Do you believe in God?

Post by asakawa

Who is calling the ancient Greeks ignorant savages?!

I'm not much of a fan of SchoolboyE's post because the first sentence is misguided (can't prove a negative etc.) while the phrase "before science" describes no point in homo sapien history ("science" not having some discrete epoch). However I think that organised religions have made a lot, over the centuries, out of playing on peoples' fear of the unknown. I think that peoples' fears have changed a lot in the last century, changes in which scientific advancements have surely played a great part, and that likely accounts for the lowering numbers of people who self-classify as belonging to a faith.

His last point "I don't see how God could be anymore real then Zeus or Poseidon or Valhalla" is one I've always thought was rather powerful. Is a person of faith born in America only Christian because of geography? I'm certain that the vast majority would forcefully disagree with that notion but the numbers strongly suggest that being born in India means there's a higher chance of being Hindu than Christian. People are generally pretty comfortable with the idea that only an odd person would faithfully follow the Ancient Greek, Roman or Norse pantheons but very smart people did follow those religions faithfully. So is it just fashion?
As I say, I simply see this as a powerful idea, I'm really drawing no conclusions.

The Qur'an, apparently, lays out that fresh water and salt water can not mix.
I don't think religious books are good sources of scientific knowledge.

Post by Squishalot

Post by Gone

Because of the place that they put it. The intention wasn't for other atheists to see it and feel solidarity, that was targeted at Christians or those that might see a Christian display. To me that's disrespectful and inappropriate.

So, you feel offended because they placed a sign that was contrary to Christian beliefs, next to a scene that was intended to be seen by Christians?

If the reverse occurred, and a similar sign with the words 'There is a God' was placed next to an atheist's convention, for example, would you feel that was similarly disrespectful and in appropriate?

It wasn't that it was contrary to Christian beliefs like, for example, a sign or symbol of a different faith. I think it was more like an attack on Christian beliefs. If the sign said only that logic and reason should be upheld, I would be fine with that.

I don't think that a sign that says 'There is a God' next to an atheist convention is as disrespectful. If however the sign said 'Atheists burn in Hell' I would take issue with it. The difference is that the second sign is an attack, which is what I took the actual sign as.

I don't think that a sign that says 'There is a God' next to an atheist convention is as disrespectful. If however the sign said 'Atheists burn in Hell' I would take issue with it. The difference is that the second sign is an attack, which is what I took the actual sign as.

You don't think that an atheist would read a sign saying "There is a God' as an attack, in the same way that you took the "No gods" sign as an attack?
Maybe. But in the end I think it would elicit little more than an eyeroll. If an atheist doesn't believe in God then a person might as well say that 'There are purple goblins'.

I did say it would be disrespectful, but I don't think it would be as offensive as the other sign. I think saying 'Atheists go to Hell' is more in line with the sentiment many people would take from the actual sign they left up.

Post by 1101548

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Squishalot

I don't think that a sign that says 'There is a God' next to an atheist convention is as disrespectful. If however the sign said 'Atheists burn in Hell' I would take issue with it. The difference is that the second sign is an attack, which is what I took the actual sign as.

You don't think that an atheist would read a sign saying "There is a God' as an attack, in the same way that you took the "No gods" sign as an attack?

Post by Gone

His last point "I don't see how God could be anymore real then Zeus or Poseidon or Valhalla" is one I've always thought was rather powerful. Is a person of faith born in America only Christian because of geography? I'm certain that the vast majority would forcefully disagree with that notion but the numbers strongly suggest that being born in India means there's a higher chance of being Hindu than Christian. People are generally pretty comfortable with the idea that only an odd person would faithfully follow the Ancient Greek, Roman or Norse pantheons but very smart people did follow those religions faithfully. So is it just fashion?
As I say, I simply see this as a powerful idea, I'm really drawing no conclusions.

I know it's not so much in line with your point about a persons faith being affected by geography, but the idea of a monotheistic God is considered by many to be more plausible than polytheistic Gods like the ones that were mentioned.

The basic reasoning being that most polytheistic Gods are depicted merely as very powerful beings. They were often tricked or dissuaded by mortals, and could be imprisoned or killed by each other. They were beings that were capable of breaking the laws of physics, but still existed within the same system that we do. According to legends many of them lived within the world.

