1730 replies to this topic

[derp]

Personally I dont believe in god.

[SimDairy]

Sensible by what metric?
Sensible in the same way that it was sensible for the Ancient Greeks to attribute lightning to Zeus, because they didn't understand it?

If you want to believe in God, that's just fine, but don't try to justify it with ignorance masquerading as knowledge.

You could say that... But let me ask what have we understood so far about the creation?

In terms of science, all we know about it is founded in theories supported by *still* insufficient facts. We would able to find the reason behind the creation, if only we could discover that one major concrete proof that can make any of the stated hypotheses and theories true.

As far as theology is concerned however, we know that God made it supported by stable "truths". Please do note that truths in this sense are not technically facts and are heavily dependent on what we currently know about the world around us.

For example, we have the speculation that the universe has to start from something and that someone has to set it in motion. The statement is dependent upon Newton's Law of Motion. That means it would remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. Since the universe as we know it is clearly in motion, then there is supposed to be that initial force that set it upon its path. Saying that it was already in motion at the beginning of time would be false (by present knowledge) since it contradicts these laws. Unless further knowledge on how the universe started or if its possible that a object can start moving on its own is found.

Scientific Laws are based on current knowledge. Theology is built upon these laws. If we learn more about the world, thus advancing our knowledge, then new laws are found and in turn theology must be rebuilt to adapt to those laws. It is clear that I don't want to be like those old-fashioned Bible-hugging zombies who defend what they think is true just by believing that it is.

When it comes down to it, I would say that we are all still ignorant since we cannot find that single claim that disproves all that theology has to say about the creation. I just base my stand on what I currently know about the phenomena, and by that I believe in God. You might say that I use theology to explain phenomena that cannot be explained by present knowledge, but I don't depend on it so much that I let it hinder me from furthering what I know about the world.

Again, I'm just human and I still don't know all the facts hidden inside the crevices of these theories. If you know something that I still don't know please kindly explain to me or give me a resource to read so that I could shine a light on it.

[Phew! I'm tired and need to get some shut-eye. But I can't leave this idea in my head without saying it out. ]

Edited by SimDairy, 23 April 2010 - 10:29 PM.

[artificial]

I sure hope you're talking about the universe, because we know how planets are formed, and there's nothing divine about it.

[Xwee]

Well, I believe SOMETHING is out there helping keep things in motion and has some sort of divine plan for us (not one person but humans in general) and i think its to be a comedy for it. I guess I think like beowulf , "Gods won't do anything that man won't do for himself first"

[BuckFutter]

Some people use religion as an excuse it seems, specifically when they say everything is meant to be a certain way decided by God. That way when they fk something up they won't feel bad about themselves, and that "God meant for it to happen".

[Xwee]

Not all miniscule things are predetermined by god or gods, but I do believe in some divine being..

[artificial]

Some people use religion as an excuse it seems, specifically when they say everything is meant to be a certain way decided by God. That way when they fk something up they won't feel bad about themselves, and that "God meant for it to happen".

I don't think so. That more or less nullifies the concept of free will, which is what most religions lean on.

[SimDairy]

I sure hope you're talking about the universe, because we know how planets are formed, and there's nothing divine about it.

I have misspoken... edited.

[artificial]

I have misspoken... edited.

You're applying classical laws of physics on a quantum level: the two aren't compatible. Moreover, the concept isn't as nonsensical as you seem to think, even if we don't rely on far-fetched concepts such as m-theory for the answer. The equivalence between mass and energy is given by e = mc^2. If we have a seemingly infinite amount of mass compressed to infinitely small point, then a conversion between this mass to energy could very well be the energy that set our universe in motion, as you put it.

Using scientific inadequacies as proof for divinity is ridiculous. Nobody claims our scientific understanding is perfect, in fact it is far from it.

[iargue]

I sure hope you're talking about the universe, because we know how planets are formed, and there's nothing divine about it.

We -guess- we know.

Have we ever watched a planet being formed from beginning to end? No
Have we ever created a planet? No.


Stop taking guesswork for facts already man

[kiddX]

We -guess- we know.

Have we ever watched a planet being formed from beginning to end? No
Have we ever created a planet? No.


Stop taking guesswork for facts already man

I would like to see a planet being formed. I reckon that would look pretty fucking awesome.

[iargue]

I would like to see a planet being formed. I reckon that would look pretty fucking awesome.

Maybe in hyper speed?


We are talking about the slow formation of a planet over a thousand+ fucking years. Nothing awesome about that

[kiddX]

Yeah I meant if it could be sped up. But something like watching the alleged meteor? that crashed into the early earth to form the moon + the earth would be awesome to watch even in real time - obviously from a space ship or something and not from the perspective of someone on the earth.

