# Does God Exist?



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

ABC News: Kirk Cameron vs. Atheists

The Atheists vs The Christians (no lions involved).

A very entertaining watch. It will be appearing on Nightline tonight.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good question, with no easy answer. One might ask "Do we exist?" and, if so, for what purpose? Paix, mon ami.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

One could ask "Do we require purpose?"


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Watch for a possible appearance by atheists, too.

(I'm fighting the good fight, Margaret.)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"One could ask "Do we require purpose?"" Another good question. Still, having some relevant and authentic purpose other than just existence might be helpful. In the Jewish faith this purpose is seen through "mitzvahs", which are good deeds towards all sorts of people/things (e.g., family, ordinary people, animals, nature, etc.).


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

A person who requires purpose but finds none around him can still create a purpose for himself. The "mitzvahs" you mention, Dr. G., sound like a positive version of this. Unfortunately, not everyone chooses so well.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## talonracer (Dec 30, 2003)

I've claimed I was god a few times...

So far no lightning bolts...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Who's god?
That question has caused some trouble over the years.
Any theologians in the house?


----------



## An Old Soul (Apr 24, 2006)

Life is just a playful way for God to have that "where'd I put my keys?" type of experience.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

Richard Dawkins will be on "The Agenda with Steve Paiken" Thursday night at 8:00PM. If folks are interersted in this topic, Dawkins might be someone you find interesting.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Good question, with no easy answer. One might ask "Do we exist?"


I think Descartes handled this one fairly well with "I think therefore I am."

Beyond that, it's all speculation. But we can use parsimony and other logical tools to help us generate ideas that are more likely to be true (or, to be more precise, less likely to be false).



> and, if so, for what purpose? Paix, mon ami.


This question assumes that there is some purpose, and that we simply need to find it. I much prefer to start with the null hypothesis, that there is no purpose to existence, as this leaves us free to create whatever purpose and meaning we want out of our existence.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> This question assumes that there is some purpose, and that we simply need to find it. I much prefer to start with the null hypothesis, that there is no purpose to existence, as this leaves us free to create whatever purpose and meaning we want out of our existence.


...as long as we don't listen to our high school guidance counselors!


----------



## 20DDan (May 2, 2005)

It isn't an answer anyone but your own belief can bring you. Do you go with the .... this world evolved from a big bang, complete chaos, my distant cousin over millions of years is a frog, no purpose in life, evolution kind of thinking or do you believe.... Everything in this universe was created for a purpose, everything is balanced precisely in the universe so that we may exist on earth, we were designed by a higher being that being God and for his pleasure, every creature on this earth was designed precisely and a frog cannot evolve into a human being (even over millions of years), you are not here by chance... you have a purpose to fulfill... find out what it is!

I personally believe there is a God! I know many here would rip my head off for my beliefs as I've seen before in previous threads on this subject but I dont care. I'll say it like it is! 

- Look into the human body, DNA, the unbelievably complex makeup of the human body n how absolutely perfect it is, can you honestly believe that it all started from swamp fungi (swamp fungi is perfect too), we are the only creatures on earth that were given the knowledge between right n wrong, the animal kingdom was made perfectly too... but for another purpose. 
- The way that only a select few scientists determine the (billions n billions of years) ages of things is unscientific and extremely unacurate, in actuality the earth is very young around 4000 - 7000yrs old, look at the coast lines disappearing they used to say these events took millions of years... well thats a bunch of garbage because real life proof shows a HUGE difference than their fantasies
- There is more real evidence/proof that Jesus existed than there is that Cleopatra existed! There are things that were prophesied that would happen (the odds of all of these things all coming true was unbelievably huge)... it all came to pass.... I'm refering to things in the Bible... what about nostra damus or whatever his name is... how many of his vague ideas came true??? 

This is me... this is what I believe, I will not be shaken! I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone here, all I'm saying is look at the facts... from many different sources not just 1 named Darwin!


----------



## 20DDan (May 2, 2005)

So I'm watching that debate.... laugh out loud!!!!  All you need is eyes that can see and a brain that works! So true..... Your car ... was it designed or did it fall together over millions of years into the random precise car that it is today? You know there is a maker even though you cant see, hear, smell, touch, taste him but you know he made it! As many world famous for being the most brilliante scientists of all time have said... the universe is in such harmony n perfection it only goes to prove that there is a maker!


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

7gabriel5elpher said:


> - Look into the human body, DNA, the unbelievably complex makeup of the human body n how absolutely perfect it is, can you honestly believe that it all started from swamp fungi etc.


So you're saying if there was no God, then our bodies would be imperfect? We'd have malformd limbs and live like animals? Does it really make sense that "imperfect" beings would even exist? Don't you think swamp fungi is perfect too. It had an ancestor as well and is way more complex than it.


----------



## 20DDan (May 2, 2005)

Again... I'm not here to argue about it because I've tried before but I'm 1/10000 in this ehmac forum who shares this belief... all I wanted to say is

This is me... this is what I believe, I will not be shaken! I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone here,* all I'm saying is look at the facts... from many different sources not just 1 named Darwin*!


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

7gabriel5elpher said:


> - Look into the human body, DNA, the unbelievably complex makeup of the human body n how absolutely perfect it is, can you honestly believe that it all started from swamp fungi etc.


Yes I can because the _theory of evolution_ is the only theory for which any observable evidence exists. There is not one single shred of observable evidence that will stand up to any kind of objective scrutiny to support the _god theory_, so I'll go with what I can show.

There is plenty of evidence around to show that DNA is far from perfect. You just have to start counting up the number of variations of human dis-ease that are demonstrably related in some way to errors of DNA. In a lot of ways it is the imperfections related to DNA that has enabled the whole panorama of life.

I find life in the most general sense is a total "Wow!!!!" experience without any need to recourse to some sort of supernatural 'special friend'.


----------



## 20DDan (May 2, 2005)

One good example of a scientist that knew of the existance of a God yet did not put faith in him as in a religous way is Einstein. I'm listening to an audiobook about him n his life... although I find it personally disappointing that he did not put his faith in God he did believe in his existance because of the perfect harmony in this universe echoes that! I shall say no more.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

7gabriel5elpher said:


> Again... I'm not here to argue about it because I've tried before but I'm 1/10000 in this ehmac forum who shares this belief... all I wanted to say is
> 
> This is me... this is what I believe, I will not be shaken! I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone here,* all I'm saying is look at the facts... from many different sources not just 1 named Darwin*!


But this is a discussion board and I'm discussing.

So what are the facts you speak of?

And just because there is a "god" you must/should put faith in him? Why?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

7gabriel5elpher said:


> I personally believe there is a God!


Well, you're obviously in good company, but, as we shall see below, the reasoning you cite is utterly fallacious.



> - Look into the human body, DNA, the unbelievably complex makeup of the human body n how absolutely perfect it is


Unless you have a very different understanding of the meaning of 'perfect', or completely lack any knowledge of human anatomy, physiology, molecular/cell biology and development (or that of any other organism for that matter) this is utterly incorrect.



> - The way that only a select few scientists determine the (billions n billions of years) ages of things is unscientific and extremely unacurate


Oh really? Care to explain how you come to this conclusion?



> in actuality the earth is very young around 4000 - 7000yrs old, look at the coast lines disappearing they used to say these events took millions of years...


 

I take it you failed geography in high school?



> - There is more real evidence/proof that Jesus existed than there is that Cleopatra existed!


Your point being what, exactly? That the existence or non existence of Cleopatra or Jesus proves the existence of an invisible magic sky-daddy who created the universe? That trout live in trees? That if you buy kippers it will not rain?

Your logic is astounding.



> This is me... this is what I believe, I will not be shaken!


