Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[Thorne]

I'm tired of getting into a discussion and being accused of derailing the thread, of ignoring the topic. So I want to start this new thread, where anyone can say anything either for or against any religion, agnosticism or atheism, or anything which even tangentially applies. Basically a free-for-all (within the guidelines of the Library Forum, of course.)

I'm going to respond to some comments made in another thread, just to redirect it here so we can leave that thread to its original topic.

LMAO
It's not the aethiests that are nessesarally so flawed Thorne, but the idea of aethism itself.

Tell me which gods you DON'T believe in, denuseri. Do you believe in Zeus? Jupiter? Thor? How about Kali? Maybe Venus? Aphrodite? Or shall we go back to Baal, Jehovah, Yahweh? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Do you accept all of these gods as real, along with all the thousands of gods which have ever been invented?

Unless you can accept every god ever dreamed up, major or minor, in every religion, as being real then I cannot understand how you can say atheism is flawed simply because it rejects all of them. So explain to me how not believing in polka dotted unicorns is flawed.

[Thorne]

I know lots and lots of people who express a belief in angels, ghosts and what have you, and not a one of them is in any danger of being dragged off to the mental ward.

No, simply believing in them is not justification for a diagnosis of mental illness. But what about those who hold conversations with them? Those who base their actions on a voice in their head? Are they sane? The Son of Sam serial killer didn't really want to kill anyone. He was just following the commands of his dog, wasn't he? How is he any less sane than someone who believes he is talking with a god and who acts on that belief? Should such a person not be held responsible because it happened to be God's voice he was following?

[Thorne]

Read up on the Communists and get back to us on that one, it was their idea to have state funded, state promoted, religious persecution. Which all the more just proves my point made way back before, about how its not the religions doing the bad stuff...its bad people doing bad stuff and misussing the "ideas" presented in any given philosophy, religion, creedo, etc.

I've read about Communism, and they weren't persecuting religion to promote atheism, but to promote Communism. ANY religious organization represents an authority not controlled by the state, and that was anathema to the Communists. Sure, they were atheists, some of them. But that had nothing to do with what they were doing to religious groups. They wanted ALL authority to reside within the Supreme Soviet. Worship of the state, and not of gods. It's still a religion, not atheism.

[Thorne]

In fact, from the very beginning Christianity has co-existed peacefully with other religions, including religions that opposed it.

I'm not sure if you're quoting someone here or if these are your own ideas. Either way I'm absolutely stunned! Look up the Crusades. Read about the Inquisition. The Blood Libel. Learn about Martin Luther's ravings about the Jews. What about the missionaries sent to the New World to convert the pagan natives? The destruction of religious texts, both Christian and non-Christian? I cannot believe that someone can actually make that statement with a straight face!

For example, the leaders of the Jewish religion considered the truth claims of Christianity blasphemous; and, as a result, the leaders attempted to kill those who followed it whenever they could. Saul of Tarsus (see Acts 9) persecuted Christians. But the Christians did not therefore view it as their duty to revenge their persecutors. Rather, Christians are instructed by Holy Scripture to "live at peace with all men" (Romans 12:18, see also Hebrews 12:14), including those with whom we disagree.

Christians are instructed by scripture to do a lot of things which would get them quickly persecuted into extinction if they tried to actually do them.
"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." -- Leviticus 26:29
"Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." -- Matthew 5:28-30
"Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." -- 2 Chronicles 15:13
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." -- Mark 16:16

(Sadly, it must be acknowledged that not all Christians have truly followed the teachings of the Bible in this respect.)
[INDENT]And when they do commit acts of agression and violence against one another, they are in fact breaking the tennents of their respected faiths.

Yes, the "No True Christian" fallacy. Anyone claiming to be a Christian who does something which I don't think is right must not be a true Christian.

All the foundation religions are base on a vision of an angels or a dream. It is up to each man to believe it or reject it.

So then why are those who reject it reviled by those who accept it?

So why make such a fuss.

Because these so-called "good" Christians are trying to force their religion into the schools, they are denying women the right to control their own bodies, and they are trying their damndest to make sure that only "good" Christians (as they define them) can legally be elected to public office. (Anyone care to take a guess as to how many Black, Latino, Asian, Gay, Lesbian or Catholic politicians would be considered "good" Christians?)

