Al-a-cartism

JimiTime

rockbeer wrote:

But you don't need god for these things. Most atheists I know are highly moral beings. And whether or not you achieve a higher moral plane through your faith has no bearing whatsoever on its truth.

I didn't say it had. Indeed I know many non-believers who are moral people. Again though, Love thy neighbour is the part that I don't think I would strive for without seeing Christs example. As I said, when you think about what it actually means, it is a huge task. Its not, 'don't harm or hassle your neighbour', its 'love' your neighbour.

But again this has no bearing on the truth of your beliefs. You are still the same person in the same universe, regardless of whether or not god actually exists.

Well obviously, from my perspective, I wouldn't exist if God didn't.

Why do you have to have 'faith' in anything? You assume that as an atheist you would have to replace your faith in god with faith in something else, which suggests to me that it is faith itself which matters to you. Large numbers of atheists live perfectly fulfilling and moral lives despite having nothing you would describe as 'faith'.

Ok, a belief that man can live without God. I don't believe man can. Also, leaving my faith in God, is actually putting faith in mankind as it means I trust that people like yourself are right in saying that God doesn't exist. I would be putting faith in the people who argue that god doesn't exist. Now seeing how I don't view the god of the bible as you do, it would be alot harder to show me God does not exist, so I'd have top have faith that the evidence you show me is trustworthy. I have to trust the methods of man.

I don't disagree with much in your bleak analysis of humanity. But what is god doing to improve any of this?

He's already done it. If you believe in God, you know that he created us to live forever. However, when Adam, after being told by God he'd die if he did it, ate from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, man seperated himself from God. He then set about putting it right, and sent his only begotten son as a ransom for all of mankind. One perfect man for another. Jesus was that man, and he fulfilled Gods promise. So now, I look forward to the second part of that promise, I.E. Revelation 21:

3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
5He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."
6He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

On the contrary, as according to you we are his creations, surely he bears the ultimate responsibility for the horrors you depict.

This is reasoning I don't get. He has given us the capacity to choose. Making us in his image, he gave us the capacity to love. However, giving us the gift of love, or the capacity for it, means that we must have free will. Free will in turn can be abused to do badness. By saying God is responsible for us abusing our free will means that you must give up the capacity to love. Free will is a fault in our design per-se. However, God knows that there are those of us that want this gift, and realise its relevance in relation to love. Those people also accept and know that God loves us, and to stick by him means happiness. he could have made us automatonic or purely instictive. However, I for one, am delighted he gave us the capacity to love, even if it means that some abuse the gift that allows it. He will judge accordingly.

Also, I must point out that religion and religious conflict is at the heart of much of the bleakness you depict. I don't blame religion per sé - humans are quite capable of committing horrors with or without it - but it strikes me that if you condone faith as a concept then you also condone the horrors that result directly from it. As the man said, for good people to do bad things takes religion.

If you condone technology and science, you condone the horrors that result from it. This is nonsense to me. I am not speaking for religion. I'm speaking for me, and my relationship with God. People to awful things in the name of religion. People to awful things in the name of Jesus. To me its totally irrelevant though. Its like saying, science is responsible for the atomic bomb. I would say that atomic discovery was a marvelous thing, but it was abused by man to make the most hideous killing machine known. There is a pattern here.

Did you ever consider who created the creator? Why can you accept the spontaneous existence of god without apparent difficulty, yet baulk at the idea of the long slow evolution of complex lifeforms without any supernatural involvement?

Its easier to fathom God, because if God exists, then all science as we know it is created. We just know what we are allowed to know. From a scientific point of view, if there is no creator, then there must be a start. We see things from a time and matter perspective. If these are created things, then we can understand that we are limited in our knowledge. Science cannot explain how the big ball of cosmic dust that went bang came about, and its unlikely they ever will. Its accepted that its highly unlikely you'll ever know. All the evidence science has for our natural history, but it can't answer that fundamental question, 'how did that ball of cosmic dust come to be?'. Now believing in God, you know that its all creation, and thus we are living within a created universe, and are limited to observing the created.

No more than I can entertain the existence of a being complex enough to create a universe with no explanation or evidence for that being's existence.

Personally I think the very fact that we are here is evidence enough that we were created.

And even if there does turn out to be a creator after all, I cannot entertain that such a being, with infinity and the entire universe to contend with, could under any circumstances be the god of the bible, who is manifestly created in our image. The limits on our horizons imposed by that deity are frightening to contemplate - the universe is so much more wonderful than that little god and his obsession with petty human morality and behaviour. It simply doesn't add up to me that a god who could create this amazing universe would have deliberately created such flawed inhabitants for it. Was he having a laugh? Or was he just a bit off form that day??

Again, what is the flaw?

You've got to admit that although your god made a kind of sense back in the bronze age when almost nothing was known beyond our physical environment, he has become an embarrassing anachronism as we discover how vast and extraordinary the universe actually is. God badly needs an overhaul, and therein lies your problem.

therein lie's your problem. I don't share your view, so I don't have a problem.

What evidence do you have for the existence of your god?

Again, the fact that we're here is evidence enough for me that there is a creator. As for how do I know that the God of the bible is the true one. Well, again, it begins with the fact that we are created beings. Divinity is shown by the fulfilled prophesies of the book of Daniel. The fulfillment of the prophesy of the birth and death of Jesus Christ. That is the 'evidence' that convinced me.

Improbable, yes, but not prohibitively so, and certainly much less so than the existence of god. To believe otherwise demonstrates a lack of understanding of evolution.

Improbable is what you said the chances are of me just being born into the belief of the true God, so both are paths are mathematically improbable according to you.

Are you saying you don't believe in evolution?

Its really of no consequence to me. I don't believe it, but I don't categorically deny it. Its not of great importance to my Faith.

But you don't look at all the horrors you portrayed earlier and conclude that he hates us on the same grounds? That in itself is selective interpretation of the most mind-boggling kind.

No, not at all. You've already mentioned how spectacular the universe is, from the tiniest cell to the biggest planet. Why would a God that hates us waste his time on such an elaborate plot? Why would he send his Son to redeem us? Why would he give us the capacity to love? Its not selective, its just sensical.

You are not reasoning from the evidence, you are selecting the evidence to suit your hypothesis. You have already decided that god both exists and is loving, therefore you identify all the positive aspects of life as evidence of this position while dismissing the negative aspects as symptoms of our own personal failings. On what grounds are you so selective? Why not ascribe the positive to us and the negative to god?

I haven't been selecting the evidence to suit some hypothesis I have. Its this simple: We are educated in the bible as to what happened to mankind. I see nothing to indicate that its all Gods fault. I see much to indicate that its Mans fault though.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but the point is you cannot be convinced, because you have a specific outlook that you want to be true. I don't think anything could convince you that it isn't true, or at least you would never accept anything that tried to.

Thats not true actually. Its just simply that nothing I've seen thus far has convinced me. Its obviously convinced you, but not me. This does seem to be a common view though. 'Your not convinced because you don't want to be convinced'. If its a case that I'm just completely brainwashed, then its true, I'm too far gone, but I can honestly say that for me its as simple as, I haven't seen anything to convince me.

And when you look at all the pain suffering violence disease ... ?

I imagine your response will be that that is mans fault. Which again is a clever bit of giggery-pokkery on the part of your religion, to get in first with the idea that everything beautiful is the work of God, and everything terrible is the work of man.

What can I say. I don't see why I would blame God for all the suffering. Obviously, you conclude that christianity is an elaborate plot where they cover all the angles. I don't.

That doesn't explain it. God could have been really nasty and horrible, and created creatures that were really nasty and horrible. Isn't it a bit odd that he isn't like this?

Why is it odd?

That would make you cosmically important.
Given the size of the universe, the number of stars and planets, the idea that God would pick this small blue rock to plant life on, so he could eventually produce a species called of mammal called humans, who would form a small band of men and women in the Middle East, that would be "God's chosen", makes these people cosmically important.

