How many people here believe in God, Heaven and angels, Hell and Satan and his demons

[Rerun]

Lets have a poll.

o Yes I believe

o No I don't believe

o I'm not sure

[Traditional_Ale]

Why, did Satan low-ball you on the CRV as well?

[SportsJunky]

Why Rerun, why?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Can we please close this thread before it turns into a giant pissing match.

[Traditional_Ale]

^ No.

:pop:

[Knalus]

a little simplistic, no? How many assumptions would be made based on a yes or a no?

[Pagal4321]

I'm with Trad, this is going to be great.

:pop:

[Rerun]

I started this thread because there apparently are a lot of lapsed Catholics here (myself included) as illustrated by the Communion Wafer thread.

I'm just curious to see if people don't attend church because they don't believe or other reasons. Apparently church attendence in most of the major religions in North America is quite low.

[Traditional_Ale]

^ Religion is the greatest cancer of humanity.

So there...lynch me if you want I guess. God wants you to.

[Rerun]

Why, did Satan low-ball you on the CRV as well?
Give me a break... this is getting old. :rolleyes:

I'm trying to have a decent discussion about people's beliefs in this day and age.... particularly the belief about God, Heaven, and Hell.

[troutman]

I started this thread because there apparently are a lot of lapsed Catholics here (myself included) as illustrated by the Communion Wafer thread.

I'm just curious to see if people don't attend church because they don't believe or other reasons. Apparently church attendence in most of the major religions in North America is quite low.

I think Thor posted an interesting study from Stats Can, showing many religious people don't attend church, but worship privately.

[Traditional_Ale]

Give me a break... this is getting old. :rolleyes:

I'm trying to have a decent discussion about people's beliefs in this day and age.... particularly the belief about God, Heaven, and Hell.

Okay, okay, I'll play serious here for a second.

I think Religion is the most obsolete and terrible form of social programming/control. I hope that one day humanity is free of its petty BS and the endless death, carnage, hate, and bigotry it has plagued us with for thousands of years.

God is only words.

[Russic]

As long as people continue to use Internet Explorer 6, Arrested Develop remains cancelled and Vanilla Coke is not stocked on Canadian shelves there is obviously no god.

[Traditional_Ale]

^Vanilla coke? Really? Eeewww...

[Rerun]

I think Thor posted an interesting study from Stats Can, showing many religious people don't attend church, but worship privately.
Thats totally opposite to my personal experience.... as in, yes they don't attend church, but no, they don't worship privately either.

I think Stats Can might be a little off the mark on this one.

[mykalberta]

If you are going to have a poll it should be more specific.

Not everyone who believes in God believes in the Pope or the institution of Church (communion etc). Also different races have different beliefs but essentially believe in the same thing - examples Muslims believe in God.

[Rerun]

Okay, okay, I'll play serious here for a second.

I think Religion is the most obsolete and terrible form of social programming/control. I hope that one day humanity is free of its petty BS and the endless death, carnage, hate, and bigotry it has plagued us with for thousands of years.

God is only words.
In most ways, I agree with you. However religion, in many instances has been a force for good, but I tend to think that the bad out weighs the good.

People tend to take the spoken/written word too litterally sometimes, instead of looking for the deeper meaning and intent.

My personal belief, even though I have been baptized a Catholic, is that when you die, you die. There is no after life. You're just a corpse rotting in the ground .... unless you've been turned into a vampire of course. ;)


So the answer to my own question is NO.

[mykalberta]

Thats totally opposite to my personal experience.... as in, yes they don't attend church, but no, they don't worship privately either.

I think Stats Can might be a little off the mark on this one.

Most likely people lie. They likely own a bible but have never opened it.

[peter12]

Anyone one sentence answers concerning religion are absolutely meaningless.

That said... It's humanity's oldest and greatest social institution and cognitive map, anything we try to replace it with only morphs into something similar.

[Rerun]

If you are going to have a poll it should be more specific.

Not everyone who believes in God believes in the Pope or the institution of Church (communion etc). Also different races have different beliefs but essentially believe in the same thing - examples Muslims believe in God.
My question had nothing to do with the Pope or the institution of church...

It is: How many people here believe in God, Heaven and angels, Hell and Satan and his demons

[jeremywilhelm]

God = Sutter
Heaven = Calgary
Angels = Iggy and Pals

Hell = Edmonton
Satan = Kevin Lowe
Demons = Hemsky and the ######s

?

[mykalberta]

Then the answer is NO, I dont believe in God, Heaven and angels, Hell and Satan and his demons

I believe in God - but dont believe in Angles or Demons - they dont exist.

I assumed you wanted a truthful answer to the question you were really wanting to ask, my mistake.

[peter12]

I'll answer, I suppose. I don't "believe" in any of the above as they are literally represented by religion. Metaphysically, I suppose anything can exist, but I am more inclined to read the Bible as myth, literature, or historical propaganda.

I'm either an atheist or a conditional theist/deist, depending on which grounds the argument takes place.

I can also personally attribute to the claim that religion has the capacity to be the greatest force for social morality.

[Rerun]

Then the answer is NO, I dont believe in God, Heaven and angels, Hell and Satan and his demons

I believe in God - but dont believe in Angles or Demons - they dont exist.

I assumed you wanted a truthful answer to the question you were really wanting to ask, my mistake.
Can I assume, since you didn't say so, that you do believe in Heaven and Hell? ... and I'm not talking about Calgary and Edmonton... :D

[MelBridgeman]

Okay, okay, I'll play serious here for a second.

I think Religion is the most obsolete and terrible form of social programming/control. I hope that one day humanity is free of its petty BS and the endless death, carnage, hate, and bigotry it has plagued us with for thousands of years.

God is only words.

Once religion is completely obsolete, HUMANS will find another form of social programming/control,endless death, carnage, hate, and bigotry that will plague us for thousands of years to come.

[alltherage]

I'm totally unsure. I guess because I've been raised Catholic by generations of my family, I feel a strong bond with certain doctrines of the Church. Mind you, there are some teachings that to me are flawed because they don't allow for individuality, modern science, etc etc to be factored in.

[peter12]

Besides can anyone really answer what religion is anyway?

[Ford Prefect]

Okay, okay, I'll play serious here for a second.

I think Religion is the most obsolete and terrible form of social programming/control. I hope that one day humanity is free of its petty BS and the endless death, carnage, hate, and bigotry it has plagued us with for thousands of years.

God is only words.

I think the question here is about a lot more than just religion. In fact, I don't think religion has anything to do with it. Religion is merely a a narrow, artificial, manmade construction that really has very little to do with spirituality for a lot of people. In practice, religion is fundamentally a tool for advancing man's political and material agendas as far as I can tell.

I think what Rerun wants to know is whether people hold some sort of spiritual belief system, likely of a conventional monotheist form.

Personally, my level of belief depends on how much I've been drinking. I drink religiously you see.

[Ford Prefect]

God = Sutter
Heaven = Calgary
Angels = Iggy and Pals

Hell = Edmonton
Satan = Kevin Lowe
Demons = Hemsky and the ######s

?

I know you're being facetious, but that's pretty much the same as the foundation for most religions ... Us vs The Anti-Us. God, demons and angels are mostly just a construction to elevate us and them to Us and Them.

[octothorp]

Then the answer is NO, I dont believe in God, Heaven and angels, Hell and Satan and his demons

I believe in God - but dont believe in Angles or Demons - they dont exist.

I assumed you wanted a truthful answer to the question you were really wanting to ask, my mistake.

That's interesting. I'm an agnostic atheist (don't believe in God, but know that I can't prove he doesn't exist), but I'm always surprised how many people have bought into the whole angels/demons/satan/heaven/hell structure, which seems to me to owe more to the writings of Dante and Milton than any actual prophet. I have respect for people who make that distinction and separate the original biblical writings from all the mythology that has been added on after. Although I'm sort of putting words in your mouth here; what makes you believe in God but not the other elements?

[Phaneuf3]

Personally, I believe that Heaven and Hell put on an awesome show last time they were in town. Then again, I'm a huge Geezer Butler fan so...

http://www.black-sabbath.com/gallery_2/d/9662-1/Heaven+and+Hell+007.jpg


I also believe that Angels and Demons was a terrible movie.

[edn88]

Hard to believe in mythological creatures, and by default big "G" god seems to be flawed as well.

Spiritually, I think that there has to be an explanation for consiousness - its all fine and good to have biological and chemical reactions, but that does not explain 'existance'.

I totally understand why organized religion evolved, why it as a social tool was effective, and why a lack of some sort of religion for the 'masses' would be anarchy. That being said, extremism in religious doctrine has led to more death, misery etc.

In some ways, it is not surprising to see a religion like scientology arise to help ease the social consience of the fabulously rich and famous.

But then again, I could just feel this way because the Devil has twisted my soul and is keeping me from seeing the glory of big "G"

[Itse]

I believe that God exists in the same sence than say, capitalism or feminism.

So that would be yes and no.

[photon]

Ok added a shot at a poll, check all that apply.

[Puxlut]

I don't believe there is an all-mighty being that decides the future of everything.

I think that the universe is too random/chaotic to have one entity sitting at a huge control panel flipping some of the switches that he/she does. Why would a god let there be crimes, natural disasters and hate in general. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[fotze]

Can we add Goblins to the poll?

[alltherage]

I don't believe there is an all-mighty being that decides the future of everything.

I think that the universe is too random/chaotic to have one entity sitting at a huge control panel flipping some of the switches that he/she does. Why would a god let there be crimes, natural disasters and hate in general. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Think about it like this:

One person makes a really cool waterfall in sand toward the ocean, Turns, bumps, moats, lakes, etc etc etc. When he allows the water to flow, it follows his exact path to the water. Every time he pours it, it goes the same way.

Another person just pours the water and lets it make it's own unique path to the water. After each time, he "resets" the sand, and pours again, waiting to see which way it goes.

God doesn't want a bunch of worshipping drones. He wants us to find our own way to the water. Some take longer, some may never get there. Some go straight, others make big turns and pool in certain areas. It's freedom of choice, and its what makes us unique and in God's image.

[Rerun]

Ok added a shot at a poll, check all that apply.
Holy Mother of ....


What a complicated poll!

[photon]

If you're going to do so something, you might as well make it so hard to do that no one will want to do it is what I always say.

[Lchoy]

^It's working

[Rerun]

If you're going to do so something, you might as well make it so hard to do that no one will want to do it is what I always say.
Kind of like taxes

[octothorp]

I like that some people are selecting the separator lines (----) as options. Yeah, that pretty much sums up theological beliefs.

[DuffMan]

When you die, you will not even know it, as you will have no consciesness. There will be no you, to even be dead.

[Knalus]

The issue is there is so little actual education on the subject (in the interests of "not pushing beliefs on anyone"), that there is incredibly little intelligent discussion on the subject. Nowadays people grow up not knowing the actual basis of what religion is intended for, that the discussion often devolves - especially on the internets. I'm just pointing out something here, not trying to pick a fight. There are a lot of intelligent people who are athiests/agnostics, who have alot of good reason to be so, but the way I see it, there are a disturbing number of individuals who honestly think that religion is bad because it is about intolerance and starting wars, and us vs them, without having thought it out. That's not to say that someone who has thought it out can't believe that - there are intelligent people who believe that argument too, and they have every right to it. I just think that the level of education out there is so bad when it comes to religion, plenty of otherwise insightful people just haven't been exposed enough to have a similarily insightful discussion on this topic, either.

[carom]

I think religion is kinda like unions. They were a good idea and necessary at one point in time, but that time has passed. I believe that a lack of evolution on religion and unions part has led them to cause more problems then they are worth.

After doing a tiny bit of research i think i qualify myself under the pragmatic agnosticism label. From: http://www.religioustolerance.org/apatheism.htm

"This is the view that millennia of debate has neither proven nor disproven the existence of a God or Gods. However, even if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Thus, their existence has little impact on humanity and should be of little interest."

I guess if I was really pressed for an answer I would have to say that “But it’s turtles all the way down!”

[Rerun]

The issue is there is so little actual education on the subject (in the interests of "not pushing beliefs on anyone"), that there is incredibly little intelligent discussion on the subject. Nowadays people grow up not knowing the actual basis of what religion is intended for, that the discussion often devolves - especially on the internets. I'm just pointing out something here, not trying to pick a fight. There are a lot of intelligent people who are athiests/agnostics, who have alot of good reason to be so, but the way I see it, there are a disturbing number of individuals who honestly think that religion is bad because it is about intolerance and starting wars, and us vs them, without having thought it out. That's not to say that someone who has thought it out can't believe that - there are intelligent people who believe that argument too, and they have every right to it. I just think that the level of education out there is so bad when it comes to religion, plenty of otherwise insightful people just haven't been exposed enough to have a similarily insightful discussion on this topic, either.

Hey... I disagree with that.

I've seen The Exorcist, The Omen, Angels and Demons, The Da Vinci Code, and many other good movies about God, Heaven, Hell, angels, and Satan.

I know what I'm talkin about. Can't fool me. I've seen it with my own eyes at the picture show.

[Cowperson]

Think about it like this:

One person makes a really cool waterfall in sand toward the ocean, Turns, bumps, moats, lakes, etc etc etc. When he allows the water to flow, it follows his exact path to the water. Every time he pours it, it goes the same way.

Another person just pours the water and lets it make it's own unique path to the water. After each time, he "resets" the sand, and pours again, waiting to see which way it goes.

God doesn't want a bunch of worshipping drones. He wants us to find our own way to the water. Some take longer, some may never get there. Some go straight, others make big turns and pool in certain areas. It's freedom of choice, and its what makes us unique and in God's image.

All the world's religions revolve around one specific premise - faith in the unproveable.

And all the assumptions you just made above are just that, assumptions and, I might add, fairly unproveable beyond your faith in their truth.

Cowperson

[alltherage]

The issue is there is so little actual education on the subject (in the interests of "not pushing beliefs on anyone"), that there is incredibly little intelligent discussion on the subject. Nowadays people grow up not knowing the actual basis of what religion is intended for, that the discussion often devolves - especially on the internets. I'm just pointing out something here, not trying to pick a fight. There are a lot of intelligent people who are athiests/agnostics, who have alot of good reason to be so, but the way I see it, there are a disturbing number of individuals who honestly think that religion is bad because it is about intolerance and starting wars, and us vs them, without having thought it out. That's not to say that someone who has thought it out can't believe that - there are intelligent people who believe that argument too, and they have every right to it. I just think that the level of education out there is so bad when it comes to religion, plenty of otherwise insightful people just haven't been exposed enough to have a similarily insightful discussion on this topic, either.

I agree with lots of what you've said here. I would also like to ask an "Atheist" here, in totally good faith:

Why do some Atheists feel the need to spread their lack of beliefs?

I never understood it, so I'm looking for a real answer here. Like, for example, the bus advertisment:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/busatheist.jpg

What's the agenda? I think it might be "ending religion because it breeds hate" but then, through that, Atheists almost breed hate towards organized religion, so it becomes redundant! :blink: Confusing.

[alltherage]

All the world's religions revolve around one specific premise - faith in the unproveable.

And all the assumptions you just made above are just that, assumptions and, I made add, fairly unproveable beyond your faith in their truth.

Cowperson

Absolutely. I was simply illustrating a point to answer a question.

[Boblobla]

Personally, I believe that Heaven and Hell put on an awesome show last time they were in town. Then again, I'm a huge Geezer Butler fan so...

I also believe that Angels and Demons was a terrible movie.

The world is full of kings and queens, who blind your eyes and steal your dreams. It's HEAVEN and HELL

[CaptainCrunch]

I believe in my own definition of God and that he resides inside me somewhere in the subcockles area of my body, I also believes that he has no real need for organized religion.

I believe in Satan, not as a supernatural leather bound horned freak with wings, but as an expression of our own ego, wants and desires that survives as an expression of evil in our society as long as even one person believes in his. I believe in demons, because demons are those that fall to the temptations of the above defined Satan, and they carry on its work as the weakminded, the fools the criminals and those who put addictions above the good of their families, friends and their places in society.

I believe in Angels but they're not supernatural beings, they're the people that are truly heroic and put others interests above their own.

God, the Devil, Angels and Demons reside in each and every one of you, and they fight a war everyday not for the victory of good and evil or the possession of your soul, but possession of your whole self body and mind.

Thats why I'm ok when that drunken girl called me god several times after Stampede the other night, it was just her inner devil crying out in fear to my inner god.

