Survey for Atheists

[Grungekid]

While I agree that Islam is a far less civil religion that Christianity, I was merely using it an opposing religion to your own to make a point. The point is that other people of other religions believe just as strongly as you do that they are the ones that are right, and that their God is the one true God. The most fundamental proof that God is man made not the other way around is the simple observation of the number of Gods that have been created through the years. You are claiming that 99.999% of the Gods ever worshipped do not exist...I am simply claiming that 100% do not exist for precisely the same reasons that the other 99% don't.

That's more rhetoric than anything else. There have been almost as many incorrect hypothesis about the natural world, however that does not mean that there is no natural world to describe. Since we cannot always see the supernatural world, there are bound to be mere superstitions surfacing when we try to understand it. There isn't really any proof here that God doesn't exist; just because some ideas about Him are wrong or traditions turn out to be flawed, does not mean that one almighty Being is not present. I'd also like to note that many of the deities in the past are based on certain archtypes, which narrows the playing field quite a bit, since certain deities play practically the same role within the boundaries of their characteristic place in the pantheon. Also, I do not endorse the idea that ALL of the beings, spirits, and forces worshipped in times past were unreal, I just do not think that they are worthy of worship, and that they are not as powerful or caring as the true God, the ultimate, perfect, almighty being.

I would like to note something: you do not have science on your side. Science cannot prove that there is a God, or that there isn't simply because of the fact that it is merely an observation of the physical world which will only reveal truths about that part of reallity. ...

You're right, you can't prove or disprove anything that you cannot directly measure. However, this does not automatically make it a 50/50 probability. You can make anykind of claim in the world but it means nothing without verifiable evidence...this is where science and faith part ways. You will no doubt disagree with me very much about on this, but from what science CAN measure...there is no indication that a creator need be part of the equation. That is my opinion though.

Actually, it has. Theories like the Big Bang are completely unreasonable. They are actually outperformed by the supernatural option. You see, when one theory is pitted against another, the one that makes the most sense takes prescedent, no matter how strange it may seem. It is impossible for a small ball of hydrogen to exist without succombing to proton decay, and it is even more unreasonable to believe that it could actually create anything by exploding, especially not the variety of different elements that we now have. A supernatural creator makes more sense because it is not limited by the laws of natural science. The supernatural is our resort when we cannot come across another sensible theory, which we do not have. Plus, we no longer have to rely on the supernatural option once we move on in time to periods with actual matter that follows physical laws now established.

I think we have a misunderstanding that keeps tripping up the conversation here. I am not saying that evil is limited to religious people...or that good is limited to religious people. I am simply saying that people will be good or bad regardless of religion...but that there are certain acts of evil that could only be carried out under the guise of religion. Certainly you could claim that there are acts of good that have been done in the name of relgion, but you would have to show that these could not have been done by a non-religious person in order to fully claim them for religion.

I bring it up again, just because I never get a direct answer: did you ever hear about the 11 billion people Stalin killed? I came to find out that those men who executed his orders were atheists.

Look, evil dids are NOT limited to religious people, in fact, I'll put the press on you and say that evil is limited to atheism, and that many who claim to be religious and use that to do terrible things actually are not people of faith at all, but atheists. Often, in everyday crime and domestic disputes, people kill, cheat, and steal out of materialistic desires and a lack of faith in God to provide for them. They share your own views, which actually lead them to doing awful deeds as an expedient to survive in your materialist world-view.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein was not an atheist. It's been established. I know he wasn't a Christian, but that doesn't make him an atheist

by default. He was a deist, like most of the rationalists (Thomas Jefferson). You still haven't come up with a purely atheist revolutionary that actually contributed something to the world.

Jefferson was technically a diest, but certainly not a Christian. Admittedly, It is difficult to find historical figures willing to call themselves an Atheist. It would be mistake to think that this must mean that they weren't however, as it was quite dangerous to proclaim such a stance without fear of death or exile through certain parts of history. It is certainly understandable that Jefferson would not call himself an Atheist because this would have meant the end of his political career. Only recently has a politician (Senator Pete Stark) finally admitted to be an Atheist.

