I treat this as basically as I can. Until God's existence or non-existence can be proven concretely, He/she/it is merely a hypothesis. As a man of science you cannot discredit something until it is concretely dis proven. You can have a bias, that is for sure.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-
Aug. 27, 2008 6:30 a.m. ignorant UberDork
-
Aug. 27, 2008 7:10 a.m. GregTivo New Reader
SVreX wrote:
A simple "no" would have sufficed.
You are rigging the rules of debate to play into your own hands. You are not treating statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner.
You are assuming if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence.
Atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists").
Your denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does my claim that he exists.
Therefore, I should have an equal right to expect you to be able to offer me "proof" and plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.
I submit that your assertion that God does not exist is a ridiculous story, and I think your story is full of E36M3. Since you are the one proffering this story, please offer some proof.
In a purely philosophical, non utilitarian way, the arguments that "God exists" or "God does not exist" have the same weighting. Now, as long as the belief that God does exist or God doesn't exist doesn't cause any subsequent action based on belief to manifest, I'll go along with that. However, in practical terms, the argument that God does exist (and moreso that the bible is his word exactly) leads to actions based on that belief. As far as I can tell, the belief that God does not exist has not led to a doctrine of beliefs and actions beyond that simple statement. Simply put, atheism is about "human" choices, theism "can" involve choices made to please "God".
Let's take a certain catholic perspective. Pope Paul declared that contraceptives are against God's will (maybe the whole spilling the seed thing, I don't know). If you do not accept this belief, you are rejecting a major tennet of Catholic dogma. You are also rejecting a call to certain actions your church has deemed you must do. If you want to change this teaching, you must convince the pope to do so, using religious rather than utilitarian arguments. Also, you have to reconcile how a person's soul will be judged later vs. how he will be judged by his fellow humans. Guessing a deity's opinion is harder than catching a rainbow.
Now, the atheist perspective. Because atheism has no doctrine, there are no rules (based on carrot and stick formula) for you to follow. Thus, atheists rely on social rules and laws created through utilitarian arguments (and, let's be honest) religous compromises. However, you are only governed by these tennets until you can successfully argue a reason based on increased utility to change such a rule. Thus, you have all manner of information to look through to base your argument and you aren't restricted to a narrow range of refrences and your end result would be to bring greater harmony to humans alive, not try to guess how to be better dead and I'd rather someone try to improve my life than my death.
Thus, atheism provides a greater opportunity to change while narrowing the focus of the benefit to life, which we can observe, as opposed to death, which is unobservable. In my opinion, I'll choose what I know I can change rather than guess at what is unknowable.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 7:25 a.m. walterj HalfDork
You are rigging the rules of debate to play into your own hands. You are not treating statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner.
I am rigging nothing. You are claiming that god exists in spite of not a single shed of evidence whatsoever to the contrary. I simply hold the view that that is unreasonable. I am not trying to win any debate. I hold a view that is unlikely to change until someone produces evidence of god.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 7:39 a.m. Jensenman UltimaDork
Duke wrote:
SVreX wrote:
MrJoshua wrote:
Why Christianity?
But, is there a particular reason why it should not be Christianity?
No - but that is my point entirely. You're choosing a particular religion based on an array of criteria that is pretty much (by definition) not knowable in any sort of logical sense. You have no contact with the assumed variety of deities among whom you are choosing. So to me, that makes all potential deities the same in terms of their potential validity.
So why pick Christianity over, say, Hinduism or worshipping Poseidon?
On the subject of atheists in love: Love can be explained as an evolutionary advantage in terms of pair bonding, mututal cooperation, and child rearing. Couples that are in love tend to look out for each other, have sex, and raise their children together. That gives them enough of a survival advantage that it has become a common (if not dominant) trait among humans. That doesn't mean that love is required for survival, but that it is an advantage.
That doesn't make it any less wonderful. A god and a mystical creation myth are not required for me to have a sense of wonder about the world.