[carom]

I also wanted to add this because I think it fits the topic. I just got through the chapter "The Grand Inquisitor" in the novel "The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. It questions the possibility of a personal, benevolent God. I would recommend reading it if you are interested in this sort of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor

[Knalus]

I agree with lots of what you've said here. I would also like to ask an "Atheist" here, in totally good faith:

Why do some Atheists feel the need to spread their lack of beliefs?

I never understood it, so I'm looking for a real answer here. Like, for example, the bus advertisment:

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/busatheist.jpg

What's the agenda? I think it might be "ending religion because it breeds hate" but then, through that, Atheists almost breed hate towards organized religion, so it becomes redundant! :blink: Confusing.

I didn't just thank you because you thanked me. I like the question you posed afterwards. Have you also noticed that atheists tend to be organizing more and more - to debunk "organized" religion? At least that's the way it appears, what with magazines such as skeptic and the internet presence that appears everywhere.

[peter12]

I also wanted to add this because I think it fits the topic. I just got through the chapter "The Grand Inquisitor" in the novel "The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. It questions the possibility of a personal, benevolent God. I would recommend reading it if you are interested in this sort of thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor

I always took it more as a critique of legalism and organized religion.

[Dion]

http://i29.tinypic.com/vh5nr4.jpg

[photon]

I wouldn't classify myself as an atheist, but I can see several reasons for that kind of advertising.

1) People are social animals and sharing your thoughts, needs, desires, beliefs, hopes, likes, dislikes, etc is a basic human need. Just becomes someone is an atheist doesn't mean they are immune to a basic human need.

2) Atheists are actively marginalized and discriminated against by some groups and individuals, so just like having a gay pride parade is in some ways a response to oppression, signs like this area also a response. It's a way of saying "my view doesn't deserve to be discriminated against, and has every right to be heard".

3) For those who might be undecided, or feel trapped in their religion, signs like this can give the message that being an atheist is ok, that it's not evil. In today's culture it's easier for some to come out of the closet about their sexuality than it is to come out of the closet about their disbelief.

4) For some atheists they conclude that religion results in a net harm against society, so signs like this are an attempt to encourage a benefit to society by having people convert away from religion.

Plus, advertising works.

[moncton golden flames]

god spelled backwards is dog....think about it.

[alltherage]

I didn't just thank you because you thanked me. I like the question you posed afterwards. Have you also noticed that atheists tend to be organizing more and more - to debunk "organized" religion? At least that's the way it appears, what with magazines such as skeptic and the internet presence that appears everywhere.

In liu of an answer which I'm sure is coming, I have to agree here. I think part of it is that shock humour etc is so trendy right now. The Buddy Jesus thing, basically any way of mocking religious figures like the Pope, Buddah, whoever.

I honestly think it could also be a little bit of an intellectual superiority complex. People think that because they can't see God that He's like the easter bunny or something, and that they are totally enlightened because they "know" He doesn't exist.

It's that simplistic thinking that usually wins on a message board though, right? No one wants to read 19 paragraphs about why God exists, but they will read that people are stupid for believing something they've never seen.

[Rerun]

god spelled backwards is dog....think about it.
Awesome...

[Cowperson]

Even though the basic premise of all religions, organized or not, is faith in the unproveable there is probably some basic desire/hope residing in most of us that it all doesn't end in a shallow grave.

Or, we might call that one "fear."

I get the feeling my dogs don't contemplate their own demise, therefore they do not fear it and, consequently, dogs haven't come up with elaborate belief systems to give themselves the comfort of an after-life, good or bad.

The curse of sentience is that we can understand the finality of death and therefore fear it. We can't accept that finality so we invent comfort food.

Cowperson

[Rerun]

In liu of an answer which I'm sure is coming, I have to agree here. I think part of it is that shock humour etc is so trendy right now. The Buddy Jesus thing, basically any way of mocking religious figures like the Pope, Buddah, whoever.

I honestly think it could also be a little bit of an intellectual superiority complex. People think that because they can't see God that He's like the easter bunny or something, and that they are totally enlightened because they "know" He doesn't exist.

It's that simplistic thinking that usually wins on a message board though, right? Noone wants to read 19 paragraphs about why God exists, but they will read that people are stupid for believing something they've never seen.

Excuse me... but didn't we have a discussion about this before? ;)

[alltherage]

I wouldn't classify myself as an atheist, but I can see several reasons for that kind of advertising.

1) People are social animals and sharing your thoughts, needs, desires, beliefs, hopes, likes, dislikes, etc is a basic human need. Just becomes someone is an atheist doesn't mean they are immune to a basic human need.

2) Atheists are actively marginalized and discriminated against by some groups and individuals, so just like having a gay pride parade is in some ways a response to oppression, signs like this area also a response. It's a way of saying "my view doesn't deserve to be discriminated against, and has every right to be heard".

3) For those who might be undecided, or feel trapped in their religion, signs like this can give the message that being an atheist is ok, that it's not evil. In today's culture it's easier for some to come out of the closet about their sexuality than it is to come out of the closet about their disbelief.

4) For some atheists they conclude that religion results in a net harm against society, so signs like this are an attempt to encourage a benefit to society by having people convert away from religion.

Plus, advertising works.

Very enlightening. I honestly have to thank you... although I am out of thankses again (:mad:) this was a great explanation.

You... you're good you.

[CaptainCrunch]

Even though the basic premise of all religions, organized or not, is faith in the unproveable there is probably some basic desire/hope residing in most of us that it all doesn't end in a shallow grave.

Or, we might call that one "fear."

I get the feeling my dogs don't contemplate their own demise, therefore they do not fear it and, consequently, dogs haven't come up with elaborate belief systems to give themselves the comfort of an after-life, good or bad.

The curse of sentience is that we can understand the finality of death and therefore fear it. We can't accept it that finality so we invent comfort food.

Cowperson

If animals ever revolve to that point they're going to lose the best part of themselves.

Your right, one of the great guidlines is the definition of a simple moral guidline whether its driven by a belief in reward after death, or by selflessness encouraged by a belief in god.

But one of the biggest cripplers out there is that we can't seem to combine our abilities to make a leap of faith when it comes to beliefs with the reduction in fear over the end of our lives and our ability to control those leaps of faith.

In other words, sh%t man we think to much.

[Bagor]

People think that because they can't see God that He's like the easter bunny or something

I guess the question then is how is he any different?

The evidence for both of their existence is the same.

[photon]

Very enlightening. I honestly have to thank you... although I am out of thankses again (:mad:) this was a great explanation.

You... you're good you.

Well I did leave out number 5..

5) Some people have a need to feel superior to others and/or be right where others are wrong, so they're motivated to put up a sign to demonstrate that.

No belief system (or lack of belief system) is immune to jerks. :D

[Kipper is King]

OK, I will wade into the murky waters of another CP religion thread.

I'm a Catholic who believes in God. :: braces for bashing ::

But let me be clear. I realize the Catholic church has not been perfect- in fact parts of the Church's history have been downright ugly. We all know that.

The thing is, the notion of God, of someone who created the world around us makes sense to me. I think the universe is too awesomely complex to be merely some random particle reaction- I think that the creation of it had to be controlled by someone.

Catholic docterine such as a belief in Jesus generally makes sense to me. I am comfortable in my faith.

That being said, I am not one of those people who will start screaming Bible verses everytime someone mentions evolution, for instance. I think science is essential for understanding of our world. But to me, my faith as I interpret it does not counter that. Science and religion can be compatible.

OK, so that's my religion in a mustard seed! :)

[moncton golden flames]

"religion has actually convinced people, there is an invisible man, living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day and the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he does not want you to do. if you do any of these 10 things, he has a special place full of fire, smoke, burning, torture, anguish, where he will send you to live, suffer, burn, choke, scream and cry for ever and ever....til the end of time....but he loves you. he loves you and he needs money, he always needs money. he's all powerful, all perfect, all knowing and all wise and somehow, he just can't handle money. religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes and they always need a little more. now, you talk about a good bullsh*t story...holy sh*t."

george carlin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

[alltherage]

I guess the question then is how is he any different?

The evidence for both of their existence is the same.

To set the tone for this little blurb, I am not attached to this argument, I am simply making it as best I can to play "devil's advocate"... although in this case... "God's advocate."

God fills people with the holy spirit, which is a euphoric feeling of being one with the Lord. He communicates with people, and heals the sick at times when prayed upon. He enriches people's lives, helps heal people emotionally, gives people strength, and promises Heaven for those who follow him/love their neighbor/repent etc etc etc.

The Easter Bunny leaves a dime under your pillow, and is your parents pretending.

The Pope doesn't come to his buddys and say "I do this so people get a cheap thrill... but just don't tell the church goers!"

[Knalus]

I wouldn't classify myself as an atheist, but I can see several reasons for that kind of advertising.

1) People are social animals and sharing your thoughts, needs, desires, beliefs, hopes, likes, dislikes, etc is a basic human need. Just becomes someone is an atheist doesn't mean they are immune to a basic human need.

2) Atheists are actively marginalized and discriminated against by some groups and individuals, so just like having a gay pride parade is in some ways a response to oppression, signs like this area also a response. It's a way of saying "my view doesn't deserve to be discriminated against, and has every right to be heard".

3) For those who might be undecided, or feel trapped in their religion, signs like this can give the message that being an atheist is ok, that it's not evil. In today's culture it's easier for some to come out of the closet about their sexuality than it is to come out of the closet about their disbelief.

4) For some atheists they conclude that religion results in a net harm against society, so signs like this are an attempt to encourage a benefit to society by having people convert away from religion.

Plus, advertising works.

To me, I think it just shows that the problems alot of people have with religion - especially organized religion - are not because of the religion itself, nor with people's way of following specifically religion, but rather with humanity itself.

Democracy is a bad form of government, except for all the other forms. When democracy gives you a result you dislike, many blame democracy itself. Many people who practice democracy are idiots, and Democracy can result in heinous things, such as Hitler being elected into government.

Does this make Democracy bad? Most would disagree (and some would, and have decent arguments for why they think so. Many others would just sound stupid, well, because they are). But the vast majority - especially those who live in a Democracy - of us still think it's a good idea, just that it needs to have a close eye kept on it to avoid the excesses.

Unfortunately nowadays, especially on the internet, this kind of subtlety is not afforded to Religion. People nowadays often make really stupid arguments as to why religion is bad (and they tend to bolster those who make good arguments that religion is bad, not helping the level of discussion. Much like Politics). Notice how I pointed out that those who dislike democracy tend to be people who aren't living in a democracy? It's the same with religion - those who loudly argue against it, tend to be those who never lived in a real religion.
Most americans nowadays, due to the lack of real education regarding religion, have a very warped view of it. This includes those who are currently actively religous. They tend to think of it as being judgemental, a focus on actions, and a political force - and they view it as being outwardly focused, what can we change about others. What it should be (in my view), is more inwardly focused in regards to judgement, and outwardly focused in regards to charity.



I'm glad this argument isn't devolving too quickly. It gives me hope in the CP community.

[CaptainCrunch]

George Carlin really gets things confused when it comes to belief versus organized religion.

God doesn't need your money, thats organized religion.

There's nothing the matter with the 10 commandments

Yes there has to be a perceived price for breaking 10 pretty common sense rules.

God knows if heaven and hell exist, we're just guessing.

[alltherage]

he loves you and he needs money, he always needs money. he's all powerful, all perfect, all knowing and all wise and somehow, he just can't handle money. religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes and they always need a little more. now, you talk about a good bullsh*t story...holy sh*t."

george carlin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

I understand that this is tongue in cheek, but money thing is just stupid. How would Churches pay for maintainance, staff, priests, charities, taxes, etc etc etc without donations? Catholic Churches don't demand money, they solicit donations. The basket can pass you by every Sunday for your entire life and noone would say a word.

[Knalus]

I don't understand how George Carlin has become some sort of philosopher to some people.

[moncton golden flames]

God doesn't need your money, thats organized religion.

forgive me for ignorance, but doesn't the church ask for money on behalf of gods wishes for the church? i do not go to church, so i really don't know.

[CaptainCrunch]

No the church is asking for money to support itself and its various charitable pursuits. They're not saying that god wants or needs or requires your money and if you don't give it your going to hell.

Evangelical Churches on T.V. aren't an accurate representation of things. God doesn't talk directly to your priest or pastor demanding money.

[Knalus]

forgive me for ignorance, but doesn't the church ask for money on behalf of gods wishes for the church? i do not go to church, so i really don't know.

He sees other people who can use your money. Just like the government does.

Thing is, I trust the churches motives more than the governments.

[alltherage]

forgive me for ignorance, but doesn't the church ask for money on behalf of gods wishes for the church? i do not go to church, so i really don't know.

No, God doesn't ask for money. The Church does. And there are different envelopes for different things:

Church Maintainance
Mission Mexico (builing schools, clean water, housing, etc)
Donations to Seminaries (Preist College)
etc.

[DFO]

IMO religion is for the weak minded.

[Knalus]

IMO religion is for the weak minded.

Why?

[CaptainCrunch]

IMO religion is for the weak minded.

IMO people who spout crap like this have no idea what they're talking about.

[valo403]

God fills people with the holy spirit, which is a euphoric feeling of being one with the Lord. He communicates with people, and heals the sick at times when prayed upon. He enriches people's lives, helps heal people emotionally, gives people strength, and promises Heaven for those who follow him/love their neighbor/repent etc etc etc.

The Easter Bunny leaves a dime under your pillow, and is your parents pretending.

Here's the thing with that argument, I can easily run a find and replace and swap God with Easter Bunny in that passage and to lots of people it's equally as plausible.

[alltherage]

IMO religion is for the weak minded.

Terrible post, and wrong thread man. We're having an actual discussion here, not pigeon-holing other people's beliefs.

A comment like that comes from a weak mind, my friend.

[peter12]

IMO religion is for the weak minded.

So what is for the strong-minded? Nietzche? Darwin?

[J pold]

Page 5? Where the hell is Cheese?

[alltherage]

Here's the thing with that argument, I can easily run a find and replace and swap God with Easter Bunny in that passage and to lots of people it's equally as plausible.

Haha, ok you are going to have to explain this. I think I understand that you are saying that the "healing, enrichin, etc" is all in the eye of the beholder... meaning, and Atheist may think they happen because of the power of suggestion or some other such thing.

That's fine, but I'm telling you from a Catholic perspective where these things are very real.

[Cowperson]

forgive me for ignorance, but doesn't the church ask for money on behalf of gods wishes for the church? i do not go to church, so i really don't know.

The Vatican has one of the larger piles of money in the world in it's own bank . . . . . . which makes you wonder about the morality of an institution like the Vatican giving lectures to taxpayer-funded governments about "doing more in the world."

Should institutions like the Vatican hold large quantities of cash and real estate and other investments give their self-declared mandates?

Cowperson

[valo403]

Haha, ok you are going to have to explain this. I think I understand that you are saying that the "healing, enrichin, etc" is all in the eye of the beholder... meaning, and Atheist may think they happen because of the power of suggestion or some other such thing.

That's fine, but I'm telling you from a Catholic perspective where these things are very real.

Oh ya, from a Catholic perspective I get that the power to do all those things is placed in God. My point is just that with an omnipotent being like that I find it equally as plausible to see the bunny with the basket of chocolates as the all powerful lord and the guy with the long hair and the robe as the fiction of the imagination.

I mean it all comes from what are essentially campfire stories passed down over many generations, so buying into the details has always seemed a bit bizarre to me. I think the message often gets lost due to childish battles over details, which is probably why I don't agree with modern organized religion.

[Rerun]

forgive me for ignorance, but doesn't the church ask for money on behalf of gods wishes for the church? i do not go to church, so i really don't know.

I think you're confusing "The Church" with evangelists.

[Puxlut]

Think about it like this:

One person makes a really cool waterfall in sand toward the ocean, Turns, bumps, moats, lakes, etc etc etc. When he allows the water to flow, it follows his exact path to the water. Every time he pours it, it goes the same way.

Another person just pours the water and lets it make it's own unique path to the water. After each time, he "resets" the sand, and pours again, waiting to see which way it goes.

God doesn't want a bunch of worshipping drones. He wants us to find our own way to the water. Some take longer, some may never get there. Some go straight, others make big turns and pool in certain areas. It's freedom of choice, and its what makes us unique and in God's image.
So it's like we're the ultimate reality tv show for God? He just lets us loose to make our own decisions/mistakes/successes and sits back and watches us on the biggest jumbotron ever...

So what was the point in making us (if you follow creation vs evolution... but that's another thread) if it wasn't just for god's amusement?

Personally, I believe that I am the master of my own destiny and if I'm a "good" person I will lead a fairly happy life and that's all that matters.