Jefferson was still far from an atheist. I knew he was a deist, but he obviously had some degree of faith, since the Declaration was his 'death warrant'. I actually looked up his profile, and he did believe in life after death, and a perfect, singular deity.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Grungekid

[systemstrike_7]

Theism - An overabundance of Faith (e.g. taking an ordinary event and turning it into a miracle from God)

Atheism - A shortage of humility (e.g. taking a miracle from God and calling it a spaghetti monster)

Agnosticism - They just don't know... (e.g. taking a miracle from God and then continuing to stare blankly)

I believe in a God who believes in (D) none of the above.

Atheists say that the belief in God is simply a crutch, and they may be right.

But if this is true, then Atheism is the broken leg.

[cwcrenshaw]

That's more rhetoric than anything else. There have been almost as many incorrect hypothesis about the natural world, however that does not mean that there is no natural world to describe. Since we cannot always see the supernatural world, there are bound to be mere superstitions surfacing when we try to understand it. There isn't really any proof here that God doesn't exist; just because some ideas about Him are wrong or traditions turn out to be flawed, does not mean that one almighty Being is not present. I'd also like to note that many of the deities in the past are based on certain archtypes, which narrows the playing field quite a bit, since certain deities play practically the same role within the boundaries of their characteristic place in the pantheon. Also, I do not endorse the idea that ALL of the beings, spirits, and forces worshipped in times past were unreal, I just do not think that they are worthy of worship, and that they are not as powerful or caring as the true God, the ultimate, perfect, almighty being.

Again, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the one making the claim. You cannot claim something exists just because there is no evidence to the contrary...you have to have undeniable proof in favor of your claim and no religion has yet to produce such evidence. I agree with what you say about archetypes...If you look up the Egyptian Sun God, Horus (long before Jesus)...you will find a certain number of similarities: virgin birth, only son, royal descent, birth heralded by a star, Horus born on December 21 (which is probably closer to the actual birth date of Jesus instead of the much celebrated Dec 25th), no account of life between 12 & 30, age 30 at baptism, 12 disciples, resurrection, etc, etc, etc. Point is, Jesus is only one of a long list of "Gods" that follow these same attributes as Horus...so I very much agree that we could drastically narrow the field of possible real Gods by discounting those that play a characteristic place in the Pantheon.

Actually, it has. Theories like the Big Bang are completely unreasonable. They are actually outperformed by the supernatural option. You see, when one theory is pitted against another, the one that makes the most sense takes prescedent, no matter how strange it may seem. It is impossible for a small ball of hydrogen to exist without succombing to proton decay, and it is even more unreasonable to believe that it could actually create anything by exploding, especially not the variety of different elements that we now have. A supernatural creator makes more sense because it is not limited by the laws of natural science. The supernatural is our resort when we cannot come across another sensible theory, which we do not have. Plus, we no longer have to rely on the supernatural option once we move on in time to periods with actual matter that follows physical laws now established.

Another thing I agree with you completely on. Ockham's Razor always applies but the part we differ on is which theory sounds the most absurd. I quite agree that the supernatural is our resort when we cannot explain something by science. This has been demonstrated throughout human history many times. We used to believe that the Sun was a flaming chariot when did not understand the Sun. We used to think the lightning bolts were hurled by Zeus when we did not understand weather patterns. The beauty of science is that it continually fills in these gaps of knowledge and replaces the need for a supernatural explanation. We don't invoke God anymore as an explanation for things we can explain through science, there is no need to. Yes, We do not yet have a firm understanding of things like the origin of the cosmos and this is where superstition flourishes. The gap continues to shrink and this is very upsetting to the religious...just like how Keats accused Newton of "unweaving the rainbow".

I bring it up again, just because I never get a direct answer: did you ever hear about the 11 billion people Stalin killed? I came to find out that those men who executed his orders were atheists.

