Do you believe in God?

[Northstar]

but do you non-god believers believe in parallel lines?

What?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I'm relocating this from the "Creation vs. Evolution" thread, because it seems more appropriate here.

The whole Creation vs. Evolution discussion, and both US national and international events in general, have had me wondering: are we living through the last hysterical death throes of religion?

I've been thinking this over for a few years now, and my guardedly optimistic answer is YES. Unfortunately, my pessimistic prediction is that there is still a hundred years left in that old dog God, so it's he's likely to bite many more people before he's through.

*repost of my response from Creation vs. Evolution thread for topicality*

I definitely agree with you. That's partially what I was getting at (probably ham-handedly) with the "wall" analogy. I DO think, if you'll pardon the quip, that we're living in non-fundamentalist religion's "end times". To be fair, it should have gone out the door after the renaissance, but political leaders throughout history used religion for pragmatic reasons to such an extent that it became an "estate" of its own, so entrenched that it managed to survive.

But you're also unfortunately probably right about the "old dog". Even a hundred years, hell, a THOUSAND years from now, we'll still be tackling fundamentalists and true believers of some form. I think, too, the nature of certain specific religions will insulate them better against the growing tide of reason. Though it's quite un-PC () to single out individual faiths, Islam, in particular, has gone to great lengths over time to guard itself against encroaching modernity. I think we'll still be grappling with Imams long after the Vatican is relegated to a curious museum of history.

 

[Public'sTwin]

*repost of my response from Creation vs. Evolution thread for topicality*

I definitely agree with you. That's partially what I was getting at (probably ham-handedly) with the "wall" analogy. I DO think, if you'll pardon the quip, that we're living in non-fundamentalist religion's "end times". To be fair, it should have gone out the door after the renaissance, but political leaders throughout history used religion for pragmatic reasons to such an extent that it became an "estate" of its own, so entrenched that it managed to survive.

But you're also unfortunately probably right about the "old dog". Even a hundred years, hell, a THOUSAND years from now, we'll still be tackling fundamentalists and true believers of some form. I think, too, the nature of certain specific religions will insulate them better against the growing tide of reason. Though it's quite un-PC () to single out individual faiths, Islam, in particular, has gone to great lengths over time to guard itself against encroaching modernity. I think we'll still be grappling with Imams long after the Vatican is relegated to a curious museum of history.

Somewhat ironically, I can't see the same thing happening to Judaism within the next 200 years. It seems to be one of the few "Western" religions people still respect.

 

[niky]

Islam can't last very long. Not in its current form.

Catholicism has been able to weather storm after storm over the centuries due to its adaptibility. I know, I know... it's a laughable concept... but the inherent flexibility of this religion, its ability to subsume and intergrate other cultures into its own mythos (Christmas, Easter, etcetera... built around pagan holidays and traditions, despite being based on Biblical events), and its ability to bend with the times have helped it to stay somewhat relevant in the modern world.

Which is why the Catholic Church doesn't tend to stoop down to the level of fundamentalists and enter the "Creationism versus Evolution" debate, simply because they know it's a lost cause. It does, however, participate strongly in the debate over contraception, as they see it as a very real threat to their power-base... i.e.: Catholic populations. They're being pragmatic about which battles they fight.

Islam can't stay fundamentalist and hope to survive. Increasingly, we're seeing a more modern role for women in the Middle East in more developed countries, and the intermarrying between Muslims and "non-believers" is forcing many modern Muslims to take a more liberal approach to the religion. Yes, the non-Muslim in such couples is forced to convert, but often the sacrifice goes both ways.

The problem with Islamic fundamentalists is that they won't go away unless the conditions that serve as a breeding ground for the more radical amongst them disappear. Unfortunately, there is no religious movement more appealing to dispossessed, angry young men right now than jihad... so until we "cure" poverty and social strife, that aspect of Islam is here to stay.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Islam can't last very long. Not in its current form.

Catholicism has been able to weather storm after storm over the centuries due to its adaptibility. I know, I know... it's a laughable concept... but the inherent flexibility of this religion, its ability to subsume and intergrate other cultures into its own mythos (Christmas, Easter, etcetera... built around pagan holidays and traditions, despite being based on Biblical events), and its ability to bend with the times have helped it to stay somewhat relevant in the modern world.

