What would it take?
Posted on: March 19, 2007 - 11:30am
Offline
What would it take?
This is a serious question thats serves two purposes for me but before I reveal my purpose please tell me; What would it take for you to believe in Christ?
If they found Noahs Ark and could prove it, if you saw someone healed (not on a Benny Hinn show), if you had a near death experience. What would it take. Please no smart ass asnwers, because this is an honest question.
- Login to post comments
I wasn't asking about the origin of life, I was asking about your answer to when you were asked, "What would it take for you not to believe in god?" You answered that if you saw an animal evolve from a single cell, then you would believe in evolution.
I then asked you why this specific thing would change your mind? I asked, is it just because it would be impressive to you, or because it would actually prove something? Then I asked, if it's because it would prove something, then what specifically would it prove?
Can you please answer those questions? I want to know WHAT would change your mind about god, and WHY. The why is the important part.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Lynette,
You provided me with a link which I thought was taboo on these forums. Anyway I did read it and I agree with the NASA scientist Meyers when he says the only way to prove it is to go to Mars. Of course it is a possability but they have nothing concrete. If they did prove it then I would believe it. If they said hey we found certain fungi on mars then sure I would accept that they found "Life" on mars. Woudl I accept that Mars has the ability to support Human life I dont know.
Oh, I never offered evidence? What the fuck is wrong with you, whats evidence to you? A old outdated book which can not be trusted because it's been proven to be wrong on many occasions? While our evil science proved itself to prove things.
Also, like I said. There is differences from dictionary to dictionary. If your going to try and correct someone on gramer maybe you should have good gramer yourself. Didnt is spelled didn't. Remember the "'". You are to put a "," before the word "and". Although there is some exceptions to the ",", and this is one.
Look, you think science and religion can work together right? How? Religion requires blind faith or punishment, while science requires you look at the evidence before making a decision. You can not have faith in science, no one has faith in science. We may hope our new hypothesis works, but if it does not we throw it away. We don't keep things that offer no evidence sorry.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
Colby, you've changed your "what I need to disprove god" theory several times over. You started this conversation asking us what we would need to prove that YOUR particular god exists but in the end you were searching for what we could prove would disprove YOUR god when ultimately, it's not the role of science to prove or disprove philosophy. You have the choice to say "I don't believe it" but don't tell us that because not everything can be explained we're not right for not believing in your particular god. It's not an "if x is not proveable to my satisfaction then y must be applied in absolute form" argument which is what it appears you are alluding to. Believe in whichever one or groups of the 3600+ gods that were invented but don't fault us for choosing none of them.
Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”
It may change my mind because it is the only thing I can think of that would provide enough proof that God did not create life, which is and essential part of my faith. Does that answer the question.
Well, we'll see how Colby R deals with "that's not good enough for me...", for he said:
If that is so, Colby R, I invite you to read http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/297/5583/1016 and http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020713/fob8.asp (do remove the extra line feed or blank space if the forum software automaticaclly adds it to the URL, it's something that I cannot control)
Basically, that's quite what happened. Virus from "nothing"... I'm curious what you have to say.
Also do note that it was only a virus. It seems humanity doesn't know all secrets necessary to create any form of life, or the means to do that, but all in due time. What matters is that the principle has been demonstrated.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
I havent faulted anyone. I was askd a question and I answered it honestly. I havent changed anything, I was asked to asnwer the same question in a different way, I did that. I dont know how to answer the question in a way that would satisfy you. I should just say it would take something spectacular and I dont know exactly what. I have also said time and time again that whether you believe or not is not why I am here.
An Athiest freind of mine who is a Doctor wrote this and I thought I would share it and get your thoughts. He also believes it is wron to take the Bible literally and that science stretches the bounds of what we find moral.
I haven't read this entire thread, but I'm pretty sure I've read everything in it many times before on this and the other message board. At any rate, I'll toss in my two cents worth one more time and you can take it or leave it.
Religion depends on faith, not proof, and this is the crux (no pun intended) of the value of religion in people's lives. There will never be proof for or against the existence of God. If there were proof of God's existence, faith would become unnecessary and there would no longer be any religion, just science.
Science depends on proof, not faith. If a theory can't be impirically demonstrated to be correct (given our technological limitations), it isn't science, no matter how much anyone believes it to be true (faith).
This is why religion and science not only can exist together, but must never be confused with each other. When we seek to discredit religion because there is no scientific proof, or seek to discredit science by introducing religious concepts, we are mixing apples and oranges and will never succeed. They are entirely different realms, they serve entirely different purposes, and they are subject to entirely different scrutinies in order to justify them.