Look, evil dids are NOT limited to religious people, in fact, I'll put the press on you and say that evil is limited to atheism, and that many who claim to be religious and use that to do terrible things actually are not people of faith at all, but atheists. Often, in everyday crime and domestic disputes, people kill, cheat, and steal out of materialistic desires and a lack of faith in God to provide for them. They share your own views, which actually lead them to doing awful deeds as an expedient to survive in your materialist world-view.

We've already been over this ground, so I'll just copy/paste what I already said:

me: " I am not saying that evil is limited to religious people...or that good is limited to religious people. I am simply saying that people will be good or bad regardless of religion"

Albert Einstein was not an atheist. It's been established. I know he wasn't a Christian, but that doesn't make him an atheist

by default. He was a deist, like most of the rationalists (Thomas Jefferson). You still haven't come up with a purely atheist revolutionary that actually contributed something to the world.

Like I said previously, Einstein was most likely a Pantheist...which is dressed up Atheism. He used the term "God" metaphorically.

Jefferson was still far from an atheist. I knew he was a deist, but he obviously had some degree of faith, since the Declaration was his 'death warrant'. I actually looked up his profile, and he did believe in life after death, and a perfect, singular deity.

The kind of "God" that Jefferson believed is one that did not have a say in human morality or day to day life. He believed in the type of God that set up the universe but doesn't concern himself with the everyday happenings of it...which would effectively simulate Atheism. Again, I go back to what I said about it being difficult for historical figures to actually admit to being Atheist...first of all they didn't know what we know now scientifically....secondly, the religious people of past times were quite a bit more extreme and to admit to Atheism would have meant endangering your life.

[cwcrenshaw]

Atheists say that the belief in God is simply a crutch, and they may be right.

But if this is true, then Atheism is the broken leg.

To the contrary, Atheism is realizing that your legs have been fine the whole time and that you never needed a crutch at all.

[systemstrike_7]

Atheists say that the belief in God is simply a crutch, and they may be right.

But if this is true, then Atheism is the broken leg.

To the contrary, Atheism is realizing that your legs have been fine the whole time and that you never needed a crutch at all.

But how many times in our life can we truly say our legs are not broken? Everyone needs a crutch. The key is to accept that our leg is broken and to stop dragging ourselves around. Humility is a wonderful thing; and it makes it much easier to accept that which we cannot know for certain.

[cwcrenshaw]

But how many times in our life can we truly say our legs are not broken? Everyone needs a crutch. The key is to accept that our leg is broken and to stop dragging ourselves around. Humility is a wonderful thing; and it makes it much easier to accept that which we cannot know for certain.

I do not accept that I was born with anything inherently wrong with me, sorry (spiritually speaking, physically there alot things that can be improved and evolution will fix them eventually). Humility is a good thing, but don't let it overshadow your dignity.

Edited October 24, 2007 by cwcrenshaw

[systemstrike_7]

I do not accept that I was born with anything inherently wrong with me, sorry (spiritually speaking, physically there alot things that can be improved and evolution will fix them eventually). Humility is a good thing, but don't let it overshadow your dignity.

Well I didn't intend to start an argument over what is wrong with each other. And I'm certainly not the type to say something like, "You do have something spiritually wrong with you, and that's the lack of Jesus". You might not have anything wrong with you spiritually, and I completely respect that. I think if anything, Christians are the one's who need fixing; they need help with their humility just as much as Atheists. And of course, to preach is to be preached at.

I've come to learn something about dignity. Dignity is measured by the eyes of those around you. If you were exiled in an empty room for your entire life, what need of dignity does one really have? I find you can fix an excess of humility much easier than an excess of dignity.

And on the whole "belief in God" thing, I believe God can only be found within ourselves. It is terribly difficult to believe in someone else's God.

[Grungekid]

Again, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the one making the claim. You cannot claim something exists just because there is no evidence to the contrary...you have to have undeniable proof in favor of your claim and no religion has yet to produce such evidence. I agree with what you say about archetypes...If you look up the Egyptian Sun God, Horus (long before Jesus)...you will find a certain number of similarities: virgin birth, only son, royal descent, birth heralded by a star, Horus born on December 21 (which is probably closer to the actual birth date of Jesus instead of the much celebrated Dec 25th), no account of life between 12 & 30, age 30 at baptism, 12 disciples, resurrection, etc, etc, etc. Point is, Jesus is only one of a long list of "Gods" that follow these same attributes as Horus...so I very much agree that we could drastically narrow the field of possible real Gods by discounting those that play a characteristic place in the Pantheon.

