Why There Almost Certainly Is No God

[WelshBloke]

I've read a bit of Dawkins and seen some of his interviews and I think I know where he's coming from.

I'll try and explain my views. I'll do this not to attack people with religious believes, or change your views; it?s just so you know where some of us Atheists are coming from.

For me to accept the existence of your God I would also have to accept the possibility of all other gods and religions.

If I accept the possibility of all gods and religions, and that the universe contains the supernatural, I would then have to accept the possibility of all myths legends and superstitions to be true.

I am not willing to accept that I live in a universe where this is the case therefore I have to reject all religions and superstitions.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

I understand that, but the idea that the foundation of our government was religious in nature has been largely refuted through all reliable research. Again, read the notes of the conventions and read the Federalist. Read Locke and Montisque and the enlightenment political theorists. It's entirely about removing religion utterly from the state. Not prohibiting it or getting rid of it, but seperating it from the state - for the betterment of both church and state.

People existed before any form of religious organization (unless you're one of 'those', in which case we have nothing to talk about) and those people formed rules and societies. These grew to be full civilizations which eventually (under Hammurabi) managed to actually write the rules down. Religion is NOT required for morality, nor for political structures as has been amply demonstrated.

I guess what it comes down to is that in the last two years of history and political science classes (and all the studying before that) I have yet to see any actual supporting evidence of what some of the people on here are arguing for - but tons of evidence arguing that it was a secular government. I myself am not an atheist, so the only possible purpose I'm trying to serve here is accuracy.

I believe I agreed with what you are saying. I don't believe the laws of this country were based upon the Christian beliefs. Sorry if that was confusing.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Vic
Judaic Law does not predate the Code of Hammurabi. If anything, Abraham, being from Babylon of the period, took the code with him to later become the law as he moved his tribe west into Canaan.

But you're asserting the idea that the laws began with Abraham, which I'm not sure is true. God gave Adam and Eve laws within the garden. Only makes sense he, or an "associate", would have given them laws outside the garden also.

I don't know which came first, and I don't know that it really matters. But throwing out my opinion here.

 

[JEDIYoda]

where did the OP go?

I find it interesting when the OP of a thread will not sticvk around to defend his correcting everybody else; but when he is called on the carpet rather than admit the obvious he leaves the building.....

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Vic
Judaic Law does not predate the Code of Hammurabi. If anything, Abraham, being from Babylon of the period, took the code with him to later become the law as he moved his tribe west into Canaan.

But you're asserting the idea that the laws began with Abraham, which I'm not sure is true. God gave Adam and Eve laws within the garden. Only makes sense he, or an "associate", would have given them laws outside the garden also.

I don't know which came first, and I don't know that it really matters. But throwing out my opinion here.

Well, you said "Judaic Law," and that specifically began with Moses.

 

[Moonbeam]

Neither the God that people believe in nor the God they don't believe in exists. These are only thoughts and opinions about God. Both the people of faith and the people of doubt know anything at all about God, with the probably small exception of whose faith is strong enough to feel love. God is not an a person or power or thing. God is what happens when you awaken from your sickness. God is the infinite joy of being you we were all meant to feel. The people of faith want to go to heaven and the people of doubt have given up. There's not really much difference in them. We know nothing at all because we are stuffed full of ego. God is only for the meek because to know God will cost you everything you believe. To know God is to let go. To know God you have to die on the Cross. I wish you all good luck.

 

[sandorski]

Secularism does not equal Atheism. Secularism is merely Religious neutral and only applies itself to those things where "god(s)" are impractical. Take a Road for example: There is no such thing as a Catholic, Protestant, Christian, Muslim, etc Road, it is just a Road that requires construction by Human hands/machinery. You wouldn't call it a Secular Road either, but a Secular Institution(Government in this case) is perfectly capable of making it and maintaining it.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Secularism does not equal Atheism. Secularism is merely Religious neutral and only applies itself to those things where "god(s)" are impractical. Take a Road for example: There is no such thing as a Catholic, Protestant, Christian, Muslim, etc Road, it is just a Road that requires construction by Human hands/machinery. You wouldn't call it a Secular Road either, but a Secular Institution(Government in this case) is perfectly capable of making it and maintaining it.

:thumbsup:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Yeah, this is a good article /boggle:

Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.

