Any one here religious?

[Executioner213]

Have you read Deuteronomy? Leviticus?

If I wanted to murder my children for being disobedient, I could find a passage in there that says "do this".

In order to make use of the Bible as a guidepost for morality, you must already possess a well developed morality. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to cherry pick well enough to decide which parts were the good parts.

Agreed: a majority of preachers and the like tend to make up their sermons by ridiculing something from modern times, and malforming their own justification as to why it's evil from as many chunks of the bible as it takes for it to make sense...even if they were taken out of context and had nothing to do with the subject in the first place. Just because they jack it from the bible, they get to justify it's truth by saying it's in the bible. Half of those rotten fuckers can't truly quote the book they are shoving down everyones throat as it is.

 

[James Murphy]

You science guys definitely amaze me though, in that you are so absolutely certain and convinced that science has all the answers, and that there is no room for a spiritual realm to exist.

i don't know what thread you've been reading, but i think every one of us "science guys" has admitted, as all intelligent atheists would, that there is a possibility that God exists, and that should proof be made known, our views would change (a basic tenet of science, btw). so... yeah Aaron... i usually find you to be quite a reasonable guy on this forum, but you're doing some creative/selective reading.

As I've stated before on here and got no response- if God exists, then he is the author of science, so how can his existence be threatened by science? The only answer to this question is that you are unwilling to consider worshiping something other than your own fleeting desires.

you seem to not understand basic atheist argument, and rather just want to force some childish view of what an atheist is onto the non-believing members of this forum.

look, religion has no monopoly on morality, altruism, or love... quite to the contrary, the normative atheistic person has all three... without the need for it to be couched in bronze age mythology and patently immoral tall tales.

to purport that normal atheist behavior is to just wallow around in an orgy of self-absorption, caring only for personal whims of fancy, is ridiculous if not entirely disingenuous.

i spend a great deal of my time and resources helping and caring for others... i've done so for years, even to the detriment of my own personal life and future... is that "fleeting desire"? whatever it is, it's certainly better than wasting that time and effort on my knees in prayer.

"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer." ~Anonymous

"Wherever morality is based on theology, wherever the right is made dependent on divine authority, the most immoral, unjust, infamous things can be justified and established." ~ Ludwig Feuerbach

surely you can come up with something better to say than that post Aaron... i've expected more from you, just based on your normal contributions to the forum.

 

[slashvanyoung]

@ Aaron: I haven't read one opinion in this thread completely and absolutely ruling out a "spiritual realm" or deity.

if God exists, then he is the author of science, so how can his existence be threatened by science?

It can't. Under that premise. But what if "he" doesn't exist? - It still can't. By locating your deity into territory that's not tangible, neither science nor philosophy will ever give us a definite answer.

Both, organized religion and science, make assertions about areas that escape our cognition. But the difference is that one doesn't claim absolute infallibility...

 

[STINNETT]

"Ignorance is bliss?". That same phrase can just as easily be applied to one who would rather deny the existence of God and the possibility of there being an ultimate spiritual truth to submit to....

I certainly don't deny, outright, the possibility of an ultimate spiritual truth (whatever that means...). I simply don't operate as if there is such a thing as a personal God. And the phrase "ignorance is bliss" is certainly not applicable, because I am willing to allow my point of view to be influenced by evidence. If convincing evidence for this "spiritual truth" were to be presented, I'd be forced to change my position. I'm not choosing to ignore anything and I haven't chosen to believe in anything that is not supported.

Of course that means that I don't have all the answers, and I'm okay with that. What I don't like are made up answers, which is what religious faith entails, in my opinion.

You science guys definitely amaze me though, in that you are so absolutely certain and convinced that science has all the answers, and that there is no room for a spiritual realm to exist.

This is a strawman. I do not think for one second that science has all the answers. I don't think anyone here would say that. I only think that if there is an answer worth finding, science is the only honest way to do it.

There may be other ways of finding answers that are sufficient on a personal level, but not in matters that concern society in general or impact other people.

As I've stated before on here and got no response- if God exists, then he is the author of science, so how can his existence be threatened by science? The only answer to this question is that you are unwilling to consider worshiping something other than your own fleeting desires.

How exactly is God the author of science? What does that mean, precisely?

Why are the men who advanced the usage of the scientific method not the authors of science whether he exists or not?

It's almost as if you're saying that if there is science, God made it so, so since there is science, there is a God.

That's like saying that if Thor exists, he makes the thunder, so since there is thunder, Thor exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


And the whole thing about worshipping our own fleeting desires is probably the first offensive thing I've read in this thread. A presumptuous insult if I ever heard one.
I am an honest, caring and giving person who goes out of his way to help others. Those aspects of my personality certainly would not change by adding "God" into the mix unless you counted have less time to actually do good things because I was spending it in on my knees.