This is the core of the issue. You have Faith(tm). So you don't need evidence, and in fact no evidence could convince you that your beliefs are incorrect (please correct me if I'm wrong... tell me how I could prove to you that God does not exist).

This fact, that you believe without (or, rather in spite of) evidence, seals the argument. Your belief is irrational. That doesn't make you a bad person, and obviously many other people have similar or other irrational beliefs. But the popularity of this particular delusion does nothing to make it any more rational or any more likely to be true.

Cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

The one question nobody can answer:

If we as "perfect" beings required a "God" to create us, who created God?

I urge everyone to watch that entire debate. The logic of the Christians is full of holes, and it ends up boiling down to "God is, God is forever, God exists outside our time and space, God doesn't need to adhere to our rules of science and logic."

Their final arguments solidify that the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically (as was their original intent).


----------



## 20DDan (May 2, 2005)

bravo bravo... the non-believers always love to seek a way to destroy another's beliefs. Would it have made any difference if I would have called him Allah or Buda or something else....probably would have! I did well in geography thank you very much! Believe what you want... a person asked a question n I said in bold lettering... go n find out for yourself from many sources... dont just be spoon feed information from school! I just included a few facts...  Ya I called them facts... that go in direct conflict with the theory of evolution... but that's a whole other subject!


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

"Does God Exist?"
No.

That people even take the time to discuss the issue of the magic wizard amuses me.
But at least it amuses me. :clap: 

However, when the Fairy-Tale-Believers try to impose their silly beliefs on others, that's when I cease to be amused.


----------



## 20DDan (May 2, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> The one question nobody can answer:
> 
> If we as "perfect" beings required a "God" to create us, who created God?


He has no begining and no end, is , was, and always will be! He is out of time, is the one who created time... infinity is a subject very hard for a person to wrap their mind around simply because we were not designed to understand it now. I know it'll probably not satisfy your poking fun at me n this thread will grow n grow n grow in that but it doesn't bother me in the least


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I've noticed people who don't like evolution like to throw around "it's just a theory!"

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of *facts* or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

There are a lot more facts supporting evolution than creationism. There are no facts supporting "the Earth is only 7000 years old".

Back to the original debate on ABC, the argument that God is infinite...if it is possible for God to exist, be infinite, to have no beginning and no end, without a creator, is it not possible that the same can be said for our physical universe?

Our universe has no beginning and no end. It has always existed, and it is infinite. It had no creator. If you can use that argument for God, we can use it for our universe.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

7gabriel5elpher said:


> He has no begining and no end, is , was, and always will be! He is out of time, is the one who created time...


Yadda, yadda, yadda... Where are the facts you spoke so glibbly of?


guytoronto said:


> I've noticed people who don't like evolution like to throw around "it's just a theory!"
> 
> Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.


Those who use the term 'theory' so derisively with respect to evolution ought to remember that both _evolution_ and _god_ are theories. The data is all on the side of evolution. 


guytoronto said:


> Our universe has no beginning and no end. It has always existed, and it is infinite. It had no creator. If you can use that argument for God, we can use it for our universe.


Not, strictly speaking, true. The universe as we know it is expanding from a point source (the Big Bang) and there are estimates for how long ago that was -substantially greater than ~6000 years but not infinite.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

7gabriel5elpher said:


> bravo bravo... the non-believers always love to seek a way to destroy another's beliefs.


I'm a scientist. This is what I do. I use reason and evidence to determine what is not true. Your belief that a supernatural entity created the earth a few thousand years ago is easily falsified by empirical evidence. However, the more generic form of religion - that some supernatural entity exists outside of the constraints of our empirically measurable universe - is not scientifically testable, and therefore will never be falsified. 

That, however, dose not give it any philosophical merit as a premise. Indeed, postulating supernatural causes is essentially admitting defeat with respect to developing a meaningful understanding of the universe.



> Would it have made any difference if I would have called him Allah or Buda or something else....probably would have!


Nope. I have exactly equal skepticism regarding all supernatural claims... if you want to worship the tooth fairy, that's fine with me, but don't try to make the claim that you have scientific evidence for her existence, or that we need to give tax breaks to tooth fairy houses, or that we should teach kids that biological organisms are so complex that the tooth fairy must've guided the evolutionary process to generate the diversity of life we observe today.



> go n find out for yourself from many sources... dont just be spoon feed information from school! I just included a few facts...  Ya I called them facts... that go in direct conflict with the theory of evolution... but that's a whole other subject!


This is exactly what I do for a living. I collect facts to test hypotheses. These facts are not in books and they are not (yet) taught in schools. These are raw facts painstakingly extracted from nature. All of these facts (as well as all of the facts collected by all the other scientists who've ever worked on relevant questions through out all of human history) support evolutionary theory. If, someday, someone finds reproducible facts that don't fit this theory, the theory will have to be altered or abandoned. That hasn't happened, and evolutionary theory is now one of the best supported theories in all of science, and it forms the foundation for all modern biology, as well as it's applied branches (like medicine, agriculture, biotechnology, forensic science, etc.).

As Richard Dawkins put it so eloquently, "for someone to doubt the validity of evolutionary theory today, they would have to be either ignorant, stupid or insane."

Incidently, Dawkins was on The Hour recently, and gave a nice interview you can see here.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

rgray said:


> Not, strictly speaking, true. The universe as we know it is expanding from a point source (the Big Bang) and there are estimates for how long ago that was -substantially greater than ~6000 years but not infinite.


As I understand it (and, bear in mind that I'm a biologist, not a cosmologist), the dimensions of space and time are expanding, and have an inferable 'origin' (the Big Bang) however the concept that existence (what might reasonably be called 'reality') could be infinite (i.e. given that it includes space and time and other dimensions it is not constrained by them) is not precluded by current data.

Certainly, answering the question of 'where did the earth/universe/existence come from?' with 'God made it' simply begs the question of where god came from, and answering that 'God exists outside of time' is an answer that is just as easily applied to existence.

Metaphysically, this boils down to the question of why is there something rather than nothing? And the best answer we've got is that there is no reason to think that existence is somehow less probable or otherwise more amazing than non-existence.

Cheers


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

rgray said:


> Not, strictly speaking, true. The universe as we know it is expanding from a point source (the Big Bang) and there are estimates for how long ago that was -substantially greater than ~6000 years but not infinite.


Unless you consider the theory that the Universe is stretching (like an elastic band) and will eventually fall back into a single point and then expand again. That could be inifinite.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I think, therefore I am." Descartes

"To be is to do" – Socrates 

"To do is to be" – Sartre 

"Do be do be do" – Sinatra

Seriously, purpose needs to be found/created, or else we are just here, regardless of whether or not there is a God.


----------



## psychodad (Apr 30, 2004)

> As Richard Dawkins put it so eloquently, "for someone to doubt the validity of evolutionary theory today, they would have to be either ignorant, stupid or insane."


I would agree with him on this - although his thrust that evolution disproves the existence of God I find plain silly.

Another committed evolutionist, and practising Christian answers Dawkins assertions on religion very well - although the thrust of his book is the relationship between faith and science:
http://www.amazon.ca/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/0743286391/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/701-5000765-1343531?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178808743&sr=8-1

An interesting discussion between the two is found here:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-1,00.html

Interestingly, Dawkins does not rule out the possibility of a supernatural 'designer' -
" it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed."


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "I think, therefore I am." Descartes
> 
> "To be is to do" – Socrates
> 
> ...


