Are we serious....god?

[crookedhat99]

I look at things like the thread 'Does God exist?' and it's so ridiculously overwhelming how underwhelming the evidence of God is. I mean if some 90% of the world believes in something, you'd think that it would have something resemblant of meaningful evidence...but no, not at all.

Why of all things is the world so rampantly stupid about this subject? And we KILL each other over it too.

It's pathetic, santa claus stage has to leave at some point, most of the other unreasonable things you think as a kid go away with age. You don't think your mom's hair curlers are monsters anymore, you don't think there are little people inside the traffic lights, but for some reason you retain this wacky romantic belief in the illogical when it comes to greater powers, and it is killing people.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I look at things like the thread 'Does God exist?' and it's so ridiculously overwhelming how underwhelming the evidence of God is. I mean if some 90% of the world believes in something, you'd think that it would have something resemblant of meaningful evidence...but no, not at all.

Why of all things is the world so rampantly stupid about this subject? And we KILL each other over it too.

It's pathetic, santa claus stage has to leave at some point, most of the other unreasonable things you think as a kid go away with age. You don't think your mom's hair curlers are monsters anymore, you don't think there are little people inside the traffic lights, but for some reason you retain this wacky romantic belief in the illogical when it comes to greater powers, and it is killing people.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think it's fair to characterise it as rampantly stupid, pathetic and wacky. I would ask you what you think I should do? I didnt look into the evidence, weigh both sides carefully and make a choice. I lived as an atheist for many years, found myself believing in God despite myself, rejected it, dismissed it, rationalised it as all sorts of other things and yet the belief persists. What should I do? I've tried hard to force myself to disbelieve and it didnt work - I actually believe so what now? It seems to me that we dont choose our beliefs - we have them or we dont.

[MidGe]

methinks you are cool bunny! I don't belittle or begrudge your faith!

[Andrew Karpinski]

" It seems to me that we dont choose our beliefs "

Only if you're crazy.

But, that being said, you seem like a decent person bunny, so I like you, even if you are crazy! : )

[Lestat]

The main difference between god and Santa Clause is that eventually adults stop perpetuating the Santa myth when a child reaches a certain age and starts asking questins. Not so when it comes to gods and religion.

I honestly believe people as a mass are extremely gullible. I don't mean to bring politics into it, but for an example you need look no further than George Bush's re-election. By voting day, it was blatently obvious (to me anyway), that the entire Iraqi war was based on false premises. Yet, the administration was relentless in its preaching and the people as a whole kept buying it. I thought the British headline hit the nail on the head when it asked; "How can so many people be so stupid?".

I honestly think you could sell the public on anything if you have a core group of people pounding a belief home over and over, day in and day out.

Religion is even easier, because it starts in childhood. A child is like flower who's head is just floating in the breeze. There is no one to break the brain-washing cycle. No one to say, it's a lie. The concept of a god is everywhere you turn and it's not going away. This further solidifies beliefs ever day. So it continues on through adult-hood and is passed down from generation to generation.

This is where I strongly agree with Dawkins. It is so important that children be allowed the freedom to use their own faculties and common sense when it comes to religion.

I've mentioned before that my own children are being raised Catholic. Well that's fine. But you better believe that I'm going to point out the inconsistencies along the way and make sure they see that there's a whole other way to think about the subject of religion. Whatever they wind up believing is fine with me, as long as they think for themselves.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
" It seems to me that we dont choose our beliefs "

Only if you're crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's how I see it:

A lot of people were indoctrinated as kids by people they trusted, including their parents and authority figures. The majority of these aren't intelligent/introspective/wise enough to see how this indoctrination has shaped their beliefs.

Others can't understand their feelings or try to rationalize them, and they only way to fit their feelings with what they see around them is to believe in God. The same is true of many atheists - they rationalize the lack of these feelings as lack of existence of God. Both are equally deluded, although atheists have the advantage of being correct. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
" It seems to me that we dont choose our beliefs "

Only if you're crazy.

But, that being said, you seem like a decent person bunny, so I like you, even if you are crazy! : )

[/ QUOTE ]
Well thankyou - but do you really think you choose your beliefs? Consider something you believe (For example - Your adress is "whatever-it-is"). Did you ever really go through a process of wondering what your address was, weighing all the evidence of all the options (that it's some conspiracy, that you are deluded, etc etc) and then choosing to believe...or did you just discover you believed it?

I cant think of anything I have come to believe through an active choice. If I'm in a situation where I am asked what I believe and I dont currently have a belief (ie are there more than three physical dimensions in the universe?) I couldnt force myself to believe the answer was yes or no. Whatever I said, I would still have no belief one way or the other (a slight leaning towards no, but not strong enough to classify as a belief).

[Lestat]

Well, I don't think you should even try to reject or dismiss your beliefs. To steal from Kramer: You got to listen to the little man inside you. What does the little man say?

That said, I think it doesn't help having religion all around you. Personally, I question whether you really do believe. I think it's more likely that there's a sort of hole in your world view and God is the only thing you can think of that fills it. If you ever reconcile this and are able to find meaning and fill that hole elsewhere, I think you'll be back to being an atheist.

[Andrew Karpinski]

bunny, yes I choose all of my beliefs, although the term belief is really a misnomer when applied to me. Everything I think is on a basis of 'preponderance of evidence'. I think my address is xxxx because all the evidence points to it. I think I am a male, because everything I know about males and myself mesh. I think my computer is a computer, not a lasagna, because it does not resemble lasagna.

