I don't need to prove to you, or anyone else for that matter, that God exists. Religion is a belief and a choice. I choose to believe that God exists. It's called faith for a reason.
You can lack that sort of belief all you want. I won't stop you. However, your attempts to sway me of my conviction to my faith will not work, either.
I made my choice to be a Christian. You made your choice not to be. Just like any choices either of us makes in life, neither are going to be affected by the other. So, beyond that fact of logic...why even care in the first place? I don't care if you're an Atheist. Stop being so concerned that I'm a Christian.
I can't prove my God(s) exists because I don't have any. That's not to say I'm not religious, or more accurately, have a faith - because I do - but I don't believe in God(s).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
And may the odds be ever in your favour. Emmo#2406
I can explain it as much as you can assume science will: it's a goal. Whomever, regardless of religious or non-religious creed or scientific knowledge, claims to know "the exact way" is, without really needing to extend the obvious reasons why , mistaken. From a theological viewpoint, because that someone would claim to fully understand "the will of god", thus humanizing deity and reducing it to our thought patterns, and from a scientific viewpoint, because the very limitations of our capabilities to measure and process results do not allow it.
Religion as an institution is a hindrance. As a belief system it is not, provided you aren't attempting to cram everything a religious text will contain as depiction of facts that did take place. If anything, in my point of view, I believe that whatever the nature of deity that transcends the mensurable, it is part of this still not even theorized absolute truth.
tl;dr - they are parallel paths that tend to meet as things evolve in what is the search for answers that has driven humanity for millennia.
After reading what you've said, rather than you trying to prove god - it leaves me with a single question to you: Why do you think there is a god?
You admit that(from our perspective) gods plan, isn't a plan at all. You admit that Religion is a bad thing. A belief system is FAR too vague to be used in a discussion like this. To talk more specifically about this: Anything, and everything, beyond " I think, therefor I am" IS an assumption. Assumptions are what belief systems are. Believing in someone is assuming they'll do what you expect of them. Faith, Assumptions, and Beliefs are all, essentially, the same thing.
So, Why do you think there is an all powerful big daddy callen the shots from his throne up on high?
Easy to prove, there's lightning therefore Thor exists!
How else would it be possible for lightning to occur, by some natural force?! bah, humbug!
Of course that was a joke, even if I believed in gods and various deities. I could not prove their existence.
However, think - just for a moment. That the forces of nature are caused by gods, just like people have believed for milennia.
Why not, even with science we can't explain everything. We know a whole lot, but there's still mysteries we seem to be unable to solve (yet, anyway).
Like, how can something come from nothing. Or if it was something that made something else, well then how did that first something come into existence. And so on.
Neither religion, or science hold all the answers. Still I find science the "better" alternative myself, it just makes a whole lot more sense to me.
I am not religious by any means and I didnt read all 49 pages of this thread; however, It can just as easily be asked to prove he doesnt exist and that is something you cannot do. Sure you can make arguments for your cause but just the same someone can argue the opposite.
Faith doesnt require proof, which makes it hard to challenge. I think a better question would be give me a proof of concept that your god exists.
Beng presented with this doesnt mean you have to accept it yet should give you a better understanding of why someone would choose to believe in god.
I have come to the realization that being an aethist is on par with being religious there is faith in an ideal on both sides. On the one side you believe unconditionally that there is a God on the other side you believe unconditionally that there is no god.
There is no reason to challenge anyone's faith I personally beilve we should challenge Dogma. As socieciety and science advances we need to challenge dogma with in practiced religions as everything in life evolves. Style and Fashion, Governments and policies, Comedy and Tragedy all of these things have evolved over the years. Dogma should change all the same.
I think the OP would define me as atheist, but I also think the atheist/agnostic distinction is rather more subjective, despite the countless internet sites that claim to have the definitive answer. (Just look at Wikipedia's "Types of agnosticism" section of the agnosticism page.)
In my world view - which inherently is no more or less valid than anyone else's - theism is the belief that a god exists, in other words, "I know that god exists" whereas a-theism is the negation of that, "I know that no god exists".
I consider myself agnostic, and to me that means I simply do not know, and I don't claim to know either way. I am, however, open-minded about such matters, and if I find a religion or philosophy that makes sense to me, I'll "follow" it insofar as it continues to make sense to me.
While I do tend to agree with Gryzorz's post about what religion addresses, in general I do not think less of either theists or atheists. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"And that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana-shaped."
-Sir Bedevere, the Wise
People, all of this is completely pointless. Asking for proof equals asking for logic.
Every single person out there with half logic is already atheist, unless they still need religion for something.
Religion addresses :
- the death problem : eternal life
- the loss problem (related to death) : everybody meets up there
- the origin of the universe problem : created
- the origin of life problem : created
- the meaning of life problem : pray/love
- the feeling of nothingness problem : the universe was created just for us humans
- the loneliness problem : God is always with you
- etc...
Every single human fear is addressed in a pretty tale, and you are still wondering why people believe ?
Answer : because there is at least one of these points for which they need religion to comfort them.
Next problem
I love you and want you to have my babies.
