Here's what's wrong with religion

Every single human group we know about that developed a culture also developed religion. This includes the Hebrews, who developed the religion that eventually evolved into Christianity, the dominant religion of the West. Why Christianity won out is a different matter. For the moment suffice it to say that it was adopted by the most powerful empire in Europe and the Near East at the time.

Anyway, these religions vary tremendously, but also have many thigns in common. Worship of, or begging from, a superior being or beings with powers well beyond human abilities, for example. Also the need of these superior beings for something from us mere mortals, things like worship and sacrifice. We call these beings gods or deities. Some religions have images of their gods, some don't, but all assume the gods themselves exist elsewhere we cannot reach, and their images are mere symbols of them used for worship or begging.

None ever provide any evidence of their god's or gods' existence, of course, claiming such evidence is unattainable to humans, or that no such evidence is required. Or they point to ambiguous "evidence" like the outcome of an event or the existence of plants and animals we can eat.

However, how do you rationally determine that Jehova, the god of the Old and New Testament, is real and Tlaloc, the Aztec god of rain is not? Could it be that we get shipped by hurricanes and floods because Tlaloc is upset we haven't sacrificed any people to him and failed to drench his altars in human blood? How can you rationally know there is a Heaven as claimed in teh Bible, raterh than the afterlife descibed in the Book of the Dead? And how do you know which path you ought to follow?

So it's all faith, backed by nothing at all.

It would be interesting to know why people develop religions. I'm guessing the root goes to the certain knowledge we are all going to die someday. alone of all known beings in the world, we know this from an early age. That's one reason, though, and likely not the only one.

So what's more likely? That people invent gods for emotional reasons peculiar to our nature, or that all these deities, gods and spirits are real?

This isn't just an academic question. Religion has traditionally been linked to the exercise of power. Hebrew prophets annointed the kings of Israel, a tradition carried through to European monarchs being crowned by high officials of the Catholic Church. In many Muslim countries religious laws are applied either de jure or de facto.

Worse yet, some religions see themselves as the only true religion. These either try to convert eberyone else, either trhough persuasion or force, and misstreat thos who will not convert to varying degrees. Islam allegedly tolerates other "people of the Book," but even then they are clearly marked as second class citizens, lacking the same rights as Muslims; and that's not the worse: witness the recent slaughter of Coptic Christians in Egypt.

Or take the history of Jews in Europe. For centuries the Catholic Church was hostile to Judaism. This hostility got expressed in many forms, from relegating Jews to only certain occupations, to segregating them to ghettoes, to persecution, to mass expulsions, to forcible conversion, to burnings at the stake. Even in periods of relative tolerance, anti-semitism was rampant, and the Church did little or nothing to stop it. In cases like the Inquisition, the Church was the prosecuting agency, imparting torture, death and expulsion and answering to no one. Of course other groups were also mistreated. but Jews were the alrgest such group.

And what was the crime Jews were guilty of? Believing in a different set of myths about the very same god the Christians believed in.

Ultimately this religious difference of opinion led to the Holocaust. I'm not saying the church was behind it. it wasn't. In some of the places were Jews were hit the worst, many brave mebers of the Catholic Church did their best to save such Jews as they could. But the pervasive hatred fo Jews for difering in their believes, at times adied and abetted but always tolerated by the various Christian churches, is what made the Holocaust possible.

So there you are. Six million Jews murdered for absolutely nothing at all. Plus who knows how many Gypsies, too.

All that for nothing, for absolutely no rational reason. For faith, for belief, for whatever reasons the Church founded on the principles of Jesus Christ, the Church that preaches their god's love, came to believe were good reasons.

But that's only the worse that religion has done. there's more.

And that's one big part why I cannot and will not respect religious beliefs. your rigths to such beliefs, yes, within reason and within the limits of decency and legality. And I will oppose anyone who says otherwise. But the beliefs themselves? Look what those beliefs have done.

Nareed -

That was a very well written post. But it leaves me wanting to ask one question:

Do you think it's acceptable to mock someone for their beliefs?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Do you think it's acceptable to mock someone for their beliefs?

Ask again when I'm done.

Well THAT'S a bullshit answer.

When will you be done? How will we know?

Sometimes, a person is described as being "done" when they are dead. Is that when you're gonna answer?

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Nareed -Do you think it's acceptable to mock someone for their beliefs?

We know for a fact you can't mock Nareed for his
beliefs. He'll throw a temper tantrum and block
you forever. Zero tolerance is his policy.

Quote: Nareed

It would be interesting to know why people develop religions. I'm guessing the root goes to the certain knowledge we are all going to die someday. alone of all known beings in the world, we know this from an early age. That's one reason, though, and likely not the only one.

This. This is the question I'm most curious about. In studying my culture, I've recently went over the Seneca story of creation multiple times. There is no "book", there are no texts, the story is only passed by mouth and has been so for centuries. I find it to be a lovely story, but as with all creation stories, impossible to take literally. One thing that keeps... punching me in the head... something that just stands out as if highlighted, are the similarities.

The "creators" are supernatural beings, guided by a "god" that lives in the sky (angels/God). The main evil antagonists are described as "dragon-like" (serpent) and with breath of fire. They live in "the under" (hell). On the new Earth there are two quasi-humans, "Good Mind" and "Evil Mind" (Christ/Anti-Christ). Good Mind is in tune with his father who lives in the sky, and often looks to him for guidance (Jesus/God). Evil Mind shuns all this and wanders the Earth creating ill (Satan).

These creation stories, for all intents and purposes, were from different worlds. The co-mingling of these two cultures had not yet ever happened. But do you see how bleeding similar they are? What does this mean?

I realise this does not provide an answer. Do these similarities lean towards "there MUST be a god", or do they more point to the possibility that religion is simply a mind process found in all humans? I'm hard pressed to find any proof in this either way, but I did think it was beyond interesting...

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Well THAT'S a bullshit answer.

Such language....

Quote:

When will you be done? How will we know?

When you read "I'm done."

Quote: Face

These creation stories, for all intents and purposes, were from different worlds. The co-mingling of these two cultures had not yet ever happened. But do you see how bleeding similar they are? What does this mean?

All over the world, what do you find in the sky? Bright lights, bright colors, gauzy clouds, life-giving water.

And all over the world what do you find in deep caves or what welles up from underground? Mud, hot geysers, lava, ash, stinks of various kinds, brine.

Quote: Nareed

Ask again when I'm done.

That's a yes then.

Ok, let's keep going:

1) Most religious people, and some agnostics, reduce everything realting to god or religion to faith. That's their privilege, but there are limits. See what I said about there being no reason to suppose any kind fo deity exists. Those are reasons, clearly satted. They are not faith. Yet whenever I state them someone invariably says "But it takes as much faith to say there is no god as to believe in God."

Can you see how patronizing and insulting that is? The assumption and implication that reason and judgment do not even enter into the discussion, and anything related to it is faith, whether there is any faith involved or not.

2) The world's two dominant religions continually try to impose their beliefs on others.

This should be self-evident, but it's not. The religions I'm talking about are Christianity and Islam. Fortunately for the rest of us one is divided and the other is divided and largely disorganized. In any case, members of both continually resort to force to tray to make others beahve as they thing they should. You can see this most clearly in america in issues sucha s evolution, same sex marriage, abortion, etc. But you see it elsewhere, too. Mexico City recently codified same sex marriage and adoption by same sex couple into law. The loudest voice crying for the blood of the mayor comes from the Catholic Church, and Mexico has a long-standing tradition of separation of church and state.

As for Muslims, read any conservative blog and look for posts tagged "Dhimmitude" or something liek that. They love to point out when someone else does it, while ignoring the times they do it. But they do manage to colelct good data.

3) Just about all religious people say my life, my body and my self are not mine, but God's, and I must not act in such a way that god doesn't approve. Again, if there's no reason to even suppose a god exists, there is much less reason to accept this demand.

