774 replies to this topic

[mikeinnaples]

What kinds of evidence do you accept?

That is a wonderful question and extremely thought provoking despite its simplicity. Honestly, I am not sure what kind of evidence I would accept.

If the christian god were real and showed up like Morgan Freeman in Bruce Almighty and gave me supernatural powers for a short time, I guess that would suffice. Maybe if I saw an angel flying around performing miracles, complete with halo and wings and witnessed by thousands of other people so I would know I wasnt hallucinating. Perhaps a nice supernatural bitch slap and a voice with the sound of thunder telling me, "This is god and I am real" ...again witnessed by other people so I know I wasnt insane.

Very good question.

[mikeinnaples]

On a side note, even if there was a god and the god couldnt be bothered with my request for proof, what good reason do I have to worship a god that ignores me anyways? If a god wants my faith and belief, then that god better provide me a tangible reason for providing it. I could care less about a creator that walks away and ignores her/she/its creations like a cast away toy.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 20 October 2011 - 02:55 PM.

[chris w]

Buddhism and Jainism are two other great life philosophies to live by.

I would take issue with Jainism. This religion seems to have such demanding ethical principles that by trying to really fulfil all of them, one begins to actually border on a psychological disorder. The fact that fasting yourself to death is venerated there (supposedly around 200 deaths each year in the Indian Jainist community due to the ritual of sallekhana) doesn't evoke my sympathy. Buddhism is somewhat better in this regard, but also sees the human existence as such as an ontological problem, a negative that needs to be fixed by getting extinguished.

In spite of being an Atheist, I too happen to like the spirit of early Christianity, before it's gotten hopelessly tainted by the whole authoritarian Roman mindset and all the shitty backwards stuff has been born out of this unfortunate fusion.

Edited by chris w, 20 October 2011 - 04:27 PM.

[drus]

Buddhism and Jainism are two other great life philosophies to live by.

I would take issue with Jainism. This religion seems to have such demanding ethical principles that by trying to really fulfil all of them, one begins to actually border on a psychological disorder. The fact that fasting yourself to death is venerated there (supposedly around 200 deaths each year in the Indian Jainist community due to the ritual of sallekhana) doesn't evoke my sympathy. Buddhism is somewhat better in this regard, but also sees the human existence as such as an ontological problem, a negative that needs to be fixed by getting extinguished.

In spite of being an Atheist, I too happen to like the spirit of early Christianity, before it's gotten hopelessly tainted by the whole authoritarian Roman mindset and all the shitty backwards stuff has been born out of this unfortunate fusion.

All philosophies have their good and bad, depending on how one views it, non are 100%. I personally think that Christianity and Buddhism offer the best systems available to humanity. A meshing of these two similar philosophies would be amazing. However that's not to say i'm a moral relativist, i believe in certain universal moral truths that hold for all time, regardless of society, laws, people, culture etc. With regards to your comment on Jainism about pursuing spiritual perfection - even Jesus said "be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect". These are philosophical ideals and principles for one to strive for. It's interesting that you say "one begins to border on a psychological disorder" as a result of trying to fulfill ethical principles. The same thing could be said for people in general in many instances for many reasons, but you're not likely to find a government or economic system changing it's rules and laws to make things easier on people. Even in Jainism, if one simply just starves themselves to death they haven't accomplished anything, there is more to it than that. Jesus also fasted, remember. Every major religion recognizes the spiritual benefits of fasting. There is wisdom to be learned by tempering worldly appetites and vices, and much to be gained by having knowledge of and control over one's own mind and body. However, don't take this as my condoning/approval of actual physical suicide as a necessary means to any sort of salvation or wisdom. In my personal opinion, starving yourself to death is morbidly extreme and unnecessary. Your take on Buddhism isn't exactly correct. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is not simply non-existence. I basically agree with your statement on Christianity, at least as you've put forward here.

