Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How are intelligent, critical thinkers still religious?

24567…12

Comments

  • #32
    PhiloCypher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,391 ✭✭✭PhiloCypher


    liamw wrote: »
    For the past couple of years I've looked at religion and it's truth claims, how and why man concieved of religion and the human predisposition to the supernatural. Any evidences for any specific religion that I've seen have been weak. Most semi-decent arguments tend towards deism but still seem weak.

    I guess my primary goal was to figure out why we had religion, but more specifically why some intelligent people still believed in it. This was a question that, up to now, I just reconciled as brain compartmentalization or lack of applying the same critical thinking to that area.

    However, I still think I'm missing something. I'm finding it hard to concieve how someone like Ken Miller can be a Bible believing Christian. People like Ken, and perhaps Francis Collins, really appear to apply rational thought and critical thinking. They even claim that their theism is deduced completely rationally.

    I don't think they are intentionally lying about this. Why exactly do you think these people still believe that the bible is the word of god? Are there really some arguments I'm missing? Do they tend to put more weight on 'personal experience' that others? Surely these people understand the fallibility of the human brain.

    Here is an example of one of Ken's speeches which got me thinking about this again:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

    I don't get it if he believes in evolution and has no time for intelligent design what role did the god he claims to believe in have in the origins of the universe ?


  • #33
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    strobe wrote: »
    Ok

    You don't seem to be

    Whoa....deja vu

    Edit: Sorry, before you ask what I mean by that. Your beliefs seem to be at odds with Christian doctrine. So why call yourself a Christian if you don't follow one of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity?

    I call myself a Christian because I go to mass and go to funerals and weddings etc I am a practicing Christian. Also all my familly and neighbours are also so its not worth the trouble to tell them Im not a Christian any more and I havent converted to any other religion.

    Also I believe in Jesus' teachings and what he taught (love your neighbour as yourself, sermon on the mount the turn the other cheek etc.) As for his teachings about God I believe that he was just making it easier for Jews to understand like a parable.


  • #34
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Des Carter wrote: »
    I call myself a Christian because I go to mass and go to funerals and weddings etc I am a practicing Christian. Also all my familly and neighbours are also so its not worth the trouble to tell them Im not a Christian any more and I havent converted to any other religion.

    Also I believe in Jesus' teachings and what he taught (love your neighbour as yourself, sermon on the mount the turn the other cheek etc.) As for his teachings about God I believe that he was just making it easier for Jews to understand like a parable.

    Ok here's a simple contrast for you : Me.

    I go to mass, funerals, weddings etc. I am not a practicing Christian, but in the eyes of many Christians in Ireland you could argue I'm actually more devoted than them as I normally attend a religious service every week. I also think that many of Jesus's teaching were good, but I also realise that many of His teachings weren't actually His. Many teachings emerged well before Jesus appeared the classic example is the Golden Rule. Which you merely restated above - Do not do to others what you wouldn't like done to you. It has many forms, the way Jesus expressed was just one way out of several different philosophies. I take the good bits of out philosophy and some religions but I don't go using does good bits as arguments for the existence of a deity. You and I could possibly be classed cultural Christians, but members of faith? Certainly not.

    Oh and I don't just attend Christian services.:cool:


  • #35
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Ok, so in a nutshell God is something that is highly complex, and is just something that is there...a force....something.

    Yes IF God does exist then he would be far more complex than a giant man with a beard living in the clouds.
    Malty_T wrote: »
    You don't have any proof for Him/It, yet you think that people who say He doesn't exist are copping out because they have no proof for Its non-existence either.

    I think its a cop out for many Atheist because they only view God in a very basic sense ie. a big man in the sky and just take the easy option of saying oh I cant prove it so therefore he mustnt exist (which as any rational person would know is not true) However if you have really thought about all the possibilities and have done lots of research etc and have then drawn your conclusion then fair enough. And as you said yourself most people would admit that they dont know/would not rule out the possibility of a god and so they are not copping out


    Malty_T wrote: »
    So let's put this differently shall we? As a Christian you belong to a group of people of which the majority of them believe in the idea that people are born with sin*. In other words, you are saying I am guilty of a crime that will ultimately lead to me going to hell unless I repent and accept the Word of God and Jesus as my saviour.