Monotheistic Gods are often depicted as omnipotent, not only capable of breaking the laws of physics, but in fact being greater than the laws of physics, existing outside of the system.

So yes, as you said we can't prove a negative, but these days we are able to poke more holes in the belief in pagan Gods than we have been able to do in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God.

Who is calling the ancient Greeks ignorant savages?

Bad choice of words. But we do have a habit of looking at our ancient ancestors as less intelligent than we are, especially when the average high school senior knows more about the universe than some of the greatest thinkers in history did thousands of years ago. as I said, acquired knowledge.

I don't think that a sign that says 'There is a God' next to an atheist convention is as disrespectful. If however the sign said 'Atheists burn in Hell' I would take issue with it. The difference is that the second sign is an attack, which is what I took the actual sign as.

You don't think that an atheist would read a sign saying "There is a God' as an attack, in the same way that you took the "No gods" sign as an attack?
Maybe. But in the end I think it would elicit little more than an eyeroll. If an atheist doesn't believe in God then a person might as well say that 'There are purple goblins'.

I did say it would be disrespectful, but I don't think it would be as offensive as the other sign. I think saying 'Atheists go to Hell' is more in line with the sentiment many people would take from the actual sign they left up.

Post by Skreeran

It's not so bad around here where you have people like asakawa and Skreeran who actually do their research and such, but so many people I talk to other places seem to have all these flags to wave that are either refutable or irrelevant to the religion in question they are trying to impeach.You flatter me. :P

The only scientific advance that brings anything in the Bible into question is perhaps things like carbon dating that tells us the Earth is older than the Biblical timeline. And just off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen refutations that a religious person could make to counter that.
Here's what I take issue with. Religion has adapted recently to coexist with things like evolution and modern physics, but really, the way that the Biblical story of creation was taught up until very recently is very much at odds with our modern understanding of science.

Evolution, for example. As much as some people want to try to make it ambiguous or controversial, evolution--the common descent of all life on Earth by way of several types of selective pressure--is a fact. Yes, people call it "only a theory," but it is a theory in the same sense as the Theory of Heliocentricity or the Theory of Universal Gravitation.

And the Genesis story is not compatible with it. Try to rationalize that "days" actually mean "epochs" or "symbolic periods of time" all you like, but in the story of creation, Genesis says that the Earth was formed before the stars, birds were created before reptiles, and that there is water above the sky. It's just factually incorrect.

Like you said, there are also radiometric dating, which not only includes carbon dating, but a myriad of other elements that can be checked against each other to form a clearer model of the age of something.

And then there's light! The most distant galaxy we've yet identified are some 32.7 billion lightyears away because they started giving off light some 13.4 billion years ago(it's complicated). If we are getting light on Earth that was emitted 13.4 billion years ago, the universe can't be 6000-10000 years old.

Yes, you can say that God created the light in the perfect position to hit us now and make it look like it came from a distant source 13.7 billion years ago, and he could have planted all that tremendous evidence for evolution to test our faith, but that just feels like a cop out to me. We could have all come into being yesterday, with preformed memories of the past years of our lives, but that feels lazy to just give up on all human knowledge because we're capable of conjuring up an elaborate scenario that could prove us wrong.

I don't think that a sign that says 'There is a God' next to an atheist convention is as disrespectful. If however the sign said 'Atheists burn in Hell' I would take issue with it. The difference is that the second sign is an attack, which is what I took the actual sign as.I hate to interrupt the dialogue, but I just wanted to comment that there is a lot more of the "Atheists burn in Hell" thing than there is the "All religions are lies" (or the equivalent) thing, if only because there are a lot more Christians in American than Atheists.

Post by Squishalot

I did say it would be disrespectful, but I don't think it would be as offensive as the other sign. I think saying 'Atheists go to Hell' is more in line with the sentiment many people would take from the actual sign they left up.

Well, your exact words is that you don't think that it's as disrespectful, implying that you think the other sign is worse. What makes "No god... no heaven" worse than "There is a God... there is a Heaven"? Are they not simply two opposing viewpoints?

But in the end I think it would elicit little more than an eyeroll. If an atheist doesn't believe in God then a person might as well say that 'There are purple goblins'.

What about an atheist makes you think that they would ignore / eyeroll and not be offended?