[drus]

.....but anyway, who really cares if science ever proves the existence of God? For the believer it's not necessary, and for the atheist, no amount of 'proof' is likely to ever be enough since atheism isn't about God, it never has been a 'God issue' at all, it's about the atheist. If science proves that God exists.....what then? So what, who cares! Will it change anything? Probably not....infact it might actually make things worse for people. There is something to be said for the 'reason of faith'....it has very deep relevance when it comes to the subject of God. Proving that God exists can only serve one thing...and that is the reason proof was sought in the first place.

If someone wants to be an atheist, fine, if someone wants to believe, fine, live and let live. Who cares, really. God either exists or doesn't exist regardless of atheists or believers. Although i've always been curious if a real atheist is able to truly experience love? Probably not.

Edited by drus, 20 October 2011 - 08:38 PM.

[shadowhawk]

What kinds of evidence do you accept?

That is a wonderful question and extremely thought provoking despite its simplicity. Honestly, I am not sure what kind of evidence I would accept.

If the christian god were real and showed up like Morgan Freeman in Bruce Almighty and gave me supernatural powers for a short time, I guess that would suffice. Maybe if I saw an angel flying around performing miracles, complete with halo and wings and witnessed by thousands of other people so I would know I wasnt hallucinating. Perhaps a nice supernatural bitch slap and a voice with the sound of thunder telling me, "This is god and I am real" ...again witnessed by other people so I know I wasnt insane.

Very good question.

Without knowing what kind of evidence you would accept, it is difficult to give you any.
Let me give you some suggested issues. Science has proven that life has a blueprint, blueprints don't draw themselves. Science has proven that the universe operates under laws, laws don't draft themselves. Science has proven that the universe had a beginning, everything with a beginning has a cause. Our universe has a cause that exists beyond itself. Does this raise a question as to what that cause is? What evidence do you need to accept a cause?

Edited by shadowhawk, 20 October 2011 - 08:38 PM.

[shadowhawk]

On a side note, even if there was a god and the god couldnt be bothered with my request for proof, what good reason do I have to worship a god that ignores me anyways? If a god wants my faith and belief, then that god better provide me a tangible reason for providing it. I could care less about a creator that walks away and ignores her/she/its creations like a cast away toy.

Lots of “what ifs.” If god couldn’t be bothered, why do you think He would want your worship? Worship is an act of love. As a Christian, I worship God because I love Him. God loves me.

[drus]

On a side note, even if there was a god and the god couldnt be bothered with my request for proof, what good reason do I have to worship a god that ignores me anyways? If a god wants my faith and belief, then that god better provide me a tangible reason for providing it. I could care less about a creator that walks away and ignores her/she/its creations like a cast away toy.

Lots of “what ifs.” If god couldn’t be bothered, why do you think He would want your worship? Worship is an act of love. As a Christian, I worship God because I love Him. God loves me.

A true atheist is incapable of love, just as they are incapable of experiencing God, they have neither the heart nor the mind for it.

Edited by drus, 20 October 2011 - 09:03 PM.

[platypus]

.....but anyway, who really cares if science ever proves the existence of God? For the believer it's not necessary, and for the atheist, no amount of 'proof' is likely to ever be enough since atheism isn't about God, it never has been a 'God issue' at all, it's about the atheist. If science proves that God exists.....what then? So what, who cares!

Come on, atheists value being rational so if the existence of a God is proven it changes just about everything.

Although i've always been curious if a real atheist is able to truly experience love? Probably not.

Sorry but you must have been subjected to pretty serious brainwashing. How does the biochemical experience of love depend on a belief in gods? Why would atheists not love their familiy, LOL? A more fitting question is that can a religious person ever be truly good and moral if they are just acting good since they are trying to avoid punishment...

[platypus]

A true atheist is incapable of love, just as they are incapable of experiencing God, they have neither the heart nor the mind for it.

Offensive bullshit. Just because you have made the error of associating love with the existence of an imaginary being does not mean that gods are needed for experiencing love. sheesh.

Edited by platypus, 20 October 2011 - 09:43 PM.

[platypus]

Science has proven that life has a blueprint, blueprints don't draw themselves.

