History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWhy believe in God?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
Author
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2009 at 22:03
I seems that more and more religious myths are being debunked by increased knowledge and science. That makes religious people inventing new myths or just put their heads in the sand and deny the scientific results (as the creationists do). Such things make their claims less and less believable and also makes the belief in divinty more questionable. If the myths doesn´t hold for any further scrutiny why should the claims of a divine being(s) do so?
Back to Top
Emperor Barbarossa View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2882
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emperor Barbarossa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Jun-2009 at 22:55
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Emperor Barbarossa wrote:


Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:


Regardless of the learning curve, how do the natural sciences reject divinity?


I think the fact that the natural sciences do not directly confirm and show that divinity is not necessary does not help divinity's claims. I mean, time after time natural science has replaced the absurd divine myths that man used to explain the world in ancient times.




The fact that natural sciences do not confirm divinity? That's what I'm trying to find out. How? So what you're saying is that because absurd divine myths have been replaced by natural sciences that means, in your assumption, there is no divinity? Please continue.

I'm not saying that the natural sciences reject divinity, just that they definitely do not confirm divinity. Is there the divine? I don't know, do ghosts exist in haunted houses? Do aliens exist? Has science anything to say about these things? The answer is no. Divinity is not science, just as aliens and ghosts aren't. Sure, not all mythologies have been replaced by the sciences, but many of them have. And there is a difference between looking at a natural scientific to a question and basically making one up and using the fact that the made up story cannot be proven false as evidence.

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 08:32
Originally posted by EB EB wrote:

Sure, some atheists like to think that we are some sort of club, but we are not. Alright, there are some trendy people who think atheism is the new "cool" fad. But the mainstay of us don't believe because we don't believe. We don't believe because God was never actually proven to us, He was taken for granted. We believed in God because our friends did, our families did, basically because we were taught to. Why complicate things? People believe in religions because they want answers to questions that mankind might never know the answers to.

Gooday EB! Great to see you again.
Yes, of course there are many simply non-religious people. I didn't mean to include them. Like an idea or religion, deciding who's in and who's out is a very hard task.

My point is that the behaviour of the atheist community and logic behind the atheism they practice, is just as religious as that of a religious community.
Of course there are slighly different rituals and manifestations, but the underlying behaviour is identical.

As to proof, there is enough proof to fill all the pages in the world. If you look for proof you will find it, if you demand proof you will not. The idea that Allah has never proven his existance is total rubbish.
You must also realise that an atheist, personally, doesn't have any proof for any (or most) of the measurements he may believe in instead of God. He simply believes that someone in the scientific community has the proof.

Athesim is a faith based religion (or pseudo-religion at the very least). That's my point.
Quote You have to be joking when calling Darwin a religious prophet, or the Galapagos a pilgrimage. Darwin was a brilliant scientist first, and never actually wrote a book about religion. But he did write two great books about science.

That's just fact. I'm talking public perception. If Darwin was just a scientist in peoples minds, he'd have the same reputation of Plant or Rutherford, or at the very most Einstien.
People (athesits & anti-atheists) ascribe things to Darwin that are not true, and argue over his example (dare I say his sunna?). For example, people - even on this board in previous years - have argued over Darwin's religious beliefs. As if that has anything to do with biology! Darwin is mentioned more in discussions about religion than in discussions about biology.
Quote Most of us really do not care what other people believe, and unlike other systems of belief (or for this one, the lack thereof), we are not starting wars over it.

Bullshit. Athesits are the number one evangelisers in my experience. Christians wish (literally often) they could prosetylise like atheists.
Originally posted by CXI CXI wrote:

I think most people fail to grasp the basics in most, because most people don't care enough to investigate either option.

You are incorrect in your second praragraph though. I never made any assumption about intelligence. The key word there was convenient: it is simply more convenient and easy to go along with a book you can read in under a week than spend many years taking the classes, exams and practical experiments in the natural sciences which refute claims of the existence of a divinity.

That is true, excepting that the convenience is to go along with the majority opinion in the circles you mix in. It is not more convenient to believe in God in a society of atheists or vice versa. You will be forced to defend you beliefs to an extent that the intellectual convenience is definitely with the majority (Trust me. I know! I've been living this most of my life)
Originally posted by CXI CXI wrote:


Please explain how Dawkins is equivalent to a priest. I disagree that he is the equivalent to one.