For situations like the one you describe in the second paragraph, where I lack evidence, I simply do not have any strong beliefs on the subject. I may think one way or the other (for example, I think we have more than three physical dimensions), but I wouldn't say that I 'believe it' because my evidence for it is pretty weak. A few references in books, a few paragraphs of logic I agreed with, etc.

I also have changed my beliefs throughout my life, as a matter of evidence changing. I was once a Christian; I realized there is no God. I once believed in free will; I have since converted to fatalism.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
bunny, yes I choose all of my beliefs, although the term belief is really a misnomer when applied to me. Everything I think is on a basis of 'preponderance of evidence'. I think my address is xxxx because all the evidence points to it. I think I am a male, because everything I know about males and myself mesh. I think my computer is a computer, not a lasagna, because it does not resemble lasagna.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps its semantic but dont you think it is preponderance of evidence that you use to test your beliefs? Not to form them? Surely you didnt go through a preponderance of evidence process to decide whether to believe what your address was. Didnt you just believe it until I asked you why you believed it and then you went well let's look at the evidence. This doesnt mean anything with respect to God of course but I am interested in the broader question of how we form beliefs as well.

[ QUOTE ]
For situations like the one you describe in the second paragraph, where I lack evidence, I simply do not have any strong beliefs on the subject. I may think one way or the other (for example, I think we have more than three physical dimensions), but I wouldn't say that I 'believe it' because my evidence for it is pretty weak. A few references in books, a few paragraphs of logic I agreed with, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
To me, if you choose your beliefs, then you should be able to choose which way to go in this situation.

[ QUOTE ]
I also have changed my beliefs throughout my life, as a matter of evidence changing. I was once a Christian; I realized there is no God. I once believed in free will; I have since converted to fatalism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I guess with no free choice, that answers my second reply /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Andrew Karpinski]

A few things :

I formed my belief in what my address was the second I moved here. I got some evidence (saw the # on the side of my house) that looked pretty convincing, it convinced me, and I've believed it ever since. I couldn't choose to believe my address was something else, because of how my beliefs are formed, by proponderance of evidence, so I take back that bit about being able to choose your beliefs.

"

To me, if you choose your beliefs, then you should be able to choose which way to go in this situation."

Very right, I was mistaken.

[godBoy]

You're mistaken, and think of your self to highly..

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly believe people as a mass are extremely gullible.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are denying people of the brain they have in their skulls.. When the T.V. came out there was a popular theory about the infuence the media had the public - The bullet theory. You are claiming superiority over all with a belief in God simply on that premise - belief. Monkey see monkey do, we're not monkeys.
We're simply people with a splinter in the mind, an itch that demands scratching.. questions that need answering. This is the reason people find their belief, not because of religious upbringing. And for you to call us all ignorant and gullible, well, it's a very big statement to make.. Some of best/most influencial people were/are believers.

[DonkBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]

We're simply people with a splinter in the mind, an itch that demands scratching.. questions that need answering. This is the reason people find their belief, not because of religious upbringing. And for you to call us all ignorant and gullible, well, it's a very big statement to make.. Some of best/most influencial people were/are believers.

[/ QUOTE ]
99% of all people don't get their beliefs because they 'need questions answered'. A few times I've tried to discuss some of these tough questions with my family and they look at me like I'm a lunatic and you can be pretty sure they're all thinking "SHUT UP AND BE NORMAL!". People think what they do because they are taught these things by the people around them early in their life.

People live in a world of their own imagination. It's not just God. Concepts like the world, your country, good and evil, power, wealth, even past and future... they only exist in your imagination. That's a simple fact. And yet our lives evolve around these concepts! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

People seem to value these concepts over themselves, or their own experience of the world. It's like thinking that the earth is more important than the universe.

[doucy]

Just to be a nit, the "there isn't much evidence for God so he must not exist" stance really doesn't mean anything. Just because there is a lack of evidence for one side of an argument doesn't make the opposite side correct. Common logical fallacy.

Why do so many people believe? Some have had it hammered into their heads. Others would say they've had personal experiences that lead them to believe God exists. Some people simply cannot comprehend how the vastness of the Earth and the universe came to be if it weren't for a Creator. That probably sums up the vast majority of believers.

All major cultures have believed in some type of higher power. Perhaps it's part of human nature? Perhaps there's some biological reason people tend to have faith in an omnipotent being? I don't know.

Also, look at it like this: If you spend your life believing in God, but you die and it turns out he doesn't exist, what have you lost? Nothing. You're still dead. But if you don't believe and then you die and find out he does exist, it's a lock he probably wouldn't be too thrilled with you. Then you're screwed. In that sense, believing in God is +EV.

A better question might concern the beliefs of ancient religions. I recall some jibberish like the Earth is being held up by 2 giant elephants or something like that. Or the Sun is pulled across the sky by some dude in a chariot. Bizarre stuff.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">You are denying people of the brain they have in their skulls.. </font>

I didn't say that. I'm talking masses only here. Large groups of people are easier to sell than individually one on one. I'm not sure if I can prove that or not. I wonder if a study has every been done. But it's my theory and I'm sticking to it. If you've ever attended a BS seminar you'd know what I mean also.

I don't think I'm being high and mighty. I'm simply expressing an honest concern over how many people are irreparably brain-washed with regard to religion.

<font color="blue"> Some of best/most influencial people were/are believers. </font>

Tell me about it. We've got a Commander-in-Chief presiding over the most powerful military on the planet who believes the earth is only 10,000 years old. If that doesn't scare the bejesus out of ya, I don't know what will.