Thank you. I couldn't have said it any better.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 7:40 a.m. Duke Dork
I don't think you mean "to the contrary" there, Walter.
As an atheist, I'm not out to disprove the existence of god. God may exist somewhere invisible, just like Shroedinger's cat or the teapot in orbit around Jupiter.
But if you choose to believe that god exists based on zero evidence (or based on religious texts, which are totally self-referential in their claims of divinity) and behave accordingly, then I simply don't understand how you can NOT behave as if every other god also exists.
So, with the evidence in favor of any particular god existing - zero - being equal for an infinite number of potential gods, it only makes sense to behave as if there is no god.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 7:55 a.m. walterj HalfDork
Duke wrote: I don't think you mean "to the contrary" there, Walter.
When someone tells me a fantastic story that defies reason I ask them to prove it. If they cannot I just assume they are misguided and move on. I am not on a crusade to disprove god but if you tell me he exists and you KNOW this and have absolute faith you are not wrong I must see the proof that this isn't just something someone told you and you are repeating. Its a fair question. Much more so than "Prove that my fantastic story isn't true".
I do not believe in any god. Some do. No one is going to change opine based on this thread or the next one or the one after that. I should know better than to engage but sometimes the scotch makes it impossible for me to resist stirring the pot. I'll go pester another group now... where are the uptight anti-nudists or gun-totin' teachers at this AM?
-
Aug. 27, 2008 8:01 a.m. Clay Reader
SVreX, I just want to encourage you in your lively debate here. You aren't alone. In fact you are in the vast majority in most circles, but it's certainly a very intolerant group on this board when it comes to religious discussions.
I will point any open-minded person regarding Christianity to read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis if they want a well thought out logical explanation of the Christian worldview. It's nothing more than a series of radio addresses in England back during WWII that explains why Christianity is the most logical worldview to accept. Read it if you dare ;-)
-
Aug. 27, 2008 8:22 a.m. Duke Dork
Clay wrote:
SVreX, I just want to encourage you in your lively debate here. You aren't alone. In fact you are in the vast majority in most circles, but it's certainly a very intolerant group on this board when it comes to religious discussions.
Why intolerant? Because we're asking someone to explain the logic behind their choices? That doesn't sound intolerant to me. Inconvenient, maybe, but not intolerant.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 8:22 a.m. GregTivo New Reader
Clay wrote:
SVreX, I just want to encourage you in your lively debate here. You aren't alone. In fact you are in the vast majority in most circles, but it's certainly a very intolerant group on this board when it comes to religious discussions.
I will point any open-minded person regarding Christianity to read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis if they want a well thought out logical explanation of the Christian worldview. It's nothing more than a series of radio addresses in England back during WWII that explains why Christianity is the most logical worldview to accept. Read it if you dare ;-)
Christianity's logical worldview not withstanding, I contend that CS Lewis was a hack, although as a child I certainly liked his books.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 8:22 a.m. GameboyRMH Dork
SVreX wrote: throngs of educated elite that run this country
LOL, there are few or no "educated elite" involved in the running of any country, especially not the states! Throngs of them? LOL! The only place you see that is colleges/universities.
Also for the record I'd like to say that there is no scientific evidence or argument for or against the existence of God, and there never could be (In the Bible the devil temps Jesus to jump off a cliff or something and prove that God exists by surviving, and Jesus replies that God cannot be tested. Different to the lighting of wet sticks with fire from the sky incident, but there you have it from the horse's mouth).
There are philosophical arguments for and against God. For arguments against, I'd point you again to numbers 42 and 20.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 8:24 a.m. GregTivo New Reader
GameboyRMH wrote:
SVreX wrote: throngs of educated elite that run this country
LOL, there are few or no "educated elite" involved in the running of any country, especially not the states! Throngs of them? LOL! The only place you see that is colleges/universities.
Of course, hordes maybe, a pack certainly, several definitely, a few absolutely, but throngs, impossible.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 8:47 a.m. rob_lewis Dork
Why is it that if I say I'm an atheist, most religious people tell me how they feel sorry for me and will "pray for my soul" and tell me how wrong my life is? I don't care whether they believe in something I don't, yet they go out of their way to make me feel like there's something wrong with me.