Exactly. *We are just here*. Finding "purpose" is just an affectation of _ego_. It is such a total gas to be here, to be alive, that no imagined purpose is necessary.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

If we are to have a purpose in this universe, and that purpose is given to us by God, who gives God his purpose?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Your belief that a supernatural entity created the earth a few thousand years ago is easily falsified by empirical evidence.


bryanc: you won't get anywhere with that line of reasoning. You'll get told that the speed of light was--at one point--different from what it is today, or that dinosaur bones were created with all of the attributes of an object millions of years old to test you.



bryanc said:


> ...Indeed, postulating supernatural causes is essentially admitting defeat with respect to developing a meaningful understanding of the universe.


It isn't admitting defeat if it happens to be true. It also assumes that science will be able to collect enough data to "understand the meaning of the universe." At one point, everybody--those who believe in God and those who don't--may find themselves in a position where no additional useful information exists.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

psychodad said:


> I would agree with him on this - although his thrust that evolution disproves the existence of God I find plain silly.


I certainly didn't get the impression that Dawkins thinks evolution disproves the existence of god(s). He simply uses evolutionary theory to explain the evolution of religions. As it happens, this explanation fits the data quite nicely, so it provides a nice, logical, testable model of how religions and other ritualized behavior changes over time, but it says nothing about the existence/non-existence of god.



> Another committed evolutionist, and practising Christian answers Dawkins assertions on religion very well - although the thrust of his book is the relationship between faith and science:...


I haven't found time to read Collins' book yet, but I've read synopses (I'm planning on reading it over the summer). However, from what I can glean, the argument devolves into several fallacies (argument from design, argument from credulity, the fallacy of the heap and several others). Fundamentally, Collins *wants* to believe, and there is certainly no proof that god does not exist, so he finds a way to fit his god into the gaps in our understanding of the universe.



> Interestingly, Dawkins does not rule out the possibility of a supernatural 'designer'


He can't. Dawkins is a scientist, and no scientific evidence can ever rule out the possibility of supernatural interference. That's why hypotheses that invoke supernatural forces are not considered by science.

Philosophically, we can consider the idea of god(s), but it is quite obvious to me that it profits us not at all to do so. Invoking such concepts results in no better understanding of anything, and almost inevitably distracts us from the important and interesting questions.

Sadly, an unimaginable wealth of human (and other) resources have been wasted throughout history on these superstitious fantasies. One of the primary reasons I hope to see organized religions (and superstitious behavior in general) continue to fade is so that these resources can be better allocated in society.

Cheers


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"If we are to have a purpose in this universe, and that purpose is given to us by God, who gives God his purpose?" Interesting point, guytoronto.


Poems are made by fools like me,
but only God can make a tree.
And only God who makes this tree,
also makes the fools like me.
But only fools like me, you see,
can make a God who makes a tree.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

To paraphrase Dr. G's poem:

"If God has created us in His image, we have more than returned the compliment." - Voltaire


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> bryanc: you won't get anywhere with that line of reasoning. You'll get told that the speed of light was--at one point--different from what it is today, or that dinosaur bones were created with all of the attributes of an object millions of years old to test you.


Alas, you're probably right. However, even if the proponents of such ludicrous arguments are not swayed by reason and evidence, one can hope that those that read the exchange may be more intellectually honest.

Cheers


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

For those interested in Dawkins...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4321574955310561251&q=God+Delusion&hl=en

I find his style too harsh and demeaning... he come across to me as a sensationalist.

Personally I think that there is room for Faith and Science, however arguing that the word of 3-4000 year old manuscript written by sexually repressed obsessives is equivalent to a peer reviewed scholarly treatise is pretty feeble.

Thinking that the Bible can describe the nature or age of the Universe is a pretty ignorant position to be in.

Thinking that psychologist or bio chemist could describe the meaning and mechanisms of faith would also be pretty far fetched.

I have no tolerance of organized religion... I do have immense amount of respect for individual faith.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

There is absolutely room for science and faith, however faith should always yield to science.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Science is fallible and not absolute. I can tolerate the "faith" of others with no problem. What I find difficult to tolerate is the "holier than thou" attitude of those who stand steadfastly by science alone.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Always yield to science? Sounds pretty dogmatic to me... too doctrinaire for my tastes.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> There is absolutely room for science and faith, however faith should always yield to science.


Excluding creationism, I am not aware of much overlap. Most of what we talk about at church has to do with what kind of spiritual lessons can we take from the Bible and other sources and how do we apply them to our lives today. There is a strong emphasis on the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

While I am not a scientist, one of the few subjects I enjoy reading about is science and whether I am watching Discovery, National Geographic or reading Scientific American or Nature (or National Geographic) I just don't see where the issues are outside of creationism.

On the subject of creationism, the denominations that the vast majority of Christians in Canada, close to half the population of the country, associate themselves with (Roman Catholic, United and Anglican) endorse evolution.

Roughly 8% of the population is evangelical protestant and while it is probably fair to say that a majority are creationists, there are only a small number of people who get really really excited about it. While I am an evangelical, I am not a creationist and know of others like me as well.

Back in January, the pastor of the church I attend (Christian & Missionary Alliance) was giving a sermon where he made brief reference to creationism and how it has nothing to do with the Gospel, isn't a mandatory belief and that we shouldn't run around making a big deal about it.

My personal opinion is that creationism is a terrible thing that probably keeps people away who would otherwise be interested in what we have to offer.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

> Their final arguments solidify that the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically...


This debate is pointless in its entirety.

As a believer, we believe God exists, and created everything we see now and what we've seen in the past, including the entire universe. Believers rely entirely on faith, not scientific fact, because it can't be scientifically proven (God's existance). As Christians know and understand, we believe in God, a higher power, through faith and faith alone. We also believe that God does not to come off as being obvious in existance, as that would defeat the purpose of faith -- if his existance was unquestionable, faith in religion wouldn't exist. Christians believe that God wants us to come to him in faith, as God also gave us free will -- the will do believe in a different God or not to believe in a higher power, period. A relationship with Christ is based on your own desire to have one and through your faith only. I don't believe God will ever make his existence coincide with science to prove Himself until the day he decides (as we believe) to return to earth.

I also find it amusing that many of us enjoy creating arguments like, "Well, if God existed, why does so much suffering in the world exist?" Simple, really. In terms of one nation waging war on another, that's called free will. No need to blame God for own stupidity and short-comings as a human race. Natural disasters, diseases, etc., all exist to for a reason. If the world was perfect and pain-free, it would be overpopulated, uninteresting, and non-human like. Suffering, pain, disasters, and our own stupidity in between force us to feel emotion, change our way of living based on bad events or previous bad experiences, etc. When you really think about it, it all makes sense. Most of the world's problems are caused by _us_, yet we hate to take responsibility for it. God's existence doesn't mean he has to sort out all our problems for us. God's existence doesn't mean we can abuse each our and our world and just say, "Well, since God can do anything - if he exists - we should be alright, and he'll fix what we mess up." God's existence is not a free pass for the human race to be one massive moron.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Lars said:


> As Christians know and understand, we believe in God, a higher power, through faith and faith alone. We also believe that God does not to come off as being obvious in existance, as that would defeat the purpose of faith -- if his existance was unquestionable, faith in religion wouldn't exist. Christians believe that God wants us to come to him in faith, as God also gave us free will -- the will do believe in a different God or not to believe in a higher power, period. A relationship with Christ is based on your own desire to have one and through your faith only. I don't believe God will ever make his existence coincide with science to prove Himself until the day he decides (as we believe) to return to earth.


Once he decides to return then faith in religion won't exist?

faith |fāθ| noun 1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians. 2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Excluding creationism, I am not aware of much overlap.


Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions.
Christian Scientists and medicine.
Dietary restrictions built into most religions.

Creationism is the big one. Age of the Earth and the Universe is another.