Sounds like a typical moron who found his corner of cyberspace.

BTW, the founding fathers were mostly Christian. They wanted seperation of church and state,. Because in England, they had the "Church of England." Which meant, that the tax payers paid for an official church. Freedom of Religion meant its now donation, and the burden isn't placed on the tax payers. As those who don't go to church should not be paying for a thing they don't even believe in, and would never use the services of (which in those times, meant schools, medical facilities, orphanage, and other places which helped the common man for the common good.)

It fits with my opinion of welfare. I pay $1500 a month in taxes, most which go to Department of Health and Human Services. I'd gladly choose to remove $1000 of that tax to sign a waiver that said I would never be eligable for welfare or any other program in that department. I'm sure that would be in the constitution if they founding fathers would have been alive today, but its not. But its the same principle however.

However, I still see freedom of religion being practiced in this country. Our tax dollars are not going into the donation plate. PS. It freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

actually, most the last money goes to the deptartment of defense. You should really investigate your governemnts budget and seewhere the money is really going.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

"America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers.

The axioms on which the Constitution is based are largely Christian in origin.

please, what basis do you have for that?

where you to point to roman law or english common law, you might have had some credibilty, at least try to back up that statement.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
where did the OP go?

I find it interesting when the OP of a thread will not sticvk around to defend his correcting everybody else; but when he is called on the carpet rather than admit the obvious he leaves the building.....

Not everyone can be on atot all day everyday.

 

[TheSlamma]

It doesn't take a writeup on the fact there is no God... that one was pretty easy to figure out with a little THINKING.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Vic
Judaic Law does not predate the Code of Hammurabi. If anything, Abraham, being from Babylon of the period, took the code with him to later become the law as he moved his tribe west into Canaan.

But you're asserting the idea that the laws began with Abraham, which I'm not sure is true. God gave Adam and Eve laws within the garden. Only makes sense he, or an "associate", would have given them laws outside the garden also.

I don't know which came first, and I don't know that it really matters. But throwing out my opinion here.

Well, you said "Judaic Law," and that specifically began with Moses.

Ah yes, you are correct. My apologies.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Neither the God that people believe in nor the God they don't believe in exists. These are only thoughts and opinions about God. Both the people of faith and the people of doubt know anything at all about God, with the probably small exception of whose faith is strong enough to feel love. God is not an a person or power or thing. God is what happens when you awaken from your sickness. God is the infinite joy of being you we were all meant to feel. The people of faith want to go to heaven and the people of doubt have given up. There's not really much difference in them. We know nothing at all because we are stuffed full of ego. God is only for the meek because to know God will cost you everything you believe. To know God is to let go. To know God you have to die on the Cross. I wish you all good luck.

Good words, Moonie. God is making a favorable compromise between what your unconscious mind demands and your conscious mind is willing to provide. Note the bitterness and fear of both those who say there is no God and those who say that God is something transcendent. They have no inner peace, and wage war upon the world for their lack. Somehow they expect the external to fix their broken internal.

Know thyself. Know peace.

 

[wetech]

My math professor at college told us a story about a mathematician who was asked to prove the existance of God (I forgot the name of the guy). His reply was e^(-pi*i) = 0. And his reason was that the 5 most important number in math balance perfectly in 1 equation.

 

[piasabird]

It is obvious that Richard Dawkins has some need to express his obvious hatred of religion and anyone claiming to believe in God. That is the main thread of his thoughts that I picked up on in a short read of his article. He seems to be just one more over-educated idiot who has no idea what normal people think. It is obvious that he wrote this piece because he wants other overeducated idiots, who think they know what we need, to think highly of him.

When someone who claims to be intelligent, starts to refer to people as ignorant when they do not agree with him, this is a symptom of a dillusional person who tries to put themselves on a pedastool above the so-called common people.

Maybe he wants to make himself into a God!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Again, you know nothing - or at least are severely deluded.

Hammurabi is the foundation of written civic law, predating Christianity by nearly 2000 years. It is upon these ideas that Roman law evolved, then English common law, and that became the basis of the American legal system. Since the enlightenment it was the goal of nearly all progressive governments to remove as fully as possible all ties between the church and the powers of civil government. America was the most complete example of this up to that point.

I'll cede, for the sake of argument, that Roman law up until Constantine was based on Hammurabi's code. Are you going to argue that Christianity didn't heavily influence the system of laws that developed post-Constantine?