I have never seen it summed up so simply and easily. I think you are spot on with your common sense comment. Most people with a logical mind is also an athiest. Religion does "cover" many major questions and fears with fairy tales that people want to believe so they don't have to think on the issues. Sorry guys, but when you die, you simply cease to exist, sorry to break it to ya.
OT:
The bible itself is nothing more than a book full of moral stories taken from previous cultures, even the story of adam and eve dates all the way back to the Ancient Sumerian civilization which predates Christianity by thousands of years, look up the "Epic of Gilgamesh" and be ready to be amazed at the similarities. The Church is awesome at stealing from other cultures, they stole many pagan holidays and changed around their own holidays to coincide with them in order to convert pagans to Christianity. Do you really think Chistmas has anything to do with Christ? You're wrong, it has everything to do with the winter solstice. Halloween and all hallows eve? Christian holidays? Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of Christ? No, it doesn't even coincide with the date of Christs supposed resurrection. The Christian Church has perfected lying to a degree that allows them to lie to billions upon billions of people and not get called on it.
Plus, seriously, God? If some all powerful omnipotent being really existed and wanted to be worshipped at all why would he not show himself once a generation? Oh, yeah, because we should just have faith that he exists, he shouldn't have to actually give us a reason to have faith. Likely story. You should all just like, send me all the money in your bank accounts, if you have faith in me I may pay you back double someday. Works for God, why not for me? And if God does exist, why did I have to watch my dog get run over by a tractor trailer truck from my bedroom window when I was 6? Did you all know that a Labrador hit by a tractor trailer pops? If god exists IMO he is a sick bastard.
The most pathetic part of religion is this. Millions upon millions of people across the world believe in an omnipotent higher power. They have no doubt in their minds he/she/it exists with absolutely NO evidence at all. But if you start talking about the possible existence of extra terrestrial life, intelligent life on another planet somewhere out there in the cosmos, something even great minds like Stephen Hawking's agree is a statistical guarantee, most of these religious people scoff at you and look at you like you're a complete nutbag. But if I say you're all nutbags for believing in a magical mystical higher power that has NEVER offered proof of existence then I am the evil one.
Organized religion is the cause of more death and suffering on this planet than anything else human beings have ever created. This is a fact that even theologians agree on. The crusades was nothing but a bloody orgy of death and slaughter. The catholic church in 1486 mass produced a book that is called the bloodiest book ever written. The Malleus Maleficarum, or the witches hammer to those of us that don't speak latin. The purpose of this book was to help ignorant superstitious morons kill innocent women who they thought were witches. The book outlines how to test for a witch, how to kill a witch, what witches are capable of and all sorts of complete rubbish. Did you know that if you tie a woman's legs and arms together and drop them into a body of water and they die then they aren't a witch? Yep, religion is totally awesome and god must have gotten one hell of a kick out of that joke huh?
I despise organized religion. I admit it. In my opinion organized religion is man kinds largest mistake. But I do not hold religious beliefs against individuals unless they hold my non belief against me. The only time I get annoyed with religious people is when they feel the need to spout it off in peoples face, that is so annoying. What gives them the right to cram their belief down my throat when I don't cram my disbelief down theirs?
I don't need to prove to you, or anyone else for that matter, that God exists. Religion is a belief and a choice. I choose to believe that God exists. It's called faith for a reason.
Firstly, you posted here and there is no solicitation of your posting aside from me asking. You can't come into a months old thread with a "how dare you ask me this," attitude, as thought you were the first to bring up righteous indignation. Secondly, religion is not a choice for the vast majority of people. Very few of us grew up in a place where more than a few denominations of christianity were around, to say nothing of other actual religions. What are the odds you're going to become Jewish or Shinto if you grow up in rural Alabama? Slim to none. Finally, "it's called faith for a reason," doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain.
There is no reason to challenge anyone's faith I personally beilve we should challenge Dogma.
I feel as though you're right in principle, but the unfortunate fact is that Dogma is faith and vice-verse. Now, of course, I am not suggesting their dictionary meaning is identical. What I mean is that in order to adhere to dogma you have to have faith that the dogma is worth following, no matter how wrong it seems. Similarly, in order to have faith you need at least a tiny bit of dogma, something to base that unflinching resolve around.
In order to challenge the validity of one, you must invariably challenge the other. If you try to isolate the two you'll receive the most unthinking rote responses like "it's called faith for a reason," or "well, I don't follow THAT particular tradition."
I don't know how this thread could've gotten to 49 pages when the correct response to the OP is:
Asking for proof in something that is supposed to be a matter of faith is silly. Faith, when applied to god, means the belief in something in the absense of proof.
One cannot prove the existance of God and that's kind of the whole point of having faith.
I can not read through all these pages, however, as an Atheist myself, I once debated with my Theology teacher if there could ever be an arguement that could prove/disprove God, and we brought it down to not being possible, and that there are 2 "basic" choices, each of which have 2 outcomes.
The word choice is very broad as you can't really choose which religion "could" possibly be right, and it is all based on faith, but it should prove a point.
Choice 1; Worship a religion.