That's demonstrably incorrect. Ever heard of genetic algorithms and such?

has proven that the universe operates unlaws, laws don't draft themselves.

I don't understand what you base that on.

Science has proven that the universe had a beginning, everything with a beginning has a cause.

Science has not proved that, the cause of our Big Bang may very well be the gravitational collapse of a preceding universe. Please don't use this argument anymore.

Our universe has a cause that exists beyond itself. Does this raise a question as to what that cause is? What evidence do you need to accept a cause?

Then everything must have a cause that exists beyond itself, right?

[platypus]

Anyhow, back to the point - the fact that you are still referring to Christianity as a 'fairytale', and using terms like 'imaginary beings', shows me that you likely still do not understand what Christianity is, and are probably just as brainwashed as the 'religious' people you condescend to. Gods and deities "inside them"? What are you talking about?

I'm talking about religious experiences that people have. Some people are wired so that they experience other (imaginary) beings while being awake (everyone meets imaginary beings in dreams).

If this is your response in reference to 'the Kingdom of God is within us', then you completely miss the meaning. Anyway, are you able to intelligently address the rest of my post aside from the 'look into your heart' part? You seemed to have ignored the rest.

Sorry I've been pretty busy lately and not able to comment everyhing.

Again, God doesn't torture anyone. Why do you keep insisting this? You're correct, people need to be good and live a good and moral life, that is definitely the ideal and a step in the right direction. Where do you get your concepts of 'good' and 'moral' btw?

I've been told that according to Christianity the omnipotent all-knowing God has set up a system in which billions of people end up being tortured forever in hell. God is responsible for those atrocities and crimes against humanity.

[shadowhawk]

Good you understand the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang. This puts a solid scientific foundation under the arguments which were presented by NeuroGuy. You are the one assuming the existence of the much less probably multi verse which if it does exist, does not invalidate the argument of NeuroGuy. Here are a couple of clips on this point.

I think it's much more probable that some quantum effects prevent singularities from existing - why would there be infinite quantities in existence? Therefore Big Bang started from a very very hot and dense state and not from a singularity with infinite density. Now why would it be "improbable" that something preceded our Big Bang?

It is not improbable that something caused, preceded the big bang. We agree here. That there is some quantum that prevents singularities is also improbable. What are they? There probably are no infinite qualities in existence which are of any of the kinds of existence we know.. Craig addresses this in his evidences for the existence of God this week.

[drus]

Platypus, are you saying that you are indeed capable of love? That you've experienced love and are loved? Can you prove it? Can you even prove that love exists? Why are you offended by my statement if love is nothing more than a chemical reaction?

[shadowhawk]

Science has proven that life has a blueprint, blueprints don't draw themselves.
That's demonstrably incorrect. Ever heard of genetic algorithms and such?

Ever heard if “life,” which I was addressing.

has proven that the universe operates unlaws, laws don't draft themselves.

I don't understand what you base that on.

Some argue that natural laws do not cause (draft) themselves.

Science has proven that the universe had a beginning, everything with a beginning has a cause.

Science has not proved that, the cause of our Big Bang may very well be the gravitational collapse of a preceding universe. Please don't use this argument anymore.

Again, what I said was the universe that we know, had a beginning. Everything we know has a cause and effect. Do you deny our universe had a beginning? Why should I not use this obvious argument?

Our universe has a cause that exists beyond itself. Does this raise a question as to what that cause is? What evidence do you need to accept a cause?

Then everything must have a cause that exists beyond itself, right?

No again, in the caused reality we live in, everything has a cause.

[platypus]

Science has proven that life has a blueprint, blueprints don't draw themselves.

That's demonstrably incorrect. Ever heard of genetic algorithms and such?

Ever heard if “life,” which I was addressing.

Evolution works and makes blueprints.

Some argue that natural laws do not cause (draft) themselves.

Anything can be argued, but that does not prove anything.

Science has proven that the universe had a beginning, everything with a beginning has a cause.

Science has not proved that, the cause of our Big Bang may very well be the gravitational collapse of a preceding universe. Please don't use this argument anymore.