Specifically I can tell you I've faced a lot of hostility, some of it here, from people who have such beliefs. Sometimes their objections are couched differently, but it often comes down to what God said or thought or revealed or implied or something. Fortunately we aren't a large enough group to really matter, and advances have been made regarding acceptance. In the end most people simply will, reasonably, decide that what I do with my body does not matter to them.

I should point out something here, since I've been accused of "forcing" my "beliefs" on others. My feelings about myself are not a belief, they are real. And that goes for every transsexual and transgendered man and woman in the planet. Also, medical studies of cadavers have detected anatomical differences in the brains of transsexual women, and men, that set them apart from "normal" women, and men. In short, an area of the brain is similar in transsexual women and "normal" women, but different from that of "normal" men, and viceversa. That's not a belief, either. Not to mention many more psychological studies.

So, really, enough withe the idiot analogies like "Oh, but what if I feel I'm a vampire trapped in a mortal body?"

Not done yet

Quote: Nareed

My feelings about myself are not a belief, they are real.

How can you prove that anything is real? This could all be a dream.

Quote: kp

How can you prove that anything is real? This could all be a dream.

Thats what the Hindu's believe, this is all a dream
of Vishnu, their main deity. The Hindu religion is
pretty cool, its definitely not boring.

Quote: thecesspit

That's a yes then.

No. It really is an "ask again when I'm done." Because by then it may be clear.

The trouble is that I'm working and can't do somethign important like finishing my post :)

Quote: Nareed

Ok, let's keep going:

1) Most religious people, and some agnostics, reduce everything realting to god or religion to faith. That's their privilege, but there are limits. See what I said about there being no reason to suppose any kind fo deity exists. Those are reasons, clearly satted. They are not faith. Yet whenever I state them someone invariably says "But it takes as much faith to say there is no god as to believe in God."

Can you see how patronizing and insulting that is? The assumption and implication that reason and judgment do not even enter into the discussion, and anything related to it is faith, whether there is any faith involved or not.

Nareed, please don't finish until we revisit this first point. Can you not see how patronizing and insulting it is to say that a true act of faith does not require reason and judgement?!?

Reason and judgement are essential to making a decision on what to believe or not to believe. An act of faith is also decided on evidence. These choices we make as human beings to believe in God or not are fundamental to our worldview and can change our life's perspective if they are handled with the seriousness that they deserve. You make it sound like the decision to believe in God is like taking a leap of faith done on a whim and motivated by nothing other than wishful thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First lets admit that faith is an essental element in our lives as human beings. We act all the time on things we believe to be true because of lots of different types of evidence that we all accept as normal, except when it comes to belief in God. Let's take a few examples. I have faith that the car approaching will stop at the red light. I reason that I have seen this happen thousands of times and even though I do not know the person driving or if his brakes work I make the judgement that there is reason to believe he will stop. I believe that atoms and sub-atomic particles exist. I am fascinated about what science has to tell us about how things we view as solid are held together. I will never see an atom or any proof it exisits but there are some really smart people who tell me they have seen them many times or proof it exists. I use my reason and judgement and trust them, and I dare say we all would do the same. Here are two examples of evidence based on historical actions and expert wittness that can lead to a reasonable judgement to believe in something. Why would anyone say that there is not evidence in history or evidence found in literally millions of people some of whom we call saints and have no reason to doubt them, who have experienced God and believe in him? Granted you might not see this this evidence or be able to put it under a microscope but evidence of the types above is a valid basis for an act of faith. To me it heightens the insult you levy against not hundreds or thousands, but billions of people, many of whom are much smarter than you and I will ever be, who looking at the evidence and using reason and judgement made the act of faith to believe in God.

I mentioned that this type of evidence is not physical. However, what about the physical evidence that is all around you? My belief system gives me an answer as to why and how it all exists. It would seem to me that any belief system would want to wrestle with this important question that confronts us at every moment. Where did this stuff come from and why is it here; and a corollary to that question, where did I come from and why am I here? An atheist might be able to answer the why by saying there is no reason and no purpose to existence, but how do you answer the where did it come from question? I've heard it said, just give science time and it will figure it out. Where is the evidence for that act of faith? That seems like a leap of faith to me and wishful thinking when we are still trying to figure out the mysteries of our amazing planet and our own bodies. It turns out that the physcial world around us can be another piece of evidence in favor of beliving in a god and makes not beliving in God seems like a crapshoot.

I'm not done.


I couldn't agree more with you that your feelings are real. I respect those feelings and so should everyone else, you feel them deeply. I believe another evidence for God then could be our feelings. In our guts when we are honest we long for someting better. We demand something more from ourselves and from our world. This is why it seems to make intuitive sense to us that there should be something more after we die. As you've stated every culture that has ever existed has felt a need to come up with some type of religious expression. I think this is because we yearn for something more and we have a natural distaste for the idea that this is all there is. This would seem strange as we would have no experience or evidence of something perfect yet we strive after perfection and nothing seems to be able to stop us for yearning for something more from this life and making ourselves better. Where does this innate desire come from, my guess is God.

I'm sorry to go way too long on this post but I was so sick and tired of people saying that belief in God is like believing in santa or fairies or spaghetti monsters. I'm also obviously not saying there is not evidence to not believe in God. I just want to stop you from keep going on and on until you fairly deal with the naive assertion that there is no evidence or reason behind a decision to believe in God. I think Face or someone else said a more important question might be why we do or don't believe in God, maybe that would be better than outright dismissing one choice as stupid. Again can you not see how insulting and patronizing that is?

I'll try for a more complete answer tomorrow. Meantime:

Quote: FrGamble

First lets admit that faith is an essental element in our lives as human beings.

To quote the late Ronald Reagan: "There you go again." Faith is not essential in my life.

Quote:

I have faith that the car approaching will stop at the red light. I reason that I have seen this happen thousands of times and even though I do not know the person driving or if his brakes work I make the judgement that there is reason to believe he will stop.

That's not faith. That's a reasonable assumption based on past experience and common knowledge of people and traffic laws. But I'll pass along some advice: If you're ever in Mexico, you'll be taking your life in your hands if you assume the car wills top at the red light when you want to cross the street.

Quote:

I will never see an atom or any proof it exisits

You haven't looked, then. I saw evidence of atoms in high school chemistry class. And you can find photograph of atoms on the web by just googling. Try "physics buzz first detailed photos of atoms."

Quote:

Why would anyone say that there is not evidence in history or evidence found in literally millions of people some of whom we call saints and have no reason to doubt them, who have experienced God and believe in him?

You don't suppose the Aztecs, say, had similar "evidence" for their blood-thirsty gods? Should I offer myself, then, to be sacrificed at the Teotihucan Citadel? Or, worse yet, forcibly sacrifice a kind but troublesome priest with an obsidian knife, in the traditional fashion?

No, that would be ridiculous. But somehow for the same reason it would be sane for me to embrace the Biblical God and whatever strictures and commandments were arbitrarily placed there by who knows what people?

Nareed,
Do think it's possible that there is or was some kind of intelligence (for lack of a better word) that helped create the universe we see? For the record, I wholly reject religion and it's tenents as a man made and self serving artifice. However the universe is so utterly amazing that I wouldn't rule out the possibility that something as impossible as an intelligence can exist.

[edit - excessive use of the word wholly, -1 point]

Mark

Nareed, do you think your feelings about religion would be the same if it weren't for the transsexual circumstance?

Quote: odiousgambit

Nareed, do you think your feelings about religion would be the same if it weren't for the transsexual circumstance?

I hope so.

Quote: marksolberg

However the universe is so utterly amazing that I wouldn't rule out the possibility that something as impossible as an intelligence can exist.

I can see the point, but the argument just makes the problem more difficult.

