Why are the religious so sensitive?

[Pete]

I started to respond, but then gave up and realised it would take far to long to defend my disbelief in unicorns

No need. As I said, I'm hear to learn more about what atheists think. Your responses have helped me in that respect. Thank you.

[allan175]

If the existance of photons can't be proven then why would you expect it to be possible to prove anything else? Scientists don't seek to prove things in their line of work. They know it's impossible. All they can do is to do enough experiments and make enough observations to provide convincing support and verification of their theories and discoveries. But proof is something they can only aim for but never actually accomlish. All they can do is get closer and closer to the ever elusive "truth."

That's where your reasoning falls down (in my opinion), you are saying that scientists can make observations and keep refining their "theories" which is exactly why the argument for (a) god fails. Scientists *can* refine their theories (or throw them away if the evidence indicates that is what is required). There are countless examples of that happening.
God(s) have now moved to somewhere "beyond nature" by theists trying to fit their chosen god into the universe to try to keep their beliefs valid.

The concept of God was put forth as a real attempt to explain the world around us. We observe life, nature and the universe and when scientists learn more about it they always reveal something more fantasic and see more wonder in nature itself. We are told stories of men and fantastic things which have been passed down for thousands of years by very holy men. If it was passed down by your average Joe then there'd be reason to suspect its validity. Biblical archaeologists make discoveries which verify things in the Bible. Some physicists see the handy work in God in nature and that only contributes to their faith. This has never happened with unicorns to my knowledge.

I think you'll find that "very holy men" are in fact just "men"! And, as for "Biblical archaeologists make discoveries which verify things in the Bible.", a book written by men influenced by what was happening/had happend around them doesn't actually sound that significant!

I just don't think that your analogy is a valid one though. There is simply no reason whatsoever to believe that unicorns are exist. Nobody has ever seriously suggested that they have ever existed. Nobody has ever seriouls claimed to see one. People who were clean, sober and sane who have claimed to have seen unicorms have ever been taken seriously. Universities have never given PhDs in unicorn theory. What are the chances of a president who believes in unicorns ever getting elected? No physicist has ever taken unicorn theory seriously. There are no cultures which have claimed that their ancestors rode unicorns or whose stories have been passed down by the tribal priests. Stories of unicorns have not survived several millenia. Three billion people don't exist today who believe that unicorns exist. The stories of unicorns have never been substantiated by unicorn archaeologists. Nobody has ever been given a reason to suspect that unicorns exist. The existance of unicorns would never explain anything. The existance of unicorns would never have an impact on our lives.

I *think* the concept of unicorns is most likely a mis-description of rhinos. Lots of examples of strange "beasts" that have been poorly described and passed on (getting stranger & stranger).

By this I mean to say that the existance of unicorns is not on the same level of seriousness as the existance of God. If you think it wise for a theist to keep an open mind to the non-existance of God then why is it so silly to think it wise for an atheist to keep an open mind on the existance of God? Some do. They're called agnostics.

In my (atheist) mind they are exactly as serious as each other. You, as a theist, see an unprovable god as somehow different to an unprovable unicorn (dragon, elf etc).

Let me ask you this - Are you open minded to the existance of tachyons? Do you believe that keeping an open mind to the existance of tachyons would be as silly as keeping an open mind to the existance of unicorns?

Again, you seem to be connecting two completely unrelated states of "belief"! If tachyons exist at all then they will probably eventually be proved. However http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon says "no experimental evidence for or against the existence of tachyon particles has been found" so they may well just be the product of a formula derived from a mistaken theory.

[Pete]

I guess I wasn't all that clear on making my point. I was trying to say that all these arguements presented above cannot be analyzed further unless there is an agreement on what are considered to be valid sources of knowledge. After all this is exactly where theists and atheists disagree in the first place.

Again, you seem to be connecting two completely unrelated states of "belief"!

I disagree of course.

If tachyons exist at all then they will probably eventually be proved.