[CaptainCrunch]

The Vatican has one of the larger piles of money in the world in it's own bank . . . . . . which makes you wonder about the morality of an institution like the Vatican giving lectures to taxpayer-funded governments about "doing more in the world."

Should institutions like the Vatican hold large quantities of cash and real estate and other investments give their self-declared mandates?

Cowperson

I really agree with this, somewhere along the line the Catholic Church forgot about the vow of poverty that priests used to have to take and forgot the charity first requirements of the church.

One of the reasons why I left the church was based around my perception that the gathering of wealth and possession by the vatican was wrong.

The other was the treatment of my brother whom the church refused to bury in their graveyard because our Parrish priest decided not to leave the golf course to baptize him before he died.

At that point my whole family left the church.

I still believe in God, I still believe in the inherant potential for the church and organized religion to be a positive force of good and change in this world, however I also believe that the church needs another Martin Luthor style reformation before I would ever consider returning.

[moncton golden flames]

IMO religion is for the weak minded.

i used to say this myself. then i grew up and realized that it doesn't matter what other people believe in, it matters what i believe. i learned to accept other and their beliefs, no matter how crazy i think they might be, as equals. i am no better than a religious fanatic, i am just of different belief, plain and simple.

[North East Goon]

The distinction between heaven and hell to me is my sub-concious deciding between which is the wrong or right thing to do in every aspect of life. I believe in a higher power that is based upon energy or spirit within all things living. If that is what god is then so be it. Clearly I smoked too much weed in my early 20's!

[CaptainCrunch]

The distinction between heaven and hell to me is my sub-concious deciding between which is the wrong or right thing to do in every aspect of life. I believe in a higher power that is based upon energy or spirit within all things living. Clearly I smoked too much weed in my early 20's!


Duuude you need to share more.

[Weiser Wonder]

I really don't know but my best guesses were:
Atheist
No Eternal destination
Unnecessary (very sure on this one)
Multiple paths (this one I'm pretty sure about)

I'm also unsure if I want to be wrong or not.

[Weiser Wonder]

So what is for the strong-minded? Nietzche? Darwin?
Franken. Stossel. Olbermann. O'Really.

The great thinkers of our time IMO.

[calgaryrocks]

I really agree with this, somewhere along the line the Catholic Church forgot about the vow of poverty that priests used to have to take and forgot the charity first requirements of the church.

One of the reasons why I left the church was based around my perception that the gathering of wealth and possession by the vatican was wrong.

The other was the treatment of my brother whom the church refused to bury in their graveyard because our Parrish priest decided not to leave the golf course to baptize him before he died.

At that point my whole family left the church.

I still believe in God, I still believe in the inherant potential for the church and organized religion to be a positive force of good and change in this world, however I also believe that the church needs another Martin Luthor style reformation before I would ever consider returning.
...or find a different church. hehe.
some churches have issues with leadership (ok, alot, its human nature to take control and not listen to what God wants them to do with the church).
i agree, the vatican holding all this money doesn't seem right, they could be doing alot of great things with all the money. my church gives to missionaries, pays the staff etc and struggles to meet a budget. a member of my church got laid off this year because of lack of tithing. if we want people to lead us as a church, they need to be compensated somehow.
as for the God wanting money thing, its not that God wants our money, its us showing that money doesn't control us, that we trust God to provide if give up everything. basically its part of putting God first, and ourselves not-first. thats a pretty solid part of what God wants, us to show him love, to choose him, when we don't have to.

[Bagor]

God fills people with the holy spirit, which is a euphoric feeling of being one with the Lord. He communicates with people, and heals the sick at times when prayed upon. He enriches people's lives, helps heal people emotionally, gives people strength, and promises Heaven for those who follow him/love their neighbor/repent etc etc etc.

All that still doesn't make him real or anything that is detached from the imagination.

The Easter Bunny leaves a dime under your pillow, and is your parents pretending.
So because there's no pretend game with God that makes him more real?

The Pope doesn't come to his buddys and say "I do this so people get a cheap thrill... but just don't tell the church goers!"

How do you know? What makes you so sure he isn't having a great laugh as he goes over the books. As CowPerson mentioned if he was to truly believe in what he preaches he would be redistributing the wealth.

He sure as hell isn't saying to his buddies "I do this for free".

[peter12]

Franken. Stossel. Olbermann. O'Really.

The great thinkers of our time IMO.

Al Franken and Keith Olbermann?

[WesternCanadaKing]

I don't get how people could look forward to the what the Bible describes as Heaven. It doesn't matter how nice it is, and eternity is a long fataing time, I can't imagine living for an eternity. Existance would have no meaning, all the things that gave you pleasure on Earth would become pointless without death, and honestly, after a while you'd probably just end up standing in the same spot going bat**** insane forever. I get (hopefully) 70 to 90 years of fun and excitement in which I'm a good person and kind to my fellow man... and I'm rewarded by an eternity of meaningless existance. Send me back to Earth please.

[Rerun]

I don't get how people could look forward to the what the Bible describes as Heaven. It doesn't matter how nice it is, and eternity is a long fataing time, I can't imagine living for an eternity. Existance would have no meaning, all the things that gave you pleasure on Earth would become pointless without death, and honestly, after a while you'd probably just end up standing in the same spot going bat**** insane forever. I get (hopefully) 70 to 90 years of fun and excitement in which I'm a good person and kind to my fellow man... and I'm rewarded by an eternity of meaningless existance. Send me back to Earth please.
Maybe in Heaven time runs at a different speed.... like 1 minute in Heaven equals 100 years on earth..

Same with Hell... except the reverse.

[Weiser Wonder]

Al Franken and Keith Olbermann?
Yes, Al Franken and Keith Olbermann. I once changed my entire believe system just by watching one episode of the Countdown. If Olbermann was leading me to certain death, I would follow laughing at his Sarah Palin jokes the whole way. "Haha, Keith, she is stupid. I agree!"

[troutman]

Heaven - being re-united with relatives

Hell - being re-united with relatives for eternity

[WesternCanadaKing]

Maybe in Heaven time runs at a different speed.... like 1 minute in Heaven equals 100 years on earth..

Same with Hell... except the reverse.

It wouldn't matter, any concept of time goes out the window when there is no beginning or end. If it goes for eternity, would it matter if each minute was 100 earth years, or even a trillion Earth years. Its all the same to you really in that kind of situation.

[Weiser Wonder]

It wouldn't matter, any concept of time goes out the window when there is no beginning or end. If it goes for eternity, would it matter if each minute was 100 earth years, or even a trillion Earth years. Its all the same to you really in that kind of situation.
If they have doritos I'm good. Maybe heaven is all the Doritos you can eat and hell is licking clean the fingers of those eating the Doritos.

[Knalus]

So it's like we're the ultimate reality tv show for God? He just lets us loose to make our own decisions/mistakes/successes and sits back and watches us on the biggest jumbotron ever...

So what was the point in making us (if you follow creation vs evolution... but that's another thread) if it wasn't just for god's amusement?

Personally, I believe that I am the master of my own destiny and if I'm a "good" person I will lead a fairly happy life and that's all that matters.


I don't get how people could look forward to the what the Bible describes as Heaven. It doesn't matter how nice it is, and eternity is a long fataing time, I can't imagine living for an eternity. Existance would have no meaning, all the things that gave you pleasure on Earth would become pointless without death, and honestly, after a while you'd probably just end up standing in the same spot going bat**** insane forever. I get (hopefully) 70 to 90 years of fun and excitement in which I'm a good person and kind to my fellow man... and I'm rewarded by an eternity of meaningless existance. Send me back to Earth please.


Just for fun, I don't know if I'm right, perhaps Puxlut's issue helps out WCK, and for WCK, perhaps that's why we have been given time away from eternity in the first place?

As for Puxlut, the same reason you have kids, or paint, or write, or make music. It's hard to have a discussion by yourself. What's wrong with God potentially being bored?

These are all fascinating questions I honestly hope will get answered after I die. I personally find it something to look forward to.

[flamesfever]

My mother used to say you can make your life a heaven or a hell depending on how you live your life.

Whether you believe in an after-life heaven or hell, I believe the above still applies.

[Weiser Wonder]

It wouldn't matter, any concept of time goes out the window when there is no beginning or end. If it goes for eternity, would it matter if each minute was 100 earth years, or even a trillion Earth years. Its all the same to you really in that kind of situation.
In all seriousness, you can't be bored because it's eternal bliss. The more and more I think about it heaven sounds like the last scene in 1984, where he loves the party and no longer has to think. Probably without the bullet though.

[Superflyer]

I do not consider myself an Athiest but I also do not believe in God\Heven\Hell etc.

To me, if I am to believe in something it has to be proven to me that it exists (or did exist). I have spoken to many priests\clergy members\devote catholics and nobody has been able to prove that any of this exists. All that I get is the same answers: "You have to believe" and "It is written so it is true"
I'm sorry but that is not enough to prove to me that any of this exists.

[Weiser Wonder]

I do not consider myself an Athiest but I also do not believe in God\Heven\Hell etc.

To me, if I am to believe in something it has to be proven to me that it exists (or did exist). I have spoken to many priests\clergy members\devote catholics and nobody has been able to prove that any of this exists. All that I get is the same answers: "You have to believe" and "It is written so it is true"
I'm sorry but that is not enough to prove to me that any of this exists.
Part of the point of religion is one can't prove it exists. Faith is about belief without proof.

[Lchoy]

Figure this is the best place to put this ;)

EDIT: I can't seem to embed this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGDndcxH-O4

[Thor]

Thats why Scientology and other fringe 'religions' thrive.

Its also why alternative medicine expos are full of gullible people who buy stuff that has no proof that it works, they just rely on faith.

There should be more critical/skeptical thinking done by everyone, not just religious. I find I know a lot more about biblical history, origins of the testaments, etc than any of my religious friends. For me its weird to just say I believe in the Christian god when its just mostly about "its what I grew up with" and not what you researched and truly investigated before you accepted it as your own personal truth.

Its such an important question to answer, yet people are more content to just accept their belief without much effort.

I get mad at religion when I see its abuses, but mostly the problem I have is with the holy books being used to justify illogical and silly beliefs to justify social and political policy.

But this is a great thread, I love the poll! Its really neat for me to see specific beliefs, like how many actually believe in demons/hell/angels.. Fascinating stuff.

Where's textcritic! ;)

[photon]

I do not consider myself an Athiest but I also do not believe in God\Heven\Hell etc.

Sorry, but you are an atheist (one willing to consider changing though).

There are weak atheists (who would say I do not believe in any god) and there are strong atheists (who would say I believe there are no gods).

What you describe (lack of belief based on lack of evidence) is best described as an agnostic atheist, you do not know, so you do not believe.

[photon]

Part of the point of religion is one can't prove it exists. Faith is about belief without proof.

Heh, sometimes I will point out to a theist that that means they are agnostic (assuming knowledge is based on something that is supported by evidence, so no evidence = no knowledge).

They don't seem to like that much. ;)

[Hack&Lube]

Here are some great statements by Bob Wright that I read on the Atlantic that I agree with wholeheartedly.


Human nature is pragmatic and people are by and large willing to cooperate when it’s in their interests. My world view is based on the belief that religion isn’t where the real intellectual action is, it’s a response to facts on the ground, a function of human nature and the circumstances in which human nature finds itself...I don’t think Jesus ever preached, or even believed, in universal love. That doctrine emerges after his death, as the Jesus movement is taking shape in the Roman Empire. It reflects the kind of cosmopolitan values you see in an empire. Historically, moral progress has been driven by the expansion of social organization, which seems to have been an inevitable product of technological evolution. Religion reflects that progress, and mediates it, but doesn’t drive it.

I think attributing all the problems in the world to religion can have unfortunate political consequences, because it makes us ill-inclined to address grievances and defuse tensions. Dawkins has said that if not for religion there would be no Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you believe that, then Obama needn’t bother trying to stop the settlements. We know religion isn’t going away. So if the problem is religion, why make the effort to improve the facts on the ground?

[peter12]

Heh, sometimes I will point out to a theist that that means they are agnostic (assuming knowledge is based on something that is supported by evidence, so no evidence = no knowledge).

They don't seem to like that much. ;)

I think that we should distinguish the theist from the confessional adherent; someone who reads the biblical texts as a literal representation of divine history. The adherent is the one who engages in a tautological justification of their beliefs; the Bible is true because it says it is true.

A theist can base their belief on personal experience etc... which is not subject to the same empirical standards that must apply to the religious adherent.

[photon]

True, but I would still use the word belief for those people, belief based on personal experience is still belief, I wouldn't use the word knowledge.

Of course then that leads down the road to the definition of knowledge vs. belief, and I think I'd rather have a free will discussion TBQH.

[Weiser Wonder]

True, but I would still use the word belief for those people, belief based on personal experience is still belief, I wouldn't use the word knowledge.

Of course then that leads down the road to the definition of knowledge vs. belief, and I think I'd rather have a free will discussion TBQH.
I would like to add that personal experience of god tend to come about after one decides god exists because the explanation of God is now acceptable in your mind. Just walk into the Sistine chapel and get chills, that must be feeling god.

[peter12]

True, but I would still use the word belief for those people, belief based on personal experience is still belief, I wouldn't use the word knowledge.

Of course then that leads down the road to the definition of knowledge vs. belief, and I think I'd rather have a free will discussion TBQH.

Faith can be rationalized like anything else. Heck, if your faith is a justification or guide to your social/personal morality, that's completely rational.

[troutman]

Just walk into the Sistine chapel and get chills, that must be feeling god.

Can't it just be a feeling of human pride?

Some people see the lines in the desert in Nazca Peru, and think they must have been made by gods. To me, that is insulting to the people that made them. Humans are capable of great works.

[CaptainCrunch]

Can't it just be a feeling of human pride?

Some people see the lines in the desert in Nazca Peru, and think they must have been made by gods. To me, that is insulting to the people that made them. Humans are capable of great works.

Sure but the work in the Sistine chapel is considered to be a work of divine inspiration, and the beauty that mankind is capable of creating in concert with God.

[Weiser Wonder]

Can't it just be a feeling of human pride?

Some people see the lines in the desert in Nazca Peru, and think they must have been made by gods. To me, that is insulting to the people that made them. Humans are capable of great works.
Well that's what I think too but I'm just saying how I believe people "experience god".

[valo403]

Just walk into the Sistine chapel and get chills, that must be feeling god.

What does it mean if I suddenly got really hot and broke out into rashes when I walked into the sistine chapel? :eek:

[CaptainCrunch]

What does it mean if I suddenly got really hot and broke out into rashes when I walked into the sistine chapel? :eek:

If you burst into flames and were reduced to a pile of sulfur it would be a pretty compelling argument that you were Satan.

[RougeUnderoos]

He communicates with people, and heals the sick at times when prayed upon.

This has always baffled me. Prayers heal sometimes. Who takes the blame when the prayers don't work and the person isn't healed?

Seems to me that the most fervent believers have been praying all along. Praying for things like health and happiness and whatnot.

Then one of 'em gets sick and it's time for more prayers. "We prayed and prayed and thank the lord, grandma's bowel obstruction was removed and she's back home, better than ever".

Well what happened to Grandma and everyone else's prayers before she got sick? Did she do something wrong?

Seems to me that the guy who healed the sick person made the person sick in the first place, but everyone is slapping him on the back for a job well done.

[MelBridgeman]

This has always baffled me. Prayers heal sometimes. Who takes the blame when the prayers don't work and the person isn't healed?

Seems to me that the most fervent believers have been praying all along. Praying for things like health and happiness and whatnot.

Then one of 'em gets sick and it's time for more prayers. "We prayed and prayed and thank the lord, grandma's bowel obstruction was removed and she's back home, better than ever".

Well what happened to Grandma and everyone else's prayers before she got sick? Did she do something wrong?

Seems to me that the guy who healed the sick person made the person sick in the first place, but everyone is slapping him on the back for a job well done.

god's will!

[gargamel]

Sure but the work in the Sistine chapel is considered to be a work of divine inspiration, and the beauty that mankind is capable of creating in concert with God.

The believer looks at all of the wonder and beauty in the world and says, "this couldn't exist unless there's a God." The atheist looks at all of evil and suffering and says, "this wouldn't exist if there's a god." I can see both points of view, but I think an individual's life experiences have a lot to do with where they come down on that, and I'm not sure that God/god could really give anyone much credit or blame for those views either way.

Of course, the people who make most of the noise about the topic on both sides are those who are just convinced that they're more intelligent or more blessed than others, but I think they're in the minority.