All this makes a lot more sense 6,000 years ago when as far as man knew the universe was approx 20,000 square miles with only a handful of different tribes roaming about. It would have been natural for them at the time to think "We are special" given that there wasn't a whole lot else.

We now know that the visible universe is between 78 and 98 billion light years. That is 5,879,000,000,000 (miles in a light year) x 98,000,000,000 (light years in universe)

Needless to say that is a lot of miles. To argue that God created this entire universe for us, a medium sized biped mammal, would certainly suggest some form of cosmic importance. The entire universe, all 98 billion light years of it, exists for us to live in.

I never said that. For all I know there may be more out there but God just didn't tell us about it. You make it sound like arrogance. A kind of, 'You think you're so important' type thing. I don't see myself as important, but I see myself as being important enough to God that he gave his only begotten Son as a ransom to save me and mankind.

Fair enough. The problem is when a religious person decides based on your belief to do harm.

Indeed it is a great problem when anyone chooses to do harm. Again, its irrelevant to me and my faith though.

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

From a scientific point of view, if there is no creator, then there must be a start. We see things from a time and matter perspective. If these are created things, then we can understand that we are limited in our knowledge. Science cannot explain how the big ball of cosmic dust that went bang came about, and its unlikely they ever will. Its accepted that its highly unlikely you'll ever know. All the evidence science has for our natural history, but it can't answer that fundamental question, 'how did that ball of cosmic dust come to be?'.

Although the rest of your post is very good, you still aren't getting something. That question "what caused the Big Bang?" didn't even exist a few decades ago. Science is all about progress so don't be so confident about what it can or can't do.

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

Although the rest of your post is very good, you still aren't getting something. That question "what caused the Big Bang?" didn't even exist a few decades ago. Science is all about progress so don't be so confident about what it can or can't do.

Fair point. but for the moment, the question is not answerable. Actually, is there any theories on it out in the science world?

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

Actually, is there any theories on it out in the science world?

In Quantum Gravitational Theories the universe is capable of appearing out of "nothing" (not quite the right word).

Basically it can go:
No space or time => Quantum Fluctuation => Universe exists.

Similar to how particles can teleport through barriers, the universe can teleport into existence. This isn't idle speculation by the way, this theory (called the Hawking-Hartle No-Boundary Proposal) predicts the universe should be homogenous and in thermal equilibrium and that is what we observe through sattelites.

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote:

Ok, a belief that man can live without God. I don't believe man can.

Needless to say I would argue that we all in fact live without god, whether or not we recognise the fact. But I don't suppose we'll agree on that.

JimiTime wrote:

Also, leaving my faith in God, is actually putting faith in mankind as it means I trust that people like yourself are right in saying that God doesn't exist. I would be putting faith in the people who argue that god doesn't exist. Now seeing how I don't view the god of the bible as you do, it would be alot harder to show me God does not exist, so I'd have top have faith that the evidence you show me is trustworthy. I have to trust the methods of man.

Well obviously I would think it better if you worked out for yourself that god doesn't exist than took anyone else's word for it. I wouldn't see any fundamental difference between that and you taking your parents' word for it that he does exist. I do believe that if you give the available evidence due consideration there is really only one conclusion you can sensibly draw. You can probably guess what that would be. The purely speculative alternative alternative really does fly in the face of all the available evidence.

JimiTime wrote:

He's already done it.

This is one of the things I find really hard to deal with about religion in general. If, as you maintain, he has already done all he can to resolve the problems of the world, then surely your list of grievances a few posts back must form the foundation of your measure of the success of his creation. You obviously (and rightly) care deeply about many of the appalling things that are happening in the world, yet almost flippantly exempt your omnipotent and omniscient god from any share of the blame. Why?

JimiTime wrote:

If you believe in God, you know that he created us to live forever. However, when Adam, after being told by God he'd die if he did it, ate from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, man seperated himself from God. He then set about putting it right, and sent his only begotten son as a ransom for all of mankind. One perfect man for another. Jesus was that man, and he fulfilled Gods promise. So now, I look forward to the second part of that promise, I.E. Revelation 21:



3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
5He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."
6He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Nice... but you overlook the fact that it's all about the hereafter.

Forget about the afterlife a minute, since neither of us can know for sure there is one... Think about the here and now. What is god's purpose - the divine, all-loving, all-powerful god - in creating a world full of the misery, violence and suffering you outline so eloquently.

Imagine you had never heard of christianity a minute. Which of the following arguments would you find more persuasive:

1. The world is full of horror because we have evolved in response to a wide variety environmental and social pressures to exhibit a conflicting combination of 'good' and 'bad' characteristics.

2. The world is full of horror because it was created by an invisible yet omnipotent and loving superbeing, who could have made it any way he wanted but chose to demonstrate his deep love for us by making it in such a way that a large proportion of its inhabitants would live terrible brutal lives, only sustained by the unverifiable promise of a better time to come after they die.

JimiTime wrote:

Making us in his image, he gave us the capacity to love.

Again I have to say you are being highly selective. If he truly made us in his image then he must share all our characteristics including the dark ones. In other words, he is no different from us.

Now why would that be...? Oh of course, it's obviously because we invented him.

JimiTime wrote:

However, giving us the gift of love, or the capacity for it, means that we must have free will. Free will in turn can be abused to do badness. By saying God is responsible for us abusing our free will means that you must give up the capacity to love. Free will is a fault in our design per-se. However, God knows that there are those of us that want this gift, and realise its relevance in relation to love. Those people also accept and know that God loves us, and to stick by him means happiness. he could have made us automatonic or purely instictive. However, I for one, am delighted he gave us the capacity to love, even if it means that some abuse the gift that allows it. He will judge accordingly.

I would ask you to read back over this paragraph very slowly and ask yourself whether you really believe it to be true.

<edit> The more I read this the more bizarre it gets. God is omnipotent. Why could he not have given us the ability to love but spared us the compulsion to hate or commit violence? He could have made us any way he wanted, right? So why are you laying down the law about what this omnipotent god of yours could and couldn't have done? What kind of twisted conceit is it to say that the ability to love necessarily implies any of the rest?? I love ( as often as possible ), but I've never committed an act of violence in my life. I don't even eat meat. And I don't have any kind of god on my side either. Meanwhile the world is full of religious folk who can't seem to grasp the meaning of something as simple as "thou shalt not kill".</edit>

Why do you need this convoluted, contradictory and frankly surreal justification for our contradictory nature when there is a much simpler, more elegant, more rational, more probable and in every way more convincing one staring you in the face?

JimiTime wrote:

If you condone technology and science, you condone the horrors that result from it.

Well you may have a point here, but you again assume an either-or scenario. Are you saying if I don't believe in god that I must therefore be an advocate of the direction science and technology are currently pursuing? I wouldn't agree with that at all, but either way it's not relevant because you aren't comparing like with like. I would go so far as to argue that much of the horror apparently resulting from science and technology is in fact a direct consequence of religion.

It's self-evident that humans can apply scientific knowledge for evil ends, as they can religious faith, but such applications aren't inherent in the scientific process. Faith, on the other hand makes active virtues out of belief-systems that lead inherently to violence and conflict. e.g.

- Faith actively encourages people to believe what they are told without questioning it

- Faith actively encourages people to regard their beliefs as superior to those held by other people

- Faith makes a virtue of being 'inside' the club of believers and at its worst portrays outsiders as evil and threatening

Why else do you think the world is riven with religious conflict? I take it you do accept that religion is at the heart of all the world's most bitter conflicts.

JimiTime wrote:

Its easier to fathom God, because if God exists, then all science as we know it is created. We just know what we are allowed to know. From a scientific point of view, if there is no creator, then there must be a start.

I don't get this. even if there is a creator there must surely still be a start? Something still must have come before the creator, or created the creator. To say the creator just suddenly sprung into being fully formed one day is no more satisfactory than to suggest that humanity did just that. I can't see how that's any kind of satisfactory answer at all. If there is a god, where did he come from? And why? What's he made of?