A mind is more complex than its creations. If the universe is too complex to exist without a creator,then the creator is too complex to exist without itself having been created, and so on and so on forever. To paraphrase Sagan quoting an anonymous source "It's creators all the way up."

Quote: FrGamble

I'm sorry to go way too long on this post but I was so sick and tired of people saying that belief in God is like believing in santa or fairies or spaghetti monsters.

This is a statement of faith. Specifically, you do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do you acknowledge that there is no evidence upon which you can rationally find a distinction between the Genesis story and the story that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster and that it was He who created all that we see and all that we feel?

Presumably you don't readily admit that. But upon what evidence, reason or judgment do you affirm God but deny the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Both are acts of faith -- how do you draw the line?

Nareed- You obviously spend a lot of time thinking about this. 3 questions.
1. Do you consider yourself spiritual?
2. Do you think it is wrong to harm and oppress others?
3. Do you think the current world would be better off with no religions?

I think we need to take this one step at a time. Who or what is God is secondary to the first question, does it make sense to believe in God, Divine Intelligence, creator, and I guess we should even include possible spaghetti monsters if you would like? The answer to the first question is yes. It is a reasonable choice to say that based on the evidence that God exists. The evidence is the reality of the physical world around us, the testimony of billions and billions of people throughout history, and don't forget a natural inclination in all of us that seems to long for belief in something greater or perfect. Once we determine that it is reasonable to believe there in a god or "super awesome thing" then we can move to the next question as to why I and billions of people think the Genesis account is closer to the truth than a flying spaghetti monster. I think you can see that this second question may be a little easier to answer with reasonable judgement than the first? Let me also say that I admit there is some evidence for the choice to not believe in God but maybe the reason why you are having trouble seeing the rationality behind belief in God is that you are looking past the first question and illogically equating God with things like spaghetti.

Nareed- Follow up question.

Do you have a Moral Compass? If so what determines the points on the compass?

Quote: FrGamble

Can you not see how patronizing and insulting it is to say that a true act of faith does not require reason and judgement?!?

Faith means to belive in something without proof. Depending on circumstances, such belief can be irrational. I suppose some people do think about religion and chose one based on, among other things, value judgments. But I dare say the vast majority simply stick with the religion they were raised in.

Anyway, if I put forth a reason not to belive in a god, such as lack of proof and lack of any reasonable supposition fur the exitence of such a being, and I'm answered "that's faith!" I'm being told my judgment doesn't matter.

If, on the other hand, you assure me believe without proof, meaning faith, requires reasoning and judgment, I ask "How so?"

Quote:

These choices we make as human beings to believe in God or not are fundamental to our worldview and can change our life's perspective if they are handled with the seriousness that they deserve. You make it sound like the decision to believe in God is like taking a leap of faith done on a whim and motivated by nothing other than wishful thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Read above. For most people it isn't a choice, it's the way things are. You look both ways before crossing the street,a nd you go to the Mosque on Fridays, the Synagogue on Saturdays or the Church on Sundays. A whim at least takes effort.

Now, wishful thiking is another matter, as you so aptly demonstrate later on.

Quote:

Why would anyone say that there is not evidence in history or evidence found in literally millions of people some of whom we call saints and have no reason to doubt them, who have experienced God and believe in him? Granted you might not see this this evidence or be able to put it under a microscope but evidence of the types above is a valid basis for an act of faith.

Testimony does not equal evidence. But I ask you again, what about the testimonies regarding other gods? granted it's not as extensive for various reasons, but how about it? The Maya talk about their gods in the Popol Vuh. the Greek gods make appearances in the Illiad, and their legends say they frequently interacted with mortals. What about the Koran? What about the Book of the Dead? What reason, logical, provable and reasonable can you offer for me to rationally believe in the Biblical god rather than in, say, Huixlipoxtli or Thor or Poseidon or Rah? What makes your Jehova so special?

Quote:

To me it heightens the insult you levy against not hundreds or thousands, but billions of people, many of whom are much smarter than you and I will ever be, who looking at the evidence and using reason and judgement made the act of faith to believe in God.

Do you know how many astronomers in the past believed in astrology and even cast horoscopes they took seriously? Need I say more?

Quote:

However, what about the physical evidence that is all around you?

What about it?

Quote:

My belief system gives me an answer as to why and how it all exists.

Can you prove that empirically?

Quote:

Where did this stuff come from and why is it here;

Where and how? I don't know, not fully. No one know, not fully.

An admission of lacking knowledge is just that. it is not carte blanche to fill in the blanks with whatever you want, so long as it cannot be proven or disproven.

Why? Well, thats' simple: since the universe is largely a colelction of inanimate matter, energy and well-defined forces, it just happened this way. Had it happened some other way, perhaps different types fo beings would be having a simialr discussion; or perhaps no beings of any kind would be possible under different conditions. Any competent physicist, and many laymen as well, can come up with all kinds of scenarios for the universe. You may wnat to look up Asimov's novel "The Gods Themselves" (a little irony never hurt anyone) for a look at a universe where something as prosaic as the strong nuclear force is a bit different. Warning, it has sexual scenes involving weird aliens.

Quote:

and a corollary to that question, where did I come from and why am I here?

I know that. from Monterreya nd mex City and Poland and Lithuania and I know just who my aprents and grandparents and one set of great-grandparetns were. That's where I come from and how I came to be.

Why? That's up to me to determine. My life, which is mine and mine alone, is mine to do with as I choose.

Quote:

An atheist might be able to answer the why by saying there is no reason and no purpose to existence,

There is no reason as in there is no design that brought me or you or pests like Jerry Logan into being, noe that you can prove. Purpose is every person's choice.

Quote:

but how do you answer the where did it come from question? I've heard it said, just give science time and it will figure it out. Where is the evidence for that act of faith?

Don't you just love loaded questions?

Give scientists time and they may figure most of it out. No faith needed. Scientists have figured out, with tons of evidence gained from observation and experiment, literally millions of things. Those scientists fortunate enough to build up on the work of previous scientists can go farther than tehir predecessors, too. So we know, for certain, that they will keep on finding things and figuring them out. We cannot know how far they will go or how long it will take. Fidning a grand unified theory is a more intractable problem than first thought, it may not even be possible to solve, but we're trying.

Quote:

It turns out that the physcial world around us can be another piece of evidence in favor of beliving in a god and makes not beliving in God seems like a crapshoot.

Show me. Show me god's signature on a mountain. Or god's blueprints for the Moon. Or a photo of God sculpting the contours of the Baja Peninsula. Something.

Saying "God did it all" is as valid as saying "A wizard did it." Where's your proof? Better yet, how did god do it?

Quote:

I'm not done.

I wont' say a word :P

Quote:

I believe another evidence for God then could be our feelings.

Your feelings are proof or your state of mind. They are not, and they cannot be, proof of anything outside yourself, except perhaps about people similar to you. I may learn a lot by knowing and analyzing your feelings, but all I would learn about is you (and perhaps about others simialr to you in some respects)

Quote:

In our guts when we are honest we long for someting better. We demand something more from ourselves and from our world. This is why it seems to make intuitive sense to us that there should be something more after we die.

And that's not wishful thinking?

It makes intuitive sense to wish for, or to belive in, an afterlife because it's very hard to imagine non-existence. It's incerdibly difficult to come to terms with the notion that your life will end. That after some time you will simply cease to be. But all the evidence says that's so: once you're dead you're gone.

It seems to me you can do two things about it. One is to build as good alife as you can for yourself. A life you'll enjoy living and which will bring you satisfactiona dn pelasure. The other thing is to leave a legacy behind. You won't live through it, but it may bring you comfort to know some part of you, physical, genetic or intellectual, will endure after you're gone.

You can also wish for an afterlife. I do, but I don't expect one. I'll tell you truthfully I hope my expectations are wrong. I wich to be pleasantly surprised. I love life and I would love it more if I were to live forever. But I can't rationally expect it. Doing so, agaisnt all evidence and against all reason, is wishful thiking.