Oh, thank you for bringing up an excellent point that has actually been noticed by other recent philosophers: the burden of proof is on you. Your the skeptic, you have to provide evidence to the contrary, if you really want to argue, but I'll offer evidence at the end of the post.

I would also like to take note of your absolutely despicable understanding of Egyptian mythology. Horus was not born to a virgin. He was given birth to after Isis boned the dead body of Osiris. I really think you should just stop talking right now, ok? There are many other key differences between Ancient Egyptian religion and our own, and I don't have the time to waste on that subject. I applaud you for actually using evidence in an argument and learning about actual belief systems, though.

Another thing I agree with you completely on. Ockham's Razor always applies but the part we differ on is which theory sounds the most absurd

.

Again, the big bang theory is inconsistent with modern physics, and the supernatural remains a justified explanation. It's not perception, it's truth, you simply refuse to see it. Also note that the real Ockham's Razor has actually been distorted by atheists in this very debate, from its original purpose, which was actually to support the idea of an omnipotent God. You should learn more about it, it actually made a lot of sense before it was butchered. We can divert all explanations to a single infinite entity, God, so that we have a rather monistic theory about the world, which does not create all the differing laws and ideas that are actually extant in science.

We've already been over this ground, so I'll just copy/paste what I already said:

me: " I am not saying that evil is limited to religious people...or that good is limited to religious people. I am simply saying that people will be good or bad regardless of religion"

And they will continue to have issues even with your ideal atheist society. You didn't answer to the claims, you just repeated yourself. Do you even have anything to say about what happened in the USSR? I doubt it.

Like I said previously, Einstein was most likely a Pantheist...which is dressed up Atheism. He used the term "God" metaphorically.

No its not, cw, pantheism is the belief that the universe is God in its entirety. Rather than having a force which guides the universe, the universe is an intelligance that guides itself and its inner parts. That's a rough outline, but it should dispel this myth about 'dressed-up atheism'. I really can't believe that you point the finger at me for being arrogant.

The kind of "God" that Jefferson believed is one that did not have a say in human morality or day to day life. He believed in the type of God that set up the universe but doesn't concern himself with the everyday happenings of it...which would effectively simulate Atheism. Again, I go back to what I said about it being difficult for historical figures to actually admit to being Atheist...first of all they didn't know what we know now scientifically....secondly, the religious people of past times were quite a bit more extreme and to admit to Atheism would have meant endangering your life.

You really ought to read the declaration of the independance, and try to get a more thorough understanding of who the man was. Your still not making a strong argument in this area, anyway, in fact, its clear to me that you're desperate for an answer and your slapping together one that tries to distort these figure's actual beliefs into your own. Its not only pathetic, its really downright self-absorbed.

Look, cw, I fear that I have allowed myself to become entangled with trying to confront of your propositions rather than giving the cut-and-dried explanation, and that it has sort of jaded me, though I might add (in honesty; I am not trying to be rude) that this degeneration may be a result of contact with other people of your own vision.

Long story short, there are two or three reasons to believe in God, and I will try to outline those:

Carl's Wager- Carl Pascal made one of the most important observations in philosophical history, and despite a lot of heated insults from his critics, its worth has stood the test of time. If you don't believe, then what do you possibly have to gain? The best you could hope for is nothing at the end of the road. If you believe, or at least try, then you could possibly experience something like heaven. What do you have to lose? Its not like we as Christians ask for very much, you dont have to pay any money if you don't want to and we only ask that you do not disrespect God or harm your fellow man. THe only reason I can think of, and it has been reflected to me in preceding debates and my own studies of philosophy, is because of simple hubris. You think it would belittle you to admit the possibillity of a God, and act in His stead, or that you shouldn't be persuaded by religious people simply because they think that you might go to Hell if you don't listen to them? And again, we don't need you to become another martyr or anything. You don't have a whole lot to miss out on, but you have so much that you could lose. If you simply suffer from an honest inabillity to believe, then why do you seem so reluctant to try, just to be sure, to find God?