[Thor]

This has always baffled me. Prayers heal sometimes. Who takes the blame when the prayers don't work and the person isn't healed?

Seems to me that the most fervent believers have been praying all along. Praying for things like health and happiness and whatnot.

Then one of 'em gets sick and it's time for more prayers. "We prayed and prayed and thank the lord, grandma's bowel obstruction was removed and she's back home, better than ever".

Well what happened to Grandma and everyone else's prayers before she got sick? Did she do something wrong?

Seems to me that the guy who healed the sick person made the person sick in the first place, but everyone is slapping him on the back for a job well done.

Thats the logical fallacy of miracles and cures by God. If there is a way to disprove God its if you strongly believe in miracles.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

[DFO]

i used to say this myself. then i grew up and realized that it doesn't matter what other people believe in, it matters what i believe. i learned to accept other and their beliefs, no matter how crazy i think they might be, as equals. i am no better than a religious fanatic, i am just of different belief, plain and simple.

That quip of mine obviously came across a little harsh - but I still have my opinion. I dealt with more than enough of it in my youth and I've made the decision to break from all of it - I'm just a live and let live kind of person and believe in the separation of church and state to to the fullest. I'm just tired of dealing with a segment of the population that thinks you need religion to have a moral compass or any of that other stuff. I just think organized religion has outgrown its usefulness.

[Knalus]

Heh, sometimes I will point out to a theist that that means they are agnostic (assuming knowledge is based on something that is supported by evidence, so no evidence = no knowledge).

They don't seem to like that much. ;)

I honestly don't think this makes any sense. It's confusing, comes off quite smug, hairsplitting about definitions, and in the end, almost certainly wrong.
I think they don't like it because it's confrontational.

[peter12]

That quip of mine obviously came across a little harsh - but I still have my opinion. I dealt with more than enough of it in my youth and I've made the decision to break from all of it - I'm just a live and let live kind of person and believe in the separation of church and state to to the fullest. I'm just tired of dealing with a segment of the population that thinks you need religion to have a moral compass or any of that other stuff. I just think organized religion has outgrown its usefulness.

It's ironic then that the separation of Church and State is explicitly a product of Protestant thinking.

[Knalus]

Of course, the people who make most of the noise about the topic on both sides are those who are just convinced that they're more intelligent or more blessed than others, but I think they're in the minority.

I used to think they were in the minority, too.

The internet cured me of that belief. Most people just don't want to get into an intense argument with someone face to face. Nothing starts an argument than things that make it clear you think you're smarter. But online, you can say anything and not have to worry too much.

They aren't in the minority. And they aren't usually that smart, either.

[DFO]

It's ironic then that the separation of Church and State is explicitly a product of Protestant thinking.

I just dread that our system is becoming more polarized along the religious lines - no need for it.

[Knalus]

I just dread that our system is becoming more polarized along the religious lines - no need for it.

Other way around. Because it is trying to get away from appearing religious, it's making life more difficult for those who are religious - which leads to politics that try to restore the balance, and swing that segment of the political spectrum to be more zealous, which leads to people creating a backlash against a "religious system", which makes it even more hostile to the believer, which leads them to support even more hardline politics.....

all because our system tried to excise religion in the name of tolerance, and in the process became intolerant.

[Lchoy]

One more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UbqZ_oN5do

[RougeUnderoos]

Other way around. Because it is trying to get away from appearing religious, it's making life more difficult for those who are religious -

How, specifically, is life becoming more difficult for those who are religious?

[jar_e]

I haven't read the whole thread...I'm in a rush to head downtown...but I feel I should post this (even again if its been posted already.)

Choice of religion (or lack thereof) is a necessity than trying to rid society of it. People who say that we need to destroy religion are no better than the other end of the spectrum and people who say we need to destroy atheism. I was born and raised a christian and hold those beliefs close to me...but in the same breath I know that its a personal choice and I'm not here to force you to "convert"...and you shouldn't force me to convert either.

Its a personal choice. Its not one or the other in the world...both can live in harmony. My personal beliefs are like my taste in music...some people will agree with them, the majority won't. But c'est la vie. If I'm happy with the decisions I've made regarding them, what do I care what other people think?

That's my two cents...

[Sample00]

I understand that this is tongue in cheek, but money thing is just stupid. How would Churches pay for maintainance, staff, priests, charities, taxes, etc etc etc without donations? Catholic Churches don't demand money, they solicit donations. The basket can pass you by every Sunday for your entire life and noone would say a word.

I'm sorry alltherage, yer a great person, fine CP contributer, well versed Flames fan but that my friend, is complete and utter bull**it!

I spent many a day in a Catholic church during my youth. St. Boniface in Calgary to be exact. That motley crue would always and I mean, always check out what you were wearing and if you put money in the basket and how thick was the envelope. Frig, they knew if you do a monthly contribution of your friggin paycheck for crying out loud.
This was reason number 476 why I left the church and vowed never to go back.
Absolute farce, I tell ya.
But i still like ya!:D

[wittynickname]

I'll throw my thoughts out on the subject, since I checked like, 3/4ths of the stuff in the poll.

I believe in a God, a single God who created the universe, the planets, the stars, etc. I believe he created all life forms. But at the same time, I don't believe the earth has only been around for what, 3-4 thousand years. I tend to have a varied belief on faith. I feel that there had to have been a creator for all that there is--everything is just too complex, too intricate to be a random happenstance--and yet it's hard to ignore that there must be some form of evolution. I don't think all life forms started as amoebas--rather it seems to me that several life forms were created--fish, birds, primates, humans, etc--and over time, each of those life forms evolved and changed, depending on their climate and whatnot.

To me the Bible isn't a complete, black-and-white book, this is wrong, this is right. There are some things that go without say--you don't kill people, for example--but there is room for a whole lot of grey area, situations that are affected by circumstance. If a rich CEO is embezzling money from a company--wrong. If a man's children are going hungry and he steals some food for them, well, that's a different story. I believe in the idea that God created all, that Satan was once an angel who wanted independence, and that God--being just--allowed him the opportunity to run the show for a while, and see how he did, hence the reason conditions are as bad as they are now--Satan's failings, rather than "God's will."

I do believe that at some point in the future--distant or near, who knows--will do away with Satan, and make right what he made wrong. He was given the opportunity to rule, and he failed, therefore God was proven right. But I don't think that it's necessarily any one "faith" or "course" that will protect a person at that time, that if a person is generally good, and looks out for others' best interests, etc, that they'll be spared.

I also don't believe in "Hell" as in a burning fiery place of torment. To me the idea of Heaven and Hell would mean that God and Satan, in a way, are working TOGETHER, not enemies. If God doesn't want them in Hell, he sends them to Satan, and vice versa. As far as the "afterlife"--not all would go to Heaven--a small group would go to Heaven to assist Jesus in ruling, but the vast majority of humans would remain on the earth--a perfected, non-polluted, peaceful earth--to live forever.

I just rambled way too long on this.

[Knalus]

How, specifically, is life becoming more difficult for those who are religious?

There are many situations where it is getting more and more uncomfortable to see the reactions that happen when you mention what you believe, whether or not that was a topic you brought up or not. In some situations, people become actively hostile to anyone that reveals their beliefs (at least the ones that they disagree with). While I understand that many Atheists and members of other religions have felt that same feeling, this is a situation that Christians are feeling more and more on an ongoing basis. Remember, those that are Religious believe they are in the minority, and those that are Atheists also believe they are in the minority as well.


To give an example of your question, in particular this is the case in school - both grade school, and especially university.

[Rerun]

I'm sorry alltherage, yer a great person, fine CP contributer, well versed Flames fan but that my friend, is complete and utter bull**it!

I spent many a day in a Catholic church during my youth. St. Boniface in Calgary to be exact. That motley crue would always and I mean, always check out what you were wearing and if you put money in the basket and how thick was the envelope. Frig, they knew if you do a monthly contribution of your friggin paycheck for crying out loud.
This was reason number 476 why I left the church and vowed never to go back.
Absolute farce, I tell ya.
But i still like ya!:D
I disagree with that. I grew up in a small town in Ontario (Belleville to be exact) and my family went to church every Sunday. When they passed the basket around I never saw anyone else keeping tabs on how much the next person was contributing. Maybe you felt that in your church but I think you are the exception.

[Thor]

I think since this discussion is getting more enjoyable as we go along, I would humbly suggest we remember that although we cannot disprove God, we can however do things like use reason/logic to understand age of the earth, the fossil record, evolution, and our vast understanding of the cosmos. Not to mention understanding who wrote the testaments, flaws, contradictions of religious documents that we know clearly today.

I mean there are people who think the earth is 6000yrs old, we know this to be untrue, faith over reason. Same goes for the overwhelming evidence from the fossil record, and of course that we evolved from simple life to the diversity we see today.

I personally am curious with those who believe in God, do you believe someone created that God? Do you believe there are other Gods that exist along side the one you believe in?

Thanks in advance.

[Knalus]

I'm sorry alltherage, yer a great person, fine CP contributer, well versed Flames fan but that my friend, is complete and utter bull**it!

I spent many a day in a Catholic church during my youth. St. Boniface in Calgary to be exact. That motley crue would always and I mean, always check out what you were wearing and if you put money in the basket and how thick was the envelope. Frig, they knew if you do a monthly contribution of your friggin paycheck for crying out loud.
This was reason number 476 why I left the church and vowed never to go back.
Absolute farce, I tell ya.
But i still like ya!:D

Perhaps you were in the wrong church? Not all churches are the same. Another subtlety often lost on people.

[photon]

This has always baffled me. Prayers heal sometimes. Who takes the blame when the prayers don't work and the person isn't healed?

I was taught that it was a matter of faith and belief. That the reason a person would not receive healing is because the people praying did not have sufficient faith (faith is a muscle that has to be exercised they would say). They said that the person could also not be accepting their healing either through disbelief or sin in their life. If the healing didn't manifest, they were told to live as if the healing had already manifested (i.e. stop taking medicine, walk without the cane, etc).

Most people would only go so far with this, eventually accepting actual medical help, then feeling guilty and ostracized because they showed they didn't trust God. Nice eh?

The sad part of this is one of the pastors of a church I went to when I was young. He was a very intelligent man, had many excellent qualities and I looked up to him and respected him a lot.

Not many years ago I found out he died of cancer... apparently he had developed it but hadn't told anyone, not even his family, and had refused treatment because he thought that that would have shown a lack of faith in God.. so when he eventually got very ill then died it was a shock to everyone. :(

I honestly don't think this makes any sense. It's confusing, comes off quite smug, hairsplitting about definitions, and in the end, almost certainly wrong.
I think they don't like it because it's confrontational.

Well of course I don't put it that way in a discussion. I don't think it's confrontational, or confusing, or hairsplitting, and it's not wrong. Definitions are important and useful.

Atheism is about belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge. When someone says they believe something based on faith, not based on knowledge, that's the same distinction they're drawing.

I used to think they were in the minority, too.

The internet cured me of that belief. Most people just don't want to get into an intense argument with someone face to face. Nothing starts an argument than things that make it clear you think you're smarter. But online, you can say anything and not have to worry too much.

They aren't in the minority. And they aren't usually that smart, either.

The big downside with a face to face argument or discussion is that it's too fluid.. people can say things and get away with it, while on a discussion in a forum you can't. I can make claims and in a face to face there's no time to go fact check, or no time to go back and see if that's actually what I said before, or if that's what you said before. Online, it's all written down. I think that makes for far more interesting and meaningful discussions.. I hate discussing religion face to face because I can't fact check, I can't do some research before my reply, I can't take some time to think about it. Face to face arguments are basically informal debates, and debates are useless. Worse than useless, someone can be completely wrong in a debate but if they are a skilled debater they can "win" the debate.

EDIT: But I agree, saying "I'm smarter" is destructive to any discussion, face to face or Internet.

[Knalus]

The big downside with a face to face argument or discussion is that it's too fluid.. people can say things and get away with it, while on a discussion in a forum you can't. I can make claims and in a face to face there's no time to go fact check, or no time to go back and see if that's actually what I said before, or if that's what you said before. Online, it's all written down. I think that makes for far more interesting and meaningful discussions.. I hate discussing religion face to face because I can't fact check, I can't do some research before my reply, I can't take some time to think about it. Face to face arguments are basically informal debates, and debates are useless. Worse than useless, someone can be completely wrong in a debate but if they are a skilled debater they can "win" the debate.

EDIT: But I agree, saying "I'm smarter" is destructive to any discussion, face to face or Internet.

Good point, I agree often by correspondence people have better, more thorough, and often more stimulating conversations. The only problem is that people are touchy about certain subjects, and insult can often occur - mostly with people who aren't commonly posting.

[Sample00]

I disagree with that. I grew up in a small town in Ontario (Belleville to be exact) and my family went to church every Sunday. When they passed the basket around I never saw anyone else keeping tabs on how much the next person was contributing. Maybe you felt that in your church but I think you are the exception.

Perhaps you were in the wrong church? Not all churches are the same. Another subtlety often lost on people.

Maybe, but I have also attended other Catholic churches during that time period and didn't see much difference in any of them.
No matter, it is my opinion and mine only. If someone is comfortable in being in that church, who am I to say otherwise.
My point being I believe that people are quite aware of what others contribute to the cause.

[calgaryrocks]

I think since this discussion is getting more enjoyable as we go along, I would humbly suggest we remember that although we cannot disprove God, we can however do things like use reason/logic to understand age of the earth, the fossil record, evolution, and our vast understanding of the cosmos. Not to mention understanding who wrote the testaments, flaws, contradictions of religious documents that we know clearly today.

I mean there are people who think the earth is 6000yrs old, we know this to be untrue, faith over reason. Same goes for the overwhelming evidence from the fossil record, and of course that we evolved from simple life to the diversity we see today.

I personally am curious with those who believe in God, do you believe someone created that God? Do you believe there are other Gods that exist along side the one you believe in?

Thanks in advance.
I agree, we aren't discussion creationism vs evolution (both sides can be partially right anyways, but i digress)

anyways I believe that we don't understand time from God's point of view. think about this, we try to understand God from a small point of view, imagine for a second there is a God, would he/she really be a God if we could understand things the same as them? Would they be any more intelligent? How could they create such a complex creature? Anyways I don’t think we understand time, we see it as point to point, God probably has an overlooking view of things, doesn’t look at things in terms of our ‘time’. What happens in 1900 he can look at the same time as what happens in 2900, if that makes sense. So I think in terms of our time, what I believe is that he has always been there. He is God, how can something create God? Something had to have happened for him to be there or maybe he was always there.

Either way we have no idea of knowing how it started, science will never be able to explain fully how the stuff came into existence that created the big bang, and us Christians (or people who believe in God in general) will never be able to explain how God came into existence.

There are some things we just aren’t meant to know, because well, they just aren’t that important. If you or me know everything there is to know, including God and how time works, then what is left? Everyone knows everything and we become isolated as we decide we know everything so whats the point of even asking anyone anything, as we know and they know.

Anyways, I think it comes down to our understanding, if that makes sense.
Oh and for there being other Gods?

No, I believe there is one God, people from other Religions (Muslims for example) also believe in God, but as I mentioned earlier they believe different things about him as there is to much to God we can’t begin to imagine. Its like trying to put a backpack inside itself…

In other faiths (I am a Christian) they believe in Gods or beings etc, some parts of other faiths are based on what God would want, on loving God etc. there are probably parts of every religion that have things a little off, as there is interpertation and human error. But I believe there is one God.

And then there’s Satan, who I think tried to take over from God, as an angel of some sort (I am not sure what to think of angels etc but I think they exist, not as former people though…again I don’t know) and he got kicked out.

[photon]

Good point, I agree often by correspondence people have better, more thorough, and often more stimulating conversations. The only problem is that people are touchy about certain subjects, and insult can often occur - mostly with people who aren't commonly posting.

Sure, that's the big downside of internet discussions.. all the small social cues, facial expressions, vocalizations, posture, eye movements, etc are absent. So something I say in person that is intended to be pointed but not intended to hurt is recognizable, while doing that in text without offending is far more difficult.

[troutman]

About 2/3 of respondents to this poll are atheists or pantheists.

Is this surprising on a forum of mainly young males?

[Knalus]

Well of course I don't put it that way in a discussion. I don't think it's confrontational, or confusing, or hairsplitting, and it's not wrong. Definitions are important and useful.

Atheism is about belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge. When someone says they believe something based on faith, not based on knowledge, that's the same distinction they're drawing.


Agnostics believe you cannot know. Theists believe you can "know" without proof (a claim scientists find hard to fathom). Someone who claims you can't prove, don't necessarily mean you can't know.


