UBC study finds believers distrust atheists as much as rapists

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Thor

But see even that you not are being very specific.

Is this God an intervening God? ie does he interact with the world, miracles, floods, plagues, etc..

Does this God have a specific communication with humankind, as in religious texts and are those texts his final word, flawless without any question?

Did this God create the universe and all that we see 6-10,000 years ago, or is the science agreed upon date of the universe when he did it.

Did this God set in motion life on earth and evolution then followed his plan, or did he create all that you see around us as is, no evolution required.

I want to know if he actually takes attendance

[Wormius]

Intelligent design is around so that guys like Kirk Cameron don't get flustered when trying to talk about evolution and dinosaur bones, etc.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

A supreme being who created all that we see around us.

Like Thor says, that's a pretty vague definition. Supreme being could apply to thousands of gods through history, advanced aliens, a deist type god, or the universe itself or a multiverse that spawns an infinite # of universes.

A being that created what we see around us? Most of what we see around us we know wasn't created by a supreme being. I wasn't, you weren't, those trees weren't, this planet and our sun wasn't. So depending on what you mean by created we could actually have factual evidence of god's non-existence; if the definition of god includes that everything is specially created and we know that not everything is created (some things create themselves), then that particular definition of god is disproven.

Assuming that that god didn't create the whole universe last Tuesday with all our memories and everything intact and everything appearing as if it had a long history. But reason and deduction isn't going to work with a perfect magical deception.

And like Cow says, then you get into an infinite regress problem that you a) have to end by special pleading and b) giving one entity an arbitrary necessary quality and deny it to the other entity.

That also doesn't address the lack of factual evidence of the non-existence of invisible unicorns, teapots orbiting the sun, and anything else that we can imagine.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by T@T

This reminds me of the original purpose of this thread and my original point. Generalizing an atheist or a theist as an idiot is the problem. The fact that this thread has remained pretty civilized and intelligent with representatives from all views shows that this is not true.

[Thor]

Last year when Sam Harris said he was going to release a book on how science can answer moral questions I thought, really, this is the direction to go in ?

More and more though I see what he's getting at; this fundamental problem of people in religions not understanding how anyone not with a divine belief could be moral or how they could find morality without it.

Its rather easily explained and as Sam and many others have stated the morals people usually bring up when asked what moral values they hold are ones not directly from any holy book. We share way more in common with our moral values than in say political ideology etc..

I think I'm on board now with Sam Harris' argument for taking on this question and clearing up the misunderstanding religious hold over the non religious.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by photon

Like Thor says, that's a pretty vague definition. Supreme being could apply to thousands of gods through history, advanced aliens, a deist type god, or the universe itself or a multiverse that spawns an infinite # of universes.

A being that created what we see around us? Most of what we see around us we know wasn't created by a supreme being. I wasn't, you weren't, those trees weren't, this planet and our sun wasn't. So depending on what you mean by created we could actually have factual evidence of god's non-existence; if the definition of god includes that everything is specially created and we know that not everything is created (some things create themselves), then that particular definition of god is disproven.

Assuming that that god didn't create the whole universe last Tuesday with all our memories and everything intact and everything appearing as if it had a long history. But reason and deduction isn't going to work with a perfect magical deception.

And like Cow says, then you get into an infinite regress problem that you a) have to end by special pleading and b) giving one entity an arbitrary necessary quality and deny it to the other entity.

That also doesn't address the lack of factual evidence of the non-existence of invisible unicorns, teapots orbiting the sun, and anything else that we can imagine.

I look at god as being everywhere, so the trees are part of god, this planet and our sun are part of god and I am and so are you. If we are part of god than there is no sense in looking for him in the clouds, on the mountains or in the heavens above us.

Jesus said that 'heaven is within us' and Socrates said to 'know thyself' so to me the way to look is within myself. I will never be able to prove god is real scientifically or with the mind, it isn't in that realm of understanding. It is a feeling or an experience that can't be reached by logic. For me there are two divisions in this debate, you either know god (gnostic) or you don't know (agnostic). Atheism and religion based on belief aren't really part of the equation, they are just part of not knowing.

The whole creation debate I've never understood as it just isn't that important but when it comes to this physical world and how it functions, I trust science gives the best explanations.