    I havent really thought about this in depth but at the moment I dont believe this as I believe this is something the Church as an institution has pushed and not Jesus (I could be wrong on this but as far as I know that idea came from the Old testament with Adam and Eve - something I dont believe.)
    Malty_T wrote: »
    Now, you openly admit that there is no proof for God, other than it is something that exists that is so complicated we cannot explain. Imagine, if tomorrow you were put on trial for murdering someone, (Sorry I just watched "The Life of David Gale" on RTE) how would you react if the prosecution's evidence was that the evidence is so complicated we cannot prove it, but we believe it to be true and we'll know for certain when we die.

    This happens all the time for example the O.J Simpson case they had insufficient evidence and so couldnt prosecute him
    Malty_T wrote: »
    Therefore, anyone in the jury who thinks s/he's innocent is being a cop out. I doubt you would react positively to such reason and assessment of evidence. I hope this illustrates the bizarreness I see your in "rational" position.

    No if you came to this conclusion by examining all the evidence in depth and then came to this conclusion then its not however anyone who believes that O.J.Simpson is innocent should be open to the possibility that he is guilty and vice versa.
    Malty_T wrote: »
    Oh, and fyi, most of the posters here don't say that God doesn't exist, they'll admit they can't know that, they'd just prefer people actually owned up to the fact that they don't know. :)

    I completely agree and I totally admit that I dont know if God exists or not Just hate when people follow a belief system blindly without questioning it :)


  • #36
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Des Carter wrote: »
    This happens all the time for example the O.J Simpson case they had insufficient evidence and so couldnt prosecute him

    Em, the point was that if the courts used the logic you used to assess whether God exists or not, then OJ would have been deemed guilty. No evidence, but many believed people him to be guilty, so if you using the God logic, OJ would be found guilty.

    Read my post again. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    Nobody says "God mustn't exist", it's more a case of "nobody has ever put forward any convincing evidence or arguments for the existence of a deity, so why would we believe in one?"

    Actually manny people have its just that a lot of them were later disproven by science. There are so many books written on this topic that it would be impossible to read them all but im sure there are good arguments there somewhere. For example Jesus rising from the dead is pretty convincing and countless miracles. however the vast majority of these can be disputed so I believe that people should be open to the possibility of a God.

    Similarly There is no convincing evidence or arguments for the existence of aliens or ghosts and so I would be skeptical but at the same time I would not rule out the possibility of them existing.

    Daftendirekt wrote: »
    Also, with regard to the bolded part: don't you find the "I don't see or understand God so he must exist" argument equally as absurd?

    Yes.


  • #38
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Des Carter wrote: »
    I think its a cop out for many Atheist because they only view God in a very basic sense ie. a big man in the sky and just take the easy option of saying oh I cant prove it so therefore he mustnt exist (which as any rational person would know is not true)
    An atheist is an atheist because no theist has offered proof (or even valid evidence) of a god. It doesn't make sense that one has to prove the non-existence of something (an impossibility) to believe it's made up. We all lack belief in many things that we haven't disproved.

    You sound more like a Deist than a Christian, tbh. :)


  • #39
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    axer wrote: »
    The problem is you are treating a hypothesis/conjecture as if it were theory or even possibly fact. So you may be generally a logical/rational person but you are not when it comes to this topic.

    im treating a what as a what now instead of a what?

    sorry but im kinda lost but Id love to try and answer you if you refrase it.


  • #40
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    Dades wrote: »
    I don't understand why you would be critical about atheists for not believing in something that has no evidence for it's existence.

    i just dont like people who just automatically rule things out because there is no proof - just because something cant be proven (yet) doesnt mean it doesnt exist. You also say there is no proof but did you read every book, hear every idea and look through every piece of evidence im guessing no so therefore you dont know if there is proof or not.
    Dades wrote: »
    You do the same with every other religion

    I do the same? The same as what?
    Dades wrote: »
    except the one you were born into without any qualms whatsoever. And you don't even believe the parts of that religion that make it a religion anyway.

    Ok your contradicting yourself there you are saying that I dont question/amnt critical of Christianity yet I dont believe in parts of it. I dont believe in parts of it because I WAS critical of it and have come to the conclusion that many parts of it are flawed and are a load of rubbish.
    Dades wrote: »
    You sound like someone who needs a religion, but can't reconcile the faulty logic of your inherited one, so have decided to ignore the uncomfortable bits and tell yourself you can still be a part of it.

    very possible as I will admit that the idea of dieing and then just being gone forever is a very depressing one. However I did not ignore parts because they were uncomfortable, I ignored them because they made no logical sense.
    Dades wrote: »
    If I'm honest, I don't see how you can stand up and say you used critical thinking or reasoning to get yourself into that position.

