Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RAM]

If we all worship the same thing, I fancy that somewhere between the human sacrificers, the nuns(who could be considered human sacrifices themselves so I will need another example), the zen monks, and Rasputin, someone is going to end up being irritated...

Where did God come from is a weak retort to the god did it answer to universe creation.

The retort I think is better, is that an answer that can be applied to everything is an answer to nothing.

How is it a weak retort? It seems to me that it fairly concisely points out the "god did it" doesn't actually solve anything, it just shifts the exact same problem to a different entity, one which, I might add, we have even less evidence to support. Most people seem to be convinced that the universe exists. Gods seem to deliberately avoid proving themselves. It seems to me that to the question "where does the universe come from" the answer "The universe I know to exist provides its own existence" is a much better answer than "An entity I could have just made up created it".

If someone comes along with a mathematical model that uses a theoretical basic entity that all larger entities are composed of to accurately predict the universe then I would be willing to accept that it was an accurate answer that can be applied to everything on any detectable scale, I probably wouldn't like it mind you. I don't really see what something's range of relevancies has to do with its accuracy except to the extent that a lack of specificity might limit its resources...

Well, going back to the first post, which is supposed to set the scene for the thread:

So, how do you atheists, explain all these above?

I have had a experience that I'd describe as meeting God (it was not a near-death experience)

I've met anime characters and characters from novels in my dreams, but that doesn't mean they exist.  If you've been thinking about something a lot, you can have a dream or sometimes even an image of it whilst awake (I usually get these when I'm tired).

I would like to add that pretty much all experiences can be dismissed via current scientific understanding of the limits of human perception. Although without the specifics of the event it cannot be properly dissected without running through the whole list...

but even without it I wouldn't be able to understand how you think you're alone in the universe.

I'm not "alone".  There are many other human beings on this earth with me.  Billions.  All of them just as capable of perception, intelligence and emotion as I am.

If you regard yourself as mass then you have lots of company around you, although it does get kind of lonely if you think about how far away the next community is.
 If you regard yourself as the result of properties in a range of dimensions then everything everywhere is just like you.
 If you regard yourself as a soul then you might get lonely if you think that everything else is souless, but if you attribute spirits to the elements of the world then it really isn't.
 If you regard yourself as 'special' then you may feel lonely if you don't feel that there is something out there that is 'special' to you.
 If you regard yourself as needing support then I imagine that it would be very comforting to believe that you have a friend, the best friend that could possibly exist, and it has complete power over your entire existence and uses that power only just enough to make sure that nothing 'really' bad will ever happen to you.
 If, on the other hand, you don't really care about being alone and don't have any reason to bother with the question, then it is irrelevant.
 But if you do happen to consider it then it would seem that an entity that possesses such power and maintains so little profile is highly unlikely to be concerned of the actions of those who are ignorant of it, so it becomes a moot point, hence the 70-odd page-long moot on the subject...

Everything is so perfect,

But it isn't though, is it?  If life were perfect then everyone would get an equal chance in life, but they don't.  Some people are born into rich families and get whatever they want, while others inherit horrible genetic diseases that kill them quickly.  The same goes in nature too - why would a benevolent God create a world which had a worm that lived by burrowing through childrens' eyeballs?

Beauty is in the eye of the behlder.

there's a reason for everything

Well, no, there isn't.

Agreed.

How did everything start?

This is a difficult question, but "God did it" doesn't solve anything.  Where did God come from?  Why did God make the universe as he did?  How did God make the universe?  How does God operate?  How can you detect God?  Simply invoking God doesn't solve any of the important questions.

It didn't, everything has always existed and has endlessly changed its form throughout eternity...

[MrWiggles]

Where did God come from is a weak retort to the god did it answer to universe creation.

The retort I think is better, is that an answer that can be applied to everything is an answer to nothing.

How is it a weak retort? It seems to me that it fairly concisely points out the "god did it" doesn't actually solve anything, it just shifts the exact same problem to a different entity, one which, I might add, we have even less evidence to support. Most people seem to be convinced that the universe exists. Gods seem to deliberately avoid proving themselves. It seems to me that to the question "where does the universe come from" the answer "The universe I know to exist provides its own existence" is a much better answer than "An entity I could have just made up created it".