Not necessarily. There is no reason to assume that they must interact with matter and if not then they wouldn't be detectable. There are particles like that in modern physics, i.e. particles which are assumed to exist but it is accepted that they are unobservable. They're called virtual particles.

On the other hand its concievable that God will make an appearance someday and provide atheists with all the evidence for His existance that they've been asking for all this time. Its been said that it can't be proven that God doesn't exist. Nobody has ever proven that its impossible to prove that he does exist.

However http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon says "no experimental evidence for or against the existence of tachyon particles has been found" so they may well just be the product of a formula derived from a mistaken theory.

The only reason the idea of tachyons was even raised by physicists was because someone showed that no physical laws would be broken if they were found to exist. However there is no theory which predicts their existance. The reason I used them as an analogy is because, as the atheists believe about God, there is no proof that they exist and no reason to assume that they do either. The concept of tachyons has appeared in a well respected, pier reviewed physics journal. Do you know of a professional zoology journal in which unicorns are seriously discussed? Is there a difference between talking about unicorns vs. tachyons?

[allan175]

If tachyons exist at all then they will probably eventually be proved.

Not necessarily. There is no reason to assume that they must interact with matter and if not then they wouldn't be detectable. There are particles like that in modern physics, i.e. particles which are assumed to exist but it is accepted that they are unobservable. They're called virtual particles.

However http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon says "no experimental evidence for or against the existence of tachyon particles has been found" so they may well just be the product of a formula derived from a mistaken theory.

The only reason the idea of tachyons was even raised by physicists was because someone showed that no physical laws would be broken if they were found to exist. However there is no theory which predicts their existance. The reason I used them as an analogy is because, as the atheists believe about God, there is no proof that they exist and no reason to assume that they do either. The concept of tachyons has appeared in a well respected, pier reviewed physics journal. Do you know of a professional zoology journal in which unicorns are seriously discussed? Is there a difference between talking about unicorns vs. tachyons?

Aha! Well, as you can see I don't know that much about tachyons other than knowing the name (probably from reading science fiction!).
Given those details, no, there is no difference talking about gods/tachyons. There is a difference talking about unicorns since they are supposedly existing alongside us as opposed to some inaccessible supernatural/faster than light place.

On the other hand its concievable that God will make an appearance someday and provide atheists with all the evidence for His existance that they've been asking for all this time. Its been said that it can't be proven that God doesn't exist. Nobody has ever proven that its impossible to prove that he does exist.

I don't quite get your leap of logic there I'm afraid. Why should it be more concievable that god will make an appearance one day than a tachyon/unicorn (or is that what you are getting at?).
And, why should *your* god appear rather than anyone elses?

My version of Pascal's Wager is that I am going to be an atheist, because then, if there is a god, at least I wasn't annoying the real god by worshipping the wrong one(s) (which is pretty likely given the vast selection available).

[chatpilot]

Without getting all scientific and technical I will try to answer the forums question based on my own religious experience.I personally was fully involved and at one time fully believed and dared not question anything in the bible regardless of how rediculous or far fetched it seemed.One of the things that made me that way was the fear of God himself.The bible has checks for things such as questions to which there are no answers.The following is one of many.

Passage 1 Corinthians 13:12:

12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

It teaches that our finite minds cannot fathom those things which are of God.If anything they are not sensitive because of what they believe,they are protective of their faith.It is their faith that helps them cope from day to day.It is their eternal crutch upon which they always rely and lets not forget that the bible also instructs them defend that faith no matter what.

2 Timothy 2:15:

15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Christianity is especially antagonistic towards any and all other religions and world views and it's adherents are taught to be just as antagonistic and combatant when their faith is challenged.

Galatians 1:8:

8But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

It is a sin to question the word of God you are supposed to accept it,believe it,and live it no matter what.Anyone with a different view is seen as an enemy of the faith.

[Eilonnwy]

By this I mean to say that the existance of unicorns is not on the same level of seriousness as the existance of God

How about replacing Unicorns with Zeus? No one seriously believes in any of the gods of the ancient Greek, Roman, Eyption etc... But they were major religions in their time. They wouldbe on the same level of seriousness as the Abrahamic god but absolutely no one believes in these religions anymore.