Outcome 1 - Religion is Correct, go to heaven
Outcome 2 - No religion is correct, rot in the ground (pleasant, I know)
Choice 2; Don't Worship a religion
Outcome 1 - Religion is Correct, go to hell
Outcome 2 - No religion is correct, rot in the ground
Based on this, and humanity as a whole trying to survive, Choice 1 seems the better option, at least you have a chance to be right and get into heaven. I am aware religions aren't as black and white as this, things like forgiveness of sins, some religions lacking hells/punishment outcomes and others that rely mainly on reincarnation, but this pulls it down to the very basic level.
If nothing else, it is quite an amusing observation.
You got close, but not quite right:
Choice 1; Worship a religion.
Outcome 1 - Your religion is Correct, go to heaven.
Outcome 2 - You chose the wrong religion, go to hell
Outcome 3 - No religion is correct, rot in the ground (pleasant, I know)
1. If a deity was not controlling the movement of life in our universe how would the first organisms know they were going to die, and have developed the ability to reproduce? And if they evolved the ability to die, is that not history's biggest oxymoron?
...
3. If evolution is a method of adapting to ones surroundings, why did fish ever see the need to walk? For a fish they would have no sense of land, no idea what was on it, and no real desire to go there? They function amazingly in their own environment, lethal hunters, pack mentality etc... And what, they replace gills, get new eyes, grow legs etc.. all at the same time? Diversity is the spice of life and there are definitely breeds who have bits and pieces of a land walking animal's anatomy, but would it not make more sense that such a range of creatures were created to populate all areas of the earth, utilising it to the fullest, ensuring a global ecosystem is sustainable?
4. Water, such a complex medium that supports life and is responsible for all of existence as we know it - created through chance alongside the first organisms who rely on it for their very survival? Hmm.
...
I glanced through 40 pages of posts (thanks to this thread being advertised on the home page because of activity lol) and thought I'd throw in my 2 cents about this person's post here. Responses are purely my opinions so take it with a grain of salt.
1) Death is "programmed" into the working of the universe to return elements back to its original state. In other words, death acts like a balancing method within the universe. If nothing died this world would get very crowded no?
3) Early aquatic animals probably took its first steps on land for the same reasons that made humans take the first steps on the moon (and now mars) - curiosity. We have no reason to visit anything outside of earth's biome too, but still we did. Of course other reasons probably applied as well like escape from predation or more food/resources.
4) Im pretty sure, but correct me if I am wrong, the earth was formed long before any sort of life was created. Life only came to being when the Earth's conditions were ripe for life (temperature, gases, etc..).
Man is the only animal on earth that can experience the seven vices - lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. Fundamentally, religions try to keep us away from succumbing to these types of vices. Off topic, I know.
I would like to end with a small reading from Tecumseh's "Live Your Life." "Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours."
I despise organized religion. I admit it. In my opinion organized religion is man kinds largest mistake. But I do not hold religious beliefs against individuals unless they hold my non belief against me. The only time I get annoyed with religious people is when they feel the need to spout it off in peoples face, that is so annoying. What gives them the right to cram their belief down my throat when I don't cram my disbelief down theirs?
Organized religion, in essence, is a great idea just like Marxism (from Carl Marx' "Communist Manefesto") where everyone is rich, everyone has a job, everyone is equal and happy. The real problem, like any other organization in society, is having "elected officials" head them with a lot of power. Why? Power corrupts and humans are easily corrupted. You can look at the history of the papcy for an easy example. Even some of the popes, who are supposed to be head of one of the largest religious organizations in the world, did some shameful things that would make God face palm.
I agree with you though. The only way an organized religion would truly righteuos is if the God that they praised were indeed at the head of them, anything else is tainted.
We have no reason to visit anything outside of earth's biome too, but still we did.
On the contrary, the longevity of the species (in the truly long-term) depends on us finding new worlds to colonize. We've been well aware for some decades now that our sun will not burn on indefinitely and in-fact it will destroy our planet (if nothing else gets to us first) as it burns into a red giant a few billion years from now.
Man is the only animal on earth that can experience the seven vices - lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. Fundamentally, religions try to keep us away from succumbing to these types of vices.
We really don't have the capacity to say for certain that our brains are the only ones capable of functioning in that manner. We're just now discovering that plants actually have vocal communication, a few decades ago we discovered that many sea mammals displayed a great many emotional traits in combination with their obvious communication skills. I wouldn't suggest that all life is capable of empathetic motives, but to single out our species in this regard is almost certainly premature.
I would like to end with a small reading from Tecumseh's "Live Your Life." "Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours."
The only problem is that many religions trouble those of us who do not subscribe (be it non-belief or simply belonging to another religion). Respecting the views of others is generally admirable, but in so far as it ignores a clear and present danger to society or one's self, I think that is not the wisest choice of action. When it comes to my own views, I do not simply demand respect for the arbitrary reason that they are MY views. I want the acknowledgment that those views are well founded and reasoned. If someone thinks they are not, I am more than happy to discuss, argue, and debate with them to the enlightenment of both parties.
While I do consider the whole new-age "live and let live, don't just any culture but your own," to be very progressive considering our near past, I think it's high time the world got a little more serious about what is and is not a fundamental stumbling block to moving forward as a people/species that needs to work together coherently.
Faith, when applied to god, means the belief in something in the absense of proof.