If someone comes along with a mathematical model that uses a theoretical basic entity that all larger entities are composed of to accurately predict the universe then I would be willing to accept that it was an accurate answer that can be applied to everything on any detectable scale, I probably wouldn't like it mind you. I don't really see what something's range of relevancies has to do with its accuracy except to the extent that a lack of specificity might limit its resources...

In science, you don't need an explanation for an explanation. We can attribute things to Phenomena X as a cause, without knowing the properties or origin of X.

Gravity comes to mind. We worked with gravity, without knowing the origin or properties of gravity for several hundred years, from the Age of Galieio, Newton and finally Einstein. And it still not done.

It is a weakness, that there is no explanation for the explanation. It is not a deal breaker.

I totally stole this explanation from 'Dr.' Lain Craig. (Does he have an actual docorite[sp]?)

[Zironic]

Religion is Good, it, when strictly followed along moral lines, can keep people from doing terrible things to each other. But the Leader of society use religion as a tool, so it really just becomes a way to sway society to movements.

[Ampersand]

The debate is not about good or bad, but true or false. There is, in fact, a difference.

[RAM]

Religion is Good, it, when strictly followed along moral lines, can keep people from doing terrible things to each other. But the Leader of society use religion as a tool, so it really just becomes a way to sway society to movements.

That is morality, some people derive morality from religion but there is no requirement upon a religion to have any moral code, and in general the morality offered by religion comes in the form rules that must be followed in order to appease the deity and are rarely if ever analysed for the actual results they have on their targets...
I say that morality exists independently of religion and that people would have been prevented from doing terrible things in many cases regardless of religion. It seems that the inly cases in which a religion could result in greater morality would be if the religion was valued more than morality, at which point the religion's teachings will dispel any morality that might conflict with it.

Religion by itself is neither good or bad, like all tools it can serve to increase the abilities of those who wield it. If the gods didn't invent it then I am sure that humanity would...

[MrWiggles]

Religion is Good, it, when strictly followed along moral lines, can keep people from doing terrible things to each other. But the Leader of society use religion as a tool, so it really just becomes a way to sway society to movements.

It doesn't matter if it can stop bad things. An argument for religion should have something which religion has a unique aspect to it.

Providing Morals, and/or ethics isn't one of them. We don't need religion to be a good person. There nothing to suggest that religion was ever needed for moral to come into play ever. It can be argued that religion can make you do terrible things, and stupid things, like prevent medical treatments, starve children. These aspect aren't solely of religion either.

It something that the meme of religion has latched onto, as it so many things.

With you proviso of something being good, then all things can be good as long as it prevents persons doing terrible things to other person.

[Rilder]

Atheists are moral!

http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/Home_Page.html

For 110 Dollars they will rescue your pet in the event of the rapture!

[Rvlion]

Without reading the whole thread I make my post on how I view religions in current times as atheist.

I call myself an atheist in the sense that I don’t believe a god actually exists.
Also I call myself an atheist because I don’t believe a single word that the bible says When I was between 4 and 12 years old I went to a Christian school and we read a small part from the bible at the start of every school day, the bible my school gave me I still kept it mostly as a memory.

Why would a god create 1 pathetic inhabitable planet in the entire universe consisting of an uncountable amount of stars?
Why would a god create a creature of mass destruction to live on a planet and in a matter of 2000 years totally destroys and plunders it while the planet itself has been around for millions of years?

While I think that religions used to have been pure and everybody just believed.
I also think that through time power mongers changed most of the religions and by doing that making them corrupted.
What some of the leaders are doing today has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of believing in some almighty being that created our world.

