qwerty

[shocksyde]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei

What's funny is that people get hung up on stuff like that. It's like they're grasping for any excuse NOT to believe God exists.
Do you have to know the purpose or function of everything in the world before acknowledging God created it?
As for the appendix, it's a breeding ground for healthy bacteria to kick-start the body after diseases play havoc with the digestive system. Though in today's relatively sterile environment people can actually get along without it.

The exact opposite argument can be made. Any yes, I personally do need to know the purpose or function of everything. The scientific method is king.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei

Originally posted by: Eli
Does religion explain why there are retarded children and why we have an appendix?



:laugh:

What's funny is that people get hung up on stuff like that. It's like they're grasping for any excuse NOT to believe God exists.
Do you have to know the purpose or function of everything in the world before acknowledging God created it?
As for the appendix, it's a breeding ground for healthy bacteria to kick-start the body after diseases play havoc with the digestive system. Though in today's relatively sterile environment people can actually get along without it.

Here's the thing about reason: you can't prove that something doesn't exist. Innocent until proven guilty. It's ENTIRELY up to believers to prove to everyone else that God exists. Not the other way around. That's not a matter of opinion, that's basic logic.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei

What's funny is that people get hung up on stuff like that. It's like they're grasping for any excuse NOT to believe God exists.
Do you have to know the purpose or function of everything in the world before acknowledging God created it?
As for the appendix, it's a breeding ground for healthy bacteria to kick-start the body after diseases play havoc with the digestive system. Though in today's relatively sterile environment people can actually get along without it.

The exact opposite argument can be made. Any yes, I personally do need to know the purpose or function of everything. The scientific method is king.

And that's the thing... religion plays heavily on the human nature of questioning.
And that nature of questioning is how we've gotten to where we are in the world now. We question how/why, and we figure out how/why. And our ability to use tools, and teach our siblings what we know, has led to the greatness that is man at this day in age, and is why - if we don't kill each other or get destroyed by some freak natural disaster - we'll continue to develop society into an even greater state of awesomeness that we really cannot even comprehend at the moment. One day mankind will likely look back at us in history and determine we were primitive and ignorant beings that barely managed survival and our continued presence on Earth.

We've always questioned how things do or don't work, and/or why that is. And, we develop methods to make things work if they don't. All tools and advancements in medicine and, well, every other area... are all due to that nature to question things.

Religion plays on that, by providing 'answers' to the hardest question man created in a distant time. Why are we so gifted compared to other creatures? Nobody wanted to simply believe, or at least they couldn't possibly understand, that nature itself is responsible for why we are the way we are. It's not that hard to believe, and is why religion will hopefully die out in time as mankind listens to inner logic and reason and determines for itself that we have made us the way we are, and due only to the successes (and failures) of each past generation.
At least, that's how I look at things. One day... maybe many others will too.

 

[timosyy]

I didn't want to get into theology (and this is why I said earlier I wish comparative/world religions were a mandatory course in high school), but I feel the need to point out certain things very quickly/define a few basic concepts.

From a Christian viewpoint/theology because that seems to be the one this thread concerns:

a) Heaven/Hell, defined as eternity with or apart from God. Most people (Christians & non-Christians alike), seem to think it works like this: God gives you x amount of years on earth, and if you haven't made the "right" choices, you're flung into hell for all eternity. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of evil/sin as defined in Christianity. To quote Tim Killer: "...hell is simply one's freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity". Or better yet, C.S. Lewis:

"There are only two kinds of people-- those who say "Thy will be done" to God or those whom God in the end says, "They will be done." All that are in Hell choose it. Without that self-choice it wouldn't be Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it."

For a Christian to "condemn" another person to Hell doesn't even make sense- those in "Hell" choose it freely, they don't cry out to God saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong, I want to go to Heaven now".

b) So is correct, it is entirely up to the "believers" to prove to the "nonbelievers" that God exists. This is the charge that Jesus left with his disciples.

c) Christianity is much more than what atheists like to pigeonhole into "a belief system that explains how things came to be". Otherwise the Bible would consist solely of Genesis. Christianity, in the end, is a story. After all, "Thou shalt not" speaks to the mind, but "Once upon a time" speaks to the heart. It is a story about a God who created the universe & everything in it, and charged humanity to be good stewards of it. It is a story about the root of sin (selfishness). It is a story about a God who loved humanity so much that he would send his son to be the atoning sacrifice for their sins past & present, that he (Jesus) would serve as an example to those who call themselves Christians. There is honestly nothing in this story/teaching that is detrimental to the human race. If Christians want to believe in this story, then why not. The only thing it could bring about is good, for people to be more caring/honest/forgiving/selfless.*

*Unfortunately, of course, this is not the case, and the church is oftentimes a poor representation of the Christian faith. And so, the secular world does have many legitimate grievances against Christianity. Again, "You Christians are so unlike your Christ."

