Question for the religious

[v-600]

A short question really.

Youtube seems to have got it into its algorithms to recommend me this instead of its usual british comedy/techshows/numberphile things.

My question is the one the elderly gentleman didn't answer.

Is there anything in the world that could convince you to change your beliefs? Or can you think of anything that would?

EDIT: Link seems fixed, but it doesn't jump to time. The comment was at 7:50.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your link won't open for me.

 

[disappoint]

My question is the one the elderly gentleman didn't answer.

Is there anything in the world that could convince you to change your beliefs? Or can you think of anything that would?

I haven't seen what you linked to yet but just to answer your question in broad terms, yes I am always open to change my beliefs and have undergone many changes throughout my life.

In order to convince me they would have to make sense and be consistent with the known laws of physics, specifically the laws of physics I know of, and my understanding of them and what science has discovered so far.

I won't give up reason and I won't become intellectually lazy by saying "God did it". Instead I strive to find out what really makes the universe work the way it does.

Here is a relevant link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiHRVb_uE0

 

[dank69]

I saw online once a claim that what makes Christianity true and Santa not true is its falsifiability. The claim went something like there is no way to prove Santa doesn't exist so it isn't falsifiable, but Christianity is falsifiable because we could find Jesus' body. You can't really argue with logic like that.

 

[brandonb]

To me,

I've changed my religion many times, from being Christian, to Atheist, to Christian, to Atheist, to Christian over my lifetime. Each time I go through a phase, it's because I learn more. However, I'm at the point where I believe my faith will likely not waver any time soon.

I consider myself Catholic. Am I happy with the Catholic church? Not at all.
Do I think Man has perverted the idea of religion for their own goals? Absolutely.

That said. I look at the big picture now. When I question my beliefs, I think why? Usually when I pray (or meditate if you prefer that term) I usually get an 2 answers. One I want to believe for whatever reason, and another that I know is the truth. The truth usually wins out. And that truth for me makes me remain faithful.

My biggest hang-up for me at the moment (I've been pondering over the last few months) is this: Humans in general are really stupid animals. Yet, we are the best this world has to offer. If we take the sum of our parts, we are really remarkable, yet really stupid.

Now if you take it down to a smaller scale, or think back through the evolutionary tree. How could lesser beings ever evolve into us? How would cells which had no brain ever know how to bring on a better being in the future? Dumb luck? Genetic anomalies which were passed on which resulted in a stronger creature. But can things you learn in your brain change DNA? So even if we learn, we can't pass that genetically down to our offspring. We have to teach them, right? So how can cells teach their offspring new tricks?

Think about it... What's the purpose of some of these anomalies which made us stronger? A bladder for an example. Howe did cells get to know to make a bladder? How did it make beings stronger? How did they know to work together to form a basic intelligent trait? Were basic animals weak because of the lack of a bladder? If animals peed in water continuously, did it leave a scent trail for animals to make them detectable? That would require a nose. A nose made the animal stronger because of things like that. But how did the body know to make nerves which detect scent from the scent glands, even if these scent glands were an anomaly. How did the brain know how to pick those up? How did the body know to make a bladder to counteract that? The cells themselves would not have that intelligence to make it happen.

It just seems too fishy that it all was random chance through evolution. It seems like the brain cannot pass things down genetically from our thoughts, but the thoughts and higher intelligence is there in our biology/DNA. Random error in generics would not create a complete puzzle and intelligence cannot be passed in our genetics to complete the puzzle. If our thoughts can create a stronger being. All we need to do to fly is have all of us think "Wings would make us stronger" and reproduce with those who has similar thoughts and wings would be created in the future? It doesn't work that way. Yet our cells came up with grand things on their own with no intelligence?

That said. I believe there is more to us than science can explain. The more we know about atoms the more things don't make sense to me. How did little particles magnetically attract and link to each other and form up into us in this higher sum? It just boggles my mind.

I believe some sort of intelligent design was there, and if that was created by God or can be explained by science, great. Either way I'm ok with it. But if it can be explained by science, that would mean we can manipulate our DNA and create wings for us in the future and basically create immortality for us as well. But we are not there yet. If we get there, I will likely change my beliefs.

I almost think of life as an illusion at this point. There is so much we don't know. Life is a mystery. That mystery makes me believe there is more intelligent in play than a bunch of random protons, neutrons, and electrons came up with on their own.

Sorry for the wall of text.

