Do you believe in God?

[homeforsummer]

Share. Or if that is cheating, I would think it would be best if the coconut wasn't eaten by either of us on the island.

Congratulations on choosing the option that allows both of you to die. Whatever happened to allowing the other person to eat at your own expense? Is that not the Christian thing to do?

If there is no purpose of life, then there would logically be no purpose to continue it.

You keep saying that, and it's no less ridiculous each time. You make it sound like life is teetering on the edge of relevance and if it should ever find out its irrelevant, it would simply cease to exist.

Why should life have a purpose? Why can we not simply "live"? Life has whatever purpose you give it. You're given that one in millions chance of being conceived, why not make the most of it instead of wondering why it happened?

Christianity is such a depressing religion sometimes. You spend your whole, unique life making sacrifices in order to give yourself a better life after you die in a place you have to blindly believe exists.

If something was irrational then you wouldn't follow it, no matter how bad the so called "punishments" you would meet at your fate.

Tell that to someone being tortured. Or maybe someone whose family will be burned at the stake if you don't comply.

I don't agree that fear leads people to Christianity (as in fear about Hell).

Then that's your problem for misunderstanding human nature. Kids can be controlled so easily by telling them that being bad will get them a lump of coal at Christmas. You think that the concept of hell doesn't scare Christians in the same way?

Sorry, not buying that. I'd ask whether you'd prefer to go to heaven or hell, but I already know the answer. Any time you do anything that could potentially send you to hell, I'd be willing to bet it's fear that stops you doing so.

 

[niky]

Perhaps I am mixing up atheists with naturalists or materialists?

More like you are painting all atheists with the same brush, just as others saying that "Religion" equals "Inquisition" paints all religious with the same brush.

I see the master as God in this analogy, and that I am the dog. He corrects me on my path at my own will so that I may go forward with him. Sometimes I cannot understand what I have done wrong, but I trust my master at my own will and travel forward with him.
I hope I have explained this properly. I find this very hard.
Bad things are the consequences of free will. Things that we consider bad are not bad when we consider that it is temporarily less than good to go forward to good.

And yet, do you require a master and do you really have to walk in that direction? Since we don't have leash laws here, I've never walked a dog with a leash. When I had a dog, I showed him what to do and trusted him to do the right thing himself. Worked pretty well. Always walked in the same general direction as I did. Never pooped inside the house. Never killed a cat (in fact, I would sometimes find him curled up to sleep with a cat and one of the neighbor's goats on cold nights) and was always polite and friendly to everyone. Would still bark at odd noises in the house at night... but isn't that why we keep dogs?

Now, would I treat people with any less respect? Yes, there are those who need guidance to perform, but they have to willingly accept guidance, and it has to be very clear, goal-oriented and understood. If you train people to just follow commands blindly without using their own judgment and initiative, then they will be unable to work things out for themselves when the need arises.

Share. Or if that is cheating, I would think it would be best if the coconut wasn't eaten by either of us on the island.

Let's put it as there is only enough of the coconut so that it will sustain one person. Logically, one person has to eat it to survive.

A difficult choice. The most moral thing would be to give it to the other person. The most logical thing would be to flip a coin for it.

A moral person would most likely offer the coconut to the other person. If both persons are moral and altruistic, they would offer it to each other, then they would still have to flip a coin. But at least you offered, first.

I disagree. I believe that there is such a thing as absolute moral good. We talk as if it were there and argue over who is closest to it when discussing points over morality.

My argument is whether absolute goodcan actually exist. Conceptually, we can say that absolute moral good is where no one is hurt or killed for any reason, and a Universe founded on absolute moral good would provide for the spiritual or philosophical advancement of all with none left behind, none oppressed and none performing immoral acts. That clearly is not this Universe.

If there is no purpose of life, then there would logically be no purpose to continue it.

Are you sure enough of this idea that you would end your life if you found out, with finality, that God does not exist? No. Of course not. Your purpose in life is whatever you make of it.

Sorry. I'm not really sure how to answer this.
If something was irrational then you wouldn't follow it, no matter how bad the so called "punishments" you would meet at your fate.
I don't agree that fear leads people to Christianity (as in fear about Hell).