It's exactly that "adaptability", if you want to call it that, that makes Christianity - Catholicism specifically - so vulnerable in a modern context, I think. If one believes that reason and faith ARE disparate ideas, the more reason that a faith incorporates or endorses, the less of a true "Faith" it becomes. It can tame its doctrine only so far before it HAS no doctrine. Couple that with a strikingly contraposed unwillingness on the part of the Vatican to moderate its enforcement of shame and guilt among its followers, and its continued tendency to commit such unspeakably evil acts as actively preaching against condom use in AIDS-riddled villages in Africa, and you have a recipe for collapse.

American Christianity is a very different animal - less slavishly obedient to a central body of men, but in many ways, far more culturally entrenched, despite its relative youth. Something like 80-90 percent of Americans (claim to) believe in a personal God, and a substantial number of those - I believe the polls say something like 60 to 70 percent - believe in a literal devil and a literal hell where sinners will burn and suffer for all eternity. This, if you haven't experienced its fervor firsthand, is frighteningly different from the almost "casual" Christianity one finds in Europe. But it is similar to the world body of Christians as a whole in that the real vitriol comes not from the bulk of "believers", but from a few (albeit more disassociated) figureheads. As these figureheads begin to die off (most are "old guard", like Falwell was), I think it's very likely that their "cowed sheep" will begin to examine their true conditions, especially in a world that seems to be growing ever-more permissive to dialectical pursuit of religion's merits.

Islam can't last very long. Not in its current form.

Islam, I think, speaks for itself in how virulent its influence can be, and how desperately it will fight to preserve its existence. It produces more fundamentalists than any other religion by FAR, and those that it produces are much more willing to go to incredible lengths to achieve what they want. Jihad is an essential part of Islamic doctrine, no matter how much moderates will say it isn't - the more diabolical leaders know this, and will do anything to maintain respect for Jihad as it solidifies their bases of power.

Their strength has always been their ability to isolate themselves and their beliefs from modern intrusion, and where they embrace modernity, it's only to allow themselves technical parity with those they consider to be enemies. You may see specific Arabic nations that appear more progressive or singular events that would appear encouraging, such as moratoriums on stoning women, but you have to consider how much of that is a temporary conciliation to maintain economic ties with the West. I feel sure that as soon as the mideast oil reserves dry up, or the Western world embraces an alternate energy source and stops pumping trillions of dollars into Arabic nations, such nations will happily revert right back to their old practices.

The Islamic holy book itself can easily be called the most vile of the three Abrahamic holy texts as well. Not only does it embrace the cruel, violent, capricious Yaweh of the Torah and the Old Testament, but it denies the divinity of Jesus Christ, which I might grudgingly call the one man with a somewhat reasonable message among all the 'big three'. It goes on to say that these previous texts are all well and good, but that Mohammed has the final word on EVERY matter of the spirit, and specifically says that nothing else is neccessary. To borrow from (I think) Sam Harris, this is a VERY dangerous statement that should scare ANY modern freethinker. It creates a society that can produce a man capable of graduating from a Western university with the technical and scientific training to build a nuclear device, yet this is a man who still believes that if he used said device in the service of Allah, he will wake up in Paradise surrounded by a gang of horny virgins. This may sound absurd, but consider that many of Al Qaeda's 9/11 team were University educated; some even had doctorates. I think a mindset like that, practicing as cruelly as it has in the past and continues to practice now, will be with us for a while.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I did vote "No way!", but it does depend on the definition of God used.
I'm not atheist however.

Sadly find it is hard to go through the whole thread and pick up all the valuable input gathered here over time, will have to take some time one weekend to do so.

1) For me the concept of "God" is in line with the philosophy that is accepted in the society. Nietzsches "God is dead" is about this and does not seem far from what I feel when talking to people around me, even between those that still go to church regularly.
2) I keep being amazed with the good that has been done in the past for "Gods" in all their forms and religions. Organization of society, support of the poor and ill, creation of some of the most beautiful and ingenious buildings, books etc... these remain examples for the future to all of us.
3) Like in all organizations and history, it is sad to see there is/was some misguidance, mistakes or abuse of power. We should learn from this to avoid it and be aware this can happen.
4) I'm very much in a critical mind and individual opinions (actually more in purity of mind), but when people find strength in guidance and when this leads to good for all, who am I to judge their ways?

 

[Famine]

I do believe in God. I know this will sound really stupid, but do you non-god believers believe in parallel lines?

In theory yes - two lines can be perfectly parallel to each other. In practice this is difficult to achieve.