[Lestat]

You make good points, but maybe misunderstood mine. At some point, most believers will at least recognize inconsistencies in what they're being told to believe. I think at that point, it's important they be allowed to ask questions, think for themselves, and have the means to look outside their religion for answers.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I look at things like the thread 'Does God exist?' and it's so ridiculously overwhelming how underwhelming the evidence of God is. I mean if some 90% of the world believes in something, you'd think that it would have something resemblant of meaningful evidence...but no, not at all.

Why of all things is the world so rampantly stupid about this subject? And we KILL each other over it too.

It's pathetic, santa claus stage has to leave at some point, most of the other unreasonable things you think as a kid go away with age. You don't think your mom's hair curlers are monsters anymore , you don't think there are little people inside the traffic lights, but for some reason you retain this wacky romantic belief in the illogical when it comes to greater powers, and it is killing people.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they werent monsters what were they? Ive always had trouble with this one. God?, meh. Obviously nonsense by the time I was 12.

[Lestat]

bunny, are you saying you "believe" there is a God? Or that you have "faith" there is? I thought you acknowledged a while ago that it was faith and you were ok with that.

This belief Vs. faith thing needs to be better explained to me. I'm not sure I understand the difference. I don't know how you (or I), can believe something for which there is no tangible evidence. I see how we might "think" something is true, or hope it is, but not believe it.

I also think hearsay IS evidence... So if you truly believe in this evidence for God, then I guess I do understand. But to me, belief means with conviction. To believe something is true with all your heart. NOT... Just with your heart.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
bunny, are you saying you "believe" there is a God? Or that you have "faith" there is? I thought you acknowledged a while ago that it was faith and you were ok with that.

This belief Vs. faith thing needs to be better explained to me. I'm not sure I understand the difference. I don't know how you (or I), can believe something for which there is no tangible evidence. I see how we might "think" something is true, or hope it is, but not believe it.

I also think hearsay IS evidence... So if you truly believe in this evidence for God, then I guess I do understand. But to me, belief means with conviction. To believe something is true with all your heart. NOT... Just with your heart.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand. I dont consider belief to entail complete, unchanging conviction. I also dont require evidence for a belief, although I think I can provide evidence for nearly all my beliefs (some would label parts of my evidence inadmissible, of course...)

To give an example divorced from religion - there is a proposition that every even number can be expressed as the sum of two primes. This has never been proven (though has been affirmed for the first several hundred billion even numbers). I believe the proposition is a theorem (ie true) but I have no credible evidence for this belief. If my mathematical thinking was as pure as I would like it, this would not be a belief of mine, I would say the jury was still out. Nonetheless, if I analyse my thoughts about it, I clearly believe it is only a matter of time before it is proved (a la fermat's last theorem).

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, look at it like this: If you spend your life believing in God, but you die and it turns out he doesn't exist, what have you lost? Nothing. You're still dead. But if you don't believe and then you die and find out he does exist, it's a lock he probably wouldn't be too thrilled with you. Then you're screwed. In that sense, believing in God is +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bs. Pascal's Wager.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

[soon2bepro]

On deciding about your beliefs:

Humans are perfectly capable of doing this. It is however not a scientific thing to do. According to the cientific method, you can choose how you analyze a certain subject, in order to come to a conclusion, but you don't really choose the conclusion; it is self evident, and once you get it, that's what you "believe" in... Though only up to the extent of the validity of your experiment/analysis. It's never 100%.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
On deciding about your beliefs:

Humans are perfectly capable of doing this. It is however not a scientific thing to do. According to the cientific method, you can choose how you analyze a certain subject, in order to come to a conclusion, but you don't really choose the conclusion; it is self evident, and once you get it, that's what you "believe" in... Though only up to the extent of the validity of your experiment/analysis. It's never 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know I can choose what I say I believe. But I honestly cant think of an example where I chose to believe. It seems to me that belief is some sort of internal process related to an evaluation of evidence but not identical to it. I have had many experiences where I have worked through a mathematical proof, convinced myself that all steps are valid, and yet I dont believe it. I work a few examples, see the theorem used in other proofs and gradually come to believe it (prior to that I would probably confess that it must be true, but it doesnt feel true to me)

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
We're simply people with a splinter in the mind, an itch that demands scratching.. questions that need answering. This is the reason people find their belief, not because of religious upbringing. And for you to call us all ignorant and gullible, well, it's a very big statement to make.. Some of best/most influencial people were/are believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Say you have an itch that needs scratching. You look at the incredible complexities of the universe and need to believe some higher power is behind it all. No other reason for the world's creation and existence makes sense. And you believe that power is God.

My question is: if this is so, what makes you choose one version of God, one religion, over another? Why, for example, would someone choose the Christian God? Belief in any god would explain the universe, so what is it, specifically, about Christianity that gives you unshakable belief that it is the ONE TRUE faith, absent of any tangible evidence?

My feeling is that in 99.9% of cases, it is simply either what you were brought up in, or else what you happen to be most exposed to. I was raised Catholic. The nuns drummed the Catholic dogma into my head for 12 years of school. I just assumed that was the "right" religion. I never even questioned it until recently.

And for people who are athiests who decide to believe in God, I think the choice boils down to what you're exposed to. America is primarily a Christian country. It makes sense that athiests who turn to religion n the U.S. usually become Christians. But it is only an accident of geography. If George W. had been born in Iraq, he'd probably be a born-again Muslim right now.

My feeling is that it is rather dangerous for there to be so many different faiths, all equally convinced that theirs is the only true way to salvation. What that means is that ALL world religions are really just fanatical cults, no different than the Branch Davidians. Except of course for the one true faith - which of course everyone KNOWS is theirs.