The necessity of God- though you may argue otherwise, you have not yet demonstrated that God is 'unnecessary', you have only reasserted yourself through circular reasoning that He does not exist because you believe in a world where he could not possibly exist, that of the metaphysical naturalist, or where God is unfavorable when paired with your own naturalistic explanations. You simply place the benefit of the doubt on naturalistic explanations solely, because you have not observed anything supernatural, but you didn't actually see how it all began, so how can you possibly claim to know that? Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, the Big Bang theory is unreasonable because it violates several laws of physics, and it describes a great impossibillity, the creation of complex systems with a mere explosion, all of which was supposed to come from a ball of hydrogen no larger than a marble. That is physically impossible. Therefore the only theory postulating a physical beginning is not reasonable.

Doesn't that justify a switch in theorem, or perhaps demonstrate that there was no physical beginning? God easilly fills all the spaces science does without forcing us to resort to all the different theories and physical laws and distinct entities that are supposed in science. Now, I am not trying to attack science, I think science is a simple abillity that we have been blessed with to use accordingly, but perhaps it is an example of how Ockham's Razor is not useful: God is, indeed, a much easier explanation. Also, science is a process used where we observe our immediate, natural surroundings, and we attempt to influence those surroundings through our understanding of how they work. How can you reasonably expect to answer, for certain, a question about a place in time where these laws were not as they are now, or perhaps where they were not even existent? You can't. It really is outside the typical bounds of science. We have only speculation.

Therefore, if there are things outside of science, are we not justified in trying to seek explanations from other modes of inquiry? You wouldn't ask a scientist for moral guidance in your marriage, at least I hope you wouldn't. You would ask someone with a less naturalistic wisdom about people, their abstract minds, and their aspirations. When we ask questions about the meaning of life, there is no objective way to answer those questions through science. This shows us that we must look elsewhere for more abstract questions, not that science is completely invalid. Its just a way of percieving a certain part of reallity. God supplies us with transcendental meaning, purpose, morals, and hope. All these things are positive and useful to every human being, even the scientists, when they aren't figuring out how to combat new diseases or discovering what really lives at the bottom of the Ocean and classifying it for the rest of us to learn about.

Morallity, meaning, and ethical foundation- Perhaps one of the greatest things of Theism is its satisfying abillity to answer these deeper questions about life. Why are things the way they are? What purpose do they serve? What's all of it for? Why did it turn out this way? In God, we have a real reason to follow ethical rules, because they are a part of a higher order that exists within the universe, which decided that it be this way. We too, are a part of this order, and there is an intelligance, like us in the fact of its existence, though it is above us, which offers us a purpose in life, a reason to keep going, and even a possible reward. God gives us real direction, real reasons for being happy, for doing the 'right thing' and for continuing our path of existence. If there is no God, there are no transcendental ethical truths. There is no reason, we are an accident. Life is sad, hard, and short. Why or where we came from, I do not know, but it doesn't matter. In fact, nothing does. It all ends the same way, and it all is just a part of our imagination. You don't have a soul, your a machine, your feeling of 'self' is just an illusion of that incredibly advanced construct. I understand that, it is possible that this is true, and you said you would embrace this truth if it is so, and I understand that, but I think you need to put things in perspective. Imagine what nothingness must be like. Understand that, all of those things you so treasured, are probably perishable themselves, and they will be gone very soon. Your time is so short, so quickly depleted, it is almost as though it is not even there. No matter how much 'fun' you have, those times won't pass on with you after death. Now realize how much of your time might be spent following along with our institutions, our laws, our ethics. Why bother? Really, go berserk, its too short for all that. All that ethical stuff that all the intellectuals babble about aren't any more real than the Greek Pantheon. Try and find one objective reason to do anything. You can't; there isn't one. Paul said it best, if there is no God, we might as well screw ourselves hard. Reasons are just another construct of our mind. Nothing matters, and it never will. Its like the song by Audioslave or the words of Robin Williams, 'seize the day'. But, you see, its even more depressing, because we don't actually have a reason to respect eachother or any rules or even to try to make other's lives easier. And that is why I hold humanism in so much contempt - its a pathetic attempt at raising human spirits in the recognition of this immense and ominous truth, and it by and far fails to cover up that dark realization.