 

[Fenixgoon]

i look at it this way - you cannot physically, scientifically prove the existence of god. this is why you have faith.

science is about what we can prove in the physical world

faith is what we believe in the world beyond our own.

i was raised catholic, but i'm not too big on church. i have faith that god does indeed exist, and i think there are many paths that lead towards our ultimate end in what lies ahead. IMO it's foolish to say that any single religion has it completely "right."

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: DeePee
Just got into a heavily debated argument with my family about religion. I told them I was agnostic. I was raised in a southern baptist environment. I did mission trips, etc. I'm on the fence.

If there is such a being as God, He wants you to be honest. It is better to be an honest agnostic than a feigning theist. You can ask your family to respect your honesty in this.

Originally posted by: DeePee
I told them I think religion is a relief for people who are scared of never gaining consciousness after one dies.

If you want respect and freedom for your opinions and beliefs, you should have some respect for others' freedom too. It is not necessary to question the resolution of every detail in another's judgment or religion. People will work these out for themselves if they wish, or simply defer the resolution.

Originally posted by: DeePee
I want to believe there is a higher being but it's hard. IMO, it's hard to believe we came from evolution and have accomplished some of the things we as humans have done. At the same time it's hard to believe out of nowhere we were made from scratch. Why are there retarded children? Why do we have an appendix which servers no purpose to our body?

The questions are related in that they point to our ignorance of such matters. We don't know. So what? Why is it necessary to know? Why would it be necessary to know these things as a decision point on a religion? Could it not be that while there are ultimately answers, that a religion simply focuses on matters more fruitful?

Belief is ultimately not just rational. To insist that all beliefs be based on sufficient evidence of truth, while admirable, is somewhat irrational in that it ignores the nature of belief and the human being. Belief based on sufficient evidence for truth is not just belief, it is knowledge. Belief at its best is a holding place for knowledge, and while it can be informing in that it tells us something about our more inner selves, mental positions and subconscious thoughts, we should acknowledge that beliefs are just beliefs, and that the truth, whatever it is, has ultimate precedence. It is from this perspective that we should value honesty, and it is from this perspective of valuing the ultimate truth over our transient beliefs, that we should respect the beliefs of others, acknowledging that as we don't know the ultimate truths either, we shouldn't be harsh in our judgment of their beliefs.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: EGGO
Evolution never said anything about being our origin.

This is true, evolution is simply a mechanism that describes how life works, it doesn't necessarily preclude the existance of any god(s). Granted, accepting evolution means that you have to think about God in a different light, but so what, nobody's ever 100% right 100% of the time.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

dvorak?

 

[SlitheryDee]

I understand that imagining something that doesn't exist yet is the precursor to all great invention. As human beings we have this gift, but that only involves postulating the possibility of something. We really never had any reason in the physical world to even postulate the existence of such an unlikely thing as God. Frankly, a rational, unimaginative person who's world-view is rooted in reality should never even conceive of the idea if he isn't exposed to it by someone else. It's this tendency to see things that aren't there...yet, which also turns us up the path that leads to God.

Some people say that there is an ethereal world that can only be dealt with using faith. By what means did they come by this knowledge? Really think about it for a second. Was it another person or group of people who first introduced them to the idea of things that exist without any of the regular signs that we use for determining the existence of things? Think about what it really means to believe in something that you admit can't be verified to exist. Think about how it's utterly necessary that you discovered this through mundane physical means from others who share the limitations implicit in the belief. Your interaction with the world and everything in it is purely physical. You have likely never seen or heard anything which cannot be explained in terms of that physical world, and neither has anyone you've ever seen or talked to. Yet people say things exist which don't admit to physical examination. I ask again, how do they know this?

Faith is something which can be had. People can believe in things I can't even imagine, but what is that belief in the end? Does the belief itself imbue its focus with existence? I don't think so. The focus of the faith either exists independently or it doesn't, but since we have only faith in its existence to even make us aware of it as a possibility and faith is necessarily based on absolutely nothing physical, why are we even giving this focus serious thought? Beyond the fact that humanity has had so many other great ideas which
bore fruit in the fullness of time that even the God hypothesis deserves examination I can't think of a good reason.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I understand that imagining something that doesn't exist yet is the precursor to all great invention. As human beings we have this gift, but that only involves postulating the possibility of something. We really never had any reason in the physical world to even postulate the existence of such an unlikely thing as God. Frankly, a rational, unimaginative person who's world-view is rooted in reality should never even conceive of the idea if he isn't exposed to it by someone else. It's this tendency to see things that aren't there...yet, which also turns us up the path that leads to God.