And it's almost always confrontational to label someone and then tell them of the label you chose. The fact they don't like it suggests it is confrontational.

[calgaryrocks]

Maybe, but I have also attended other Catholic churches during that time period and didn't see much difference in any of them.
No matter, it is my opinion and mine only. If someone is comfortable in being in that church, who am I to say otherwise.
My point being I believe that people are quite aware of what others contribute to the cause.
thats fair, and i wouldnt be comftorble in that type of church either. giving is a personal choice, if you are guilted into it, then you aren't doing it out of obedience and love for God
its true that some people make more effort to be aware of others giving, possibly because they think they are superior or because they want to do what someone else is doing.
maybe you should try some non-catholic churches

[Knalus]

Maybe, but I have also attended other Catholic churches during that time period and didn't see much difference in any of them.
No matter, it is my opinion and mine only. If someone is comfortable in being in that church, who am I to say otherwise.
My point being I believe that people are quite aware of what others contribute to the cause.
Once again - perhaps you are in the wrong church?
But yeah, there are those types of people in Protestant Churches, (as well as in work, too).

[photon]

Agnostics believe you cannot know.

Depends, weak agnostic (it is currently unknown) or strong agnostic. (the very idea is unknowable) :)

Theists believe you can "know" without proof (a claim scientists find hard to fathom). Someone who claims you can't prove, don't necessarily mean you can't know.

Like I said before, this gets into the definition of knowledge and belief.. someone can claim to know without proof, but I would then ask what the difference between knowing and believing is. Is knowing just a stronger conviction of belief? One knows because they feel a deep conviction? That's still belief. This is where definitions become important.

One difference between knowledge and belief is knowledge is something that can be shared among people and be the same. We can discuss our beliefs forever and may never still really understand each other.. Knowledge can be shared and you can be certain my knowledge is the same as yours (because you can add 2+2 and get the same 4 I do, or combine the same chemicals and get the same result).


And it's almost always confrontational to label someone and then tell them of the label you chose. The fact they don't like it suggests it is confrontational.

Well usually the whole progression goes opposite to the way we've gone about it.. definitions of words like belief, knowledge, agnostic, faith, etc.. then at some point the question would be "well by these definitions wouldn't you then be an agnostic theist"? The intent being to show that maybe there isn't as much a difference as the other person thinks.

[Knalus]

Well usually the whole progression goes opposite to the way we've gone about it.. definitions of words like belief, knowledge, agnostic, faith, etc.. then at some point the question would be "well by these definitions wouldn't you then be an agnostic theist"? The intent being to show that maybe there isn't as much a difference as the other person thinks.

That's definitely an interesting way to take the conversation. It would definitely take skill to make it go in that direction, tho. I'm reminded of that scene in Tommy Boy, where the father makes a joke about shoving your head up a cows ass, and Chris Farley just can't pull that joke off himself.

[Sample00]

Once again - perhaps you are in the wrong church?
But yeah, there are those types of people in Protestant Churches, (as well as in work, too).

thats fair, and i wouldnt be comftorble in that type of church either. giving is a personal choice, if you are guilted into it, then you aren't doing it out of obedience and love for God
its true that some people make more effort to be aware of others giving, possibly because they think they are superior or because they want to do what someone else is doing.
maybe you should try some non-catholic churches

oh I have no intention of going to any church what so ever.
I have grown and grown up and my beliefs are firmly entrenched in that of agnostic.
I attended that particular church in Calgary because a) My parents are Catholic and b) I had a thing for the young lady that played the organ.
It wasn't cause I was a believer.
But anyways, I digress. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Its what makes this forum interesting.

[RougeUnderoos]

There are many situations where it is getting more and more uncomfortable to see the reactions that happen when you mention what you believe, whether or not that was a topic you brought up or not. In some situations, people become actively hostile to anyone that reveals their beliefs (at least the ones that they disagree with). While I understand that many Atheists and members of other religions have felt that same feeling, this is a situation that Christians are feeling more and more on an ongoing basis. Remember, those that are Religious believe they are in the minority, and those that are Atheists also believe they are in the minority as well.


To give an example of your question, in particular this is the case in school - both grade school, and especially university.

While I think it is terrible for people to be "actively hostile" towards you when you tell them what you believe (assuming those beliefs would be considered regular Christianity), it seems to me that your beef is that people don't believe the same things you do, and they say so.

It's not "life becoming more difficult", it's "life".

[Yeah_Baby]

As long as people continue to use Internet Explorer 6, Arrested Develop remains cancelled and Cherry Coke is not stocked on Canadian shelves there is obviously no god.

fixed

[MattyC]

i would say that i dont necessarily believe in "God" but I do believe in there being things that cannot be explained by science and I am ok with that. I also believe that people create their own resting places. Meaning not necessarily Heaven and Hell but that places that people's subcontious have created for themselves. So if you are a troubled mind/soul/whatever you might go to a place not so nice and vise versa. Also that reincarnation is the option of the soul.

[Cheese]

Every single person in this thread and around the world were born......atheist!
Parents, Grandparents, family and outside influences taught them to be "religion of choice".
If CalgaryPuckers were born in Afghanistan or Iran most of you would be Muslim, if born in Greece or Italy you'd be Catholic, Salt Lake City...Mormon.

Fortunately, as parents and children are educated at higher levels, religion becomes insignificant due to the fact that they spend as much time learning about the history of religion as they do learning about their vocation. The information is out there now, nothing is hidden, and modern day churches are struggling with this fact. We see the Catholics flip flop regularly to try and keep up with the times.
These changes in Western society are creating more atheists, deists and agnostics, and Im sure if we walked into the "vast majority" of churches on any given Sunday we'd see empty pews where a mere 50 years ago they would have been filled.
We can see the opposite effect in the Muslim world where many women are uneducated and questioning their religion, or their men, is considered heresy. Shariah Law.

The idea that we would lose out on the "good that religion does" if it was eliminated is bunk. Its people who do good....not religion.

"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men."
– Carl Sagan


850,000,000 people around the world are Atheist, Agnostic or Non-Religious. That's more than 1 out of 10 people, making up the 4th largest belief group.
Statistics have shown that the more educated an individual, the less likely they are to be religious or believe in a god. 72% of the National Academy of Sciences members have a 'personal disbelief in god' and another 20% claim 'doubt or agnosticism'.
Less than 1% of the US prison population is 'atheist' vs. about 10% in the general population.
The Divorce rate among atheists and agnostics is 21% vs. 30% for Jews, 27% for Born again Christians, and 24% for other Christians.

[Azure]

Tough to answer some of those....considering that I might believe in something, but there are conditions that apply.

I may believe in God, but I have no problem with the belief, or non-belief of an atheist. And I have no problem with a different belief.

Each to his own.

Which is why I can't stand the judging, or the criticism. I know a lot of good religious people....and I know a lot of religious people who simply use their 'religion' as a means to have power over others.

But, I attest that more to religion simply being a tool that people can use in both good/bad ways.

Its not the 'religion' aspect that creates the problem. Its the idea of something being there that allows someone to exert control over someone else.

If religion didn't exist....something else would fill its place.

Trust me, I hate organized religion as much as the next person. I despite and loathe what people like Moody, Chick and a few others have done to Western Society. But, in the belief of a 'free country'....I try not to degrade people for believing in THAT version of Christianity.

Again, each to his own.

[HOZ]

I can't believe Goblins an stuff isn't doing better. Maybe it needed ghouls as well?

[Rerun]

I can't believe Goblins an stuff isn't doing better. Maybe it needed ghouls as well?

Yes. And I also noticed that there was no witches and warlocks box to check off. Our Wicca followers are not going to be happy at all.

[ResAlien]

I can't believe Goblins an stuff isn't doing better. Maybe it needed ghouls as well?

I voted for Goblins. Just as feasible as the rest of the choices.

As a sort of Taoist (yeah, I know, doesn't really match with my actions, but hey, no one's perfect) I find a lot of this God argument pretty fun. I don't know anything, but do believe there are rights and wrongs. I don't think there's a giant in the sky judging me, a nirvana once I die, or sulfurous torment if I'm bad. I do have the ability to chose my path, as everyone does.

It's too bad even Taoism has to ruin itself with weird mystical crap, belief in Gods etc. At least there is a base thinking I can relate to.

[evilcougar]

Whew! I started reading this and there were 5 pages, and everytime i went to the next page there were 2 more!
I believe everything happens for a reason, and i believe you are what you make of yourself. I also believe that only YOU can change your life.
For example, i know people who have been abused in some fashion or another, weather it be sexual or physical or mental. They have been able to deal and overcome their tragic experiences and make a very happy life for themselves and also use those tragic events to overcome other obstacles in life.

However, i also know people who've had the same things happen to them, and they continue to live out their days as victims, thinking the world owes them and they've been wronged.

So, i believe that there is some kind of higher being up there, but, i am skeptical to call it GOD. My dad and my stepmom are very religious Christians, and that is how i was raised, however, i find all of the stories in the bible to be somewhat far fetched.

In conclusion, i think there's something out there, i'm not sure what it is, but strongly believe everything happens for a reason, but again only you can control you/change you and your life.
You are what you make of yourself.

I also don't go to church, haven't since i moved out when i was 17, and don't plan to ever return for any reason....unless i'm attending a wedding or a funeral.

[Antithesis]

I almost pressed "Goblins". Here is my attempt at an explanation that is probably not all that interesting:

I think Organized Religion can be a beautiful thing for some people, but it is unnecessary and not welcome for me.

When I think of the existence or lack of existence of a god or gods, I come back to the following things, without meaning to sound snarky or dismissive:

1. "God" can not be all of all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-caring. Two of the three, but not as advertised by some churches.

2. I don't think a god exists with every day concerns about us and our doings.

3. I find the idea that all of existence could be just some sort of random accident to be somewhat disquieting; if there is some type of creator, then that is exactly what I think "God" is ... created and sat back.

Faith has led to and inspired people to do some beautiful work, but I can't resolve faith in a Supreme Being with my view of existence so it's not for me. If it's for you, then awesome, but don't push it on me, and I won't push my beliefs on you.

What would that make me, then photon? Weak Atheist? Honestly curious.

I guess I'd brand my philosophy as existentialist. People are neither good or bad upon birth or are they pre-ordained to be either, and it is only our experiences that lead us to what/who we are.

[photon]

What would that make me, then photon? Weak Atheist? Honestly curious.

*shakes magic 8 ball*

What you describe sounds like Deism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

I find the idea that all of existence could be just some sort of random accident to be somewhat disquieting; if there is some type of creator, then that is exactly what I think "God" is ... created and sat back.

I think it's a bit premature to really be able to evaluate the whole "random accident" thing. While everyone talks about the big bang and how the universe started, really the big bang doesn't cover the initial conditions of the universe, or how those initial conditions came to be. Science's best answer to the question of what "caused" (if such a word even applies) the universe is "Unknown at this time".

So really since science doesn't have a good answer for the process or the bigger picture, to be disquieted by characterizing it as a random accident is premature; wait until they call it a random accident first :)

For example, if we discovered that there was a manifold of many (or infinite) universes then finding ourselves in this universe is no more miraculous than a the water in a puddle marveling at how the hole it finds itself in is so perfectly shaped for it.

[Thor]

I believe that that need for transcendent has evolved from something ancient humans used for some benefit (evolutionary reason) and eventually religion formed to occupy this in the human mind.

When people ask me what would replace religion, like its inconcievable that this could happen I point to the secular nations of the nordic people and other EU nations. They have for the most part left religion behind, even though many of these nations keep many traditions alive like marriage/funerals/baptisms in churches. Its called cultural traditions, I think the further our various countries advance this is the eventuality.

I do think we will enter a period next in the west where people have lost interest in the old organized religions and something will fill those voids similar to what we see with all these people jumping into 'the secret' and incoporating eastern bhuddist ideals.

But ultimately, the next phase I think is less rigid beliefs, less dogma, more evolved religion, and ultimately more secularist societies.

I've been hooked on reading about neuroscience this last 6 months and there is a great deal of work being done to explain the brain on religion, comparing to secularists.

I do think science can answer alot of these questions, its just going to take a lot of time as neuroscience is now at the barrier of the quantum world in the race to understand the human mind and consciousness.

[mikey_the_redneck]

I believe there is much much more to human/earth origin than we now know.

I also believe humans to be spiritual beings, and that what is a mystery to us, is that which we cannot yet see with our technology. I think of "spiritual" as a form of energy that we have as humans that is unique to other species.

But this whole god and jesus story is a bunch of rubbish as far as I am concerned. There is no hard evidence of the existence of these figures. I believe evolution has taken place, and I have my own stance on what religions are all about that I dont want to get into detail about it at this point.

[HOZ]

Why wasn't Global Warming added? It has it's guilt ridden dogma, Bible, heretics, messiah, prophets, and frothing at the mouth theists.

[Bagor]

Why wasn't Global Warming added? It has it's guilt ridden dogma, Bible, heretics, messiah, prophets, and frothing at the mouth theists.

It's climate change.

Because it's observable and recordable.

Like leprechaun populations.

[Cheese]

I think "Most People " who believe, do so, because they have been programmed to do so. Its akin to teaching your baby from the first moment of recognition that the Calgary Flames/Stampeders/Roughnecks are the best teams bar none in the world. Even when they begin to question the standard monotheistic choice of their parents/family they hang on to the "there must be something else" theory. Its ingrained. Thats usually the "Spiritual" side of things...agnostically speaking; not wanting to make a choice for fear of the unknown.

[Knalus]

When people ask me what would replace religion, like its inconcievable that this could happen I point to the secular nations of the nordic people and other EU nations. They have for the most part left religion behind, even though many of these nations keep many traditions alive like marriage/funerals/baptisms in churches. Its called cultural traditions, I think the further our various countries advance this is the eventuality.


I know from first experience that in Denmark at least, they don't actually care about things like marriage. They see marriage, now that they aren't spiritual, as a contract that is pretty much there for legal reasons only, and even that is not very strong. They view marriage as a trap that women were forced into in the past, and are now free of it. It's a very sad way of looking at it. I know one couple, that despite repeated attempts over 10 years on behalf of the man, they have not married due to tax reasons. I know another couple where both sides apparently got married, then divorced, then got married to each other, because it was convenient. I know there are people here in NA like that, but in Denmark at least, there is an extremely casual view of those things, to the point where they have started to lose their meaning.

[Knalus]

I think "Most People " who believe, do so, because they have been programmed to do so. Its akin to teaching your baby from the first moment of recognition that the Calgary Flames/Stampeders/Roughnecks are the best teams bar none in the world. Even when they begin to question the standard monotheistic choice of their parents/family they hang on to the "there must be something else" theory. Its ingrained. Thats usually the "Spiritual" side of things...agnostically speaking; not wanting to make a choice for fear of the unknown.

"Most People" also believe in Gravity. They don't do the experiments themselves to prove it exists - it just seems to make sense. In addition, "most people" aren't very bright. That doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist, now, does it?

[Cheese]

"Most People" also believe in Gravity. They don't do the experiments themselves to prove it exists - it just seems to make sense. In addition, "most people" aren't very bright. That doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist, now, does it?

Actually gravity is proven. We are taught everything we need to know about Gravity in elementary and middle school. It is a scientific fact, therefore it does make sense...unlike any "religious choice" that is foisted upon us by our parents/family/religious leader.
The western world is becoming very smart...parts of the eastern world have not caught up yet, but will eventually.

[driveway]

I believe everything happens for a reason, and i believe you are what you make of yourself. I also believe that only YOU can change your life.

Okay, I'm going to jump all over you for this statement, evilcougar.

I don't think you've thought about this very long or hard, or if you have, you haven't come to reasonable conclusions. Your two statements are mutually exclusive and cannot both be true at the same time.

If 'everything happens for a reason' then it absolutely cannot follow that 'you are what you make of yourself' because you have no control over the events that you experience or even create for yourself. Since all (or almost all) of your actions are going to impact others - and yourself - and 'everything happens for a reason' then you don't have any control whatsoever over yourself, because all of your actions are part of this 'higher-purpose', this reason driven existence.

I think what's going on here is that, like a lot of people - particularly those raised by the faithful - you have a difficult time accepting the idea that there might not be a reason for events. If bad things happen, or even good things, it can be difficult not to ascribe special importance to them. If someone survives a damaging experience (and we all have) they are likely to try to find a way to explain why that happened to them, in order to be able to deal with whatever it was that occurred.