A preacher or a scholar is probably more accurate. He advocates his religious views, and sets the norm for his religious community. He wrote a religious book, which people read for religious inspriation (or arguments against his religion).
Quote
Please name them. I certainly can't think of any enforced duties that I am required to undertake. I disagree here.

Funding research.
In Australia the people and the government spend huge amounts of money into funding research into science and technology, however, when there is a result from that research suddenly neither the government or the people give a damn. So if they aren't interested in the results, why the hell are the funding the research in the first place?
Because having good science is pious, having good industry is secular. So they fund research but don't actually care, or even actively prevent, anything coming out of that research funding. I can name examples if you wish.

Another duty is to the medical industry. People believe science favours alopathy, and are prepared to fund it and use it even for conditions that it is not suited for. They aren't interested in what gives results, in fact they are prepared to fund medical research into diseases (like ADHD) that we know how to cure.
That is not results based behaviour, that is religious behaviour.
Quote But in a way comparable to a force which permeates the whole of society and dictates what we eat, who/when/where/how of the sex we have, our personal hygiene? As a force which dictates and justifies the type of government we have?

Yes absolutely. Why do you think every beauty product ad mentions "science" and some "scientific ingredients".
Quote unite or inflict fear on people in a way comparable to theist belief systems.

! I take it you've been paying attention the last 8 years? They [Greater Athesits] unite and inflict fear the instant they think another religion is challenging their dominance. (Just like everyone else)

I think I've already answered the middle of your post when replying to EB.
Quote I studied Lamarck's theory, and while it would appear logical to a 19th century mind it does not stand up to what we know about DNA sequencing, mutations and the genome of species. Darwin's theory, on the other hand, complements our 20th century understanding of the role of the genome beautifully. So what if Lamarck's less convincing theory is less well known.

Well actually that completely reinforces my point about convenience, and the point that people ascribe incorrect things to Darwin.

In terms of the measurements we have made, actually, Lamarck's theory is superior. Not Darwins. That's been true since 1978. Its religious devotion, not science, that keeps Darwinism alive. Its convenient not to actually research and keep up things. It is simply more convenient and easy to go along with a book you can read in under a week.

(Actually it is impossible for any person to fully research everything. Its not really a matter of conveinence, we are limited by our intelligence and time, and have to, at some point, resort to faith)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2445180.htm
Originally posted by Menumorut Menumorut wrote:

Religions and the atheist doctrine are all belief systems. Religious people believe in what they don't see, atheists believe only in what they can touch.
They don't, that's my point. They just choose the believe one set of preists over another.
Originally posted by CXI CXI wrote:

No, we do not need an us vs. them complex for this to work. You want to create stable family units which are cohesive households (easier to tax in ancient times) - tell people god will kill them for adultery. Your enemies are attacking you and you can't raise the cash to equip an army - tell people they will go to heaven if they die fighting for a god given mission. You want to remain in power even though you are a languid and unattractive ruler - tell people that god put you there and defying you means also defying the divine.

As I said to Northman in the other thread. The idea that the powerful enforce and create religion is only true for a very narrow historical and geographic area. Globally, there is no correlation between religious laws and states interests.
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

No its not. I'm not a scientist, and I cannot properly discuss science with people who know it, who work with it or study it. I suppose in a way this does make me a 'believer' in science as opposed to someone who truly understands it.

That last sentence is exactly what I meant.
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

I simply stated that enviromentalism is heavily atheist or agnsotic.

I don't think that's true.
Originally posted by EB EB wrote:


Faith in science is about the same faith as the faith in my senses. When you can sense something, it's not faith, it's real, it's tangible, it's there.

No its not. Its faith in an idea, represented by an institution you probably can't even identify, comprised of arguing and disagreeing individuals, who use their own intelligence (or lack there of) to make a theory from measurements they got by overcoming the limitations of their senses, or often, by ignoring the measurements of individuals that don't fit their theory.
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

I seems that more and more religious myths are being debunked by increased knowledge and science.

That just means you don't know your religions well enough. Don't make the mistake in thinking that religion means narrow fundamentalist Christianity.

