Does God exist?

[Reaper]

Atheism is an opinion, not a philosophy. Sometimes religious beliefs are an opinion as well.

 

Correction! All beliefs, except mine, are all just mere opinions :naughty:. Not based on fact, and clearly not nearly as enlightened and informed. But then, what do I expect from the mouth of an infidel. Of course, not everyone is blessed enough to have had the Truth revealed to them

[modest]

Correction! All beliefs, except mine, are all just mere opinions :naughty:. Not based on fact, and clearly not nearly as enlightened and informed.

 

That's truly the trick. Getting your beliefs to line up to the facts. It doesn't seem like it would be hard. People mostly see the same evidence. Our brains are mostly wired the same ways. Yet, two opinions over the same facts can vary so wildly.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

That's truly the trick. Getting your beliefs to line up to the facts. It doesn't seem like it would be hard. People mostly see the same evidence. Our brains are mostly wired the same ways. Yet, two opinions over the same facts can vary so wildly.

 

Yeah, and it only gets worse when facts and evidence are blatantly absent. :naughty:

[JoeRoccoCassara]

Our feeble human intellects constructed hope that would make us what we are today, masters of survival, the most powerful organisms on the face of the planet, with a high chance of being the smartest creatures in the universe, the most evolved brains around, constructed God.

 

And this God that comes in MANY forms, however imaginary, has made us creatures of steel, we mourned the dead because we believed we would see them again, we were not afraid of creatures, the wrath of nature, the evil of ourselves because we believed that all of it was petty compared to God, and that we could make God on our side, and over come obstacles, break boundaries other creatures couldn't comprehend.

 

This has left a fatal flaw, if we do not start seeing science as the new God, our fearlessness will get us killed, our sureness of dominion over all we see, will make us underestimate, our belief that God will do our work for us will make us stop working ourselves.

 

The thing about science is, it works, it's the reality, it might not be as forgiving, but effective. More so than shrines and prayers, fake protectors and false rulers.

[InfiniteNow]

I agree, Gardamorg, with your conclusion about gods falsity, but not about your assertions regarding human intelligence. There are some pretty major things happening right now (climate change for one) which don't exactly speak to this idea of us being the "most intelligent in the universe." Making an assertion like that (or, even that god exists, for that matter) seems to speak more to us being the "most insecure."

 

Either way, you're quite right that science has proven time and again the better approach to our advancement and survival. I big cheers to that, mate.

[Reaper]

Yet, two opinions over the same facts can vary so wildly. :shrug:

 

~modest

 

 

That's cause they haven't had a revelation from the pixie fairies yet :hyper:!!!!!!!

[JDawg]

Our feeble human intellects constructed hope that would make us what we are today, masters of survival, the most powerful organisms on the face of the planet, with a high chance of being the smartest creatures in the universe, the most evolved brains around, constructed God.

 

And this God that comes in MANY forms, however imaginary, has made us creatures of steel, we mourned the dead because we believed we would see them again, we were not afraid of creatures, the wrath of nature, the evil of ourselves because we believed that all of it was petty compared to God, and that we could make God on our side, and over come obstacles, break boundaries other creatures couldn't comprehend.

 

This has left a fatal flaw, if we do not start seeing science as the new God, our fearlessness will get us killed, our sureness of dominion over all we see, will make us underestimate, our belief that God will do our work for us will make us stop working ourselves.

 

The thing about science is, it works, it's the reality, it might not be as forgiving, but effective. More so than shrines and prayers, fake protectors and false rulers.

 

Well, actually, if you're arguing that we created God, then God didn't make us creatures of steel. We made ourselves such by giving ourselves this myth to believe in.

 

I also contend with a couple of other assertions you make.

 

One being that there is a "high chance" we are the most intelligent species in the universe. Man, the universe is a big place...so big that we have yet to even get a hint of any other life in it. There is just no way to calculate the odds of where we might rank in intelligence amongst our galactic neighbors. Hell, we don't even know that we have galactic neighbors. I mean, we can assume we do...but the point stands.

 

The other point being that we need to see science as a new god. I disagree with that completely. Religious worship by nature demands that one must not question the wishes of the deity, but submit to them completely. To treat science in such a way would lead to a halt in scientific progress. Science demands that you question, so much so that if your theory leads no room for it to be disproven, then it's a junk theory!