God saves us from all this, or at least gives us hope to avoid contemplating it and injuring our lives or the lives of others. I garauntee you it has given many a reason to start again, to keep going. Without a doubt, it has inspired some of the greatest men in history, and some of the least recognized, to do things that our human minds can only deem 'positive'. Churches and believers in my side of the country have done all sorts of wonderful things for society as a part of their walk with God. In India, our own church and several others has offered a hand and support to the 'untouchable' cast, who are shunned by the rest of Indian society as cursed. I could speak forever of the accomplishments of those who love and follow God, literally. From William of Ockham, to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., to Rachel Scott, you simply cannot deny the power of believers, and if you ask them, they will point you to their God. Of course there are those who call themselves Christians that completely misrepresent us, but only a very biased person would be able to characterize all of the people with religious convictions based on their behavior.

I understand that you don't believe, but it don't force it on me, and don't insult all of the good people who claim themselves a part of the family of God. In the end, you don't have as much a reason as you think to justify disbelief, and its a matter of personal discernment in any event. I have the right to believe what I will and to stand up for my beliefs, and if you're right, then I still don't have a reason NOT to believe (no moral truths, remember).

[cwcrenshaw]

Oh, thank you for bringing up an excellent point that has actually been noticed by other recent philosophers: the burden of proof is on you. Your the skeptic, you have to provide evidence to the contrary, if you really want to argue, but I'll offer evidence at the end of the post.

Well, having finally finished that reading that...I think you are wrong on nearly every point and I will lay that argument out later on in my post. After reading your complete misunderstanding about burden of proof, I hope that you are not involved in the legal system in anyway...I would hate to have to prove I was innocent instead of others proving having to prove guilt...who knows what kind of wild accusations people would throw around.

I would also like to take note of your absolutely despicable understanding of Egyptian mythology. Horus was not born to a virgin. He was given birth to after Isis boned the dead body of Osiris. I really think you should just stop talking right now, ok? There are many other key differences between Ancient Egyptian religion and our own, and I don't have the time to waste on that subject. I applaud you for actually using evidence in an argument and learning about actual belief systems, though.

I can see I'm frustrating you. You take up one of the many similarities I list and reject it because of semantics...not too impressive. Yes there may be some differences, but more than enough similarities to see where the idea came from.

Again, the big bang theory is inconsistent with modern physics, and the supernatural remains a justified explanation. It's not perception, it's truth, you simply refuse to see it. Also note that the real Ockham's Razor has actually been distorted by atheists in this very debate, from its original purpose, which was actually to support the idea of an omnipotent God. You should learn more about it, it actually made a lot of sense before it was butchered. We can divert all explanations to a single infinite entity, God, so that we have a rather monistic theory about the world, which does not create all the differing laws and ideas that are actually extant in science.

How insanely ridiculous. You are actually trying to claim that I can't use Ockham's Razor as an argument against Christianity because of the context in which it was originally used. Ockham's Razor in itself is an objective statement that takes no inherent side in the argument. I assure you if Ockham was alive today and could see all that we've discovered, his famous Razor would surely cut the other way.