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 07-Jun-2009 at 08:40
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 08:33
Originally posted by EB EB wrote:

I'm not saying that the natural sciences reject divinity, just that they definitely do not confirm divinity. Is there the divine? I don't know, do ghosts exist in haunted houses? Do aliens exist? Has science anything to say about these things? The answer is no. Divinity is not science, just as aliens and ghosts aren't.

Ah good, I was hoping someone would say that. In the words of penguin, why not believe in God?

Lets analyse the risk.
If you believe in God, and are wrong
You die, nothing happens.
If you don't believe in God, and are wrong
You die, get judged, and don't have a resume as good as it could've been. You risk eternal damnation.

In terms of a cost-benefit analysis it makes sense therefore to believe in God, and follow the rules of whichever religion you think is most likely. If you are wrong and there is no God you've lost nothing, if you are right you might just increase your chances of a better afterlife.
You may not be the best of believers, but you may get some benefit out of adhering. You have nothing to loose, and plenty to gain. If you really do believe in the value of logic, maths, and science. You'd go down to your nearest mosque and convert tomorrow.

Why believe in God?
Because the gain of believing is something/nothing = infinite.
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 10:23
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Ah good, I was hoping someone would say that. In the words of penguin, why not believe in God?

Lets analyse the risk.
If you believe in God, and are wrong
You die, nothing happens.
If you don't believe in God, and are wrong
You die, get judged, and don't have a resume as good as it could've been. You risk eternal damnation.

In terms of a cost-benefit analysis it makes sense therefore to believe in God, and follow the rules of whichever religion you think is most likely. If you are wrong and there is no God you've lost nothing, if you are right you might just increase your chances of a better afterlife.
You may not be the best of believers, but you may get some benefit out of adhering. You have nothing to loose, and plenty to gain. If you really do believe in the value of logic, maths, and science. You'd go down to your nearest mosque and convert tomorrow.

Why believe in God?
Because the gain of believing is something/nothing = infinite.
 
Why believe in somethings whos existence in no sence is proven? Whats makes people think that there are such a thing when nothing (no tangible evidence whatsoever) supports such a belief? Maybe religious belief is a phsycological mechanism for holding groups together but that doesn´t make religious statements true.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Lets analyse the risk.
If you believe in God, and are wrong
You die, nothing happens.
If you don't believe in God, and are wrong
You die, get judged, and don't have a resume as good as it could've been. You risk eternal damnation.
 
These so called risks are just a part of the power propaganda and scare tactics that are used by priesthood and leaders to scare and intimidate people so they will stay loyal and not question anything. Such scare tactics doesn´t provide any real tangible reasons to believe in God(s).


Edited by Carcharodon - 07-Jun-2009 at 10:24
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 10:56
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

My point is that the behaviour of the atheist community and logic behind the atheism they practice, is just as religious as that of a religious community.
Of course there are slighly different rituals and manifestations, but the underlying behaviour is identical.
 
There is no organized atheist community. There are atheistic individuals but they have nothing more in common with each other than the fact they don´t believe in God.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


As to proof, there is enough proof to fill all the pages in the world. If you look for proof you will find it, if you demand proof you will not. The idea that Allah has never proven his existance is total rubbish.
 
The idea that Allah (or any other God) in any sence have proven his existence is total rubbish.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 You must also realise that an atheist, personally, doesn't have any proof for any (or most) of the measurements he may believe in instead of God. He simply believes that someone in the scientific community has the proof.
 
Some atheists are in fact scientists who in their daily work has participated in gaining knowledge that helped in debunking religious myths.
There is no single phenomena that needs a God to be explained. There are of course unknown phenomena in the world but history has learned us that many earlier unknown phenomena have been posssible to explain. That gives us hope that todays unknown and unexplicable phenomena also one day will be possible to understand without resorting to God(s).

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

t's just fact. I'm talking public perception. If Darwin was just a scientist in peoples minds, he'd have the same reputation of Plant or Rutherford, or at the very most Einstien.
People (athesits & anti-atheists) ascribe things to Darwin that are not true, and argue over his example (dare I say his sunna?). For example, people - even on this board in previous years - have argued over Darwin's religious beliefs. As if that has anything to do with biology! Darwin is mentioned more in discussions about religion than in discussions about biology.
 