Except, on the contrary, one does not simply believe as a default. One must be deeply inculcated with the doctrine of their religion in order to get to the point where they simply believe without proof. In essence, the brain has been re-programmed to make an exception to it's usual rational routine. When confronted with any other problem, it must make a logical conclusion based on the presented data; however, in this one case the brain has been overridden by force of habit.
Honestly, I don't think such as thing as faith really exists. It is just a word we used to describe an expectation, be it realistic or otherwise. In order to have that expectation we need to be conditioned either by experience of a given outcome over and over again: ie. I have faith in Joe, he wins all his boxing matches, he won't loose this one. Or it may be an expectation through repetition of a theoretical outcome: ie. I have faith that heaven exists because I chant a verse about it weekly and my parents, friends, etc. have a similar expectation.
While I agree that Dogma needs Faith in order to exist, I don't agree that Faith requires Dogma.
I find the concept of faith without dogma to be a hard pill to swallow. Where else is one going to come up with the expectation we call faith? There may well be a lot of people "of faith," who do not proscribe to a given religion; however, what number of them were NEVER exposed to a religion in their lives? It sounds far-fetched to say the least.
1. If a deity was not controlling the movement of life in our universe how would the first organisms know they were going to die, and have developed the ability to reproduce? And if they evolved the ability to die, is that not history's biggest oxymoron?
...
3. If evolution is a method of adapting to ones surroundings, why did fish ever see the need to walk? For a fish they would have no sense of land, no idea what was on it, and no real desire to go there? They function amazingly in their own environment, lethal hunters, pack mentality etc... And what, they replace gills, get new eyes, grow legs etc.. all at the same time? Diversity is the spice of life and there are definitely breeds who have bits and pieces of a land walking animal's anatomy, but would it not make more sense that such a range of creatures were created to populate all areas of the earth, utilising it to the fullest, ensuring a global ecosystem is sustainable?
4. Water, such a complex medium that supports life and is responsible for all of existence as we know it - created through chance alongside the first organisms who rely on it for their very survival? Hmm.
...
I glanced through 40 pages of posts (thanks to this thread being advertised on the home page because of activity lol) and thought I'd throw in my 2 cents about this person's post here. Responses are purely my opinions so take it with a grain of salt.
1) Death is "programmed" into the working of the universe to return elements back to its original state. In other words, death acts like a balancing method within the universe. If nothing died this world would get very crowded no?
3) Early aquatic animals probably took its first steps on land for the same reasons that made humans take the first steps on the moon (and now mars) - curiosity. We have no reason to visit anything outside of earth's biome too, but still we did. Of course other reasons probably applied as well like escape from predation or more food/resources.
4) Im pretty sure, but correct me if I am wrong, the earth was formed long before any sort of life was created. Life only came to being when the Earth's conditions were ripe for life (temperature, gases, etc..).
Man is the only animal on earth that can experience the seven vices - lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. Fundamentally, religions try to keep us away from succumbing to these types of vices. Off topic, I know.
I would like to end with a small reading from Tecumseh's "Live Your Life." "Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours."
This is more to Mickross, I just can't find the page so I can quote it =D
To answer your 1st and 3rd question; Randomness. Don't mistake evolution as adaption. While they are close to the same thing as far as changes in the animal or organism, the reasons are very much different. An animal might adapt to it's surrounding to better survive, such as changes in temperature might cause it to develop the ability to shed it's fur during warmer periods and grow more during colder ones.
But as far as evolution goes (as I see it, it's exact definition might be different) it's random. Slowly as organisms are born, subtle changes occur. It's actually very clever in my opinion; Slowly change an organisms layout to help it better survive in the long run. If this change turns out to not help it at all and hinders the creature, natural selection will most likely mean the change won't be passed on for very long, because the creature will die. If this change helps the creature, or at the very least doesn't hinder it, then it stays. This could be anything from an extra toe on a cat to the growth of appendages which will eventually allow fish to walk on water.
You might ask; Well, if fish grew legs why are there still fish? why didn't they all turn into lizards or what have you? Simple separation. It's the same reason why there are monkeys and humans. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, but my money is on that we both evolved from the same ancestor. The fish that were born with appendages and through chance, luck, experimentation and maybe survival needs learned to walk on land might have simply not returned to pass on that gene. There's also the fact that the same type of fish on the other side of the world might just not have mated with the other fish.
It's all random, the whole universe, and no ones excluded.
Religion urks me. I don't go around bashing it, nor do I tell someone they are wrong in my opinion if their life is based in faith. It's hard to explain, but it just feels (with lack of a better sentence) that they gave up. My first impression of religion and all it's texts (mainly christiantity as I'm not exposed to many others) is that the people who live it for day and night, have given up. It feels as if they are scared of death, and love the fact that no matter what they do wrong, what happens, there's some mystical being that will always love them.
My two cents is that religion was invented by man to explain death, because well I can see it being pretty frightening to us thousands of years ago, and even today. Our daily lives feel a lot better thinking there's some paradise that we get to go to when we die, and there's somebody that's like a parent figure waiting for us. This sounds great, but unfortunately makes my stomach uneasy. The term (and movie title) comes to mind; Eternal sunshine for the spotless mind.