And they will continue to have issues even with your ideal atheist society. You didn't answer to the claims, you just repeated yourself. Do you even have anything to say about what happened in the USSR? I doubt it.

wow, I don't know how to put this more simply. As for the USSR, I quote Hitchens who knows much more about the subject than you or I:

"For hundreds of years, millions of Russians had been told the head of state should be a man close to God, the czar, who was head of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as absolute despot. If you’re Stalin, you shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you can’t exploit the pool of servility and docility that’s ready-made for you. The task of atheists is to raise people above that level of servility and credulity. No society has gone the way of gulags or concentration camps by following the path of Spinoza and Einstein and Jefferson and Thomas Paine. "

No its not, cw, pantheism is the belief that the universe is God in its entirety. Rather than having a force which guides the universe, the universe is an intelligance that guides itself and its inner parts. That's a rough outline, but it should dispel this myth about 'dressed-up atheism'. I really can't believe that you point the finger at me for being arrogant.

Call it whatever you like, Pantheism is far closer to Atheism than Christianity.

You really ought to read the declaration of the independance, and try to get a more thorough understanding of who the man was. Your still not making a strong argument in this area, anyway, in fact, its clear to me that you're desperate for an answer and your slapping together one that tries to distort these figure's actual beliefs into your own. Its not only pathetic, its really downright self-absorbed.

While we're recommending reading to eachother, might I recommend the Bill for Religious Freedom that he helped get passed in Virginia...or his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Both set the basis for the "Wall of Seperation" between church and state that makes America such a great country.

Carl's Wager- Carl Pascal made one of the most important observations in philosophical history, and despite a lot of heated insults from his critics, its worth has stood the test of time. If you don't believe, then what do you possibly have to gain? The best you could hope for is nothing at the end of the road. If you believe, or at least try, then you could possibly experience something like heaven. What do you have to lose? Its not like we as Christians ask for very much, you dont have to pay any money if you don't want to and we only ask that you do not disrespect God or harm your fellow man. THe only reason I can think of, and it has been reflected to me in preceding debates and my own studies of philosophy, is because of simple hubris. You think it would belittle you to admit the possibillity of a God, and act in His stead, or that you shouldn't be persuaded by religious people simply because they think that you might go to Hell if you don't listen to them? And again, we don't need you to become another martyr or anything. You don't have a whole lot to miss out on, but you have so much that you could lose. If you simply suffer from an honest inabillity to believe, then why do you seem so reluctant to try, just to be sure, to find God?

I have to say Grungekid, it is rather disappointing to see a worthy opponent such as yourself trot out Pascal's Wager. I gave you more credit than that. There are so many ways to debunk this flawed argument that I cannot hope to cover them all. Here's a couple:

Pascal's Wager is simply immoral. You are believing only because A) you want the possible reward for doing so and B) you are afraid of possible consequences of not doing so. If you are going to worship something, this is certainly not the way to approach your justification for it. First of all you must assume that you are worshipping the correct God, which is not an easy thing to be certain of given that the plethora of candidates made up through the years. Secondly, you must assume that this God values your blind faith due to expectation of reward over your deeds. This does not sound like the God you continue to defend. There are many more but I'll stop there to keep from getting too long-winded.

And just to be thorough, I do not dismiss the possibility of a God...I only find it very VERY improbable and therefore my beliefs (or lack thereof) reflect that.

I am not going respond to your entire post sentence for sentence, i'd be here for days. I think your whole argument boils down to a few key points though that I will briefly respond to.

1) You simply place the benefit of the doubt on naturalistic explanations solely, because you have not observed anything supernatural, but you didn't actually see how it all began, so how can you possibly claim to know that?

2) Doesn't that justify a switch in theorem, or perhaps demonstrate that there was no physical beginning?

3)God is, indeed, a much easier explanation.

4) Therefore, if there are things outside of science, are we not justified in trying to seek explanations from other modes of inquiry?

5) Morallity, meaning, and ethical foundation

1) Science does not claim to "know" anything, you are the only one claiming to know..which you have no verifiable way of doing. Science only postulates probablities based on observable evidence.

2 & 3) Simple answer...NO. Our understanding of the Big Bang Theory may not be as rock-solid as our understanding of gravity, but this does not automatically make God an equally viable possibility. God does not fill any gap in our understanding, it only makes people feel ok with not knowing. If anything, postulating God only raises more questions than answers.