[artificial]

We -guess- we know.

Have we ever watched a planet being formed from beginning to end? No
Have we ever created a planet? No.

You see how italicised it? It was meant to imply that, while we've never witnessed it, based on our current scientific understanding the statement is all but proven. You need to understand that just because humans haven't witnessed a complete scientific process, doesn't mean we don't understand how it works.

Stop taking guesswork for facts already man

I think you should stop trying to make intelligent responses in fields you know nothing about. I mean honestly, it's like arguing with a stubborn child. You regurgitate the same nonsense thread after thread, and come across as an idiot every time

We are talking about the slow formation of a planet over a thousand+ fucking years. Nothing awesome about that

And this demonstrates just how little you know.

Edited by Artificial, 24 April 2010 - 12:56 AM.

[Sweeney]

You -guess- you were born.

Have you ever watched yourself being born? No
Have you ever birthed yourself? No.

Stop taking guesswork for facts already man

Fixed that to demonstrate it's nonsensical nature.

For example, we have the speculation that the universe has to start from something and that someone has to set it in motion. The statement is dependent upon Newton's Law of Motion. That means it would remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. Since the universe as we know it is clearly in motion, then there is supposed to be that initial force that set it upon its path. Saying that it was already in motion at the beginning of time would be false (by present knowledge) since it contradicts these laws. Unless further knowledge on how the universe started or if its possible that a object can start moving on its own is found.

Scientific Laws are based on current knowledge. Theology is built upon these laws. If we learn more about the world, thus advancing our knowledge, then new laws are found and in turn theology must be rebuilt to adapt to those laws. It is clear that I don't want to be like those old-fashioned Bible-hugging zombies who defend what they think is true just by believing that it is.

When it comes down to it, I would say that we are all still ignorant since we cannot find that single claim that disproves all that theology has to say about the creation. I just base my stand on what I currently know about the phenomena, and by that I believe in God. You might say that I use theology to explain phenomena that cannot be explained by present knowledge, but I don't depend on it so much that I let it hinder me from furthering what I know about the world.

(I deleted what I'm not replying to).

First of all, your Newton's Law of Motion schpiel is crap. I'm assuming you probably got that from some creationst screed somewhere, because the level of scientific ignorance is spectacular.
The universe is not expanding in the way that the planets/stars/galaxies/etc are moving away from each other, it is the spacetime inbetween them that is expanding. Newton's laws of motion do not apply. Besides which, even if they did, the universe is expanding uniformly in all directions, making its total momentum zero, exactly the same as when it was at rest.

If we make the assumption that you actually meant to talk about the law of the conservation of energy, we can easily overcome that, since it only applies on the macroscopic scale. As Artifical pointed out, the initial moments of the Big Bang were quantum-level events.

As to your last point, you say you use theology to explain otherwise unexplainable phenomena. Bullshit. Theology doesn't explain anything.
"God did it" is as useful as "pixies did it", or "intergalactic space monkeys did". Or, in fact, as useful as "we don't know".
Not, however, as useful as "we don't know yet".

[KitsuKun]

I believe he is there, Do I like him at all..... Hell no.... A hypocrite to me if you honestly think about it....

[SimDairy]

You're applying classical laws of physics on a quantum level: the two aren't compatible. Moreover, the concept isn't as nonsensical as you seem to think, even if we don't rely on far-fetched concepts such as m-theory for the answer. The equivalence between mass and energy is given by e = mc^2. If we have a seemingly infinite amount of mass compressed to infinitely small point, then a conversion between this mass to energy could very well be the energy that set our universe in motion, as you put it.

Using scientific inadequacies as proof for divinity is ridiculous. Nobody claims our scientific understanding is perfect, in fact it is far from it.

Fixed that to demonstrate it's nonsensical nature.


(I deleted what I'm not replying to).

First of all, your Newton's Law of Motion schpiel is crap. I'm assuming you probably got that from some creationst screed somewhere, because the level of scientific ignorance is spectacular.
The universe is not expanding in the way that the planets/stars/galaxies/etc are moving away from each other, it is the spacetime inbetween them that is expanding. Newton's laws of motion do not apply. Besides which, even if they did, the universe is expanding uniformly in all directions, making its total momentum zero, exactly the same as when it was at rest.

If we make the assumption that you actually meant to talk about the law of the conservation of energy, we can easily overcome that, since it only applies on the macroscopic scale. As Artifical pointed out, the initial moments of the Big Bang were quantum-level events.