[Andrew Karpinski]

On a related note :

Can we choose what we think?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Say you have an itch that needs scratching. You look at the incredible complexities of the universe and need to believe some higher power is behind it all. No other reason for the world's creation and existence makes sense. And you believe that power is God.

My question is: if this is so, what makes you choose one version of God, one religion, over another? Why, for example, would someone choose the Christian God? Belief in any god would explain the universe, so what is it, specifically, about Christianity that gives you unshakable belief that it is the ONE TRUE faith, absent of any tangible evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]
I cant see any rational way to choose between faiths but insisting on rationality doesnt help me - given I truly believe in some sort of God then I am forced to make a choice as to how to relate to him (doing nothing being one of those choices). So I looked around as widely as seemed practical, thought about it and went with what "felt" right - a fairly mild, non-literal christianity. I dont claim to have unshakeable belief that this is correct, but I have to do something.

[ QUOTE ]
My feeling is that in 99.9% of cases, it is simply either what you were brought up in, or else what you happen to be most exposed to. I was raised Catholic. The nuns drummed the Catholic dogma into my head for 12 years of school. I just assumed that was the "right" religion. I never even questioned it until recently.

And for people who are athiests who decide to believe in God, I think the choice boils down to what you're exposed to. America is primarily a Christian country. It makes sense that athiests who turn to religion n the U.S. usually become Christians. But it is only an accident of geography. If George W. had been born in Iraq, he'd probably be a born-again Muslim right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is almost certainly right if religion has no content - if it's all made up stories then it's probably a cultural phenomenon and "what feels right" is determined by where you were brought up.

[ QUOTE ]
My feeling is that it is rather dangerous for there to be so many different faiths, all equally convinced that theirs is the only true way to salvation. What that means is that ALL world religions are really just fanatical cults, no different than the Branch Davidians. Except of course for the one true faith - which of course everyone KNOWS is theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is certainly unfortunate (I dont think it's inherently dangerous, the danger comes from how some people act on their beliefs - it's also clearly wrong to label all religions fanatical) but it's not clear what a believer should do about it.

[bunny]

I think so. Even denying free will, though, the two experiences (thinking v believing) seem qualitatively different to me.

[siegfriedandroy]

so please, brilliant sir, tell us all what the 'answers' are. any 15 yr old, youve established, knows w/ certainty that 'God' doesnt exist.

so please tell me,...

1) why does a universe exist instead of 'nothing'?

2) what is 'nothing'?

3) why do jokers like you pretend to know the 'obvious' answers to age-old questions about whether God exists?

4) If God doesnt exist, why do you state that humans KILL each other 'over it' as if killing is a 'bad' thing? this question you will not really understand (based on your post). sklansky understood reasonably well (at least more honestly than most of the atheists who responded to my 'atheistic morality' post), but likely you do not.

anyway, please provide me with your overwhelming evidence that God does not exist? should be pretty easy to do, judging by your immediate dismissal of any who believe in a supernatural BEING. please explain, since my intelligence is clearly lacking.

[siegfriedandroy]

likewise, copernicus. what is the 'sensical' reality? there is no God? why does are inexplicably complex universe exist? where the f*k did this pretty detailed and complex forum come from? tell me the answers!! if my God is cleary 'nonsense', then please provide the sense. no atheist has come close, in my experience, in providing me with any marginally sensical answers to any ultimate metaphysical questions. to me most of there arguments are obvious quackery (dont know if that's a word according to webster, but the meaning should be obvious /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[siegfriedandroy]

your post is definitely somewhat refreshing, at least relative to the first couple i read. i usually dont ever read the philosophy forum anymore, b/c it's so completely and utterly intellectually barren (and arrogantly 'un-barren!?', if you please) that my time is wasted strolling through it. but i am drunk now, and the tables are dead, so somehow i ended up here. ahhh, poor self. anyway, this philosophy forum is the epitome of pseudo-knowledge (and antiphilosophy, since philosophy concerns truth, and most of the posters in this forum espouse clear falsehoods, but are too prideful?, foolish?, etc (not sure what the true reasons are, but am quite sure im right- and would have been rightfully sure of this at a pretty dam early age, if exposed to such bu*lsh*t). anyway, enough. most of you will likely never grow out of your predetermined slothful thought (though some are semi-openminded (ie lestat)). anyway, drunk and unsatisfied w/ 250k a year. wish i was as good as money. peace crooked hat, clearly you are a true 'freethinker', as sure as Russell was unbiased and in tune w/ reality. out

[siegfriedandroy]

why do you seem to be very confident in the 'scientific method'? were you taught to be, or did come to this acceptance through your own, unhindered rational thought?

[siegfriedandroy]

why is 'thinking for themselves' the ultimate ideal for you? id much prefer my children to believe truth (though they did not quite reach it independently) than to follow Hitler's beliefs (if they arrived at them through 'independent thinking'.

[siegfriedandroy]

As for your 'feeling', I am Christian and fall outside of the 99.9%. Not sure what you base your stats on, but pretty sure they are not quite accurate.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is: if this is so, what makes you choose one version of God, one religion, over another? Why, for example, would someone choose the Christian God? Belief in any god would explain the universe, so what is it, specifically, about Christianity that gives you unshakable belief that it is the ONE TRUE faith, absent of any tangible evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's simply that the same God I found outside of religion is the same that I found described in the bible, in christianity. They are one in the same.