Then would you care to tell me why certain US laws related to holding office were put in place? Would you tell me why George Bush said that less-than-friendly comment on atheists? Could you tell me why in my country I am required to pay taxes so that public money gathered will be used to build a f****n` cathedral? Could you tell em why am I required to not express my feelings of pure disgust on Jehovah Witnesses? Etc.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
This is the sort of thing you would believe if you don't care if religion is true or not. If you don't care, I don't see why you would try to argue religion with anyone, since you know there's no reason to believe anything positive about it.
However, the Bible makes clearly untrue claims, as do most scriptures. These claims are the realm of science. The universe was not created in 6 days. There was no worldwide flood. Jesus never rose from the dead. And if the Bible is wrong about these important details, why believe anything in it?
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Reminds me of that short play:
Religious guy: Hey, look, it is said in the Bible that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are true (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 being things from the Bible that I've replaced, to save some space and time)
(some years pass)
Scientist: Umm... 1 is wrong.
Religious guy: Oh, well, yeah, it is... but 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are true beyond doubt!
(some more years pass)
Scientist: Umm... 2 is wrong, too.
Religious guy: Hmm... you may be right... but 3, 4, 5 and 6 are certainly true!
...
...and so on. Wonder when the bag will finally become empty.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
I agree with this. There is a common argument that xians require proof for most things in their everyday life i.e., buying a car you have a mechanic check it out to be sure it is a good car. Why then the things they claim is most important in their life do they require no proof of and there is actually a mountain of evidence contrary to the most fundemental parts of their faith.
^^
Sadly it will never work. We already tried evidence, it won't work for them. For fucks sake 20% of american christians still think the sun revolves around the world, and the earth is flat. Why? Because the bible says so, and they say no one can prove otherwise.
What about the people who are trying to find if a god exists through partical acceleration? Theoritically it's possible to find a "god partical" through this measure. If we don't find it, theists will just claim god hides himself better then that, but if we did find him they would accept it as truth, even though they were going to discredit it if it did not found it. Theists even admited to that.
Why can't people just accept we evolved? Seriously, it's been proven already. "We can't come from non-life" well since evolution has been proven looks like we fucking can. "How can something come from nothing ie. big bang" who the fuck is claiming something came from nothing? Big bang states energy was gathered into a singularity at the begining of the start of this universe. It got to hot and reacted and exploded outwards to form everything else. Of course they'll try arguing that we are saying we came from nothing. Then they say gods eternal. So why couldn't the mass and energy of the big bang of been eternal? If your going to argue gods energy and mass is eternal, you can not argue against us. If you try to then fuck you right in the neck.
Also, a fun game I love(although a lot do not) is called xenosaga. In the first game it doesn't show much about religion but further progresses in the final two episodes of the game to become just about religion. It has many bible references, even the main evil guys are trying to still forward the word of their god. Even though most of them thought they were trying to get back to lost jeruselum(earth) it's been 4000 years since earth was destroyed after humans uncovered the zohar(the key to the power of god) etc. It's a pretty interesting game, it's like this is how fucked up the universe will be in 4000 years if religion still exists.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
Very well said. There are many hypotheses about the origin of the big bang, and they don't necessarily involve it coming from nothing or from God. I personally don't know enough about it to believe it, the evidence we have supports a big bang, the theorised causes are all very speculative God most of all.
Similarly with evolution it isn't suddenly arriving 'plonk' from nothing in fact that's what creationism is. And we can see evolution happening all the time!! A friend of mine knew someone with webbed feet, a mutation. It didn't actually give her much advantage in our environment but imagine say, with rising sea levels the advantage she might have over the rest of us, she would be naturally selected since we would be less strong swimmers, she would pass on her genes to successors, who might further down the line mutate in a way that gave them an even greater advantage. We also see that people nearer the equator have darker skin, because they survive better with more melanin in their skin. Indeed it doesn't even need to be a new gene that creates new adaptations in species - new research shows that genes for eyes (for example) can exist recessively in species without eyes, but later down the line they could develop eyes if the changing environments required them to see.