The high esteem that many scientists hold for Darwin is that he discovered a good, working explanation for many phenomena in the biological world that earlier thinkers (including the religious ones) were unable to understand. His explanations have also been reaffirmed over and over again by newer evidence. This is ofcourse a threat against some religious people who see their mythology and image of themselves falling apart. It is mostly they who drag Darwin into religious discussions.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

  Funding research.
In Australia the people and the government spend huge amounts of money into funding research into science and technology, however, when there is a result from that research suddenly neither the government or the people give a damn.
 
The knowledge gained by science can sometimes be rather hard to understand and sometimes it´s immediate use can bee hard to see. Experience, though,  teach us that sooner or later such knowledge becomes useful.



Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

  That just means you don't know your religions well enough. Don't make the mistake in thinking that religion means narrow fundamentalist Christianity.
 
Ofcourse that goes for other religions too.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 11:51
For the evidence of all other readers I present Carcharodon. His last two posts clearly demonstrate pure - fundamentalist even - religious thinking, demonstrated by the fact that he apparently thinks that simply stating his religious position he is going to convince me of flaws in my argument. His argument demonstrates that he is ignorant not only of religious thinking, but also of analytical thinking and scientific knowledge.
The best demonstration of this is his scientific defence of Darwinism, without even attempting to address my information about meta-Lamarckism. (Did you even read it I wonder?)

Seriously Carcharodon, you didn't apply your reason when you replied to my post. Instead you just read out of the textbook of atheism (as if I hadn't heard all of your arguments thousands of times before). When you actually think about what I said, I'll give you your reply. Otherwise I don't see any point in replying to you if you are going to give me pre-conceived religious answers. If I wanted them I'd read a book.

Just accept this: atheists aren't superior people because of their beliefs. That's what I always get out of these discussions, atheists act as if religion is an inferior evolutionary stage that they have transcended, without realising that they are identical to all other humans in their capacities, and their abilities to make right decisions


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 07-Jun-2009 at 11:56
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 12:51
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

For the evidence of all other readers I present Carcharodon. His last two posts clearly demonstrate pure - fundamentalist even - religious thinking, demonstrated by the fact that he apparently thinks that simply stating his religious position he is going to convince me of flaws in my argument. His argument demonstrates that he is ignorant not only of religious thinking, but also of analytical thinking and scientific knowledge.
The best demonstration of this is his scientific defence of Darwinism, without even attempting to address my information about meta-Lamarckism. (Did you even read it I wonder?)


Now, Omar; if he read everything ignorant theists such as you and I posted, he wouldn't have any time to study his scriptures, so leave him be. After all, I'm still waiting for an exegetical analysis of Dawkin's book -- we have plenty on Darwin's work already -- and I'm curious to see what hermeneutic is applied. Wink

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

The high esteem that many scientists hold for Darwin is that he discovered a good, working explanation for many phenomena in the biological world that earlier thinkers (including the religious ones) were unable to understand. His explanations have also been reaffirmed over and over again by newer evidence. This is ofcourse a threat against some religious people who see their mythology and image of themselves falling apart. It is mostly they who drag Darwin into religious discussions.


Hm. I could've sworn I noticed people commemorating the man's birthday this year, and in terms that any saint would have been proud -- or mortified, given their humility -- to own, but I might have been mistaken. Wink Come to think of it, I'm not sure Darwin would have been all that happy with the semi-religious devotion people have to his work these days but, once again, I might be mistaken. It has been known to happen.

And yes, there are many who view his work as just another breakthrough in our scientific understanding of the world around us, both theists and atheists. The type of people we are referring to are those who view him as something more. When you develop a cult of sainthood around anyone, you have a religion.

As for who drags Darwin anymore, it depends -- like so much else -- on whom you happen to be having a conversation with, and what you are conversing about. Here it was Omar, to establish what I view as a valid analogy. In many other threads on this forum, in many others, and in daily conversations around the world he has been brought into a variety of discussions by a great number of individuals of various theological and philosophical persuasions. Part of the reasn for this is the revolutionary nature of the mans work, and part of it is the rather emotional time we've had fleshing out what it means for us on a cosmological level -- which is a worthy task, to be sure.