I am now going to state some of my thoughts about what I think about the rotten apples of  3 of the main religions in this world that I am most exposed to in my life.
For 1 the Christian rotten apples with their never ending greed… Have you ever been to that Vatican museum?
For 2 the Jewish rotten apples with their never ending attempts to make others feels sorry for them because they were almost made extinct in WW 2, while at the same time they send a tank or helicopter to attack a Palestinians peasant who throws a rock. (Not even mentioning that the Jews never owned the land currently called Israel, but were given that land by the UK I believe after WW 2 because of what happened… Never heared about sharing a freaking piece of land especially when it was never truly yours to begin with)
For 3 the Islamic rotten apples with their never ending attempts to blow themselves up in the hope that they will go to heaven or whatever… Why would a god condone the fact that first you commit suicide and second commit murder? For Christian’s murder and suicide both are sins and a 1-way ticket to hell, so why would that be different for the Islam.

I know that every religion has its own rotten apples in the basket and that the majority acts normal (not knowing their thoughts of course).
However because of my family my views concerning religions are somewhat tainted, mostly due to the fact my mother was mentally kicked out of the family due to her being a non-believer (in the sense that when she was in the room she was tolerated, but never accepted which was even felt for me as a child).
Despite my bad experience with in this case a very extremist part of the Christian church

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(namely the Netherlands Reformed Church NGK)

I still always try to accept and respect people I meet in live for who they are and how they live their lives.

Just because of my experiences I attempt to treat all people like I want to be treated myself or I treat them the same way that they treat me (whichever is the case).
And my prime belief is “Live and let live and just respect each others thoughts and beliefs”.
I am also a strong believer that when there had never been a religion a whole lot less wars would have been fought in the past and present and will be fought in the future.

As a last comment before I surrender myself to all your comments about my above post I want to say 1 last thing…
Don’t ever think you are better then someone else just because you are part of a (specific) religion or if you are an atheist.
Because when you start to think that you are way worse and have no respect for your fellow man/woman and thus deserve no respect from others.

[Vester]

Without reading the whole thread I make my post on how I view religions in current times as atheist.

While I think that religions used to have been pure and everybody just believed.
I also think that through time power mongers changed most of the religions and by doing that making them corrupted.
What some of the leaders are doing today has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of believing in some almighty being that created our world.

Yes.

[Jackrabbit]

I also agree with the above statement, but shall not provide any additional statements.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

For 1 the Christian rotten apples with their never ending greed… Have you ever been to that Vatican museum?
For 2 the Jewish rotten apples with their never ending attempts to make others feels sorry for them because they were almost made extinct in WW 2, while at the same time they send a tank or helicopter to attack a Palestinians peasant who throws a rock. (Not even mentioning that the Jews never owned the land currently called Israel, but were given that land by the UK I believe after WW 2 because of what happened… Never heared about sharing a freaking piece of land especially when it was never truly yours to begin with)
For 3 the Islamic rotten apples with their never ending attempts to blow themselves up in the hope that they will go to heaven or whatever… Why would a god condone the fact that first you commit suicide and second commit murder? For Christian’s murder and suicide both are sins and a 1-way ticket to hell, so why would that be different for the Islam.

I am against the suicide bombings, but that is because I am a stout believer in:

All-or-nothing offensive strategies. We need to pile up our resources to be able to challenge others in a global war... Damnit.

[RAM]

Without reading the whole thread I make my post on how I view religions in current times as atheist.

<insert sarcastic comment on the merits of reading the entire thread>

While I think that religions used to have been pure and everybody just believed.
I also think that through time power mongers changed most of the religions and by doing that making them corrupted.

I recall some of the pharaohs claiming to be gods. That would have been before christianity. I doubt you could find any historical evidence to suggest that it has ever existed without a concentration of power but there isn't really any evidence at all so any claims I make are inconsequential.

For 3 the Islamic rotten apples with their never ending attempts to blow themselves up in the hope that they will go to heaven or whatever…

I would suggest that islamic law is their rotten apple. Take adultery for example, the crime is personal, why should the punishment be public?

Just because of my experiences I attempt to treat all people like I want to be treated myself or I treat them the same way that they treat me (whichever is the case).

A useful guideline but some people are sufficiently different that this will cause conflict.

Where did God come from is a weak retort to the god did it answer to universe creation.