This reminds me of a point that Dawkins made at the end of TGD (although it's unrelated to the debate), that perhaps bats can hear in colour. I would back this claim. I have synaesthesia, which is a condition caused by a change in brain structure which allows parts of the brain to link which don't normally link. For example when I listen to music, I 'see' it or rather I hear it in shapes and colours. It's also a diverse condition which can link all sorts of sensations or ideas together, some people see numbers in the same way (I associate numbers with various colours but my synaesthetic sense for numbers is less adapted as others), other synaesthetes see visions cast on external objects. For example those who associate personalities with colours and shapes and see things externally have claimed to see 'auras', in fact the myth of auras is claimed to originate in those kind of synaesthetes.
Atheist Books
Jacob, that's fascinating. I've heard of the condition before, but never talked to anyone who had it.
I have something more akin to "hearing in color." We music types call it perfect pitch. I don't have a reference, but I remember reading a few years ago that they've found a different "firing pattern" in the brains of people with perfect pitch, so it's a real phenomenon.
Basically, most people hear pitches relatively. If I play a note for you and say, "This is C" and then play another note, you can, judging from the distance between the two notes, accurately say that the second note was G. However, if I lied to you, and told you the first note was D, you'd say the second note was A. You'd be correct, relatively speaking, as C and G are the same distance apart as D and A. I, and others like me, hear pitches absolutely. C is C and G is G, in the same way that red is red. Also, in the same way that red can be darker or lighter, there is a range of frequencies which can be heard as "C" -- some sounding a bit low, and others a bit high.
So, even in humans, there are some interesting mutations that bear out evolution at work. Perfect pitch is not particularly relevant to survival, so I doubt that it will ever be much more than an anomoly, but it still crops up in a small percentage of the population. (Of course, this brings up the very interesting topic of directed evolution, where humans could decide to breed for certain characteristics, and theoretically, could, over thousands of years, create a completely different species based solely on the desire to do so!)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
^
Funny thing you reminded me of. Aparently we do not see the same colours that other people see. Of course we will never know ourselves what the colours look like, we all have a different ammount of cones and rods, and other variables in our eyes which change colours. It's like saying green is actually red for me, but I was taught it was always green, and when I look at the green even though I see red I will always identify it as green, and you may look at the same green and see something like brown. Of course we are all close to the same vision it is suggested that we do see atleast a large difference in shades, let alone colour. Oh and colour blind are a bit different, as they don't see entire colours etc.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
Another way to look at it is just to realize that colors are abstractions created by our brain so that we can understand the different frequencies of light we perceive. I suspect that if you switched eyes with someone, for a while the colors would all be off, but fairly soon your brain would just adapt.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Colby, consider what Jacob has said, and then address this please:
If we follow the Genesis account, all humanity is the offspring of Noah's 3 sons - following the flood. (I actually recall hearing someone on a talk show claiming that the bible proves blacks should be slaves to whites. Essentially, he said the earth was populated by 3 races -- corresponding to Noah's 3 sons. Noah cursed Ham to serve Shem, and Ham was the ancestor of all black people.)
How do we then account for the fact that there are more than 3 identifiable races in the world today? What accounts for our biological diversity if it is not evolution and natural selection?
There are no theists on operating tables.
I see this discussion has roared along without me. That I suppose is the disadvantage of being nine time zones away from America.
Colby, I made a long post about Genesis you should look at.
I also made a very long post about religion that you ignored (I think it is on page 3)
And I made a request for an apology (on this page) to a comment you made earlier.
I'm not expecting you to cover everyone's posts like plugging a leaking ship, but you are sorta ignoring me.
Now. If you want to use the abiogenesis argument, you must provide a definition of life. If you cannot provide a definition of life, and (this is important) HOW IT DIFFERS FROM NON-LIFE, you are admitting life is a continuum (just so we are clear, do you accept evolution? Stop thinking about the origin of life for a moment, do you accept evolution?)"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
No, it doesn't answer the question. You basically said, "It would be enough proof because it would be enough proof." But WHY would that be enough proof? What SPECIFICALLY does it prove?
Here, let me put it in another example. Imagine I had asked a different person, What would it take for you to not believe in God? And he replies, "I would have to eat an orange and have it taste like a banana." And then I ask, "What would that prove? Why would that be proof that god does not exist?" If the person answers, "Because that would be enough proof for me," then he hasn't actually answered the question of why having an orange taste like a banana would be proof of god's non-existence.
I want to know WHY seeing a single celled species evolve into a multicellular species would be PROOF that god does not exist. What SPECIFICALLY would it prove? For example, would it prove that God could not have been involved in the creation of life? Would it prove that God is not all-powerful? What specifically would it prove?
Edit: Okay, actually, re-reading your post I may have misread it. It seems that you say that seeing this event would disprove God because an essential part of your faith is that God created life, and this would disprove that.
