Do you believe in God?

Yeah yeah yeah... I stand by my first generalization.

Perhaps you missed the context of humanistic though.

But I like how you put it. You are saying that religion has little correlation to hate and compassion. So why are we to feel threatened by other's religion?

How do we prove that emotional and spiritual states are not the sane way of distributing compassion and hate and bias and prejudice?

I almost suggest you read some Dawkins - but then I remembered that the man has such fundamental misunderstandings of religion that reading his work is really a waste of time.

Religion or lack thereof does not necessarily correlate to knowledge or understanding.

Maybe. I'm looking back at the post, and if I did, I'm still confused. Could you elaborate?

Because people are silly. I'm a Christian, but I meet a Buddhist and say "Bless you on your path". As a Christian, I can still study and learn from other traditions. Some people, though, get into this idea that only one religion can be right. They cling too tightly to their religion.

Hunter Thompson said something:
"At the top of the mountain, we are all snow leopards."

In Buddhist mythology a snow leopard is someone who reaches enlightenment on their own, without teachers, without study. Like the snow leopard, they are alone in their spiritual pursuits. I think Thompson was right. Whatever our background, whatever religion we claim to be, our path is necessarily unique.

That's what people who squabble about which religion tradition is right do not understand. Everyone has their own path. My path is just as different from my fellow Christian's path as my path is different from a Muslim's path.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

:lol:It might suit me anyways, eh.



Exactly my point, though I suppose understanding the religion is important if one is to hold true value in the customs it evokes. I mean, you have to agree with the religion to an extent, otherwise it has to inner meaning, in which one would just be a pawn.



Animals



Well its so obvious that its hard to assume anything else, right. Emotion implying emotion, seems sane, right.:deep-thought:

And I'm starting to like this Buddhism more than Christianity. But this whole idea of enlightenment doesn't appeal to me so I guess it cuts the religion short eh?

If Buddhism seems, to some degree, attractive, I strongly recommend Robert Thurman's Inner Revolution. Seriously, it's a well spent twenty bucks.

Hey, Holiday, you seem to be misinformed about my beliefs.
About - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Cupofcoffees,

I'm usually very serious about religious convictions... but no lie, that was hilarious.



Who could come up with that???

That was hilarious, and I hope you don't actually believe that crap.

Then again, how are we to prove that God is more likely to be an old man of shining light over a spaghetti monster.

Perhaps someone was eating a hearty plate of noodles and tomato sauce when the conviction of his noodly appendage fell upon them.

That's a spicy meatball.

Well shoot. I forgot to look at dates to see if this was actually an old and revived thread (which it is) and as such read nearly all of the posts and had written responses and all of that fun stuff, only to disover that the discussions to which I was responding are mostly irrelevant now. Oh well. I'm going to post some of what I had written as responses to two sets of specific questions posted by...shoot...I don't remember who now. The first set was toward the beginning of the discussion, and the second set was on the third page back I think (if your settings are at 50 per page). Take THAT thread!

SET 1:
1. If there is a god, and he does exist, and has existed. Why not prove it to us? Why not come down and make an appearance?

This question seems more like a questioning of whether there is a "Christin God" rather than just any 'ol god. If there is a god, it's entirely possible that we're really the "science experiment in the closet" model. Or a hobby. Not necessarily something that the being in question really cares that much about.

And besides, plenty of odd events have occurred and odd people claiming odd things, of which several we thus far remained unexplained by science (which is not to say that they can't be, just that they haven't been yet), but these events are typically disregarded. What if "God" really has tried to make appearances and we're just ignoring him/her/it? What if "God's" appearance to us takes place very frequently in the minute, because it simply takes too much energy to do stupendous, large-scale things (since we haven't even established that we're talking about an omnipotent being)? If someone had managed to video "God" and post it to You-Tube...who would actually take it seriously?

2. (wasn't in question form)...the fact that we have the ability to feel and have feelings.

This isn't just humans - most animals have been shown to feel. Why does a mother bear get so very very upset if you come anywhere near her cubs? She's feeling protective. And more than a little angry They feel fear, as well, frequently. This is not to say that they have the same understanding of their feelings as we do, though.

But then, now that I have written that, I have to bounce another question back at you: Why would a "god" limit feelings to humans anyway? Why should that be any sort of proof for a god of any kind?

***********************
SECOND SET (the person had stated that he or she believes atheists will have a more difficult time with these than theists, for reference, since I mention this a few times):
1. If the universe has no purpose, does that mean that the development of (human) life is purely a cosmic accident?
YES, there is a god: Actually, if the universe had no purpose except to be an expanse capable of making sure we survive, this would be great for those who believe in a god.