4) You are assuming that you have adequately shown that there are things outside of science in which to inquire about. What other mode of inquiry outside of science would you suggest? Maybe we could meditate and have sayonces...or we could pray to something that we're not even sure is there...Pascal's wager says it couldn't hurt.

5) I lump this whole section together because it is simple to answer. You do not need God in order to be good to one another. But why be good to one another if there is no higher being to answer to for our actions? If you need this justification to be good to your fellow man then you have a very, very dark side that I don't want to see. Science is a humbling experience...the vastness of the universe is of a magnitude that we can not comprehend. We have discovered that we are just one small planet orbiting around one small star among billions that make up our galaxy...one galaxy among the billions that make up our universe...which may not be the only universe. The point is that we are here together and it is irrational and illogical to shed eachothers' blood so mercilessly over control of what amounts to not even a grain of sand in the Sahara. We owe it to eachother to be good to our fellow man and this has nothing...absolutely nothing...with why or how we got here. But what is the meaning of life then? Who says there is one. The #1 objective of all living organisms is to propogate their own existence through survival and reproduction....This does not justify killing eachother....In fact, as beings of advanced intellect, we know that we very much depend on eachother...this leads to an inate morality that is built into all of us. Sometimes believing in a higher power provides a vehicle to enhance that natural compassion...and sometimes it serves as a vehicle to express our more primative behaviors such as hate and violence. The key is to realize that we can be good to eachother without it.

I understand that you don't believe, but it don't force it on me, and don't insult all of the good people who claim themselves a part of the family of God. In the end, you don't have as much a reason as you think to justify disbelief, and its a matter of personal discernment in any event. I have the right to believe what I will and to stand up for my beliefs, and if you're right, then I still don't have a reason NOT to believe (no moral truths, remember).

I don't force my beliefs on you and I realize that most (not all) Christians don't force their beliefs on others. Don't judge my reasoning for disbelief either...as you don't like when I judge your reasoning for belief. You have the right to believe whatever you want but that does not automatically make your beliefs superior to mine.

[sososo]

5) I lump this whole section together because it is simple to answer. You do not need God in order to be good to one another. But why be good to one another if there is no higher being to answer to for our actions? If you need this justification to be good to your fellow man then you have a very, very dark side that I don't want to see. Science is a humbling experience...the vastness of the universe is of a magnitude that we can not comprehend. We have discovered that we are just one small planet orbiting around one small star among billions that make up our galaxy...one galaxy among the billions that make up our universe...which may not be the only universe. The point is that we are here together and it is irrational and illogical to shed eachothers' blood so mercilessly over control of what amounts to not even a grain of sand in the Sahara. We owe it to eachother to be good to our fellow man and this has nothing...absolutely nothing...with why or how we got here. But what is the meaning of life then? Who says there is one. The #1 objective of all living organisms is to propogate their own existence through survival and reproduction....This does not justify killing eachother....In fact, as beings of advanced intellect, we know that we very much depend on eachother...this leads to an inate morality that is built into all of us. Sometimes believing in a higher power provides a vehicle to enhance that natural compassion...and sometimes it serves as a vehicle to express our more primative behaviors such as hate and violence. The key is to realize that we can be good to eachother without it.

Number 5 is more about morality then science but what interests me about your opinion is that you must also know that the distance of earth from the sun and the fact our planet has only one moon are of the upmost importance to life as we know it. If the planet lacked a moon or had two moons the probability of life or life as we know it would be different.

My point is science can't explain the perfection. Some agree there are more than three dimensions or planes but few can accept that Jah is outside the realm of time or space.

You write that we have an innate morality that is 'built in' all of us. I completely disagree. Where religion and doctrine fails, laws are enacted but this doesn't assure morality and as we know laws change with the wind. Let's say good is 'built in', then I could also reason evil is 'built in'.

To keep this short I'll simply say we are created in a state of duality with mind and soul [feelings, emotions] and spirit but, we are born spiritually dead [or very close to?].

The very act of our creation [duality] is to become One with the Creator in an act of returning.

Hope some of this makes sense.

Edited October 25, 2007 by sososo