Some people say that there is an ethereal world that can only be dealt with using faith. By what means did they come by this knowledge? Really think about it for a second. Was it another person or group of people who first introduced them to the idea of things that exist without any of the regular signs that we use for determining the existence of things? Think about what it really means to believe in something that you admit can't be verified to exist. Think about how it's utterly necessary that you discovered this through mundane physical means from others who share the limitations implicit in the belief. Your interaction with the world and everything in it is purely physical. You have likely never seen or heard anything which cannot be explained in terms of that physical world, and neither has anyone you've ever seen or talked to. Yet people say things exist which don't admit to physical examination. I ask again, how do they know this?

Faith is something which can be had. People can believe in things I can't even imagine, but what is that belief in the end? Does the belief itself imbue its focus with existence? I don't think so. The focus of the faith either exists independently or it doesn't, but since we have only faith in its existence to even make us aware of it as a possibility and faith is necessarily based on absolutely nothing physical, why are we even giving this focus serious thought? Beyond the fact that humanity has had so many other great ideas which
bore fruit in the fullness of time that even the God hypothesis deserves examination I can't think of a good reason.

Keeping in mind that I can barely comprehend what exactly the point that is being proposed here... I'll hesitantly agree.

And my reason? Drugs. Drugs are the reason people began to imagine the possibility of a higher power, and/or drugs are the reason such ideas perpetuated even though a sane individual should have logically said "WTF is wrong with you mate?"... but it was group reasoning, while high, that led to the establishment of a religion in its infancy... and if not religion, at least the mere thought of a higher power.

Personally, I think the idea of a higher power, truly detracts from the beauty that is the Universe and Nature. I'm a Pantheist/Atheist... I don't believe in a deity of any kind, nor the possibility of one even existing (although I do imagine its possible some advanced alien lifeforms may have a better understanding of the universe and have the ability to manipulate space-time and yada yada yada), but I do attribute all things that exist as the direct result of the natural laws that govern our Universe. No matter the existence of other Universes (a possibility that I accept given our lack of knowledge, but as one we can neither prove nor disprove at the moment, much like the existence of wormholes and other proposed oddities in our own Universe), the natural laws of our Universe are directly responsible for everything we see, and is what provided the chance of life in the first place... and if life exists, provides the rules for how it can and cannot survive. At the moment, mankind only knows what we have witnessed, and speculate life needs the same basic necessities that life on Earth needs. I don't buy that, but since we have not found any other evidence of anything else, we accept that as fact. I hope one day we find life that isn't based around carbon and water, but that life could not theoretically survive on Earth.
Pantheists simply call all of that God, aka Nature. BTW, Einstein was a Pantheist.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRomantic

Originally posted by: Xanis
I have one word for you: Faith. Take a look here. I would like to call your attention to a specific portion of that definition:

firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

Religion is based solely on faith. If you don't have it, as it appears you don't, then I would say atheism FTW.

But is there absolute proof that there is no god-type being? I'm not saying that a God has to be in anyway involved in what's happening on Earth, but for all we know, some supernatural being could be somewhere out there, doing its own thing. I think in order to be atheist, you have to have that absolute faith in there not being a god, which he also doesn't seem to have.

Completely and utterly off-base. Atheism is just the lack of religious faith. It's exactly the same as if you were to make up some super-ultra unicorn with jets for feet, and then anyone who doesn't believe in it is somehow claiming there is absolute proof of it's non-existence, perpetuating your faith in the process. It's circular logic, it's made up, and it has nothing to do with facts or evidence... There doesn't need to be proof against it, only the proof for it, and there is none of the latter.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: HardcoreRomantic

Originally posted by: Xanis
I have one word for you: Faith. Take a look here. I would like to call your attention to a specific portion of that definition:

firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

Religion is based solely on faith. If you don't have it, as it appears you don't, then I would say atheism FTW.

But is there absolute proof that there is no god-type being? I'm not saying that a God has to be in anyway involved in what's happening on Earth, but for all we know, some supernatural being could be somewhere out there, doing its own thing. I think in order to be atheist, you have to have that absolute faith in there not being a god, which he also doesn't seem to have.

Completely and utterly off-base. Atheism is just the lack of religious faith. It's exactly the same as if you were to make up some super-ultra unicorn with jets for feet, and then anyone who doesn't believe in it is somehow claiming there is absolute proof of it's non-existence, perpetuating your faith in the process. It's circular logic, it's made up, and it has nothing to do with facts or evidence... There doesn't need to be proof against it, only the proof for it, and there is none of the latter.

Obviously you're not smart enought to see how the super-ultra unicorn with jets for feet must exists. There are many things in universe we do not understand, so obviously the unicorn did it.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

whereas with Jesus, you're always hearing a secondhand account that has been changed a lot over time).

I am not insulting you at all, but your statement is egregiously incorrect yet continues to be repeated by pop culture. The Scriptures have been vetted by religious and non-religious experts alike for two millennia. Jesus Christ is the most well-documented figure in history ever. Many books by scholars (including atheists and agnostics) attest to both the authenticity of the origins, dates, and historical accuracy of the Holy Scriptures.