For the godful, it doesn't matter whether the universe has a meaning outside of being "home". It's a secondary part of existence. Perhaps god just got carried away when creating earth and began philosophizing him/her/itself! "Well, I'm going to be putting these creatures down there and I'm making what I just know is a mistake in giving them the ability to become self-aware and that inevitably means they are going to start questioning things. So I guess I ought to create answers to those questions, aye?" And then god made the heavens, and saw that it was good. And then he got distracted by the shinyness of it all and kept making more, which is why the universe is still expanding

Ok, so it's a little silly, but you get the point I"m sure. What I'm trying to say is that just because the universe has no real purpose (if we assume for this question that it doesn't) does not follow that life itelf is a cosmic accident - that's flawed logic. For the religious, the universe as whole can go on being meaningless all it wants. Side thoughts I guess, since these are really being posed to godless views.

NO there is no god: Yep. Life is a cosmic accident. And depending on which angle you take on it, it's either an inevitable cosmic accident, or a highly unlikely one. My take is this: Life in the universe is fairly inevitable considering how freaking huge the universe is. Yes, the proper circumstances have to come about, but consider how many solar systems there are...in our even just our own galaxy...it's phenomenal on some levels to think that we haven't found more life!.

Consciousness, on the other hand, is not so inevitable. Considering the number of species we have on just this planet...and only one, or at most a very small handful, experience qualia....THAT causes me to think that sure, there may be life out there - tons of it even, and there may even be creatures that look remarkably like us - but the chances that they have self-awareness...fairly slim.

An atheist should have no trouble (outside of a potential existential crisis) with the weight of this question, so it is actually a very easy question for the atheist to answer, and of course, easy for the theist to answer (although I would pose more questions on this subject to specific theistic views, but I'll save that for another time).


2. How would a purposeless chaos of particles evolve into intelligible galaxies, stars, and planets and living organisms?
Wait...so in order for us to be atheistic, we have to be able to account, right now, for EVERYTHING going on in the universe? O.O Shoot. I guess I have to believe in a god now. It's the only logical thing to do!

My point is that just because we don't presently understand everything, doesn't mean there isn't a scientific reason for it occurring. Moreover, we as humans actually can answer large parts of this question. *I* personally cannot and I highly doubt we have anyone on these boards capable of answering this question enough to satisfy someone gung-ho that there is a god in their sense of the word because we don't have *all* the answers.

I have faith that we will eventually (given enough time) discover that either there is indeed a creator, or that there is a perfectly good scientific explanation for it OR both, actually. Science and religion are not necessarily exclusive to one another in this case.

Besides, from what I've seen (yes, I'm relying on senses for this one), I have an easier time believing the right stuff just happened at the right time than I do that some being of nearly any kind actually thought through all of this and decided to create it, for whatever reason.

But then, why people spend the amount of time they do on some freewares baffles me too. Maybe god is just a bored college student.

3. Where did the universe come from?
Where did god come from? Because that's the line of logic we're using on this question, right? I thought I'd just skip a few steps.

I'm pretty sure this question has already been otherwise sufficiently covered, and otherwise my answer lies in my answer to question 2.

4. Why does the universe exist now instead of, say, 75 trillion centuries in the past or in the future?
Depending on which theory of the universe existing you go by...maybe it did and will. Besides, something existing right now is not very good reasoning as to why there should be a god. This question would be more difficult for a theist to answer because most theists I've studied and run into believe there is a purpose to everything - they actually would have to find a purpose to god choosing *right now* for the universe and everything to exist. Was there a science fair god needed to get to? Maybe we're really part of some game like Magic the Gathering and we're part of the latest set (I might *might* be a geek...) he created to go play with his friends?

Atheists, on the other hand, can always fall back on coincidence on this one, and would probably have to. It's just the way things managed to fall into place.

5. Why is there 'something' rather than nothing?
For the atheist, it's just simply the way the marbles fell. The correct formula of chemicals and reactions occurred in the right order to allow something to happen rather than continue being nothing.

A theist would obviously answer this based on his or her individual thoughts on the purpose of life.

6. What is mind? What is thought? Is thought real?
A psychologist would have better explanations for these than I presently do, and more thorough than most theists, as well. This one I think is actually much easier for the atheist than the theist because, again, the theist has to answer "well, *why" have mind and thought to begin with?" The atheist begins by just accepting that we have them at all and moving on to other questions.

7. Why is matter superior to mind?
... It is? I'm sorry...I'm with you on this one...though I don't think it has anything to do with being godful or godless... :S



********************
I don't know how clear all of that made my own beliefs, but at present I am a fairly firm agnostic. I prefer to stand in the middle and observe something before taking a stance on it...I need to feel like I have enough information one way or the other. And considering the various conceptions of a god, I don't feel comfortable making that decision.

In this case, I tend to define my beliefs in negatives: I *do* feel I have more than enough evidence to rule out *certain* gods, but not nearly all. As such, I can tell you that just as so many others here "know" they beleive in god, I "know" that I do not believe in a Judeo-Christian (or any other Christian) god, from any time period past or present. I also do not believe in a Mormon god, and a few others.

Most others I either haven't spent enough time with to fully consider, or are potentially fair game so far. None of those left are prone to sending me to a heaven or a hell, however, so I don't feel particularly pressured to get it all figured out anytime soon.

I think the flying spaghetti monster came about via a letter to the editor in a paper in Kansas after they determined they were going to teach more than just evolutionary theory.

I heart the FSM and his noodly movement.