Please be more specific

Oh stars... I never thought I'd see the day.

This is an argument about Einstein. The reasoning goes:
1. "Relativity" is based on non-Euclidean geometry, where parallel lines don't exist.
2. Parallel lines do exist.
3. Einstein is wrong.
4. All science is wrong.
5. ????
6. GOD!

Of course there are several problems with this. Step 5, particularly. The leap from Step 3 to 4 is a big one too, particularly as this argument is used to debunk atheism by saying it's an invention of Zionists (that'd be Jews, who believe in a god). But of course the fundamental problem is that "relativity" - which in this case is used to refer to the General Theory of Relativity - isn't based on non-Euclidean geometry and doesn't preclude the possibility of parallel lines. It's based on Riemannian geometry, which describes variations in geometry, just as General Relativity does (curved at concentrations of energy, flat elsewhere).

In short, it's hogwash.

 

[homeforsummer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5asxkx8q9ww

the fact that you cat move your arms is a proof that God exists.

That not only makes no sense, but the video you provided is completely irrelevant too...

 

[DK]

Islam is one of the most fundamentalist religions imaginable. In Sudan and Saudi Arabia it's illegal to teach evolution.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Oh stars... I never thought I'd see the day.

This is an argument about Einstein. The reasoning goes:
1. "Relativity" is based on non-Euclidean geometry, where parallel lines don't exist.
2. Parallel lines do exist.
3. Einstein is wrong.
4. All science is wrong.
5. ????
6. GOD!

👍👍👍


Steps 5 and 6 are vitally important to this discussion and though this has been pointed out in the Creation vs. Evolution thread, and likely in this thread several times, I think this bears reiterating.

Let's grant, for a moment, the following premise:

Science is wrong, and all of those throughout history who have dedicated their lives to it and produced myriad practical applications of the lies it spews are delusional.

Even if this was true, it would not be evidence for the existence of a god.

The alternative to something that bases its conclusions on observation, testing, and evidence is not something that bases its conclusions on assertion, reassertion, really really angry re-reassertion, and a dusty book written, edited, translated, and retranslated over a span of nearly three millenia by hundreds, if not thousands, of people all claiming to be the inspired voice of a single source.

 

[Jim Prower]

I'm a Believer, and, at that, a Christian, but I can't stand these Conservative "Christians," who use their "beliefs" in order to win debates, instead of simply being kind and considerate. It's just one more reason that people like that are complete and total....well, put your favorite swear word here.

I feel that they're at fault for pushing many people away from Christianity, young people in particular. How does being a (swear) help people come to believe?

 

[Touring Mars]

After a massive natural disaster such as the Haitian earthquake, or the Indian Ocean tsunami, the same question arises, namely "Why does God allow such things to happen?". The Scottish philosopher David Hume is credited with popularising what is known as the "Problem of Evil" originally mooted by Epicurus, and is also known as "The Epicurus paradox", which considers why "evil" exists at all, and why an all-powerful God tolerates it. It goes like this:

Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?

 

[Famine]

Worst still would be the conclusion that God often perpetrates the evil in order to test faith...

 

[Dotini]

The alternative to something that bases its conclusions on observation, testing, and evidence is not something that bases its conclusions on assertion, reassertion, really really angry re-reassertion, and a dusty book written, edited, translated, and retranslated over a span of nearly three millenia by hundreds, if not thousands, of people all claiming to be the inspired voice of a single source.

Lots of nifty ideas are being discussed here, and the captioned quote is only a particularly well stated recapitulation of the key question : "What is the right way to live?"

In response to the topical question, "Do you believe in God?", I will state the following:
- Evolution is the best current explanation for the descent of species.
- Organized religion is a scam and should be distrusted.
- It's very unlikely Man is the zenith of perfection in this universe, and we should be very, very humble.
- Prophets of various religions, from Abraham to Joseph Smith, have been informed in visions by voices and apparitions of otherworldly beings. These may be drug induced, induced by other means of altered states of consciousness, or just possibly, by a non-human intelligence from another world or dimension. Controlled tests of DMT in university laboratory settings consistently result in interactive conversations with clever little blue aliens. Acquisition of knowledge by altered states or psychic experiences can result in veridical data.
- Christianity is dying, both in populations and the vigor of its belief.
- Islam is flourishing. It is a successful refuge from the corruption and complete sexual depravity and perversion of the secular world and decadent Christianity. Its fighters are unquestionably the bravest on the planet, and are quite skillful. Wish it weren't true, but it is.
-Sufism is a mystical form of Islam, and holds a lot of interest for disaffected Westerners.
- I'll end with some questions: (1) If you had a choice between a world ending in total war, death and destruction, and a world in which everybody converted to Islam with its minor squabbles between sects and its occasional stoning of women for infidelity, which would you choose? (2) If a way could be found to liquidate human consciousness to the point where language, ideology and technology reverted to a level of say, 2,000,000 years ago, would you be for it? (3) Is it realistic to search, without preconditions, for a right way of living?