Quote:

As you've stated every culture that has ever existed has felt a need to come up with some type of religious expression. I think this is because we yearn for something more and we have a natural distaste for the idea that this is all there is. This would seem strange as we would have no experience or evidence of something perfect yet we strive after perfection and nothing seems to be able to stop us for yearning for something more from this life and making ourselves better. Where does this innate desire come from, my guess is God.

Oh, there are a number of desires and yearnings and developments common to all cultures. Aside from religion, all cultures have developed politics, science, art and engineering, to name a few elements. Of course this happens in varying degrees. But no culture can be successful without them. Most importantly, all cultures also develop philosophy. Only too many of them wound up marrying it to religion, to the point that one was indistinguishable from another. In Greece this didn't happen. Instead philosophers wound up serving as scientists as well. This created its own problems, especially before the value of empirical proofs in science was properly understood, but the Ancient Greeks were among the first to carry out massive advances in knowledge and the arts.

Now, what does the development of science, engineering, art, philosophy, military arts, medicine, politics, et al prove the existence of?

But let's trakc back a bit, too. You claim religion, in all cases, came from god, meaning the particualr deity you belive in (whichever of the three it is in your mish-mash of a theology). How, then, did a single source produce so many widely different religions? How does it say "eternal reward and eternal punishment" in one instance, vs "repeated rebirth and ultimately oblivion" in another?

Quote:

I just want to stop you from keep going on and on until you fairly deal with the naive assertion that there is no evidence or reason behind a decision to believe in God.

That is well beyond your powers, I'm afraid. As it is, you've shown no evidence nor a reason behind the idea that there is some sort of supernatural deity extant in the universe

Quote:

I think Face or someone else said a more important question might be why we do or don't believe in God, maybe that would be better than outright dismissing one choice as stupid. Again can you not see how insulting and patronizing that is?

That doesn't sound like Face.

Anyway, I dind't say believing in a god is stupid. I said it has no reasonable basis. You can disagree, but until you can convince me otherwise, I can't say I'm either patronizing or insulting anyone.

And I'm still not done.

Quote: FrGamble

Who or what is God is secondary to the first question, does it make sense to believe in God, Divine Intelligence, creator, and I guess we should even include possible spaghetti monsters if you would like? The answer to the first question is yes. It is a reasonable choice to say that based on the evidence that God exists. The evidence is the reality of the physical world around us, the testimony of billions and billions of people throughout history, and don't forget a natural inclination in all of us that seems to long for belief in something greater or perfect.

I renew my request for an explanation. I will add this:

Given the nature of the universe, which means the laws that govern it and the matter/energy it contains, stars, planets, life and human beings are emminently feasible. So much so that there are actually stars, planets and human beings in existence right now in the universe.

Were the laws different, then things would be different. Imagine if the strong nuclear force were much, much, much, weaker. Then there would be fewer stars, since it would take much, much., much more gravity and pressure to ignite a fusion fire. As a corollary, heavier elements would be much rarer, as there would be less stars to forge them, and maybe there wouldn't be as many, as perhaps supernovas would not be possible in such a universe.

Would planets exist? Undoubtedly. But they would be different. Gas giants could grow much bigger without becoming stars. Imagine a gigantic gass-ball bigger than the Sun but only a bit warmer than Jupiter. Rocky worlds would be rarer as there would be less heavy elements available for their formation.

Would life exist? That is hard to say. It could be, if enough carbon, oxygen and nitrogen ever got togethere in the same place. Or if some other elements could form the basis of life. As far as we know, no other elments can.

Would intelligent life exist, assuming life did? Harder to say. Life requries more than carbon, oxygen nitrogen and hydrogen, after all. But maybe.

If such intellignet life did exist, do you think some of them would marvel that the universe is made so their existence is possible? I'm willing to bet they would.

But so far all you've done is gloss over the question that it is reasonable to suppose a deity may exist, much less offered any proof that one does.

Quote: Scotty71

Nareed- Follow up question.

Do you have a Moral Compass?

Nah. I traded it for a moral GPS :P

Quote: Scotty71

Nareed- You obviously spend a lot of time thinking about this.

Oh, no. I've better thigns to do with my time. I'm just good at integrating and I'm fast on my fingers.

Quote:

1. Do you consider yourself spiritual?

By my own reckoning, I am.

Quote:

2. Do you think it is wrong to harm and oppress others?

These are two questions and they lack context. Oppression is never right. Harming others depends on which others and under what circumstances. If, for example, someone wants to kill me, it's not wrong for me to kill him first or to harm him in some other way in order to keep myself alive. It also depends on your definition of harm. I know it hurt my father a lot that I do not believe in god, adn that I dind't practice Judaism even to the limited extent he did. I don't hitnk that was wrong of me.

Quote:

3. Do you think the current world would be better off with no religions?

Yes. But it's not attainable. For one thing, when deist religions fade they tend to be replaced by secular ones like Communism; largely because they preach similar values and virtues. Marx had a point when he called religion the oppium of the masses. It's too bad he did not recognize he was inventing the crack cocaine of the masses.

4) All too many religious people are contemptous of those who do not believe. It's not just that I'ma ccused of refusing to believe in god out of faith <roll-eyez> but I've heard things like "Since you're an atheist, do you steal from old ladies, molest children and kill people indiscriminately?" As if morality has to come from god, or any outside source.

I will answer "I said I'm an atheist, not a Christian," just to watch them fume. If jew asks, I'll say "I said I'm an atheist, not Orthodox" For some reason no Conservative Jew has ever asked me that. No Reform Jew, either, but I suspect they don't see atheism as contrary to their faith anyway :P

5) Prayer makes no sense to me at all. I'm talking only of Jewish prayers, because they're all I know (and thank god for that!) Orthodox Jews used to pray only in Hebrew. They used to regard bilingual prayer books as sinful, if not outright treif (Spelling Yiddish in english is an adventure all by itself, it means "not kosher") Anyway, I was brought up in a Conservative Jewish hosuehold, at least as far back as I recall. Conservative Jews are more liberal, ironically enough, and use bilingual prayer books. They also assume an omniscient god will understand prayers in Spanish. So I had a running translation of the prayers.

All of them, or near enough, are either flattery directed at god, or requests and directions for god to follow.

Now, why does an omnipotent being need anything, especially flattery? There's praise. I know what praise is. What I heard in shul can be more propperly called, if you'll pardon the vulgarity, ass-kissing. A passage I vaguely recall refers to god as "the King of Kings, the Holiest One, Blessed be He." That's about seven light years past being praise.

And why would an omnscient being require direction? Requests I understand, or I can make an argument. but surely he knows what to do, if he knows everything and can do anything, and does not need to be told.

6) People who are religious develop the unhealthy habit of attempting to get everyone they know to get as interested and commited to religion as they are. For Chrisitans and Muslims, this is particularly so of people not of their own faith. For Jews, curiously enough, the targets are other Jews. There are three cousins I used to be close with I can't stand to be around with now, because they won't talk of anything other than religion. It's too bad, really, seeing as I really liked one of them.

Of coruse not all of them are like that. The office manager where I work is the complete opposite. He's a good-natured, easy-going, live-and-let-live kind of guy. We get along perfectly well, even if, as I told him once, we can't even have coffee together.

7) A lot of believers, but particularly Christian ones, tend to speak as if they were their god. You know, things like what god wants from me, generally or specifically, and urging me to do them. To this I always reply "If God has something to tell me, he can talk to me in person."

8) the list is just too long, but I'll conclude by explaining somethign I said earlier: the Biblical god is a badly conceived fictional character.

Really, in the Torah alone he changes his mind and contradicts himself every third page or so (or so it seems). I pity my poor Torah teacher back in fifth grade. I've always been interested in hisotry, and that class was taught as though it were history (well...) I'm afraid I had a habit of driving her up the wall demanding consistency, or merely asking for clarification on inconsistencies.