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Emperor Barbarossa wrote:

I'm not saying that the natural sciences reject divinity, just that they definitely do not confirm divinity. Is there the divine? I don't know, do ghosts exist in haunted houses? Do aliens exist? Has science anything to say about these things? The answer is no. Divinity is not science, just as aliens and ghosts aren't. Sure, not all mythologies have been replaced by the sciences, but many of them have. And there is a difference between looking at a natural scientific to a question and basically making one up and using the fact that the made up story cannot be proven false as evidence.


I'm with you entirely until the last part, and partially even there. I would say that what you term "made up stories", while they cannot be proven true or false, may be supported or left unsupported by an examination of the world around us. Part of the reason I adhere to Christian doctrine is that I feel it accounts for so much more of reality on a metaphysical and cosmological level than anything else. I'm sure Omar and es_bih would say the same. While our conclusions are not the same, the underlying methodology is. There are many who do not approach the various faith traditions in this way, just as there are many who do not approach the scientific tradition in this way; so much of life, due to the limited nature of our time here, must be taken on faith. Much of it may be supported --some, even quantified -- in various ways for those who wish to take the time. The methods of validation are often different, but the basic principle carries throughout.

-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 13:01
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

For the evidence of all other readers I present Carcharodon. His last two posts clearly demonstrate pure - fundamentalist even - religious thinking, demonstrated by the fact that he apparently thinks that simply stating his religious position he is going to convince me of flaws in my argument. His argument demonstrates that he is ignorant not only of religious thinking, but also of analytical thinking and scientific knowledge.
 
It seems that you react similar to many other religious people when their belives are questioned, with recentment and anger. Talking about fundamentalism.
 

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

  The best demonstration of this is his scientific defence of Darwinism, without even attempting to address my information about meta-Lamarckism. (Did you even read it I wonder?)
 
Why can I not defend a scientific knowledge that again and again has proven it´s value? It seems that we still live in a world where reason and proof always must be defended against people not trained in the scienes but still with a lot of opinions about scientific results (as for example the results of evolutionary research).


Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

  Just accept this: atheists aren't superior people because of their beliefs. That's what I always get out of these discussions, atheists act as if religion is an inferior evolutionary stage that they have transcended, without realising that they are identical to all other humans in their capacities, and their abilities to make right decisions
 
Noone said anything about superior, maybe they just got a somewhat more critical approach to things than many religious people have.
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 13:40
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Lets analyse the risk.
If you believe in God, and are wrong
You die, nothing happens.
If you don't believe in God, and are wrong
You die, get judged, and don't have a resume as good as it could've been. You risk eternal damnation.
Pascal's wager mistates the position, because it depends on which God you are talking about..
 
If you believe in the Aztec god and the Christian one[1] is true, you face eternal damnation.
If you don't believe in any god and the Christian one[1] is true, you face a rather pleasant sounding eternity after death
If you believe in the Christian one, and the Zoroastrians are correct, then you're in trouble, and you could be in worse trouble if the Muslims[2] are true.
 
And so on.
[1] Well, several of the ones claimed to be Christian.
[2] Well, several of the various groups of Muslim believers.
 
On the other hand, whether you turn out to be right or wrong, if you've modelled your behaviour on giving primacy to helping other people, you in general have the best chance of getting away with things no matter who is right, and at least you'll have a clear conscience.
 
Best bet: take the Roman/Greek attitude and try and avoid offending anyone's god(s).
Quote
If you really do believe in the value of logic, maths, and science. You'd go down to your nearest mosque and convert tomorrow.
Nothing in what you said leads to that conclusion. In fact when Pascal originally formulated the wager, he came to rather the opposite conclusion. Putting all your eggs in an Islamic basket is no more justified by the wager than putting all your eggs in a Christian basket, or any other.
Anyway, you can't just choose to believe. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 13:42
Quote Gcle
I doub t that is justified. Drop the capital G and add an 's' and you'd have a better chance. Make it 'people have always believed in supernatural beings and always will' and you'd be really close.


It usually always started with one God, even some of the oldest shamanist and animist have the God of Gods, the supreme deity who created everything. For example Hinduism was likely originally a monotheist religion and the other deities were aspects of God in easier to understand portions.

Quote
Possibly, but it doesn't answer the question. To a non-believer that isn't true, so why should he change his mind?


