Howcome so many people still believe in God?

[Mikobass]

Again, how do you propose we disprove something that does not exist? Science is not perfect, but it's all we have. If I say my faith involve a sugar world made of donuts, cakes, chocolate and jello in another dimension. You know it makes no sens, but you will never be able to proove it does not exist since there is no way to measure this other dimension.

So we are back with science and what we know. Since we know nothing about any form of "god" therefore we must assume (in our everyday life, not for research) that it does not exist. This means no worshipping, no praying, no services, etc. This does not mean not to keep an open mind.

 

[SoundMaster]

And what is the "supernatural"? How can anything exist outside of the realm of the natural, of nature, of existence? It's an impossibility....no different than claiming to have made a square circle.

 

[Russell]

Again, how do you propose we disprove something that does not exist? Science is not perfect, but it's all we have. If I say my faith involve a sugar world made of donuts, cakes, chocolate and jello in another dimension. You know it makes no sens, but you will never be able to proove it does not exist since there is no way to measure this other dimension.

I'm not giving you any solutions, I'm saying you just can't claim science is a solution to this argument. By definition faith is just that - it relies on the belief of that which has no evidence.

So we are back with science and what we know. Since we know nothing about any form of "god" therefore we must assume (in our everyday life, not for research) that it does not exist. This means no worshipping, no praying, no services, etc. This does not mean not to keep an open mind.

You missed my point, as I stated you can use science to influence your decision, but science and the supernatural are completely different arenas - just as you can't use religion to change science, you can't use science to prove or disprove religion in its true, abstract form. To try and apply science to anything other the natural world is not possible - it is a construct, a series of theories, predictions and principles invented by us to describe what we can sense in the material world. Hence, your argument is valid - and it is one I myself adhere to - but it is not science.

 

[Russell]

And what is the "supernatural"? How can anything exist outside of the realm of the natural, of nature, of existence? It's an impossibility....no different than claiming to have made a square circle.

By definition the supernatural doesn't adhere to the laws of nature or science, and thus you can't use those laws to claim it is not possible. A square and a circle are both tangible, material concepts, and as such mutually exclusive; the supernatural isn't.

Just to give some background (as I don't like people mistaking me for a religious zealot :zombie: ) I'm a strong atheist, and have been studying Geology for the last seven years - as such I've had a lot of chances to debate Creation with Creationists, and discuss the issues of science and religion with the religious members of my university. Through that I've come to believe that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, and the viewpoint that they are has been damaging to both parties. Hence, I actually agree with the majority of the reasoning that has been mentioned here, I just disagree with the assertion that they are somehow scientific, and thus science can disprove religion.

 

[Tongue_Ring]

You've hit the nail on the head, thanks.

The problem with humanity, in general, is that it's ego is tremendous, and simply can't accept the fact that a supreme being isn't "looking out" for us or "loves us", etc.

so
what if there are dieties in existance but they really don't give a shit about the human species
based on the astrological argument that there are billions of planets with life on them, it is really fucking arrogant to assume that humans from Earth would be the species that the dieties would care about the most

 

[Tongue_Ring]

I'm not giving you any solutions, I'm saying you just can't claim science is a solution to this argument. By definition faith is just that - it relies on the belief of that which has no evidence.



You missed my point, as I stated you can use science to influence your decision, but science and the supernatural are completely different arenas - just as you can't use religion to change science, you can't use science to prove or disprove religion in its true, abstract form. To try and apply science to anything other the natural world is not possible - it is a construct, a series of theories, predictions and principles invented by us to describe what we can sense in the material world. Hence, your argument is valid - and it is one I myself adhere to - but it is not science.

if you believe in that which has no evidence, then wouldn't that be psychosis?

 

[Mikobass]

You missed my point, as I stated you can use science to influence your decision, but science and the supernatural are completely different arenas - just as you can't use religion to change science, you can't use science to prove or disprove religion in its true, abstract form. To try and apply science to anything other the natural world is not possible - it is a construct, a series of theories, predictions and principles invented by us to describe what we can sense in the material world. Hence, your argument is valid - and it is one I myself adhere to - but it is not science.

So your validation that science does not apply to "deities" is that science cannot explain the "supernatural", which, just like deities, cannot be proven existence either... That's is called a "Circular Logic". I hope you have something better up your sleeve to convince me! As far as I know, the universe is "Natural" and there is no supernatural. "if you can't prove it, it does not exist!"

 

[Russell]

if you believe in that which has no evidence, then wouldn't that be psychosis?

No, it wouldn't - pyschosis is a mental illness, one that shows a far more significant detachment with reality. All the people who believe in a religion around the world are not mentally ill - they lead fully functioning, sometimes happy and often fulfilled lives.

