Will God be obsolete in 100 years?

[Panacea]

I can agree with what Pan is saying, I think it's arrogant of anyone to say they know 100% that there is or isn't a God.

I'm not saying that's you Tim. But there are people out there who are exactly like that.

It'd be nice if we could all just agree that you can't know, not really but that's just pushing my opinion on people as well.

That's all I mean, even more than arrogant, it's not even an approximation of truth to say we know the origin and meaning of life for certain. Like Tim mentioned, that goes with a lot of things. In BR's thread identifying which "type" of belief you have, on the scale I posted later, I don't think anyone identified as a 7 (Maybe Juggsy wherever she went )

I'll be honest, I don't mean to insinuate strong atheists are anywhere near as destructive to the human knowledge base as strong theists. Nowhere near. I mentioned them in an effort to be fair, but it doesn't mean I equate them. Strong theists are prone to cutting off all efforts for knowledge outside their god, and I don't think the same can be said for strong theists and their lack of belief in a god.

It's just, in my opinion, in a better "spirit" to accept a little bit of mystery.

 

[Leananshee]

I would completely disagree with this part. How you can even claim that atheists are fundamentalists is beyond me.

I don't believe in a deity, how does that put me into the group of a fundamentalist? I don't deny others the comfort of faith, in fact, I believe that some people need their faith and would be lost without it. But that doesn't change the fact that I do not believe in a "supreme being"

A fundamentalist is someone so steeped in his beliefs that he can only see beyond them to the point that anything that seems to challenge them is met with violence, be it mental or physical. He will never question his beliefs because he knows them to be completely right. The irony in this is that if said beliefs cannot be challenged there's no need to attack any challenges; they should stand for themselves. The only criteria for being a fundie are having a "sacred cow" and holding onto it like a three year old grips a teddy bear.

That said, the definition fits certain theists and atheists. I've met both who meet all comers that remotely look like challengers with attack, in multiple social strata. I've frequently annoyed both by simply saying only the agnostics are the ones who are completely honest. And it applies outside of just theology.

What about businesses and school systems who push the principles of Steven Covey? In both cases it's the last ditch effort of a system that's failing that tries to put those BS principles into place (that have only served to make Covey rich). And it's a capitalist cult - you have to completely buy into the whole system. I swear to you he built his marketing system on cults like Scientology, because the angle's the same. And people really into the Covey system I've met are some of the biggest fundies I've met - and it's not a religion.

What about the fact that it wasn't religion, but the scientific communities of the respective times who insisted that powered flight could not be achieved, that said flight could not breach the sound barrier, even in more recent times, that the human brain could not rewire itself. Think of all those fundies of the non-religious type who met innovators with derision, denial of funding, and such, and those innovators were on the right track! Even Einstein, a man I greatly admire, couldn't wrap his great intellect around Heisenberg's principles, and his reaction to them bordered on fundamentalism. What I'm getting at is that no one is immune from that mindset. And if you think you are, you are that much closer to falling into it.

 

[Panacea]

The only criteria for being a fundie are having a "sacred cow" and holding onto it like a three year old grips a teddy bear.

What I'm getting at is that no one is immune from that mindset. And if you think you are, you are that much closer to falling into it.

I agree with both of these points completely, and they touch on what I mean, too...the narrower your field of vision, the more you miss.

 

[doombug]

Expecting science to be the answer for the future is definitely pipe dreams of pea brains.

Have to agree there. Scientific research is controlled more by money than anything else. There are people still starving in this world but now we have boner pills for old men. There is no money in saving people or minimizing suffering in the world. I don't expect to see alot from science except what there is funding for.

 

[savvy]

Have to agree there. Scientific research is controlled more by money than anything else. There are people still starving in this world but now we have boner pills for old men. There is no money in saving people or minimizing suffering in the world. I don't expect to see alot from science except what there is funding for.

I know this first hand. Some are just too naive to realize it or they are so paranoid they see a fundamentalist christian behind every tree. They seem like such poor delusional idiots.

 

[zen]

Expecting science to be the answer for the future is definitely pipe dreams of pea brains.

While there cannot be a certitude about the future using science, crystal balls, tea leaves, or my great aunt's knee when it creaks in the winter, I believe that science can certainly provide indicators as to where we may end up. Your statement is vacuous at best. I'd like to introduce you to the kettle.

 

[savvy]

While there cannot be a certitude about the future using science, crystal balls, tea leaves, or my great aunt's knee when it creaks in the winter, I believe that science can certainly provide indicators as to where we may end up. Your statement is vacuous at best. I'd like to introduce you to the kettle.

It is just as valid to believe in myths as it is to believe in "theories". Neither are really certain of anything. You obviously don't know much about science.

 

[Tim]

It is just as valid to believe in myths as it is to believe in "theories". Neither are really certain of anything. You obviously don't know much about science.