Again, what I said was the universe that we know, had a beginning. Everything we know has a cause and effect. Do you deny our universe had a beginning? Why should I not use this obvious argument?

The known laws of physics break down before the Big Bang is reached. Without a quantum theory of gravity you cannot argue that the Big Bang began from a singularity before which there was nothing. Your argument is not scientific and science has not "proven" that everything began with the Big Bang. It seems much more probable to me and many others that the universe has existed forever.

Our universe has a cause that exists beyond itself. Does this raise a question as to what that cause is? What evidence do you need to accept a cause?

Then everything must have a cause that exists beyond itself, right?

No again, in the caused reality we live in, everything has a cause.

That's a circular argument right there. You have not "proved" the existence of gods and I don't recommend that you keep trying to do so (it's not healthy).

[platypus]

Platypus, are you saying that you are indeed capable of love? That you've experienced love and are loved? Can you prove it? Can you even prove that love exists? Why are you offended by my statement if love is nothing more than a chemical reaction?

Yes, I'm as capable of love as any other human being. How would you prove the existence of love besides by observing what people do, say and feel?

ps. I didn't say that love was "nothing more' than a chemical reaction, it's clearly a beneficial product of evolution.

[shadowhawk]

Evolution works and makes blueprints.

That is not how evolution works

The known laws of physics break down before the Big Bang is reached. Without a quantum theory of gravity you cannot argue that the Big Bang began from a singularity before which there was nothing. Your argument is not scientific and science has not "proven" that everything began with the Big Bang. It seems much more probable to me and many others that the universe has existed forever.

Science is a process not a position. The positions many refer to as “science,” are almost always wrong. I say this not to put science down, but to correct any idea someone is speaking for “science.” In the beginning there was light in the form of rays of energy. Who knows what it was like in the first moment. Indeed the laws of nature break down in the extremes of the beginning. The laws emerge and change as the cosmos unfolds. It did change and cause and effect is observed everywhere. My point all along. See the talk by Craig on evidence for God I posted earlier.

It seems more probable to me and many Scientists that presently the evidence supports what I have said.. Here is a Jewish scientist who agrees with me, or should I say, I agree with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzetqYev_AI&feature=related

That's a circular argument right there. You have not "proved" the existence of gods and I don't recommend that you keep trying to do so (it's not healthy).

You cannot exhaustively prove anything. I gave proofs for Gods existence. You should not claim there is no God involved because that kind of faith gets you nowhere. It is sure not scientific.

[drus]

Platypus, are you saying that you are indeed capable of love? That you've experienced love and are loved? Can you prove it? Can you even prove that love exists? Why are you offended by my statement if love is nothing more than a chemical reaction?

Yes, I'm as capable of love as any other human being. How would you prove the existence of love besides by observing what people do, say and feel?

ps. I didn't say that love was "nothing more' than a chemical reaction, it's clearly a beneficial product of evolution.

I made the statement "atheists are incapable of love" to call you out and prove a point. You say you're capable of love, but you cannot really prove it. Love cannot really be proven to exist, it must be experienced. Love is an existential reality that cannot be quantified scientifically. Love is not something that can be proven to exist, yet it does exist. It is not 100% scientifically verifiable. It's something that only YOU alone can know for sure. Even the person you love can only infer your love exists based on trust and feeling. You are willing to take a person at their word for how they feel, and/or observe what they do, as evidence for an intangible? That's not very scientific, that sounds like a form of faith to me. My point is that there are truths that cannot always be proven, but they are real nonetheless.

[mikeinnaples]

On a side note, even if there was a god and the god couldnt be bothered with my request for proof, what good reason do I have to worship a god that ignores me anyways? If a god wants my faith and belief, then that god better provide me a tangible reason for providing it. I could care less about a creator that walks away and ignores her/she/its creations like a cast away toy.

Lots of “what ifs.” If god couldn’t be bothered, why do you think He would want your worship? Worship is an act of love. As a Christian, I worship God because I love Him. God loves me.