Since faith and belief can't be proven (no argument here), and science fact and theory can be proven, faith must always yield to science.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The major conflict I see arising between science and religion is fundamentally psychological. In order to be a good scientist, you have to teach yourself to question your assumptions, doubt your theories, and design experiments to falsify your beliefs.

For an idea to have any value to a scientist, it must be falsifiable, and it must have withstood testing. In essence, science is practical skepticism.

Faith is the exact opposite of science. As I understand the psychology of faith (and I will be the first to admit that I don't really understand it), religious adherents see the ability to hold these beliefs without any evidence (or even in the face of contradictory evidence) as a _good_ thing.

So to be religious in modern society you have to cultivate the exact sorts of thought patterns that prevent you from doing good science, and believe exactly the sorts of things that scientists are trained to doubt.

Obviously, it is true that there are some people who are both good scientists and religious, and I simply can't understand how they do this sort of mental gymnastics. However, it is also true that, unlike the rest of society, the scientific community is dominantly non-religious. Furthermore, it has certainly been my experience that scientific training causes many people to re-examine the faiths that they learned as children, and this often causes a crisis leading to either the loss of faith or leaving science. So science and religion are certainly incompatible in many people's minds.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> What I find difficult to tolerate is the "holier than thou" attitude of those who stand steadfastly by science alone.


Were you being intentionally ironic here? If so, this is a pretty good line 



> Science is fallible and not absolute.


Yep, this is one of the fundamental ways in which science is different (and better, IMHO) than religion. Science gets things wrong, recognizes the errors, corrects them and moves forward. Religion is stuck with what ever was revealed to the mystics in their magical cave forever.

Of course, religion does have science beat in several ways: it's much easier to understand (as long as you don't think about it too much), it's got a much better soundtrack (organs are awesome, and the acoustics in churches are generally fantastic), and religions are much better at getting money than science.

Cheers


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions.
> Christian Scientists and medicine.
> Dietary restrictions built into most religions.
> 
> ...


I would have to leave those issues to the people who belong to those religions. Although my denomination emphasizes the importance of spirituality when it comes to health issues, it encourages it along side standard medical treatment and not the exclusion of them.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions.
> Christian Scientists and medicine.
> Dietary restrictions built into most religions.
> 
> Creationism is the big one. Age of the Earth and the Universe is another.


There was also that little thing with Galileo and the Earth not being the center of the universe a while ago.

I think over the next few decades we'll start seeing more conflict between religion and science. As biotechnology continues to develop and genetic modifications become more viable as therapies for humans (especially in utero) we will likely see religious arguments being made against the use of such technologies. And then, of course, there is the neurobiology research into the mechanisms of these irrational beliefs... what if we could 'cure' religion like we cure other infections... should we? What if the infected individuals don't want to be cured? Very interesting times.

Cheers.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

It really is a matter of "Do you believe in God?". Since we have not proven it one way or another (and I don't see any need to prove it in the first place), it can't be framed as a factual question, at least without framing the answer in "I believe ... ".

If you believe in something, then as far as you are concerned, it's true, since you will always act as if it were true, no matter what others say or do. If someone offers proof that is contrary to your belief, you will dismiss it every time. If someone offers proof that is consistent with your belief, you will embrace it every time.

And you will do those things because we can't help but to act on our beliefs.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Religion, to the extent that it attempts to create moral objectivity, is yet another set of coping mechanisms like any silly grocery list of ethics people fabricate for themselves. It is not something to 'cure', except to a small group of extremists throughout history who felt a need to 'cure' others for not falling in line. 

Either basis (old book; 1 year old list o' crap; random morality generator) can be very harmful or benign externally, but people do seem to need these things to function to their own satisfaction (need to have a "purpose"?), so I'm not sure we'd be better off without these grocery lists of behaviour. Wanting them gone seems more like jumping to an emotional conclusion without adequate and balanced analysis and evidence. 

As for getting some basic 'facts' straight, such as evolution, again, dig around the internet and find all the looneys. Once again, seems like an emotional focus on religion not a real rational look at what is going on and how many fools are milling about.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well said, Beej. I am not even sure we can take the entire species and select for a non-religion gene, or if this would even be advisable. I'd say it would most definitely not be so but I leave room for a teensy crack of a hint of a smidgen of doubt.

Among other reservations, I am simply wary of previous human attempts to select for allegedly 'better' humans.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The major conflict I see arising between science and religion is fundamentally psychological. In order to be a good scientist, you have to teach yourself to question your assumptions, doubt your theories, and design experiments to falsify your beliefs.
> 
> For an idea to have any value to a scientist, it must be falsifiable, and it must have withstood testing. In essence, science is practical skepticism.
> 
> Faith is the exact opposite of science. As I understand the psychology of faith (and I will be the first to admit that I don't really understand it), religious adherents see the ability to hold these beliefs without any evidence (or even in the face of contradictory evidence) as a _good_ thing.


In the New Testament, Jesus tells us that He has come that we might have life more fully and the early Church was known simply as “the way”. In other words, one of the primary roles of the Church is to act as a conduit towards a more full life for the people who are involved with it by teaching people to live as Jesus suggested.

The acid test for Christianity, and anyone involved, is “is this working”? Do I have life more fully than I did before I started following the teachings of Jesus?

So yes, there is a trust element involved when you, on faith, start trying to follow the path that Jesus laid out, but after a certain amount of time, it either proves itself to you or it doesn’t. Living the Christian life is an experiment and I don’t know very many people who don’t question the assumptions and the theories that underlie it as they journey through it.

While it is true that there are elements of Christianity that I doubt we will ever have the opportunity to obtain empirical evidence for, and these are important aspects of the faith (ie. God, the Trinity, did Jesus perform the miracles we are told he did, etc…), the heart of the faith resides in the teachings of Jesus and their ability to improve our lives. These things, while subjective, are testable and can be found by some people to be false.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Were you being intentionally ironic here? If so, this is a pretty good line


Yep. And I too thought it a pretty good line.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm not sure why it so difficult to see that people can have faith in some things, and demand logical proving/disproving for others. Most people seem to do it, whether or not they realise it. Not just religion, but on all sorts of things where standards of "proof" become a malleable continuum from none to absolute where the point on the continuum often seems to be set by a personal predisposition (ie. starting assumption).

Zoz, good points. 

Too often the characterisation of religion is simply a series of blanket statements and one-sided anecdotes with, sometimes, some catchall "yeah it's not all bad" followed by more arguing from the bottom. 

The instant placement of religion on a pedestal (in a pit?) so that it is easy to isolate and point at, heaping on all sorts of personal emotional baggage, is quite common. It's what religious extremists do to condemn heretics. No context, point out only the negative, identify it as a sickness or some such thing, etc. I think that adequately paints them vis a vis equivalency of style. beejacon

It seems much more rationale to not start with the pedestal (pit) assumption, and to simply look at the how, why and "so what" of the multitude of assumptions that people make, act upon and promote to others.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*For Me*

Yeah Verily


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> what if we could 'cure' religion like we cure other infections... should we? What if the infected individuals don't want to be cured? Very interesting times.


Please provide a link to an empirical, peer reviewed, scientific study proving that religion is an infection.

I don't want a link to a description of what a meme is, nor do I want you to explain what the concept is. I know both of these things already.

I am also aware of studies showing that a religious experience can be created by stimulating certain regions of the brain with electical impulses (for the record, I have never had a "religious experience" either in church or in a lab).

I want a link that shows a legitimate and recognized study proving empirically that religion is an infection that alters the mind.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, good luck with that. As far as I can tell, those clamouring for the death of religion are motivated by nothing other than a gut feeling. Kind of shocking when you consider how unscientific it all is.