Whether you choose to believe that the Holy Scriptures were truly God-inspired and/or you choose to believe what Jesus said is truth, of course is 100% your choice, but don't make unsubstantiated and erroneous claims about the authenticity and accuracy of the texts.

 

[timosyy]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

whereas with Jesus, you're always hearing a secondhand account that has been changed a lot over time).

I am not insulting you at all, but your statement is egregiously incorrect yet continues to be repeated by pop culture. The Scriptures have been vetted by religious and non-religious experts alike for two millennia. Jesus Christ is the most well-documented figure in history ever. Many books by scholars (including atheists and agnostics) attest to both the authenticity of the origins, dates, and historical accuracy of the Holy Scriptures.

Whether you choose to believe that the Holy Scriptures were truly God-inspired and/or you choose to believe what Jesus said is truth, of course is 100% your choice, but don't make unsubstantiated and erroneous claims about the authenticity and accuracy of the texts.

To parrot this, when people actually start searching/researching they are often surprised at the mountains of evidence for this statement verses the rather flimsy arguments to the contrary.

Again, whether you actually want to believe what was said by Jesus or not is up to you.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRomantic

Originally posted by: Xanis
I have one word for you: Faith. Take a look here. I would like to call your attention to a specific portion of that definition:

firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

Religion is based solely on faith. If you don't have it, as it appears you don't, then I would say atheism FTW.

But is there absolute proof that there is no god-type being? I'm not saying that a God has to be in anyway involved in what's happening on Earth, but for all we know, some supernatural being could be somewhere out there, doing its own thing. I think in order to be atheist, you have to have that absolute faith in there not being a god, which he also doesn't seem to have.

You cant absolutely prove a negative.

That is why religion stands the test of time, regardless of its horrible logical fallacies.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: timosyy
I didn't want to get into theology (and this is why I said earlier I wish comparative/world religions were a mandatory course in high school), but I feel the need to point out certain things very quickly/define a few basic concepts.

From a Christian viewpoint/theology because that seems to be the one this thread concerns:

a) Heaven/Hell, defined as eternity with or apart from God. Most people (Christians & non-Christians alike), seem to think it works like this: God gives you x amount of years on earth, and if you haven't made the "right" choices, you're flung into hell for all eternity. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of evil/sin as defined in Christianity. To quote Tim Killer: "...hell is simply one's freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity". Or better yet, C.S. Lewis:

"There are only two kinds of people-- those who say "Thy will be done" to God or those whom God in the end says, "They will be done." All that are in Hell choose it. Without that self-choice it wouldn't be Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it."

For a Christian to "condemn" another person to Hell doesn't even make sense- those in "Hell" choose it freely, they don't cry out to God saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong, I want to go to Heaven now".

b) So is correct, it is entirely up to the "believers" to prove to the "nonbelievers" that God exists. This is the charge that Jesus left with his disciples.

c) Christianity is much more than what atheists like to pigeonhole into "a belief system that explains how things came to be". Otherwise the Bible would consist solely of Genesis. Christianity, in the end, is a story. After all, "Thou shalt not" speaks to the mind, but "Once upon a time" speaks to the heart. It is a story about a God who created the universe & everything in it, and charged humanity to be good stewards of it. It is a story about the root of sin (selfishness). It is a story about a God who loved humanity so much that he would send his son to be the atoning sacrifice for their sins past & present, that he (Jesus) would serve as an example to those who call themselves Christians. There is honestly nothing in this story/teaching that is detrimental to the human race. If Christians want to believe in this story, then why not. The only thing it could bring about is good, for people to be more caring/honest/forgiving/selfless.*

*Unfortunately, of course, this is not the case, and the church is oftentimes a poor representation of the Christian faith. And so, the secular world does have many legitimate grievances against Christianity. Again, "You Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I appreciate the post... finally someone who isnt bashing those who believe differently.

I'd just like to point out a few things:
1)To those who cannot understand why a loving God would send someone to hell...Heaven is not just a happy place where you go after death to "reward" those who do good, and hell is not just the bad place you go after you die to "punish" the bad people.
Heaven is quite simply defined as afterlife in the presence of Jesus/God. Hell is quite simply defined as afterlife in the absense of Jesus/God. So now logically, who is going to the place where God is, and who is going to the place where God isnt? Obviously only those who "befriended" God during life will go to be with him in the afterlife.
If you dont like the restrictions and the ways of the Christian life now, what makes you think you would be any happier in heaven where is will continue?


Now on to the matter of proof. I do not accept that it is on anyone to "prove" whether a God exists, or that he does not. You simply either accept it or you do not. If it was provable, then it would not be blind faith, and if it were not blind faith, then it would not be worth anything.

 

[RESmonkey]

God doesn't exist