 

And we also must face one fact about our species: We seek patterns, and we seek answers. Religion was born from our lack of understanding, which is why things like the Sun have been worshiped, and why gods have been thanked for large harvest, and blamed for terrible disasters. We simply did not know that the earth shook because the plates were shifting, or that floods are the result of certain weather patterns as opposed to angry gods. And as such, the beliefs should disappear as our understanding of the world grows. And the evidence clearly states that this is happening. But we can't dangle a new carrot for the masses in the hopes that they submit to science as their new god, because that simply is not what we should be striving for.

[InfiniteNow]

And the evidence clearly states that this is happening. But we can't dangle a new carrot for the masses in the hopes that they submit to science as their new god, because that simply is not what we should be striving for.

 

You're right. We should be striving for a world where people recognize that there is no need for god, that positing such an unprovable, unfounded, imaginary entity offers no valid use, and to assume the existence of such is insulting to our intelligence and is debilitating to our species ability to advance.

[JDawg]

You're right. We should be striving for a world where people recognize that there is no need for god, that positing such an unprovable, unfounded, imaginary entity offers no valid use, and to assume the existence of such is insulting to our intelligence and is debilitating to our species ability to advance.

 

Well, not entirely. I think faith serves a very specific purpose, and that there is nothing wrong with desiring it in that sense. That purpose is, of course, comfort.

 

The conflict does not begin, at least for me, until those religions start lying to people about, say, the supposed controversy among scientists regarding evolution vs creationism. Obviously, there is no such controversy, and evolution is only a theory in the scientific sense, not the colloquial sense. In the colloquial sense, evolution is fact. The only controversy (though debate would be a better term) is whether natural selection or random mutation is the driving force behind it. Sorry, I'm getting sidetracked.

 

To sum it up, I have no problem with faith in and of itself. People should feel free to believe whatever they want to believe, and I don't see anything damaging in the belief that there is a god working behind the scenes. Just so long as that belief does not stand in the way of scientific progress. So religion itself is not what we should attack, but simply those who wish to use it as a weapon against reason, and education, and enlightenment.

 

Of course, you sort of have to dismantle a given faith whenever these zealots try to force it on you, and I believe hearing an atheist do that is where part of the conflict begins, but regardless, I don't believe faith is the problem. It is the application of it.

[Boerseun]

JDawg, whilst I applaud your approach, I can't agree with your final conclusion.

 

"Live and let live" is a fine approach, but at the very core of religion, whatever happens simply must be ascribed to God's feelings and opinion about the matter. A baby is born "because it's God's will". The World Trade Center collapsing in 2001 is more of the same. Wars break out because of God. It rains because the farmers did good in God's eyes. A Drought breaks out because the farmers cocked up. So you end up with a lot of very paranoid farmers.

 

...the premise is wrong. And anything and everything based on a false premise, is also wrong. I'm normally answered with "Yes, but the Church does a lot of good" and "the Church runs soup kitchens" and "the Church does a lot for the poor", etc. In fact, the Church is doing a lot of good things - but for all the wrong reasons. The old saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". But enough of that.

 

An atheist doing a good deed because it simply "feels like the right thing to do" is morally waaaaaaay superior to any religious person doing a good deed "because God said we should feed the poor". A pity very few people see atheists as perfectly moral people, since the Church (of all kinds and flavours) have been going to the ends of the Earth to hijack morality since the Dawn of Time.

 

My problem with religion is that its premise is flawed. And all and everything that results from that, is thus also flawed. I can't, for instance, take a scientist who's a regular church-goer and believer, serious. Any research he does will be soiled by a belief in a being who's meddling with his samples. Seeing as they can't be objective, they'll either be good at religion and crap at science, or vice versa. They can't be both.

 

My parents refused to talk baby-talk to me. They taught me the proper names for stuff, so I don't have to learn stuff twice. Apparently, they reckoned, life is too short for unnecessities. There was no "woofie-woofs", it was a "dog". Same with the universe. I believe that life is too short to obfuscate reality by learning that God did it in 7 days, 6,000-odd years ago, only later to be told "listen, actually there was this Big Bang thing, and then stuff happened, you know, the Milky Way formed billions of years later, the Sun and the Earth condensed out of the debris..." etc., etc. If that's the actual way things happened, give it to me straight. Don't bullshit me at first with this whole "God did it" business. Life is too short for that. If it's bullshit, call it by its name.

[JDawg]

Wow, thanks for the reply! I'll try not to abuse my right to multi-quote...but I won't make any promises. :hihi:

 

"Live and let live" is a fine approach, but at the very core of religion, whatever happens simply must be ascribed to God's feelings and opinion about the matter. A baby is born "because it's God's will". The World Trade Center collapsing in 2001 is more of the same. Wars break out because of God. It rains because the farmers did good in God's eyes. A Drought breaks out because the farmers cocked up. So you end up with a lot of very paranoid farmers.