Okay, so I'll rephrase my point with this in mind: How would seeing this event (evolving to multicellular life) disprove god? Does it really prove that God did not create life? Wouldn't it only prove that it is possible to evolve life into new forms? And now here's the kicker: Why would THIS convince you that life can evolve to new forms, but the EXISTING evidence for evolution does NOT convince you?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
THe bible also gives the account of the Tower of Babel where God confused the language between the tribes and they went their serperate ways.
With my new found understanding of what evolution is, I definetely agree that species evolve to a certain extent. I dont think that is debatable. I dont really believe that species evolved into defferent species. From my understanding evolving to a point were pro-creation is no longer possible with the original species.
Now to what you said about slavery. Whoever said that is full of crap, it is not a passage saying black people are supposed to be slaves. That is what ignorant white trash racist want it to say, these are the same people that deny the holocaust.
With my new found understanding of what evolution is, I definetely agree that species evolve to a certain extent. I dont think that is debatable. I dont really believe that species evolved into defferent species. From my understanding evolving to a point were pro-creation is no longer possible with the original species.
Your understanding is very ignorant then. Speciation is highly observed. Across the domains from Eukaryota to archeabacteria, orthologous shift, allapatric and parapatric gene flow pump shuts have been fully observed. Eubacteria xenologous shift is also observable. This is an example of where I get to answer your questions as I am a biologist.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5465
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/5274
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I'd like to see a response to this.
Genisis, the most hotly debated book in the Bible. If you want me to defend scientificly, I cant. THe only thing I can tell you is that limiting Gods power to fit into a scientific box is a mistake in my mind. I know you dont believe in God but just listen. When we are dealing with God any God, he is all powerful so anything is possible nothing is beyond him. So the scientific limitaions you place on the creation arent appliable. Lets talk about 6 day creation, again there is debate on whether it was six literal days or not. I fall on the side that says it was not six literal days. THe bible says Gods time is not our time, so I believe that the six days in Gods time could have been millions of years each, so also attatched to that I dont believe in a young earth. THe Bible gives not start date and as Christians we cant overlook obvious proof that the earth is much older than 6-10,000 years old.
I am not going to apologize for anything. I have never hinted that I thought there was a lack of inteligence here nor have I said it. I dont think that anyone is uninteligent, if anything I am sure a lot of you are sitting back laughing and assuming there is a lack of inteligence on my end of the keyboard. If you were offended by my spitting in Gods face comment, I would say get over it because if you dont believe it shouldnt offend you. Plus it wasnt meant to be offensive it was meant to be an explanation of what God may think.
Evolution, see my response above this one, where I say I do accept certain evolution for sure.
When I say my new found understanding, I amrefering to understanding that evolution is not the origin of life.
Do you accept then the vast amount of evidence for speciative evolution, for which I presented a tiny chunk?. Note: This is an example of deludedgod's law:
Deludedgod can take any forum topic with a theist and turn it to a discussion about evolution. In other words, if a forum topic is not within an area of deludedgod's understanding, he can force it to go in the direction he wishes (history, sociology, or biology)
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Your law doesnt apply to me. Respond to my post.
To admit is the first step into being forgiven.
We're forced to. Your god is up there (metaphorically), but AIDS, malaria, necessity for power, necessity of better medicine and agricultural crops, etc. they are all here. So we're forced to give way to science, otherwise we'd still have an average lifespan of 30.
OK, so can he create a rock that he himself cannot lift? (sorry, couldn't help it)
It should be obvious to anyone that the "six days" is a metaphor, but placing the plants BEFORE there was the sun to drive their photosynthesis is a bit over the edge for a metaphor, don't you think ?
Now how about you respond to my post, which mindspread has bumped back.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
It should be obvious to anyone that the "six days" is a metaphor, but placing the plants BEFORE there was the sun to drive their photosynthesis is a bit over the edge for a metaphor, don't you think ?
This is what I mean by limiting Gods power. TO say that he could not have done this. But I think you should read the text again because the Bible clearly states that he creatd the heavens ad the earth and then made light and seperated it from darkness and called the light day and the darkness night. Now it does talk about stars in v.11 but it clearly states that light was before plants.
Also I have responded to the virus point and I understand it. But like I said I would need to see a creature like a cat.
Life from non-life is pretty significant, regardless if it's a cat, a virus, or an insurance salesmen.