As to your last point, you say you use theology to explain otherwise unexplainable phenomena. Bullshit. Theology doesn't explain anything.
"God did it" is as useful as "pixies did it", or "intergalactic space monkeys did". Or, in fact, as useful as "we don't know".
Not, however, as useful as "we don't know yet".

Then again, I'm no specialist in the theory and intricacies of quantum mechanics. I still have *much* to learn about it and would stop discussing about the creation any further. It's also getting a bit off-topic.

I also take back what I said about using divinity to explain scientific inadequacies. I don't mean it being a conclusion to something that cannot be resolved by recent scientific methods. However, learning more about the world is in fact a dangerous process that the mind has to go through. I use it as a means to prevent my mind from going crazy (a ground, if you will) if ever it gets overloaded with all these ideas. Without the concept of divinity and a "higher being", who knows how long it will be before I create the next centipede man.

Edited by SimDairy, 24 April 2010 - 02:08 AM.

[redlion]

I feel like every couple of pages in this debate I should just post the problem of evil. If you value logic, it makes this debate/poll/topic irrelevant.

The long and short of it.
People have postulated since the dawn of time about a creator being, and the reasons for and against his existence. Not since classical civilization has the debate been as heavy as it is today, but the arguments first formed 2000 years ago are still logically valid. Consider the following from Epicurus:

1. If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.

In modern times, we logicians usually augment this to target a specific monotheistic god. So you get:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent. (commonly, this is the Christian God, but it can apply to any theism)
3. An omni-benevolent being would prevent suffering and evil in his dominion.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists or could exist.
8. Evil exists, so God cannot.

Modus tollens. Truth by denying the consequent. There are various defenses against this logical attack on religion, (such as the Beautiful Tapestry defense, the argument from ignorance, and the argument from free will) but none can sufficiently support the idea that God can be both omni-benevolent and not responsible for some degree of evil.

You believe in God because you are told to believe in God. Wake up, unjack yourself, tune in or drop out. Tradition isn't right in virtue of being a tradition; every behavior should be examined for cost and benefit. No belief is safe.

Allah ackbar. Crusaders. The Haibru chosen people. Every one thinks they're more right than everyone else. Fuck it. Logic can't make people logical.

[kiddX]

I actually have problems conceiving a heaven because of this reason. We like to think that in heaven we are completely free - or at least I think that when people describe heaven it means complete freedom. But then in heaven can I rape someone? Wouldn't complete freedom mean that if I could rape some one I would be able to do so if I wanted? On earth we already have that freedom. Anything within your means you can do. You already have free will. I don't understand how heaven can be any more free then our situation here. Am I to think that in heaven I would not even have the thought to rape some one?

The only laws we have that we could even say are god-given are the laws of physics and the anatomical constraints of our bodies. All other laws and things that restrict our freedom are man made. I also wonder if we have a heaven, do we have a corporeal body there? Does that body have constraints - like hunger or fatigue? If I eat in heaven do I need to crap?

[Sweeney]

Then again, I'm no specialist in the theory and intricacies of quantum mechanics. I still have *much* to learn about it and would stop discussing about the creation any further. It's also getting a bit off-topic.

I also take back what I said about using divinity to explain scientific inadequacies. I don't mean it being a conclusion to something that cannot be resolved by recent scientific methods. However, learning more about the world is in fact a dangerous process that the mind has to go through. I use it as a means to prevent my mind from going crazy (a ground, if you will) if ever it gets overloaded with all these ideas. Without the concept of divinity and a "higher being", who knows how long it will be before I create the next centipede man.

How is it off topic? If it's what causes you to believe in God, and it's wrong, then it's very much on topic.

I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph. I sure hope I don't.
It seems like you're suggesting that you use a fundamentally delusion-based mythology to "ground" you psyche to protect it from the real wonders of the natural world, and that without a higher being, your sense of morality would be impaired, leading you to use science to create monsters.

Surely that's not what you meant to say?

[SimDairy]

How is it off topic? If it's what causes you to believe in God, and it's wrong, then it's very much on topic.

I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph. I sure hope I don't.
It seems like you're suggesting that you use a fundamentally delusion-based mythology to "ground" you psyche to protect it from the real wonders of the natural world, and that without a higher being, your sense of morality would be impaired, leading you to use science to create monsters.

Surely that's not what you meant to say?

The concept of a higher being is not particularly a delusion nor is it a myth but rather the basis of the morals that creates the border between what is good and what is bad. The technology mankind creates and the knowledge they collect is essentially neutral when it comes to morality. It's only what humans plan do with that knowledge/technology that make them either good or bad. What I was saying was merely an exaggeration of that situation.