[denuseri]

Dear Thorne

I have no desire to derail the original thread where you took my comments from by responding to them here out of context.

Respectfully,

denuseri

[Thorne]

I have no desire to derail the original thread where you took my comments from by responding to them here out of context.

And yet, if I'd answered them there I would have been, already have been, accused of derailing the thread.

[TantricSoul]

Thank you Thorne for giving this long standing discussion a home, and defining your intent in the OP.
No worries about "off topic" messages from the moderator.
In fact I will just stay out of this thread.
You all know where to find me if need be.

[thir]

Thank you Thorne for giving this long standing discussion a home, and defining your intent in the OP.
No worries about "off topic" messages from the moderator.
In fact I will just stay out of this thread.
You all know where to find me if need be.

And yet, when one tries to move a thread so as not to derail the original thread, it hardly ever works. Don't ask me why.

[Thorne]

And yet, when one tries to move a thread so as not to derail the original thread, it hardly ever works.

As seems to be the case here.

[thir]

As seems to be the case here.

There you go. I would like to hear people's opnion on this, because it has happened enough that I believe it is a pattern..

Maybe you could consider making a new post, summing up what you want to discuss instead of basing it on Denuseris answers? Make a fresh start?

[Thorne]

Maybe you could consider making a new post, summing up what you want to discuss instead of basing it on Denuseris answers? Make a fresh start?

Might be a good idea. I'll have to think about it, anyway. I'm not usually comfortable with initiating a discussion, though.

[MMI]

Thank you Thorne for giving this long standing discussion a home, and defining your intent in the OP.
No worries about "off topic" messages from the moderator.
In fact I will just stay out of this thread.
You all know where to find me if need be.

I, for one, wish TS would join in the thread. He has made several enlightening and thought-provoking comments in topics like this in the past, and I would enjoy more.

[Thorne]

I, for one, wish TS would join in the thread. He has made several enlightening and thought-provoking comments in topics like this in the past, and I would enjoy more.

I agree whole-heartedly!

[domaster]

well to be clear about god...
there is only one god & Mohammad & Jesus Christ & Moses & David & Solomon & Ibrahim & Isaac & Ismail & Noah & Adam ...
And all The Prophet : (Prayers and peace be upon them is god Messengers)
And there Religion its god Religion its only one Religion and it the same Religion & it was getting updated every time god send a prophet & its Islam mean "Islam is derived from the Arabic root "Salema": peace, purity, submission and obedience. In the religious sense, Islam means submission to the will of God and obedience to His law"
And it was getting updated every time god send a prophet Because of the changes & Evolution
that was happening in human being life’s or every time the human being Stap away from god or from his
True Religion

You keep saying … which god I will Worship & which one it’s the real god
Guess what … “ it’s the Reason of your existence “ you are here to find the way to your Creator between all those Claims it’s the truth god using your Mind and Awareness and when you find your god you Finish your life Worshiping your god

“So as not to bother yourself looking for god let’s just stop believing on god it’s easier … ”

[Thorne]

well to be clear about god...

For anyone who's interested, I responded to this here, in domaster's thread. I don't think I need to copy it over here as well.

[Thorne]

I've just read this article, written by Maryam Namazie, a rights activist and ex-Muslim. While her talk was primarily about Islam, it can be just as easily applied to any fundamentalist, dogmatic religion. It's well worth the read, believe me.

She equates modern Islam with the Catholic Inquisition of the Middle Ages. Among other things, she says that, "A ‘personal’ religion is impossible under an inquisition. You can’t pick and choose as you’d like.", and "One of the characteristics of an inquisition is a total ban on freethinking and policing of thought." According to Ms. Namazie, modern Islam is another Inquisition.

Of particular note is this: "The distinction between humans and their beliefs and regressive political movements is of crucial significance here.
It is the human being who is meant to be equal not his or her beliefs. It is the human being who is worthy of the highest respect and rights not his or her beliefs or those imputed on them.
It is the human being who is sacred not beliefs or religion.
The problem is that religion sees things the other way around.
And this is the main reason why religion must be relegated to being a private matter."