JimiTime wrote:

We see things from a time and matter perspective. If these are created things, then we can understand that we are limited in our knowledge. Science cannot explain how the big ball of cosmic dust that went bang came about, and its unlikely they ever will. Its accepted that its highly unlikely you'll ever know. All the evidence science has for our natural history, but it can't answer that fundamental question, 'how did that ball of cosmic dust come to be?'. Now believing in God, you know that its all creation, and thus we are living within a created universe, and are limited to observing the created.

Science may answer these questions or it may not. But to posit god simply because its easier is one of the weirdest things I've ever heard. Are you really saying that you aren't bothered that it's a completely arbitrary proposition backed up by no evidence simply because it saves you from considering a more demanding question?

With that attitude we'd all still be living in caves. Which arguably mightn't be a bad thing, but I bet you're happy enough to enjoy the benefits of technology in your own life.

JimiTime wrote:

Personally I think the very fact that we are here is evidence enough that we were created.

Sorry to have to try and disabuse of that notion, but it is no evidence at all that we were created. That's like saying that the sun evidently revolves around the earth because that's how it looks from here. You appear to stand still and the sun appears to move, but we both know that isn't how it actually is. If you aren't open to the possibility of things not actually being as they superficially appear then I don't really see how you can claim to be interested in evidence.

JimiTime wrote:

As for how do I know that the God of the bible is the true one. Well, again, it begins with the fact that we are created beings. Divinity is shown by the fulfilled prophesies of the book of Daniel. The fulfillment of the prophesy of the birth and death of Jesus Christ. That is the 'evidence' that convinced me.

You're easily convinced. Did it ever occur to you that as a rabbi fully aware of the prophecies of Daniel Jesus might have deliberately set out to fulfil the prophecy? Once again a much more elegant explanation.

JimiTime wrote:

Improbable is what you said the chances are of me just being born into the belief of the true God, so both are paths are mathematically improbable according to you.

There are degrees of improbability. It's extremely improbable that I'll win the lotto on Saturday, however it is possible. It's almost infinitely improbable for a being complex enough to create a universe to spontaneously spring into existence, and only very slightly less improbable that a human being would do the same. These events are so improbable as to be just about impossible.

The beauty of evolutionary theory is that it breaks improbabilities down into conceivable chunks. Each step on the evolutionary path might be as improbable as me winning the lotto, but given enough time they will assuredly come to pass, as could me winning the lotto if I could play for a million years or so.

No matter how long you gave it, a human being would not spontaneously spring fully formed into existence by sheer chance. And sadly nor will god, no matter how much you want him to.

So if there is a creator he/she/it must have evolved like us. He/she/it might be so superior to us that we can't conceive of such a being, but you can be sure he/she/it is neither omnipresent nor omniscient in any absolute sense.

JimiTime wrote:

No, not at all. You've already mentioned how spectacular the universe is, from the tiniest cell to the biggest planet. Why would a God that hates us waste his time on such an elaborate plot?

Precisely. Far more convincing to accept that there is no god.

JimiTime wrote:

Why would he send his Son to redeem us? Why would he give us the capacity to love? Its not selective, its just sensical.

It's actually not sensical at all. This idea of someone dying to save someone else, it's not sense it's utterly bizarre and inconceivable. If god wanted to forgive our sins why didn't he just forgive us? He made us this way after all, according to you.

Why did anyone have to suffer?
Why did he have to die?
How could him dying save anyone else?

These aren't reasoned views, they're lunatic ravings I'm afraid. Christianity is masterful at inventing the facts to fit the events, even though the events may never have actually happened.

JimiTime wrote:

I haven't been selecting the evidence to suit some hypothesis I have.

Sorry, JimiTime, but that's exactly what you've been doing. Any evidence that doesn't suit your position you say doesn't interest you, or isn't relevant, or makes no difference to your faith. You ignore or dismiss any events in the bible that don't fit with your illusion of the loving god. And finally you refuse to entertain the notion that the all-powerful creator is in any way responsible for the state of his creation.

You are entitled to believe whatever you like, but please don't kid yourself it's based on any evidence other than superstition and fantasy.

By the way, thanks for taking the time to reply, it's always interesting to get deep into these things. Respect to you for holding up your end...

Splendour

Wicknight wrote:

It is really quite fascinating how religion works. It is the great manipulator. Anyone who wants to manipulate groups of people (looking your way Communist) study how religion actually works.

Fascinates me too how people are brainwashed with religion. I can understand it though as so many people feel bad about themselves and want to atone for this. Christianity however is not a religion ie: regarding laws. It's about a relationship.

If I were to sit at my computer day after day and tell you guys about my friend Mary and how fantastic and wonderful she is, your reaction would no doubt be something like this.'sounds great; am so glad for you;glad your happy; etc...' Now if you were to meet my friend Mary your attitide toward her would no doubt change as you too would know her.

Until you meet that person you've no idea what it's like and whereas 'religion' can suck many people in under the wrong prentence, Christianity can never do that. I could never force to have a relationship with my friend Mary now, could I? That would be between you and her.

Loving relationships have boundaries and respect, not rules...

.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote:

Fascinates me too how people are brainwashed with religion. I can understand it though as so many people feel bad about themselves and want to atone for this. Christianity however is not a religion ie: regarding laws. It's about a relationship.

I'm afraid Splendour the Every religion is nonsense ... except for mine of course line doesn't go down to well around these parts

Splendour wrote:

If I were to sit at my computer day after day and tell you guys about my friend Mary and how fantastic and wonderful she is, your reaction would no doubt be something like this.'sounds great; am so glad for you;glad your happy; etc...' Now if you were to meet my friend Mary your attitide toward her would no doubt change as you too would know her.

Things get a bit more complicated when one discovers that your friend Mary doesn't actually exist.

The issue then shifts to why you think your friend Mary does exist, and why you spend long hours "chatting" to her, and why you listen to her when she tells you that the world is 6,000 years old and the homosexuals displease her.

Splendour wrote:

Loving relationships have boundaries and respect, not rules...

A brain washed person doesn't believe they are following rules, they believe they are following common sense (or "boundaries" as you call it).

They believe this because they are brain washed.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Thats not true actually. Its just simply that nothing I've seen thus far has convinced me. Its obviously convinced you, but not me. This does seem to be a common view though. 'Your not convinced because you don't want to be convinced'. If its a case that I'm just completely brainwashed, then its true, I'm too far gone, but I can honestly say that for me its as simple as, I haven't seen anything to convince me.

What would convince you?

God has the advantage of not doing very much. Slowly the idea of god has retreated in self defence from something that directly exists in and influences reality (makes it rain, kills live stock etc) to a very abstract notion that lies far outside our reality.

The concept has had to do this because human development has slowly but surely demonstrated that all the things we thought were controlled by god turned out not to be controlled by god.

God now has the advantage of being completely unfalsifiable. So I'm not sure what could ever convince you that he is not real.

JimiTime wrote:

What can I say. I don't see why I would blame God for all the suffering.

Why then would you praise him for all the beauty?

JimiTime wrote:

Obviously, you conclude that christianity is an elaborate plot where they cover all the angles. I don't.

Pretty much. One has to remember that the religion has been around for a long time. The outlawing of suicide is another example, necessary to stop everyone just killing themselves and going to heaven.

JimiTime wrote:

Why is it odd?

Because there is no actual reason why God has to be nice being. It is just as likely that he would be a bit of a bastard. The fact that he isn't seems a bit odd. This is of course leaving aside the whole oddness of a being like a god just existing in the first place.

JimiTime wrote:

I don't see myself as important, but I see myself as being important enough to God that he gave his only begotten Son as a ransom to save me and mankind.

Would that not kinda make you rather important then? I mean God didn't send his only son to save the rabbits. And yes I do see it as a form of arrogance, the idea that the universe exists for us.

JimiTime wrote:

Indeed it is a great problem when anyone chooses to do harm. Again, its irrelevant to me and my faith though.

Not really, since the belief process is the same. The thing that stops you killing school children is simply that you particular religion doesn't tell you to kill school children. Which is lucky I guess. But one is still left with the people, with belief like yourself, who are unlucky enough to have been born into a time, or a location where their religion does tell them to kill school children.

