The Great AH Census of Religion

Killer Pigeon

Jakkass wrote: »

Science doesn't confirm or deny the existence of God, or gods. All science seeks to do is understand material things around us and their functions, whether that be biologically, physically, or anything else.

Neither can science disprove the existence of unicorns, goblins or snorlaxes.

raah!

I think I've stated mine numerous times, but someone here actually summed it up beautifully with something like "we are all the universe trying to understand itself."

You are a materialist? "we are all the universe trying to understand itself" is very very very vague. Of what is the universe comprised?

landsleaving

raah! wrote: »

You are a materialist? "we are all the universe trying to understand itself" is very very very vague. Of what is the universe comprised?

Take it to the antimatter thread :pac:

philologos

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Neither can science disprove the existence of unicorns, goblins or snorlaxes.

Absolutely in agreement.

This means that using science which by definition is agnostic on matters of God's existence, to attempt to disprove God's existence is a pretty futile matter.

This is what I propose, and what I proposed a few days ago as the proper context for a debate between theists and atheists:

I can't demonstrably prove God's existence any more than you can disprove it. I admit this.

The argument is limited to this. There are three broad claims:
1) Theism - God exists.
2) Agnosticism - I don't know.
3) Atheism - God does not exist.

Now, we start off at position 2, not position 1 or 3. The best we can do as theists or atheists is the following:
Argue why it is more likely that God does or does not exist. One cannot certifiably prove or disprove God, so instead one must explain why one believes in it.

I'm happy to do this, but in order to do this, we must have a dialogue where we both explain our positions. Rather than a case of me explaining my beliefs and you shouting "Prove it! Prove it!". Such childishness should be beyond anyone.

Most of the discussion on AH concerning religion doesn't reach these criteria. They turn out to be a wasteful use of text on a database rather than anything with meaningful content.

Personally, I find that unfortunate, but meh.

Naikon

Strong 6 for me. Don't even bother thinking about it much anymore tbh. You won't care when you are dead. Who cares.

philologos

Misanthrope wrote: »

The floor is yours.State your actual beliefs there to avoid further confusion or presumption on my part.

I think I've stated mine numerous times, but someone here actually summed it up beautifully with something like "we are all the universe trying to understand itself."

That's my view , in a nutshell.

So clarify yours please.

I don't only seek to understand the universe, I seek to understand the why behind the universe. That's the primary difference. This is broadly what I believe.

1. God created the heavens and the earth.
2. God is a Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. The Biblical text is divinely inspired, and is infallible in communicating God's word to mankind.
4. Mankind fell from God's standard, and turned away from Him. They disobeyed Him and as a result of this disobedience are worthy of His punishment.
5. Jesus Christ, is fully man and fully God, serving as a bridge between mankind and humankind.
6. Our disobedience (sin) separates us from God. Therefore Jesus who was sinless, took on our sin and was crucified which He didn't deserve on our behalf, so that we might be forgiven.
7. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, 3 days after His crucifixion.
8. It is our choice, whether or not we decide to believe in Him, and be forgiven, or reject Him, and receive His rightful punishment.

Broadly along those lines, although more detail is required when going into certain specifics.

Nodin

I have to say that I'm pleasantly suprised at the lean towards disbelief shown in the poll.

Killer Pigeon

Jakkass wrote: »

Absolutely in agreement.

This means that using science which by definition is agnostic on matters of God's existence, to attempt to disprove God's existence is a pretty futile matter.

This is what I propose, and what I proposed a few days ago as the proper context for a debate between theists and atheists:


Most of the discussion on AH concerning religion doesn't reach these criteria. They turn out to be a wasteful use of text on a database rather than anything with meaningful content.

Personally, I find that unfortunate, but meh.