[ QUOTE ]
My feeling is that in 99.9% of cases, it is simply either what you were brought up in, or else what you happen to be most exposed to. I was raised Catholic. The nuns drummed the Catholic dogma into my head for 12 years of school. I just assumed that was the "right" religion. I never even questioned it until recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is truth in what you say here, but if you grow up around truth, why should you disown it? I grew up with an atheist father and a timid christian mother.. I was exposed to what they both thought/felt regarding God, I came to my own conclusions.

[ QUOTE ]
And for people who are athiests who decide to believe in God, I think the choice boils down to what you're exposed to. America is primarily a Christian country. It makes sense that athiests who turn to religion n the U.S. usually become Christians. But it is only an accident of geography. If George W. had been born in Iraq, he'd probably be a born-again Muslim right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the real God ( if he exists ) has to be bigger than that. I think that those who earnestly seek him truly will find him. I've seen personal evidence of this too.

[ QUOTE ]
My feeling is that it is rather dangerous for there to be so many different faiths, all equally convinced that theirs is the only true way to salvation. What that means is that ALL world religions are really just fanatical cults, no different than the Branch Davidians. Except of course for the one true faith - which of course everyone KNOWS is theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that Jesus is the only way to reach heaven, yes..
But I think you can study Hinduism, Budhism or Atheism and still find him. He is simply the personifcation of the one true God, if you seek that one true God no-matter what you know, where you live.. I got a feeling he'll find you.

My feeling on the 'danger' you talk about is the same as bunny's.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
... It's simply that the same God I found outside of religion is the same that I found described in the bible, in christianity. They are one in the same...
I think that those who earnestly seek him truly will find him. I've seen personal evidence of this too...


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, must be yours. If that is not ego inflation, I don't know what is. The certainty of tyrants... imo. That's the truly dangerous aspect of your beliefs, godboy.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
why is 'thinking for themselves' the ultimate ideal for you? id much prefer my children to believe truth (though they did not quite reach it independently) than to follow Hitler's beliefs (if they arrived at them through 'independent thinking'.

[/ QUOTE ]
So your not going to indoctrinate any kids with faith based religon and teach them the truth?

What truth is that?

chez

[ScottHoward]

[ QUOTE ]
and it's so ridiculously overwhelming how underwhelming the evidence of God is.

[/ QUOTE ]
do people who dont believe in god normally capitalize the word god?

[madnak]

Bunny, your beliefs are amazing to me and I admire them a lot. I don't necessarily agree with you, but your insight is astonishing.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and it's so ridiculously overwhelming how underwhelming the evidence of God is.

[/ QUOTE ]
do people who dont believe in god normally capitalize the word god?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it has become hip to use the lower case g. It is grammatically incorrect though.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it has become hip to use the lower case g. It is grammatically incorrect though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I thought in English grammar the word and related pronouns were supposed to be capitalized. Then again, I went to school in Utah.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and it's so ridiculously overwhelming how underwhelming the evidence of God is.

[/ QUOTE ]
do people who dont believe in god normally capitalize the word god?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it has become hip to use the lower case g. It is grammatically incorrect though.

[/ QUOTE ]
u don't believe in, all that Grammer nonsense do you&amp;

chez

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
there is no God? why does are inexplicably complex universe exist? where the f*k did this pretty detailed and complex forum come from? tell me the answers!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess an agnostic would probably answer that we don't know. Our human brains cannot possibly know the answer to your questions of how or why the universe exists. It is beyond our capacity. So to assume it must be God, simply because our little brains can't conceive of another possibility, is not necessarily correct.

And not to go on a tangent - but the need to explain the existence of the universe still does not explain to me all the dogma that goes along with the different faiths. Just because you believe God must have created the universe, why does it follow that you also must believe homosexuality is a sin, or masturbation is wrong, or women must be covered from head to neck when in public, etc.? I just don't see the connection. Faith in a creator does not mean you must also believe that the Bible, Quran, or what have you was actually written by God.

In my opinion, who is more likely to be concerned about whether a woman's face or bodily curves are covered in public? The supreme creator of the universe? Or sexist men?

The problem, I think, does not come from people believing in a creator. It comes from people believing that the book associated with their faith was actually "written" by their God. When Islamic terrorists kill innocent people by blowing themselves up, it is not because of their belief that someone must have created the world. It is because of their belief that some book gives them the official ok from their god to kill.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and it's so ridiculously overwhelming how underwhelming the evidence of God is.

[/ QUOTE ]
do people who dont believe in god normally capitalize the word god?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it has become hip to use the lower case g. It is grammatically incorrect though.

[/ QUOTE ]
u don't believe in, all that Grammer nonsense do you&amp;

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe good grammar exists on the internet. Does that make me a grammar atheists or a grammar agnostic? (You, chez, are the un-official arbiter of the atheist/agnostic debate.)

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and it's so ridiculously overwhelming how underwhelming the evidence of God is.

[/ QUOTE ]
do people who dont believe in god normally capitalize the word god?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it has become hip to use the lower case g. It is grammatically incorrect though.

[/ QUOTE ]
u don't believe in, all that Grammer nonsense do you&amp;

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe good grammar exists on the internet. Does that make me a grammar atheists or a grammar agnostic? (You, chez, are the un-official arbiter of the atheist/agnostic debate.)

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that just sets a lower limit on how old you are /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
" It seems to me that we dont choose our beliefs "

Only if you're crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's how I see it:

A lot of people were indoctrinated as kids by people they trusted, including their parents and authority figures. The majority of these aren't intelligent/introspective/wise enough to see how this indoctrination has shaped their beliefs.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are also a lot of factors that act as walls that stop someone from seeing why the religion they were brought up in is wrong. Things like the possibility of making a mistake that has eternal implications. The stoploss verses in the bible(his ways are not our ways, etc), and the "confirmations" provided by altered mental states associated with religion or coincidence.