Why, if there is one true god, are there so many different religions to worship them (and not all are worshiping the same thing)?
Why, if the bible is absolute truth, doesn't every religion use it?
Why is it perfectly fine for a kid to bring "He Has Risen" and "God is Great" M&M's to school during Easter, but my son get's sent to the principle's office for saying "Oh my god!"
Why do "Christians" seem to discount one another religion's when, supposedly, they all work towards the same goal?
These are the questions I ask and why I feel the way I do. Why am I "intolerant" because I feel the way I do? Sounds like, to me, the others are intolerant because they cannot accept that I don't believe the way they do.
-Rob
-
Aug. 27, 2008 8:59 a.m. Jensenman UltimaDork
Duke wrote:
Clay wrote:
SVreX, I just want to encourage you in your lively debate here. You aren't alone. In fact you are in the vast majority in most circles, but it's certainly a very intolerant group on this board when it comes to religious discussions.
Why intolerant? Because we're asking someone to explain the logic behind their choices? That doesn't sound intolerant to me. Inconvenient, maybe, but not intolerant.
Isn't that odd?
The argument goes (and it's been used on me before), I believe in God. You do not believe in God, thus you do not believe as I do. It is now my job to win you over to my way of thinking. You refute my argument with your own, and I cannot dissuade you from your beliefs, no matter how rationally you present them. This means I cannot convince you to believe as I do. Since you cannot be swayed to my world view, you are intolerant.
I am sure there are atheists who use this 'reasoning' on the religious as well. It all comes back to the fact that people defy classification, we are each a composite of many different influences and experiences. Yet we all (or at least the vast majority of us) try to pigeonhole others. It makes our world views much simpler, sort of like it's easier to ascribe creation of the universe to an omnipotent being than to consider that the true origins may be even stranger.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 9:13 a.m. captainzib New Reader
jamscal wrote:
Some random thoughts:
-How do atheists view Love and other emotions?
Love is just synapses firing away in a logical sequence, right? Probably hard to explain that one to your parents, siblings, GF or wifey.
-James
Just one possible answer. "Nature", the scientist's God, wants all species to do what they must to survive. When the brain wants the c*ck to do its divining rod hustle, it sends chemicals throughout the body to tell a man that what would otherwise be more work than it's worth, is now, somehow, a good idea.
I pulled this one outta my ass without doing any fact checking, so any attempts by me to sound intelligent that result in fail are caused by trying to juggle forum time with work productivity shenanigans.
I'm beginning to wonder if procreating in general is a good idea in general in a world where analysts are predicting we'll be going to war for drinking water instead of oil in a matter of a generation or two.
*EDIT
I posted this before reading through all the other replies, and it seems Duke posted what I would have liked to say in better words.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 9:14 a.m. 16vCorey Dork
Clay wrote:
SVreX, I just want to encourage you in your lively debate here. You aren't alone. In fact you are in the vast majority in most circles, but it's certainly a very intolerant group on this board when it comes to religious discussions.
Where are you getting that this group is "intolerant"? I think just about everyone here is encouraging SVreX's response, and I'm among them. Just because I don't believe the same things that he does, I'm interested in his perspective, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 9:24 a.m. John Brown UltimaDork
I guess I am an athiest but I accept other peopls rights to believe in whatever they choose as long as it does not impede upon the ability to provide for my family and myself.
I think arguing religiosity, wether to prove or disprove religion is moot. It creates ignorance on both sides and no one can win.