Also you're going the wrong way about it Mr R. It's not what should make you not believe, it's what should make you believe in the first place. You believe in the positive existence of a God without evidence as your start point and will believe until it is a disproven. We on the otherhand believe things once they're proven. Allow me to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your position...
I believe without evidence that there is a monkey living in my desk-drawer. This monkey has the ability to disappear if I am to open my draw to try and find him, thus there is no proof of his existence besides a tattered book I found, which in popular opinion only is deemed pretty damned accurate and droppings on the floor that I deem must have come from somewhere so I say the monkey must've made them. At the same time the existence of the drawer-dwelling monkey cannot be disproven since he has the ability to disappear entirely. However, there is evidence to suggest that the book was in all probability written by a guy called Dave, or one of his friends. Not only this but there is startling new evidence to suggest that the droppings were not made by the magical monkey but in fact were made by mice beyond any reasonable doubt. Do I
a) Accept the evidence until that evidence may or may not be proven wrong
or
b) Carry on believing in the magical monkey for which I can find no reasonable evidence?
Atheist Books
And so the question still pops in mind: Why did God choose to create things in a way that just drives us to think wrong about him?
And that light was emanated by who/what exactly ? Etc.
Again I ask: Why did God choose to create things in a way that just drives us to think wrong about him?
Surely He, in his infinite knowledge, would know that such mysteries would drive us nuts. Did he just do that so that Satan would also have something to work with?
Well, for now you're going to take the virus and you're going to like it. It ain't our fault that we simply don't have the necessary knowledge, computing power and resources to generate a cat from scratch. This is all we can do.
You know, right now you can make a frog levitate. That's about as much as you can cancel gravity for. The process eats up enough energy per hour to feed New York for a week, but hey, it's nobody's fault that we simply don't have more powerful power sources available.
If you want a cat created ex nihilo, start praying for it. And after a few years, when you realize it's pointless, you can just give it up.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
If I was God or knew the thoughts of God I could tell you, but I am not and can not.
When, oh mighty Thor, will people FINALLY end considering themselves as flock(s) of sheep, when will they give up lame excuses, and when will they finally be men? Or women, depending on the case.
(/disgust)
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
I'm still waiting on your response to my post with two links...
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Colby, humans are not as dumb as you think. God is not all powerful, the definition of all powerful clearly infringes on a impossiblity.
Say I want to destroy myself, if god does it hes gone. However he destroied his all powerful bodie proving he was not powerful enough to withstand what he destroyed himself with, be it his own power or not.
Same question goes with the rock. If he can create a rock to big he cannot lift it, then hes not all powerful because he can not lift it. However if he can't create a rock big enough he can lift it, then hes not all powerful since he can not create a rock to big.
We do not limit gods power. Actually we question why did god was 6 days to begin with? Could he not of made it in an instant? He already knows the future, he could of known the design all ready, why did he have to judge what he was making? Then he has to rest? A all powerful being having to rest. Wait, why does it take him so long to make the earth, then the other 3 billion stars in our own galaxy and billions of planets... Wait no the other 185 billion galaxies each with billions of stars and planets. Why did our planet take so long? Other planets are way more complex. Although it goes back to all the universe should of been in an instant, why did he pay so much attention to the earth? Why did he have to? Why not in an instant?
Of course you won't try to understand, you'll just say we can never know. Well we can, why we believe in such a thing is beyond me however. The only answer I do not have it why people still believe, even when it makes no sense, evidence points to the opposite, is proven wrong. Is it fear? Lack of human understanding, or wanting to understand? Is it a book? Is it tradition? Is it brainwashing?
Well, the only answer I can give to that is a combination, depending on the person. People do not want to understand how something does not need a creator. People are scared to die and not have an afterlife. Is the afterlife all that good anyway? You live for eternity? It would get boring eventually. 1 million years? Not bored yet? How about 100 million? No? 1 billion? No? Trillion? No? Quitillion? No? Google years? No? Googlplex? Yes? Answering yes to the idea you might eventually get bored of perfect happiness which would get repetive and boring then your screwed. Take the number you said yes to then do this simply equation.
X = Years said yes to
Y = Years you'll spend
X * Infinity = Y
So yeah, I would rather face reality and fade away, no I can not imagine not existing, no one can, thats why heaven is comforting. We want to live on. However thinking about it rationally you understand, everything that has a begining, has a end. Sure you will not even know your dead, you'll die your brain will go blank, it's scary I know, but true.