Oh, and sorry if this revives a thread everyone wanted dead... :whistling:

I'm tired of proofs and reasonings for God. I've been on here for what, 3 months now, and I have not heard anything that would change me to a theist. I have just lost interest in the whole subject matter I think.

Can anybody say that humans have God inside of them?, the normal human being. I think that virtues of God expressed as an absolute to the intrinsics of our nature is a lesser thesis.

:flowers: Holiday, in the end, even the most fervent of natural theologians rest their case for God on faith, the we just say so of credulity. Faith begs the question of its subject in that it cannot provide evidence for it. Indeed, the most fervid of fideists maintain that faith would not be itself were there evidence. Science is acquired knowledge while, as Sydney Hook so notes, faith begs the question of being knowledge.:shocked:
As PZ Myers so notes, some theists contemn us naturalists for demanding evidence as a nineteenth century delusion. He notes that it is as it were that the courtier would contemn those who question the emperor's new attire for not perusing the erudite tomes on his attire: we new atheists show up the fallacious arguments that lay people know. Then some contemn us for exposing natural theology as wrong, because they use other arguments. But such as Richard Swinburne ever refine natural theology so that it is a live concern, not thus as those theists would have one believe, a straw man.
We peruse haugthy John Haughts' and Bishop John Shelby Spong's writings. We find that they also fail. :brickwall:

May I quote myself?

If we eschew dualism and assume that mind and matter are composed of the same stuff on some very basic level (which is necessary for there to be any kind of connection between my desire to raise my arm, the subsequent movement and my perception of such), then the mind is subject to the same billiard ball determinism as the mechanical world. Ok, this seems to be the rational conclusion, unless you believe in the mystical powers of the pineal gland.

If mind and matter are the same thing and all of reality is just a wave of existence streaming out like a kajillion billiard balls from the big bang (or whatever began this shindig) then we're stuck. Our minds are just one small part of the great (but ultimately boring) multivariable equation of reality.

The only escape from this trap is to believe that the mind can somehow create energy. That is, the mind is autonomous and able to break the big kahuna wave of deterministic causation by an act of sheer creation. We are not our own causa sui (that is, we do not create ourselves, but simply exist), but we are the cause of changes in the course of the process. When we make a decision, we actually create energy (from nothing!) which we then use to alter the course of events.

As I see it, this is the only way that a non-dualistic account of free will makes any sense. In order to change the course of the billiard balls from their deterministic path, energy must be added to the system (which could, in theory, be a very small amount) - the mind as true causative force, the ultimate creator of energy that did not exist before. The billiard balls then do not follow a deterministic course, but are constantly given new spin and trajectory by the introduction of more and more energy into the system (the trajectory of which is not predictable nor constrained by finite possibilities, though we must assume there are constraints on the quantity of energy created, or we'd be shooting lightning bolts out our asses - here is your "free will", by the way). We would all be, then, our own little gods, I suppose. Or maybe consciousness, itself, is the god we seek, the great creative force. The only truly "free will" that makes sense to me is the free will of a god.

I dunno if it's true, but it's a thought. I skipped over why I don't believe in the sky god, but I don't really consider that material to the question posed.

If so, you are apparently asserting "something" can result from "nothing"? I do not pretend to know the source of existance, but scientifically i can not deny a "source" precedent to any and all physical existance...to do so would be to deny evolution as well as the physical laws of cause and effect.

Based on all of the evidence suggesting that god does not exist ; evolution, how old the earth actually is, science and so forth, I don't think that a gos does exist.

How is any of that evidence that there is no God? Or to phrase the question differently, which conception of God does said evidence debunk?

What he states should be that science shows that the presumption of naturalism holds that natural causes and explanations are the sufficient reason, not needing any transcendence for explanation. God adds nothng as the ignostic-Ockham notes.:shocked:
God cannot act as the god of the gaps.
God is useless to explain patterns, which by the way are not designs.
God is useless to explain the retransformations of Existence from bang to bang.
God is just a replaceable placebo- see
"The Reason-Driven Life" and The Myth of Self-Esteem' to see that one who helps herself, helps herself period.
God is unnecessary for morality as Plato shows.
Blessings and good fortune to all!
:bigsmile:

Sure, God is not an issue of scientific concern. When God is forced into science, someone has misunderstood the role of religion.

This is why I asked 'which concept of God does said evidence debunk' - because the only concept of God debunked by science are fundamentalist conceptions.

:brickwall: Fr. Polkinghorne thinks that science can verify God, he a non-fundamentalist. Victor Stenger in "Has Science found God," says nay. He nites what would have to be the case for God if science did not have the answers.
What science shows is that natural explanations and causes are the necessary reason, contrary to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. That and the ignostic- Ockham show no need to posit God.
German journalist Alender Smoltczyk finds that God is neither a principle, nor an entity or a person but the answer to Leibniz's why is there something rather than nothing- his big blunder as how could there be nothing anyway? Now if God is neither an entity nor a person , how could He as that explanation act? That is incoherent, reinforcing the ignostic challenge to theism.:surrender: