to ask how you feel when someone is at the opposite end of the faith spectrum?

[Morphene]

I've recently discovered two separate people I have been getting closer to (professional/friendship wise) are at the other end of the faith scale from me. I have actually felt a little upset and unbalanced by it.

IABU? I mean I know I am, but do other people get this? Does it make a difference if you are the one with or without faith?

I am sure I will still get on just fine with them, but I feel a little sadness that in this important respect we are very far from each others wavelength.

I think you are all right stop

I think most atheists dont give a shit

With one or two exemptions i have absolutely no idea what religion my friends are

Obviously you all have your own lived experiences but in my lived experience i dont know anyone who makes derogatory comments in either direction

"One of your criterion and that of many other atheists is not believing in God means you are more intelligent in every possible measurable way than those who believe in the creation.

I suspect you are a wind-up merchant. The stuff you write here is just too ridiculous."

Happy to debate/defend things I have actually said. Not things I haven't.

I don't believe for a minute that being an atheist means I am more intelligent than people who believe in God. I am more intelligent than some- less intelligent than others. But I do think that anyone who is a Young Earth Creationist is just not very good at thinking. Because it is so demonstrably bollocks. you can be very good at some things- like inventing MRI scanners, but not very good at rational thinking.

Oops cross post stop

Sorry

I am really slow at typing

stop

Comment?? What comment??

"One of your criterion and that of many other atheists is not believing in God means you are more intelligent in every possible measurable way than those who believe in the creation.

I dont know anyone who believes that

You have been incredibly unlucky to have come across so many

Not being snarky, genuinely sorry that you have come across this so much

There have been a few on this thread who said things like that but really not many at all. Most atheists I know are perfectly nice reasonable people who respect others. Have to defend Bertrand too, you are misrepresenting her misstic.

This thread has gone a bit odd really

www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/nonreligious-children-are-more-generous

Small study but interesting I thought.

I'm an atheist with a religious friend. I do have to bite my tongue sometimes. She's a health care professional and once talked about people in delusional mental health crisis and showing up at A&E actually being possessed by the devil! I don't think that view deserves serious respect even though it is a fundamental Christian belief.

Sorry guys

I don't believe for a minute that being an atheist means I am more intelligent than people who believe in God

Haven't there been studies suggesting that though, that atheists are generally more intelligent? I'm sure I've read that, I'll see if I can find it.

Fake "She's a health care professional and once talked about people in delusional mental health crisis and showing up at A&E actually being possessed by the devil!"

Woah, that is scary.

Even if there were a study fake, I doubt it could ever be considered to be conclusive. How could a study even profess to prove something like that? Suggestion is nothing really...

www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html

Looks like there are loads of studies on it.

I wouldn't say that i consider a creationist to be thick, but if they try to justify their belief that the world is 6000 yearsas by some reference to the theological text they already believe unquestioningly and disregard multiple sources of compelling evidence that demonstrates the world is several billion years older show a staggering lack of critical thought.

If you thought that study was interesting then worth reading:

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/atheists-are-more-intelligent-than-religious-people-thats-sciencism-at-its-worst-8759526.html%3famp

strangenotions.com/atheists-higher-iqs/

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

I was friends with someone for a long time, and really liked her very much, but she got more and more into spiritualism, psychic stuff, and would talk about it as though I believed in it too. As I absolutely don't, that became a problem for me, and eventually I let the friendship go.

I can't hate anyone for being religious because DM is and one of the nicest people, no the nicest person I know.

Then you get atheists like Hitchens who are arrogant misogynistic twats.

I mean I hate to sound like a stitch sampler but surely it's about how nice you are rather than how clever you may or not be?

hidden I have read and reread your posts, and I feel frustrated that something interesting is eluding me!

Are you saying that the fact that humans have the facility to develop an understanding of the nature of reality is consistent with the existence of a God?

I definitely don't think that people with faith are nutters. Absolutely not on any level - that's why I get so irritated with the faith/atheist debate.

If that is enough to ensure cordial conversation then I will attempt to overcome my very british fear of awkwardness and get on with it!

atenco try this www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/anole-lizards-example-speciation

it is one study of many that shows directly the way in which speciation occurs - the process of one ancestral species becoming several divergent daughter species.

Your doubts about evolution appear to be based on your lack of knowledge rather than on knowledge of an actual lack of ability of the theory to explain real findings.

I would like to clarify for posterity that scientific theories are not for 'believing in'.