Splendour

Wicknight wrote:

I'm afraid Splendour the Every religion is nonsense ... except for mine of course line doesn't go down to well around these parts

Why Wicknight I am most surprised at this statement :rolleyes:


Things get a bit more complicated when one discovers that your friend Mary doesn't actually exist.

Ahh but she does, you just haven't met her yet...

The issue then shifts to why you think your friend Mary does exist, and why you spend long hours "chatting" to her, and why you listen to her when she tells you that the world is 6,000 years old and the homosexuals displease her.

Homosexuals/Hetrosexuals; my friend looks on both with the same loving eyes.

A brain washed person doesn't believe they are following rules, they believe they are following common sense (or "boundaries" as you call it).

They believe this because they are brain washed.

I take that you too are brainwashed given the fact that non belief in God is 'common sense...'

Splendour

Zombrex

Splendour wrote:

I take that you too are brainwashed given the fact that non belief in God is 'common sense...'

Common sense says there is a God. Non belief in God isn't common sense, it is rational deduction. There is a difference (though I imagine you won't agree)

Splendour

Wicknight wrote:

Common sense says there is a God.

Why? In a tangible sense we can't see Him, touch Him, hear Him.
That's not common sense, that's belief.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote:

Why? In a tangible sense we can't see Him, touch Him, hear Him.
That's not common sense, that's belief.

Humans have a natural tendency to apply agency to nature. This is an instinctive throw back to a more primitive time. So we naturally look at things and go "Someone must have made this like they are, for some reason" The next obvious conclusion to this is that this thing that made things the way they are made things the way they are for us As I've asked before, do theists not find it a bit funny that God has a relationship with us, rather than say whales or ants? Again that is how we naturally view the world, a construct around us, we instinctively give ourselves importance among other creatures.

This is all "common sense", it is only when one examines it does one find the flaws.

JimiTime

rockbeer wrote:

Well obviously I would think it better if you worked out for yourself that god doesn't exist than took anyone else's word for it.

I did work it out for myself, but I didn't conclude that God didn't exist.

I wouldn't see any fundamental difference between that and you taking your parents' word for it that he does exist. I do believe that if you give the available evidence due consideration there is really only one conclusion you can sensibly draw. You can probably guess what that would be. The purely speculative alternative alternative really does fly in the face of all the available evidence.

I have 'never' seen any evidence that would conclude God doesn't exist. I have seen much arguement, but again, it convinces you, not me though. Maybe one day I'll 'see the light', or maybe one day 'you'll see it'. The fact of the matter is, I 'know' God exists. You 'know' God doesn't. You have your reasons, I have mine. You think I'm delluded though, I think you just don't know your creator. I've got a whole bag of these frustrating arguements:D

This is one of the things I find really hard to deal with about religion in general. If, as you maintain, he has already done all he can to resolve the problems of the world, then surely your list of grievances a few posts back must form the foundation of your measure of the success of his creation. You obviously (and rightly) care deeply about many of the appalling things that are happening in the world, yet almost flippantly exempt your omnipotent and omniscient god from any share of the blame. Why?

I covered this with my explaination on love. Thats what I feel and believe.

Nice... but you overlook the fact that it's all about the hereafter.

Yes it is about the future. But i explained that there was prophesy of of the past that came to be. We are then given a great example of how to 'live' in the 'now'. Then we are told of what is to come, so I don't see the issue.

Forget about the afterlife a minute, since neither of us can know for sure there is one...

Ahhh. So you are more agnostic then:D

Think about the here and now. What is god's purpose - the divine, all-loving, all-powerful god - in creating a world full of the misery, violence and suffering you outline so eloquently.

He created a world of absolute beauty, he gave it to Man. Man chose to say, 'I don't need you'. So God said, go for it then. There are those now and back then, who choose to side with Gods way, and those who don't. Such has been life since the beginning.

Imagine you had never heard of christianity a minute. Which of the following arguments would you find more persuasive:

1. The world is full of horror because we have evolved in response to a wide variety environmental and social pressures to exhibit a conflicting combination of 'good' and 'bad' characteristics.

2. The world is full of horror because it was created by an invisible yet omnipotent and loving superbeing, who could have made it any way he wanted but chose to demonstrate his deep love for us by making it in such a way that a large proportion of its inhabitants would live terrible brutal lives, only sustained by the unverifiable promise of a better time to come after they die.

How about: 3. The world is full of horror because Man turned his back on God and said we don't need you. Man then proceeded to divide. Looking after its own needs, while some stuck by Gods guidence. however, this world has been given over to itself, its inhabitants are free to choose their path. However, thus far, Man, as a whole, hasn't done a great job of looking after themselves or indeed the planet they inherited. However, God has an 'appointed time', when he will intervene in the matters of man and end all there suffering. Suffering which is prophesised to get worse. After this, He will set up an order, and will dwell once again with Man and bless him abundantly, for remaining faithful.

Again I have to say you are being highly selective. If he truly made us in his image then he must share all our characteristics including the dark ones. In other words, he is no different from us.

Thats the thing though. Jesus was a man like us. He showed us that man does not intrinsically have a dark side, but thats only if we choose to abuse our free will, which as I mentioned before, is an essential factor in allowing us to experience Love.

I would ask you to read back over this paragraph very slowly and ask yourself whether you really believe it to be true.

I did and do. I don't see any issue with it at all.

<edit> The more I read this the more bizarre it gets. God is omnipotent. Why could he not have given us the ability to love but spared us the compulsion to hate or commit violence? He could have made us any way he wanted, right? So why are you laying down the law about what this omnipotent god of yours could and couldn't have done? What kind of twisted conceit is it to say that the ability to love necessarily implies any of the rest?? I love ( as often as possible ), but I've never committed an act of violence in my life. I don't even eat meat. And I don't have any kind of god on my side either.

'compulsion to hate or commit violence'. Is not something that is built into man. Its something that a man will 'choose' to do. To allow us the capacity to love, we must have the capacity to choose freely. Its not twisted conceit at all. Love does not imply the rest, abusing free will does. Free will is what gives us the capacity to love. Unfortunately, 'compulsion' to do bad things is not because of faulty design, its because of environmental influence, I.E. Bad upbringing etc. Allowing bad thoughts to fester, I.E. a married man lusting after another woman. or continuing angry with a neighbour etc.

Meanwhile the world is full of religious folk who can't seem to grasp the meaning of something as simple as "thou shalt not kill".</edit>

Again, there are religious nuts everywhere. Like that bishop in England who said God sent the floods in yorkshire as punishment for allowing Gay marriage etc. What can I say, that has no relevance to me and my relationship with Christ. Unfortunately, they are held up as models of christianity (probably by themselves mostly), but what can I do?

Why do you need this convoluted, contradictory and frankly surreal justification for our contradictory nature when there is a much simpler, more elegant, more rational, more probable and in every way more convincing one staring you in the face?

Because I don't see it as 'convoluted, contradictory and frankly surreal'. I don't see a more convincing, rational reason staring me in the face.

Well you may have a point here, but you again assume an either-or scenario. Are you saying if I don't believe in god that I must therefore be an advocate of the direction science and technology are currently pursuing?

No, I was pointing out that your reasoning that 'If I condone christianity, I condone the horrors that result from it'. I said you could say the same thing about science and technology. I don't agree with your reasoning is what I'm trying to say. Many 'un-christian' thiings are done in christs name. That does not make Christ or his teachings responsible, or indeed his followers condone such things. Just because you are a scientist, does not mean you condone the atomic bomb.

I wouldn't agree with that at all, but either way it's not relevant because you aren't comparing like with like. I would go so far as to argue that much of the horror apparently resulting from science and technology is in fact a direct consequence of religion.

What?? You are saying that the abuse of technolgy, such as weaponry, atomic bombs, child rape on the net etc, is a consequence of religion?? I hope you just misunderstood my original point and you are not saying the above.