Edit - Just wanted to add. I was just giving an example of one aspect of why my religion is there. There are many many more. So I don't want to get into a discussion about evolution or generics and biology. I'm looking at the entire sum, and that is just one aspect of it.

 

[antisober]

At the EOTD religious people are not logical and logical people are not religious. There's no evidence to support the theories of most religion yet people still choose to believe them. Most people are afraid to believe anything other than what they've been taught. Until people start questioning their own beliefs/religion we'll always be at square one.

 

[disappoint]

At the EOTD religious people are not logical and logical people are not religious. There's no evidence to support the theories of most religion yet people still choose to believe them. Most people are afraid to believe anything other than what they've been taught. Until people start questioning their own beliefs/religion we'll always be at square one.

We won't. They will. I think what you really meant to say is they will always be at square one. But it's more sinister than that. Reminds me of this quote:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg U.S. theoretical physicist as quoted in the New York Times April 20th 1999.

 

[Retro Rob]

We won't. They will. I think what you really meant to say is they will always be at square one. But it's more sinister than that. Reminds me of this quote:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg U.S. theoretical physicist as quoted in the New York Times April 20th 1999.

Does this religious person have to beat you and Weinberg over the head with FACTS!?

Regarding the murders for which Bales was charged, his wife Karilyn told People magazine: "I know my husband didn't do that. That's not Rob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bales

Italics and bold mine. An apparently good man, went off on a massacre not religiously motivated.

Well, how dare I bring facts into the DC and disrupt your "when in doubt, blame religion" intelligence? D:

EDIT: The deeper problem with a quote like Weinberg's is that it encourages intellectual laziness -- don't bother investigating the deeper sociological/psychological issues with evil in this world, hell, we have an out...religion! Blame it! See how easy that was?!? Can't explain that "gap" in our knowledge, just pick something. Religion did it!! 🙄

It seems many intellectual atheists take this lazy view of the world.

As far as the question is concerned, no, nothing would change my beliefs because history has shown a godless government isn't any less violent, oppressive, dictatorial as the bloody history of religion. Secondly, my questions in life have been answered, and I am more than happy and content with what I am learning.

 

[nanette1985]

Why do you care?

 

[crashtestdummy]

I know you said that this question is for the religious, but I do feel it's equally applies to us atheists as well. To convince me that God exists, you'd have to present physical, observable, repeatably predictive evidence. In other words, God would have to be fundamentally physical in nature--think God as super-powerful alien. You are unlikely to convince me of a supernatural God, as such a thing is by its very nature unverifiable.

 

[antisober]

Personally I wouldn't say “god” doesn't exist. My theory is that what the average person calls “god” does not exist. It's an idea personified that has gotten out of hand because people blindly follow others without much thought. There's a god but he/she/it is nothing like what they believe it is.

 

[alzan]

Does this religious person have to beat you and Weinberg over the head with FACTS!?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bales

Italics and bold mine. An apparently good man, went off on a massacre not religiously motivated.

Well, how dare I bring facts into the DC and disrupt your "when in doubt, blame religion" intelligence? D:

EDIT: The deeper problem with a quote like Weinberg's is that it encourages intellectual laziness -- don't bother investigating the deeper sociological/psychological issues with evil in this world, hell, we have an out...religion! Blame it! See how easy that was?!? Can't explain that "gap" in our knowledge, just pick something. Religion did it!! 🙄

That works both ways; religion or a belief therein encourages intellectual laziness. All the questions one could ever ask are answered by Christianity, Islam, etc.

It seems many intellectual atheists take this lazy view of the world.

I seriously doubt you have met enough intellectual atheists to make that statement accurate. Maybe "Some of the intellectual atheists I have met ..."

As far as the question is concerned, no, nothing would change my beliefs because history has shown a godless government isn't any less violent, oppressive, dictatorial as the bloody history of religion. Secondly, my questions in life have been answered, and I am more than happy and content with what I am learning.

Good to know that you're happy and content but it seems to me that those feelings are borne of your religious belief which goes back to intellectual laziness. Feel happy and content about that if you choose but know that many of us "intellectuals" are happy and content with "I don't know" as an answer.

Back on topic: I'd rather have knowledge than belief any day. Agnosticism/atheism are not belief systems so there would be nothing to change.