What also bugs me, and honestly makes me angry towards religion (or more importantly the people) is this idea of a soul. Some ghost, or copy of us that's inside us until we die, and it supposedly flies to some paradise after we die. It just, doesn't fit logically for me. I'd be fine with the idea, won't believe it but I'd be fine, if it also wasn't coupled with the arrogance that not only are souls inside of us, they are ONLY inside of us. I like to ask my friends who believe in it, why doesn't my cat have a soul? The answer, no matter how they skirt around it is, we are somehow above them. Sure on the food chain, but we are apparently more important then animals. This doesn't make sense to me when I look at the world around me. I mean, we ARE animals. We both need water, need food, need warmth, have blood and need oxygen. Hell even our organs are more or less the same as far as lungs to hearts to brains.
Religion just feels so arrogant and foolish, and I guess that's why it urks me. It urks me that some humans think they are just straight up above everything else that's alive, and that we get to go to paradise and live forever, and that animals were made for us and are just worthless.
Like I said I don't go around bashing people, but these and other reasons make me honestly borderline hate religion. I'm fine with the messages religion likes to send about being friendly to others, and don't murder or hate or steal ect, but that's about it, and I really think we can find another way to convince people to behave this way without lying to them about some awesome city in the clouds if we're good.
Well, obviously it would be hard nowadays to find a fair amount of people that never heard about any religion.
I can think of a few remote locations one might look into for a case study, but you're right, most areas of the globe are culturally saturated to the point that such a person would be a major anomaly.
And by the way I recognize that dogma can influence faith. But my point is only that faith doesn't require dogma, would that be in order to persist or in order to appear.
I understand you mean to say that one can retain faith without adhering to dogma of a particular religion.
You don't seem to refute the "possibility of faith persisting with no dogma", so let's try to prove the "possibility of faith appearing with no dogma". To that end, let's take a look a while while back, back to the era when there was no religion. Back then you will agree there was also no dogma. So the first human being to conceive the idea of God (or Gods or...) had faith and was not influenced by dogma.
You may not accept it, but fact is: faith does not require dogma.
Unfortunately, going that far back travels well beyond "history," which begins with written record. By the time of even the earliest writing systems there were already a great number of religions around. My hypothesis, given the evolution of culture and religion from the earliest written records, would be that a cultural system was developed along side the concept of god(s). Both of those concepts coming WELL before the idea we might articulate as "faith."
The promissory notes made by some early religions (within written record) are not of a faith-based afterlife, but of continued tradition in this life. Ancient Chinese ancestor worship appears in the earliest record as a means of retaining the fealty of feudal city-states. A lesser city would burn offerings to the family of the dominant city as a sign that their ancestors were the best warriors. It took hundreds of years for a measure of sooth-saying to show up and anthropological data shows that such a practice likely came from the western trade routes and exposure to early traditions from the Mediterranean.
I will certainly accept the idea that faith may continue to exist after one stops adhering to dogma; however, I see absolutely no evidence to support the idea that faith came before the institutions which require it. Functionally, that just does not make sense. There had to be a matter of dogma to engender the concept of faith into the human mind. Furthermore, I would estimate that any lingering faith one might have after the abandon of dogma still denotes at least a small grasp onto that initial dogma.
Try imagining, for a moment, that you know nothing about the religions of the world. Consider you are simply a rational person who wants to live the best he or she can and has absolutely no per-conceived notions of life or after-life. Under what conditions would you, having no pretense at all to make this cognitive leap, simply eschew your logical faculties and grasp at a completely unknown outcome? Unless someone were to have given you an idea from which to spring-board (ie. there is another world beyond this and there is a plan beyond our knowing), which in-and-of-itself constitutes the basis of popular dogma, I don't think for a moment that a person would spontaneously have "faith," in anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You can lack that sort of belief all you want. I won't stop you. However, your attempts to sway me of my conviction to my faith will not work, either.
I made my choice to be a Christian. You made your choice not to be. Just like any choices either of us makes in life, neither are going to be affected by the other. So, beyond that fact of logic...why even care in the first place? I don't care if you're an Atheist. Stop being so concerned that I'm a Christian.
And may the odds be ever in your favour.
Emmo#2406
Haruhi and the Flying Spaghetti Monsters are the only real gods, though.
After reading what you've said, rather than you trying to prove god - it leaves me with a single question to you: Why do you think there is a god?
You admit that(from our perspective) gods plan, isn't a plan at all. You admit that Religion is a bad thing. A belief system is FAR too vague to be used in a discussion like this. To talk more specifically about this: Anything, and everything, beyond " I think, therefor I am" IS an assumption. Assumptions are what belief systems are. Believing in someone is assuming they'll do what you expect of them. Faith, Assumptions, and Beliefs are all, essentially, the same thing.
So, Why do you think there is an all powerful big daddy callen the shots from his throne up on high?
How else would it be possible for lightning to occur, by some natural force?! bah, humbug!
Of course that was a joke, even if I believed in gods and various deities. I could not prove their existence.
However, think - just for a moment. That the forces of nature are caused by gods, just like people have believed for milennia.
Why not, even with science we can't explain everything. We know a whole lot, but there's still mysteries we seem to be unable to solve (yet, anyway).
Like, how can something come from nothing. Or if it was something that made something else, well then how did that first something come into existence. And so on.