 

[Aaron Smith]

i think every one of us "science guys" has admitted, as all intelligent atheists would, that there is a possibility that God exists, and that should proof be made known, our views would change

You're missing the point- by only allowing for room for belief to exist when it can be corroborated by proof (which I assume you're talking about scientific proof), you completely ignore the possibility that God designed our existence to that he might be found by a different means. Is it that hard to understand? Making scientific proof a prerequisite for the existence of God requires a tremendous amount of faith that science is the only true measure of reality.

 

[James Murphy]

You're missing the point- by only allowing for room for belief to exist when it can be corroborated by proof (which I assume you're talking about scientific proof), you completely ignore the possibility that God designed our existence to that he might be found by a different means. Is it that hard to understand? Making scientific proof a prerequisite for the existence of God requires a tremendous amount of faith that science is the only true measure of reality.

you don't really wanna follow the thread of that argument reductio ad absurdum do you? because it surely would be reduced to absurdity in short order... because you are basically offering up "proof by contradiction".... so you're simply saying that god's origin is totally unknowable, and thus worthy of equal respect to the knowable...

sorry, i don't care to waste one moment of my life via buying in to Pascal's Wager... and if He does exist, i think He'll understand, since, after all, He would have made me this way... and "i am so made that i cannot believe" [at least not on insufficient evidence ].

 

[coldthrn]

You're missing the point- by only allowing for room for belief to exist when it can be corroborated by proof (which I assume you're talking about scientific proof), you completely ignore the possibility that God designed our existence to that he might be found by a different means. Is it that hard to understand? Making scientific proof a prerequisite for the existence of God requires a tremendous amount of faith that science is the only true measure of reality.

What other measure of reality do we have than science?

If you were God wouldn't be logical to make sure all of your creations could not misinterpret your message or lose its meaning in translation, regardless of language, distance, time or position in the universe?

What language is universal? It sure isn't Hebrew.

1+1=2

 

[Aaron Smith]

you don't really wanna follow the thread of that argument reductio ad absurdum do you? because it surely would be reduced to absurdity in short order... because you are basically offering up "proof by contradiction".... so you're simply saying that god's origin is totally unknowable, and thus worthy of equal respect to the knowable...

Well, you've taken my statement one step further than was my intent, because I am not saying that God's proof lies in the fact that his origin is unknowable. Indeed, absurdity is a good way to describe that But what I am saying, is that an honest pursuit of God must accept the fact that scientific proof is not THE road that will get you there...and the denial of that is what the atheistic argument amounts to.

 

[ParsonsMatt]

Well, you've taken my statement one step further than was my intent, because I am not saying that God's proof lies in the fact that his origin is unknowable. Indeed, absurdity is a good way to describe that But what I am saying, is that an honest pursuit of God must accept the fact that scientific proof is not the road that will get you there...and that's what the atheistic argument amounts to.

Science = The sum of man's knowledge about reality. If knowledge about reality won't get you to God, well... there you go.

 

[Aaron Smith]

How exactly is God the author of science? What does that mean, precisely?

Why are the men who advanced the usage of the scientific method not the authors of science whether he exists or not?

It's almost as if you're saying that if there is science, God made it so, so since there is science, there is a God.

That's like saying that if Thor exists, he makes the thunder, so since there is thunder, Thor exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

No, you didn't understand me correctly. What I meant, is that science is something that we merely increase our understanding of, but do not literally create. Sure, you can say that Louis Pasteur "created" pasteurization, but I think "discovered" is a far more accurate word. The same is true of math or of music- people did not literally create the fact that calculus works or that certain sound frequencies can interact harmoniously...they are just physical attributes of our universe, that at some point in time were discovered by humans.

 

[James Murphy]

Well, you've taken my statement one step further than was my intent, because I am not saying that God's proof lies in the fact that his origin is unknowable. Indeed, absurdity is a good way to describe that But what I am saying, is that an honest pursuit of God must accept the fact that scientific proof is not the road that will get you there...and that's what the atheistic argument amounts to.

well Aaron, if there's any proof to be had at all, and thus the existence of God possibly knowable, then that proof would be observable, repeatable and verifiable. you know... science .

 

[John_C]

You're missing the point- by only allowing for room for belief to exist when it can be corroborated by proof (which I assume you're talking about scientific proof), you completely ignore the possibility that God designed our existence to that he might be found by a different means. Is it that hard to understand? Making scientific proof a prerequisite for the existence of God requires a tremendous amount of faith that science is the only true measure of reality.

Science and logical proof isn't a prerequisite for the existence of anything. The universe doesn't care whether we can prove it exists or not, it carries on just the same.



A religious person would say you can find god through faith, because faith transcends logical proof.
By the same logic: if I'm particularly mentally deranged i can find pink dragons coming out of the walls because i have "faith" that they exist.

This does NOT make pink dragons real, it just means i THINK that they are.

However, we lock up people who see pink dragons coming out of the walls, whereas we let people who have this strange "faith" in other things rule countries.......