This was mentioned earlier in the thread, but why do you think so many atheists or non-devout people "find religion" in jail or in the hospital? Do you know why the song "Amazing Grace" (one of the best hymnals ever written) was written? Fear of death leads people to a belief in the afterlife. Fear of hell leads people to religion. While there are those who find religion and embrace it for other reasons, these fears are a factor in the faith of many.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I believe that there has to be a single being that created the existance of everything. Heres why. If you believe that all that exists came to be from a single "Big Bang",cool! I can except that such an event did occur. However,who made the matter that generated this "Big Bang"? Same goes for the Ancient Alien theory guys. I can believe that we were visited by advanced beings from another star system,maybe thousands or even millions of years ahead of us. And maybe they have abilities that can allow them to seem god-like. However,they did'nt create themselves.
So you see,no matter what scenario you can imagine,I don't believe that nature has the ability to create itself. Or just spawn into existance. Something or someone had to be responsable for it's creation. Even this more up to date String theory. I don't believe that our universe is a re-occuring thing that has always been and always will be. If this were true, there would be such a large number of stars in our sky that the night sky would be lit up like it was daytime. Our sky portrays the life and death of 14 billion years worth of stars. Could you imagine what it would look like if time was infinite? The night sky would look more like a giant glowing mass that would fill the sky from one end to another. All these things prove to me that there must be a creator. A single being (God) who set things in motion 14 billion years ago.

How is it that the idea of the universe creating itself/always existing is unimaginable but the idea of God creating himself/always existing isn't?

Why must it always be a "who"? Why can't matter be eternal?

As for the last part of your post. Stars die.

 

[BobK]

As I have already quoted above...

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to it's music." - Richard Dawkins

You are happy to agree or disagree if you like. If good and evil are a matter of opinion, then I can't see how you could get ethics from it, and I can't see how we could punish others if they were "just following their DNA".

DNA does not dictate all our actions. In fact it doesn't dictate any of our actions, as in, it doesn't force us to do anything, certainly not against our will.

If DNA dictated our actions to the extent you think Dawkins says it does, then identical twins (who have identical DNA) would always react in an identical manner in any given situation. If you know any twins (or are one yourself), you'd know how patently ridiculous that is.

 

[TankAss95]

DNA does not dictate all our actions. In fact it doesn't dictate any of our actions, as in, it doesn't force us to do anything, certainly not against our will.

If DNA dictated our actions to the extent you think Dawkins says it does, then identical twins (who have identical DNA) would always react in an identical manner in any given situation. If you know any twins (or are one yourself), you'd know how patently ridiculous that is.

I thought nobody had identical DNA. Everyone has different fingerprints, for example.

 

[BobK]

I thought nobody had identical DNA. Everyone has different fingerprints, for example.

Identical twins do. Read up on them.

The fact that they have different fingerprints just goes to show that DNA does not control things to the extent that's being claimed. That being said, twins' fingerprints would be very similar to each others'. I would speculate that it would take a fingerprint expert to tell them apart.

 

[dylansan]

Whether someone is good or bad does depend quite a bit on how they were raised and whether they were taught to respect people's rights. In that respect, I don't think people can be blamed for being bad or good, but we still have to put them in jail to keep them from doing more harm to anyone else.

 

[huskeR32]

How can we get from science to ethics? If people are nothing but machines dancing to the sound of their DNA, how can we punish people for doing wrong (considering evil doesn't exist in atheism). How can the atheist consider Hitler or Stalin to be bad people if they were just machines following what their DNA is telling them?
And finally, if we are nothing but machines how can we trust ourselves?

That works if we can rebel against our DNA, but can we? And if someone is born with 'bad' DNA (DNA making them do bad things) then the person involved can't really take the blame for what they have done. And if there is no 'good' and 'evil', then how can we produce and enforce law? Even more, how can we trust ourselves?

You've been trying to turn this into some kind of legitimate pro-religion argument for quite some time now, and I've gotta say, I don't get it at all. Theists base a lot of their principles and morals on a relationship with an invisible being and a fear of going to hell. Atheists, for the most part, find their principles and morals by looking inside, and holding themselves personally responsible. It seems to me that atheists actually trust themselves more.