Like many people, you want to believe that we (and by extension yourself) are "special", that there is a grand scheme of things and that you are an essential cog in it, however minute. The fact of the matter is, however, that if there IS a grand scheme of things and that you are a cog in it, it strips your life of meaning instead of imbuing it.

If everything does, in fact, happen for a reason - then there is no reason for you to make any choice over any other choice - because whatever you choose was intended to happen. There's no reason to get up in the morning, or even to behave in a moral sense (other than the direct and personal reasons that you will get bed-sores, or will go to jail), if everything happens for a reason, there is no "higher" reason for you NOT to kill your whole family the next time you see them, because if you do, there is obviously a higher reason for you to do so (since everything happens for a reason, and you killing them would then become "something that happened" it must have happened for a reason).

To sum up, the phrase "everything happens for a reason" is a philosophically vapid statement and an intellectually dishonest way to think, unless you honestly believe you're nothing more than a helplessly operating cog in a vast machine OR you believe in an omniscient creator-god who directly involved themselves with their creation, and somehow managed to imbue it with free-will.

[driveway]

Actually gravity is proven.

What is philosophically interesting is that gravity is proven, but not understood. We know that mass attracts mass, and does so in a quantifiable way, but we don't know the why or even the fundamentals of how.

Yes, mass causes curvature in space-time, but we don't know how it does so. It is, to me anyway, profoundly interesting that an objects merely being affects both the universe itself and all other objects. Why should this be so? What is it about mass that causes the curvature, or what is it about space-time that causes it to react to mass in this fashion?

Fascinating stuff.

[Cheese]

What is philosophically interesting is that gravity is proven, but not understood. We know that mass attracts mass, and does so in a quantifiable way, but we don't know the why or even the fundamentals of how.

Yes, mass causes curvature in space-time, but we don't know how it does so. It is, to me anyway, profoundly interesting that an objects merely being affects both the universe itself and all other objects. Why should this be so? What is it about mass that causes the curvature, or what is it about space-time that causes it to react to mass in this fashion?

Fascinating stuff.

All fantastic questions that Im not about to attempt an answer. I am ignorant of what you ask. I do know that Gravity works....we do not float off this planet into outerspace. Gravity in all its complexity exists and is quantifiable.
Im sure some of our scientific folk will be glad to help you answer some of these questions...if at all possible.
Religion...any religion cannot be quantified. You must "believe or trust" that it exists because a cleric "says so".

[peter12]

I was raised in a Christian home. My extended family was quite fundamentalist, with my own parents gradually moving away from that particular strain of Christianity. I remained a fairly dedicated evangelical Christian into my late teens. However, university life, particularly exposure to Western philosophy, drove me to strongly question my previously held beliefs. I discovered Darwinism (for the first time ever!) and ended up writing my honours thesis on evolutionary biology and political reciprocity. For awhile, I was an acclaimed atheist, Dawkins, Pinker, Harris et al. were my heroes.

However, I kept learning and kept reading about humanity and religion and politics. I have grown to now distance myself from a purely atheist position. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle draw on a deeper understanding of humanity than the scientists of modernity. I'm not exactly sure where I stand on the religion question currently, my education and personal reading has driven me so far away from a confessional adherent perspective that there is no going back, but I am also fascinated by the ethical and social dimensions of humanity's relationship with the gods.

It really does not matter whether or not there is a big man in the sky. What matters is humanity and the questions that religion tries to answer for everyone. One thing I've learned is that an atheist is, in essence, no different from a theist in the basic framework of their beliefs.

[Knalus]

Actually gravity is proven. We are taught everything we need to know about Gravity in elementary and middle school. It is a scientific fact, therefore it does make sense...unlike any "religious choice" that is foisted upon us by our parents/family/religious leader.
The western world is becoming very smart...parts of the eastern world have not caught up yet, but will eventually.

My issue was with your point about "most people". Most people believe what is easy, sure - but that doesn't mean what they believe is incorrect (or correct). You made it sound like "most people" were morons - because they believe what is easiest. Then you say they're smart, because they agree with you. It's easy to believe something everyone says is proven, right? Even if it's gravity?


It appears your problem isn't with people believing what they are taught, but rather with what they have been taught. That doesn't change anything about the underlying truth to any of these arguments. Your approach is argumentative, without being substantive. It leads to even harsher words being spoken later. So what if people believe or don't believe in ghosts? Does that change the existence of the ghost?

[FireFly]

Religion...any religion cannot be quantified. You must "believe or trust" that it exists because a cleric "says so".

Why can't I believe or trust because I 'feel' that it's right? Why does it have to be because someone else told me to?

[Cheese]

Why can't I believe or trust because I 'feel' that it's right? Why does it have to be because someone else told me to?

simple...because if someone hadnt told you...you wouldnt know. Once someone has "introduced" you to anything...sports, religion, sex, you decide from that point where to take it. It can be completely ingrained, a fanatic, or on the fringes.

[peter12]

simple...because if someone hadnt told you...you wouldnt know. Once someone has "introduced" you to anything...sports, religion, sex, you decide from that point where to take it. It can be completely ingrained, a fanatic, or on the fringes.

I don't understand this point at all. This is the case with everything and everyone.

[Hemi-Cuda]

when you boil it right down, every religion has about as much credibility as Scientology, everyone's favorite whipping post

http://ladyboyjesus.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/blasphemy.jpg

[driveway]

I don't understand this point at all. This is the case with everything and everyone.

I think what Cheese is trying to say is that religious knowledge should be different from other kinds of knowledge, if it is to have a reasonable claim on being the 'Capital T' Truth.

It's all well and good for everyday knowledge and scientific knowledge to be taught and learned, but if a religion is to make a claim on being the Truth, it should be the kind of knowledge that is inherent, or can arrive inherently into a person without that person being introduced to it.

Basically the argument is that, if you go off into the mountains by yourself and think about things long and hard, whatever revelations you end up with are going to be more likely True than what other people tell you is True.

I don't think I agree with the argument, but I'm pretty sure that's what the argument is, in a very basic sense.

[Cheese]

My issue was with your point about "most people". Most people believe what is easy, sure - but that doesn't mean what they believe is incorrect (or correct). You made it sound like "most people" were morons - because they believe what is easiest. Then you say they're smart, because they agree with you. It's easy to believe something everyone says is proven, right? Even if it's gravity?


It appears your problem isn't with people believing what they are taught, but rather with what they have been taught. That doesn't change anything about the underlying truth to any of these arguments. Your approach is argumentative, without being substantive. It leads to even harsher words being spoken later. So what if people believe or don't believe in ghosts? Does that change the existence of the ghost?

Please dont put words in my mouth. I never suggested that people were morons...or insinuated that they were. I simply suggested that people are taught to be theistic...it is not ingrained by birth.

I think "Most People " who believe, do so, because they have been programmed to do so. Its akin to teaching your baby from the first moment of recognition that the Calgary Flames/Stampeders/Roughnecks are the best teams bar none in the world. Even when they begin to question the standard monotheistic choice of their parents/family they hang on to the "there must be something else" theory. Its ingrained. Thats usually the "Spiritual" side of things...agnostically speaking; not wanting to make a choice for fear of the unknown.

You can teach your kids anything you want, its your choice. I stand on the side that suggests teaching your children lies is paramount to child abuse. We at least tell our kids after they reach a certain age that Santa and the Easter Bunny arent real...if the kids havent figured it out themselves. Most kids question religion in the same way, "The Ark story, Jonah and the Whale, Adam and Eve", yet our parents firmly respond to these as factual or reality based events.
Tell your kids fables to make a point...nothing wrong with that, as long as it is clear you are not talking about actual events. "eg. The Little Boy who Cried Wolf".

[photon]

All fantastic questions that Im not about to attempt an answer. I am ignorant of what you ask. I do know that Gravity works....we do not float off this planet into outerspace. Gravity in all its complexity exists and is quantifiable.
Im sure some of our scientific folk will be glad to help you answer some of these questions...if at all possible.

Heh, actually really there is no scientific answer as to the why questions... science observes what, but cannot answer why. It can find that things are a result of other things, but it always leads to an infinite regress.

We can ask what causes gravity, and find it is a result of mass bending space and time. Why does mass to bend space and time? We can find out about the interaction of the Higgs boson with the Higgs field and baryons or something, but then we can ask why do those things interact the way they do? Someone will find out about strings or fluctuations in the vacuum field or some other thing, but the why question will always remain. EDIT: The why question is meaningless really, at least to me. Like asking what's north of the north pole.

[Cheese]

I don't understand this point at all. This is the case with everything and everyone.

Yes..exactly. Thats the point to the question. How can you feel "something is right" without having something or someone lead you to that pre-supposition in the first place? African Tribes had no idea of the Christian teachings before the missionaries showed up.

[driveway]

Heh, actually really there is no scientific answer as to the why questions... science observes what, but cannot answer why. ... the why question will always remain.

Correct me if I misunderstand, but wouldn't the Grand Unification Theory, should it ever be elucidated, be the "why" answer that science may actually be able to provide?

Granted it would also be the ultimate "how", but an equation, or series thereof, which was able to encompass all phenomenon (not just all known, but ALL) would be the final answer to the question of why.

Eg:
Why has life evolved on this planet? Because x= blah blah blah divided by Jarome Iginla + awesome, etc.

(I can only assume that Jarome Iginla will be the denomenator in the Grand Unification Theory)

[Knalus]

I stand on the side that suggests teaching your children lies is paramount to child abuse.

That, sir, is a point of view that is rapidly making the world more partisan, intrusive, and intolerant. It's making the world a worse place.

[Cheese]

That, sir, is a point of view that is rapidly making the world more partisan, intrusive, and intolerant. It's making the world a worse place.

Maybe you can explain yourself further, after all you expect the same from me.
Am I to assume by your words that teaching lies makes one tolerant, accepting and non partisan?

[Knalus]

when you boil it right down, every religion has about as much credibility as Scientology, everyone's favorite whipping post

http://ladyboyjesus.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/blasphemy.jpg

This is a close second for making the world a worse place to live. It's real fun to mock people's beliefs, isn't it? Feel big now, I assume? What did that win you, making a post like this? Respect? Bonus points? An intellectual leg-up on the discussion? Now I can see why it seemed surprising to other posters yesterday that the site was civil - posts like this weren't around. See that? People were proud this wasn't here. But you thought you should put it up anyways.

[Knalus]

Maybe you can explain yourself further, after all you expect the same from me.
Am I to assume by your words that teaching lies makes one tolerant, accepting and non partisan?

You don't find the word "child abuse" inflammatory?

[FireFly]

simple...because if someone hadnt told you...you wouldnt know. Once someone has "introduced" you to anything...sports, religion, sex, you decide from that point where to take it. It can be completely ingrained, a fanatic, or on the fringes.


I've also been taught there is no God. Soooo....

[Weiser Wonder]

This is a close second for making the world a worse place to live. It's real fun to mock people's beliefs, isn't it? Feel big now, I assume? What did that win you, making a post like this? Respect? Bonus points? An intellectual leg-up on the discussion? Now I can see why it seemed surprising to other posters yesterday that the site was civil - posts like this weren't around. See that? People were proud this wasn't here. But you thought you should put it up anyways.
:rolleyes: Relax. This is a discussion, which are never any fun without a little edge.

[alltherage]

Maybe you can explain yourself further, after all you expect the same from me.
Am I to assume by your words that teaching lies makes one tolerant, accepting and non partisan?

"Teaching children lies" is the core of the disagreement between the two of you.

If someone believes something to be true and teaches their children, they aren't lying. When the truth is exposed and it doesn't allign with the teachings, that's just a mistake. totally different.

[driveway]

It's real fun to mock people's beliefs, isn't it?

Simply because a person believes something is no reason to respect that belief. If someone believes something stupid, that belief deserves to be mocked because, by believing it, that person is slowing down the forward progress of humanity as a whole.

Also, it's not hard to see the humour in Hemi-Cuda's post. Even someone who believes in the literal truth of the bible should be able to recognize some of the more outlandish aspects of their belief and have a good chuckle at what is a very funny way to phrase them.

What causes threads like these to derail is not people posting funny jpegs, but knee-jerk reactions and needless personal attacks.

[alltherage]

:rolleyes: Relax. This is a discussion, which are never any fun without a little edge.

Actually, I don't agree that that's a little edge. That's downright offensive to Christians.

Simply because a person believes something is no reason to respect that belief. If someone believes something stupid, that belief deserves to be mocked because, by believing it, that person is slowing down the forward progress of humanity as a whole.

Also, it's not hard to see the humour in Hemi-Cuda's post. Even someone who believes in the literal truth of the bible should be able to recognize some of the more outlandish aspects of their belief and have a good chuckle at what is a very funny way to phrase them.

What causes threads like these to derail is not people posting funny jpegs, but knee-jerk reactions and needless personal attacks.

Actually, mocking people for their beliefs breeds hate. Do you openly mock children who believe in Santa Clause? What's in it for you in the first place... are you not actually seeking a knee jerk reaction when you post something this inflamitory?

[Cheese]

You don't find the word "child abuse" inflammatory?

Of course Child Abuse is "inflammatory".

[FireFly]

"Teaching children lies" is the core of the disagreement between the two of you.

If someone believes something to be true and teaches their children, they aren't lying. When the truth is exposed and it doesn't allign with the teachings, that's just a mistake. totally different.

One could take this further to say that the possibility exists that there is a God, and as such, anyone who teaches their child that there isn't one, is also guilty in Cheese's eyes of child abuse.

[Cheese]

I've also been taught there is no God. Soooo....

Soooooo...later on in life someone else taught you there was. You then decided to choose and choose how you believe.

[Weiser Wonder]

Actually, I don't agree that that's a little edge. That's downright offensive to Christians.
Meh. I could show this to many, many people who have some sort of Christian faith and they'd find it funny if they hadn't already seen it. Anyone with a solid faith will not be shaken by that whatsoever. It's funny to think what Christianity would be viewed as by outsider.

[Cheese]

One could take this further to say that the possibility exists that there is a God, and as such, anyone who teaches their child that there isn't one, is also guilty in Cheese's eyes of child abuse.

The "possibility" needs to be justified in some way. Like the Gravity discussion.

[FireFly]

Soooooo...later on in life someone else taught you there was. You then decided to choose and choose how you believe.

I figured out what felt right in my heart. The point is that I don't believe or trust because someone 'told me to'.


Religion...any religion cannot be quantified. You must "believe or trust" that it exists because a cleric "says so".

Which is what you said.

Not being religious is about just as much trust or faith. You aren't concerned about your afterlife or don't believe in one, that's fine. Just as many people out there 'telling me' that there isn't a God. I would then have to believe or trust that because someone 'told me to', no? Goes both ways.

[FireFly]

The "possibility" needs to be justified in some way. Like the Gravity discussion.


Why?

Explain away the large holes in evolution or the big bang theory or whatever else 'science' tells us to believe... regardless of evidence for or against. I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution, but there are HUGE holes in the theory that no one seems to be able to fill. Isn't it just lovely that we all came from gunk? And isn't it fantastic how each species fills a niche perfectly?

So you tell me there is no God as there is no evidence of a God, and I tell you that there is too much that science will NEVER be able to explain. "We're working on it" holds about as much weight as "You'll just have to trust us," don't you think?

[octothorp]

Correct me if I misunderstand, but wouldn't the Grand Unification Theory, should it ever be elucidated, be the "why" answer that science may actually be able to provide?

Granted it would also be the ultimate "how", but an equation, or series thereof, which was able to encompass all phenomenon (not just all known, but ALL) would be the final answer to the question of why.

Eg:
Why has life evolved on this planet? Because x= blah blah blah divided by Jarome Iginla + awesome, etc.

(I can only assume that Jarome Iginla will be the denomenator in the Grand Unification Theory)


The way you phrase it is just another form of how. You could as easily say 'how has life evolved on the planet' and get the same answer.

I think that when most people talk about the 'why' answers, they're talking about purpose: is there a purpose to evolution, and if so, what? This is the why that science can't answer and isn't interested in answering.

[Traditional_Ale]

Every single person in this thread and around the world were born......atheist!
Parents, Grandparents, family and outside influences taught them to be "religion of choice".
If CalgaryPuckers were born in Afghanistan or Iran most of you would be Muslim, if born in Greece or Italy you'd be Catholic, Salt Lake City...Mormon.

Fortunately, as parents and children are educated at higher levels, religion becomes insignificant due to the fact that they spend as much time learning about the history of religion as they do learning about their vocation. The information is out there now, nothing is hidden, and modern day churches are struggling with this fact. We see the Catholics flip flop regularly to try and keep up with the times.
These changes in Western society are creating more atheists, deists and agnostics, and Im sure if we walked into the "vast majority" of churches on any given Sunday we'd see empty pews where a mere 50 years ago they would have been filled.
We can see the opposite effect in the Muslim world where many women are uneducated and questioning their religion, or their men, is considered heresy. Shariah Law.

