vacuum.

 

It's like if a balloon suddenly appeared next to the balloon I already had, you could describe it has appearing out of nowhere.

 

What does this have to do with the overall point?

 

But again. If a virtual balloon arises from a pre existing balloon, the pre existing balloon is the cause. Its hasn't miraculously sprang into existence from out of nowhere as you're suggesting. We know its precise source of origin. What we can't explain in why the pre existing balloon exists, which creates a paradox like Cyclone mentioned pages back.

Edited August 18, 2018 by danot

[Annie Bynnol]

I'm referring mainly to SF intellectuals that use logical reasoning to discredit creationism and Lawrence Krauss is the scientists that I'm referring to. My ealier posts in the last few pages will explain better...

 

There are many interesting, witty and knowledgeable people on here but intellectuals -no.

 

The "...use of logical reasoning to discredit creationism..." seems to be confused with the complexities of the quantum theory of which

Lawrence Krauss is just on of thousands of proponent but one who enjoys and attracts the glare of publicity.

 

The reduction of "creationism" as an explanation for the universe began centuries ago as our understanding accelerates.

[leviathan13]

Annie. The issue I'm debating now is sheffield forum intellectuals. An ealier poster implied brainwashing is a systematic problem of religion. I would say logicical reasoning is restricting the thinking of intellectuals who can't think beyond the parameters of logical reason. Which may be, but most probably isn't applicable to the properties that enable the universe to exists

 

I don't swallow whatever every scientist wants me to swallow.

 

One day red wine is good for you, the next day it's bad for you...

 

Science isn't a perfect art, but it doesn't claim to be. It is proven and disproven. Science can be criticised and picked apart... which is how it should be!

 

However, questioning religion is seen as wrong because you upset peoples' feelings and faith. This is where the issue lies.

 

Science deals with reality, religion/god/spirits/souls deal with faith and feelings which to question is wrong. So it's totally fine to proclaim that the taking of life is OK because 'God' says so... but to question that is '-ist' because it's a person's belief. This is how brainwashing begins.

 

You can't brainwash someone in to atheism because there's nothing with which to threaten them! 'Do as i say or... nothing will happen because there is no deity to punish you...'

 

Yeah, really bloody scary is atheism.

[redwhine]

One day red wine is good for you, the next day it's bad for you...

If you want to get personal, at least get the spelling right!

 

!!!redwhine!!!!

 

 

 

[danot]

Not as scarey as been beheaded stoned or run over by a tank

 

Religion isn't scary in and of itself. The darker aspects of religion only reflect the darker side of human nature. 100 thousand years ago we were fighting over women, but women weren't the problem anymore than religion is now.