    You are entitled to your opinion


  • #41
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Des, do you also believe in the toothfairy, witches, leprachauns, zeus, cupid etc etc?

    Serious question btw..


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Your post is some what redundant without the logic or rationality behind your belief in "God".

    ok first off great point and one that I often think about myself but I started with the fact that we dont know if a god exists so from there I decided to explore what "God" would be like if he did exist. So we have no way of knowing if God exists so we either just live and then die or there is a god and so by believing in a God you are more likely to live a morally sound and good life.

    Yes this is a cop out but I have more logic etc its just very complicated and Im still thinking about it so this is the best way for me to describe it at the moment.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    This highlights the dangers of assuming common sense (ie the ability of humans to personally assess the state of something based on held intuition) is valid without external confirmation.

    Isnt the idea that once you die your gone for good not common sense?


  • #43
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,517 ✭✭✭axer


    axer wrote: »
    The problem is you are treating a hypothesis/conjecture as if it were theory or even possibly fact. So you may be generally a logical/rational person but you are not when it comes to this topic.
    Des Carter wrote: »
    sorry but im kinda lost but Id love to try and answer you if you refrase it.
    The idea of there being a god is merely a hypothesis or conjecture since there is no proof to back it up. It is just an idea. One that I and most atheists dont rule out.

    Do you think it is rational to threat a hypothesis as if it were fact or even a theory?


  • #44
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Des Carter wrote: »
    ok first off great point and one that I often think about myself but I started with the fact that we dont know if a god exists so from there I decided to explore what "God" would be like if he did exist. So we have no way of knowing if God exists so we either just live and then die or there is a god and so by believing in a God you are more likely to live a morally sound and good life.

    You are going to have to explain that to me again. Are you saying that the reason you believe in God (or a notion of a god) is that people who do believe in a deity lead better moral lives?

    Leaving aside that I don't think that is true, if we assume it is that still doesn't seem to be a rational reason to propose the existence of a deity.

    Particularly in light of all the research into the evolutionary reasons for religious behavior and belief. It seems that religion is the by product of evolved instincts towards social behavior which includes morality.
    Des Carter wrote: »
    Yes this is a cop out but I have more logic etc its just very complicated and Im still thinking about it so this is the best way for me to describe it at the moment.
    Fair enough, take your time. I don't mean to attack you. You are though holding yourself up as an example of a rational logical person who believes in god(s) for rational logical reasons, so I guess it is only fair to warn you that your reasons will be heavily scrutinized on this forum. Some people don't like that or confuse it with a personal attack. At least from me it doesn't mean to be. On this forum we critically analyze things to death, and sometimes cherished ideas get ripped to pieces. :)
    Des Carter wrote: »
    Isnt the idea that once you die your gone for good not common sense?

    Not according to humans.

    From an early age humans develop a mental ability to view a persons "mind" as separate from their body. A lot of research has gone into this, particularly with children

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

    Couple this with a natural instinct to fear death humans have developed a natural tendency to view people as still existing after death. This happens even without the framework of a religion to explain it, so it is easy to see how such ideas would be incorporated into religion.

    Even the phrase "gone for good" implies existence some where else, just not hear. We very rarely tend to use definitive terms not no longer exists as we have serious mental trouble processing such concepts. It is far easier to imagine a person as simply not being here than to imagine them no longer existing.


  • #45
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Ok here's a simple contrast for you : Me.

    I go to mass, funerals, weddings etc. I am not a practicing Christian, but in the eyes of many Christians in Ireland you could argue I'm actually more devoted than them as I normally attend a religious service every week. I also think that many of Jesus's teaching were good, but I also realise that many of His teachings weren't actually His. Many teachings emerged well before Jesus appeared the classic example is the Golden Rule. Which you merely restated above - Do not do to others what you wouldn't like done to you. It has many forms, the way Jesus expressed was just one way out of several different philosophies. I take the good bits of out philosophy and some religions but I don't go using does good bits as arguments for the existence of a deity. You and I could possibly be classed cultural Christians, but members of faith? Certainly not.