How is it a weak retort? It seems to me that it fairly concisely points out the "god did it" doesn't actually solve anything, it just shifts the exact same problem to a different entity, one which, I might add, we have even less evidence to support.

In science, you don't need an explanation for an explanation. We can attribute things to Phenomena X as a cause, without knowing the properties or origin of X.

Gravity comes to mind. We worked with gravity, without knowing the origin or properties of gravity for several hundred years, from the Age of Galieio, Newton and finally Einstein. And it still not done.

No.
1: Science is not the be all and end all of reason, the flaws of the scientific method are irrelevant to the debate.
2: That is why scientific theories are only theories, the goal of science IS to provide explanations for explanations. Science pursues and explanation, attempts to verify it, then proceeds to determine the next explanation. Leaving behind a convenient set of explanations for other fields to extrapolate from.
3:The problem here a complete lack of evidence, gravity is easily demonstrated, religion has no evidence whatsoever. You may as well say that the universe exists because you need a place to exist, and as soon as you die the universe will end. Science works because it is tested and its products are practical, religion works because people are easily manipulated and have short memories.
X: There IS a theory as to what causes gravity, one with some evidence to back it up too I might add, of course that has no relevance, as it simply pushes the question of what causes gravity to the question of what is the nature of the dimensions.
4: Science does not oppose religion, science proves things as effectively as we are able. If religion has any merits science will work towards exposing them. Religions DOES oppose science, it consistently attempts to install arbitrary statements into accepted knowledge.
5: The problem here is not that we do not know the explanation for the existence of a god, but that there isn't one to be known.

[Rvlion]

I recall some of the pharaohs claiming to be gods. That would have been before christianity. I doubt you could find any historical evidence to suggest that it has ever existed without a concentration of power but there isn't really any evidence at all so any claims I make are inconsequential.

I would suggest that islamic law is their rotten apple. Take adultery for example, the crime is personal, why should the punishment be public?
[

You see pharaohs… I see power mongers who pre-date the other mayor religions…

I must agree with you that some portions of Islamic law looks like it was copy/pasted from any random medieval European country in the 5th century, but is that a reason to hate them for it? I believe in some Islamic countries the crime of stealing is still punished by chopping of the thiefs hand(s). To be honest… I love that law even though it is cruel (provided no health benefits are given to that person for “repairing” his hand). Capital punishment or also Legal killing is the same, a true ancient pre-medieval concept which is still used in large portions of the (civilized) world. Even a country like the USA still uses it. While I agree with using it mostly for saving feeding money for pedofiles/sex offenders/murderers/drugs dealers it is and shall always remain an ancient concept.
Just like the public stoning the Islamic people do or the witchburnings/chopping of heads/hangings in the medieval times.

Today’s Islamic countries I compare to medieval Europe.
There were kings/queens or whatever warmonger was leader and he or she “ruled” the lands. He was however ruled by the church, mostly the pope back then. If the church didn’t like you, you didn’t become a king or queen.
In Europe we grew up, the Islamic countries will do the same in time. Civil unrest in Iran are signs of this.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

What.

Muslims don't have clergy. At least no OFFICIAL clergy.
We are free. Free to interpret, not like the inqui- NOBODY EXPECT THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

[Andir]

Religion is Good, it, when strictly followed along moral lines, can keep people from doing terrible things to each other. But the Leader of society use religion as a tool, so it really just becomes a way to sway society to movements.

It doesn't matter if it can stop bad things. An argument for religion should have something which religion has a unique aspect to it.

Providing Morals, and/or ethics isn't one of them. We don't need religion to be a good person. There nothing to suggest that religion was ever needed for moral to come into play ever. It can be argued that religion can make you do terrible things, and stupid things, like prevent medical treatments, starve children. These aspect aren't solely of religion either.

It something that the meme of religion has latched onto, as it so many things.

With you proviso of something being good, then all things can be good as long as it prevents persons doing terrible things to other person.

Not to mention, if you NEED religion to keep you from killing people and other acts, I could argue that you are not a moral person in the first place.