Item: In the book of Exodus Pharaoh's minions display supernatural powers I gather were provided to them by their gods. Moses bests them every time, naturally. Later in the book, though, god proclaims as his first commandment that "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." So, given we see the powers of the Egyptian gods pathetically demonstrated, and that God says "do not ahve other gods before me," doesn't that mean the Bible acknowledges the existence of many deities?

My teacher, bless her heart, was very patient, but she just kept repeating "No, it doesn't."

From what I understand the god depicted in the Old Testament is quite different from the one in the New Testament. And both instances of the character sometimes contradict themselves and each other.

So, if I were making up an omnipotent and omniscient character, especially one I wanted to be taken seriously, I'd have made him consistent (and female, but that's beside the point). In fact I've tried just that. I could handle omniscience, it's not hard at all becasue authors are omniscient within their stories. But I couldn't make a believable omnipotent character. When I tried, the poor dear came off as being cruel or capricious.

Anwyay, what seems more likely, an omnipotent, omniscient deity who contradicts himself, or perhaps that the different parts of the Bible were written by different people for different reasons? So even if there is a god, clearly the Bible is not his word.

Now I'm done (yay!)

So, DJ, to asnwer your question, in the event that it hasn't been answered by this long laundry list of a rant (and surely with more to come): is it right to mock people for their beliefs?

Let me answer like this: would it be okay for me, Nareed, to mock people for beliefs which have caused me and mine untold missery and anguish, and further should I freely mock for their beliefs people who, for reason of their belief, wish to contrain or limit me?

No.

But is it all right for me to mock their beliefs?

You bet it is.

I think I know what the problem is Nareed, we need a better definition of faith. You defined it as "to believe in something without proof." That is not faith! That sounds more like superstition or whatever it takes to believe that a number on the roulette wheel is due to hit. Let's really look at faith, which Cardinal Newman speaks about as a process of reason.

Let's try to agree on a definition of faith so that we can at least be talking about the same thing. Faith is an act of reason where assent of the will is given to a religious truth presented to us with probabilities and evidences. Let's break it down.

Again a lot of this is coming from my hazy memory of Cardinal Newman. An act of reason is a process of the mind by which we move from knowing one thing to knowing another. A simple way to say this is we learn something new based on something we already knew and the way we do that is through reasoning. Knowledge builds on itself and moves forward by using reasoning to grasp something we did not know before.

Reason requires evidence to give proof of something being true or not. We often get this evidence in simple things by our senses or our memory. We prefer this type of evidence but we often give it too much credibility. We say things like I have to see it to believe it. However, our sight is so often mistaken by optical illusions or our own physical limitations. We depend heavily on our memory and even that goes pretty quick and can mislead us at times. There are other evidences out there our mind can use to give us access to things we would never be able to see with our senses. Can you imagine if we really only believed what we could see? It would be a crazy mixed up world with no one talking or teaching about foreign lands, quarks, or the moon except for a select few who had actually seen it, but we wouldn't believe them.

By the way, you seem to have a real problem with testimony, but it is a very valid type of evidence that mounts up on itself the more you have of it. If one shady character saw you commit the crime that is one thing, but if a billion people who are credible and upstanding people witness something you would be foolish to discount it. A not every helpful type of evidence is going off into imaginary worlds with gas giants and strange beings to prove your points. Stay with reality and not imaginary worlds that don't exist to reason with.

Okay now we should talk about this assent of the will thing. You see religious truths are not like mathematical truths which impose themselves upon us based on unprovable first principles. Religious truths present us with probabilities and evidence (some types of evidence using our senses, some not) and we have to make a decision for ourselves. Very often our will or our desires are bound to influence how we interpret religious truths. With faith it does come down to a "wanting it" for both sides of the debate. My will predisposes me to see the evidence as leaning towards beliving in God, your will pushes you the other way. I'm cool with that (at least for the sake of our discussion here on the forum). My only point is to try and show you that faith (or no faith) is a reasonable decision made using evidence that is interpreted based on a real choice we make using our free will.

Now, we could keep going further as to why we are making the choices we are, but it seems in your well written posts you make it kind of clear. I am willing to submit and accept control of me by God. You are clear that submit and control are not what you are about. It makes sense to me than that I am predisposed to belief and you don't want anything to do with it and don't understand it. Peace.

Quote: FrGamble

I think I know what the problem is Nareed, we need a better definition of faith. You defined it as "to believe in something without proof." That is not faith!

Sorry, but that is the definition of faith. Furthermore, that is how people use the word. So if you're going to change a definition because it doesn't suit you, we have nothing to discuss.

Quote:

Reason requires evidence to give proof of something being true or not.

Right. But I've never seen, heard or read of any evidence, even equivocal, about the existence of a deity. Only arguments.

Now, you say:

Quote:

We often get this evidence in simple things by our senses or our memory. We prefer this type of evidence but we often give it too much credibility. We say things like I have to see it to believe it. However, our sight is so often mistaken by optical illusions or our own physical limitations. We depend heavily on our memory and even that goes pretty quick and can mislead us at times.

But then:

Quote:

By the way, you seem to have a real problem with testimony, but it is a very valid type of evidence that mounts up on itself the more you have of it. If one shady character saw you commit the crime that is one thing, but if a billion people who are credible and upstanding people witness something you would be foolish to discount it.

Given your first statement, it seems to me it would be foolish not to discount it.

Besides, do you know how many available testimonies there are for, oh, fairies, unicorns, the Loch Ness monster, UFOs, ghosts, witches, aliens, spirits, astrology, tarot and betting systems? Would I be a fool to discount them?

Quote:

Can you imagine if we really only believed what we could see? It would be a crazy mixed up world with no one talking or teaching about foreign lands, quarks, or the moon except for a select few who had actually seen it, but we wouldn't believe them.

I believe in what can be sensed. Eyesight is one sense. There are others. Often you hear morons lamenting the limits of human senses, when humans have augmented their senses through technology far beyond what nature and evolution have provided or could ever provide. We can see well beyond the limits of sight, down to the level of atoms All those things you mentioned, and more, can be sensed, either directly, remotely, through instruments, recordings, etc etc etc.

Quote:

A not every helpful type of evidence is going off into imaginary worlds with gas giants and strange beings to prove your points.

It's called an analogy. It's an exercise in logic. Quite often it's useful to see things from a different perspective, to imagine situations both remarkable and different, things as they might be, that point to similarities with things as they are.

Quote:

Religious truths present us with probabilities and evidence (some types of evidence using our senses, some not) and we have to make a decision for ourselves.

Then, stop arguing and show me this evidence. Not more arguments, but actual evidence.

Quote:

My will predisposes me to see the evidence as leaning towards beliving in God, your will pushes you the other way. I'm cool with that (at least for the sake of our discussion here on the forum).

I like Ronald Reagan despite his religious views: "There you go again."

My will doesn't predispose me or push me to anything. Rational thought, which is under my will, and critical thinking and evaluation about the available facts as best I know them, tell me there is no kind of god or deity and there never has been. If you're not willing to accept that, then we should end this argument now.

Quote:

I am willing to submit and accept control of me by God. You are clear that submit and control are not what you are about. It makes sense to me than that I am predisposed to belief and you don't want anything to do with it and don't understand it.

Hey, you want to submit to control by people long dead who made up the rules of whatever religion you follow, that's fine by me. you want to mortify yourself, fast, walk for miles on your knees, spend your money on flowers for the Virgin, light candles, wear a hairshirt, it's all the same to me.

But perhaps I do understand and you do not.

Nareed -

I think you're confusing religious people with religious zealots.

As a result, you're assigning a stereotype of the zealots to all religious people. I don't think I need to remind anyone what happens when stereotypes are used.