One can disprove the existence of a personal God, however one cannot yet fully prove that a supreme being, creator of everything, does or does not exist. By this creator I mean the 'thing' initiated the Big Bang. To express certainty over whether God does or does not exist is just a dogmatic assumption. However, one can show valid theories that could potentially disprove the existence of a Supreme Being or that show the validity of having an argument against its existence. One argument would be that if a Supreme Being created the universe, then who created the SB and who planted the seed that created the SB and so on for eternity. In the end, the speculation over whether or not a SB exists will never be fully resolved, as the suggestion about its existence is just as farfetched as saying the universe was created from nothing. One could however disprove with certainty the existence of an Abrahamic/ personal God that directly created humans and the Earth and actually interfered directly in human affairs. To an extent, the belief that a SB had direct involvement in the structuring of the universe after it allegedly created the universe has been disproved. One philosophical argument by the Greek philosopher Epicurus raises doubts over the direct involvement of a God in the affairs of mankind;

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he able but not willing? Then why call him God".

In light of the above certainties and uncertainties, I see myself as an agnostic atheist. Someone who is a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist would have quite dogmatic beliefs about the existence or non-existence of a SB, which cannot be proven true or false.

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

I thought humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Not that humans evolved from apes, but that humans and apes are both primates in a sense because of their common ancestry. I.E - We evolved from an ancestor, which then evolved into a number of strains, one leading to apes, and one leading to humans.

You're both wrong actually. Homo sapiens are apes.

The modern species of apes you see today evolved from a common ancestor and all life evolved from a common ancestor.

The things people are saying about evolution and commenting on it with absolutely no idea about it is fairly staggering.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Science doesn't confirm or deny the existence of God, or gods.

Science is, however, rather sceptical of the notion thusfar. I've said this countless times before; the God question isn't somehow above or beyond the reach of science, it's an unfalsifiable mess that is beneath the notice of science.

All science seeks to do is understand material things around us and their functions, whether that be biologically, physically, or anything else.

All any human being is capable of is trying to understand the material things around us and their interactions. Everything and anything else is imaginary.

Science isn't the only way to explain things in the world.

It's the best way, certainly.

Killer Pigeon

Ush1 wrote: »

You're both wrong actually. Homo sapiens are apes.

The modern species of apes you see today evolved from a common ancestor and all life evolved from a common ancestor.

The things people are saying about evolution and commenting on it with absolutely no idea about it is fairly staggering.

We are the 5th Ape :P

raah!

Science is a methodology. It doesn't have opinions.

philologos

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

One can disprove the existence of a personal God.

If you do we've been waiting thousands of years for it. Please disprove it.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

One cannot yet prove that a supreme being does or does not exist.

Correct.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

To express certainty over whether God does or does not exist is just a dogmatic assumption.

OK, but expressing absolute certainty is rather different than looking to what the actual evidence is. What is the case that the Bible is true concerning Jesus' Resurrection? What is the case that Jesus of Nazareth existed? Is the Bible consistent with history and archaeology? Can I trust the New Testament manuscripts?

There are a lot of questions such as these that can be answered to satisfaction. One merely has to determine which is more likely, does God exist, or does He not?

From what I have read, and from personal experience of my own since I decided to believe, I believe that the case for Christianity is convincing. It's a matter of researching for yourself, thoroughly.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

One could however disprove with certainty the existence of an Abrahamic/ personal God that directly created humans and the Earth and actually interfered directly in human affairs. To an extent, the belief that a SB had direct involvement in the structuring of the universe after it allegedly created the universe has been disproved. One philosophical argument by the Greek philosopher Epicurus raises doubts over the direct involvement of a God in the affairs of mankind;

Epicurus' argument is flawed in numerous respects. I assume you are referring to his argument from evil. A major flaw that it precludes is that evil could actually have a functional purpose in this world, and indeed that it is a key force for developing character.

Does a childs father not have to eventually let him determine things for him or herself?

I wouldn't regard that as a "disproof" it is certainly a case that God's existence may be more likely.

Having studied Epicurus at university, as well as other secular philosophers in respect to God's existence (I study philosophy) the main argument is a "noseeum" argument (I can't see God present). It doesn't follow logically, that just because you cannot see something, that it doesn't exist. As such that wouldn't be a disproof.

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

In light of the above certainties and uncertainties, I see myself as an agnostic atheist. Someone who is a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist would have quite dogmatic beliefs about the existence or non-existence of a SB, which cannot be proven true or false.

Right, but you've just said a personal God can be disproven?

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

Science is, however, rather sceptical of the notion thusfar. I've said this countless times before; the God question isn't somehow above or beyond the reach of science, it's an unfalsifiable mess that is beneath the notice of science.