Also, you seem to argue that science has no absolutes, it's all just theories and hypothesis. There are many things that are yet to eb proven, yet there are things that have been absolutely proven. One example is the solar system. We know for an absolute fact that the earth goes around the sun and that daylight is not caused by Apollo's chariot. Religion seeks to explain what can't be explained, but everyday science makes strides in explaining it. Back when it was argued that the world was round no one wanted to believe it. Anyone would be foolish to believe it's flat now.

My point being that just because science hasn't proven something yet doesn't mean it can't as it gets more refined. I'm absolutely thrilled I live in a world that has such understanding of the world around us based on science.

As far as religious being so sensitive, it's because religion is not just their belief, it's part of someone's identity. Religion is more than just what you believe, but who you are in a community. Being an atheist is not so intricately weaved into culture so it's not so offensive to be challenged.

[allan175]

As far as religious being so sensitive, it's because religion is not just their belief, it's part of someone's identity. Religion is more than just what you believe, but who you are in a community. Being an atheist is not so intricately weaved into culture so it's not so offensive to be challenged.

It is also because if you show evidence of something to an atheist then they will change their "beliefs" (for want of a better word) whereas a theist will try to explain it in terms of their god-based beliefs.

[Ace Otana]

There is simply no reason whatsoever to believe that unicorns are -exist.
----
The existance of unicorns would never explain anything. The existance of unicorns would never have an impact on our lives. -
----
By this I mean to say that the existance of unicorns is not on the same level of seriousness as the existance of God.

ok let's get this right!

You said "There is simply no reason whatsoever to believe that unicorns are -exist. - And there is a reason to believe in god? There is nothing to support god's existance. The unicorn is on the same level as your god, so in a sense your saying there is no reason to believe in god. So what's your point?

You also said "The existance of unicorns would never explain anything. The existance of unicorns would never have an impact on our lives.

Just as god doesn't have in impact on my life. Your god doesn't actually explain anything either. He doesn't say where he came from or how he created everything. So what's your point?

You said "By this I mean to say that the existance of unicorns is not on the same level of seriousness as the existance of God"

Actually it is. your god is nothing more than an imagination, It's widely ignored and rejected. So whats your point?

[Tiberius]

If you think it wise for a theist to keep an open mind to the non-existance of God then why is it so silly to think it wise for an atheist to keep an open mind on the existance of God? Some do. They're called agnostics.

Wrong actually, but you admit yourself that you do not have a good knowledge of atheists, so it was very likely that you didn't have a good knowledge of agnosticism either. You are excused for making an honest mistake

An "agnostic" is someone who thinks that something cannot be ever truly known. It is a measure of knowledge, not of belief. I am an agnostic atheist because even though I do not believe in gods, I would never make the statement "I know gods do not exist". An agnostic theist likewise admits that they could never say "I know god exists", but they still believe that such a god exists.

Knowledge is a subset of belief, not the other way around. It is possible to believe in something (or disbelieve it) without having knowledge of it.

Gnostic atheists and gnostic theists are the opposite. They claim to know about the existence of gods, definitively.

Agnosticism as a synonym for "not sure" is a very recent misconception. Apatheism would best suit people who really "aren't sure".

I can't say for certain, but I reckon most of this forum are probably agnostic atheists. They far outnumber the gnostic kind.

[KRW1612]

Christians continually refer to their God, who was created 2000 years ago, as if she's is the one, but there are 100s of millions of people throughout the world with their own god or gods and their own explanations for life and the universe.

Hardly makes anything they say a given. It is also reflective of the fact that Christianity thrived in the Western world during its amazing 1000 years of modernisation culminating in the ability to communicate in such incredibly saturating ways. This enabled it to spread the word far and wide, leaving many other belief systems to be quite localised and therefore ignorantly rebuffed by Christians.

Fortunately, most of Europe, Canada and Australia have evolved in their thinking, and no longer subscribe to such supernatural hocus pocus!