 

...the premise is wrong. And anything and everything based on a false premise, is also wrong. I'm normally answered with "Yes, but the Church does a lot of good" and "the Church runs soup kitchens" and "the Church does a lot for the poor", etc. In fact, the Church is doing a lot of good things - but for all the wrong reasons. The old saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". But enough of that.

 

I know this is your lesser, almost secondary point, but I'll give it its due. I believe you're actually giving the faith-based organizations too much credit. They have demonstrated that they are discriminatory in their service, but that's not the worst of it. They don't really help the poor. And maybe this is a morality debate, but how the hell does feeding a homeless man or woman help? These groups are giving a fish, as opposed to teaching how to fish. Putting bread in the mouth of a starving person without the promise of their next slice is only enabling them to suffer again in a day or so. These organizations don't really help, they prolong the suffering.

 

My problem with religion is that its premise is flawed. And all and everything that results from that, is thus also flawed. I can't, for instance, take a scientist who's a regular church-goer and believer, serious. Any research he does will be soiled by a belief in a being who's meddling with his samples. Seeing as they can't be objective, they'll either be good at religion and crap at science, or vice versa. They can't be both.

 

That's not entirely true. It depends on how the apply their faith in their lives. The man credited for decoding the human genome happens to be a theist. I don't know what role he exactly played in the project, but the fact that he is associated with it should be proof enough that good science (even great science) can be done so long as God is kept out of the lab. And for some people, their perception of God is not as a meddlesome force, but more of a blanket.

 

My parents refused to talk baby-talk to me. They taught me the proper names for stuff, so I don't have to learn stuff twice. Apparently, they reckoned, life is too short for unnecessities. There was no "woofie-woofs", it was a "dog". Same with the universe. I believe that life is too short to obfuscate reality by learning that God did it in 7 days, 6,000-odd years ago, only later to be told "listen, actually there was this Big Bang thing, and then stuff happened, you know, the Milky Way formed billions of years later, the Sun and the Earth condensed out of the debris..." etc., etc. If that's the actual way things happened, give it to me straight. Don't bullshit me at first with this whole "God did it" business. Life is too short for that. If it's bullshit, call it by its name.

 

Well, that certainly is one way of looking at it. And I won't claim to hold the moral high ground on this one. Your approach is as valid as mine, and as important as mine. I believe we need people taking every route to reach the same ends.

 

However, I think you need to understand that I'm basically asking for the same thing you are. I don't want religion in my politics, I don't want it in my schools, and I don't want it being granted tax exemptions or other special privileges. And as I said, the more these scientific truths become common knowledge to the population, then these religious dogmas will crumble. And as the trends have shown, despite the fact that something like 90% of the US claims to be religious, churches are closing at an astounding rate. I honestly believe we are seeing the last vestiges of the old guard, and the beginnings of a new one. Perhaps even a new, less formal brand of Christianity, or even religion in general, where their faith is just an afterthought, and wholly unobtrusive on societal affairs.

 

And I have no problem with that. We need to understand and accept that there will always be a desire to shield ourselves from the hardest truths. We can't fight it, we have to accept it. Religion truly does provide the desired results on those issues. And I don't want to be the one to tell someone they can't have those beliefs, because trust me, when I lost a friend in a fire years back, I needed to believe that there was something else, some sort of afterlife, some sort of redemption for that kind of horrible suffering. And even if I don't believe it now, it helped me then, during the difficult time.

 

So I don't think it would take the total collapse of the churches to bring about a new enlightenment. It will just take more of us telling the religious to keep their faith where it belongs--in the closet.

[Galapagos]

That's not entirely true. It depends on how the apply their faith in their lives. The man credited for decoding the human genome happens to be a theist. I don't know what role he exactly played in the project, but the fact that he is associated with it should be proof enough that good science (even great science) can be done so long as God is kept out of the lab. And for some people, their perception of God is not as a meddlesome force, but more of a blanket.

 

The geneticist is Francis Collins, and indeed, he was the head of the human genome project.

He also wrote a book recently titled "The Language of God", in which he explains that atheism is less rational than a belief in the Abrahamic god given our current understanding of physics and biology.