Absolute nonsense, given the clear amount of Christians, Muslims, Jews, amongst others involved in science.

Whether or not individuals are skeptical of God's existence is irrelevant. Whether or not scientific fact actually has anything to do with God's existence, is another matter.

It's unfortunate how a lot of atheists are trying to ram their own conclusions into the middle of science. I don't claim that science endorses my position when it is agnostic. What I do do is look at what exists around me, and draw conclusions about how likely a God is to exist given these circumstances.

Zillah wrote: »

All any human being is capable of is trying to understand the material things around us and their interactions. Everything and anything else is imaginary.

There is a difference between trying to understand the material, and refusing to consider anything that isn't material.

Zillah wrote: »

It's the best way, certainly.

It's kind of like just ignoring what you don't want to consider. It doesn't seem very rigorous to me.

Naikon

The onus is on the believers to prove the existence of higher powers/beings. It's not up to Science to disprove religious claims. Due to lack of evidence, I am leaning towards Atheism. Should new evidence surface, I may reconsider my stance. Really, really old books and opinion does not cut the mustard I am afraid. Science does not claim to know all the answers. Religion does. This is the main problem. Look at Evolution for example.

raah!

Jakkass wrote: »

3. The Biblical text is divinely inspired, and is infallible in communicating God's word to mankind.

Could you expand on this a bit? What do you think about things like biblical contradictions... and matters of exegisis. By infallible in communicating do you mean communicating infallibly? I mean, why do people interpret it differently, do you think?

Thuck_Fat

Zillah wrote: »

HANG ON HANG ON!

Relativity is just a theory, right? So why are we teaching it like it is a fact, huh?

Plate tectonics is just a theory. That's being taught in schools around the world...

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Absolute nonsense, given the clear amount of Christians, Muslims, Jews, amongst others involved in science.

Whether or not individuals are skeptical of God's existence is irrelevant. Whether or not scientific fact actually has anything to do with God's existence, is another matter.

All we know is that God is, thusfar, absolutely undetectable. Combined with the fact that every single thing that was once claimed to be God's hand has been proven to be a mere natural process, and the fact that human brains constantly invent agencies to rationalise the world, we inevitably must remain profoundly sceptical about this Yahweh fellow you seem so concerned with.

There is a difference between trying to understand the material, and refusing to consider anything that isn't material.

Well we can't interact with the immaterial, and considering...nothing...get's boring pretty quickly.

Wait, by "consider" do you mean "play imagination time"? I can do that! Ok, erm, the world was created by a turtle called Bethany. Bethany wants us all to get shells some day! The reason we feel sad some times is because Bethany falls onto her back some times, but we feel better again because she manages to roll back over!

Am I doing it right? Science has no opinion on Bethany, right?

It's kind of like just ignoring what you don't want to consider. It doesn't seem very rigorous to me.

Oh science has tried, with rigour, to detect the supernatural. Can't find it. There was a Swedish scientist who thought he had discovered magic during some trials in 1997 but it turns out he accidentally dosed himself with acid.

Zillah

Thuck_Fat wrote: »

Plate tectonics is just a theory. That's being taught in schools around the world...

I better tell the President!

philologos

raah! wrote: »

Could you expand on this a bit? What do you think about things like biblical contradictions... and matters of exegisis. By infallible in communicating do you mean communicating infallibly? I mean, why do people interpret it differently, do you think?

I believe the Bible is an infallible descriptor of God's nature. That's what I mean when I refer to it as infallible. Some liberal Christians would disagree with my description of the Bible as such.

As for Biblical contradictions, I think things have to be read within context. Very often people can isolate passages in such a way as to appear like they are saying what they are not when looked at in context. A lot of Biblical contradictions in relation to the 4 Gospel accounts in particular are raised, and when you actually look to them, they only differ in how much detail is offered in each. All could be equally describing the same event without much difficulty.

Why do people interpret things differently? - This usually comes down to applying personal assumptions onto a text that is far older than you are and that is in many cases removed from our current society. I find often researching, and discussing with other Christians in respect to how one interprets Scripture, helps an awful lot. People should come to a reasonable conclusion from what is written for themselves from my perspective.