While her primary point involves stopping the current spread of Islamic fundamentalism in Britain, many of her points could just as easily apply to the current surge of fundamentalist Christianity occurring in the US. When we allow religions to force their laws into the laws of nations, we force all people, regardless of their beliefs, to submit to that one religion. Allowing the teaching of religious doctrine in science classes turns those classes into pulpits, spoon-feeding dogma to our children rather than teaching them to think.

Please, read Ms. Namazie's article, and think about what she is saying. She is far more eloquent than I am, and far more knowledgeable about the evils of dogmatic, fundamentalist religions. She is on the front lines of the battle to save humanity from it's gods.

[thir]

Please, read Ms. Namazie's article, and think about what she is saying. She is far more eloquent than I am, and far more knowledgeable about the evils of dogmatic, fundamentalist religions. She is on the front lines of the battle to save humanity from it's gods.

She certainly knows her own mind, that one, and is not shy of saying what's on it. I salute her for that.

I read her as being against religion period. Banning of all religious symbols in jewellery or clothing, no religious schools etc.

I fear such a policy will backfire. I totally agree that religion is and should be a private matter, and that religious fundamentalists should be stopped as all other fundamentalists, have no impact in law, or schools, and that any attempt at violence should be handled by the police as any other violence. Democracy is our lifestyle, and that is and should mean freedom under responsibility and influence on your own life. You cannot have that if others try to set the rules outside of the elected law-makers.

But starting to dictate how others should dress is impacting on their democratic rights. Exceptions are special jobs, where you have to dress neutral and where your face must be seen.

[Thorne]

But starting to dictate how others should dress is impacting on their democratic rights. Exceptions are special jobs, where you have to dress neutral and where your face must be seen.

I agree with you to a point, but where does one draw the line between those who truly want to dress a certain way and those who are forced to by their religious leaders? Especially in Islam, but in other religions as well, women especially are required to dress to satisfy some arbitrary religious tenet, and trying to go against those tenets can get women seriously injured, even killed. Generally by their own husbands, or even sons!

I think her primary point, as is mine, is that any religion which FORCES its followers to remain true to the faith under penalty of death is nothing more than a cult. Banning of Sharia law in England, for example, would give those who want to leave the faith the opportunity to do so, with less fear of retaliation. It's important that all religious organizations, and those who run them (priests, imams, rabbis, etc.) should be held accountable to the secular law first, and then to their religious laws where applicable. Allowing them to escape from secular punishment because of religious beliefs is stupid and dangerous.

I also agree with her statement that religious organizations should be treated like any other business and be subject to standard tax laws of all countries. Allow them to take deductions for any charitable work they perform or donate to, but they don't deserve to be treated any differently than any other business.

[MMI]

So ... this thread is a religiously-themed free-for-all, is it? May I join in? Thorne and I have often disagreed about the truth of atheism, even though we both claim to be atheists. I maintain I simply believe there is no god: Thorne appears to me to insist that the fact that there is no god is the only possible truth.

Well, here's my credo:

No-one can prove that God exists: no-one can prove He does not.

I don't think the religious are interested in the idea that there is no God, and they certainly do not look for proof that he doesn't exist, but atheists say, If you claim that God exists, you must prove it; but you can't. They claim exemption from any like obligation to prove atheism is true because, You can't prove a negative.

Given that there are very clearly two bodies of opinion on this point, the question has to remain open.

There may be no proof, but the existence of the universe and of life is evidence that God exists/does not exist

To my mind, it is just as much a matter of faith that there is no God as it is that there is one (or more), and neither body of opinion can be said to be truer than the other. Maybe science will one day be able to demonstrate that everything happened by itself, without any external cause. Maybe God will one day reveal himself. Until then, a spontaneous creation of the universe by itself out of nothing seems as preposterous an idea as supernatural creation, if not more so.

Unless, as a current line of enquiry seems to suggest, we are all just an illusion: http://www.gizmag.com/fermilab-holom...acetime/16829/ (I hasten to add, I do not understand what that article describes, or if it is even half credible. I am simply headline-grabbing to illustrate my point).