The thing that really astounds me is that anyone can have any respect for the idea of a God that you can only connect with if you convince yourself that he already exists :zombie:

 

[TravisW]

I'm going to guess it's because:

A) They don't want to start a debate.
B) They rather ignore having to deal with the epic Bible pawnage which might lead to doubt threatening their entire world view.

Ignorance is bliss?

Frankly, it's because I don't have time to spend writing page upon page when the ultimate outcome will be that we have all talked past each other and committed heinous acts of genocide on a field of straw men.

 

[James Murphy]

Frankly, it's because I don't have time to spend writing page upon page when the ultimate outcome will be that we have all talked past each other and committed heinous acts of genocide on a field of straw men.

hmmm... are these straw men you speak of Canaanites, perchance?

for if so, surely they MUST BE KILLED!!

God wills it.








"Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)"

~Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14

"You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new."

~Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9

 

[colynomial]

James, I think that maybe with respect to Aaron's remark about you "science guys", it's a reflection of the tone with which the issue is often approached from the ardent atheist's perspective.

While few if any have outright denied the possibility of the existence of the supernatural in this thread, there is an atmosphere of condescention among atheists that non-atheists are at best naive or at worst complete idiots. I can understand Aaron's reluctance to even get involved in such a debate- I too feel as if it can become a bit tedious (maybe you feel the same way on the other side). However, in the same way that it would be rather unfair for a theist to propose that all atheists must necessarily be lacking in moral character on account of their rejection of "God", I think it's also a little unreasonable to assume that all theists are medieval ignoramuses that believe in fairytales (I'm not suggesting you've said this personally).

As usual, it boils down to whether or not science and faith ought to be dealt with in the same light- which I think maybe you've acknowledged. I can't speak for Aaron, but I don't consider myself to be someone who is opposed to any of the major pronouncements of the scientific community that are predicated on sound fact or reason- this includes evolutionary theory and contemporary cosmology. But in light of those pronouncements, I'm not sure why it automatically follows that I shouldn't believe in "God".

There are a lot of professing aethistic commentators on this debate including Thomas Nagel, Leonard Susskind and Elliot Sorder who, while in no way endorse creationism or the notion of "God", are willing to admit that in some cases, evolutionists do overstate the implication of the theory (which as I understand it, is the reason for the term "scientific" being applied atheists). It certainly provides us with a great deal understanding about the natural world that is both observable and testable in the scientific sense (I personally believe this to be true) but it in no way speaks to the instigation of this process- whether it be accidental or intentional. The atheistic argument then becomes a philosophical one, which may be seen to some as more persuasive than the theistic one, but it's an overstatement of the facts to presume that contempory evolution and cosmology in some way solidify the atheists position as indisputable, scientific fact and rules out the theistic worldview as complete nonsense.

I admit, many theists/creationist have put forward some flimsy arguments to reconcile what they see as a disconnect between science and faith (most notably Young Earth Creationists) but this definately doesn't warrant the wholesale rejection of those who believe in God. I expect not many people are going to agree with what I've said, but I felt compelled to try to balance the debate a little bit and lend Aaron some support- but as I've said, he may not agree with me either.

EDIT: Paragraphs upon request

 

[Chryst Krispies]

Paragraphs, dude, paragraphs.

 

[John_C]

Paragraphs, dude, paragraphs.

+1, it hurts my eyes to even try to read that.

 

[Uladyne]

I'm so glad there are people here who share my views, but are much more knowledgable on such matters than I. Every time I think of a counterargument for something all I have to do is scroll down a couple posts to see that someone else already posted it.

I love you guise!



One thought I would like to offer however is: If one believes a God's existence cannot be revealed (or inferred) by evidence, It (God) is therefore un-knowable. You can only be convinced of It's existence, which isn't really knowledge, right? So wouldn't that be a form of Agnosticism?

I'm actually asking this question. I don't really know the answer, haha.

EDIT: Shit. I might be opening a "Definition of the term 'knowledge'" can of worms here. Guess it's all in how you look at what "knowledge" means. For me, generically and in this sense, it means facts that can be corroborated by others independently.

 

[STINNETT]

No, you didn't understand me correctly. What I meant, is that science is something that we merely increase our understanding of, but do not literally create. Sure, you can say that Louis Pasteur "created" pasteurization, but I think "discovered" is a far more accurate word. The same is true of math or of music- people did not literally create the fact that calculus works or that certain sound frequencies can interact harmoniously...they are just physical attributes of our universe, that at some point in time were discovered by humans.

Well to me the term "science" used generically describes a method, not a body of knowledge but that is rather irrelevant because it's the same argument. It now appears you're saying something like, "if the universe has inherent properties, God created them, so since the universe has inherent properties, God exists."

It's still faulty logic because I could apply it any old way I wanted.

 

[Mago]

I'm just thinking: if something godlike exists, why isnt it the same in every religion?

and: what happend to the gods of ancient cultures...like zeus and odin together in a retirement home playing shuffleboard?