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[AvanGard]

The Poll is not in gods' favor.
Religion is a dying concept. You can toss percentages around all you want but with every generation fewer and fewer people believe, or have belief.

The Vatican, in particular, in the past few years seem to have become more of a movie critics organization than a spiritual center of Christianity.

 

[Sam48]

What?

See in theory, you can believe parallel lines exist, but in reality that would mean someone would have to make 2 perfectly straight lines that went on forever. It sounds impossible, yet you could easily imagine it. You can't see it, but you know it's possible.

You follow?

 

[DK]

It creates a society that can produce a man capable of graduating from a Western university with the technical and scientific training to build a nuclear device, yet this is a man who still believes that if he used said device in the service of Allah, he will wake up in Paradise surrounded by a gang of horny virgins.

What's so great about sleeping with 72/3 virgins? I doubt they have Sexual Education in the Arab world. So they're going to know nothing about sex and how to...how should I say it, get it on.

 

[Famine]

You can't see it, but you know it's possible.

Like gravity?

 

[Sam48]

Like gravity?

Yes.

 

[Famine]

Excellent. So the relevance to the thread iiiiiiiiiiiiiis...?

 

[Jim Prower]

The Poll is not in gods' favor.
Religion is a dying concept. You can toss percentages around all you want but with every generation fewer and fewer people believe, or have belief.

The Vatican, in particular, in the past few years seem to have become more of a movie critics organization than a spiritual center of Christianity.

Hey, I'm not gonna get in people's faces if they don't wanna believe. I feel that if people are at a place where they're willing to accept, THEN you share The Gospel. I have a very staunch Atheist friend, and I honestly agree with him when he starts to complaining about these Conservatives shoving biblical terms down his throat to try and win an argument. It's abuse of the Word of God.

Another friend (not just Christian, but Catholic,) feels that the Bible isn't meant as a historical document, a predictor of the future or anything else other than simply a guide on how to live you life. In his words, if you believe and live the best life you can, you're through the gates.

He also happens to write sci-fi, and his most recent work involves such pagan things as werewolves and vampires. Stuff that the Vatican, I'm sure, would not approve of.

 

[niky]

What's so great about sleeping with 72/3 virgins? I doubt they have Sexual Education in the Arab world. So they're going to know nothing about sex and how to...how should I say it, get it on.

So... how do you explain Muslim babies?

Honestly... Muslims aren't Puritans. The faith allows you as many wives as you can support. Not that the wives have too much say in it.

Perhaps you're confusing oppressed womanhood (in strict Sha'ria regions) with a total lack of sexual knowledge.










On that matter... how did the Puritans reproduce? Mitosis? Immaculate conception? Baby snatching?

 

[Danoff]

Like gravity?

Yes.

God is like gravity right? He exists but you can't see him. Is that your argument? That God... like gravity... is repeatably (not repeatedly, repeatably) observed, predictable in response, supported by copious evidence, testable and of course, measurable?

Edit:

Or is your argument that God is like parallel lines. Possible in theory, but in practice, just about completely out of the question.

 

[DK]

The Vatican, in particular, in the past few years seem to have become more of a movie critics organization than a spiritual center of Christianity.

I feel that the Catholic Church should get back to just quoting the Bible instead of interfering in our everyday lives. The Vatican got pissed off with Avatar, right? Why? Because of the message of environmental conservation (nothing to do with conservatives, i.e. people who want to keep the status quo - and I'm not talking about the band). They feel that environmental protection is becoming a new religion. WTF? What's wrong with being concerned with the environment?

Perhaps you're confusing oppressed womanhood (in strict Sha'ria regions) with a total lack of sexual knowledge.

I see what you're talking about. But I'm pretty sure they never talk openly about human reproduction in Arab schools.