The idea that we would lose out on the "good that religion does" if it was eliminated is bunk. Its people who do good....not religion.

"It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men."
– Carl Sagan


850,000,000 people around the world are Atheist, Agnostic or Non-Religious. That's more than 1 out of 10 people, making up the 4th largest belief group.
Statistics have shown that the more educated an individual, the less likely they are to be religious or believe in a god. 72% of the National Academy of Sciences members have a 'personal disbelief in god' and another 20% claim 'doubt or agnosticism'.
Less than 1% of the US prison population is 'atheist' vs. about 10% in the general population.
The Divorce rate among atheists and agnostics is 21% vs. 30% for Jews, 27% for Born again Christians, and 24% for other Christians.

*insert standing ovation here*

[driveway]

Actually, mocking people for their beliefs breeds hate.

Does it? I imagine that it depends on a couple of things, namely the nature of the mocking and the confidence a person has in their faith. Any fair-minded person should be able to see humour in most things and recognize a certain amount of absurdity in themselves. Gentle, and even not-so-gentle mocking of those absurdities should - in a person who has confidence in what they believe - engender nothing but a genuine laugh at a quality joke and perhaps a rueful shake of the head at someone who hasn't discovered the "truth" yet.

If, however, a person is not confident in their faith, if they recognize the absurdities not as items of faith which must be accepted, but as major stumbling-blocks to belief then I could see how mocking those absurdities would result in protective anger as a defense mechanism.

Finally, as for the jpeg in question, that IS what christians believe, summed up rather succinctly and the only word that could be quibbled over is the word "Zombie" as there is no biblical evidence that Jesus hungered for brains upon his resurrection.


Do you openly mock children who believe in Santa Clause?

There is, and I'm sure you can see, a difference between young children who have been deliberately and knowingly mislead by their parents AND society as a whole, and grown adults who espouse an undeniably bizarre sequence of events as cosmically True.

[Cheese]

I figured out what felt right in my heart. The point is that I don't believe or trust because someone 'told me to'.



Which is what you said.

Not being religious is about just as much trust or faith. You aren't concerned about your afterlife or don't believe in one, that's fine. Just as many people out there 'telling me' that there isn't a God. I would then have to believe or trust that because someone 'told me to', no? Goes both ways.

LOL...you are repeating what I said...I said " You then decided to choose and choose how you believe."

The faith based comment is silly. We've been down this road many times in the past LOL...Im not about to go back. Ill let my brethern comment on it if they choose.
Right now Im packing to head off to Cuba where I will contemplate the world while sitting under the hot sun, drink in hand, perhaps with a good Cuban cigar! Ill check back in an about a week or so to see if this still has legs.
Cheers all...great discussion as usual!

[driveway]

I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution, but there are HUGE holes in the theory that no one seems to be able to fill. Isn't it just lovely that we all came from gunk? And isn't it fantastic how each species fills a niche perfectly?


This threatens to derail this thread entirely, so I'll be very brief. There are not actually "Huge holes" in evolutionary theory. This is something that is promulgated by opponents to the theory but is not actually true. If you want to enter into a lengthy discussion of the "holes" and why they are not actually holes, I would be happy to do so, but I suggest we start another thread to deal with it.

Whether or not we came from gunk has nothing to do with evolution, but is the theory of Abiogenesis. Opponents of the TOE like to lump the two together, but they do not follow necessarily one from the other.

Here is a very good resource for answering questions about the TOE and also for demonstrating why supposed 'holes' in the theory have either already been 'closed' or are not actually holes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

And now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

[alltherage]

Does it? I imagine that it depends on a couple of things, namely the nature of the mocking and the confidence a person has in their faith. Any fair-minded person should be able to see humour in most things and recognize a certain amount of absurdity in themselves. Gentle, and even not-so-gentle mocking of those absurdities should - in a person who has confidence in what they believe - engender nothing but a genuine laugh at a quality joke and perhaps a rueful shake of the head at someone who hasn't discovered the "truth" yet.

If, however, a person is not confident in their faith, if they recognize the absurdities not as items of faith which must be accepted, but as major stumbling-blocks to belief then I could see how mocking those absurdities would result in protective anger as a defense mechanism.

Finally, as for the jpeg in question, that IS what christians believe, summed up rather succinctly and the only word that could be quibbled over is the word "Zombie" as there is no biblical evidence that Jesus hungered for brains upon his resurrection.



There is, and I'm sure you can see, a difference between young children who have been deliberately and knowingly mislead by their parents AND society as a whole, and grown adults who espouse an undeniably bizarre sequence of events as cosmically True.

OK so by your logic if you are confident in your sexuality, you don't mind being called a f*ggot. If you are confident in being chinese you don't mind being called a chink. If you are a woman you don't mind when someone says "get back in the kitchen".

That's air tight, my friend. Air tight.

People can be as confident as hell, but don't appreciate being made fun of... is that their fault? I don't think so.

I'm not even saying I was offended, either. I was born and raised Catholic, but I can take a step back and laugh... however I don't think the mob mentality of "7 out of 10 people laughed" justifies that it's OK to drop a bomb like that in the middle of an otherwise healthy debate.

[photon]

Correct me if I misunderstand, but wouldn't the Grand Unification Theory, should it ever be elucidated, be the "why" answer that science may actually be able to provide?

Granted it would also be the ultimate "how", but an equation, or series thereof, which was able to encompass all phenomenon (not just all known, but ALL) would be the final answer to the question of why.

It might describe everything about our universe, or even the initial state of the universe and how that initial state came about, but will it be able to answer why that specific theory describes everything and not some other theory? i.e. why did things happen the way they did and not some other way? I suspect that no matter what theories and models we come up with, there will always be a why that points one level up.

[Thor]

Or more likely, 'one level down' as in what lies in understanding Quantum mechanics in the future.

[driveway]

OK so by your logic if you are confident in your sexuality, you don't mind being called a f*ggot. If you are confident in being chinese you don't mind being called a chink. If you are a woman you don't mind when someone says "get back in the kitchen".

That's air tight, my friend. Air tight.



As I said in my post, whether or not mocking engenders hate depends both on the confidence of faith and the nature of the mocking. Personal attacks are different from attacks on the belief itself.

Saying that the story of Christ is ridiculous is different from saying that YOU are ridiculous for believing it.

At no point did I wish to imply that people should be made fun of, or made the butt of jokes for having a specific belief. However, ALL beliefs should be made fun of relentlessly. Those that are harder to make fun of are more likely to be true and to help humanity move forward as a group.

[alltherage]

As I said in my post, whether or not mocking engenders hate depends both on the confidence of faith and the nature of the mocking. Personal attacks are different from attacks on the belief itself.

Saying that the story of Christ is ridiculous is different from saying that YOU are ridiculous for believing it.

At no point did I wish to imply that people should be made fun of, or made the butt of jokes for having a specific belief. However, ALL beliefs should be made fun of relentlessly. Those that are harder to make fun of are more likely to be true and to help humanity move forward as a group.

Honestly, I think what your point is, is that we should address the flaws in other people's beliefs if we want to progress as a whole. My point is that this doesn't have to be done with a malicious tone.

[photon]

I figured out what felt right in my heart. The point is that I don't believe or trust because someone 'told me to'.

What feels right in your heart though is a result of your life experiences, if you had been raised in a different area of the world, what felt right would be different. Which is why what religion a person is is determined primarily by where they are.

Explain away the large holes in evolution or the big bang theory or whatever else 'science' tells us to believe... regardless of evidence for or against. I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution, but there are HUGE holes in the theory that no one seems to be able to fill. Isn't it just lovely that we all came from gunk? And isn't it fantastic how each species fills a niche perfectly?

Please don't take a lack of understanding of something and turn it into a shortcoming in that thing.

So you tell me there is no God as there is no evidence of a God, and I tell you that there is too much that science will NEVER be able to explain. "We're working on it" holds about as much weight as "You'll just have to trust us," don't you think?

You say there is too much that science will never be able to explain.. never is a long time, that's a very bold claim, you should provide some support for that.

Where does science ever say "you'll just have to trust us"? If science doesn't know something it clearly says "I don't know". Are you uncomfortable with the answer "I don't know"?

Maybe that's a root cause of religion in some, the inability to deal with "I don't know" as an answer?

[driveway]

Honestly, I think what your point is, is that we should address the flaws in other people's beliefs if we want to progress as a whole. My point is that this doesn't have to be done with a malicious tone.

This will drop us into a semantic argument, but I don't see humour as necessarily malicious.

[Thor]

As to the discussion on 'offense' since we're derailing a bit now.

Non believers typically have a thick skin, our non belief is often spoken of in ways that would if reversed infuriate and deeply offend religious believers.

Having said that, since tough criticisms of Religion are becoming more vocal, these last 10 yrs especially theres going to be a lot of this no matter what, but I'm not suggesting we try to insult each other.

Religion has had a blanket of protection for 2000 yrs, where critcism of it was responded with prison, death, or torture. So obviously there will be problems in these discussions of people taking offense.

But when you are dealing with deeply personal held beliefs its an fact of the debate and we should do our best not to let them derail the whole interesting discussion because of it.

[Knalus]

Meh. I could show this to many, many people who have some sort of Christian faith and they'd find it funny if they hadn't already seen it. Anyone with a solid faith will not be shaken by that whatsoever. It's funny to think what Christianity would be viewed as by outsider.

Well, it doesn't shake one's faith in God. One's faith in humanity, however...

[Bagor]

Actually, I don't agree that that's a little edge. That's downright offensive to Christians.

Tough. That would be the same Christians that imposed their beliefs on millions over generations.

If you want to run around imposing your beliefs on others then be prepared for the ridicule that follows.

Well, it doesn't shake one's faith in God. One's faith in humanity, however...
Or one's faith in a sense of humour.

Like .. .why didn't Jesus play hockey?
Because he kept getting nailed to the boards.

[Knalus]

This threatens to derail this thread entirely, so I'll be very brief. There are not actually "Huge holes" in evolutionary theory. This is something that is promulgated by opponents to the theory but is not actually true. If you want to enter into a lengthy discussion of the "holes" and why they are not actually holes, I would be happy to do so, but I suggest we start another thread to deal with it.

Whether or not we came from gunk has nothing to do with evolution, but is the theory of Abiogenesis. Opponents of the TOE like to lump the two together, but they do not follow necessarily one from the other.

Here is a very good resource for answering questions about the TOE and also for demonstrating why supposed 'holes' in the theory have either already been 'closed' or are not actually holes.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

And now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

I agree. For too long the discussion we were having (before people started "joking" around in that oh-so-funny-way) has been about science and religion. It's a different discussion, one which I wouldn't mind at a different time, but let's leave that out of it.

[Knalus]

Or one's faith in a sense of humour.

Like .. .why didn't Jesus play hockey?
Because he kept getting nailed to the boards.

OK - I just have to say - that's freakin hilarious. Humor and insult are close bedfellows, but not all humor is insulting. What is insulting is thinking that humor has to be.

[Weiser Wonder]

Well, it doesn't shake one's faith in God. One's faith in humanity, however...
Humanity? It's a relatively humorous and silly pic.

Discussions like this are best with a couple beers, some humor, and some feeling. Not this reasonable aura you are trying so hard to affect.

[driveway]

(before people started "joking" around in that oh-so-funny-way)

Dude, if you're having issues this serious with that one jpeg I would recommend you avoid most of the religion threads that show up on CP 'cause you're going to end up either enraged or in tears. Just a 'heads up' for the future.

That was a really, really gentle jibe both by CP's standards and standards in general.

[Dion]

when you boil it right down, every religion has about as much credibility as Scientology, everyone's favorite whipping post

http://ladyboyjesus.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/blasphemy.jpg

It's garbage like this that keeps me out of these discussions.

Surely we discuss the issues without mocking people for thier beliefs. It's in poor taste and insulting.

[Thor]

http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/61fps/atheism.jpg

[FireFly]

What feels right in your heart though is a result of your life experiences, if you had been raised in a different area of the world, what felt right would be different. Which is why what religion a person is is determined primarily by where they are.

Possible. And yet all over the world people convert to various things. Christians in China, etc. I've taken a number of religious studies courses to expose myself to various religions. I like the philosophies of many. My being Christian is a result of my beleiving in Jesus Christ. Not because I don't think the others are wrong.

Please don't take a lack of understanding of something and turn it into a shortcoming in that thing.

I've also taken a number of courses in geology, archaeolgy, etc. I understand the theories quite well, thank-you. I also understand the reasons scientists say there are holes. I don't think it fills in the holes. If you beleive that the explaination is sufficient, good for you. Alas, 'good enough' doesn't mean it's correct.

You say there is too much that science will never be able to explain.. never is a long time, that's a very bold claim, you should provide some support for that.

Where does science ever say "you'll just have to trust us"? If science doesn't know something it clearly says "I don't know". Are you uncomfortable with the answer "I don't know"?

Maybe that's a root cause of religion in some, the inability to deal with "I don't know" as an answer?

There's a lot of stuff I don't know. There's a lot of stuff I don't care about as well. It doesn't bother me. You seem to have a lot of faith that science will indeed eventually answer your questions. Again, it boils down to the same thing. For a very long time, scientist held fast to the indisputable truth that the earth was flat. They were proven wrong. There are things we know now that will be proven false in the future.

I never claimed to KNOW there's a God. I believe it. Science tells me to trust it when it says that it's explainations are sufficient to fill the gaps.

[RougeUnderoos]

OK so by your logic if you are confident in your sexuality, you don't mind being called a f*ggot. If you are confident in being chinese you don't mind being called a chink. If you are a woman you don't mind when someone says "get back in the kitchen".



I'm a gay Chinese short-order cook, so that entire paragraph is offensive to me.

ANYWAY, since this has veered off into a certain direction, maybe you can tell us why the picture is specifically offensive and/or wrong. What parts of it don't at least some Christians believe (ignoring the word zombie)?

[photon]

Possible. And yet all over the world people convert to various things. Christians in China, etc. I've taken a number of religious studies courses to expose myself to various religions. I like the philosophies of many. My being Christian is a result of my beleiving in Jesus Christ. Not because I don't think the others are wrong.

True people do covert from one thing to another, but I didn't say that where someone is is the sole indicator of what religion they will be, just the primary one.

I've also taken a number of courses in geology, archaeolgy, etc. I understand the theories quite well, thank-you.

Your questions would seem to indicate otherwise. For example, you say "And isn't it fantastic how each species fills a niche perfectly?", that you would even put this up as an example of a hole in evolution demonstrates you do not understand evolution.

You talk about huge holes like they weaken science, but the opposite is true.. the holes are usually very well understood, the questions that the new theory must answer are very well defined.

I also understand the reasons scientists say there are holes. I don't think it fills in the holes. If you beleive that the explaination is sufficient, good for you. Alas, 'good enough' doesn't mean it's correct.

I don't get what you are trying to say here. If there is a hole that just means there is a lack of information, or a lack of understanding, or insufficient imagination with respect to creating a new hypothesis. It's not like science just throws up its hands and says "we'll never understand this".

Science is never "correct", not in the sense of being right or being True. Science is accurate or inaccurate.

There was a time when gravity was not understood, and now we understand it a lot better, if you lived in a time when gravity was not understood do you look at that and say "there's a hole science will never fill therefore... what? God?"

There's a lot of stuff I don't know. There's a lot of stuff I don't care about as well. It doesn't bother me. You seem to have a lot of faith that science will indeed eventually answer your questions.

No, it's not faith. Because science had demonstrated repeatedly over time that it can "answer" any question about the natural world, given enough information and imagination. That's not faith, that's trust based on a demonstrated history. You don't have faith that the airplane you are boarding will fly, you trust it will because every other airplane properly built and piloted flies.


Again, it boils down to the same thing. For a very long time, scientist held fast to the indisputable truth that the earth was flat. They were proven wrong. There are things we know now that will be proven false in the future.

Of course there are.. gravity as we know it is wrong, and we KNOW it's wrong. We even know how it is wrong, and we know how a new theory of gravity must look to address the current theory's deficiencies.

There's two problems with what you say here. First is you use the words "indisputable truth". Science makes no claims to be "indisputable truth". In fact quite the opposite, science fully admits that all knowledge is transient, every theory is simply the best theory available at any time to explain a given phenomenon. That is it's fundamental strength.