Either you know NOTHING about scientific theory, or you are just being intellectually dishonest. Maybe you should read up on what scientific theory really is.

http://thinking-critically.com/2010/07/08/theory-scientific-vs-laymans-definition/

 

[af12]

It is just as valid to believe in myths as it is to believe in "theories". Neither are really certain of anything. You obviously don't know much about science.

That's true. Science has came up with ways to kill people by the boat load (chemical weapons) and a way to destroy the earth several times over (nuclear weapons). So science has our future mapped out for the earth as toast. Thanks science!

 

[zen]

You guys are morons. Get the fuck outta my thread.

 

[savvy]

Ok, those who don't agree with the OP out of the pool.

 

[zen]

Ok, those who don't agree with the OP out of the pool.

Not at all bug. I welcome the dialog, and even disagreement. I prefer the points to be relevant, instead of a nonsensical leap or distortion of what was stated.

 

[Codrus]

Ok, those who don't agree with the OP out of the pool.

To late...I already pee'd in it

 

[zen]

Can we get some chlorine please........

I wish parents would keep a better eye on their kids....

 

[Peter Parka]

You guys are morons. Get the fuck outta my thread.

No! Make me! :24::bates:

 

[Leananshee]

Will the expansion of science and knowledge over the next 100 or so years "kill" god?

From Darwin to Einstein to Hawking, advances in science and a deeper understanding of our natural world has challenged the ideology behind the god created man principle. Genesis. The Big Bang, black holes, string theory, quantum mechanics. Is the paradigm of god challenged in one fashion or another by all of these things?

As we continue to add to our knowledge, will there be a fulcrum, in which the balance is tilted in the other direction?

Will god die by the hand of a more educated man?


Yes?
No?

Why....

WAAAY back to the OP, bypassing those intentionally trying to derail the thread, especially some who share an IP address.

There's another possibility not considered in any of these posts: What if there is a higher intelligence to the universe that underlies it but has little or nothing to do with us, and it won't be in a hundred, or a thousand, or until another asteroid smacks the planet (assuming humanity is still around and survives it) before we discover it? That is, what of it we can comprehend, which even then wouldn't be much?

I think what is currently dying is the notion of a transactional God, though there are still many holdouts to that notion. I'd welcome the death knell of the notion that someone is blessed for good things happening and cursed if afflicted with disease, likewise notions of heaven and hell. I hope by a hundred years hence they'll be completely dead.

 

[savvy]

boo hoo, no one will stay on topic....

 

[Niamh]

WAAAY back to the OP, bypassing those intentionally trying to derail the thread, especially some who share an IP address.

There's another possibility not considered in any of these posts: What if there is a higher intelligence to the universe that underlies it but has little or nothing to do with us, and it won't be in a hundred, or a thousand, or until another asteroid smacks the planet (assuming humanity is still around and survives it) before we discover it? That is, what of it we can comprehend, which even then wouldn't be much?

I think what is currently dying is the notion of a transactional God, though there are still many holdouts to that notion. I'd welcome the death knell of the notion that someone is blessed for good things happening and cursed if afflicted with disease, likewise notions of heaven and hell. I hope by a hundred years hence they'll be completely dead.

Yeah, I think that's a strong possibilty

 

[HK]

There's another possibility not considered in any of these posts: What if there is a higher intelligence to the universe that underlies it but has little or nothing to do with us, and it won't be in a hundred, or a thousand, or until another asteroid smacks the planet (assuming humanity is still around and survives it) before we discover it? That is, what of it we can comprehend, which even then wouldn't be much?

This is very much what I already believe. I'm open to the existence of a higher lifeform, but I don't believe we can comprehend it, nor do I believe it actually has any interaction with us currently.

I think what is currently dying is the notion of a transactional God, though there are still many holdouts to that notion. I'd welcome the death knell of the notion that someone is blessed for good things happening and cursed if afflicted with disease, likewise notions of heaven and hell. I hope by a hundred years hence they'll be completely dead.

Yes, this sounds true. I think as we learn more about the world around us, we learn more about the actual cause and effect taking place on earth - praying and sacrifice don't make the sun rise every day, the orbit of the earth around the sun does, and so on. With this in mind, you can see how the idea of God as being someone or something that rewards or punishes is lessening, because things we formerly believed were examples of such are now known to be natural phenomena.

 

[Panacea]

I think what is currently dying is the notion of a transactional God, though there are still many holdouts to that notion. I'd welcome the death knell of the notion that someone is blessed for good things happening and cursed if afflicted with disease, likewise notions of heaven and hell. I hope by a hundred years hence they'll be completely dead.

I would hope so, I think this kind of thing mocks our intelligence. If I do x, god rewards me. If I do y, god punishes me. Well clearly, unless one plays Calvinball and mentions unknowable punishments in the unknowable afterlife, this formula doesn't work here on earth. Probably time to move a bit beyond god as an ATM.