We might try and address other, more pressing problems that plague humanity as a whole. But nooooo... we have to pit all these memes against one another and wage bets on what meme scheme will win.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

zoziw said:


> I want a link that shows a legitimate and recognized study proving empirically that religion is an infection that alters the mind.


They may be confusing it with liberalism.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> I want a link that shows a legitimate and recognized study proving empirically that religion is an infection that alters the mind.


Homer: "Son, a woman is a lot like a... a refrigerator! They're about six feet tall, 300 pounds. They make ice, and... um... Oh, wait a minute. Actually, a woman is more like a beer."

MF: For that baseless attack on liberalism, you will burn in a fiery, albeit comfortable and humane, hell for all eternity or until, through good behaviour and completing programs that demonstrate your emotional progress, you are released.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

zoziw said:


> Please provide a link to an empirical, peer reviewed, scientific study proving that religion is an infection.


Given that I cannot provide a link to a scientific, peer reviewed study proving that the cold is due to an infection, or that AIDS is due to an infection, or any other illness is due to an infection, this is an unreasonable request. Empirical science doesn't prove things, it *DISPROVES*. Hypothesis that remain unfalsified after extensive testing are considered well-supported and we operate on the basis of their validity until evidence that calls them into question is discovered. So our model that viral infections cause diseases like colds or AIDS is just that... a model... a well-tested, well-supported hypothesis, like evolution or quantum mechanics. But we could be wrong (maybe diseases are caused by evil spirits, and the body becomes infected with these viruses *because* it's sick).



> I don't want a link to a description of what a meme is, nor do I want you to explain what the concept is. I know both of these things already.


Good. Because that's part of what I'm referring to. There are plenty of credible scientists working on testing the hypothesis that religions spread like viruses, and there is good evidence (in published, peer-reviewed research papers) that this is the case. Similarly, there is good evidence (in published, peer-reviewed studies) that there are specific neurological events that correlate (which, it should be noted, does not necessarily imply causation) with religious experiences. The linkage (if any) between these self-replicating information systems (memes) and the neruophysiology is a very exciting field of inquiry.



> I want a link that shows a legitimate and recognized study proving empirically that religion is an infection that alters the mind.


Obviously I can't give you one for the reasons I've cited above. However, I think you will be willing to agree that religion alters the mind, and further that religion is learned (i.e. transmitted from one individual to another by the communication of specific information), so your objection must arise strictly from my use of the word 'infection'.

I don't expect you to agree with my use of such a pejoratively loaded term, but I do hope you agree that I have a right to hold such an opinion, and further, I hope you understand that my derogatory view of religion does not in any way extend to you or other religious people... my distaste is strictly for the religion, and not for the religious). 

But my point is simply that progress in psychology, neurophysiology, and memetics has given rise to the feild of neurotheology, and I am hopeful that a better understanding of the phenomena underlying religious adherence will help society rid itself of what I view as an exceedingly costly encumbrance.

Cheers.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Evidently all of you have got it wrong...

According to Wikipedia, God is little Joe Cabay from Kansas City, MO

P.S. he was never seen on Wikipedia again.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

"I have nothing against you, I just think that your brain is infected and needs curing, resulting in you having a view on this matter that is more like mine."

"I'm not a racist, I just think that they don't think and act like me and that it would be a lot better if they did."

If this was just about the workings of the brain and how unchallenged assumptions get lodged in there, why they remain unchallenged or how people stack the deck against their assumptions being challenged in their own thinking, then the fixation on religion looks a lot more like personal issues...some sort of infection maybe, that prevents people from using just logic and analysis without the pre-spin cycle.

Of course, without the pre-spin, one may find that the mechanism that results in adherence to beliefs is a net benefit and that without it we could not function as well. There could be a continuum and some people are just really fanatical about their own personal sky-daddies (even to the extent that they think other people are infected and need curing) and, at the other extreme, so unsure that they reside only on the internet and in their mother's basement. All interesting stuff with no reason to pre-spin.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> "I have nothing against you, I just think that your brain is infected and needs curing, resulting in you having a view on this matter that is more like mine."
> 
> "I'm not a racist, I just think that they don't think and act like me and that it would be a lot better if they did."


That's a pretty good point, however not exactly an accurate or fair comparison. Somebody can choose their religion (or continue to choose to be of that faith) people cannot choose their race.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Hypothesis that remain unfalsified after extensive testing are considered well-supported and we operate on the basis of their validity until evidence that calls them into question is discovered. So our model that viral infections cause diseases like colds or AIDS is just that... a model... a well-tested, well-supported hypothesis, like evolution or quantum mechanics.


Please provide a link showing that the hypothesis that religion is an infection remains unfalsified after extensive empirical peer reviewed testing.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> "I have nothing against you, I just think that your brain is infected and needs curing, resulting in you having a view on this matter that is more like mine."


This is an unfair characterization, and I'm surprised you would take such a simplistic view. Firstly, I never said anyone *needed* curing... In fact I specifically brought this up in the context of asking if it would be ethical to treat someone for irrational superstitions if they didn't want to be treated (assuming we develop an understanding of the mechanisms by which such beliefs become entrenched). Personally, I think it wouldn't be ethical, even if we could do it, but you can bet there will be arguments made on both sides should such advances be made. I think it's better to think about these things before the science drops such opportunities in our unsuspecting laps.



> If this was just about the workings of the brain and how unchallenged assumptions get lodged in there, why they remain unchallenged or how people stack the deck against their assumptions being challenged in their own thinking, then the fixation on religion looks a lot more like personal issues...some sort of infection maybe, that prevents people from using just logic and analysis without the pre-spin cycle.


This is a bit hard to follow but I'm inferring that you'd see such research as okay if it were done simply to understand how irrational beliefs become established. This is sufficiently outside of my field that I can't claim to know, but my discussions with people in this field led me to understand that that is certainly one of their major questions. Religion is already one of the best-studied complex behaviors that fit the criteria for this sort of investigation, so it's among the most commonly used examples. There are obviously others.



> Of course, without the pre-spin, one may find that the mechanism that results in adherence to beliefs is a net benefit and that without it we could not function as well. There could be a continuum and some people are just really fanatical about their own personal sky-daddies (even to the extent that they think other people are infected and need curing) and, at the other extreme, so unsure that they reside only on the internet and in their mother's basement. All interesting stuff with no reason to pre-spin.


I'm not sure if you have a point here. Parsing this after filtering the implied ad-hominum attacks and other innuendo doesn't leave me with much signal.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

zoziw said:


> Please provide a link showing that the hypothesis that religion is an infection remains unfalsified after extensive empirical peer reviewed testing.


I can find you papers discussing various religions as memetic viruses, but I thought you didn't want that.

And it's also worth noting (here is where I think you should be focusing your attack) that this is a relatively new theory, and it has not yet been extensively tested.

Indeed, the major focus of the emerging field of neurotheolgy is establishing testable hypotheses and meaningfull measurements. We're a long way from having a rigorously tested theory here, but it looks like exciting times in an unexplored territory.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> And it's also worth noting (here is where I think you should be focusing your attack) that this is a relatively new theory, and it has not yet been extensively tested.
> 
> Indeed, the major focus of the emerging field of neurotheolgy is establishing testable hypotheses and meaningfull measurements. We're a long way from having a rigorously tested theory here, but it looks like exciting times in an unexplored territory.


That is all I wanted to know.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> ... my distaste is strictly for the religion, and not for the religious).