That's why I can't see how an atheistic society could work. I accept that there could be a thing as an atheistic society, but I can't understand it. And as I have mentioned before, thinking atoms discussing morality is absurd.

This sounds an awful lot like you're rejecting what is known to be the fundamental building block of everything (atoms). You may want to reconsider that one, because you're completely loony if that's what you're saying.

Christianity promises justice after death, with atheism death is simply the end....

So what? Just because you're more comfortable believing that there's something after this life doesn't make it true.

Christianity promises justice after death, with atheism death is simply the end. Although we try today, very rarely is proper justice executed in practice (if at all)...

Justice isn't some equation that needs to be balanced out in the end for the universe to function. Sometimes you get the short end of it, sometimes, bad people get away with bad things and never atone for them. That's life.

...If 'good' and 'evil' doesn't exist why should we punish others if we all have the same fate in the end? And even more, how can we tell the difference between the two?

Where did you get the idea that good and evil don't exist? Basically you're trying to argue that if god doesn't exist, that must mean that everything you attributed to god must not exist then either. That logic fails. Badly.

Even if right and wrong don't come from the source that you think they do, they still exist. And we should still punish bad and encourage good because it helps promote the existence of our species. I think most of us can agree that's a good thing to work for.

And finally, we can tell the difference between good and bad because we've been fortunate to evolve into beings with a great capacity for logical and rational thinking. Those abilities allow us to identify which actions will contribute to the survival of our species (right) and which will hinder that survival (wrong).

 

[Exorcet]

You've been trying to turn this into some kind of legitimate pro-religion argument for quite some time now, and I've gotta say, I don't get it at all. Theists base a lot of their principles and morals on a relationship with an invisible being and a fear of going to hell. Atheists, for the most part, find their principles and morals by looking inside, and holding themselves personally responsible. It seems to me that atheists actually trust themselves more.

I really, really, really, need to support this.

The idea that "if we are atoms, then we cannot trust" ourselves makes zero sense. It contributes nothing to the discussion. And this has been said over and over.

TankAss, what are you trying to gain by asking a question that does not even make sense?

Also, even if Christianity is correct down to the last punctuation mark in the Bible, we are still atoms. You can't deny that. Maybe if Christianity was correct, there would be a soul too, but the atoms would not go away. Are Christian atoms, which must rely on their brains comprised of atoms, special?

 

[nitrorocks]

Than who is responsible for the creation of the thing that is responsible for creating us?

That isn't true because it would just be a never ending list of creator after creator after creator. God was all that there was. He made everything we believe.

 

[RBW]

No I dont believe in god as I have yet to encounter evidence that proves him real.

Is there any evidence you have a brain? Has anyone seen it, touched it, smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Is there any evidence you have a brain? Has anyone seen it, touched it, smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain.

This message is so full of fail.

 

[RBW]

This message is so full of fail.

You're just afraid to fight me on it.

Just like no one has seen God, nor touched him, nor smelt him. He's still there. We have faith he's there, and the proof is all around us. You have faith you have a brain. But, can we see it? How do we know that you head isn't just empty?

Actually stop and think about it.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Is there any evidence you have a brain? Has anyone seen it, touched it, smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain.

I think a better example would be to a blind man rainbows don't exist.

 

[CodeRedR51]

You're just afraid to fight me on it.

Really?

Doctors see brains every day. There's no brain....sheesh.

 

[Azuremen]

You're just afraid to fight me on it.

Probably because he doesn't want to pick on you. Given the flawless "logic" below, who would want to?

Just like no one has seen God, nor touched him, nor smelt him. He's still there. We have faith he's there, and the proof is all around us. You have faith you have a brain. But, can we see it? How do we know that you head isn't just empty?

We know people need brains to function due to other testing, so there isn't a need to check it on a case by case basis. This argument would the same as saying "do we know there is a candy inside of the candy box?"

Or we could remember how the fetus is often scanned with an ultrasound and that will show various bits of matter there.

Honestly, please take a deep breath and pull your head out whatever hole you've stuck it in.

 

[RBW]

The things I said up there, were by Einstein. If you want you can take him up on it. See where his head was.

 

[88FoxBodyFan]

You're just afraid to fight me on it.