It's self-evident that humans can apply scientific knowledge for evil ends, as they can religious faith, but such applications aren't inherent in the scientific process. Faith, on the other hand makes active virtues out of belief-systems that lead inherently to violence and conflict. e.g.

All I can speak of is Christ. A teacher who said, 'Love your neighbour and also love your enemy'. There is no teaching in Christ that 'inherantly lead to violence'. People claiming to be christian may ironically do violence in the name of christ, but it again comes back to, a tree will be known by its fruits.

- Faith actively encourages people to believe what they are told without questioning it

Religious groups can be guilty of this. But I can only talk about me and my relationship with God. No church represents me.

- Faith actively encourages people to regard their beliefs as superior to those held by other people

Faith in Christ means you believe he is the messiah, and through him the world is saved. Obviously I will see this as true and the belief in, Shiva etc false. You believe you are right that there is no God.

- Faith makes a virtue of being 'inside' the club of believers and at its worst portrays outsiders as evil and threatening

Faith makes you happy that you have found Christ. the true christian will want others to share in this. I can safely say I am part of 'no' club of believers. None will have me. The born agains see me as a non-believer of sorts because I don't believe in the trinity doctrine. The groups that agree with my trinity stance have other skewed ideas. However, I'm secure in my relationship with Christ and while I love talking about the kingdom message, I am part of no denomination or 'club'. Yet I have faith.

Why else do you think the world is riven with religious conflict? I take it you do accept that religion is at the heart of all the world's most bitter conflicts.

I'm not sure if thats necesarily so. However, even it was, it still makes no difference. Christ does not teach us to be violent. In fact, he teaches us the opposite. Just because some may ironically ignore this, does not nullify Christs teaching.

I don't get this. even if there is a creator there must surely still be a start? Something still must have come before the creator, or created the creator. To say the creator just suddenly sprung into being fully formed one day is no more satisfactory than to suggest that humanity did just that. I can't see how that's any kind of satisfactory answer at all. If there is a god, where did he come from? And why? What's he made of?

Thats my point. If there is a creator, we can only see what he has allowed us to see. So if he operates outside of science, then we could not fathom it in our current state unless he chose to reveal it to us. Science doesn't know where we originally came from neither, even if it found out how the big ball of space dust came from, you'd still ask, well how did existence come to be. From a scientific point of view, there is no answer currently. If one comes about, great, I'd like to see it, but on current understanding there is little or no answer.

Science may answer these questions or it may not. But to posit god simply because its easier is one of the weirdest things I've ever heard. Are you really saying that you aren't bothered that it's a completely arbitrary proposition backed up by no evidence simply because it saves you from considering a more demanding question?

I never said that I believe in God because its just 'easier'. I believe in God, for alot of reasons which I've already mentioned. What I said was that I found the idea of creation more believable, than believing we were some cosmic accident. The lack of evidence you describe is only a lack of evedence that you will accept. For me the fact that we are here, is the biggest evidence for creation I can think of.

With that attitude we'd all still be living in caves. Which arguably mightn't be a bad thing, but I bet you're happy enough to enjoy the benefits of technology in your own life.

Why do I have to choose? Science or God, whats it gonna be? I don't need to make that call. Science is great. In fact I think science brought alot of the corruption of the abusers of christianity to the fore. I resent catholocism for what it has done in the name of my Lord. Science helped bring their wickedness to the fore. However, I wont throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't choose Christ over science at all, In fact for me much scientific discovery reinforces my faith.

Sorry to have to try and disabuse of that notion, but it is no evidence at all that we were created. That's like saying that the sun evidently revolves around the earth because that's how it looks from here. You appear to stand still and the sun appears to move, but we both know that isn't how it actually is. If you aren't open to the possibility of things not actually being as they superficially appear then I don't really see how you can claim to be interested in evidence.

I haven't seen any evidence on the contrary though.

You're easily convinced. Did it ever occur to you that as a rabbi fully aware of the prophecies of Daniel Jesus might have deliberately set out to fulfil the prophecy? Once again a much more elegant explanation.

The daniel prophesies were of the world powers and their rise and fall before they happened. And yes, about Jesus acting out a prophesy, that was a question I had long ago. But I found it baseless.

There are degrees of improbability. It's extremely improbable that I'll win the lotto on Saturday, however it is possible. It's almost infinitely improbable for a being complex enough to create a universe to spontaneously spring into existence, and only very slightly less improbable that a human being would do the same. These events are so improbable as to be just about impossible.

Again, this mathematical arguement can be used for existence just coming into being also. God or no God, the probability you mention is really the same.

The beauty of evolutionary theory is that it breaks improbabilities down into conceivable chunks. Each step on the evolutionary path might be as improbable as me winning the lotto, but given enough time they will assuredly come to pass, as could me winning the lotto if I could play for a million years or so.

But its irrelevant, because the probabilty of existence just coming into being is the same.

No matter how long you gave it, a human being would not spontaneously spring fully formed into existence by sheer chance.

I agree.

And sadly nor will god, no matter how much you want him to.

But if he created time and space, then you are limited to the created world. You don't know what exists outside it as you can only observe the created. 'If' God exists, then there is more than science and the natural world, and it is you that has limited your scope.

So if there is a creator he/she/it must have evolved like us. He/she/it might be so superior to us that we can't conceive of such a being, but you can be sure he/she/it is neither omnipresent nor omniscient in any absolute sense.

It's actually not sensical at all. This idea of someone dying to save someone else, it's not sense it's utterly bizarre and inconceivable. If god wanted to forgive our sins why didn't he just forgive us? He made us this way after all, according to you.

Why did anyone have to suffer?
Why did he have to die?
How could him dying save anyone else?

These aren't reasoned views, they're lunatic ravings I'm afraid. Christianity is masterful at inventing the facts to fit the events, even though the events may never have actually happened.

Again, you keep talking about evidence etc. You have concluded the above, based on opinion, not evidence.

Sorry, JimiTime, but that's exactly what you've been doing. Any evidence that doesn't suit your position you say doesn't interest you, or isn't relevant, or makes no difference to your faith. You ignore or dismiss any events in the bible that don't fit with your illusion of the loving god. And finally you refuse to entertain the notion that the all-powerful creator is in any way responsible for the state of his creation.

You assume too much. I find it rather strange that you deduct the above conclusion based on what I've said here. But fair enough, you've balanced up the evidence, and made your call.

You are entitled to believe whatever you like, but please don't kid yourself it's based on any evidence other than superstition and fantasy.

Superstition and fantasy. Got it.

By the way, thanks for taking the time to reply, it's always interesting to get deep into these things. Respect to you for holding up your end...

Indeed it is interesting. Conversations like these serve me greatly. They're a catalyst to come out of my comfort zone.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

I have 'never' seen any evidence that would conclude God doesn't exist.

Again, does this not strike you as odd?

Since it is impossible to prove something that doesn't exist doesn't actually exist, does the fact that there has never been any evidence that God doesn't exist demonstrate that he doesn't actually exist.

Game .. set ... match :cool:

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Again, does this not strike you as odd?

Since it is impossible to prove something that doesn't exist doesn't actually exist, does the fact that there has never been any evidence that God doesn't exist demonstrate that he doesn't actually exist.

You misunderstand the context of the answer, or I wasn't very clear.

i said I have never seen evidence that would make me conclude God does not exist. I did not say, I have never seen evidence that God doen't exist.

Game .. set ... match :cool:

False checkmate, Wicknight forfeits:D

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

You misunderstand the context of the answer, or I wasn't very clear.

i said I have never seen evidence that would make me conclude God does not exist. I did not say, I have never seen evidence that God doen't exist.


False checkmate, Wicknight forfeits:D

Well I was being sarcastic, this whole "prove to me God doesn't exist" line of debate I find rather silly, since it is totally impossible to demonstrate convincingly that a concept like God doesn't exist, in the same way that it is impossible to show that I don't have a silent invisible leprechaun sitting on my desk. The very properties that you assign to God protect him from any serious investigation.