See, he hates the sin, not the sinner...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Indeed. However well intended to shed light on a great many things, this thread keeps amusing me with a plethora of unintended associations.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I find some specific religious beliefs quite irrational -- young-Earth creationism, an anthropomorphic god (or should that be deimorphic humans?) -- because the one has quite literally mountains of evidence against it and the other makes the extremely unlikely assumption that we here on this tiny rock in an almost inconceivably enormous universe are God's special, chosen beings. (Which reminds me: if we are so perfect, why do the pleasure centre and the exhaust system share so many components?) 

However I don't think it's so crazy to believe in a higher power. Since there is an apparent limit to how close science can get to observing the beginning of time and the cause and effect relationships at play, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that it's currently unknowable whether an intelligence of some kind was at work. Based on my limited understanding of cosmology, this will be unknowable for the foreseeable future -- but I firmly believe we should continue asking those questions.

Ultimately it is strictly a matter of belief (which is not to say that worship or religion need be involved). I'm still undecided on the matter myself, and honestly it doesn't make a big difference in my daily life. As rgray says, life is a big Wow! even if you don't believe in a supreme being -- and, as you might have guessed, even if I were to decide for myself that there is a higher power behind Life, the Universe and Everything, I wouldn't conclude this was a meddlesome, doting being who was personally implicated in my life or who expected me to pay tribute and offer worship.

As far as I'm concerned people can believe what they like as long as they don't use their beliefs and/or knowledge as excuses for waging war, blowing things up, harming others, subjugating others, etc.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> This is an unfair characterization
> ..
> Religion is already one of the best-studied complex behaviors that fit the criteria for this sort of investigation, so it's among the most commonly used examples. There are obviously others.
> ..
> I'm not sure if you have a point here.


I think there are many similarities in the way many present virus-type views on religion and the "I'm not a racist but..." thinking, as well as the more fanatical elements of a given religion. Highly similar in that there could be underlying elements of standard human wilful ignorance, fitting observation to assumption, misdiagnosing a given "problem" (ie. crime being a typical one for racism) etc, but that underlying causes of the "problem" are treated as secondary, in discussions, to the undesirable "symptoms".
...
Yes and the observation is of how, despite the obvious, the focus and distaste seems to first target religion and, if pushed, "obviously" there are other matches for the observations. Again, I see similarities in thinking to other things, such as racism and religious fanaticism. Nothing to do with "infection" either. 
...
Just examples of what may be regarding, "the mechanism that results in adherence to beliefs." Nothing earth-shattering or virus-related, but it does look more to underlying causes (and what else these 'causes' may be linked to) instead of just tagging relgion and musing about a "cure".


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

iMatt said:


> However I don't think it's so crazy to believe in a higher power.


How do you define 'crazy'?



> Since there is an apparent limit to how close science can get to observing the beginning of time and the cause and effect relationships at play, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that it's currently unknowable whether an intelligence of some kind was at work.


So if something is unknowable, isn't it a bit 'crazy' (I would say irrational) to have strong beliefs about that topic? I have no idea what George Bush ate for breakfast today, so I don't have any beliefs about that subject. I don't know what caused the universe to exist (or if, in fact, it needs any cause) so I don't formulate beliefs about that subject either. Furthermore, I am without knowledge regarding the existence of any supernatural entities to which many people attribute the existence of the universe, so I do not form beliefs about these 'gods' either. Being without beliefs in gods, by definition, makes me an atheist.

It seems to me that, by default, all rational agents must be atheists unless presented with evidence that god(s) exist. Some people claim to have such evidence, and they may therefore be rational theists. However, all such evidence I have seen presented dissolves under rational scrutiny or is otherwise inadequate, in my opinion, so I remain an agnostic atheist.



> but I firmly believe we should continue asking those questions.


I agree. But I also think it's worth making a point of the fact that it's much better to admit we don't know than it is to fabricate a myth and call it an answer.

As I read recently, Religion offers certainty without evidence, whereas science offers evidence without certainty.

Cheers


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

bryanc said:


> So if something is unknowable, isn't it a bit 'crazy' (I would say irrational) to have strong beliefs about that topic?


I accept that the ultimate answer is unknowable and a supreme being is therefore possible. Unlike a religious believer, I don't think we should leave it at that; I think we should keep asking. I guess that makes me another agnostic atheist.

As for those who do have strong beliefs, I find some specific religious beliefs deeply irrational, but I wouldn't brand that as insanity. It's a form of rationalizing -- satisfying the desire, most likely universal, to find and/or create meaning -- that helps people get through their days, weeks and years. It's probably quite healthy, because it spares the believer from some of the existential uncertainty we all have. 

As long as they don't turn it into a weapon, I don't see anything wrong with that. Unfortunately, some *do* turn it into a weapon. Religion becomes dangerous when believers refuse to accept freedom of belief as an individual right. Choose to subjugate yourself to a higher authority in whom you believe for whatever reason -- fine by me. Force me to worship your deity -- unacceptable.



> I agree. But I also think it's worth making a point of the fact that it's much better to admit we don't know than it is to fabricate a myth and call it an answer.


Better for you and me, perhaps, but if people find comfort and meaning in religion, even if that religion is nothing more than myths and legends framed as answers, who are we to say our way would be "better" for believers? As long as we don't wind up with a theocracy, I see no problem with individuals believing whatever they please.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So Beej - what's the difference between religious belief and astrology, card reading, tea leaves?

What other system human structures ie the legal system, government, education do not at least attempt at some point "proof and evidence" as a pre-requisite for a specific action.?

Even gambling has a rational structure to the actions and results.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

iMatt said:


> As long as we don't wind up with a theocracy, I see no problem with individuals believing whatever they please.


I should make it clear that I too have no problem with individuals believing whatever nonsense (or sense) they feel comfortable with. My objection is largely with the institutions and vast societal resources that are wasted on supporting and propagating these various mythologies. (Not to mention the few egregious examples of religious institutions interfering with science education and meddling with the political system).

In fact, despite the fact that I see the belief system as no more valuable or likely to be true, I'd like to see more social resources allocated to preserving (if not propagating) some dying myths (like the First Nations myths) simply out of my (perhaps irrational) belief that information should be preserved, and cultural history and anthropology are valuable studies.

Cheers.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> So Beej - what's the difference between religious belief and astrology, card reading, tea leaves?
> 
> What other system human structures ie the legal system, government, education do not at least attempt at some point "proof and evidence" as a pre-requisite for a specific action.?
> 
> Even gambling has a rational structure to the actions and results.


You seem to make a generalised implicit assumption that religion does not "at least attempt at some point "proof and evidence" as a pre-requisite for a specific action." Look to your starting assumptions.

Religion can, depending on the person, involve much rational structure or little, given one or more starting assumptions. Such starting assumptions are also used for things like legal systems.

Assumptions that cannot be proven or that do not have good evidence are quite common. Some are "needed" to develop social frameworks, others are needed for personal frameworks to live with. 

Hand held cellphones while driving = bad
Handsfree = okay due to non-existence of total accident rate increases
Note: bad argument but would also apply 'badly' to hand held 
And, despite theoretical and real world evidence of handsfree reducing capabilities increasing accidient likelihood. 

You've got your own irrationalities MD. We all do.

It comes down to really wanting something, and many people really want there to be more to us than just being bags of bone and flesh. Others create irrational objective moral standards (sans beard and lightning bolt) that express personal environmental wants. The list goes on and on.

That is why it looks very much like racist/fanatical thinking when so much energy, narrow views and generalisations are used in anti-religion discussions instead of say, looking at underlying causes. A lot like random guy A who likes to point at crime stats and make racial conclusions. With a narrow enough view, the argument is rational and data-based, but the underlying racism/fanaticism etc. pre-spins the analysis. Suddenly, differences are an illness (implicit 'goodness' and 'badness'). 

Thus the pedestal/pit starting point for debating religion whereby people rig their analysis.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Even gambling has a rational structure to the actions and results.