Also, the fact that if anything has a begining has an end is a universal constant. If god created the matter/mass/energy, it would have an end. However since a law says matter can not be created nor destroied, that either means it has no begining and god does not exist, or gods just an idiot going against his own laws he put into place.
If you also die, and go to hell it is impossible to stay their forever. Since forever has no end, you will never reach the end. The only thing to expierence forever would be something with no begining. It's kind of hard to understand I know. Same goes for heaven as well.
When we talk about our existence we want to know why we are here, where we came from. Thats fine, i'd like to know to. However when we started asking these questions no one had an answer, or a means to get an answer. So what did they say? Maybe someone put us hear. Why is the sun their? Something must be controlling it! Sun god sol is born! How did existence start? Something must of made it! God was born.
We already know the bible was writen by man. First it was writen by god Christians said. Now they accept it was man, but god must of told them what to write. However can they prove this? Does it make sense? Well, no it doesn't. Their are hundreds of conflicting errors in the bible, as well as most holy text. All conflict with eachother, all claim eachother to be false. Why can you trust one over the other? Why do you dismis all those other gods, but do not dismis the god your worshiping now? Some of those gods were written before the bible, should the first creation story be more valid then the rest?
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen F. Roberts
I know no one can have abslute knowledge. However NEVER question someones answers you do not like and accuse them of not knowing for this answer. No one can know everything, but some people know different answer. Right or not, if you can back it up your more right then the other person.
It's your choice to take what I said and consider it or not. Thats all I have to say.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
I would say that the God concept leaves more questions than answers.
Firstly, Colby, you have failed to answer my long post on question three. You have failed to justify your religion. I shall start with a quote of my own:
I hope the God-fearing Christian realizes in full that had he been born in Saudi Arabia, he would bow to Allah unquestioningly, we can claim as much as we wish about theology and veracity, but religion is very much an accident of place of birth
How likely is it that the devout theist has genuinely examined all the various claims of salvation from the thousands of religions that have proliferated from the minds of men and concluded theirs was correct? Statistically, it is all but certain that they will adhere to the faith of their parents. Genuine choice in the matter is a lie
There is no claim of mythology that is more valid than another; there is no God that is any more grounded in reality than another. There is no Holy Book that has no less ridiculously fantastical claims than any other; religion is very much a hypercapitalist soul competition
I am essentially pointing out that we can debate God all we wish, but you cannot possibly provide evidence for your religion. The two are very different. Again, I suggest you look at my long post on page 3.
Now I will explain why I do not beleive in God:
As a scientist, I have one particularly important rule: Anything which I accept as true, even before I have examined the evidence, must make logical sense.
There are so many Gods to choose from. Some are triple omni. Some are benevolent, others definitely are not. Some are outside space and time, others are not.
The first problem I have with the God concept is that as a scientist I would wish to examine and test for any mechanism for which I base something on. Yet If God exists outside space and time, there is no possible test to confirm the existence of such a being. I must dismiss it on grounds that it is both unfalsifiable and untestable.
Furthermore, like I said before, I require absolute, clear cut, logical definitions. Outside space and time is highly illogical because it does not "mean" anything.
Nothing can exist outside space and time. Theists say that God does, but where is the evidence for this? It seems to me that in a matter of such importance, we would need more evidence, not less. "Exist" and "supernatural" are logical contradictions. My scientific mind is forced to dismiss them.
Furthermore, I would question how God is omniscient. How can God see and hear everything? Surely "see" is defined as how an organism's photoreceptive cells interpret light and how the brain projects this image. But if God is outside space and time, he would have no such mechanism, he would have no physical existence, he would be blind. The same with "hearing". This is merely a vestibulocochlear interpretation of particle vibration. Sound is totally grounded in physical matter. The same with speech, or indeed anything else. God is blind, deaf, dumb etc etc.
I must dismiss the religious definition of God on grounds that it does not make sense. A theist may say that I am attempting to understand God in human terms, but who is more guilty of that? Surely the theist who believes in the triple omni-God. I am merely pointing out that your definitions for God are nonsense and illogical.
I can already envision your responses to my statements two paragraphs ago. Before you respond, I would ask for a prerequisite: Can you verify your defense? If not, you are merely theologizing. A term I invented for a defense of God that is simply an explanation that was created by a theist, but has no genuine verifiable grounding in reality. For instance, all theodicies are theologizing.
So God is based on logical contradictions and unverifiable claims? Most scientists would have thrown it out by now. In fact, very few scientists are religious. The ones that are, are, of course, great scientists. I think they compartmentalize to a degree. But I shall leave that for later.