    Oh and I don't just attend Christian services.:cool:

    I am well aware that many of Jesus' teachings were borrowed, including the golden rule but the simple fact is that Im just not bothered looking through all the different religions/philosophies and picking out the parts that suit me as jesus' teachings cover most of these in some form. I also dont think this proves the existence of a deity i was just explaining why I was a christian even though many of my beliefs are contrary to it.

    here is a question for you Malty, if you dont believe in a God or afterlife then why pick the good out of certain philosophies/religions and do "good" when you end up going to the same place as someone who does "bad"?

    I put good and bad in "" because if you dont believe that you will be judged when you die then surely you dont believe in good and bad and the only reason you do Good is to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities.


  • #46
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Em, the point was that if the courts used the logic you used to assess whether God exists or not, then OJ would have been deemed guilty. No evidence, but many believed people him to be guilty, so if you using the God logic, OJ would be found guilty.

    Read my post again. :)

    No its deemed that its impossible to know - something I admit but I believe (not know) that there is a god just like I believe (not know) that O.J is guilty.


  • #47
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Des Carter wrote: »
    I am well aware that many of Jesus' teachings were borrowed, including the golden rule but the simple fact is that Im just not bothered looking through all the different religions/philosophies and picking out the parts that suit me as jesus' teachings cover most of these in some form. I also dont think this proves the existence of a deity i was just explaining why I was a christian even though many of my beliefs are contrary to it.

    This issue I think most Christians would take with this is that you are ignoring some of Jesus' teachings. So why accept some and not others. Why would some bits of it be profound and from the mouth of God, but not others?
    Des Carter wrote: »
    here is a question for you Malty, if you dont believe in a God or afterlife then why pick the good out of certain philosophies/religions and do "good" when you end up going to the same place as someone who does "bad"?

    I put good and bad in "" because if you dont believe that you will be judged when you die then surely you dont believe in good and bad and the only reason you do Good is to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities.

    Most people "do good" because they have strong emotional instincts that reward socially benefitial behavior and discourage socially determental behavior through emotional systems such as pride, guilt, empathy.

    If I cheat on my girlfiend I feel guilty. If I steal from my mother I feel guilty. If I hand in a 50 euro note I feel pride. These are evolved emotions that regulate social interaction.

    They can of course not function the same in everyone which is why you get people on different scales of morality. Various genetic and environmental factors can greatly alter how they work. While being social creatures we also have concepts of aggression and protective behavior that lessing these instincts. We treat our family or close social group (tribe) different to how we view outsiders. Where this line is drawn is different for different people.

    Morality and emotions systems are complex and variable, but in my opinion the only context they make any sense in is in an naturalistic/evolutionary context. Introduce God and you end up with a whole host of contradictory and convoluted reasoning.


  • #48
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,453 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Des Carter wrote: »
    Ok I think I am very rational and loical. I am also very skeptical and critical [...] I came to the conclusion that a God does exist [...] I dont understand or see God so therefore he mustnt exist theory is a cop out. And if we were to look at it logically there is no way of knowing as we dont know what happens when we die so there is no way of knowing if there is or not.
    It's really very illogical to think that just because you can't prove that god doesn't exist, that it's ok to think that he does.

    What about all the gods that aren't catholic? Do they exist too just because you can't show that they don't?


  • #49
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Des Carter wrote: »
    I put good and bad in "" because if you dont believe that you will be judged when you die then surely you dont believe in good and bad and the only reason you do Good is to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities.

    You really think that you require religion and the threaT of hell to be good? How do you explain atheists that volunteer and have a clean rap sheet?


  • #50
    ColmDawson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,001 ✭✭✭ColmDawson


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    You really think that you require religion and the thread of hell to be good? How do you explain atheists that volunteer and have a clean rap sheet?
    Anything but the thread of hell! Have mercy, I beg you!


  • #51
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Des Carter wrote: »
    I am well aware that many of Jesus' teachings were borrowed, including the golden rule but the simple fact is that Im just not bothered looking through all the different religions/philosophies and picking out the parts that suit me as jesus' teachings cover most of these in some form. I also dont think this proves the existence of a deity i was just explaining why I was a christian even though many of my beliefs are contrary to it.

    here is a question for you Malty, if you dont believe in a God or afterlife then why pick the good out of certain philosophies/religions and do "good" when you end up going to the same place as someone who does "bad"?