Like the guy who is afraid to miss a lotto purchase, but will run through a lightning storm to buy the ticket?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> What other system human structures ie the legal system, government, education do not at least attempt at some point "proof and evidence" as a pre-requisite for a specific action.?


Speaking from an evangelical perspective I can tell you that proof is everything when it comes to people adopting and staying in our churches.

As I mentioned earlier, we believe that trying to follow the teachings of Jesus allows for people to lead a more full life and if newcomers to the church don’t feel that it is providing that for them, they leave….and they don’t give it much time.

We don’t just say “have faith in God and after you are dead you will see we were right”, we put all of our cards on the table and say that the benefits of evangelicalism are not just in the afterlife, but, as per what Jesus said, if we follow His teachings we will have a more full life in the current world.

The result of this evidence centered approach has been a growing church, compared to most non-evangelical churches that have either stalled or are shrinking in attendance.

Consider that the Pope’s current visit to South America, despite the media focusing on the abortion issue, is actually to try to shore up support for the Roman Catholic Church due to the inroads that evangelicalism in general and Pentecostalism in particular have made in a region that was once almost entirely Roman Catholic (and still is predominantly). A papal visit, the naming of a Saint and switching some Roman Catholic masses to a Pentecostal style are some of the things they are trying.

Pope unveils plan for rebuilding Church in Latin America. 12/05/2007. ABC News Online

When you talk to people as to why they switch, they say that the evangelical approach has had a positive affect on their lives that the Roman Catholic approach didn’t.

Evidence of an improved life is everything to us.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Evidence of an improved life is everything to us.


More good points.

My take: It's about what people want, and we get what we want in different ways. To put religion on a pedestal (or in a pit) to point and shout at is quite similar to racist/fanatical approaches to "rationalising" an underlying belief (more sky-daddies) or, put another way, pre-spinning one's analysis. 

Start with the basics. One example: why do people want meaning, rules etc.? Is this a bad thing, and what are the implications for religion, politics or, more generally, how we approach discussing our ideas and opinions? What if this mechanism were gone (ie. full implications such as taking away that nasty competitive thinking)? 

Note that no one is assumed to be infected yet.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

zoziw: bryanc will want to filter out the religious aspects of what your church offers, then distill the benefits into a super-concentrated atheist formula.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

If god does exist he has a mean streak. On the show Great Home Giveaway they had a family who really wanted that house because they weren't doing so good. They had to come within $5000 of the appraised price. They put their faith in God and prayed for a number. God gave them $349900. The price was $344000.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

As a Heathen, I'd have to say God exists...But not in the form you'd expect.

Dave


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

arminia said:


> They put their faith in God and prayed for a number. God gave them $349900. The price was $344000.


They would have accidentally set fire to the house, killing themselves. Their lives were spared in this fashion.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

iMatt said:


> (Which reminds me: if we are so perfect, why do the pleasure centre and the exhaust system share so many components?)


How many holes and doodads do you want? Efficient use of space me thinks


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## madgunde (Mar 10, 2006)

7gabriel5elpher said:


> This is me... this is what I believe, I will not be shaken! I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone here,* all I'm saying is look at the facts... from many different sources not just 1 named Darwin*!


As opposed to say looking at the facts from 1 source named Jesus?

Darwins theories have been tested probably millions of times, and never been proven wrong. How many 'theories' from the bible can say the same thing?

I'm not saying their isn't a God, but I don't believe ANY religion on earth has the facts to prove that he exists or in what form. Just because we can't prove God exists, doesn't mean he doesn't, but it also doesn't mean he does.

Personally, I believe all religions are just manifestations of man's imagination, with ideas and rituals passed down from generation to generation. We know for a fact for instance that the bible was heavily edited by the early church, and there's a good possibility that some of it's content was embellished. The fact that men (who may have been biased) played such a role in the editing process for the Bible calls the accuracy and validity of it's contents into question. In other words, did God really say homosexuality was a sin, or did that make it in there because the editors wanted to make people think it was a sin? What about the role of women? I think allowing 2000 year old ideas play a strong influence in the way we live today seems kind of counter-productive to us developing as a species.


----------



## Rampant AV (Aug 2, 2005)

*Does God exist?*

If you need to believe in a God to get you through your life so be it. I however do not believe in Gods. Just don't push your beliefs on other people.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

madgunde said:


> I think allowing 2000 year old ideas play a strong influence in the way we live today seems kind of counter-productive to us developing as a species.


 Yeah, I agree - to a point. "Thou shall not kill" still possesses a certain moral resonance for some of us.


----------



## madgunde (Mar 10, 2006)

Max said:


> Yeah, I agree - to a point. "Thou shall not kill" still possesses a certain moral resonance for some of us.


Progress works by us keeping and building on the ideas that are best, and abandoning old ideas that don't work. So my point wasn't that we should abandon every idea that was developed 2000 years ago, it was that we shouldn't be afraid to question those ideas and abandon the ones that we don't think are so great today.

In other words, the bible is more of a history book than an instruction manual. We should look to it for an idea of what life was like for those people back then, not as a strict guideline of how we should live our life today.

No one should ever answer a question by saying, "because the Bible says so."


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'd like to say "of course, you're right" but then that would be discriminating against those who tend to interpret the Bible literally.

Some of the prescriptive notions for sorting out the dynamic relationship between religion and science seems worse to me than the condition itself.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I always laugh at the idea that we are "developing as a species." Thin veneer and all that, then canines at the ready.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I have no problem with the idea that the species is evolving... development along "progressive" lines is quite another thing altogether. Progress is one of those notions where the goal posts are forever changing, depending on whom one is talking to.

However, anything which ensures the survival of the species would have to be considered good for that species - as being indicative of its general hardiness as a life form. Look to cockroaches and many other insects as being role models in this respect. 

But on the question of what's good for humanity being good for the planet? Well, I have some concerns in that regard. So far I see little proof that we have the requisite intelligence to act as proper stewards for the planet. We may in fact be its most troublesome pestilence. In any case, the planet has the resources to survive us. It remains to be seen whether we have the resources to survive the planet.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> In other words, the bible is more of a history book than an instruction manual. We should look to it for an idea of what life was like for those people back then, not as a strict guideline of how we should live our life today.


Evangelicals, and most other Christians, derive our primary beliefs from the New Testament in general and the Gospels specifically.

With the exception of small parts of The Gospels and the Book of Acts, what we find is pretty much an instruction book. The Gospels centre on the instructions of Jesus to his followers and Apostles on how to live and the epistles represent letters written by Apostles to the various churches in the area with instructions on how to operate and handle certain situations.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

God lives in California and his name is Steve Jobs. (or Bill Gates, if your into that PC religion).


----------



## rscamp (Jun 10, 2007)

Is there a god? Are there several? Which god is the right god? The supernatural is commonly invoked to fill in gaps of knowledge? Why? Is it convenience, intellectual laziness, or what? Many times in our history discovery has negated our need for gods of convenience. Why should this trend suddenly stop?

Is the human mind/brain perfect? Would we really want to convict someone in court based on a "feeling" rather than evidence? Why would we use the "faith" that a human holds to justify or explain anything at all including the existence of non-existence of a god? Thank god (any god you want) we have the scientific method to cut through the crap. 

Can a human whose life spans 80 years truly understand what a million years is? Or a billion? I could design a mechanism to lift a 50 metric ton bolder 100 metres in the air with the motor in my MacBook hard drive. It might take 47 years, but it can be done. What can be done in a million years? Or a billion? How about 4.5 billion on Earth? How about 13.4 billion years in the entire universe we can know within the event horizon?