Make no mistake, I accept it is hugely possible that there could be a "force" beyond human understanding entirely, that the universe is queerer than men can suppose. But I still must reject the religious understanding of God. 1) It is nonsense and 2) It is passed off as truth. This is odd because for truth, I usually require veracity.
Furthermore, God fails the Occams Razor test. It leaves a lot more questions than answers. All of them cannot be answered because they are based on concepts which are unfalsifiable ergo untestable. This forces my scientific mind to reject it. Furthermore, as Dawkins pointed out, such a being would have to be "of maximal complexity" which means the probability of the existence of such an entity is close to zero. Alvin Plantinga countered that this is not true that God is "of simple, timeless substance". But I would reject this on grounds that it fully and logically contradicts with any religious definition of God (which is the issue at hand) It's actually a pantheist definition and because it still does not make sense.
And all the logic problems I described are only for God. Do not get me started on the afterlife, trinity, God's son, or any of that nonsense. The notions of “eternity” are ridiculous considering that time is a function of matter and space (very few theoretical physicists are theists, what a surprise). An entity “existing” by the definition of “exist” outside such set mathematical topologies for “existence” is meaningless.
Like I told you, I need dead clear-cut definitions that are not logical contradictions. See the problem? The various attributes of God contradict themselves. If we consider God to be extramaterial (outside space and time), then we cannot ascribe to this being the triple-omni, it cannot have emotion, wants or needs (all caused by neurons and chemicals). It cannot be judging. It cannot "do" anything. Because "do" in this context whereby we attach labels that indicate such are reflections of interactions that exist in the physical world. On the other hand, if God is a physical entity, then it would be verifiable. On the other hand, it would still contradict the idea that God is the "creator" because the laws of physics explicitly state such would be impossible. Matter cannot make matter. Actually, nothing can make matter, according to thermodynamics.Regardless of which definition you pick, God is highly illogical. Which logical fallacy do you want to pick: ex nihilo or argumentum ad ignorantium
My conclusion? (All scientists need conclusions): If there is a God, it would be completely and utterly beyond understanding. Religion is worthless and futile. There is a colossal chasm between the possibility of an entity called "God", and the religious fairy tales of the afterlife and salvation.
I leave you with three quotes from myself:
The idea that God has any interest in this foolish little creature called man, to say nothing of the nonsense of his obsession with a particular tribe of Israel, is so utterly ridiculous that it ought have us rolling on the floor laughing that people once and still do sincerely commit to this insanity
Religion is a worthless, futile attempt to understand a concept that is inherently beyond understanding, therefore, the basis religion claims as a spiritual medium is utterly null and void, it must cease and desist
Does the good theist genuinely believe that God is a vindicator holding a book with all his sins, counting like a micro economist to determine their eternal fate? I would have hoped the world had progressed beyond such Bronze Age tactics of controlling the ignorant
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Well, you created God so seeing as he's a character you made up from other people's myths you can make him make the decision. Also please respond to my monkey story.
Atheist Books
Last night I was honored to hear the story of a ten year old boy who recently died after battling cancer for two years. It was heartbreaking to hear his mother talk about him and know how painful it must have been for her. As a Father myself I could never imagine what she was going threw. But it wasn't what she said that touched me the most it was the words of her son. They had video taped the last year of his life and what he said in the video really spoke volumes about faith. He didn't know doctrine or science all he knew was that a relationship with Christ gave him comfort in his last days. He knew that he was going to die for two years that he was going to die for sure and he kept his faith and wanted to share it. It kept a smile on his face and a peace in his heart knowing that he would be in heaven.
So while I was listening to this story and to this boy tell us how he felt, I was thinking about this conversation. I was thinking about how irrational faith is to all of you and how ignorant we are for having faith in your eyes. This ten year old boy affirmed why we have faith in my eyes. IT is for hope and having a greater purpose in life than just satisfying ourselves. I thought who's business is it to try to attack someones hope and why do they care. I looked also at why I care that anyone questions my Faith and my hope or why I feel the need to question them in what they believe. So if you ask me now what would it take for me not to believe I would have to say there is nothing that could take my faith from me. A ten year old boy and his courage in the face of death were proof to me of a loving and comforting God. It may be irrational to you but not to me it is very real and I choose Christ by faith.
That's what's known as the Placebo effect. Plenty of people were comforted by thoughts of Allah or Vishnu. Someone could be comforted by the thought of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Emotions do not prove or even give the slightest evidence for a god.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Colby R, I do admit that your story is hearbreaking, and of course I do admire those who are uplifted by faith in their hour of suffering. Would I have such an argument with a Nigerian Christian? Probably not.