    I put good and bad in "" because if you dont believe that you will be judged when you die then surely you dont believe in good and bad and the only reason you do Good is to avoid getting in trouble with the authorities.

    Well Nozzferratho, sorry I can't spell has a much better prose for explaining this so I hope he doesn't mind if I just plagiarise it.
    I find human morality very simple to explain. It is not some divine attribute existing outside ourselves. It is merely the extension of our desires for ourselves or as philosophers have often put it “Enlightened self interest”....I love my family. I do not want them to be killed. Therefore I want to live in a society where people are not killed. Simple.

    I care for children and the children of my siblings. Therefore I want them to be not molested or harmed. Therefore I want a society where Children are not raped and harmed. Simple....

    I love the older members of my family. I hope that when they choose to use public transport that they will be presented with a seat to ease their pain and trouble. Therefore I want to live in a society where such actions are performed. Hence I perform it myself when I have the chance. I, with my own hands and my own actions, help lay the blocks of such a society.

    In fact, although in a sense the premise of this moral system could be described as being selfish to its core, I struggle to find any moral the religious amongst us claim, that I cannot also form in this fashion. Since we, as humans, share a lot of our selfish desires, we have many areas where overlap occurs. Consensus is reached often on many subjects. The majority of us respect old people as above, want to protect children as above and are against violence as above. Not all people are, but most.

    This almost universal consensus is what apologists such as D’Souza use in an attempt to elevate morality beyond its means. People who perform to this consensus are labelled “good”. People who do not are labelled “evil”. These labels are subjective human categorizations and no more. Where such morals have their parallel in the morals espoused in the bible “good” and “evil” are relabelled “good” and “sin” as if there were some distinction.

    Good, evil and sin are not entities in and of themselves requiring explanation. They are not an indication of a divine moral standard. They are, above all, not evidence for the existence of a god figure.

    We miss ya nozzy, where ever you are.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Des Carter wrote: »
    No its deemed that its impossible to know - something I admit but I believe (not know) that there is a god just like I believe (not know) that O.J is guilty.

    But again you're not getting the point. Using your logic for God, those who say that OJ is innocent until proven guilty are cop outs. That's purely bizarre reasoning,but I'm just using your logic.


  • #53
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Des Carter wrote: »
    i just dont like people who just automatically rule things out because there is no proof - just because something cant be proven (yet) doesnt mean it doesnt exist. You also say there is no proof but did you read every book, hear every idea and look through every piece of evidence im guessing no so therefore you dont know if there is proof or not.
    Key point: Atheists don't rule anything out. Ruling out is not the same as lacking a belief in something. You're using some definition of an atheist as someone who says "There is no God" - which is not what the definition means.
    Des Carter wrote: »
    I do the same? The same as what?
    You lack belief in the existence of Thor, Vishnu, or tree-gods just like us!
    Des Carter wrote: »
    Ok your contradicting yourself there you are saying that I dont question/amnt critical of Christianity yet I dont believe in parts of it. I dont believe in parts of it because I WAS critical of it and have come to the conclusion that many parts of it are flawed and are a load of rubbish.
    I never said you weren't critical of Christianity - I suggested it's not reasoned thinking to reject substantial bits of a religion and still call yourself an adherent.

    I just don't understand how you can conclude God exists, and then reject the tenets of the religion you claim to be part of that actually defines that God.


  • #54
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Malty_T wrote: »
    We miss ya nozzy, where ever you are.

    *sigh* :)


  • #55
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    Dades wrote: »
    An atheist is an atheist because no theist has offered proof (or even valid evidence) of a god. It doesn't make sense that one has to prove the non-existence of something (an impossibility) to believe it's made up. We all lack belief in many things that we haven't disproved.

    You sound more like a Deist than a Christian, tbh. :)

    I actually answered this question in the post directly above your one (the one I have quoted)

    As for being a Deist, I dont know what that is so maybe I am. :)


  • #56
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Des, do you also believe in the toothfairy, witches, leprachauns, zeus, cupid etc etc?

    Serious question btw..

    Ok you are clearly just having a go at me but I will answer these questions anyway.

    Toothfairy = No because
    dont tell anyone but the parents/guardians put the money under the pillow.

    leprachauns = no because they are supposed to have lived on the earth yet their have never been any bones/bodies/crocks of gold found.