I would be curious though about evidence do you think could realistically demonstrate to you that it is very unlikely that God exists, to the point where you would be convinced that he doesn't?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Well I was being sarcastic, this whole "prove to me God doesn't exist" line of debate I find rather silly, since it is totally impossible to demonstrate convincingly that a concept like God doesn't exist, in the same way that it is impossible to show that I don't have a silent invisible leprechaun sitting on my desk. The very properties that you assign to God protect him from any serious investigation.

The thing is, God interacted with the nation of Israel and the fact of Gods existence was passed on by those who actually dealt with him. Atheism is a relatively recent phenomenon that says our forefathers were a pack of liars. Now what evidence have you that those people were liars?

I would be curious though about evidence do you think could realistically demonstrate to you that it is very unlikely that God exists, to the point where you would be convinced that he doesn't?

I can't really think of any, but I'll know it when I see it. I mean even if an environment was created to create an imitation of the big bang, and it showed animate life come from inanimation, I would still ask, where did that big ball come from.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

The thing is, God interacted with the nation of Israel

Not in any measurable manner. There is no physical evidence that God has ever talked to anyone. In fact there is no physical evidence God has ever done anything. There are certain phenomena that is attributed to God, but no way of measuring if it actually is God, precisely because of the way your religion has defined God in the first place.

As is often stated on this forum, a universe where God exists looks exactly the same as a universe where he doesn't.

JimiTime wrote:

and the fact of Gods existence was passed on by those who actually dealt with him.

Individual speculation that someone thinks they have spoken to God is, again, largely useless.

Every religion or supernatural following (UFOs for example) has believers who claim to have experienced extraordinary things.

With no way of verifying these claims they are again useless. It is far more likely that they are simply mistaken. If God doesn't exist this would still take place

JimiTime wrote:

Atheism is a relatively recent phenomenon that says our forefathers were a pack of liars.

I would imagine that you too would call the Vikings or the Romans or the Chinese or the Indias or the native Americans a "pack of liars" since they all claim to have witnessed supernatural events that would contradict the accuracy of your beliefs. Unless you believe that the world was produced on the back of Titan?

JimiTime wrote:

Now what evidence have you that those people were liars?

We checked, we aren't on the back of a Titan.

That of course isn't to say that these people were liars. It always puzzles me when theists claim the only two alternatives is that someone is a liar or that they did really talk to a burning bush.

Of course the alternative is that what they believe happened wasn't actually what they think it was.

When a Christian says that they speak with God I believe that this is what they think is happening. But I still don't believe they are talking to God. They are simply interpretating something else as what they want it to be, a message from their deity.

JimiTime wrote:

I can't really think of any, but I'll know it when I see it.

Well no offense Jimi, but I would imagine that there is nothing that could convince you that God doesn't exist.

JimiTime wrote:

I mean even if an environment was created to create an imitation of the big bang, and it showed animate life come from inanimation, I would still ask, where did that big ball come from.

Again, that is the point.

Your religion has reduced God from something tangible (see that lightening bolt? that is God) and therefore falsifiable, to something completely abstract and unfalsifiable.

God will always be "just around the corner," no matter how advanced our scientific understanding becomes. This means the concept is completely protected against proper investigation.

You might have read about the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, the largest single piece of scientific equipment (it is 27 km long). The main purpose of this collider is to search for the Higgs field. Theoretical physicists believe that the Higgs field (which has never been detected) is a field that gives energy particles "mass" It is through excitement of the particle that mass forms, and without it everything would just be energy. Which, if correct, demonstrates that mass if a funny secondary property of the universe.

Now one can say that is the way God planned it, but to me that borders on the ridiculous. But there is no way of demonstrating that that isn't the way God planned it all, for what ever reason.

If something like the Higgs field would not convince someone that there is no God, that humans and in fact what we call reality itself is simply a weird side effect of particles interacting with an energy field, I'm not sure what will. But as ever this itself cannot demonstrate that God doesn't exist.

rockbeer

JimiTime wrote:

Ahhh. So you are more agnostic then:D

Does this give you hope for my eventual conversion?

Only a fool would say that god and the afterlife definitely don't exist. As others have pointed out, you can't prove a negative, so I suppose I am technically agnostic. But I'll be gobsmacked if I'm wrong

JimiTime wrote:

How about: 3. The world is full of horror because Man turned his back on God and said we don't need you. Man then proceeded to divide. Looking after its own needs, while some stuck by Gods guidence. however, this world has been given over to itself, its inhabitants are free to choose their path. However, thus far, Man, as a whole, hasn't done a great job of looking after themselves or indeed the planet they inherited. However, God has an 'appointed time', when he will intervene in the matters of man and end all there suffering. Suffering which is prophesised to get worse. After this, He will set up an order, and will dwell once again with Man and bless him abundantly, for remaining faithful.

The trouble with (2) and (3) is they're both purely speculative. I could equally argue that the world is full of hooror because the great golden air-fish of zarglewartle took offense at the colour of the mystical Queen Bathsheba's green mantle and cast a spell on all of humanity that we would be doomed to live in disharmony until all shades of green were banished from the face of the planet.

Nonsense, you would say (and quite rightly). The trouble is, there's every bit as much objective support for my golden air-fish theory as your god theory. The only advantages yours has over mine is that it was made up and written down a long time ago, and a lot of people happen to believe it. Which of course makes it no more true.

Proposition one, on the other hand, is supported by a large and increasing body of biological evidence.

You takes your choice.

JimiTime wrote:

Thats the thing though. Jesus was a man like us. He showed us that man does not intrinsically have a dark side, but thats only if we choose to abuse our free will, which as I mentioned before, is an essential factor in allowing us to experience Love.

This is a highly contradictory statement. Do we or do we not have an intrinsically dark aspect to our character? You say it only exists if we abuse our free will. But in your terms we continually exhibit the intrinsic ability to abuse our free will. Doesn't it amount to the same thing in the end?

JimiTime wrote:

'compulsion to hate or commit violence'. Is not something that is built into man. Its something that a man will 'choose' to do.

Again, what is the difference? If we have the propensity to exhibit a given behaviour, is it meaningful to say it isn't built into us. Where else does it come from? Are you arguing for demonic possession or something??

JimiTime wrote:

To allow us the capacity to love, we must have the capacity to choose freely. Its not twisted conceit at all. Love does not imply the rest, abusing free will does. Free will is what gives us the capacity to love. Unfortunately, 'compulsion' to do bad things is not because of faulty design, its because of environmental influence, I.E. Bad upbringing etc. Allowing bad thoughts to fester, I.E. a married man lusting after another woman. or continuing angry with a neighbour etc.

You haven't actually provided any evidence or support for your contention, just expressed the same thing in different words. You still haven't demonstrated why the capacity to love implies the capacity to choose freely, merely asserted that it is so. This is a logical non-sequitor.

I agree with you that environmental factors are highly significant in causing people to do 'bad' things, although other biological factors (e.g. brain structure) seem to be important too. But we come back to the argument over the source of those environmental factors. In your terms god designed the planet and us therefore why exempt him from responsibility for the outcome of his design decisions?

If I designed a machine that went wrong causing terrible devastation, would you let me get away with blaming the operator? I hope not. I should have included safety features to insure against disaster.

JimiTime wrote:

Again, there are religious nuts everywhere. Like that bishop in England who said God sent the floods in yorkshire as punishment for allowing Gay marriage etc. What can I say, that has no relevance to me and my relationship with Christ. Unfortunately, they are held up as models of christianity (probably by themselves mostly), but what can I do?

I agree with you of course, that guy is obviously a wingnut. The trouble is, his argument is every bit as plausible as yours. Once you start investing in propositions for which there's no objective support or evidence, it's hard to complain when people take that approach in directions you find disturbing.

JimiTime wrote:

Because I don't see it as 'convoluted, contradictory and frankly surreal'. I don't see a more convincing, rational reason staring me in the face.

May I respectfully suggest you go and read Darwin's On The Origin of Species? You can get it for free at the Gutenberg project http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page

JimiTime wrote:

No, I was pointing out that your reasoning that 'If I condone christianity, I condone the horrors that result from it'. I said you could say the same thing about science and technology. I don't agree with your reasoning is what I'm trying to say. Many 'un-christian' thiings are done in christs name. That does not make Christ or his teachings responsible, or indeed his followers condone such things. Just because you are a scientist, does not mean you condone the atomic bomb.