Neither religion, or science hold all the answers. Still I find science the "better" alternative myself, it just makes a whole lot more sense to me.
I am not religious by any means and I didnt read all 49 pages of this thread; however, It can just as easily be asked to prove he doesnt exist and that is something you cannot do. Sure you can make arguments for your cause but just the same someone can argue the opposite.
Faith doesnt require proof, which makes it hard to challenge. I think a better question would be give me a proof of concept that your god exists.
Beng presented with this doesnt mean you have to accept it yet should give you a better understanding of why someone would choose to believe in god.
I have come to the realization that being an aethist is on par with being religious there is faith in an ideal on both sides. On the one side you believe unconditionally that there is a God on the other side you believe unconditionally that there is no god.
There is no reason to challenge anyone's faith I personally beilve we should challenge Dogma. As socieciety and science advances we need to challenge dogma with in practiced religions as everything in life evolves. Style and Fashion, Governments and policies, Comedy and Tragedy all of these things have evolved over the years. Dogma should change all the same.
What you are referring to here is what is referred to as the god of the gaps. A poor argument for proof there is a god.
Yet as poor of an argument as this is, even Sir Isaac Newton was known to invoke the god of the gaps.
So even the best of us have fallen pray to this trap. I dont know so it must be god.
In my world view - which inherently is no more or less valid than anyone else's - theism is the belief that a god exists, in other words, "I know that god exists" whereas a-theism is the negation of that, "I know that no god exists".
I consider myself agnostic, and to me that means I simply do not know, and I don't claim to know either way. I am, however, open-minded about such matters, and if I find a religion or philosophy that makes sense to me, I'll "follow" it insofar as it continues to make sense to me.
While I do tend to agree with Gryzorz's post about what religion addresses, in general I do not think less of either theists or atheists. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
-Sir Bedevere, the Wise
I love you and want you to have my babies.
I have never seen it summed up so simply and easily. I think you are spot on with your common sense comment. Most people with a logical mind is also an athiest. Religion does "cover" many major questions and fears with fairy tales that people want to believe so they don't have to think on the issues. Sorry guys, but when you die, you simply cease to exist, sorry to break it to ya.
OT:
The bible itself is nothing more than a book full of moral stories taken from previous cultures, even the story of adam and eve dates all the way back to the Ancient Sumerian civilization which predates Christianity by thousands of years, look up the "Epic of Gilgamesh" and be ready to be amazed at the similarities. The Church is awesome at stealing from other cultures, they stole many pagan holidays and changed around their own holidays to coincide with them in order to convert pagans to Christianity. Do you really think Chistmas has anything to do with Christ? You're wrong, it has everything to do with the winter solstice. Halloween and all hallows eve? Christian holidays? Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of Christ? No, it doesn't even coincide with the date of Christs supposed resurrection. The Christian Church has perfected lying to a degree that allows them to lie to billions upon billions of people and not get called on it.
Plus, seriously, God? If some all powerful omnipotent being really existed and wanted to be worshipped at all why would he not show himself once a generation? Oh, yeah, because we should just have faith that he exists, he shouldn't have to actually give us a reason to have faith. Likely story. You should all just like, send me all the money in your bank accounts, if you have faith in me I may pay you back double someday. Works for God, why not for me? And if God does exist, why did I have to watch my dog get run over by a tractor trailer truck from my bedroom window when I was 6? Did you all know that a Labrador hit by a tractor trailer pops? If god exists IMO he is a sick bastard.
The most pathetic part of religion is this. Millions upon millions of people across the world believe in an omnipotent higher power. They have no doubt in their minds he/she/it exists with absolutely NO evidence at all. But if you start talking about the possible existence of extra terrestrial life, intelligent life on another planet somewhere out there in the cosmos, something even great minds like Stephen Hawking's agree is a statistical guarantee, most of these religious people scoff at you and look at you like you're a complete nutbag. But if I say you're all nutbags for believing in a magical mystical higher power that has NEVER offered proof of existence then I am the evil one.
Organized religion is the cause of more death and suffering on this planet than anything else human beings have ever created. This is a fact that even theologians agree on. The crusades was nothing but a bloody orgy of death and slaughter. The catholic church in 1486 mass produced a book that is called the bloodiest book ever written. The Malleus Maleficarum, or the witches hammer to those of us that don't speak latin. The purpose of this book was to help ignorant superstitious morons kill innocent women who they thought were witches. The book outlines how to test for a witch, how to kill a witch, what witches are capable of and all sorts of complete rubbish. Did you know that if you tie a woman's legs and arms together and drop them into a body of water and they die then they aren't a witch? Yep, religion is totally awesome and god must have gotten one hell of a kick out of that joke huh?
I despise organized religion. I admit it. In my opinion organized religion is man kinds largest mistake. But I do not hold religious beliefs against individuals unless they hold my non belief against me. The only time I get annoyed with religious people is when they feel the need to spout it off in peoples face, that is so annoying. What gives them the right to cram their belief down my throat when I don't cram my disbelief down theirs?