If there was evidence it wouldn't be faith - it would be knowledge.

 

[Tongue_Ring]

So your validation that science does not apply to "deities" is that science cannot explain the "supernatural", which, just like deities, cannot be proven existence either... That's is called a "Circular Logic". I hope you have something better up your sleeve to convince me! As far as I know, the universe is "Natural" and there is no supernatural. "if you can't prove it, it does not exist!"

+1

 

[Russell]

So your validation that science does not apply to "deities" is that science cannot explain the "supernatural", which, just like deities, cannot be proven existence either... That's is called a "Circular Logic". I hope you have something better up your sleeve to convince me! As far as I know, the universe is "Natural" and there is no supernatural. "if you can't prove it, it does not exist!"

No, you misunderstand me again. Read my post, there is no circular logic, and the first statement was clearly not intended as a validation of the second; I was merely rephrasing the first argument as you missed my point. Please do not try and twist my words - they were carefully chosen.

All I am saying is that you cannot use laws grounded in the natrual world to say anything about the existence or otherwise of things that by definition would not be part of the natural world. I'm not saying any less, or anything more, and certainly not the things you attribute to me above.

In essence - your argument is logical, and I agree with it, but isn't science, do not try and pass it as so. Science doesn't automatically exclude a belief in god.

 

[Tongue_Ring]

No, it wouldn't - pyschosis is a mental illness, one that shows a far more significant detachment with reality. All the people who believe in a religion around the world are not mentally ill - they lead fully functioning, sometimes happy and often fulfilled lives.

If there was evidence it wouldn't be faith - it would be knowledge.

psychosis doesn't really have to be dibilitating
if you're at a construction site with a large amount of workers and there is only one single guy wearing a hard hat, then you're prolly looking a situation where the chances of anyone getting hit in the head are pretty much non-existant
in this case, the worker wearing the hard hat is "suffering" from "paranoia" he's just sitting there waiting for a head injury that isn't going to happen
i think that "faith" is something that could be considered a "non-debilitating" type of mental condition that could "fall under" the "umbrella-term" of "psychosis"
(see my previous posts)

 

[Russell]

psychosis doesn't really have to be dibilitating
if you're at a construction site with a large amount of workers and there is only one single guy wearing a hard hat, then you're prolly looking a situation where the chances of anyone getting hit in the head are pretty much non-existant
in this case, the worker wearing the hard hat is "suffering" from "paranoia" he's just sitting there waiting for a head injury that isn't going to happen
i think that "faith" is something that could be considered a "non-debilitating" type of mental condition that could "fall under" the "umbrella-term" of "psychosis"
(see my previous posts)

By your definition, yes, the religious may suffer from a form of psychosis (obviously the word was first coined to describe a severe and debilitating mental condition). But if you use this argument you have reached a stage where you are just using the negative connotations of the word psychosis to show over half the world's population in a negative light. As far as I'm concerned that's not really helping anyone, and it's not something I wish to do. People choose to believe what works for them, and as long as they don't try and force their views on others (violently or otherwise), or assume their worldview somehow has more validity than mine, then good for them.

An apt quote from Niles Eldridge that I just found, which I think is pertinent to the science/God discussion:

"Nor do I think we can afford these stupid culture wars, with people like Phillip Johnson getting upset that his version of God seems threatened because scientists have discovered that life developed over 3.5 billion years ago on the planet and feel that they can explain how that happened through purely natural causes. Nor can we afford the arrogant intolerance of the scientists who claim that their science - evolution in particular - demonstrates unequivocally that there is no God ."

 

[Tongue_Ring]

By your definition, yes, the religious may suffer from a form of psychosis (obviously the word was first coined to describe a severe and debilitating mental condition). But if you use this argument you have reached a stage where you are just using the negative connotations of the word psychosis to show over half the world's population in a negative light. As far as I'm concerned that's not really helping anyone, and it's not something I wish to do. People choose to believe what works for them, and as long as they don't try and force their views on others (violently or otherwise), or assume their worldview somehow has more validity than mine, then good for them.