 

[DrPizza]

Think about it... What's the purpose of some of these anomalies which made us stronger? A bladder for an example. Howe did cells get to know to make a bladder? How did it make beings stronger? How did they know to work together to form a basic intelligent trait? Were basic animals weak because of the lack of a bladder? If animals peed in water continuously, did it leave a scent trail for animals to make them detectable? That would require a nose. A nose made the animal stronger because of things like that. But how did the body know to make nerves which detect scent from the scent glands, even if these scent glands were an anomaly. How did the brain know how to pick those up? How did the body know to make a bladder to counteract that? The cells themselves would not have that intelligence to make it happen.

It just seems too fishy that it all was random chance through evolution. It seems like the brain cannot pass things down genetically from our thoughts, but the thoughts and higher intelligence is there in our biology/DNA. Random error in generics would not create a complete puzzle and intelligence cannot be passed in our genetics to complete the puzzle. If our thoughts can create a stronger being. All we need to do to fly is have all of us think "Wings would make us stronger" and reproduce with those who has similar thoughts and wings would be created in the future? It doesn't work that way. Yet our cells came up with grand things on their own with no intelligence?

I'm sorry, but your post is filled with enough to recognize that you do not understand evolution. There is no goal. There isn't a "how did our <body part> know to develop this? It's really this simple: random mutations & survival of the fittest. The vast majority of mutations do not confer any benefit on the organism possessing those mutations. Some mutations are to the detriment of the organism - the organism is less likely to survive & eventually, that genetic trait dies out. Sometimes, that mutation doesn't confer either an advantage or disadvantage, which may result in that mutation being passed on and being in the gene pool. I guess I should note that there is a goal: to reproduce.

So, for example, what if a mutation gives sickle cell anemia - we wouldn't consider that to be an awesome trait to have. But, if you live in sub-Saharan Africa, it confers immunity to malaria (or some illness that's endemic to that area.) So, the people with sickle cell anemia - despite it being able to kill adults, gives individuals a slightly higher probability of making it to reproductive maturity. As a result, that mutation might have started in only one person, but if they have even a 1% better survivability than everyone else, over a very long time, the percentage of the population with that trait is going to increase.

Or to put it another way, in black jack, the house edge is less than 1% vs. individuals who play correctly. Over only 100 hands of black jack, either side could end up with more money. But, over 10's of 1000's of hands, the house edge is going to result in the house winning in the long run.

It just seems too fishy that it all was random chance through evolution.

It doesn't matter how it seems. Mathematically, evolution is sufficient to explain what we see today. That doesn't mean that intelligent design didn't happen. But, it means that intelligent design was absolutely not necessary. This is much the same is believing that 0.999... is exactly equal to one. Many people don't believe it, but it's not a matter of belief; it's simple fact. Intuition may help guide us, but intuition is often wrong. Observations, facts, etc., are what ultimately guide our knowledge.

 

[Retro Rob]

Back on topic: I'd rather have knowledge than belief any day. Agnosticism/atheism are not belief systems so there would be nothing to change.

Atheism, IMO, is a philosophical breeding-ground of prejudice and intellectual inconsistencies.

Case in point, when a theist does something bad (like run into a crowd of children and detonates a suicide vest), it is blamed on the fact he's a theist. On the other hand, atheism gets a free-pass when an atheistic genocidal murderer like Stalin is brought to the fore.

A couple problems with this. Logical consistency demands that atheism holds the blame just as much as theism does. Secondly, you get no moral implications with "theism" and "atheism" unless you add something fundamental to it.

Where prejudice comes into play here is when we say "theists" fly planes into buildings because we're blaming it on the fact they're theists. The fundamental element is that "god demands the death of infidels". Theism alone poses no threat to society.

Likewise, "atheism" in and of itself isn't why Stalin was a murderer. Something fundamental was added.

People like Steven Weinberg conveniently omit those facts from quotes like the one posted above because he's probably a hate-mongering bigot.

 

[ThinClient]

Does this religious person have to beat you and Weinberg over the head with FACTS!?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bales

Italics and bold mine. An apparently good man, went off on a massacre not religiously motivated.

Well, how dare I bring facts into the DC and disrupt your "when in doubt, blame religion" intelligence? D:

EDIT: The deeper problem with a quote like Weinberg's is that it encourages intellectual laziness -- don't bother investigating the deeper sociological/psychological issues with evil in this world, hell, we have an out...religion! Blame it! See how easy that was?!? Can't explain that "gap" in our knowledge, just pick something. Religion did it!! 🙄

It seems many intellectual atheists take this lazy view of the world.