I just wrote what a believer perceives, believers and non-believers are the same, to not believe is a belief. A believer accepts everything to be a creation of God and life, nature the planet etc all to be miracles of the creator, a non believer believes the opposite.

Both are beliefs, infact atheism is a religion, there is no "proof" that God doesnt exist so to believe so is a belief.

      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Hypocrisy View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 31-May-2009
Location: Smyrna
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hypocrisy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 13:46
Religion was an indispensable guide to lecture people about what lies ahead of them back in the day. But its era has already passed away. People are able to reach pertinent answers which puzzle out their problem easily, of course, through the aid of science.

Religion is mostly substituted for manipulation of the bigoted masses nowadays. The notion of a lofty power or simply god which leads the system that consists of an organic loop and interactions amongst the living beings doesn't dazzle people anymore.

I see a sickening harm in letting religion flourish as is, since it has a tremendous influence upon the majority. Otherwise, we ought to trace back why it is used as a route to hegemony in order to settle issues with religion.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Just accept this: atheists aren't superior people because of their beliefs. That's what I always get out of these discussions, atheists act as if religion is an inferior evolutionary stage that they have transcended, without realising that they are identical to all other humans in their capacities, and their abilities to make right decisions


You're right. Atheists must give up acting as if they are pre-eminent imbeciles. As the fundamentalists keep debating over the issues (For instance, the abortion, the gay rights and/or the death penalty) that have been contemplated by less theist individuals way before, atheists have a right to look down on them.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 14:16
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:



I just wrote what a believer perceives, believers and non-believers are the same, to not believe is a belief. A believer accepts everything to be a creation of God and life, nature the planet etc all to be miracles of the creator, a non believer believes the opposite.

Both are beliefs, infact atheism is a religion, there is no "proof" that God doesnt exist so to believe so is a belief.
 
Isn´t it so that the burden of proof falls on the one claiming the existence of something? If you say that there is a unicorn in your garden then it is upon you to proove it´s there. It´s not up to me to proove it´s not there. So if I don´t see any reason just to believe in your words that doesn´t make my doubts a religion or a belief.
Back to Top
Emperor Barbarossa View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2882
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emperor Barbarossa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 14:27
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


As to proof, there is enough proof to fill all the pages in the world. If you look for proof you will find it, if you demand proof you will not. The idea that Allah has never proven his existance is total rubbish.
You must also realise that an atheist, personally, doesn't have any proof for any (or most) of the measurements he may believe in instead of God. He simply believes that someone in the scientific community has the proof.

Athesim is a faith based religion (or pseudo-religion at the very least). That's my point.


There is enough proof to fill all of the pages in the world? Then why does not Allah not actually show himself? How can Allah, or any Abrahamic god exist whenever they willingly send people to hell through not revealing themselves? They are all omni-benevolent right? Atheism is not a faith based religion because atheism lacks faith, and religion for that matter. Atheism is formed from the lack of faith in gods, not the faith in them.

Originally posted by Omar al Hasim Omar al Hasim wrote:

]
That's just fact. I'm talking public perception. If Darwin was just a scientist in peoples minds, he'd have the same reputation of Plant or Rutherford, or at the very most Einstien.
People (athesits & anti-atheists) ascribe things to Darwin that are not true, and argue over his example (dare I say his sunna?). For example, people - even on this board in previous years - have argued over Darwin's religious beliefs. As if that has anything to do with biology! Darwin is mentioned more in discussions about religion than in discussions about biology.


Why is Darwin mentioned so much in discussions about religion? Were the atheists of his time so intrigued by the lack of religion in his books. No, the religious people of his time were outraged at this, and even made up a story that he recanted on his death bed. If anything, it is the fault of religion that Darwin is always brought up more in religious debates than in scientific ones.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Bullshit. Athesits are the number one evangelisers in my experience. Christians wish (literally often) they could prosetylise like atheists.