Just like no one has seen God, nor touched him, nor smelt him. He's still there. We have faith he's there, and the proof is all around us. You have faith you have a brain. But, can we see it? How do we know that you head isn't just empty?

Actually stop and think about it.

 

[Azuremen]

The things I said up there, were by Einstein. If you want you can take him up on it. See where his head was.

Certainly not where yours is, as you've completely misunderstood what he was going for. It wasn't an argument as a proof of existence of God, but it seems many feel that is the case. I was telling you to pull your head out because you clearly don't understand what the point was.

And Einstein was mistaken on many things as well, so I don't see how he can validate your terrible use of that situation.

EDIT: Further digging has yet to find that story tied directly to Einstein anyhow, so another case of

 

[Joey D]

Is there any evidence you have a brain? Has anyone seen it, touched it, smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain.

I have been in quite a few brain surgeries, I can assure you there is something in one's head. I haven't touched a brain but I have seen it and it smelled like burn skull and human blood mixed with a healthy dose of iodine...not very pleasant.

You can also do a CT scan and see your brain too, it is pretty damn cool.

 

[niky]

Having had X-Rays of my own skull done and MRIs of my child's brain done, both after trauma, and having actually studied human anatomy and cut up several cadavers... as well as owning my own brain-in-a-jar, I had to laugh at the question.

We have plenty of evidence for brains in other people. If you want evidence of a brain in your own skull, all you have to do is have it cut open and have the doctors tickle your brain.

The things I said up there, were by Einstein. If you want you can take him up on it. See where his head was.

Then would you like to cite the original quote? Because I can't find it. Anywhere.

-

There is no faith in science. If you doubt another's scientific findings, you could perform the experiment yourself and either come to the same conclusion or disprove it. Any intrinsic trust in your powers of reasoning or senses that can be attributed to science can also be attributed to religion, with the added burden of religion requiring you to also trust in that which cannot be arrived at by logic or senses.

 

[fitftw]

Religion requires faith. It's that simple. If you don't have faith, you aren't religious.

 

[superbike81]

Is there any evidence you have a brain? Has anyone seen it, touched it, smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain.

Wow.....



Just wow........




I can smash your skull in with hammer right now and I guarantee you there is a brain in there. I can cut you to pieces, but I guarantee you that I for damn sure won't find your "soul."

 

[Zenith]

I'm late to the party but I've decided to make more visits to the Rumble Strip section. I'm sure this has already been posted, but it's always good to read.

I think a better example would be to a blind man rainbows don't exist.

The difference being that a blind man can still learn and understand the optics behind it. The physics work and will be accepted by anyone thinking properly. This isn't the case for god. There is no explanation of his existence or anything of the sort and it's laughable to say that theists somehow have a working explanation or a 6th sense for god's presence.

 

[homeforsummer]

To be fair to RBW, he might be right. His reasoning certainly implies he has no brain. No MRI or head-scooping required.

 

[fitftw]

Ricky Gervais is an atheist? Didn't know that. I love his famous scene in The Invention of Lying. It pokes fun at religion but also gives it a purpose. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0c_-I2cLbo

I like one of the comments:

"...They (Theists) just say 'faith' and then that's supposed to end the conversation and give them special rights. No. Belief in spite of evidence isn't a virtue."

 

[Liquid]

Ricky Gervais is an atheist? Didn't know that.

You must have avoided his stand-up like the plague. Gervais is always good for a laugh. His best work on the Bible is on Animals.

If you don't have faith, you aren't religious.

Genuine question; is the reverse therefore true? If you have faith, does that automatically make you religious? In your view?

 

[Dapper]

Genuine question; is the reverse therefore true? If you have faith, does that automatically make you religious? In your view?

Faith in religion, or God, is not the only faith. For instance, a lot of cars stop behind me at stop lights; As they approach I have faith they will stop.

 

[Liquid]

That's what I was alluding to Dapper, I was interested in what fitftw thought, considering he said that no faith automatically means not religious.

 

[fitftw]

what he said...I was talking about religious faith. I don't have faith that there is a god, but SOMETIMES I really do feel like life is pre-determined, pre-destined, planned out since birth, whatever. But I am not religious.