I referred to Jesus here as a teacher, as in most peoples senses I am not a Christian, Hindu, Muslim or follower of any religion.

As for god creating the universe last Tuesday, it's more important to experience the here and now, this is where I find god.

As for atheists being not trustworthy, I grew up in an atheist family and I don't think our morals are any better or worse than religious types. I mostly know what is right and wrong and I believe any of us who have done any self examination do so as well. If a person needs a book to tell them, I think they are kind of lacking. One thing I've run across with some so called Christians is that they may play straight with each other but think they can play fast and loose with non member so called heathens, while other christians are truly searching for god's love.

[endeavor]

http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/

^ Highly recommend it. I read it a couple of years ago but this debate is always interesting.

[Yasa]

To go off on a tangent here; the folks on the Atheism subreddit at Reddit raised and donated $150 000 to Doctors Without Borders in a day.

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comm...24_hours_so_i/

The same community (along with /r/trees, aka the weed subreddit) also raised $50 000 for Lucas, a 3 year old in need of a bone marrow transplant.

http://blog.reddit.com/2011/12/3-yea...es-reddit.html

Not all atheists are immoral monsters. Our motivations aren't brought on as a result of fear of punishment.

[Thor]

I think Yasa is a monster.

[Yasa]

A sexy monster, maybe.

[Thor]

Obviously.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

the universe exists, because God exists

also

God exists, because the universe exists

it's like circular "reasoning", but it only has 2 points.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Thor

But see even that you not are being very specific.


Is this God an intervening God? ie does he interact with the world, miracles, floods, plagues, etc..


Does this God have a specific communication with humankind, as in religious texts and are those texts his final word, flawless without any question?


Did this God create the universe and all that we see 6-10,000 years ago, or is the science agreed upon date of the universe when he did it.


Did this God set in motion life on earth and evolution then followed his plan, or did he create all that you see around us as is, no evolution required.

I was intentionally non-specific so as to include all Gods/gods as various faiths perceive him. My God is the Christian God.

No, I don't believe that God creates events or disasters. Miracles? Yes.

I do believe that God has communicated with people. I believe that his word is flawless, but our interpretation of it is not.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

God created evolution as his tool for creation. Read Dr. Francis Collins' The Language of God, which I have done twice. Collins and I share beliefs.

[evman150]

Christians are like NFL running backs, bobbing and weaving through whatever obstacles the evil scientists throw their way.

It's a good thing they're not like NFL kickers though, cause those moving goalposts would be awfully difficult to hit.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by evman150

Christians are like NFL running backs, bobbing and weaving through whatever obstacles the evil scientists throw their way.

It's a good thing they're not like NFL kickers though, cause those moving goalposts would be awfully difficult to hit.

I love science. Noting in science contradicts my beliefs, only confirms them.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I was intentionally non-specific so as to include all Gods/gods as various faiths perceive him.

Your original question was looking for evidence that would demonstrate god(s) non-existence.

Because proving a negative is generally difficult if not impossible, only by looking at specific properties of god where that god interacts with the observable universe can we evaluate.

And the more non-specific the definition, the more the question simply becomes irrelevant, with the extreme being a god that has no evidence that demonstrates their non-existence, but also has no role in the universe at all, in which case the question is pointless.

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

My God is the Christian God.

Even the definition of the Christian God varies between denominations, but for the most part the definition of the Christian God combined with the lack of evidence for traits that should demonstrate positive evidence leads me to the conclusion that the Christian God does not exist, at least by a specific subset of definitions of God that most Christian sects put forward.

But that non-existence doesn't necessarily mean there isn't anything, it just means that that specific definitions don't; the definitions could also be wrong.

The way you phrased that though raises a question, you said "so as to include all Gods/gods as various faiths perceive him." Do you mean to say that all faiths ultimately are equally valid and accurate views of the same deity (meaning it doesn't matter if your Christian or Muslim)?

I don't see how that can be as may religions make mutually exclusive claims.

Or some other meaning (or that there is only one "true" religion and I just read too much into what you said)?

Not that I want to get into a theological debate, but I think the question is pertinent to the issue of evidence that would demonstrate god(s) non-existence.

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

God created evolution as his tool for creation. Read Dr. Francis Collins' The Language of God, which I have done twice. Collins and I share beliefs.