Because we atheists have a growing number of converts from Africa. Oh, wait, that's Catholics in Africa. Besides, atheists don't argue because we want to convert you, we argue just to argue. We argue to sharpen our own arguments and debating skills. How many atheists do you see on the streets shouting "There is no God" and "Convert or there shall be punishment!"? I have never seen any. However, when I was in New York, a Jamaican woman told me that Jesus loves me, and I faked Christian because I didn't feel like getting into a long, drawn out, and pointless argument. Now, if I was one of the "religious" atheists, which I don't think represent a substantial number of non-believers, I would have sat there and tried to "convert" her over to my "religion." But, I didn't. I had better things to do. And I think a majority of atheists would have done the same in my situation.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


I take it you've been paying attention the last 8 years? They [Greater Athesits] unite and inflict fear the instant they think another religion is challenging their dominance. (Just like everyone else)


Examples? The Greater Atheists inflicting fear on religions? Who are we talking about? Trendy groups of emos and goths who associate godlessness with Satan? Please explain, because I have never come across this.

Originally posted by Omar al Hasim Omar al Hasim wrote:


No its not. Its faith in an idea, represented by an institution you probably can't even identify, comprised of arguing and disagreeing individuals, who use their own intelligence (or lack there of) to make a theory from measurements they got by overcoming the limitations of their senses, or often, by ignoring the measurements of individuals that don't fit their theory.


But for many scientific concepts, such as gravity, I have already observed. I do not have a faith in these concepts because I have seen them work. Faith is not believing something, it's believing something with no proof for it. If you have proof, you don't need faith to believe something. If you don't have proof, then you need faith. Take religion. I have come across times where religious have told me that in the end that they cannot prove their gods using reason, but that they can only get so far with reason and they must take the "leap of faith" to believe. Science is nothing like this. Science has been observed, tested, and can always be brought back again to show proof for things. There are no leaps of faith in science, only observable truths.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Ah good, I was hoping someone would say that. In the words of penguin, why not believe in God?

Lets analyse the risk.
If you believe in God, and are wrong
You die, nothing happens.
If you don't believe in God, and are wrong
You die, get judged, and don't have a resume as good as it could've been. You risk eternal damnation.

In terms of a cost-benefit analysis it makes sense therefore to believe in God, and follow the rules of whichever religion you think is most likely. If you are wrong and there is no God you've lost nothing, if you are right you might just increase your chances of a better afterlife.
You may not be the best of believers, but you may get some benefit out of adhering. You have nothing to loose, and plenty to gain. If you really do believe in the value of logic, maths, and science. You'd go down to your nearest mosque and convert tomorrow.

Why believe in God?
Because the gain of believing is something/nothing = infinite.


I know, Pascal's wager. Problems with it are: 1) If you believe in a god just to get into heaven, then he will send you to hell anyways. 2) Since none of this has been proven, why should I even care? Eternal damnation cannot be proven since nobody has been able to come back from it.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Just accept this: atheists aren't superior people because of their beliefs. That's what I always get out of these discussions, atheists act as if religion is an inferior evolutionary stage that they have transcended, without realising that they are identical to all other humans in their capacities, and their abilities to make right decisions


I agree, though I don't see many atheists with a superiority complex (I have seen some, but also some religious people with the same attitude). Sure, I think I'm right, but I don't I think I'm superior to you Omar. I don't think religion is some sort of "selection" for intelligence. There are unintelligent people on every side of the debate. I don't think anyone in this thread is one of those people. However, atheists usually tend to be represented higher than they should be in universities. That's all I'm saying. Does that mean atheists are smarter than religious people? No, it just means that some very intelligent people are atheist.

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:


I'm with you entirely until the last part, and partially even there. I would say that what you term "made up stories", while they cannot be proven true or false, may be supported or left unsupported by an examination of the world around us. Part of the reason I adhere to Christian doctrine is that I feel it accounts for so much more of reality on a metaphysical and cosmological level than anything else. I'm sure Omar and es_bih would say the same. While our conclusions are not the same, the underlying methodology is. There are many who do not approach the various faith traditions in this way, just as there are many who do not approach the scientific tradition in this way; so much of life, due to the limited nature of our time here, must be taken on faith. Much of it may be supported --some, even quantified -- in various ways for those who wish to take the time. The methods of validation are often different, but the basic principle carries throughout.


When I said "made up stories" I am sort of equating say, the Native American myth of the World on the Turtle's Back to the creation myth of Christianity. Both were made up, could be true, but probably aren't. I see what you are saying though. Science is sort of like this, but the original theory is tested to see if it is true, and if it is not, then it is discarded.