The weird thing about religion is that some supporting evidence in essense makes acceptance of the whole thing necessary despite evidence that points to the contrary. It really takes a lot for most people to reconsider the whole thing, usually an event that is so far outside their worldview that they can't reconcile it using any of the standard repression techniques. (I'm speaking about fundamentalist christianity and not the more liberal/nonliteral versions)

Joseph

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yarh! Well its not going to change, so your just going to have to put up with it.

[Metric]

All but one of the universes I know about definately have one or more gods (a programmer/programmers). Unfortunately, none of them are yet sophisticated enough to support intelligent life. One way to rephrase the question, I suppose, is this: is there evidence for the belief that our universe is fundamentally different?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
why do you seem to be very confident in the 'scientific method'? were you taught to be, or did come to this acceptance through your own, unhindered rational thought?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both.

But mostly you must realize that the scientific method is nothing more than logic applied in an objective manner. Everyone of us uses logic both consciously and unconsciously to understand the world, only that is far more subjective to our own desires and needs.

In any case, if experience itself doesn't show you that the scientific method is the easiest and most effective way we have to come close to the truth, I pity you.

I am, however surprised that you can make any $ at poker, without applying the scientific method. I really don't think this is the case. Nor am I saying you stated this... But should you try to convince me that you make money by praying to God for that rivered heart to make your flush... I will simply laugh at you.

[Peter666]

It is natural and reasonable to believe in higher power because we cannot control all the facets of our existence. We don't have a choice in being created or not, and can't make ourselves disappear. These are all controlled by forces outside of ourselves.

To make an absolute conclusion that there is no God or some sort of higher intellectual entity is impossible and even contrary to human nature, which realizes that we are not the end all and be all of the universe.

Atheism is merely an assumption not supported by the natural universe.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
why is 'thinking for themselves' the ultimate ideal for you? id much prefer my children to believe truth (though they did not quite reach it independently) than to follow Hitler's beliefs (if they arrived at them through 'independent thinking'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why having kids, then? Just create a computer program and make it believe your truth. It will certainly not dissapoint you.

My point is, you're very good at following orders, and you want your children to be just like you. But there are some of us who enjoy freedom over slavery... It's curious that you don't understand that.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the real God ( if he exists ) has to be bigger than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Omg! did Godboy just confess he's not 100% certain that His God exists?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
All but one of the universes I know about definately have one or more gods (a programmer/programmers). Unfortunately, none of them are yet sophisticated enough to support intelligent life. One way to rephrase the question, I suppose, is this: is there evidence for the belief that our universe is fundamentally different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there evidence for the belief that it's not?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
It is natural and reasonable to believe in higher power because we cannot control all the facets of our existence. We don't have a choice in being created or not, and can't make ourselves disappear. These are all controlled by forces outside of ourselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

The same could be said for a beetle, a dog, a sea otter, or any other animal on this planet. So even if we assume God must have created all this - why do we assume only man is special enough to live forever in heaven after we die? Isn't that a little bit presumptuous of us?

There's no proof that humans, alone among all life forms in the universe, live forever. I think rational people need to acknowledge at least the possibility that it's just a human-created form of wish fulfillment.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
It is natural and reasonable to believe in higher power because we cannot control all the facets of our existence. We don't have a choice in being created or not, and can't make ourselves disappear. These are all controlled by forces outside of ourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but the assumption that there is a certain purpose to these forces, or to go as far as to personify them is simply ridiculous.

And by the way, atheists do believe in many of these "higher powers" or "forces". Gravity for instance.


[ QUOTE ]
To make an absolute conclusion that there is no God or some sort of higher intellectual entity is impossible and even contrary to human nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not impossible or contrary to human nature at all, otherwise there wouldn't be any people believing this. However, I will agree that it is a flawed conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is merely an assumption not supported by the natural universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you define Atheism as the belief that there is no God (or no higher intellectual entity), yes. However theism is pretty much the same, only much more flawed.

See, Atheism (in this case, with this definition) believes that something there is no evidence for or against it's existence, doesn't exist. It's like saying I believe ghosts or flying pink hippos or honest politicians don't exist. I can understand why someone would come to this flawed conclusion, since there is no use in considering it's existence before there is any sort of evidence that backs it up.
To put it in a probabilistic manner, let's say there's a 99.9999999999% probability against the veracity of the assumption that a particular God exists. In this case the atheist, while making a clear mistake in believing there is absolutely no chance God exists, it's not making such a huge mistake. It's totally forgiveable.

Theists however, believe with absolute certainty in a particular God when there's only a 0.0000000001% chance that it really exists. As you can see, theists are making quite a mistake.

[Peter666]

"why do we assume only man is special enough to live forever in heaven after we die? Isn't that a little bit presumptuous of us?"

This has nothing to do with the original premise. In fact, you have clouded the original premise by throwing in belief in Heaven and the nature of souls, none of which has yet been demonstrated to come from belief in God or a higher power.
These are interesting questions though and should be dealt with seperately without prejudice.

In a nutshell, belief in Heaven stems from the human desire for perfect happiness, and belief in an immortal soul from the rational human mind which is capable of recognizing abstract "spiritual" ideas that animals can't.

[Peter666]

"the assumption that there is a certain purpose to these forces, or to go as far as to personify them is simply ridiculous."