An apt quote from Niles Eldridge that I just found, which I think is pertinent to the science/God discussion:

"Nor do I think we can afford these stupid culture wars, with people like Phillip Johnson getting upset that his version of God seems threatened because scientists have discovered that life developed over 3.5 billion years ago on the planet and feel that they can explain how that happened through purely natural causes. Nor can we afford the arrogant intolerance of the scientists who claim that their science - evolution in particular - demonstrates unequivocally that there is no God ."

anything that is already or capable of becoming a religion will eventually cause "stupid culture wars" it is inevitable
and what you called "science" falls into the realm of "religion" in this context

 

[Russell]

anything that is already or capable of becoming a religion will eventually cause "stupid culture wars" it is inevitable

Only because that attitude is so prevalent. I think man has bigger problems to face up to than arguing over whose fairytale is better, or how much superior those without a fairytale are. Bottom line, you will never be able to rid the Earth of religions, too many people rely on them for whatever reasons. So what other options are there? If people - atheists included - would just be a little more tolerant, and a little less dogmatic, the world would be a far better place.

and what you called "science" falls into the realm of "religion" in this context

If you are referring to "the arrogant intolerance of the scientists who claim that their science - evolution in particular - demonstrates unequivocally that there is no God", then yes it does. Which is the core of the debate above. Clearly if you take Science out of the natural realm and start using it in a religous context (i.e. proving or disproving the existence of god/the supernatural), then it too is entering 'the realm of religion'. And that is exactly why you can't use science to say anything about the proof or otherwise of God, as I explained twice above.

 

[SoundMaster]

By definition the supernatural doesn't adhere to the laws of nature or science, and thus you can't use those laws to claim it is not possible. A square and a circle are both tangible, material concepts, and as such mutually exclusive; the supernatural isn't.

Can you provide some examples of things that don't adhere to the laws of nature? (just curious...I really don't know)

 

[SoundMaster]

People choose to believe what works for them, and as long as they don't try and force their views on others (violently or otherwise), or assume their worldview somehow has more validity than mine, then good for them.

But do people really choose to believe what works for them? For example, I never chose atheism. Rather, all thought, logic, and reasoning lead to me a conclusion (over time) that the religion I cherished as a youth was simply improbable and, most likely, entirely false. If anything, I tried to run from that conclusion, but since I could no longer hold deities to be true and accept one (or more) as fact, it wasn't possible to "choose" to believe it.

Thoughts?

 

[Kreator/Destroyer]

i'm just going to say i still believe in God because when i was 7 my mom died and my stepmom (who was a friend of hers) sees my mom in her dreams years later thanking her for being a mother to my younger brother and i. Along with this, my mom is friends with a psychic who can contact the dead. A real psychic cause she doesn't charge money and she contacted my mom and great grandmother. i realize this isn't really solid evidence and it really only illustrates the existence of life after death but if there is an afterlife, wouldn't that be as farfetched as a God without evidence? that is all i have to say.

 

[DctrFeelGood]

i'm just going to say i still believe in God because when i was 7 my mom died and my stepmom (who was a friend of hers) sees my mom in her dreams years later thanking her for being a mother to my younger brother and i. Along with this, my mom is friends with a psychic who can contact the dead. A real psychic cause she doesn't charge money and she contacted my mom and great grandmother. i realize this isn't really solid evidence and it really only illustrates the existence of life after death but if there is an afterlife, wouldn't that be as farfetched as a God without evidence? that is all i have to say.

Your story in no way proves the existence of life after death.

 

[Goddess_of_War]

I didn't read everything said here but I do have an opinion on the subject. Personally speaking I think people believe cause they have their own proof and their own miracles that make them believe. Religion in itself is all man made concepts and ideas but God is a divinity on its own. People believe in a God like figure in almost all religions as well as a Goddess based figure.

Another thing is that "proof" is nothing more then an attempt for athiest or extreme non believers to attack people who do believe in a higher being. Proof only exist to those who have "open hearts" to the concept and if you don't then you just well don't. That is why it is called faith and not Fact.

 

[Russell]

Can you provide some examples of things that don't adhere to the laws of nature? (just curious...I really don't know)

No, none at all; I believe there are none. But that doesn't invalidate the point I was making

But do people really choose to believe what works for them? For example, I never chose atheism. Rather, all thought, logic, and reasoning lead to me a conclusion (over time) that the religion I cherished as a youth was simply improbable and, most likely, entirely false. If anything, I tried to run from that conclusion, but since I could no longer hold deities to be true and accept one (or more) as fact, it wasn't possible to "choose" to believe it.

Thoughts?

Very interesting question. Whether people choose to or otherwise, I still feel that "as long as they don't try and force their views on others (violently or otherwise), or assume their worldview somehow has more validity than mine, then good for them" stands.

As to whether people choose, I guess they don't - I should have worded it more carefully. I would imagine that one particular system of belief just works for people be that a religion, atheism or agnosticism - it could be due to upbringing, or something more central to their physical make up, but in the end, I don't think anyone just sits down and decides "I'm going to believe this", and then truly does so. But I think it should be a 'choice' in that there are many competing views, and people should be free to follow whichever of those they feel they must without persecution for it (again as long as they assume it has no more validity than others', and they don't hurt anyone in the process).