I've read portions of that book, and ultimately I think his view there boils down to pure faith (faith meaning belief without evidence in this case), but for the most part his views are compatible with science.. when talking about evolution to theists I'd rather send them to biologos.org to show that evolution doesn't have to be at odds with a religious view.

[troutman]

Science does not rule out god(s), but does make the chances of Christian God being literally true, vanishingly small.

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

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki...le_and_Science

http://christianity.net.au/questions/question37

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by photon

Your original question was looking for evidence that would demonstrate god(s) non-existence.

Because proving a negative is generally difficult if not impossible, only by looking at specific properties of god where that god interacts with the observable universe can we evaluate.

And the more non-specific the definition, the more the question simply becomes irrelevant, with the extreme being a god that has no evidence that demonstrates their non-existence, but also has no role in the universe at all, in which case the question is pointless.

Even the definition of the Christian God varies between denominations, but for the most part the definition of the Christian God combined with the lack of evidence for traits that should demonstrate positive evidence leads me to the conclusion that the Christian God does not exist, at least by a specific subset of definitions of God that most Christian sects put forward.

But that non-existence doesn't necessarily mean there isn't anything, it just means that that specific definitions don't; the definitions could also be wrong.

The way you phrased that though raises a question, you said "so as to include all Gods/gods as various faiths perceive him." Do you mean to say that all faiths ultimately are equally valid and accurate views of the same deity (meaning it doesn't matter if your Christian or Muslim)?

I don't see how that can be as may religions make mutually exclusive claims.

Or some other meaning (or that there is only one "true" religion and I just read too much into what you said)?

Not that I want to get into a theological debate, but I think the question is pertinent to the issue of evidence that would demonstrate god(s) non-existence.

I've read portions of that book, and ultimately I think his view there boils down to pure faith (faith meaning belief without evidence in this case), but for the most part his views are compatible with science.. when talking about evolution to theists I'd rather send them to biologos.org to show that evolution doesn't have to be at odds with a religious view.

First bold: No, I don't believe all faiths are equally valid. How could any believer think that, given that there are many contradictions between faiths?

Second bold: I don't think Collins' beliefs (or mine, as they're pretty much the same) are based purely on faith. My belief (as is Collins') is based on the enormous complexity of the world and the universe and the conclusion that all of this must have a creator.

Third bold: I agree that evolution and religion need not be at odds. Many Christians are threatened by science, thinking that scientific discovery contadicts their faith. It doesn't contradict my faith, but only confirms it.

I agree that my beliefs cannot be proven false. Athiesm could be proven false, but it's unlikely that it ever will be during man's existence, which causes me regret that I won't be able to come one day to tell you, "I told you so."

[MacGr3gor]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Third bold: I agree that evolution and religion need not be at odds. Many Christians are threatened by science, thinking that scientific discovery contadicts their faith. It doesn't contradict my faith, but only confirms it.

What do you mean by science confirming your faith? You've said this several times throughout the thread, it's piqued my interest.

[MarchHare]

First bold: No, I don't believe all faiths are equally valid. How could any believer think that, given that there are many contradictions between faiths?

How did you determine that your faith is more valid than that of someone from another religion who is equally sure that his or her religious views are correct?

My belief (as is Collins') is based on the enormous complexity of the world and the universe and the conclusion that all of this must have a creator.

Isn't it a bit of a logical leap to jump from the statement, "The universe is incredibly complicated" to the conclusion, "...therefore it must have a creator"? Doesn't that also prompt one to ask, "If there is a creator, mustn't it therefore follow that this creator is also incredibly complex? So complex, in fact, that the creator must also have a creator?" Where does it end?

The only intellectually honest position is to admit that humans don't fully know how the universe came into existance, and this is an area where an immense amount of study is still needed. Waving your hands and saying, "A wizard did it" is a cop-out.

I agree that my beliefs cannot be proven false. Athiesm could be proven false, but it's unlikely that it ever will be during man's existence, which causes me regret that I won't be able to come one day to tell you, "I told you so."

This is a very interesting point. All atheists would abandon their position if there was sufficient enough evidence to confirm the existence of a creator-god. No amount of evidence is ever sufficient to convince a diehard believer to abandon their faith, though.