These certain forces inherently have a purpose or else they could not be recognized as particular forces. The question is where do these forces originate from? Personification of forces was something done by Pagans. A theist does not have to "personify" the cause of these forces. They just have to recognize a first cause.

"Theists however, believe with absolute certainty in a particular God"

I believe a distinction must be made here. A theist believes in a natural "God" or "power" if you will, simply due to our nature and the conclusions we can draw from our existence.

It is Faith which believes in a "particular God" (eg. The Holy Trinity) which cannot be proven through our nature or reason and if scientifically examined, would have 0.00000001% chance of being true.

[Metric]

They are as fundamentally alike as you can hope for. Every known physical process is in principle computable (why should this be the case?). What I'd like is some evidence that the universe is not fundamentally a simulation (complete with a God as every other simulation happens to be equipped with).

[atrifix]

Doesn't the current theory predicting that the universe originated with a singularity kind of make this a straw man? You can't compute what happened before the big bang.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> why is 'thinking for themselves' the ultimate ideal for you? </font>

Because I am fortunate to have two very intelligent children who will soon (if they are still too young now), be able to process evidence both for and against religion and arrive at the best conclusion for them.

I'm not gonna lie to ya... I'm rooting for them to conclude religion is a sham. But if they find they, like so many of you, decide that our existence is too complex to have stemmed from anything but a god, and it gives them peace of mind and comfort, then I'm ok with that too. As long as they came up with that decision using their own faculties.

[Digs]

The conclusion that the modern bastardization of 'religion' (I have so much trouble trying to define that word it's not even funny) is a sham, and the thought there is no inherent truth in the teachings of Christianity, Buddhisim, Hinduism, etc. are totally diffrent ideas imo.

Lestat do you renounce all the teachings of these religions or just the blind faith exhibited by so many humans in these times?

I mean obviously the bible/bhagavad gita/koran etc are parable, but to claim the core teachings of each as a sham seems a bit cursory to me

[Lestat]

Good question...

I'm mostly against blind faith (although I love the 60's band with Eric Clapton -lol).

I mean sure.. Some of the teachings are fine. Love thy neighbor, do unto others, etc. But I think when you read deeper into most of these books you find incredible intolerance, bigotry, mass contradictions, and yes... Even downright hate for others with differing beliefs. This is what I think is a sham. It is devised to literally scare people into believing and behaving the way religious leaders want you to. Let's not forget that in medieval times, religion was just as much about politics as anyting else. So I'm very against that. Particularily when it comes to the indoctination of our children.

I don't want my children refraining from doing bad things, because they fear some make-believe place called hell. Likewise, I don't want them performing good deeds and acts of kindness because they think it will endear them to some higher being and get them into heaven. Rather, I want them to be charitable and productive members of society based on their own inner character. A character which with any luck, they will develop using their own faculties based on experience and intellect.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean sure.. Some of the teachings are fine. Love thy neighbor, do unto others, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but then again these type of ethical codes really have nothing to do with religion. It certainly doesn't take belief in a supreme being to be a decent and good human being. There are many athiests I'm sure who live by these codes without buying into the rest of the supernatural stuff.

For myself, as I've recently begun drifting away from my Catholic faith (and questioning all religion), I think the "do unto others, love thy neighbor, help the poor" stuff was what I held onto to make me think my Catholic religion was good. I focused on that so I could ignore things like the prejudice against homosexuals and the Church's strange obsession with the natural human act of sex. But I think I am realizing that I don't need the Catholic church, or even necessarily God, to be a good and loving person.

[Metric]

It's definitely not a straw man -- I'm not constructing anything to attack.

But yes, current theories break down at spacetime singularities -- it's not a sign that anything non-computable is happening (we've never observed a spacetime singularity, for one thing), but rather that our classical description of physics is incomplete -- this has been known for at least 50 years, but it turns out that gravity is harder to quantize than other field theories. Still, nothing that we currently know of quantum gravity suggests that it is non-computable -- in fact, people run computer simulations in loop quantum gravity regularly.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean sure.. Some of the teachings are fine. Love thy neighbor, do unto others, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but then again these type of ethical codes really have nothing to do with religion. It certainly doesn't take belief in a supreme being to be a decent and good human being. There are many athiests I'm sure who live by these codes without buying into the rest of the supernatural stuff.

For myself, as I've recently begun drifting away from my Catholic faith (and questioning all religion), I think the "do unto others, love thy neighbor, help the poor" stuff was what I held onto to make me think my Catholic religion was good. I focused on that so I could ignore things like the prejudice against homosexuals and the Church's strange obsession with the natural human act of sex. But I think I am realizing that I don't need the Catholic church, or even necessarily God, to be a good and loving person.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that you dont need religion to be a good person. In my opinion, being religious in order to be a good person is an error. I think you should be a good person irrespective of your beliefs. The only thing any religion gives you that atheism does not is a relationship with God. To me that is the only real reason to be religious - because you believe in God.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
They are as fundamentally alike as you can hope for. Every known physical process is in principle computable (why should this be the case?). What I'd like is some evidence that the universe is not fundamentally a simulation (complete with a God as every other simulation happens to be equipped with).

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand what you're saying or proposing. Can you make it clearer?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
These certain forces inherently have a purpose or else they could not be recognized as particular forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, to me purpose means with intention. Purpose requires an objective. A rock is recognizable as a particular rock, yet it needs have no objective. The very idea is ridiculous because objectives need desire. I hold the same opinion about known forces, like gravity. I think what you're saying is that someone or something put them there with a purpose.