Firstly, you posted here and there is no solicitation of your posting aside from me asking. You can't come into a months old thread with a "how dare you ask me this," attitude, as thought you were the first to bring up righteous indignation. Secondly, religion is not a choice for the vast majority of people. Very few of us grew up in a place where more than a few denominations of christianity were around, to say nothing of other actual religions. What are the odds you're going to become Jewish or Shinto if you grow up in rural Alabama? Slim to none. Finally, "it's called faith for a reason," doesn't make any sense to me. Please explain.
You don't need to post here either.
I feel as though you're right in principle, but the unfortunate fact is that Dogma is faith and vice-verse. Now, of course, I am not suggesting their dictionary meaning is identical. What I mean is that in order to adhere to dogma you have to have faith that the dogma is worth following, no matter how wrong it seems. Similarly, in order to have faith you need at least a tiny bit of dogma, something to base that unflinching resolve around.
In order to challenge the validity of one, you must invariably challenge the other. If you try to isolate the two you'll receive the most unthinking rote responses like "it's called faith for a reason," or "well, I don't follow THAT particular tradition."
I think I saw you on page 48 with the same exact post. You really want those babies that bad, don't you?
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Asking for proof in something that is supposed to be a matter of faith is silly. Faith, when applied to god, means the belief in something in the absense of proof.
One cannot prove the existance of God and that's kind of the whole point of having faith.
You got close, but not quite right:
Choice 1; Worship a religion.
Outcome 1 - Your religion is Correct, go to heaven.
Outcome 2 - You chose the wrong religion, go to hell
Outcome 3 - No religion is correct, rot in the ground (pleasant, I know)
I glanced through 40 pages of posts (thanks to this thread being advertised on the home page because of activity lol) and thought I'd throw in my 2 cents about this person's post here. Responses are purely my opinions so take it with a grain of salt.
1) Death is "programmed" into the working of the universe to return elements back to its original state. In other words, death acts like a balancing method within the universe. If nothing died this world would get very crowded no?
3) Early aquatic animals probably took its first steps on land for the same reasons that made humans take the first steps on the moon (and now mars) - curiosity. We have no reason to visit anything outside of earth's biome too, but still we did. Of course other reasons probably applied as well like escape from predation or more food/resources.
4) Im pretty sure, but correct me if I am wrong, the earth was formed long before any sort of life was created. Life only came to being when the Earth's conditions were ripe for life (temperature, gases, etc..).
Man is the only animal on earth that can experience the seven vices - lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride. Fundamentally, religions try to keep us away from succumbing to these types of vices. Off topic, I know.
I would like to end with a small reading from Tecumseh's "Live Your Life."
"Trouble no one about their religion; respect others in their view, and demand that they respect yours."
Organized religion, in essence, is a great idea just like Marxism (from Carl Marx' "Communist Manefesto") where everyone is rich, everyone has a job, everyone is equal and happy. The real problem, like any other organization in society, is having "elected officials" head them with a lot of power. Why? Power corrupts and humans are easily corrupted. You can look at the history of the papcy for an easy example. Even some of the popes, who are supposed to be head of one of the largest religious organizations in the world, did some shameful things that would make God face palm.
I agree with you though. The only way an organized religion would truly righteuos is if the God that they praised were indeed at the head of them, anything else is tainted.
On the contrary, the longevity of the species (in the truly long-term) depends on us finding new worlds to colonize. We've been well aware for some decades now that our sun will not burn on indefinitely and in-fact it will destroy our planet (if nothing else gets to us first) as it burns into a red giant a few billion years from now.
We really don't have the capacity to say for certain that our brains are the only ones capable of functioning in that manner. We're just now discovering that plants actually have vocal communication, a few decades ago we discovered that many sea mammals displayed a great many emotional traits in combination with their obvious communication skills. I wouldn't suggest that all life is capable of empathetic motives, but to single out our species in this regard is almost certainly premature.
The only problem is that many religions trouble those of us who do not subscribe (be it non-belief or simply belonging to another religion). Respecting the views of others is generally admirable, but in so far as it ignores a clear and present danger to society or one's self, I think that is not the wisest choice of action. When it comes to my own views, I do not simply demand respect for the arbitrary reason that they are MY views. I want the acknowledgment that those views are well founded and reasoned. If someone thinks they are not, I am more than happy to discuss, argue, and debate with them to the enlightenment of both parties.
While I do consider the whole new-age "live and let live, don't just any culture but your own," to be very progressive considering our near past, I think it's high time the world got a little more serious about what is and is not a fundamental stumbling block to moving forward as a people/species that needs to work together coherently.
Except, on the contrary, one does not simply believe as a default. One must be deeply inculcated with the doctrine of their religion in order to get to the point where they simply believe without proof. In essence, the brain has been re-programmed to make an exception to it's usual rational routine. When confronted with any other problem, it must make a logical conclusion based on the presented data; however, in this one case the brain has been overridden by force of habit.
Honestly, I don't think such as thing as faith really exists. It is just a word we used to describe an expectation, be it realistic or otherwise. In order to have that expectation we need to be conditioned either by experience of a given outcome over and over again: ie. I have faith in Joe, he wins all his boxing matches, he won't loose this one. Or it may be an expectation through repetition of a theoretical outcome: ie. I have faith that heaven exists because I chant a verse about it weekly and my parents, friends, etc. have a similar expectation.