Some passages, are ambiguous, such as the Psalms, or other poetic works in the Biblical text, and some passages aren't really that ambiguous at all. It is all about how to handle the Bible correctly.

Killer Pigeon

Jakkass wrote: »

Right, but you've just said a personal God can be disproven?

Personal God = A God that, over the course of human history, has effected its paths and has actually initiated life on Earth and put the world in motion around the sun. A God that has shown himself to express emotion and to actually care, somewhat, about humanity even though humanity is only a fraction of a blink in the existence of the cosmos.

Supreme Being = more accurately the prime mover, the entity that created energy and nothing else and allowed the universe to develop into what it is today with no input whatsoever. The prime mover might still exist or might not exist anymore.

Which of the following is the most likely?
Epicurus doesn't disprove the existence of the 'prime mover' or the 'initiator' but it might disprove the existence of a personal God who likes to input directly into the affairs of humanity.

philologos

Naikon wrote: »

The onus is on the believers to prove the existence of higher powers/beings. It's not up to Science to disprove religious claims. Due to lack of evidence, I am leaning towards Atheism. Should new evidence surface, I may reconsider my stance. Really, really old books and opinion does not cut the mustard I am afraid. Science does not claim to know all the answers. Religion does. This is the main problem. Look at Evolution for example.

It's obvious that God cannot be absolutely proven for. It can be argued that God is more likely or not likely, but that's about it.

It isn't sciences' job to be atheism's trophy piece, and vice versa for Christianity. All science does is describe what is material. It is up to us to determine from the evidence, whether or not this universe has a supernatural cause, whether or not there is a personal God or anything else for that matter.

Personally, I strain to see how this could all be without God. Not only in terms of why we are here, but in terms of morality, ethics, rights and so on.

MagicMarker

Thuck_Fat wrote: »

Plate tectonics is just a theory. That's being taught in schools around the world...

It's a scientific theory;

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

Killer Pigeon

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I strain to see how this could all be without God. Not only in terms of why we are here, but in terms of morality, ethics, rights and so on.

Morality is a product of evolution.

piby

I'm a 6 on that scale since I can't prove there's no God but I very very strongly doubt it! I'm surprised there's a lot more 7's than 1's given that the latter doesn't require evidence whereas those of us who are atheists base our belief on the very fact that there is no evidence for God. There is, however, no evidence that God doesn't definately not exist even if it's highly inprobable. Thus I think it is somewhat of a paradox if you're an atheist to say you are a 7 no matter how strong your belief.

Ush1

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I strain to see how this could all be without God. Not only in terms of why we are here, but in terms of morality, ethics, rights and so on.

Don't doubt that for a second. Reading some science books may help though.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

Some passages, are ambiguous, such as the Psalms, or other poetic works in the Biblical text, and some passages aren't really that ambiguous at all. It is all about how to handle the Bible correctly.

Know what's not ambiguous? The passages that tell you to kill homosexuals, or your friends and family who try to lead you away from the Abrahamic god, or that you must take your unruly child to the edge of town and stone them, or that a person who works on the Sabbath must be put to death, or that owning slaves is good, or that believing things on faith without a shred of evidence is far preferable to scepticism, or that apostates will burn in hell for all eternity.

Jakkass wrote:

Not only in terms of why we are here, but in terms of morality, ethics, rights and so on.

I certainly hope you don't get your morals from that god. He is a despicable mass murderer with an unhealthy obsession with what goes on in human bedrooms.

I am a de facto atheist. I am almost certain there is no god, but obviously I cannot disprove it.

Misanthrope

raah! wrote: »

You are a materialist? "we are all the universe trying to understand itself" is very very very vague. Of what is the universe comprised?

Energy and physical matter, both of which are interchangeable.

Killer Pigeon

Humanism and agnostic atheism are the way forward people!

May Science Prevail!

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

It's obvious that God cannot be absolutely proven for.

Which begs the question, why not? Like, he does exist, right? Why is he being so coy?

He knows I don't believe in him, and that I do not do so because of a lack of evidence. I genuinely do not think he is there. Seems like a wasted opportunity, no? Why wouldn't he give me a nice unambiguous sign?