Atheism is a Religion (Split from Blessing Human Rights thread)

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I don't understand where you're going with this analogy. Are you saying God wouldn't work because of how the universe is designed?

No..but thats a good analogy as well. There are literally thousands/millions of bad design problems on earth. Unless of course you believe he purposely created bad design to keep us guessing?
Im saying there is no proof whatsoever of a God....none. Nothing written, no clothing, nothing. IF you were to do a thesis on this subject there would be no evidence of his existence.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Cheese

No..but thats a good analogy as well. There are literally thousands/millions of bad design problems on earth. Unless of course you believe he purposely created bad design to keep us guessing?
Im saying there is no proof whatsoever of a God....none. Nothing written, no clothing, nothing. IF you were to do a thesis on this subject there would be no evidence of his existence.

A Christian Darwinist would simply say the "bad designs" were the result of natural processes.

No, I don't believe God purposely created anything to keep us guessing, I'm not a theist, but I'm not an anti-theist, either.

[calgaryrocks]

Originally Posted by Cheese

No..but thats a good analogy as well. There are literally thousands/millions of bad design problems on earth. Unless of course you believe he purposely created bad design to keep us guessing?
Im saying there is no proof whatsoever of a God....none. Nothing written, no clothing, nothing. IF you were to do a thesis on this subject there would be no evidence of his existence.

but Cheese, if a God existed ( I think God does, but that's not my point) how could he be proven to you in a way that you would actually believe its God, instead of coincidence/magic/hallucination?
also, what bad design problems? bad design in our opinion?

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I'm a theist (not religious; there is a big difference). I laugh at those on both sides who claim to be 100% sure that there either is or is not a God. You can't be sure, and you both certainly can't be right. It's funny that there can be two people sitting beside each other at a hockey game, and one is 100% sure there is a God and the other is 100% sure there is not.

I consider myself an agnostic theist. My wife is, I think, 100% sure there is a God. I think she's wrong, not wrong that there is no God but wrong in the sense that this is unknowable. I know people who are 100% sure there is no God; they're also wrong.

For those who answered the poll 100% either way, how in the world can you possibly know that? You can't.

Not to pick a fight, but your belief position is actually the only one that is wrong as regards the truth about the existence of God (*see below), even though your position about justifiable certainty regarding the matter may be right. As between your two hypothetical people, one of them is certainly wrong and the other is right about the ultimate question. Their own certainty as to the existence or non-existence of God is based on the appreciation of the evidence and their justification may or may not be faulty, and in fact for one of them it MUST BE faulty, but the fact is that one of them is actually right.

Many people are uncomfortable with agnosticism and feel the need to take a position of certainty. You hear about things like 'crisis of faith' among the religious, or 'death-bed' conversions of atheists and while these stories are anecdotal at best, they perhaps reveal a bit about the truly agnostic nature of many who would claim to be certain if you came out and asked them.

Again, I actually agree with your position on certainty, although I am on the other side of the fence and am only a 'little' agnostic, in that I think it is highly unlikely that there is a personal God or any supernatural agency and that it is so unlikely that you can almost be gnostic about it. The only reason I bring this up is to point out that the argument of the gnostic against the agnostic is that at least the gnostic represents a real position on the matter that will comport with reality.

* I have ignored the possibility that by some quantum universe argument, both atheists and theists are both right and wrong at the same time as a result of some strange universe that is in superposition of states where there both is a God and is not a God. The theological version of the double slit experiment or Schrodinger's cat if you will. In such a universe, the agnostics are still wrong unless Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to the measurement of the existence of God... (who knows, maybe it does) Even in this superposed universe God exists or does not, but measurement may influence existence. (although that would tend to suggest that God is not omnipotent and can't enforce his own existence in a universe He has supposedly created, which would seem to be a pretty impotent supernatural being)

Just food for thought for anyone crazy enough to go down this particular path...

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

but Cheese, if a God existed ( I think God does, but that's not my point) how could he be proven to you in a way that you would actually believe its God, instead of coincidence/magic/hallucination?
also, what bad design problems? bad design in our opinion?

I can think of a few ways.
The #1 proof would be to jump out from behind the clouds and say..."here I am"...then heal all the worlds sickly, walk on water and let us know why he created such a horrible set of tomes to keep us guessing. ( I mean he is God right? He could have created a much clearer set of rules).
After that he would have to somehow make all the "other religions" believe he is the true God.

Wait a second here...this is magic isnt it?
As to poor design...google it, youll find a million.

Here have some cheese

[HPLovecraft]

Why would Heisenberg's uncertainy principle apply to the measurement of God? Heisenberg's principle has to do with the measurement of particles; in other words, matter. Unless you believe God to be made of the same stuff you and I are made of, but even then, how does this impact God's existence? We can't determine his location and velocity simultaneously? We technically can't do that for a moving car, either, but what does that matter?

Quantum mechanics and religion should not mix. Really, never.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

A Christian Darwinist would simply say the "bad designs" were the result of natural processes.