How do you know a god loves you? If worshipping is an act of love, shouldnt god in turn worship you as well?

[mikeinnaples]

I made the statement "atheists are incapable of love" to call you out and prove a point. You say you're capable of love, but you cannot really prove it. Love cannot really be proven to exist, it must be experienced. Love is an existential reality that cannot be quantified scientifically. Love is not something that can be proven to exist, yet it does exist. It is not 100% scientifically verifiable. It's something that only YOU alone can know for sure. Even the person you love can only infer your love exists based on trust and feeling. You are willing to take a person at their word for how they feel, and/or observe what they do, as evidence for an intangible? That's not very scientific, that sounds like a form of faith to me. My point is that there are truths that cannot always be proven, but they are real nonetheless.

You raise a very interesting point and it is definitely food for thought. The thing though is that I can 'feel' and experience love even if I cant scientifically prove it. During the years I was a practicing Methodist, I never felt or experienced god a single time. Yet during those very same years I felt and experience (and lost) love several times. At this very moment I feel the love I share with my wife ....from a god though? nothing.

[drus]

.....but anyway, who really cares if science ever proves the existence of God? For the believer it's not necessary, and for the atheist, no amount of 'proof' is likely to ever be enough since atheism isn't about God, it never has been a 'God issue' at all, it's about the atheist. If science proves that God exists.....what then? So what, who cares!

Come on, atheists value being rational so if the existence of a God is proven it changes just about everything.

Although i've always been curious if a real atheist is able to truly experience love? Probably not.

Sorry but you must have been subjected to pretty serious brainwashing. How does the biochemical experience of love depend on a belief in gods? Why would atheists not love their familiy, LOL? A more fitting question is that can a religious person ever be truly good and moral if they are just acting good since they are trying to avoid punishment...

If the existence of God is proven, please explain to me what changes exactly? Not all atheists value being rational. For example, to answer the question "does God exist", there is only one rational answer, and that is "i don't know". Any other answer is speculation of varying degrees based on either limited information/knowledge or personal feelings/experience.

LOL, i can assure you i'm not brainwashed.....at least not religiously anyway lol. When i say 'love', i'm not talking about the familiar feelings one has for their family, children, friends, or spouse. What is so special about someone 'loving' their family? That cannot really be called 'love', not in the truest, purest sense. Someone who 'loves' their family is loving and loved out of expectation, social or otherwise. How is this greater than your more fitting question of being good to avoid punishment? Judging by everything that you've posted, i suspect you do not understand what real love is. All love is necessarily selfless in nature, otherwise it is not really love. Love has no expectation, no connection what-so-ever to the ego, and is not bound by personal loss. While it is entirely possible for a person to truly love their family members, or their spouse, or their children....the majority of people don't really. Since an atheist isn't even willing to step outside their own ego to try to understand something greater than themselves, it is not likely that they are capable of love. This isn't meant to be insulting to atheists, it's just a reasoned conclusion, and i admit i may be wrong, but i suspect i'm probably not. Now that's not to say that all God-believers love or are capable of love either, but they have better odds of grasping the concept at least; and even then it would depend on the particular philosophy/theology. Belief and agnosticism i can understand, but atheism just doesn't make sense. I think atheism is a mild form of sociopathy.

[mikeinnaples]

. I think atheism is a mild form of sociopathy.

Funny that.

I think religion and belief in fairytale creatures is makes a person delusional.

[drus]

I made the statement "atheists are incapable of love" to call you out and prove a point. You say you're capable of love, but you cannot really prove it. Love cannot really be proven to exist, it must be experienced. Love is an existential reality that cannot be quantified scientifically. Love is not something that can be proven to exist, yet it does exist. It is not 100% scientifically verifiable. It's something that only YOU alone can know for sure. Even the person you love can only infer your love exists based on trust and feeling. You are willing to take a person at their word for how they feel, and/or observe what they do, as evidence for an intangible? That's not very scientific, that sounds like a form of faith to me. My point is that there are truths that cannot always be proven, but they are real nonetheless.