I think I dealt with this above.

JimiTime wrote:

What?? You are saying that the abuse of technolgy, such as weaponry, atomic bombs, child rape on the net etc, is a consequence of religion?? I hope you just misunderstood my original point and you are not saying the above.

This is very often the case. Many wingnuts are religious - look at Irelands history of child abuse. The fact that these people have technology to abuse due to their twisted religious outlooks is not the technology's fault. Religion on the other hand has much to answer for.

JimiTime wrote:

All I can speak of is Christ. A teacher who said, 'Love your neighbour and also love your enemy'. There is no teaching in Christ that 'inherantly lead to violence'. People claiming to be christian may ironically do violence in the name of christ, but it again comes back to, a tree will be known by its fruits.

Nothing wrong with the teaching. But If an atheist said the same it would have the same value. My problem isn't with christ's personal morality teachings but with the superstitions that underpinned it, which open the door for all kinds of mad people to do all kinds of mad things in his name.

JimiTime wrote:

Thats my point. If there is a creator, we can only see what he has allowed us to see. So if he operates outside of science, then we could not fathom it in our current state unless he chose to reveal it to us. Science doesn't know where we originally came from neither, even if it found out how the big ball of space dust came from, you'd still ask, well how did existence come to be. From a scientific point of view, there is no answer currently. If one comes about, great, I'd like to see it, but on current understanding there is little or no answer.

Indeed, but a hundred years ago there were no silicon chips. That didn't mean they weren't possible, but the knowledge didn't exist. It now does. Why limit yourself to your moment in time? I take a longer view - our knowledge is limited at this moment, but it will look very different in another hundred years, by which time of course we will be up against new limits to our knowledge. The fact that we don't yet know the answer neither means there isn't one, nor that old and discredited answers will suffice in place of the truth. It's OK to be ignorant about things - the important thing is to ask the questions, and remain open to where the evidence leads rather than being imprisoned by unprovable assumptions. Copernicus was imprisoned for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun. He would never have even discovered this if he had allowed himself to be constrained by the prevailing views of his time.

We will never have complete answers to all the questions, but if you think our knowledge has reached it's limits then I strongly believe you will be proved wrong, and probably sooner than you imagine.

JimiTime wrote:

I never said that I believe in God because its just 'easier'. I believe in God, for alot of reasons which I've already mentioned. What I said was that I found the idea of creation more believable, than believing we were some cosmic accident. The lack of evidence you describe is only a lack of evedence that you will accept. For me the fact that we are here, is the biggest evidence for creation I can think of.

This we will never agree on. Our existence is not 'evidence' for our creation in any generally accepted sense. You are redefining the term for your own purposes. But I must say that you apply a much higher burden of proof to scientific contentions than you do to your own religious ones, which hardly seems fair.

You are also in effect demonstrating a medieval attitude by accepting the 'obvious' conclusion despite the lack of objective evidence. I can't understand that position, and I especially can't understand the leap from "we're here so there must be a creator" to "the creator therefore must be the christian god of the bible". These things just don't stack up.

JimiTime wrote:

Why do I have to choose? Science or God, whats it gonna be? I don't need to make that call. Science is great. In fact I think science brought alot of the corruption of the abusers of christianity to the fore. I resent catholocism for what it has done in the name of my Lord. Science helped bring their wickedness to the fore. However, I wont throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't choose Christ over science at all,

As Wicknight has pointed out, scientific knowledge has progressively and relentlessly demonstrated one religious interpretation of the universe after another to be false. And people of science have had to battle against the superstitions of religion every step of the way to advance their cause. Fortunately the sheer weight of evidence and the intrinsic ability of humans to reason have allowed rationality to gradually supplant faith as the primary perspective for most of us. These days relatively few people assume supernatural explanations for unexplained phenomena. This wasn't true at all for most of human history. The legacy of that history can be seen in statements such as yours above which demonstrate an ignorance of the battles rationality has had to fight against faith in order to be accepted. Even now Darwin is demonized in many religious quarters for telling it like he saw it.

You don't have to choose, but you have to accept that acceptance of scientific method involves understanding what is meant by the term 'objective evidence'. Your opinion that 'things must be that way, it's obvious' counts for nothing in a scientific context, which is why so few scientists are genuinely religious. Basically, they see no evidence at all on which to base an assumption of the existence of god. And especially not the god of the bible. To adopt such a position is directly counter to scientific method. No proper scientific enquiry starts by concluding the outcome.

You don't have to choose, but by not doing so you place yourself in a paradox: if scientists had remained bound by the limits of religious belief, much of the scientific knowledge which benefits you would not exist.

Religions have historically been forced to continually redefine themselves in order to accommodate advances in knowledge. That process continues, but as Wicknight points out, the outcome is that your formerly interventionist god has become such an abstract and remote concept as to be unfalsifiable.

JimiTime wrote:

In fact for me much scientific discovery reinforces my faith.

Can you give some examples?

JimiTime wrote:

The daniel prophesies were of the world powers and their rise and fall before they happened. And yes, about Jesus acting out a prophesy, that was a question I had long ago. But I found it baseless.

How could you possibly know? Were you there??

JimiTime wrote:

Again, this mathematical arguement can be used for existence just coming into being also. God or no God, the probability you mention is really the same.

No! That shows a deep misunderstanding of the argument. Read over my post again and see if you can make more sense of it. If not let me know and I'll try and put things another way. But the probability of god existing is emphatically not the same as that of life coming into existence or of us having developed by evolution.

JimiTime wrote:

But if he created time and space, then you are limited to the created world. You don't know what exists outside it as you can only observe the created. 'If' God exists, then there is more than science and the natural world, and it is you that has limited your scope.

Well maybe, but such a contention is entirely speculative. I might as well say that if our universe is in fact nothing but an atom in a tree in a bigger universe then that limits our horizons. Either proposition could be true, but is based on no evidence whatsoever. We can only look at what we can discover around us in our attempt to discover the truth. On what basis do you advocate that I accept your particular unsupportable proposition as the truth rather than any of the infinite number of alternate unsupported propositions?

And why are you satisfied with doing that?

You might as well say there's no point in trying to learn or discover anything since you can't trust any of the available evidence. In fact, that seems to be exactly what you're saying. Are you advocating that we all settle for living in ignorant bliss?

JimiTime wrote:

Again, you keep talking about evidence etc. You have concluded the above, based on opinion, not evidence.

That's because there is no evidence in this case, just the unsupported speculations of your faith. We're essentially dealing with fiction here, after all.

Splendour

Wicknight wrote:

Humans have a natural tendency to apply agency to nature. This is an instinctive throw back to a more primitive time. So we naturally look at things and go "Someone must have made this like they are, for some reason" The next obvious conclusion to this is that this thing that made things the way they are made things the way they are for us As I've asked before, do theists not find it a bit funny that God has a relationship with us, rather than say whales or ants? Again that is how we naturally view the world, a construct around us, we instinctively give ourselves importance among other creatures.

This is all "common sense", it is only when one examines it does one find the flaws.

This natural tendancy is just that,a natural tendancy inherant in us all.Most people at some point in their lives ask the age old questions,'why are we here and where did we come from', and this regardless of beliefs. It is hardly an istinctive throw back to primitive time if modern scientist are constantly on a quest to get answers to these questions.

Just as God gave us trees, flowers etc. for our pleasure, He too gave us animals for the same reasons. More than that though, He made man in his own likeness, hence the desire for relationship with us.
I'm sure you'll agree that your pet moggie may be cute with a certain degree of intelligence, but you wouldn't take him out for a pint to discuss the meaning of life now would you?!

pinksoir

Splendour wrote:

This natural tendancy is just that,a natural tendancy inherant in us all.Most people at some point in their lives ask the age old questions,'why are we here and where did we come from', and this regardless of beliefs. It is hardly an istinctive throw back to primitive time if modern scientist are constantly on a quest to get answers to these questions.