It's sad that zealots attack you for your unique situation. Your attitude towards religious people will not change them.

Mock the zealots if you must. Do not mock the average religious person.



I didn't read all of your posts. However, I too had a Jewish upbringing, and I think I can explain this passage.

Quote: Nareed

Item: In the book of Exodus Pharaoh's minions display supernatural powers I gather were provided to them by their gods. Moses bests them every time, naturally. Later in the book, though, god proclaims as his first commandment that "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." So, given we see the powers of the Egyptian gods pathetically demonstrated, and that God says "do not ahve other gods before me," doesn't that mean the Bible acknowledges the existence of many deities?

My teacher, bless her heart, was very patient, but she just kept repeating "No, it doesn't."

Your teacher was wrong.

The passage says there is one "true" God, and you shouldn't worship anything else that has been called 'god'.

The bible is not saying there are other entities that have God-like powers, but there certainly are other entities that have been worshiped as such, and called 'god'.

THAT is what the bible is forbidding in that passage.

I saw this a couple weeks ago. It comes close to summing up my opinion on religion:

Religion is like a penis.

It's fine to have one.
It's fine to be proud of it.
But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.
And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my throat.

Quote: FrGamble

You see religious truths are not like mathematical truths which impose themselves upon us based on unprovable first principles. Religious truths present us with probabilities and evidence (some types of evidence using our senses, some not) and we have to make a decision for ourselves.

Sorry, but this is almost entirely backwards. The very definition of a mathematical or scientific truth is one which can be disproven. Aside from axiomatic first principles, like defining "addition" or "the number one", all scientific statements are disprovable.

If a statement is not disprovable, it falls outside the realm of science. It is religious. The question "does God exist" is a perfect example, to wit: is there any evidence that could be presented to you that would disprove the existence of God? If the answer is no, then God is not properly the subject of scientific inquiry.

That's why any discussion of "probabilities and evidence" for religious truths doesn't make sense. A religious truth is religious because people believe it on faith *without* evidence. If there were testable evidence related to a given truth statement, it would be a scientific truth the way gravity is a scientific truth. The existence of gravity can be tested via observation and rational inquiry. The existence of God cannot.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I think you're confusing religious people with religious zealots.

I wish. I may be mixing them together, but not confusing them.

Quote:

Mock the zealots if you must. Do not mock the average religious person.

I've not mocked anyone. I've mocked their beliefs, particularly when they insist their beliefs ought to intrude in my life.

Quote:

The passage says there is one "true" God, and you shouldn't worship anything else that has been called 'god'.

No. The passage quite clearly states Jehovah (and why is it such big deal to write or say the name?) is "your god" who "took you out of bondage in Egypt," and that "you shall have no other gods before me." Surely if he had meant to say what you say he said, he would just have said it.

Quote:

The bible is not saying there are other entities that have God-like powers, but there certainly are other entities that have been worshiped as such, and called 'god'.

That's another problematic commandment, the second, against graven images of "creatures in the heavens or on earth," or words to that effect, and worshiping such images as gods. it makes more sense, but not entirely.

BTW wasn't it cruel of god to punish the people who made the golden calf before he specifically forbade them to? Where's the justice in retroactive law?

But of course that act wasn't about justice. It was about ensuring obedience. That makes perfect sense. It's brutal, unfair and inhumane, but a god cannot afford disobedience, can he?

Quote: MathExtremist

Aside from axiomatic first principles, like defining "addition" or "the number one", all scientific statements are disprovable.

I'm glad you chimed in because I didn't know the right first principles to cite, but those are great examples. You know your math bro and I couldn't agree more with you that "Does God exist?" is not a scientific question. However, it is not a science question because there is no evidence or that it is not disprovable. The question of God cannot be answered by science because it is not testable in a lab and because it is subject to our inclinations and will. The first principles you mentioned above are not testable either but they are undoubtably true. The question of God is not testable and is doubtably true.

What I mean is that I do think there is evidence you can present that would attempt to disprove God and there is very good evidence you can present that there is a God. You do have to of course realize the full spectrum of evidence that can be used. That is why it might be better to say that the question of God is not the subject of scientific inquiry, but it is the subject of (for lack of the right word at the moment) rational inquiry. Afterall scientific inquiry is a very limited yet powerful form of reasoning. Limited in that something has to be observed but powerful in its repeatable and verifiable conclusions. Rational inquiry is how we find out if we are in love or are loved, if there really is a place called Antartica, or just about any question that begins with the word, 'why'. I keep asking myself why this is not understood? However since I can't see you and put you under a microscope (not that it would do any good any way) I have to conclude that many people look at the evidence out there concerning God's existence and choose not to believe. We should all stop fooling ourselves though that there is no evidence either way and recognize that this very personal and important question often hinges on what we want to believe.

I don't think you mean to say this Mathextremist, but others seem to look at faith as an unreasonable choice that is not based on serious thought, reflection, or any type of evidence. This is no more the case than the decision to not have faith.

FrGamble, do you think faith healing works and can it grow a new arm for someone?

I would call a new arm a lot better evidence than what I've seen demonstrated by the faith healing I've observed and the claims made for it.

I watched a movie or TV program once [I forget] and it had a priest say that wavering faith in God does not preclude you from being a Christian. That statement, whether or not it reflects correct doctrine, gave me a lot of peace, and I have embraced it and will continue to do so even if someone now would say it was not proper teaching. I think today it is just about impossible for almost all not to have certain periods of Doubt. I can't speak for Nareed, but I hope it is not the case that she has decided to cut herself off from all religious life due to alarm at the beginnings of Doubt. This definitely happens, I'm convinced, and I have experienced it too.

One guy I know who went to the grave a devout Christian liked to say that Christ appeared to 3000 people after the Resurrection. That doesnt do it for me, I don't understand the selective nature of such Revelation no matter the number [and I don't know where he got it, seems incorrect]. Perhaps unfairly, to me this said he also, devout as he was, knew periods of doubt; why else would he lay such value on that story?

PS: I finally found what he was talking about:

Quote:

Acts 2:22-36 in resources on the resurrection of Christ for Christians who ... The disciples also told them, "The Lord has really risen, and has appeared to Simon. .... At lest 3000 people were listening to Peter give witness to the resurrection of ...

This comes up when you do a google search; oddly, what it links to doesnt seem to have this in it! I like Bible Study, and I think you have to, to appreciate finding that.

Quote: FrGamble

We should all stop fooling ourselves though that there is no evidence either way and recognize that this very personal and important question often hinges on what we want to believe.

So show your evidence. Stop saying there is some, stop saying it exists, stop claiming it's real and show it.

Why is it every believer claims to have evidence but getting him to even decribe it is like pulling teeth?

Quote: Nareed

So show your evidence. Stop saying there is some, stop saying it exists, stop claiming it's real and show it.

Why is it every believer claims to have evidence but getting him to even decribe it is like pulling teeth?

God help us I've been trying to but you ignore me or deny it is valid. Just a few things that I had already mentioned before in previous posts.
- the physical world around us is evidence. Where did it come from? Why is it so beautiful? Why is it often so complex or intricate? It looks like there is order to it? Yes, it is also ugly at times and chaotic so one could use the physical world around us as evidence to try and disprove God, but for me the reality of the world around us is evidence that God exists.

- the testimony of billions, upon billion, upon billions of people. You seem to have a problem with this, but as I've tried to say before to you testimony is an important part of evidence. There are many things you have come to believe and know to be true because of what people have told you. You can say that many of these people are wrong or not credible, but some of them are among the greatest human beings that have ever lived. I'm not just talking about saints and such, I'm talking about our grandparents or their great grandparents. Yes there is some testimony for aliens, bigfoot, and even atheism but the weight of testimony concerning belief in God is not something to sneeze at.

- there are many, many miracles that have occurred throughout history, many in our own day. I hesitate to go into too much detail in regards to this type of evidence because I think we can get hung up asking God for miracles to prove His existence. I don't think this is the preferred evidence because it's kind of like God pulling teeth to get us to believe.