 

[Sam48]

God is like gravity right? He exists but you can't see him. Is that your argument? That God... like gravity... is repeatably (not repeatedly, repeatably) observed, predictable in response, supported by copious evidence, testable and of course, measurable?

Edit:

Or is your argument that God is like parallel lines. Possible in theory, but in practice, just about completely out of the question.

Both arguments are reasonable. They both basically make the same point, and a very good one at that.

 

[niky]

I feel that the Catholic Church should get back to just quoting the Bible instead of interfering in our everyday lives. The Vatican got pissed off with Avatar, right? Why? Because of the message of environmental conservation (nothing to do with conservatives, i.e. people who want to keep the status quo - and I'm not talking about the band). They feel that environmental protection is becoming a new religion. WTF? What's wrong with being concerned with the environment?

Are you even reading the articles properly? They don't fear environmental protection. They fear "Gaia" worship. And Avatar has a lot of that. Just a tiff between a big religion and a developing new one. Pretty soon, they'll have to excommunicate Al Gore.

I see what you're talking about. But I'm pretty sure they never talk openly about human reproduction in Arab schools.

And this is because they're Muslim schools or because they're Arab schools? There's an important distinction there. Not all cultures, regardless of religion, embrace the discussion of sex with minors openly. Many Asian cultures have more taboos than Westerners. While this is amplified by the Muslim religion, it is not exclusive to it.

As if they never mention virgins or intercourse in the Koran... which they do, by the way... which is more than you can say for the Bible. My Catholic teachers in high school would have had us believe we were all products of illicit bouts of hand-holding.

I don't know about you, but my understanding of Sex Education (and it's a very limited understanding, as I only took six units of Sex Education in College as part of my major in Health Ed... ) is that you're teaching kids about sex and reproductive health. Not about how to have sex.

An Arab school is just as unlikely to have sex on the table as a Catholic school. But a non-sectarian school with Arab children is just as likely to have the full course as a non-sectarian school with other denominations.

Both arguments are reasonable. They both basically make the same point, and a very good one at that.

What point? Gravity is testable in practice. God is not.

Parallel lines are an ideal, but they can be represented by an approximation in reality. In other words, you can draw two nearly parallel lines and show them to a hundred people and they will correctly identify them as representations of parallel lines.

You can draw "God", but if your hundred people are of different religions and cultures, they will not all agree on whether or not it is a representation of God.

 

[Sam48]

What point? Gravity is testable in practice. God is not.

Parallel lines are an ideal, but they can be represented by an approximation in reality. In other words, you can draw two nearly parallel lines and show them to a hundred people and they will correctly identify them as representations of parallel lines.

You can draw "God", but if your hundred people are of different religions and cultures, they will not all agree on whether or not it is a representation of God.

I'll stick with the parallel lines idea, because what it does is prove you don't need to see them to believe in them.

I can't make 2 perfectly parallel lines that go on forever, but I can easily imagine them. In theory they exist, but I've never physically seen them. Even man made segments of 2 parallel lines aren't parallel, because if you extended them as far as possible, they, at some point, would intersect because we aren't perfect.

 

[Danoff]

I'll stick with the parallel lines idea, because what it does is prove you don't need to see them to believe in them.

I can't make 2 perfectly parallel lines that go on forever, but I can easily imagine them. In theory they exist, but I've never physically seen them. Even man made segments of 2 parallel lines aren't parallel, because if you extended them as far as possible, they, at some point, would intersect because we aren't perfect.

To borrow Famine's point:

Step 1: Man can't make perfect things
Step 2: ????
Step 3: God

You're in desperate need of a step 2. Yes mankind can conceive of things that do not exist - like God. This does not prove that God exists.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Yes i believe in GOD... ... but it does not mean He really exist... whoever he/she/it might be...




Post-Post EDIT: funny how the last few post kinda converge! I posted before even reading the latest posts, and i am glad others share the same point of view as me, or at least we have the same concept. So i agree with you Sam48 & Danoff

 

[Northstar]

I'll stick with the parallel lines idea, because what it does is prove you don't need to see them to believe in them.

I can't make 2 perfectly parallel lines that go on forever, but I can easily imagine them. In theory they exist, but I've never physically seen them. Even man made segments of 2 parallel lines aren't parallel, because if you extended them as far as possible, they, at some point, would intersect because we aren't perfect.

I still fail to see how this proves god exists.