This could be true for a rock, since we know entities with purpose who would put a rock in a place for that reason. It's not the case of gravity. Any "purpose" we assign to it is just the product of our imagination, there is no evidence to even suggest it. (again, this doesn't mean it's not the case, just that it's very unlikely)

[ QUOTE ]
They just have to recognize a first cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

A first cause for which there is absolutely no evidence to support.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe a distinction must be made here. A theist believes in a natural "God" or "power" if you will, simply due to our nature and the conclusions we can draw from our existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believing in confirmable forces that make the world go 'round is fine (as long as it's thought of in a probabilistic manner), but I doubt that is called theism. Or are you saying that under your definition, "A-THEISTS" somehow do not believe in reality?

[siegfriedandroy]

read ur 1st paragraph (drunk, sorry!) yeah, i understand ur argument- why must it be God? but many assume it CANNOT be god, and this is preposterous to me, w/o sufficient evidence (which i have never seen provided). anyway, the bottom line is to me, God is a more reasonable explanation then Nogod, of which i cannot possibly comprehend the existence of all i sense.

[Peter666]

How does PURPOSE or OBJECTIVE differ from DEFINITION?

The objective of a rock, is to be a rock.

What is the objective and definition of BEING? To BE.

What sustains material objects through time that allows them TO BE and yet go through changes while still BEING the same thing?

God is merely the essence of being, the sustaining force behind all material objects and power as they go through time. And yes, "atheists" claim to deny reality by denying the essence of being.

[godBoy]

I've never said i'm 100% sure, it's simply the most reasonable conclusion to come to with my experiences.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that you dont need religion to be a good person. In my opinion, being religious in order to be a good person is an error. I think you should be a good person irrespective of your beliefs. The only thing any religion gives you that atheism does not is a relationship with God. To me that is the only real reason to be religious - because you believe in God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well said bunny (as always).

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
How does PURPOSE or OBJECTIVE differ from DEFINITION?

The objective of a rock, is to be a rock.

[/ QUOTE ]

Purpose and objective are man-made classification to refer to animal instincts and desires, from which derive their actions. They're mostly meant to help justify the existence of free will.

Definition is simply classifying what something is, in known terms. I agree that purpose is a partial definition of what a particular animal is, but in order to be classified as purpose or intention or objective, it must be about how the particular object behaves because of it's own desires and feelings. This is my definition at least. And I think it's most people's one.

[ QUOTE ]
What sustains material objects through time that allows them TO BE and yet go through changes while still BEING the same thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they went through changes, the only way for them to be the same is for them to have returned to a previous state. Many of the scientifically known forces of the universe may produce these effects in a minor scale. I don't think it matters much whether a cycle can be formed or not.

[ QUOTE ]
God is merely the essence of being, the sustaining force behind all material objects and power as they go through time.

[/ QUOTE ]

"the essense of being"... Is this something tangible? What sustaining force are you talking about? Maybe time itself?

Please expand.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
How does PURPOSE or OBJECTIVE differ from DEFINITION?

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially in that a definition is arbitrary whereas an essence (I think this is what you are talking about; if not, disregard) is supposed to be metaphysically independent of arbitration. We can define a rock as a certain spatiotemporal configuration of atoms, or as an unmarried man, but neither one captures its essence.

[ QUOTE ]
The objective of a rock, is to be a rock.

What is the objective and definition of BEING? To BE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even think there is such a thing as essence. Why should I?

[ QUOTE ]
What sustains material objects through time that allows them TO BE and yet go through changes while still BEING the same thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is any sort of special explanation required for this?

[ QUOTE ]
God is merely the essence of being, the sustaining force behind all material objects and power as they go through time. And yes, "atheists" claim to deny reality by denying the essence of being.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this part.

[crookedhat99]

[ QUOTE ]
so please, brilliant sir, tell us all what the 'answers' are. any 15 yr old, youve established, knows w/ certainty that 'God' doesnt exist.

so please tell me,...

1) why does a universe exist instead of 'nothing'?

2) what is 'nothing'?

3) why do jokers like you pretend to know the 'obvious' answers to age-old questions about whether God exists?

4) If God doesnt exist, why do you state that humans KILL each other 'over it' as if killing is a 'bad' thing? this question you will not really understand (based on your post). sklansky understood reasonably well (at least more honestly than most of the atheists who responded to my 'atheistic morality' post), but likely you do not.

anyway, please provide me with your overwhelming evidence that God does not exist? should be pretty easy to do, judging by your immediate dismissal of any who believe in a supernatural BEING. please explain, since my intelligence is clearly lacking.

[/ QUOTE ]


First of all I never said I believe God doesn't exist, and obviously I don't have 'certainty'. You were too busy licking your lips at another chance to get into a checkmate with another darnded atheist to notice that. But...I digress. Instead of trying to answer your deep philosophical questions that have no connection to my arguement in any way whatsoever...I'll turn some questions to you that hopefully will start to lead you into the right direction as to what I'm talking about. You don't have to answer them, just let 'em stir around a little bit.
How much do we absolutely know in regards to the origin of existence?
How much do you know about your car, your kids, your job, your country?
Ok enough of that asking questions business, I'm starting to feel like an elitist prick /images/graemlins/ooo.gif. I'll be more straightforward. There are a billion people who go to church every sunday to discuss concepts they get from a book based on little to no facts. Cool. I'm down with that. I like fiction. But then people start to use the ideas they get from this book attempt to run other people's lives. They say 'no abortion', 'no gay marriage', 'convert other people', 'kill non-believers'. At that point, to me, it starts to get silly. People are basing SO much on their premise of their specific God's existence, a premise that happens to be vary shaky. I'm wondering why.