Outspoken atheist and author Sam Harris tears into Collins' book in his article, "The Language of Ignorance":

 

Truthdig - Reports - Sam Harris: The Language of Ignorance

Francis Collins—physical chemist, medical geneticist and head of the Human Genome Project—has written a book entitled “The Language of God.” In it, he attempts to demonstrate that there is “a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony” between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity. To say that he fails at his task does not quite get at the inadequacy of his efforts. He fails the way a surgeon would fail if he attempted to operate using only his toes. His failure is predictable, spectacular and vile. “The Language of God” reads like a hoax text, and the knowledge that it is not a hoax should be disturbing to anyone who cares about the future of intellectual and political discourse in the United States.

 

I agree with Sam Harris that someone like Collins' endorsing such silly ideas is very meddlesome.

And despite what Francis Collins thinks, a study from Nature (that I'm sure many of you have seen) indicated that our greatest minds almost unanimously reject the idea of a personal god.

Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God" July 23, 1998

[Grains]

god or whatever one believes in exist for each individual person in their own individual way....nothing can prove that otherwise...it is senseless debating....

 

i viewed a post earlier in this thread that said we should strive for a world without god.....thats no different than taking away the freedom of the mind...we should never strive to take any belief from anybody.

 

thats like me saying we should strive for a world without books or poetry,love,friendship

 

we each have our beliefs and thats what makes it great! enjoy the fact this thread is even here and we are not just consuming robots striving advancement

 

i know a little much.... but this one hits home

[LJP07]

"god or whatever one believes in exist for each individual person in their own individual way....nothing can prove that otherwise...it is senseless debating...."

 

That doesn't make it true...which is the primary point of this debate.

[JDawg]

The geneticist is Francis Collins, and indeed, he was the head of the human genome project.

He also wrote a book recently titled "The Language of God", in which he explains that atheism is less rational than a belief in the Abrahamic god given our current understanding of physics and biology.

Outspoken atheist and author Sam Harris tears into Collins' book in his article, "The Language of Ignorance":

 

Yes, I've heard of the book (I wouldn't dare read it), but it's proof positive that not only can you be a theist, but a total whackjob nutso theist and still be a good scientist.

 

If there is anything you can argue against those kinds of people with, it is that they use their scientific credentials to lie to folks who might believe them based on those merits, such as Collins has with his farce of a book.

 

god or whatever one believes in exist for each individual person in their own individual way....nothing can prove that otherwise...it is senseless debating....

 

It's not at all senseless. You can't ask non-believers to remain quiet while the theists are out there trying to tear down our already-shambled education system. Their actions demand some a dialogue. But beyond that, why should we not be allowed to discuss it? When you are talking about any particular faith, you are talking about very specific belief systems, each with their own history and mythology. It isn't fair that we should be told we aren't allowed to ask questions about that, to find out what makes a Jew believe that Joseph really was such an amazing character, or what makes a Christian believe that Christ actually existed.

 

i viewed a post earlier in this thread that said we should strive for a world without god.....thats no different than taking away the freedom of the mind...we should never strive to take any belief from anybody.

 

And what exactly has the church been trying to do for two thousand years? You don't want to play this game, friend.

 

we each have our beliefs and thats what makes it great! enjoy the fact this thread is even here and we are not just consuming robots striving advancement

 

i know a little much.... but this one hits home

 

It obviously doesn't hit home enough for you to do any proper research on the matter, nor to view our posts (or even this thread) in the proper context. If you don't like the conversation, then ignore it. But don't tell others that they shouldn't be allowed to debate such issues, and don't you dare try to make others feel stupid for having these discussions.

[nutronjon]

And you've been asked to prove it.

 

Nature is nature.

The universe is the universe.

 

Calling it god offers no value, obfuscates things, and is unnecessary.

 

 

Either prove that this is all "god," or show how it's necessary. During your time here at Hypography, you've repeatedly failed at both.

 

Simply repeating an invalid assertion offers it no additional validity.

 

There are many definitions of God and I choose to go with the scientist and philosophers who use the definition of God I am using. This is not something I have to prove and you have absolutely no authority to deny an accepted understanding of God. You are no better than the men of church who prevented discussion of anything not accepted by the church. They were sure they knew truth too.

 

I am so turned off by the rudeness and the moderators' tolerance of people ruining discussions, that I am glad I found another forum. It is incredible that there are so many pages and the discussion has gone absolutely no where, because of a handful of people who act as though they have the authority to deny someone else's difinition of God.

[InfiniteNow]

Nobody has denied you anything, nutronjon. There are no restrictions on your right to express your beliefs or to articulate your personal definitions.

 

You've simply been shown where your reasoning is faulty and your premises fallacious.

 

There is a BIG difference. I'm sorry you can't handle criticisms of your view point, and also that you are so keenly unable to defend it.