As pointed out in my other posts, the political system also is evolved from non-religious sources, with some ideas going back as far as Socrates and Plato. Then you move into the Hobbes, Locke, Montisque, and other major thinkers of the time. You will find, if you read notes from the conventions and also the Federalist, that the foundations are almost always secular.

But these philosophers rely heavily on their own personal religious experience in their logical meanderings. For example, Locke believed that we are created by God and, as such, are his property. This is his logic for disallowing suicide (Text). Hobbes expended a great deal of effort trying to reconcile his political philosophies with Christianity. Montesquieu clearly states that God is responsible for natural laws (rights). He also said that, while religious principle should not be the ultimate source for civil law, it is the only thing capable of keeping a government in check. So, while these are the primary sources considered by the framers, this does not imply that the framers had a strictly secular basis for the Constitution. This, in turn, does not mean that we live in a theocracy. Instead, it means only that religion has given us some insights and that we should not neglect wisdom simply because we disdain its source.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

America, founded in secularism

I got about that far... then I was laughing too hard to read the rest. Doesn't matter anyway... anyting he said after that was based on a premise so far from reality it's... I dunno... I'm still laughing.

You're right, belief in religion is a mental impairment.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
I've read a bit of Dawkins and seen some of his interviews and I think I know where he's coming from.

I'll try and explain my views. I'll do this not to attack people with religious believes, or change your views; it?s just so you know where some of us Atheists are coming from.

For me to accept the existence of your God I would also have to accept the possibility of all other gods and religions.

If I accept the possibility of all gods and religions, and that the universe contains the supernatural, I would then have to accept the possibility of all myths legends and superstitions to be true.

I am not willing to accept that I live in a universe where this is the case therefore I have to reject all religions and superstitions.

But then you must reject the assumptions of Quantum Mechanics, which state all things are possible. Then add in String Theory with eleven dimensions and multiple bubble universes= all things possible cubed twice.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Secularism does not equal Atheism. Secularism is merely Religious neutral and only applies itself to those things where "god(s)" are impractical. Take a Road for example: There is no such thing as a Catholic, Protestant, Christian, Muslim, etc Road, it is just a Road that requires construction by Human hands/machinery. You wouldn't call it a Secular Road either, but a Secular Institution(Government in this case) is perfectly capable of making it and maintaining it.

The design of the road is based on some model. The selection of this model is based on some axioms. The selection of these axioms is based upon the experience of the engineer who is designing the road.

If he were a NASCAR track designer, then he might make all corners steeply banked, as one should if the cars will be traveling at 200 mph. However, if he were a civil/traffic engineer, he might make the corners banked as appropriate for cars traveling 60 mph. We should choose the road model that will benefit the people who will use the road, regardless of its source. In this case, it's obvious that the engineer's road model is more beneficial for the average road, as a normal car would fall off a road banked for 200 mph driving. If we are interested in building a racetrack, perhaps the NASCAR track model is more beneficial for the racers.

Similarly, in society, we should pick the model that is most beneficial to us, regardless of its origins. 'Extreme secularism' (that is, striving to remove all religious overtones from civil law) is simply foolish in that it rejects wisdom simply due to its source. It rejects the NASCAR model simply because it finds NASCAR objectionable, even though it may be attempting to build a racetrack. It uses the engineer's model simply to spite the NASCAR designer, even though the NASCAR model would be more beneficial.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: wetech
My math professor at college told us a story about a mathematician who was asked to prove the existance of God (I forgot the name of the guy). His reply was e^(-pi*i) = 0. And his reason was that the 5 most important number in math balance perfectly in 1 equation.

One divided by one equals one and one multiplied by one equals one means what?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It is obvious that Richard Dawkins has some need to express his obvious hatred of religion and anyone claiming to believe in God. That is the main thread of his thoughts that I picked up on in a short read of his article. He seems to be just one more over-educated idiot who has no idea what normal people think. It is obvious that he wrote this piece because he wants other overeducated idiots, who think they know what we need, to think highly of him.

When someone who claims to be intelligent, starts to refer to people as ignorant when they do not agree with him, this is a symptom of a dillusional person who tries to put themselves on a pedastool above the so-called common people.

Maybe he wants to make himself into a God!