We could talk about history and also about where the desire for perfection in us comes from, but until you recognize that there is some evidence for a reasonable assent of the will to believe in God then I have no evidence from you that it is worth keeping up the conversation. Peace!

1. You're alluding to Argument by Design, or the teleological argument. There's a lot of logical refutations out there on that, so won't go into those, but I think it can be refuted observationally as well. Species go extinct and new species arise all the time (which can be replicated by experimentation). The world is obviously not perfect. Nor is man perfectly designed. We still get lower back problems later in life because our feet have not evolved to be large enough to support a bipedal lifestyle...yet. Beauty is cultural and I don't think I would know what beautiful was unless I was told my entire life (see Eye of the Beholder, the greatest Twilight Zone episode IMO).

2. Appeal to popularity, one of the many logical fallacies out there. You seem to think testimony is important but it really is not. Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Many are made to feel the 'presence of God' via clever marketing, i.e. large cathedrals, pipe organs and stained glass windows. I was raised Catholic, thankfully never confirmed, but even I still get chills from the mood that is set by your average Catholic church. The protestants try to do it in a completely different way, some with singing and the raising of arms, others via speaking in tongues.

3. Misinterpretation. Often highly improbable events are believed to be impossible, therefore are described as 'miracles'. I have yet to see evidence of anything happening that was literally impossible.

The real problem with religion is that it is either a) wholly inaccurate or b) wholly inadequate in describing the fundamental nature of the Universe, whether you want to call that Nature, God, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Universe itself. Conversations about it waste our time, when we should simply accept reality as it is and go on living. This is explained in the very first verse of the Tao te Ching (which I do not see as a religion text, it is more so a guide to practical living...many of the lessons were repeated 600 years later by our favorite Carpenter).

We are incapable of understanding, so why even bother trying? Accept the world as your reality and live as best you can. Empty the head, fill the belly.

Quote: FrGamble

God help us I've been trying to but you ignore me or deny it is valid.

You have presented nothing yet, except arguments.

Quote:

- the physical world around us is evidence. Where did it come from? Why is it so beautiful? Why is it often so complex or intricate? It looks like there is order to it? Yes, it is also ugly at times and chaotic so one could use the physical world around us as evidence to try and disprove God, but for me the reality of the world around us is evidence that God exists.

That's an arbitrary assertion on your part, mixed with value judgments about the world. Specifically you claim the world is beautiful. Well, parts of it are, others not so much. But that's a judgment every person makes, if they bother to, not an integral aspect of the world. You might as well claim there is a god because brussel sprouts are tasty.

Anwyay, the world, and the universe, is indeed complex. how does that indicate in any reasonable way the existence of any god? No arguments, evidence.

If you go with the argument that the universe is too complex to be the result of radnom chance, then kindly explain where your god came from. if he is complex enough to create a complex universse, he must have come from a yet more complex creator. And god's creator ought to have a still more complex creator. and so on, ad infinitum.

Quote:

- the testimony of billions, upon billion, upon billions of people. You seem to have a problem with this, but as I've tried to say before to you testimony is an important part of evidence.

Curious that out of billions you cannot present one.

Becasue if you mean reasons I've heard why epople believe in god, I've yet to find anything other than "because I feel it," "because I can't know everything," or simply "because!" These are the least irrational, you understand. I've heard a few that are much, much worse. But I hesitate to impose on your good will to the extent of quoting those.

Quote:

- there are many, many miracles that have occurred throughout history, many in our own day.

That, too is an arbitrary asserion. And at the risk of drawing the wrath of your colelague, the Reverend DJ, I will say it is a particualrly ilogical one for you to make. Why? because you've gone on at length on how mcuh we don't know about the workings of nature. That's perfectly true: there's a lot we don't know. That being so, how can you classify any event, no matter how remarkable, as the work of a deity, rather than as a yet unexplained phenomenon?

Quote:

We could talk about history and also about where the desire for perfection in us comes from, but until you recognize that there is some evidence for a reasonable assent of the will to believe in God then I have no evidence from you that it is worth keeping up the conversation. Peace!

I dare you to repeat that in a way that is understandable :)

I'll wait. But I must warn you so far you're doing a close imitation of Sagan's "Venus" parable.

Quote: Nareed

I'll wait.

I think by signing 'peace' that means he is done. But then again, you got him to come back once after saying that [g]

Quote: Nareed

I must warn you so far you're doing a close imitation of Sagan's "Venus" parable.

Care to elaborate?

Quote: progrocker

1. The world is obviously not perfect. Nor is man perfectly designed. We still get lower back problems later in life because our feet have not evolved to be large enough to support a bipedal lifestyle...yet. Beauty is cultural and I don't think I would know what beautiful was unless I was told my entire life (see Eye of the Beholder, the greatest Twilight Zone episode IMO).

2. Appeal to popularity, one of the many logical fallacies out there. You seem to think testimony is important but it really is not. Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. Many are made to feel the 'presence of God' via clever marketing,

3. Misinterpretation. Often highly improbable events are believed to be impossible, therefore are described as 'miracles'. I have yet to see evidence of anything happening that was literally impossible.

The real problem with religion is that it is either a) wholly inaccurate or b) wholly inadequate in describing the fundamental nature of the Universe,

We are incapable of understanding, so why even bother trying? Accept the world as your reality and live as best you can. Empty the head, fill the belly.

1. Yes the world nor we are not perfect how is that proof God does not exist? Is it possible that the brokenness of this world and even ourselves is meant to inspire in us a longing for something more than this world can ever give? Stop selling yourself short by the way, you know what beauty is without others telling you. If what they told you was beautiful went against your inner and instinctive notion of beauty you would reject it. By the way I cut out the little quip about logical fallacies because they are indeed well known as are the responses to them.

2. I am not appealing to popularity. That is indeed a logical fallacy. I am appealing to credible testimony. How much hubris must you have to dismiss thousands of years of people who have experienced God in a real and tangible way. Was Gandhi tricked by clever marketing?!? Come on, the real experience that I have of God and countless others cannot be attributed in any lasting way to the smell of incense or stained glass windows. Again I think you are selling yourself short and maybe not thinking about the possibility that a cathedral only taps into a dormant seed of something special that is inside all of us.

3. You have not seen any evidence about miracles, what about those who have? Again you may have never seen a volcano but you know that they exist. I was leading a group through a local shrine the other day and there were hundreds of stories about miraculous healing. One story was told of a little girl whose one leg was three inches shorter than the other. She came in with a school group to pray. The other kids ran off to the playground she stayed in Church and was lost in an experience of prayer. They almost left without her. When she walked back to the bus the limp was gone and both legs were the same length. There are pictures and testimonies from her parents and doctors but you wouldn't believe them for some reason. I believe them, but again I don't need these type of things to believe in God - they are indeed extraordinary.

Religion is the only adequate way to describe the fundamental nature of the universe! It is Holy adequate while everything else is full of holes. Some use wormholes others all types of things including imaginary universes or my favorite argument - just give us time and we will figure it out. It is a waste of time to just sit around and wait for us to discover the fundamental nature of the universe on our own, but it is not a waste of time at all to discuss these things. They determine much about how we view life and how we live whether it is empty the mind, fill the belly or fill the mind, empty the belly or my favorite - fill your mind, body and soul!

Quote: odiousgambit

ICare to elaborate?

Sure.

Venus has a thick atmosphere overly rich in clouds. It is the closest planet to the Earth, but due to its thick and ever-present cloud cover its surface cannot be seen.

Many astronomers assumed the clouds were water vapor clouds. Therefore venus ought to have a lot of rain. They also assumed Venus closely ressembles Earth. It does, actually, being near-twin in size and density (though its density was guesswork until recently, given the absence of a satellite).