As far as the question is concerned, no, nothing would change my beliefs because history has shown a godless government isn't any less violent, oppressive, dictatorial as the bloody history of religion. Secondly, my questions in life have been answered, and I am more than happy and content with what I am learning.

I like how you claim intellectual laziness, yet you're the one who is religious, believing a supernatural claim with no evidence whatsoever that the supernatural claim is true.

I'd rather be intellectually lazy than willfully ignorant like religious people.

 

[ThinClient]

Personally I wouldn't say “god” doesn't exist. My theory is that what the average person calls “god” does not exist. It's an idea personified that has gotten out of hand because people blindly follow others without much thought. There's a god but he/she/it is nothing like what they believe it is.

Why in the world would you believe such a thing when there's no evidence to support the claim? Your claim that god exists but isn't anything like we believe it is requires evidence. What a joke.

 

[Retro Rob]

I like how you claim intellectual laziness, yet you're the one who is religious, believing a supernatural claim with no evidence whatsoever that the supernatural claim is true.

I'd rather be intellectually lazy than willfully ignorant like religious people.

Intellectual laziness is willful ignorance because you're too lazy to investigate claims, so you are opting for ignorance.

 

[ThinClient]

Atheism, IMO, is a philosophical breeding-ground of prejudice and intellectual inconsistencies.

Religion is a breeding ground for prejudice and bigotry and hatred and judgment.

Case in point, when a theist does something bad (like run into a crowd of children and detonates a suicide vest), it is blamed on the fact he's a theist. On the other hand, atheism gets a free-pass when an atheistic genocidal murderer like Stalin is brought to the fore.

The people who run into crowds with explosive vests are doing it FOR religion. The suicide bombing crowd IS EXCLUSIVELY RELIGIOUS.

A couple problems with this. Logical consistency demands that atheism holds the blame just as much as theism does. Secondly, you get no moral implications with "theism" and "atheism" unless you add something fundamental to it.

Wrong. If that were the case, every non-religious person would be out raping and murdering and stealing every second of every day. You can't possibly believe the vomit that is coming out of your keyboard, do you?

Where prejudice comes into play here is when we say "theists" fly planes into buildings because we're blaming it on the fact they're theists. The fundamental element is that "god demands the death of infidels". Theism alone poses no threat to society.

Likewise, "atheism" in and of itself isn't why Stalin was a murderer. Something fundamental was added.

People like Steven Weinberg conveniently omit those facts from quotes like the one posted above because he's probably a hate-mongering bigot.

Stalin did not murder in the name of atheism. Logical fallacies abound in every single one of your posts. You've been called on your religious posts in every thread you've participated in. You've been logically destroyed every single time and yet you come back for more with the same boring, tired, and already-debunked arguments.

Give it a rest.

 

[ThinClient]

Intellectual laziness is willful ignorance because you're too lazy to investigate claims, so you are opting for ignorance.

Atheism doesn't investigate claims?

LOL

Atheism exists BECAUSE people have investigated claims and found your pastor to be a snake oil salesman.

So you've investigated the claim of Christ's divinity and found factual objective evidence to support the claim.

Okay, post it.

 

[sandorski]

I saw online once a claim that what makes Christianity true and Santa not true is its falsifiability. The claim went something like there is no way to prove Santa doesn't exist so it isn't falsifiable, but Christianity is falsifiable because we could find Jesus' body. You can't really argue with logic like that.

😀

Ya, seems pretty air tight. 😱

 

[Retro Rob]

The people who run into crowds with explosive vests are doing it FOR religion. The suicide bombing crowd IS EXCLUSIVELY RELIGIOUS.

Based on what, though? There is always a fundamental element attached to this "religious behavior".

For instance, there are churches that accept gays, and others that don't. Is that based on "religious" reasons? Yes! Why? Well, because some preach universal love, others don't. Those are the fundamental elements that drive behavior.

Is this too hard to grasp?

Wrong. If that were the case, every non-religious person would be out raping and murdering and stealing every second of every day. You can't possibly believe the vomit that is coming out of your keyboard, do you?

Atheism is the opposite of theism. Theism is simply a belief,. Atheism is the absent of it. 'Christianity' is an element of theism. Theism is inactive as atheism is.

Stalin did not murder in the name of atheism. Logical fallacies abound in every single one of your posts. You've been called on your religious posts in every thread you've participated in. You've been logically destroyed every single time and yet you come back for more with the same boring, tired, and already-debunked arguments

Please, find where I said Stalin killed in the name of atheism.