Post by Gone

Yes, you can say that God created the light in the perfect position to hit us now and make it look like it came from a distant source 13.7 billion years ago, and he could have planted all that tremendous evidence for evolution to test our faith, but that just feels like a cop out to me. We could have all come into being yesterday, with preformed memories of the past years of our lives, but that feels lazy to just give up on all human knowledge because we're capable of conjuring up an elaborate scenario that could prove us wrong.
Like I said, there could be many different refutations, some of which you mentioned. I don't wanna get into a big debate about that right now since we've all been over it on the forums before. Personally I believe that the creation story in Genesis refers to six periods of time rather than a literal six days. But there are other theories.

It's true our interpretations of the Bible changes over time, for a number of reasons. not the least of which have been corrupt religious leaders using it for their own purposes in the past. But so have our views about many other things, including science. The more we learn about the world the more our personal views adapt and change, religion isn't unique in this.

I hate to interrupt the dialogue, but I just wanted to comment that there is a lot more of the "Atheists burn in Hell" thing than there is the "All religions are lies" (or the equivalent) thing, if only because there are a lot more Christians in American than Atheists.

I don't defend people who say things like that either. If anything they get on my nerves even more because I feel as though it perpetuates a negative stereotype of Christians.

My problem isn't even really with the sign itself. I think free speech is one of our most important rights. My problem is with the place that they chose to place it, and who their target audience obviously was.

Well, your exact words is that you don't think that it's as disrespectful, implying that you think the other sign is worse. What makes "No god... no heaven" worse than "There is a God... there is a Heaven"? Are they not simply two opposing viewpoints?
Because a nativity scene on Christmas is somewhere that people go to celebrate their faith and enjoy a holiday. It's not somewhere that a person goes to feel like they have to defend or justify their faith.

On the other hand an 'atheist convention' is probably somewhere that religion is going to be under debate and discussion. Hanging a sign that says "there is a God and a Heaven" might not accomplish anything, but I don't think it will really put anybody on edge or make them feel under attack.

What about an atheist makes you think that they would ignore / eyeroll and not be offended?
Because most atheists I know think of religion as fairy tales. They might find it frustrating that people so strongly believe something that, to them, there is no evidence of. But I don't think seeing a sign that says "there is a God" is going to make them feel as though they are personally under attack.

Post by Skreeran

Because most atheists I know think of religion as fairy tales. They might find it frustrating that people so strongly believe something that, to them, there is no evidence of. But I don't think seeing a sign that says "there is a God" is going to make them feel as though they are personally under attack.I'm enjoying the concussion you and Squish are having, so I'm trying not to interrupt, but you would really, really be surprised. True, most people who grew up with no religion aren't going to be bothered by it, but at least in my own experience, losing one's faith is intensely traumatic. I makes me very uncomfortable even to be in the same room as my family when they're praying.

Post by Magician22773

Yes, you can say that God created the light in the perfect position to hit us now and make it look like it came from a distant source 13.7 billion years ago, and he could have planted all that tremendous evidence for evolution to test our faith, but that just feels like a cop out to me.

That is because you don't believe as I do. I can just as easily say that your belief that 'it is a cop out'...is just a cop out.

You actually just described somewhat how I can justify my Faith, while also being well aware of what science has 'proven'. However, because I have Faith, it is not a 'cop out'....it is a possible explanation to something that I cannot explain.

Even as an educated person, with an advanced degree, who can 'understand' much of the complicated science, I still find it easier for me to believe in God, then I do to believe in a theory that our entire universe started out as a tiny speck of super-compressed matter that exploded with such force that it spread out over billions of light years, and creating trillions of galaxies.

And that somehow, in all of that chaos, some of that matter collided, and more, and more of that gathered itself into a big rock, and that rock sucked in more smaller rocks, and all those rocks were perfectly placed just far enough from a bigger burning rock so that it could eventually support a cellular organism.

And then from that organism, other organisms formed, and eventually enough of those organisms combined / changed enough that they formed some higher life form, and then those life forms continued to change and grow into a "fish". And then some of those "fish" decided they wanted to get out of the water, so they grew legs, and lungs, and crawled out of the water, and grew fur to stay warm, and then those furry animals started walking on their back legs...........

And all the while that this was happening, all the other species of animals, reptiles, insects, and every other form of life all the way down to the still present single cell organisms were also 'evolving'....