Well, then a planet like Earth with lots of rain ought to ahve large oceans, mighty rivers and, being warmer since it's closer to the Sun, it ought to have alrge areas of jungle-like areas. the combination of abundant water and higher temperatures on such a world would suggest lots of life, too.

Come the XX Century and two developments: Radar and rocketry

Radar waves were bounced of Venus. The planet is too far and at that distance radar is too crude for mapping, but we found out its period of rotation. Slow, very, very sloooooooooooow. It takes Venus a large part of a Venusian year to complete one rotation about itself. Cloud cover or not, the planet must be broiling and the side away from the sun must be ice cold.

Come rocketry and we can actually send probes all the way to Venus. the first ones were of limited use, but they helped settle the composition of the atmosphere. This turns out to be mostly carbon dioxide, sulphuric acid and very little water vapor, only traces of water vapor. Latter ptobed landed there and others used shorter radar waves to gather a reasonably detailed map of Venus.

Ou near twin has an atmosphere tens of times thicker than ours, made mostly of carbon dioxide and no water to speak of. It's a parched dessert, drier than dust, without as much as a creek. The thick atmosphere made of a greenhouse gas traps heat so well the side facing the sun and the side facing away from the Sun are at almost the same temperature.

So Sagan says:

"Observation: there is nothing to be seen on the surface of Venus. Conclussion: it must be teeming with life. Later we learned better"

The moral of the story is: ignroance is just lack of knowledge, not a blanket permission to fill in the blanks with that which you find most pleasing.

I will just try to make my crazy run-on sentence a little more intelligible, sorry about that.

I said, "We could talk about history and also about where the desire for perfection in us comes from, but until you recognize that there is some evidence for a reasonable assent of the will to believe in God then I have no evidence from you that it is worth keeping up the conversation. Peace!"

Dear Nareed, Like one of your earlier posts I could go on and on about evidence for God but I will not because you are unwilling to grasp that there is reasonable evidence for God. I also will not go on because even though I do readily admit there is evidence that could be used to disprove God you have hardly quoted any. Go back and read your posts with the same critical eye with which you looked at mine and see how many of your, 'what is wrong with religion' points are conjecture, stereotypes, misunderstandings, and strong personal feelings. Let me leave you with a quote that I think sums up our little conversation, "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible." -- Author Unknown

Peace!

Quote: FrGamble

1. Yes the world nor we are not perfect how is that proof God does not exist?

It isn't. It also isn't evidence that god exists. It's evidence that the world is as it is.

Quote:

2. I am not appealing to popularity. That is indeed a logical fallacy. I am appealing to credible testimony. How much hubris must you have to dismiss thousands of years of people who have experienced God in a real and tangible way.

Whether one person or nine trillion of them, feelings are only evidence of the state of mind of oen person and perhaps of that of people similar to them. Not of the existence of something outside themselves.

And I'm still awaiting a single such testimony.

Quote:

When she walked back to the bus the limp was gone and both legs were the same length. There are pictures and testimonies from her parents and doctors but you wouldn't believe them for some reason.

I don't believe you. I don't suggest you're lying; indeed I believe you're sincere in this claim. But the claim is too extraordinary to believe without proof. You know, on faith?

I would be willing to see the pictures, read interviews with the parents, the girl and any witnesses, and submit the whole thing to any interested physicians. I hope you'll be willing to understand that some instances of differences in limb length are actually due to spinal cord issues, or abnormalities in the pelvis. Lastly, assuming this was a supernatural occurrence, what is your evidence to claim it was a specific deity who did it?

BTW, just so you won't get your hopes up, even if we could authenticate the claim and the "healing," we'd only just be at the beginning. Next we'd need to investigate what happened. Then we'd need to look at possible mechanism as to how it happened, and whehter there's a reason it happened at the time it did. I also think it's fair to tell you I do not expect to ever se any photos or transcripts of any interviews. Somehow such things are never available.

Quote:

Religion is the only adequate way to describe the fundamental nature of the universe!

I've never heard a single explanation of the nature of the universe originating in religion, let alone a fundamental one. "God did it" is not an explanation. "God did it for reasons you cannot comprehend" is less than that.

Quote: FrGamble

Dear Nareed,

I do thank you for taking the time to explain.

Quote:

Like one of your earlier posts I could go on and on about evidence for God but I will not because you are unwilling to grasp that there is reasonable evidence for God.

I will dispense with the reference to Reagan.

I dont' fail to grasp it. You have failed to offer any evidence at all. I've explained why, you've kept repeating the same arguments.

Quote:

I also will not go on because even though I do readily admit there is evidence that could be used to disprove God you have hardly quoted any.

I've quoted none. I don't intend to present any, either. I don't need to. The burden of proof doesn't rest on me, it rests on those making a claim; ie it rests on you in this case.

Quote:

Go back and read your posts with the same critical eye with which you looked at mine and see how many of your, 'what is wrong with religion' points are conjecture, stereotypes, misunderstandings, and strong personal feelings.

None. They're all based on observation and experience. It's odd you should bring this up, too, because one of the first things you did in this debate was to push faith on me. I should say I'm flattered by the attention, but it's like receiving a comp to an all-expenses paid night at the most expensive nightclub in Vegas: it offers nothing of any use to me.

Quote:

Let me leave you with a quote that I think sums up our little conversation, "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible." -- Author Unknown

I'd be ashamed, too, had I come off with such an intelelctually weak statement. I've used it to mock the Dalals Cowboys. You know, "Q: why do you dislike the Cowboys? A: If you're a football fan, no explanation is necessary. If you're not a fan, no explanation is possible."

It works as a joke because it's already absurd but sounds profound.

Quote: Nareed

So Sagan says:

"Observation: there is nothing to be seen on the surface of Venus. Conclussion: it must be teeming with life. Later we learned better"

The moral of the story is: ignroance is just lack of knowledge, not a blanket permission to fill in the blanks with that which you find most pleasing.

A long time ago, before monotheism, gods or supernatural beings were used to explain that which humanity could not. All of the pre-Abrahamic religions, including the Greek/Roman pantheon, the Egyptian pantheon, the Hindu pantheon, the Native American pantheon (and I mean both north and south -- they were different), the Chinese pantheon, all of these were developed by people to explain what early humans observed but could not understand. Something as simple as "the Earth is round" was totally unknown to early man, so he invented sun-gods carrying a flaming ball of light across the sky, disappearing into the underworld every night. The concept of "underworld" is a throwback to when humanity thought the Earth was *flat* and therefore there must be something *under* it. So you had Apollo, Ra, Surya, Tonatiuh, etc.

But then we learned that the Earth was round. And after that, we learned that the Sun wasn't revolving around it but vice versa. And now nobody reveres Apollo or Ra anymore because we understand that the Sun isn't a plaything of the gods but a ball of hot gasses undergoing constant nuclear fusion.

The famous myth author and religion expert,
Joseph Campbell, tells of a priest who said to
him: "Mr Campbell, if we could prove there was
a god, we would have no need for faith."

To which Mr Campbell Replied: "Father, if you
could prove there was a god, we would have
no need for religion."

Quote: FrGamble

Go back and read your posts with the same critical eye with which you looked at mine and see how many of your, 'what is wrong with religion' points are conjecture, stereotypes, misunderstandings, and strong personal feelings.

Thinking back on it, I did make one error. I said Jewish prayers are all flattery or requests and directionto or of god. That's not entirely right. In my haste I forgot there's also as large subset of thanking god for this and that and the other thing. Be these things that exist or actions that god commands of his followers. In my defense I'll say that these expressions of gratitude are mixed in with flattery. For example "Blessed art thou God, our God and King of the world, that thou has commanded us to/given us/made me/not made me/etc"

It's still sickening. and I won't even get into the content of some of those baruchot, or of how transliterating Hebrew is different in English than in Spanish.

I regret the ommission.