You need to slow down, read, and then respond. I said Stalin had a FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT added to his atheism.

 

[Retro Rob]

ThinClient --

Please, this is the DC which means you have to READ and type a coherent response and stop saying I said things I didn't say.

This isn't the P/N.

Remember that.

 

[ThinClient]

Based on what, though? There is always a fundamental element attached to this "religious behavior".

Based on what? I don't understand the question. Are you just babbling out some word salad? I think you are.

For instance, there are churches that accept gays, and others that don't. Is that based on "religious" reasons? Yes! Why? Well, because some preach universal love, others don't. Those are the fundamental elements that drive behavior.

Is this too hard to grasp?

What it shows is that religion is man-made and is edited by man as they see fit.

Atheism is the opposite of theism. Theism is simply a belief,. Atheism is the absent of it. 'Christianity' is an element of theism. Theism is inactive as atheism is.

The absent of it? You mean absence? Are you sure that you have a firm grip on the language that we're using here? I'll forgive a large part of your ignorance if English is a second language for you.

This paragraph you've typed is not a cogent argument. It's just word salad again.

Please, find where I said Stalin killed in the name of atheism.

What insinuation were you implying then? Nobody's claiming that atheists don't mass murder. We're claiming that religious people mass murder based on orders from their religion. You replied with something about how Stalin was an atheist. This means one of the two following things:

1) Stalin murdered people IN THE NAME OF atheism and that you want readers to draw the conclusion that his being atheist somehow motivated him to murder people.

or

2) Stalin murdered a bunch of people and also Stalin was an atheist and these two points are not related so the statement that the mass-murdering Stalin is an atheist has absolutely no bearing on the conversation and you're just typing to hear yourself type.


Which is it, Rob?

You need to slow down, read, and then respond. I said Stalin had a FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT added to his atheism.

You need to speed up and think about things before you type them. You're making yourself look the fool. Again.

What fundamental element was added to his atheism? What was it about his atheism that was missing that, once added, turned him into a mass murderer?

It doesn't seem like you're giving too much thought to whatever it is that you shotgun into these threads.

 

[ThinClient]

ThinClient --

Please, this is the DC which means you have to READ and type a coherent response and stop saying I said things I didn't say.

This isn't the P/N.

Remember that.

Cop out.

 

[alzan]

Atheism, IMO, is a philosophical breeding-ground of prejudice and intellectual inconsistencies.

It could be with some people; not every atheist or agnostic is w/o prejudice or intellectually consistent. Of course, your statement is equally true when applied to some theists.

Case in point, when a theist does something bad (like run into a crowd of children and detonates a suicide vest), it is blamed on the fact he's a theist. On the other hand, atheism gets a free-pass when an atheistic genocidal murderer like Stalin is brought to the fore.

I think suicide bombing is equally blamed on the perpetrator being an extremist. I certainly don't blame it on the perp. being theist; I could care less about his beliefs. I just want him (and his brethren of any faith or none) to find a less violent way to communicate their message. Extreme violence and fervency in beliefs and actions are not motivators for conversion, at least not to me.

As far as atheism getting a pass I disagree. Possibly it's perceived as getting a pass simply due to a general lack of Russian/Stalin history. Stalin's atheism is a factor in his bloodied past but it's likely not the first thing people think about when they hear/read his name (if they think anything at all.)

A couple problems with this. Logical consistency demands that atheism holds the blame just as much as theism does. Secondly, you get no moral implications with "theism" and "atheism" unless you add something fundamental to it.

Agree

Where prejudice comes into play here is when we say "theists" fly planes into buildings because we're blaming it on the fact they're theists. The fundamental element is that "god demands the death of infidels". Theism alone poses no threat to society.

I'll admit that when 9-11 first happened my initial knee-jerk reaction was to blame Islam and not the individuals themselves or their extremist views and tactics. Learning more about Islam and it's thankfully small percentage of extreme worshippers helped me see the error in my thinking.

Likewise, "atheism" in and of itself isn't why Stalin was a murderer. Something fundamental was added.

People like Steven Weinberg conveniently omit those facts from quotes like the one posted above because he's probably a hate-mongering bigot.

I think most of us are guilty of "fact omission" from time to time, at least I know I have been.

Back on topic: The extreme acts or words of some theists are exactly why I would not change to a belief system. I'd be more affected by someone living the principles of Buddhism than by some martyr wanna-be blowing themselves up.