And somehow through all of this, it somehow ended up with you and me, here, on this forum debating whether it is easier to believe this...or to just believe that a Higher Power simply created it all...in all its perfect glory.

Personally, even without Faith, I could find it easier to believe in God, than I could to believe in the Big Bang / Darwin theories.

Post by MyTie

The way I look at it is people used to have these mythologies about their Gods like Zeus and believe the stories because these were the Gods they worshiped. However everyone nowadays knows these are just myths and nothing more simply because the civilization of ancient Rome is gone and the stories are unrealistic. Now what I don't understand is how people will know this, but read the Bible and revolve their life around it. Talking snakes, fitting two of every single animal on a boat, walking on water, turning water to wine etc what makes these true now but Roman God myths merely myths?Because some religions were wrong, doesn't follow that all religions are wrong. I just feel like many religions are responsible for war, death, hate, and the blocking of science.

No. Responsibility lies with people. Never forget that. To shift responsibility excuses the guilty.

Post by 109094

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by MyTie

No. Responsibility lies with people. Never forget that. To shift responsibility excuses the guilty.

And if religion is a man made construct?

So are knives, and knives can be dangerous, but no knife ever climbed out of the knife drawer, walked over, and jumped in someone's back. If there were a vicious murder, where someone stabbed a bunch of people to death, you wouldn't say I just feel like many knives are responsible for murder.Even though the knife is a man made construct, that still doesn't shift blame off of man. In fact, your argument has nearly NOTHING to do with responsibility of people for their actions. What your argument DOES sound like, is a reflex. Here we are in a discussion about religion, and your point sounds a lot like "but it's all made up". That is the single talking point that gets repeated more often than anything else. Learn a different tune. That one has worn a rut in this forum. No one accepts it when the religious here get assertive and insist there is a God, and you are just wrong if you don't believe it. That is square one. Let's try to explore the topic a little more than the "real vs made up" debate, which cannot be answered with mathematical proofs, with humanity's current knowledge.

Post by 109094

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by asakawa

I know it's not so much in line with your point about a persons faith being affected by geography, but the idea of a monotheistic God is considered by many to be more plausible than polytheistic Gods like the ones that were mentioned.

The basic reasoning being that most polytheistic Gods are depicted merely as very powerful beings. They were often tricked or dissuaded by mortals, and could be imprisoned or killed by each other. They were beings that were capable of breaking the laws of physics, but still existed within the same system that we do. According to legends many of them lived within the world.

Monotheistic Gods are often depicted as omnipotent, not only capable of breaking the laws of physics, but in fact being greater than the laws of physics, existing outside of the system.

So yes, as you said we can't prove a negative, but these days we are able to poke more holes in the belief in pagan Gods than we have been able to do in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God.

This is a fair explanation but I think that what you're explaining there is the "god of the gaps" and how it has actually affected patterns of worship. Essentially you're demonstrating that increased understanding of the nature of the universe has led to a decline in belief in polytheistic (fallible and interactive gods) models and a greater interest in a more remote and omniscient one (one that doesn't contradict the new understanding of things).

I imagine that a more pagan-based system of worshipping elemental forces could also have flourished except those belief systems were far less intertwined with systems of power and control than religions like Catholicism which was taken up by Rome in order to further its ability to govern.

I don't see a big difference in plausibility per sé but I do agree that monotheism does tread on less toes. However, we have seen a long history of religions claiming things to be a certain way based on their interpretation of their religious material (sometimes even declaring dissent to be heretical) only to be, later, pushed back to accepting the scientific model. At this point a reinterpretation of the source material is done which allows for the scientific advancement but at none of these points in history has it simply been accepted that the religious books in question can't tell us anything about science that wasn't understood at their time of writing.

So, I have zero problem with you (not "you" meaning Ryja specifically here, I'm just using a conversational tone and not pointing fingers at anyone) interpreting that evolution happened exactly as it is universally accepted to have happened but that it is all a god's plan. I, personally, don't see a need for the god in this case but it means we're both accepting the scientific model of testing and measuring the world around us, giving a very solid base on which we agree while our separate beliefs on theism don't overlap, removing the need for conflict.

Perhaps science has no place in philosophical discussions of theism or deism but I certainly think that religion has no place in discussions of the scientific process.