However, I must warn you that you are attempting to jack the thread. Let's return to the arguments, shall we?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Why is it always that such emotionally touching stories have the greatest effect on the minds of the masses? Why can't people see these stories for what they really are?
Colby, as a father yourself, I cannot but presume that you are fully developed from a mental perspective. Why is it that to you this has the smashing effect? I cannot believe that you don't see the pointlessness of this story.
The kid was all faith, had a personal relationship with Christ, he was comforted, etc. etc. etc... now excuse me for being the one that really puts the sledgehammer to work in this picture, but HE DIED. All that prayer, all that spiritual comfort, all that faith was equal to what exactly? NOTHING. He still died. Just like we will all die once... All that prayer, all that "courage", all that... for absolutely nothing. He is still dead, and no prayer in this world will ever change that.
Courage... in the face of death? Because that kid had faith in something he doesn't understand (nor is he able to define), an imaginary friend that brought him comfort when he was in pain ? Something because of which he made sure that he was the center of all attention? Courage in the face of yet another thing that he could not define, nor imagine (afterwards) ?
I mean no disrespect. But perhaps if you'd known more biology (especially the part where it shows what the human brain is and how it works), psychology, etc., perhaps you would be able to see the picture for what it really is: Nothing more than free publicity for an idea, to which the masses look in awe and nod like the sheep they've been taught to be. It's heartbreaking, I know, but I will twist the knife in the wound once more: If your god is so loving and comforting, why did he give the kid cancer in the first place? (As a side note: does anyone remember the Terri Schiavo case?)
Should I go telling you the story of little Ismail again, like I did to many theists, and they failed in the most miserable way to address it? I guess I.V. Stalin was right after all, as much as I hate having to agree with him, when he said: "The death of one is a tragedy, but the death of millions... is a statistic". It's precisely images like this one that you've presented which give these words the credit they unfortunately deserve.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
This is not truth driven thinking, this is emotion driven thinking. Not always the best path to follow.
Don't feed the thread-jacker please people!
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
If you want to respond to something respond to the second part of my post. I would ask that you not bash or insult the story it is very true and very sad.
I am not an emotional person and have never been motivated to act because of my emotions.
Oh ya, this is my thread I started it and will hijack at will.
Is it even possible to hijack your own thread? LOL
I don't think it is.... Hmmm, but I may be biased, as I went to art college and know next to nothing about evolution and abiogenesis, but can respond to a sad story about some dying kid.
Sure, the story is sad..... but don't post it here as some sort of proof then tell us not to refute it. *smile*
If I wanted to make the kid feel better by lying to him, then I'd just tell him he was fine and not going to die. Does that make it right? Because he felt better? I have compunctions about telling terminally ill kids that everything will be fine and fluffy bunnies and sugardrop sidewalks will be waiting up in heaven. As much as I'd feel horrendous teling him he was perfectly healthy.
Yes it is a sad story...but I don't ever recall anyone demonstrating the truth of gravity or evolution by appealing to emotions. Some things are true regardless of what mood you're in. Furthemore, I don't think we'd have to look to far to a hindu or muslim with an emotional story to back up their faith.
Which is to say: With all respect and sympathy for the people in that most touching story, you have done nothing to advance the truthfulness of your beliefs. Non-christians face down similar tragedies every day; and whether or not it fills you with hope, 2 + 2 will always equal 4.
There are no theists on operating tables.
I would also point that when you started your thread, Colby, you asked what evidence would it take for us to believe. You said nonsense like "why is it that the evidence is good enough for some but not enough for others".
Now you are doing a complete about-face and insisting that your faith is not based on logic or rationality, but rather emotion.
Which means that you are contradicting yourself.
Furthermore, Colby, you said things like "we are ignoring God". But, as you have just seen, we have all come to the rational conclusion that there is no God. At first you argued against this. BUT NOW, you are turning 180 degrees and taking Kierkegaard's leap, which you freely admitted above.
So, make up your mind.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I never said I was posting the story as proof to you, I said it was proof to me. So please read the posts in context if you are going to respond.
If we all die then why do we attempt with medicle science to prolong it. Is that a rational thing to do. Is it a scientific fact that people die that everything dies, it is a law of nature. Why do we see it as rational to attempt to live as long as possible with un-natural methods. Is it for hope and comfort is that rational.