Is there any relationship between religiosity and "goodness" on a micro (individual) scale? How about on a macro (neighbourhood, county, country) scale? If not, why bother invoking the supernatural for a set of morals? We can, and already have improved greatly upon the outdated (and sometimes, truly abysmal) moral standards frozen in time by the documentation of religions.

All we truly know does not point in surety to the existence of a god. Gods created by religion are manifestations of an embarrassingly limited, colloquial and intellectually lazy species.

Rob


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

This might be an interesting discussion to revive.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Freddie_Biff said:


> This might be an interesting discussion to revive.



This seems like you were as lost as I was trying to sort out how the new ehMac Forum stuff is laid out and working...

One can encounter some interesting things... 😉

And I wonder where Rob is these days... and only two posts here many many years ago... 


- Patrick
=======


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

I like discussions of metaphysics, especially when they lead to interesting insights. A friend of mine once compared God to the wind; we can’t see it directly, but we can see and feel it’s effects. I always found that to be a comforting notion.


----------



## pm-r (May 17, 2009)

Freddie_Biff said:


> I like discussions of metaphysics, especially when they lead to interesting insights. A friend of mine once compared God to the wind; we can’t see it directly, but we can see and feel it’s effects. I always found that to be a comforting notion.



That is a fitting analogy.... I hadn't heard that before but I like it.... 😉


- Patrick
=======


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

pm-r said:


> That is a fitting analogy.... I hadn't heard that before but I like it.... 😉
> 
> 
> - Patrick
> =======


It works well if you're already a believer.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 4, 2005)

Freddie_Biff said:


> I like discussions of metaphysics, especially when they lead to interesting insights. A friend of mine once compared God to the wind; we can’t see it directly, but we can see and feel it’s effects. I always found that to be a comforting notion.



In spite of my atheism, this poem gives me the most lovely goosebumps:


Who has seen the wind?​Neither I nor you:​But when the leaves hang trembling,​The wind is passing through.​​Who has seen the wind?​Neither you nor I:​But when the trees bow down their heads,​The wind is passing by.​​-- Christina Rossetti​


​


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

dtaylor said:


> In spite of my atheism, this poem gives me the most lovely goosebumps:
> 
> 
> Who has seen the wind?​Neither I nor you:​But when the leaves hang trembling,​The wind is passing through.​​Who has seen the wind?​Neither you nor I:​But when the trees bow down their heads,​The wind is passing by.​​-- Christina Rossetti​
> ...


Nice! Maybe God is simply a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Sometimes I wonder if we got God wrong but humanizing Him/Her too much. If God were considered to be a force like magnetism or electricity or gravity, He/She might be more believable even though just as tricky to grasp. It's all the human qualities that we ascribe to God that make Him/Her unbelievable to me. I can buy a world that came into existence through evolution as opposed to a Supreme Being who plays favourites.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Made in His image, your humanity would be a reflection of God's nature, not the reverse.



Freddie_Biff said:


> Sometimes I wonder if we got God wrong but humanizing Him/Her too much. If God were considered to be a force like magnetism or electricity or gravity, He/She might be more believable even though just as tricky to grasp. It's all the human qualities that we ascribe to God that make Him/Her unbelievable to me. I can buy a world that came into existence through evolution as opposed to a Supreme Being who plays favourites.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Made in His image, your humanity would be a reflection of God's nature, not the reverse.


Yeah, I think man created God in his own image, not the other way around. Why else would God have all the imperfections humans have, like jealousy and a need for attention?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If you believe men created God, then I guess he doesn't exist for you.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> If you believe men created God, then I guess he doesn't exist for you.


Why assume that? Man has created all kinds of things that exist. Why must God take the form of Invisible Man in the sky? Surely the Supreme Creator of all things could take any form He or She wished to. Why limit Himself or Herself to a human form?


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Veomales said:


> I think - we ourselves are gods because we have the ability to create new life, create and destroy! We are the creators of our destinies!


I like your way of thinking, Veomales! Maybe if we regarded ourselves as gods we’d act more responsibly.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Oh all-seeing, all-knowing Freddie — you're respondiing to a SPAM account.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Oh all-seeing, all-knowing Freddie — you're respondiing to a SPAM account.


Jeez, Macfury, don’t be so hard on yourself, calling yourself SPAM and everything.


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

Veomales said:


> I think - we ourselves are gods because we have the ability to create new life, create and destroy! We are the creators of our destinies!


What new life do we create outside of procreation which is basically just copies of ourselves? 



Freddie_Biff said:


> I like your way of thinking, Veomales! Maybe if we regarded ourselves as gods we’d act more responsibly.


I think if we regarded ourselves as gods we might become more and more narcissistic. People find all sorts of reasons to do horrible things, them thinking they are gods will not somehow give them idealistic notions of being good.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

wonderings said:


> I think if we regarded ourselves as gods we might become more and more narcissistic. People find all sorts of reasons to do horrible things, them thinking they are gods will not somehow give them idealistic notions of being good.


But it certainly inspires excessive preening in people like Freddie.


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

wonderings said:


> What new life do we create outside of procreation which is basically just copies of ourselves?
> 
> 
> 
> I think if we regarded ourselves as gods we might become more and more narcissistic. People find all sorts of reasons to do horrible things, them thinking they are gods will not somehow give them idealistic notions of being good.


Possibly. But it also may be that people don’t stop themselves from being jerks because they think they’re unimportant. If they considered themselves as more worthwhile, regarded themselves with respect, they might act more responsibly. Just something to consider. Narcissists don’t care about anyone but themselves, like Trump or Macfury.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They will respect themselves because Freddie has convinced that they are gods? Srtick with Trump and MacFury--we can craft a better plan than that!


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Let’s get to the heart of the matter, Macfury. You’ve joined the thread. What’s your personal opinion? Does God exist?


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Well?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Freddie, your modus is to allow the discussion to go on until your tissue-thin arguments dissolve — then you say you're "bored" and leave. 

You and "Facebook Spy" seemed to be having a rollicking discussion, so I suggest taking it up there — a couple of gods shooting the breeze!


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Macfury said:


> Freddie, your modus is to allow the discussion to go on until your tissue-thin arguments dissolve — then you say you're "bored" and leave.
> 
> You and "Facebook Spy" seemed to be having a rollicking discussion, so I suggest taking it up there — a couple of gods shooting the breeze!


So why do you even join a thread when you have nothing to contribute? The question is Does God Exist? I guess for you He doesn’t. And that’s fine. But at least try to stay on topic.


----------



## TiltAgain (Jun 27, 2016)

Well, in the Sanskrit language there's a saying - Aham Brahmaasmi, sarvam Brahmaasmi (I am god, everything is god). Since I am god and I exist... 

Now René Déscartes did say "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I exist). Since I think (or at least it looks to me like I do), I do exist, and therefore QED 

Cheers


----------



## Freddie_Biff (Sep 20, 2016)

Great to hear from you again, Tilt. I think there’s something to be learned from the perspective you describe.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

From time to time there's an interesting post. Doesn't mean I engage with everyone on every topic.



Freddie_Biff said:


> So why do you even join a thread when you have nothing to contribute? The question is Does God Exist? I guess for you He doesn’t. And that’s fine. But at least try to stay on topic.


----------



## Vader101 (Oct 3, 2021)

We have decided to close the religious threads. These go against our new forum rules, which you can view below. They are usually detrimental to a non religious forum. If anyone has any concerns with this, please send a private conversation to myself or @Peterweb









Forum Rules and Guidelines


The following is a list of basic rules and guidelines about what is and is not allowed while posting on our site. These rules are in addition to what is listed in our Terms Of Use. Please read through all of these sections before using our site and contact us if you have any questions. 1. You...




www.ehmac.ca


----------