Post by b4xx

And in my knowledge, a "prime mover" isn't a completely tossed theory as long as the singularity remains unsolved. Or rather; A prime mover is required before we can prove what happened at the exact moment of "big bang". I should be more specific that a supernatural prime mover isn't required in recent theories. Models have been developed for how the universe could have come into being without the need for a supernatural progenitor. It may be that a lot more work needs to be done before we can claim to have a deep understanding of the big bang but I gather we are far enough along to call a deity superfluous in terms of being a serious idea on the start of the universe.

Now, I don't actually think this has much impact on most religious people. Recent popes (for example) have happily accepted evolution and modern physics (even if they do make some dangerously unscientific claims too /grumble). This will simply be something else which we can understand and model without the need for any supernatural assumptions but I think most people with a religious faith are happy with a system of non-overlapping magisteria where deities and science simply don't cover the same ground. To be clear, I'm in now way attempting to even address the merits of religion here, I'm simply talking about a deity as a scientific hypothesis or explanation for otherwise unknowns.

We haven't yet proved that there is no God, so it is an unproven idea. Thus, it can't be the null hypothesis? (We're arguing the semantics here, but I trust you get my point. A logical solution might not be that for everyone.)
You can not prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the believer to present evidence.
So, you haven't disproved my assertion that I have a portal to Mars in my living room but that doesn't mean that it is the null hypothesis.

People who believe in God just don't science, like me.If you don't actually make a point then people are left responding to something you might or might not be trying to say. This makes discussion really very difficult and doesn't show much respect for the people you're having a conversation with. Like, since your sentence doesn't make much sense I'm left wondering if you typed it wrong or if I'm just not understanding you. I'm also unable to figure out if you were responding one of the couple of conversations currently taking place or raising a new topic for discussion.
I humbly ask for a little more clarity and generosity of your ideas in future.

I still disagree, but I get your point. And no, that probably doesn't havemuch impact on many religious people, but I fnd this subject interesting.

But the null hypothesis cannot be proved either.
And if I have a reason to believe that there's a portal to Mars in your living room, and I would find a slight hole in your theory (still the singularity) , couldn't my hypothesis be that the portal is there, even if it seems unlikely to some.

Post by asakawa

But the null hypothesis cannot be proved either.
And if I have a reason to believe that there's a portal to Mars in your living room, and I would find a slight hole in your theory (still the singularity) , couldn't my hypothesis be that the portal is there, even if it seems unlikely to some.

I'm trying to demonstrate where the burden of proof lies here. With no evidence for the existence of a deity that claim requires proof.
Your own belief in my portal doesn't matter in a discussion of the scientific merits of the belief in the existence of the portal. I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't believe in the portal, your personal beliefs are your business, but with no evidence for it it isn't worthy of broader consideration.

Post by ElhonnaDS

Burden of proof only rests on someone trying to prove something. Someone who holds a belief about something immeasurable, that acknowledges it is something immeasurable and can only be felt or believed without knowing, has nothing they are trying to prove and so no burden of proof.

If I tell you I believe human life is valuable, I don't need to have a burden of proof to make that so- it is a belief I have. I don't need to prove that they have monetary value of some sort, or that this particular person is vital to the survival of the species, or prove that there is such a thing as a moral right and wrong. There are certain things that aren't about proof, and so whenever the idea of religion being a theory, or something that should be examined scientifically, comes up, it causes a disconnect because that's not how religious people see it at all, and any demand that they HAVE to evaluate it in those terms ignores the fact that there are a lot of tenets of morality and emotional states that are not tied to religion and are not questioned for proof when people hold them.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##

Post by asakawa

Which is totally fine but there's a line of discussion here to which that is entirely irrelevant.

There's a discussion here which is broadly touching on the points at which science and religion cross. SchoolboyE feels that religion has been resoundingly refuted by science. I'm saying that the religion is, generally speaking, an unfalsifiable claim and is not one that can be disproved. However, it also isn't one that requires disproving because the burden of proof is on those who would make the claim.

Some do try to make that claim, many don't. For those who don't (who see religion as an entirely metaphysical thing) this line of discussion is irrelevant. I don't really see why you made your comment, it seems like you're attempting to defend something that is not under attack.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##

Do you believe in God?

Post Reply