I find the concept of faith without dogma to be a hard pill to swallow. Where else is one going to come up with the expectation we call faith? There may well be a lot of people "of faith," who do not proscribe to a given religion; however, what number of them were NEVER exposed to a religion in their lives? It sounds far-fetched to say the least.
This is more to Mickross, I just can't find the page so I can quote it =D
To answer your 1st and 3rd question; Randomness. Don't mistake evolution as adaption. While they are close to the same thing as far as changes in the animal or organism, the reasons are very much different. An animal might adapt to it's surrounding to better survive, such as changes in temperature might cause it to develop the ability to shed it's fur during warmer periods and grow more during colder ones.
But as far as evolution goes (as I see it, it's exact definition might be different) it's random. Slowly as organisms are born, subtle changes occur. It's actually very clever in my opinion; Slowly change an organisms layout to help it better survive in the long run. If this change turns out to not help it at all and hinders the creature, natural selection will most likely mean the change won't be passed on for very long, because the creature will die. If this change helps the creature, or at the very least doesn't hinder it, then it stays. This could be anything from an extra toe on a cat to the growth of appendages which will eventually allow fish to walk on water.
You might ask; Well, if fish grew legs why are there still fish? why didn't they all turn into lizards or what have you? Simple separation. It's the same reason why there are monkeys and humans. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, but my money is on that we both evolved from the same ancestor. The fish that were born with appendages and through chance, luck, experimentation and maybe survival needs learned to walk on land might have simply not returned to pass on that gene. There's also the fact that the same type of fish on the other side of the world might just not have mated with the other fish.
It's all random, the whole universe, and no ones excluded.
My two cents is that religion was invented by man to explain death, because well I can see it being pretty frightening to us thousands of years ago, and even today. Our daily lives feel a lot better thinking there's some paradise that we get to go to when we die, and there's somebody that's like a parent figure waiting for us. This sounds great, but unfortunately makes my stomach uneasy. The term (and movie title) comes to mind; Eternal sunshine for the spotless mind.
What also bugs me, and honestly makes me angry towards religion (or more importantly the people) is this idea of a soul. Some ghost, or copy of us that's inside us until we die, and it supposedly flies to some paradise after we die. It just, doesn't fit logically for me. I'd be fine with the idea, won't believe it but I'd be fine, if it also wasn't coupled with the arrogance that not only are souls inside of us, they are ONLY inside of us. I like to ask my friends who believe in it, why doesn't my cat have a soul? The answer, no matter how they skirt around it is, we are somehow above them. Sure on the food chain, but we are apparently more important then animals. This doesn't make sense to me when I look at the world around me. I mean, we ARE animals. We both need water, need food, need warmth, have blood and need oxygen. Hell even our organs are more or less the same as far as lungs to hearts to brains.
Religion just feels so arrogant and foolish, and I guess that's why it urks me. It urks me that some humans think they are just straight up above everything else that's alive, and that we get to go to paradise and live forever, and that animals were made for us and are just worthless.
Like I said I don't go around bashing people, but these and other reasons make me honestly borderline hate religion. I'm fine with the messages religion likes to send about being friendly to others, and don't murder or hate or steal ect, but that's about it, and I really think we can find another way to convince people to behave this way without lying to them about some awesome city in the clouds if we're good.
I can think of a few remote locations one might look into for a case study, but you're right, most areas of the globe are culturally saturated to the point that such a person would be a major anomaly.
I understand you mean to say that one can retain faith without adhering to dogma of a particular religion.
Unfortunately, going that far back travels well beyond "history," which begins with written record. By the time of even the earliest writing systems there were already a great number of religions around. My hypothesis, given the evolution of culture and religion from the earliest written records, would be that a cultural system was developed along side the concept of god(s). Both of those concepts coming WELL before the idea we might articulate as "faith."
The promissory notes made by some early religions (within written record) are not of a faith-based afterlife, but of continued tradition in this life. Ancient Chinese ancestor worship appears in the earliest record as a means of retaining the fealty of feudal city-states. A lesser city would burn offerings to the family of the dominant city as a sign that their ancestors were the best warriors. It took hundreds of years for a measure of sooth-saying to show up and anthropological data shows that such a practice likely came from the western trade routes and exposure to early traditions from the Mediterranean.
I will certainly accept the idea that faith may continue to exist after one stops adhering to dogma; however, I see absolutely no evidence to support the idea that faith came before the institutions which require it. Functionally, that just does not make sense. There had to be a matter of dogma to engender the concept of faith into the human mind. Furthermore, I would estimate that any lingering faith one might have after the abandon of dogma still denotes at least a small grasp onto that initial dogma.
Try imagining, for a moment, that you know nothing about the religions of the world. Consider you are simply a rational person who wants to live the best he or she can and has absolutely no per-conceived notions of life or after-life. Under what conditions would you, having no pretense at all to make this cognitive leap, simply eschew your logical faculties and grasp at a completely unknown outcome? Unless someone were to have given you an idea from which to spring-board (ie. there is another world beyond this and there is a plan beyond our knowing), which in-and-of-itself constitutes the basis of popular dogma, I don't think for a moment that a person would spontaneously have "faith," in anything.