Just as God gave us trees, flowers etc. for our pleasure, He too gave us animals for the same reasons. More than that though, He made man in his own likeness, hence the desire for relationship with us.
I'm sure you'll agree that your pet moggie may be cute with a certain degree of intelligence, but you wouldn't take him out for a pint to discuss the meaning of life now would you?!

If God gave us animals for our pleasure, how do you explain the millions of species of animals of which we are unaware? And what about parasites? Or all the fish that live in the deepest ocean trenches that we will never discover?

Also, trees and flowers are not for our pleasure. They are part of wider ecosystems, upon which animals depend, and indeed many have no relation to us at all. So to say that animals and plants are here for our pleasure shows an utter naivite and lack of understanding that I find it hard to fathom.

I mean, all the information is out there. I can only urge you to educate yourself a little on the complexity of the world. May I suggest reading Bill Bryson's 'A Short History of Nearly Everything'. It's extremely easy to read and a good starting point for anyone who has a desire to deepen their understanding of nature.

Consequently, it doesn't challenge you to question your faith.

Splendour

pinksoir wrote:

If God gave us animals for our pleasure, how do you explain the millions of species of animals of which we are unaware? And what about parasites? Or all the fish that live in the deepest ocean trenches that we will never discover?

Also, trees and flowers are not for our pleasure. They are part of wider ecosystems, upon which animals depend, and indeed many have no relation to us at all. So to say that animals and plants are here for our pleasure shows an utter naivite and lack of understanding that I find it hard to fathom.

I mean, all the information is out there. I can only urge you to educate yourself a little on the complexity of the world. May I suggest reading Bill Bryson's 'A Short History of Nearly Everything'. It's extremely easy to read and a good starting point for anyone who has a desire to deepen their understanding of nature.

Consequently, it doesn't challenge you to question your faith.

I have no problem with my faith being challenged at all!!
I have equally no problem in saying there are many parts of the bible I struggle with. Only a fool could say otherwise.

When Adam and Eve fell, all of creation fell with them, consequently we have parasites;dogs chase cats; weeds in our gardens etc...

Trees,flowers,fruit,veg even soil is most certainly part of a wider ecosystem upon which all of us depend, and without which we would die.
This is natures first duty, but it is also there for us to enjoy.Who among us doesn't take pleasure from seeing a setting sun, an eagle in flight or a simple walk by the sea...

Zombrex

Splendour wrote:

This natural tendancy is just that,a natural tendancy inherant in us all.Most people at some point in their lives ask the age old questions,'why are we here and where did we come from', and this regardless of beliefs. It is hardly an istinctive throw back to primitive time if modern scientist are constantly on a quest to get answers to these questions.

No, the instinctive throw back is to say "Someone must have done this"

We instinctively apply agency to natural phenomona. It is just the way we view the world. So when we see it raining we say "Someone is making it rain", when we see a river we say "Someone put that river there", when we see an apply we say "Someone made that apple"

This is reflected in human religion and creation stories, that all attempt to explain natural phenomona in terms of some intelligent creature doing something on purpose. So Thor makes thunder, Apollo moves the moon, God created the Earth etc etc.

It is where the concept of "gods" comes from in the first place. Gods are simply agents of change, created to explain why the natural world is as it is in the framework that early humans could understand.

Splendour wrote:

Just as God gave us trees, flowers etc. for our pleasure, He too gave us animals for the same reasons. More than that though, He made man in his own likeness, hence the desire for relationship with us.

You see, classic example. You don't understand why these things actually are the way they are so you instead fall back on a primitive instinct to explain them in the context of agency and purpose. It rains because Thor wants to feed our crops. It sun rises because Ra wants to brighten the day. etc etc.

This is how humans form mental models of the world. Of course it is nonsense, the rain falls because of the very complex weather systems that operate across the entire planet. The sun "rises" because the Earth is actually rotating on an axis.

But primitive man didn't understand any of this, didn't understand the actual reason things happen, in the same way that you don't understand something like evolution or the big bang, or how no one understands what happened before the big bang. So we fall back on the instinct to assume that these things happen because some unknown intelligence makes them happen.

pinksoir

Wicknight is correct here. Throughout the history of humanity we have seen a progression from myth, to polytheism, to monotheism. And the evidence of this is seen through art and later writings.

Primitive man had a very limited understanding of the world and so sought to make sense of it through applying agency to things in their environment. The mountains, forests, indeed every part of the environment possessed 'spirits' or was a god. natural features were often explained through the act of a god; valleys were scooped out and thrown into the sea to create islands. That sort of thing. We see this still in the tribes of Indonesia and also in Aboriginal Australians. This was the age of myth.

Then as humans' society got more and more complex and far reaching, these myths developed into a more homogenised (if you'll pardon the terminology) polytheism, like that of the Norsemen and the Greeks. There were gods to explain how things were created (like the moon and sun), and why natural events occurred (storms etc) but natural features were not seen as posessing spirits. These religions usually had a god, or ruler of the gods.

Eventually monotheistic religions popped up and here we are now. Though at the beginning of the end of it all. It was a logical progression (in retrospect anyway!). I always find it funny how theists can accept their prophecies yet don't take the prophesies of the dead religions seriously at all. I mean, Greek and Roman polytheism was heavily rooted in prophesy. Oracle at Delphi, anyone?

Splendour

pinksoir wrote:

I mean, Greek and Roman polytheism was heavily rooted in prophesy. Oracle at Delphi, anyone?

Apparantly these lassies at in Delphi were in a 'trance like' state which pressumably gave them an air of ethereal creatures. They were also known to give interpretations to suit the questioning party if the money was right!


Any evidence of these 'prophesies' coming true?

pinksoir

That's exactly the point. Is there any evidence of the christian prophecy coming true? It's entirely plausable that Jesus was well aware of the hebrew prophecies and was able to act in accordance with them.

Anything that is prophesised can be brought to fulfilment if the party is aware of those prophesies. Look at Hitler. He consulted an oracle when he was just coming to power who foretold all of what he would achieve. Do you believe in any other fulfilled prophecies other than that of Christ?

rockbeer

pinksoir wrote:

It's entirely plausable that Jesus was well aware of the hebrew prophecies and was able to act in accordance with them.

As far as can be histoprically known, Jesus was a rabbi. As such there is no doubt at all that he would have known of the prophecies, probably in much more detail than any of us. The only question is whether he used the knowledge as you suggest. It certainly seems a whole lot more probable than the alternative.

It's amazing how eager adherents of any faith are to ignore the law that the least far-fetched explanation is usually the most likely to be true.

I was at the electric picnic last year with a friend of mine. He got drunk, had a row with his girlfriend, and fell asleep. When he woke up he was amazed to find that all his wristbands and passes were gone from his arms and round his neck.

Strangely enough he was the only person there who felt the need to find a supernatural explanation.

PDN

pinksoir wrote:

That's exactly the point. Is there any evidence of the christian prophecy coming true? It's entirely plausable that Jesus was well aware of the hebrew prophecies and was able to act in accordance with them.

Anything that is prophesised can be brought to fulfilment if the party is aware of those prophesies. Look at Hitler. He consulted an oracle when he was just coming to power who foretold all of what he would achieve. Do you believe in any other fulfilled prophecies other than that of Christ?

Yes, Jesus was well aware of the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, so he deliberately got himself born there. I am delighted to see atheists & agnostics coming to this realisation. There is hope for some of you yet.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Yes, Jesus was well aware of the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, so he deliberately got himself born there. I am delighted to see atheists & agnostics coming to this realisation. There is hope for some of you yet.

Well the fact is that he most likely wasn't born there, he just claimed he was. Claiming you were born some where is quite easy.

Oh course he could have actually been born there (though this is historically dubious), and this could have lead to his belief that he actually was the Messiah. That is the problem with prophecy, they tend to be self-fulling. The prophecy says that the messiah will be born in Bethlehem so everyone born in Bethlehem starts thinking they are the Messiah