For example, when man first discovered the effects of marijuana they planned to use it as a drug for those stricken with illnesses to cope with the pain. However man has gotten so accustomed to the drug that they tend to abuse it.

People abuse their new found knowledge/technology since they tend to lose the concept of a higher being governing them. They think they're the gods and that they can to whatever they want. If there's no belief in a higher being, then scientists today wouldn't have the morals that would stop them from using stem-cell research to develop genetically enhanced human beings when stem-cell research was initially planned to help people afflicted with cancer and other illnesses to redevelop dead cells.

[Sweeney]

The concept of a higher being is not particularly a delusion nor is it a myth but rather the basis of the morals that creates the border between what is good and what is bad. The technology mankind creates and the knowledge they collect is essentially neutral when it comes to morality. It's only what humans plan do with that knowledge/technology that make them either good or bad. What I was saying was merely an exaggeration of that situation.

For example, when man first discovered the effects of marijuana they planned to use it as a drug for those stricken with illnesses to cope with the pain. However man has gotten so accustomed to the drug that they tend to abuse it.

People abuse their new found knowledge/technology since they tend to lose the concept of a higher being governing them. They think they're the gods and that they can to whatever they want. If there's no belief in a higher being, then scientists today wouldn't have the morals that would stop them from using stem-cell research to develop genetically enhanced human beings when stem-cell research was initially planned to help people afflicted with cancer and other illnesses to redevelop dead cells.

So you are saying that because I don't believe in God, I'm morally inferior? Sounds like huge, steaming pile of shit to me.

People who believe in God are demonstrably no morally different to anyone else. Suicide bombers believe in God, but that doesn't stop them murdering countless hundreds of people.

Unless of course, you believe that suicide bombing in the name of God is a morally justifiable action?

[KatieKat]

I don't necessarily believe in a god, but I do believe there is some force out there. But I don't think the force decides what we do, we decide what we do. The force does not control us. Haha it sounds a little like star wars, but that's what I believe.

[ShadowLink64]

People abuse their new found knowledge/technology since they tend to lose the concept of a higher being governing them. They think they're the gods and that they can to whatever they want. If there's no belief in a higher being, then scientists today wouldn't have the morals that would stop them from using stem-cell research to develop genetically enhanced human beings when stem-cell research was initially planned to help people afflicted with cancer and other illnesses to redevelop dead cells.

Face it, belief in a deity doesn't necessarily hold people accountable. Some religious people (Christians, Muslims, etc..) still go to prison, and some priests still sexually abuse kids (as do some atheists, I'm sure). One could argue that these people are in fact "not true Christians" (I've heard this argument before), but then how do you explain the philanthropic/good-will nature of some atheists (who supposedly have no moral foundation)? They're definitely not doing it because they belief in a deity, but moreso because altruistic behavior promotes the survival of the group. Perhaps it makes them feel good, or they benefit from it in some way. Nonetheless, you can't argue that it's detrimental.


Also, a lot of scientists are not believers, so I'm not sure what your comment is getting at:

In 1998, a study by Larson and Witham appeared on the leading journal Nature ("Leading scientists still reject God"), showing that of the American scientists who had been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, only about 7 percent believe in a personal god. Religious believers form about 40 percent of the less eminent scientists in America.

A study in Britain, undertaken by R. Elisabeth Cornwell and Michael Stirrat, involved sending a questionnaire to all 1,074 Fellows of the Royal Society who possessed an email address, offering several propositions and asking the scientists to rank their beliefs on that point from 1 to 7. About 23 percent responded and preliminary results indicate that, of these, 3.3 percent agreed strongly (chose 7) and 78.8 percent disagreed strongly (chose 1) that a personal god exists. A total of 12 Fellows chose 6 or 7 to indicate that they were believers, while 213 Fellows chose 1 or 2 to indicate that they were nonbelievers.

Source: http://wiki.answers....eve_in_Creation

[lua]

I don't have a specific religion, nor I think it matters which one you choose or even if you have one (although it's a great learning experience to try and understand cultural aspects and problems involving them). But I do believe in life and that faith can be good to us humans and to our nature - and faith meaning something more, not the "faith-in-god" kind, if you know what I mean. The things we should be calling "divine" can be easily found when we look inside and around ourselves. Anyway, we still have plenty to learn about our origins and the meanings of our existence, so it's nice to be broad-minded and not state things like they are a done deal. And I say that because science, specifically speaking, is always transforming and changing. I hope to see more of what it has to offer.

Edited by lua, 26 April 2010 - 09:54 PM.