You raise a very interesting point and it is definitely food for thought. The thing though is that I can 'feel' and experience love even if I cant scientifically prove it. During the years I was a practicing Methodist, I never felt or experienced god a single time. Yet during those very same years I felt and experience (and lost) love several times. At this very moment I feel the love I share with my wife ....from a god though? nothing.

That's very cool, Mike! Love and 'feeling' are parts to the experience of God, and so is loss. People who believe in God may 'feel' God in the same sense that you 'feel' love. Scientific proof is moot at that point, God is real.

Edited by drus, 21 October 2011 - 02:54 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

Scientific proof is moot at that point, God is real.

To some perhaps, just not to me.

[drus]

. I think atheism is a mild form of sociopathy.

Funny that.

I think religion and belief in fairytale creatures is makes a person delusional.

When you say 'religion', do you mean regimented unquestioning belief in structured institutionalized organizations such as Roman Catholicism or Orthodox Judaism etc; or do you mean that to include individual existential spiritual experience as well?

I'll agree that you are correct in some cases with the former, however, i think it's misleading and disingenuous to necessarily equate all spiritual experience with delusion. In any event, i still think atheism is a sociopathic disorder. If a little harmless delusional belief can bring one happiness and comfort, and help them to be a better person, so long as they aren't harming anyone, how can that be bad? It is certainly preferable to cold over-intellectualization, narcissism, and sociopathy, which is definitely soul destroying, and is more or less what atheism boils down to.

[drus]

Scientific proof is moot at that point, God is real.

To some perhaps, just not to me.

It has been my understanding that one has to be at least open to the possibility of the experience. Perhaps Methodist just isn't your language. I applaud you for at least being able to say that though. Just a word of advice though, if you are looking for scientific proof of God, and you have made your mind up that this is the only proof you'll accept, then you will never find God.

Edited by drus, 21 October 2011 - 04:37 PM.

[platypus]

Evolution works and makes blueprints.

That is not how evolution works

Evolution works and does not need a designer to create fantastic funtional complexity. This is a fact.

See the talk by Craig on evidence for God I posted earlier.

Philosophical arguments for the existence of gods have so far been lame without failure (for millennia), I might watch that one for entertainment value though.

[platypus]

Platypus, are you saying that you are indeed capable of love? That you've experienced love and are loved? Can you prove it? Can you even prove that love exists? Why are you offended by my statement if love is nothing more than a chemical reaction?

Yes, I'm as capable of love as any other human being. How would you prove the existence of love besides by observing what people do, say and feel?

ps. I didn't say that love was "nothing more' than a chemical reaction, it's clearly a beneficial product of evolution.

I made the statement "atheists are incapable of love" to call you out and prove a point. You say you're capable of love, but you cannot really prove it. Love cannot really be proven to exist, it must be experienced. Love is an existential reality that cannot be quantified scientifically.

Essentially you seem to be saying that since consciousness exists but cannot be "proven", only experienced, gods must exist. Isn't this the God of the gaps argument?

[drus]

Platypus, are you saying that you are indeed capable of love? That you've experienced love and are loved? Can you prove it? Can you even prove that love exists? Why are you offended by my statement if love is nothing more than a chemical reaction?

Yes, I'm as capable of love as any other human being. How would you prove the existence of love besides by observing what people do, say and feel?

ps. I didn't say that love was "nothing more' than a chemical reaction, it's clearly a beneficial product of evolution.

I made the statement "atheists are incapable of love" to call you out and prove a point. You say you're capable of love, but you cannot really prove it. Love cannot really be proven to exist, it must be experienced. Love is an existential reality that cannot be quantified scientifically.

Essentially you seem to be saying that since consciousness exists but cannot be "proven", only experienced, gods must exist. Isn't this the God of the gaps argument?

I'm not familiar with the God of the Gaps argument, what is it? I'll have to look it up. However, i'm not really so much arguing that God does in fact exist, as much as i'm saying people should not close themselves off completely to the possibility. To claim that God DEFINITELY DOES NOT EXIST is just as ridiculous as fanatical religious belief imo.