Edited by Emperor Barbarossa - 07-Jun-2009 at 14:28

Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 14:50
Quote Carcharodon
Isn´t it so that the burden of proof falls on the one claiming the existence of something? If you say that there is a unicorn in your garden then it is upon you to proove it´s there. It´s not up to me to proove it´s not there. So if I don´t see any reason just to believe in your words that doesn´t make my doubts a religion or a belief.


Religion is faith, a believer believes, a non believer chooses not to believe, as neither can be or has been scientifically proven the believer and non-believer are in the same category.

To "not" believe is a belief, to be indifferent and open to the possibility of either is having an open mind, something some atheists have a hard time understanding.



      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 15:44
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

Religion is faith, a believer believes, a non believer chooses not to believe, as neither can be or has been scientifically proven the believer and non-believer are in the same category.

To "not" believe is a belief, to be indifferent and open to the possibility of either is having an open mind, something some atheists have a hard time understanding.
 
It is okay to be open to reality but it´s no point in believe in a lot of lose claims just because someone articulates them.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8682
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 16:22
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Emperor Barbarossa wrote:

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Emperor Barbarossa wrote:


Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:


Regardless of the learning curve, how do the natural sciences reject divinity?


I think the fact that the natural sciences do not directly confirm and show that divinity is not necessary does not help divinity's claims. I mean, time after time natural science has replaced the absurd divine myths that man used to explain the world in ancient times.




The fact that natural sciences do not confirm divinity? That's what I'm trying to find out. How? So what you're saying is that because absurd divine myths have been replaced by natural sciences that means, in your assumption, there is no divinity? Please continue.

I'm not saying that the natural sciences reject divinity, just that they definitely do not confirm divinity. Is there the divine? I don't know, do ghosts exist in haunted houses? Do aliens exist? Has science anything to say about these things? The answer is no. Divinity is not science, just as aliens and ghosts aren't. Sure, not all mythologies have been replaced by the sciences, but many of them have. And there is a difference between looking at a natural scientific to a question and basically making one up and using the fact that the made up story cannot be proven false as evidence.


I get it. Confirmation is key. Good to know that cause we wouldn't want to wander aimlessly thinking that life has no puzzles, direction or meaning, until our intelligence has gathered certainty. Since some (even many) myths have been supplanted by scientific theory and proofs (which I certainly believe by-the-way), what happens if a myth, story or prophesy holds true? Are they void of impact or held in high scientific esteem? For there surely are many religious statements and predictions that held true. Remember my first question? How do natural sciences reject divinity?  Where is the so-called proof of reputing divinity? Is it by refuting religious myths and then making generalizations that if one fails under duress that the rest (myths) must fail, even when some were proven true?
Copyright 2004 Seko
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 17:16
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

For there surely are many religious statements and predictions that held true. Remember my first question? How do natural sciences reject divinity?  Where is the so-called proof of reputing divinity? Is it by refuting religious myths and then making generalizations that if one fails under duress that the rest (myths) must fail, even when some were proven true?
 
There are no religious myths that holds true in such a way that they prove any existence of gods or other supernatural beings. Some religious myths have some ground in historical events, that actually happened, but the supernatural interpretation of those events are wrong.
Back to Top
Emperor Barbarossa View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2882
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emperor Barbarossa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 19:06
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:


I get it. Confirmation is key. Good to know that cause we wouldn't want to wander aimlessly thinking that life has no puzzles, direction or meaning, until our intelligence has gathered certainty. Since some (even many) myths have been supplanted by scientific theory and proofs (which I certainly believe by-the-way), what happens if a myth, story or prophesy holds true? Are they void of impact or held in high scientific esteem? For there surely are many religious statements and predictions that held true. Remember my first question? How do natural sciences reject divinity?  Where is the so-called proof of reputing divinity? Is it by refuting religious myths and then making generalizations that if one fails under duress that the rest (myths) must fail, even when some were proven true?


I don't disagree with you that science does not completely refute divinity, at least not yet. But what I, and some other people in this thread, are saying, is that just because science does not answer the question does not mean that the divine answer for it is true.

Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 19:12
The existence of God cann't be proven in scientitical manner as atheists expect.

You need to pray, to ask Him with humbleness.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.