If my belief or non belief in an all mighty eternal being is proven false then I will suffer or not suffer at the time that is appropriate. The incessant squabbling over whose idealism is correct has however created a situation that has caused a strain on my home life. The new religious wars are just an extension of the old religious wars. It must end, all of it, before the atheists decide to take control ;)
-
Aug. 27, 2008 9:25 a.m. Clay Reader
Looks like I hit a nerve in this tolerant discussion. The "intolerant" comment was referring to religious discussions, not anyone's opinion. I'm sure "religious" folks have to tolerate being referred to as intolerant quite a bit more than any atheist. I guess some folks do not tolerate being referred to as intolerant. ;-)
-
Aug. 27, 2008 9:29 a.m. captainzib New Reader
MitchellC wrote:
Okay, something I just thought of (and I'm sure I'm not the first):
What came first, the chicken or the egg? -The egg. Of the dinosaur.
I read an article a while back, too lazy to find it, but google it. Scientists, (I know, I'm being vague), have come to the conclusion that since eggs are essentially cells, and that according to evolution, one celled organisms evolved into multicellular organisms, the egg came first.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 9:46 a.m. captainzib New Reader
Clay wrote:
SVreX, I just want to encourage you in your lively debate here. You aren't alone. In fact you are in the vast majority in most circles, but it's certainly a very intolerant group on this board when it comes to religious discussions.
I will point any open-minded person regarding Christianity to read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis if they want a well thought out logical explanation of the Christian worldview. It's nothing more than a series of radio addresses in England back during WWII that explains why Christianity is the most logical worldview to accept. Read it if you dare ;-)
You should reconsider your definition of intolerant. To disagree is not to be intolerant.
For example, I disagree with someone who buys an SUV just so they can get from point A to B, but not people who buy those vehicles for their intended purpose. But I will not go douse that person's truck in gasoline and light it on fire based on my opinion.
I feel that most of the people on this board are the same way, (maybe not with SUVs), but surely with religion.
Like I said in my first post in this thread, I'm not gonna take directions from someone who's never been to where I'm going, nor am I gonna give directions when I've never been there either.
All I can say is, "We're going to the same place. Follow me if you want the company." I'm not gonna cry if I have to make the journey alone.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 9:50 a.m. John Brown UltimaDork
Here is one for you:
If you look on the relationships between protons, neutrons and the like all things are ever moving and have a tendency to rotate around an energy source.
Sound familiar?
Take millions of these energy sources and their spinning appendages and you could make a cell. Take millions of cells and you could make an ass. Take hundreds of asses and you could make world governments out of them. Take one dumbass running one of those governments and he will revert to using a device harnessing those neutrons end it all...
-
Aug. 27, 2008 10:53 a.m. Salanis Dork
I would also like to hear from SVRex on why he chose Christianity.
As for the "why not Christianity?", because there are myriad other established and respected religions. To use a car analogy: that's like saying "I bought a Camry," and having someone ask you "Why?" They're not saying there's anything wrong with a Camry, just wondering why you chose a Camry instead of a Civic or an F-150.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 11:11 a.m. MitchellC Reader
thatsnowinnebago wrote:
MitchellC wrote:
Okay, something I just thought of (and I'm sure I'm not the first):
What came first, the chicken or the egg? -The egg. Of the dinosaur.
False. It was the egg of the crazy ancient fish
If we're going further back, might as well start with the single-celled organism.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 12:14 p.m. aircooled Dork
Salanis wrote: I would also like to hear from SVRex on why he chose Christianity....
I would suspect there are very few people who actually choose their religion.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 12:22 p.m. Salanis Dork
aircooled wrote:
Salanis wrote: I would also like to hear from SVRex on why he chose Christianity....
I would suspect there are very few people who actually choose their religion.
If you go back through the posts, he stated that he was raised non-religious and that, after much thought/soul searching/et., decided that Christianity made the most sense to him and chose to follow that as his own faith.
Several of us are wondering what it was about Christianity that made him choose that as his core belief system. We are asking out of intellectual curiosity rather than antagonistic disbelief.
-
Aug. 27, 2008 12:25 p.m. captainzib New Reader
I don't think aircooled was calling SVRex a liar, just stating that he was probably not in the majority.
If I had to guess, I would say most people subscribe to whatever religion they were systematically brainwashed into from a young age.