I am glad that people do not find they can 'believe in evolution' because that is not what the theory of evolution is for.

Scientific theories are for USING, to understand things and to make technological and medical advances. We USE the theory of quantum mechanics to make computers. we USE the theory of evolution to produce better medical care and cure disease.

These theories don't need to be perfect in all aspects in order to be USEFUL, which is what they are there for. So when a bit of any of them is found to be incorrect in some detail, it is changed and improved, and usually this leads to even great USEFULNESS to society.

Our theory of quantum mechanics is incomplete - but that hasn't stopped it being used to develop smart phones.

Our theory of evolution is incomplete - but that hasn't stopped it from successfully producing new strategies for treating cancer.

So please don't 'believe' or 'disbelieve' in evolution. UNDERSTAND IT, and if you have the ability or interest, USE it or DEVELOP it.

morphene

Sort of- one step prior to that, although as a side I do agree with the statement you've made.

Basically that there is no set of coherent experiences that we can have that do not have some kind of cause that can be understood (intelligible). The cause (the underlying principle) may explain the set of experiences, but does not explain itself, e.g.: evolution as a principle of change explains the motion from single cell organisms to the vast and complex array of biological life, but it does not explain why evolution should be the case at all. That is: it explains changes in biological organisms (that they move towards the most efficient reproducing systems they can/survival of the fittest) but it does not explain why things should want to survive in the first place.

The explanation for this may well be found in chemistry, which may well have its explanation in physics, and so on and so on. In each step what we are doing is uncovering yet another principle which in turn requires a principle itself to be explained.

But an infinite regress is not possible- it would mean there is no origin, and if there is no origin how could the causal chain have begun?

Further, even if we assume that there is an infinite regress, which explains all natural principles, it fails to explain why there should even be an infinite regress- that is, no natural principle (even infinite regress) is self-sufficient.

Therefore it is plausible and reasonable to suppose that there IS a self-sufficient principle that exists, outside of, but as the first cause of the natural order. It is by no means a given, and while some may not find it convincing, I hope that I've shown it is at least rational to suppose that there is a God who is the self-sufficient cause of the natural order.

As for whether or not this is enough to ensure cordial conversation then I think so, yes. If you don't think that belief in God is fundamentally irrational, then you are unlikely to say anything that drastically offensive and you should be able to be normal and friendly, and let it all hang out. Believing in God or not doesn't vastly change people's natures. I'm sure their lives are remarkably similar to yours.

ahha! I think I am finally with you

So the question is not, how does the universe work the way it does, but why has this specific set of physical laws been instantiated out of the literally infinite possible set of physical laws.

So energy is observed to be conserved, but why is energy conservation a universal law?

I think your example with biology is flawed though - why have a rule of survival of the fittest? Actually this isn't an underpinning rule at all, it is a definition of the observable state as observable.

If you look around and see something, then either it popped into existence just now, or it survived for some period of time.

Things don't want to survive, it is simply that we observe around us the things that DID happen to survive.

Similarly with the physical laws of the universe, if a universe had been created that didn;t observe conservation of energy, would any intelligence ever exist in it that could observe such a law? Probably not. The vast majority of possible sets of universal laws can be ruled out as ever possibly leading to intelligent observation.

So they may be out there too, but it isn't a coincidence that we happen to live in a universe that allows life!

Could the charge of an electron be slightly different? Probably....

All in all, I have no objection whatsoever to the idea that this universe was instantiated to have life compatible laws. But that is a long way away from believing there is any entity out there who cares what happens within it. There can be no evidence for or against a big bang machine, and no meaningful (for the time being - science may get there one day) discussion of what the universe may exist within. But there is quite a lot of evidence that no one cares what happens in it. I mean whole galaxies are colliding or being blown apart out there. The number of lifeforms destroyed in such events are truly unimaginable. I genuinely think it will be our turn one day.....

I would like to clarify for posterity that scientific theories are not for 'believing in`

Just wanted to stop and say that this and the rest of your statement on the subject is what I've been trying to say all along.

Sweet! Communication can occur - if you can hear each other over the shouting....

I think people who say religion and science are incompatible either don't know much about religion or don't know much about science. So much in science requires a leap of faith.

However, to answer your OP, I feel fine when someone is at the opposite end of the faith spectrum to me, as long as they do not shove their views down my throat, or expect me to agree with them. If we can have mutual respect for each other despite our differences that's great. That's how I want to live my life.

Most people don't need to understand many scientific theories though.