Ah!! Transference.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
Secularism does not equal Atheism. Secularism is merely Religious neutral and only applies itself to those things where "god(s)" are impractical. Take a Road for example: There is no such thing as a Catholic, Protestant, Christian, Muslim, etc Road, it is just a Road that requires construction by Human hands/machinery. You wouldn't call it a Secular Road either, but a Secular Institution(Government in this case) is perfectly capable of making it and maintaining it.

The design of the road is based on some model. The selection of this model is based on some axioms. The selection of these axioms is based upon the experience of the engineer who is designing the road.

If he were a NASCAR track designer, then he might make all corners steeply banked, as one should if the cars will be traveling at 200 mph. However, if he were a civil/traffic engineer, he might make the corners banked as appropriate for cars traveling 60 mph. We should choose the road model that will benefit the people who will use the road, regardless of its source. In this case, it's obvious that the engineer's road model is more beneficial for the average road, as a normal car would fall off a road banked for 200 mph driving. If we are interested in building a racetrack, perhaps the NASCAR track model is more beneficial for the racers.

Similarly, in society, we should pick the model that is most beneficial to us, regardless of its origins. 'Extreme secularism' (that is, striving to remove all religious overtones from civil law) is simply foolish in that it rejects wisdom simply due to its source. It rejects the NASCAR model simply because it finds NASCAR objectionable, even though it may be attempting to build a racetrack. It uses the engineer's model simply to spite the NASCAR designer, even though the NASCAR model would be more beneficial.

You don't need "religious overtones" within Law. The dominant Religion(s) within society will ultimately determine the kind of Laws that will be enacted.

Not sure where you were going with the whole Nascar analogy.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: sandorski
Secularism does not equal Atheism. Secularism is merely Religious neutral and only applies itself to those things where "god(s)" are impractical. Take a Road for example: There is no such thing as a Catholic, Protestant, Christian, Muslim, etc Road, it is just a Road that requires construction by Human hands/machinery. You wouldn't call it a Secular Road either, but a Secular Institution(Government in this case) is perfectly capable of making it and maintaining it.

The design of the road is based on some model. The selection of this model is based on some axioms. The selection of these axioms is based upon the experience of the engineer who is designing the road.

If he were a NASCAR track designer, then he might make all corners steeply banked, as one should if the cars will be traveling at 200 mph. However, if he were a civil/traffic engineer, he might make the corners banked as appropriate for cars traveling 60 mph. We should choose the road model that will benefit the people who will use the road, regardless of its source. In this case, it's obvious that the engineer's road model is more beneficial for the average road, as a normal car would fall off a road banked for 200 mph driving. If we are interested in building a racetrack, perhaps the NASCAR track model is more beneficial for the racers.

Similarly, in society, we should pick the model that is most beneficial to us, regardless of its origins. 'Extreme secularism' (that is, striving to remove all religious overtones from civil law) is simply foolish in that it rejects wisdom simply due to its source. It rejects the NASCAR model simply because it finds NASCAR objectionable, even though it may be attempting to build a racetrack. It uses the engineer's model simply to spite the NASCAR designer, even though the NASCAR model would be more beneficial.

You don't need "religious overtones" within Law. The dominant Religion(s) within society will ultimately determine the kind of Laws that will be enacted.

Not sure where you were going with the whole Nascar analogy.

Parallel lines lead you to the same destination? But may not have the same origin?

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
I've read a bit of Dawkins and seen some of his interviews and I think I know where he's coming from.

I'll try and explain my views. I'll do this not to attack people with religious believes, or change your views; it?s just so you know where some of us Atheists are coming from.

For me to accept the existence of your God I would also have to accept the possibility of all other gods and religions.

If I accept the possibility of all gods and religions, and that the universe contains the supernatural, I would then have to accept the possibility of all myths legends and superstitions to be true.

I am not willing to accept that I live in a universe where this is the case therefore I have to reject all religions and superstitions.

But then you must reject the assumptions of Quantum Mechanics, which state all things are possible. Then add in String Theory with eleven dimensions and multiple bubble universes= all things possible cubed twice.

While I must admit I don't know much quantum mechanics I'm pretty certain its got more supporting evidence than the existence of faeries.

And the 'all things possible' bit of the theory means 'all things possible within the bounds of natural laws', not that there are no natural laws.