No, I don't believe God purposely created anything to keep us guessing, I'm not a theist, but I'm not an anti-theist, either.

Im not a Christian Darwnist...and quite frankly these labels are simply a way of trying to manipulate yourself away from either a) saying you are a believer, a true believer or b)you arent.

I am "not a believer". Trying to shoehorn explanations into categories is simply bad science, no matter which way you turn it.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Im not a Christian Darwnist...and quite frankly these labels are simply a way of trying to manipulate yourself away from either a) saying you are a believer, a true believer or b)you arent.

I am "not a believer". Trying to shoehorn explanations into categories is simply bad science, no matter which way you turn it.

Well, everyone in the Catholic Church is a Christian Darwinist, considering it's their official doctrine.

Quite frankly, it seems that you don't want to understand or are incapable of understanding that there is complexity in religious belief. There is a rather large gulf between a child's conception of God and the theologian's.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Why would Heisenberg's uncertainy principle apply to the measurement of God? Heisenberg's principle has to do with the measurement of particles; in other words, matter. Unless you believe God to be made of the same stuff you and I are made of, but even then, how does this impact God's existence? We can't determine his location and velocity simultaneously? We technically can't do that for a moving car, either, but what does that matter?

Quantum mechanics and religion should not mix. Really, never.

Religion should not mix with...politics, science, sex.....etc etc etc. Doesnt say a lot about religion does it?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Well, everyone in the Catholic Church is a Christian Darwinist, considering it's their official doctrine.

Quite frankly, it seems that you don't want to understand or are incapable of understanding that there is complexity in religious belief. There is a rather large gulf between a child's conception of God and the theologian's.

LOL...a complexity in religious belief? I guess it depends how one is indoctrinated.

The Catholic Church changes direction on a whim...see limbo for instance...please don't use that institution as a basis for anything that might include science as a core belief.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Cheese

LOL...a complexity in religious belief? I guess it depends how one is indoctrinated.

The Catholic Church changes direction on a whim...see limbo for instance...please don't use that institution as a basis for anything that might include science as a core belief.

You asked me a question and I answered it as one group of the religious might, and now because you don't like the answer I gave you you're telling me not to use it?

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Why would Heisenberg's uncertainy principle apply to the measurement of God? Heisenberg's principle has to do with the measurement of particles; in other words, matter. Unless you believe God to be made of the same stuff you and I are made of, but even then, how does this impact God's existence? We can't determine his location and velocity simultaneously? We technically can't do that for a moving car, either, but what does that matter?

Quantum mechanics and religion should not mix. Really, never.

Actually, Heisenberg's principle could also be said to relate to measurement of quantum states. If the universe is in a superposition of states and we apply the correct form of measurement, do we collapse the states into only one state where God either exists or does not exist? The superposition of states, if it is a real phenomenon as proposed by quantum mechanics and demonstrated on a lower level by the double-slit experiment, means that the situation is indeterminate until measured, forcing the waveform to collapse. This is the uncertainty I was referring to. I'll grant you that the collapse of superposed states is not Heisenberg's principle, but it leads to a similar uncertainty as to the 'actual' state of the universe.

p.s. I know there's problems with what I proposed, doesn't mean it's not fun to throw it out there...

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

You asked me a question and I answered it as one group of the religious might, and now because you don't like the answer I gave you you're telling me not to use it?

I think you misread what I wrote. I never asked you a direct question, I simply provided my thoughts on questions at hand.
Also...I am quite sure...that 99.9% of Catholics would not know what a Christian Darwinist is and would likely blow you off as a kook if presented with that label.

[photon]

I don't think that's true, most Catholics I know fully accept evolution and would be fine with the label "Christian Darwinist" though I've never heard it before.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think that's true, most Catholics I know fully accept evolution and would be fine with the label "Christian Darwinist" though I've never heard it before.

That is what I was saying...Id bet that 99% of Christians would look at you cross-eyed if you suggested they were a Christian Darwinist.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

A Christian Darwinist would simply say the "bad designs" were the result of natural processes...

There are a variety of other answers as well. I am trending towards open theism, myself. Through careful consideration of the Epicurean paradox—which I believe is still the strongest challenge to any form of theism—I find myself more and more inclined to think that God is not omnipotent, nor omniscient. "Design flaws" are a natural consequence for something he didn't really design. I think that the problem with most forms of theism is that we are constantly getting God wrong.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

There are a variety of other answers as well. I am trending towards open theism, myself. Through careful consideration of the Epicurean paradox—which I believe is still the strongest challenge to any form of theism—I find myself more and more inclined to think that God is not omnipotent, nor omniscient. "Design flaws" are a natural consequence for something he didn't really design. I think that the problem with most forms of theism is that we are constantly getting God wrong.

then maybe we should change the word "God" to "alien"?

[driveway]

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

then maybe we should change the word "God" to "alien"?

Why?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why?

as you said..."we are getting God wrong".