Second, you seem to think that when things are shown to be wrong in science, that somehow the old theory gets tossed out. This is not true.

The earth is not flat, but if you are working with a small enough area of its surface, you can safely treat it as flat and still come out with accurate answers to questions. The earth is not a sphere, but for some things you can safely treat it as a sphere.

Gravity again is a good example. Einstein completely changed how gravity is viewed, however Newton's theories about gravity are still very much valid, as long as you don't go too fast or space doesn't curve too much. You can put up satellites or go to the moon without Einstein, but for GPS to operate or to calculate the orbit of Mercury Newton isn't enough.

More on this here: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm


I never claimed to KNOW there's a God. I believe it. Science tells me to trust it when it says that it's explainations are sufficient to fill the gaps.

But you claim to know that there are things that science will never be able to explain... again care to support that?

I don't see how science is telling you to trust it in saying that its explanations are sufficient to fill in the gaps. As I said it's quite the opposite, gaps are very much understood and defined in science, and science doesn't say "trust us", it says "I don't know, good question, lets try to find an answer".

To fill a gap with God in my mind does two things.. it limits God, confining God to an ever smaller set of roles, and it presumes an answer that isn't necessary (every other physical phenomenon has been explained through natural processes, why does this one all of a sudden get God plugged in).

[fotze]

Lm-Mi1_lLo0

[Antithesis]

So really since science doesn't have a good answer for the process or the bigger picture, to be disquieted by characterizing it as a random accident is premature; wait until they call it a random accident first :)

Very much appreciate your contributions to these threads photon. I guess I was more searching to say, "I find the possibility of all of this being a random accident troubling" (like ... basically Thor's posted image), rather than, "I find the belief or statement that everything is a random accident is troubling ..."

I guess in a way, to me, when you keep asking the 'up one level' questions ... it starts becoming unanswerable or "filled with holes" on each side. I guess you could always go with cognito ergo sum and leave it there ... takes a lot off the mind!

[photon]

That's very true, both sides lead to an infinite regress at some point.. I guess the difference for me is that while on one side the infinite regress is stopped with special pleading (i.e. God has no creator), science doesn't deny it it just keeps going up the levels figuring things out, and reserving any kind of comment on the next level until there's enough information to comment.

[Thor]

Very much appreciate your contributions to these threads photon. I guess I was more searching to say, "I find the possibility of all of this being a random accident troubling" (like ... basically Thor's posted image), rather than, "I find the belief or statement that everything is a random accident is troubling ..."

I guess in a way, to me, when you keep asking the 'up one level' questions ... it starts becoming unanswerable or "filled with holes" on each side. I guess you could always go with cognito ergo sum and leave it there ... takes a lot off the mind!

I'm far from a reliable opinion on this, but with my broad obsession of reading science blogs on various fields, I get a feeling that something like the multiverse theory and what Photon touched on that our known galaxy is a drop of water in infinate drops of water might be where we are headed in regards to making some sense of these things.

Its postulated that in our particular galaxy the conditions are exactly as they are because in other multiverses there are infinate possibilities as regards to laws of physics. So even though our universe might seem to some to be 'finely tuned' to allow life to exist, its only one of infinate others where they would be hostile to such life.

Remember our planet, solar system and universe are not friendly to life, but because of the vastness of our galaxy we can even imagine millions of planets with life, even moons.

To me a creator would have made a completely different galaxy than the one we live in, its very illogical and messy to suggest its all created for our glory.

But for me, I'm often asked by religious friends how I can live without the inspiration of God, and I'm equally curious as to why they don't see the massive wonderment of physics, biology, chemistry and all the amazing questions we are trying to tackle.

I get goosebumps talking with my friend about our shared passion, study of mind. The depths to which wonder exists in that search for knowledge is simply underappreciated and unkown to so much of our world.

That to me is sad, and my hope is more that instead of defeating religion we focus on educating and inspiring more people into science because ultimately its one of the most rewarding things in my life and for those close to me who also share this passion its constanly changing, exciting and endlessly challenging my everyday beliefs and preconceptions of everything.

[Sample00]

since we are having this discussion, I'll post this link here that was just sent to me by a business colleague.
Interesting stats or fear mongering?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

[FireFly]

I was going to quote photon and pick it apart, but it jumps around so I'll just say this...

The holes I was talking about are actually the large gaps in evolution that we can see to which science says "well, we just haven't found the things that fill those yet, or there was erosion or some such other thing that destroyed our ability to find it." Also the things which seem to come out of nowhere and are lightyears ahead of evolution in some cases, or lightyears behind in others...

There's a humanoid specimen, I can't rightly remember the name of right now, near the Phillipines that was found to be with higher thought, (archeological evidence has them using tools and fire and such before others,) yet a smaller brain than other humans. Those are the kinds of holes in the theory I am talking about. I don't doubt that species evolve at all... I doubt that it explains everything science thinks it does or should. And I know they aren't throwing out the theory of evolution, nor should they.

When I was taught evolution, I was taught that the earth created us out of nothing basically, and that we all evolved from the same gunk to fit our different niches. I just think it's rather amazing that they still teach that (or I guess they did 5 years ago,) when there are glaring issues with that. (Don't worry, they acknowledged the holes, but also sluffed them off with the excuses I gave previously.) They also acknowledged their ability to recreate the scenario based on what they know of the earth's atmosphere at the time result in ZERO sucess. Yet they still said it must've happened. (Qualifying it with we can't be positive of the makeup of the atmosphere a billion years ago.) Strange, eh? When I questioned my prof on it, (So what you're saying is that knowing that the atmosphere contained XYZ elements, regardless of the composition you give to those elements, there is no way that you can create a life giving/sustaining atmosphere such as was required for earth to develop life as it did?) he told me that no, there was no way, (yet,) that they could do so. Thousands of experiments, and there is NO WAY that the earth, with the atmosphere it contained at the time, could have developed life. Interesting. New theories are needed indeed.

[RougeUnderoos]

since we are having this discussion, I'll post this link here that was just sent to me by a business colleague.
Interesting stats or fear mongering?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

"Fearmongering" doesn't quite do it justice.

I think I've seen that before. Maybe in this here OT board.

Whoever put that together can't even count.

[photon]

A gap in the fossil record isn't a gap in evolution, it's just a gap in the fossil record. No one expects to find a record of every different form, fossilization is a rare process, so I'm not sure how that classifies as a gap or an excuse.

And I see what you mean, yes the specific details of how something happened, ho much brain mass impacts intelligence, etc are always being explored and revised, but that's not really a problem with evolution as a whole.

When you talk about the earth creating us out of nothing, that's not evolution, that's abiogenesis, and that's still a very young and fluid field so I wouldn't expect a general school education to be very strong in that area. But to say there's been zero success is quite incorrect, even the Miller-Urey experiment in which they recreated the atmosphere resulted in 22 different amino acids, and that was 60 years ago. There are quite a few different ideas about abiogenesis, your characterization of it having zero success or that there was no way it could have happened is very misleading.

And once you have a self replicating molecule, evolution can take effect.. so I still don't understand how evolving to fit a niche is a problem; descent with modification and natural selection predicts that's exactly what should happen. Remember everything has a common ancestor, it's not like every organism that's filling a niche has to evolve from inanimate matter on its own. Abiogenesis only has to occur once.

EDIT: And of course it must have happened, unless you are claiming we aren't here. Now you can have different hypothesis on HOW it happened (aliens, special creation, natural combination of chemicals), but you can't deny that it happened.

[Hemi-Cuda]

This is a close second for making the world a worse place to live. It's real fun to mock people's beliefs, isn't it? Feel big now, I assume? What did that win you, making a post like this? Respect? Bonus points? An intellectual leg-up on the discussion? Now I can see why it seemed surprising to other posters yesterday that the site was civil - posts like this weren't around. See that? People were proud this wasn't here. But you thought you should put it up anyways.

you don't win 10 internets by just sitting around doing nothing

[FireFly]

A gap in the fossil record isn't a gap in evolution, it's just a gap in the fossil record. No one expects to find a record of every different form, fossilization is a rare process, so I'm not sure how that classifies as a gap or an excuse.

And I see what you mean, yes the specific details of how something happened, ho much brain mass impacts intelligence, etc are always being explored and revised, but that's not really a problem with evolution as a whole.

When you talk about the earth creating us out of nothing, that's not evolution, that's abiogenesis, and that's still a very young and fluid field so I wouldn't expect a general school education to be very strong in that area. But to say there's been zero success is quite incorrect, even the Miller-Urey experiment in which they recreated the atmosphere resulted in 22 different amino acids, and that was 60 years ago. There are quite a few different ideas about abiogenesis, your characterization of it having zero success or that there was no way it could have happened is very misleading.

And once you have a self replicating molecule, evolution can take effect.. so I still don't understand how evolving to fit a niche is a problem; descent with modification and natural selection predicts that's exactly what should happen. Remember everything has a common ancestor, it's not like every organism that's filling a niche has to evolve from inanimate matter on its own. Abiogenesis only has to occur once.

Yes but abiogenesis in the experiment only worked when they went outside of the known facts about our atmosphere at time. So when going within the confines of our atmosphere, they had zero success. It's like on Mythbusters when they get the result they want, but they have to use bigger explosives than what the myth said. The myth itself still fails.

[Thor]

Talkorigins response to this common abiogenesis question.

The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance. (See also Probability of abiogenesis (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html).)


Response:



Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.
Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html). Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:

Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).
Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
Something that no one has thought of yet.





http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

[Thor]

Yes but abiogenesis in the experiment only worked when they went outside of the known facts about our atmosphere at time. So when going within the confines of our atmosphere, they had zero success. It's like on Mythbusters when they get the result they want, but they have to use bigger explosives than what the myth said. The myth itself still fails.

This is still 'God of the gaps' approach, where you find something that has yet to be understood or explained and say 'Aha! See God is in that gap of understanding.'

But we continually keep filling in gaps in science, and god has less of them now than he did last year ;)

Abiogensis is something I'm confident we'll understand and even be able to replicate in the future, how far into the future I have no idea.

But because we don't know, I personally feel inserting God as the answer is no answer at all.

[photon]

Yes but abiogenesis in the experiment only worked when they went outside of the known facts about our atmosphere at time. So when going within the confines of our atmosphere, they had zero success. It's like on Mythbusters when they get the result they want, but they have to use bigger explosives than what the myth said. The myth itself still fails.

Source? This sounds like a common claim on creationist websites.

And I disagree with the claim that when going with different mixtures of the early earth's atmosphere they had zero success.. what I've read shows that different mixtures of the atmosphere result in MORE amino acids and such, not less.. the only scenario I know of that would result in less would be in a much more oxygen rich atmosphere, but there's little evidence that that was the case 4 billion years ago.

And even if you could completely discount the Miller-Urey experiment, that's only one avenue of research. Do some reading on current research on abiogenesis, there's a great number of places it could have taken place, clay, thermal vents, crystals, many different environments.

More info: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html

Heck, a metorite was found that contained 90 different amino acids (including 19 which are used in life on earth), and many organic compounds are detected in deep space. So even if conditions were never right to form the necessary organic compounds on earth, they still could have come from space.

So I still really don't understand your position here.. there's currently no good theory of abiogenesis, so you are saying what exactly? That God started life and then all the forms of life we see evolved from there? What happens if in 10 years they completely reproduce a natural process which leads to life that looks just like ours?

EDIT: Too slow! :D

[flamingreen]

Yes but abiogenesis in the experiment only worked when they went outside of the known facts about our atmosphere at time. So when going within the confines of our atmosphere, they had zero success. It's like on Mythbusters when they get the result they want, but they have to use bigger explosives than what the myth said. The myth itself still fails.

That is not true at all. They used the components that they believed were present during early earth's atmosphere. They didn't go outside of the known facts, like you just did.

Edit: Even slower.

[Thor]

From the ongoing science thread, this latest key work on Abiogenesis:

Life's first spark recreated in the labratory


A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.
“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

[FireFly]

That is not true at all. They used the components that they believed were present during early earth's atmosphere. They didn't go outside of the known facts, like you just did.

Edit: Even slower.

:rolleyes:

[FireFly]

So I still really don't understand your position here.. there's currently no good theory of abiogenesis, so you are saying what exactly? That God started life and then all the forms of life we see evolved from there? What happens if in 10 years they completely reproduce a natural process which leads to life that looks just like ours?

EDIT: Too slow! :D

My position is that you have faith science will prove something. I've said nothing about what I actually believe happened, no one asked.

Whether you have faith in God or science, it's still faith.

[RougeUnderoos]

I've said nothing about what I actually believe happened, no one asked.



What happened?

[photon]

My position is that you have faith science will prove something. I've said nothing about what I actually believe happened, no one asked.

Well your position is wrong, as I said I don't have faith. I also don't think science can prove anything, as I've also said the concept of truth or proof doesn't belong in science. Proof is for math, science is about evidence and theories, models and confirmed predictions.

Sorry, I thought when you brought up the subject and made claims about it that you were stating your position. I would also have thought me saying "I still don't understand your position" is me asking (though in the form of a sentence).

Whether you have faith in God or science, it's still faith.

Faith is belief without evidence, so no, it's not faith in science. Unless you are using a different definition of faith.

[Thor]

My position is that you have faith science will prove something. I've said nothing about what I actually believe happened, no one asked.

Whether you have faith in God or science, it's still faith.

I have to disagree, I'd suggest we have confidence in the scientific method and its ability to find us answers.

But really thats all word play, ultimately I think the crux of this is that I'm completely comfortable saying "I don't know the answer" rather than suggesting we already know since the bible (insert any religious text here) tells me so.

God and the religious texts tells us final answers, while science has been progressively enhancing not only our lives but seeking and answering questions.

Often one viewpoint, theistic is "we already know the answers, God." while my worldview is "we don't know, lets figure it out."

I know obviously most believers intermix both, but its still a point that some claim to know based on millenia old books from the desert, while others seek to know based on a tried and true human curiosity and the scientific method.

The key to all this discussion, is really that absence of evidence is not evidence of God ;)

[FireFly]

Faith is belief without evidence, so no, it's not faith in science. Unless you are using a different definition of faith.

Science itself isn't faith, but it also hasn't proven anything either. (In regards to the origins of life.)

Don't you think that science will one day figure out how earth developed life?

[FireFly]

I have to disagree, I'd suggest we have confidence in the scientific method and its ability to find us answers.

But really thats all word play, ultimately I think the crux of this is that I'm completely comfortable saying "I don't know the answer" rather than suggesting we already know since the bible (insert any religious text here) tells me so.

God and the religious texts tells us final answers, while science has been progressively enhancing not only our lives but seeking and answering questions.

Often one viewpoint, theistic is "we already know the answers, God." while my worldview is "we don't know, lets figure it out."

I know obviously most believers intermix both, but its still a point that some claim to know based on millenia old books from the desert, while others seek to know based on a tried and true human curiosity and the scientific method.

The key to all this discussion, is really that absence of evidence is not evidence of God ;)

But if you don't know the answer, but you aren't willing to insert God of some form, aren't you saying you believe that it wasn't God?

[octothorp]

A gap in the fossil record isn't a gap in evolution, it's just a gap in the fossil record. No one expects to find a record of every different form, fossilization is a rare process, so I'm not sure how that classifies as a gap or an excuse.


I was talking with someone about this last week, looking at dinosaur provincial park as an example. It's arguably the richest fossil bed in the world. And yet, all it captures is one 75 square kilometer area over a span of maybe 1.8 million years, 80 million years ago. 500 fossils in total so far. That's such a tiny, tiny sample, when you consider the that this is 75 out of 510,072,000 square kilometers of the earth, and 1.8 million out of 500 million years of animal history that are not so well documented. Of course the fossil record is going to be spotty.

If we had hundreds of thousands of fossils representing every time period and part of the globe, and we still found big gaps in the fossil record, then there would be reason to question the validity of the fossil record. As it stands right now though, it's far too early to point to any gaps as evidence of flaws in evolutionary theory. Infact, despite its gaps it backs up evolutionary theory perfectly.

[Thor]

But if you don't know the answer, but you aren't willing to insert God of some form, aren't you saying you believe that it wasn't God?

I don't know would be my answer, I cannot disprove God nor could I disprove it was Odin.

I don't discount the possibility of a God, but I hold the likelyhood of what humankind has worshiped to be just as likely as any mythical creature like a dragon or fairies.

If you say its God you would be making the assertion you know the answer, while I say "I don't know" because I truly don't have the answer and have already deemed extremely unlikely for any type of God or higher intelligence to have done so.

Hope that makes sense, I know its not the clearest of easy answers.