    Zeus = If you believe in Zeus you would have to believe in other Greek gods and all their traditions and as I dont know them I dont practice them now I believe a God does exist but as I said I dont think its/hes as simple as a man in the sky/deity.

    Cupid = dont know enough about him.

    Now witches Thank you for including this one as it shows how closed minded you are as you just assumed a witch was an ugly women who flies around on a broom. Now this type of witch does not exist but witches DO exist and are surprisingly common:

    http://www.realwitches.com/

    http://www.witchcraft.com.au/


  • #57
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    axer wrote: »
    The idea of there being a god is merely a hypothesis or conjecture since there is no proof to back it up. It is just an idea. One that I and most atheists dont rule out.

    Do you think it is rational to threat a hypothesis as if it were fact or even a theory?

    So your asking the same question as Wicknight?


  • #58
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Des Carter wrote: »
    Cupid = dont know enough about him.

    So, I take it then, that you are assuming cupid exists?


  • #59
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Malty_T wrote: »
    So, I take it then, that you are assuming cupid exists?

    Also, you don't believe in leprachauns because no bones etc have ever been found, but believes in god of which there is no evidence at all!


  • #60
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    Wicknight wrote: »
    people who do believe in a deity lead better moral lives?

    well in theory yes as if you dont believe in a god/afterlife then it doesnt matter if you do good or bad as you end up in the same place also if you follow a religion the should have a good moral code for you to follow. Of course this doesnt apply in the real world and often atheists would have a better sense of right and wrong than religious people.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Leaving aside that I don't think that is true, if we assume it is that still doesn't seem to be a rational reason to propose the existence of a deity.

    Again I dont believe in a deity as that sounds like its an actual being in the sky whos watching and judging you - where my idea of a God is far more complex as I tried to describe in my original post.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Particularly in light of all the research into the evolutionary reasons for religious behavior and belief. It seems that religion is the by product of evolved instincts towards social behavior which includes morality.

    I will try to answer this in a later post.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Fair enough, take your time. I don't mean to attack you. You are though holding yourself up as an example of a rational logical person who believes in god(s) for rational logical reasons, so I guess it is only fair to warn you that your reasons will be heavily scrutinized on this forum. Some people don't like that or confuse it with a personal attack. At least from me it doesn't mean to be. On this forum we critically analyze things to death, and sometimes cherished ideas get ripped to pieces. :)

    I totally understand that and on the same note Im not trying to say all Atheist are stupid or Im not trying to convert anyone or enforce my views on anyone. I deliberately posted here so I would get scrutinized as It may help me think of things/arguments I havent thought of before.


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Not according to humans.

    From an early age humans develop a mental ability to view a persons "mind" as separate from their body. A lot of research has gone into this, particularly with children

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

    Couple this with a natural instinct to fear death humans have developed a natural tendency to view people as still existing after death. This happens even without the framework of a religion to explain it, so it is easy to see how such ideas would be incorporated into religion.

    Even the phrase "gone for good" implies existence some where else, just not hear. We very rarely tend to use definitive terms not no longer exists as we have serious mental trouble processing such concepts. It is far easier to imagine a person as simply not being here than to imagine them no longer existing.

    Yes but this is the opposite of common sense ie its drawing conclusions based on emotions as opposed to looking at the obvious.

    And you just stated that all Atheists and non believers have no/little common sense.:D

    I know I still havent fully answered your original question but I will start by asking you a question. (bear with me)

    Do you believe in coincident/luck/chance/randomness?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Des Carter wrote: »
    well in theory yes as if you dont believe in a god/afterlife then it doesnt matter if you do good or bad as you end up in the same place also if you follow a religion the should have a good moral code for you to follow. Of course this doesnt apply in the real world and often atheists would have a better sense of right and wrong than religious people.

    I'm still not following how this is an argument for the existence of deities?
    Des Carter wrote: »
    Again I dont believe in a deity as that sounds like its an actual being in the sky whos watching and judging you - where my idea of a God is far more complex as I tried to describe in my original post.

    Well actually it is the other way around. God implies the Christian notion of a human like father figure, where as deity is being more general.

    But anyway, which ever term you are happier with.
    Des Carter wrote: »
    Do you believe in coincident/luck/chance/randomness?

    Yes, no, yes yes :)

    I don't believe in fate or luck or pre-destiny.


Advertisement