If God exists and is benevolent, he would not interfere in the world, whatever befalls it, except to rescue it entirely.


If God exists and influences events in the world, he cannot be other than evil because no benevolent entity would allow so many bad things to happen to the innocent, yet shower so much wealth and privilege on the undeserving.

If God is perfect, and He created us, He would never "test" us, because that would be pointless

If we have free will, only an evil God would punish us for exercising it

... even if we committed mass genocide. If He is perfect and punishes us, he purposely created the fault for which we are being punished.

Well, that'll do for now. I could go on, but the above demonstrates that atheism is not a certain fact, and for an atheist to decry religion is as bad as the religions denouncing unbelief. Zealotry among the faithless is as bad as the zealots of religion.

[Thorne]

So ... this thread is a religiously-themed free-for-all, is it? May I join in?

Please do! You know I always look forward to having discussions with you.

Thorne and I have often disagreed about the truth of atheism, even though we both claim to be atheists. I maintain I simply believe there is no god: Thorne appears to me to insist that the fact that there is no god is the only possible truth.

No, that's not what I claim. My stand is that, since there is no evidence for gods, there is no reason to think that they exist, therefore I do not believe in any gods. (I suppose, if you really want to stretch it, you could say that I believe that I'm right in this, but the only claim I can truthfully make is that there is no evidence for gods.)

atheists say, If you claim that God exists, you must prove it; but you can't.

Rather than saying "you can't", I would say, "you haven't." Once again, we cannot make the definitive statement "you can't" because we don't know for certain whether someday someone just might!

There may be no proof, but the existence of the universe and of life is evidence that God exists/does not exist
I don't believe this is accurate, either. The existence of the universe, or of life, is not evidence for either argument. IF you could prove a god exists you would then still have to prove that he created the universe and was not, himself, a creation of it!

To my mind, it is just as much a matter of faith that there is no God as it is that there is one (or more), and neither body of opinion can be said to be truer than the other.

I don't see how you can place both positions at the same level. Claiming that there something exists, without evidence, is vastly different than claiming that something probably doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it. You are claiming that believing in Leprechauns is just as valid and rational as NOT believing in Leprechauns.

Maybe science will one day be able to demonstrate that everything happened by itself, without any external cause.

They've come pretty close to that already. Not quite there, certainly, but they can certainly explain the existence of just about everything in the universe from the first tiny fraction of a second after the big bang on up to the present. Granted, we don't know what happened in that first tiny fraction of a second, or what happened before that, and we may never know. But saying, "We can't know, therefore God!" is silly.

Maybe God will one day reveal himself.

If He does, He'll have a lot to answer for!

Until then, a spontaneous creation of the universe by itself out of nothing seems as preposterous an idea as supernatural creation, if not more so.

Personally, I find the spontaneous creation far more rational than the supernatural creation. For then you have to explain the existence of the supernatural agent. Where did God come from? How was HE created?

Unless, as a current line of enquiry seems to suggest, we are all just an illusion: http://www.gizmag.com/fermilab-holom...acetime/16829/ (I hasten to add, I do not understand what that article describes, or if it is even half credible. I am simply headline-grabbing to illustrate my point).

Yeah, I don't understand it either. I didn't see anything in the article which explains how we could all be an illusion.

If God exists and is benevolent, he would not interfere in the world, whatever befalls it, except to rescue it entirely.
I don't see benevolence in this stance. I see indifference.

If God exists and influences events in the world, he cannot be other than evil because no benevolent entity would allow so many bad things to happen to the innocent, yet shower so much wealth and privilege on the undeserving.

This I can go along with. In fact, this claim is a very good argument against the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, Yahweh.

If God is perfect, and He created us, He would never "test" us, because that would be pointless

Agreed. He would already know the outcome of any test.

If we have free will, only an evil God would punish us for exercising it
... even if we committed mass genocide. If He is perfect and punishes us, he purposely created the fault for which we are being punished.

Also true, as far as it goes. Of course, you would still have to prove that God does indeed punish, or reward, anyone.

atheism is not a certain fact, and for an atheist to decry religion is as bad as the religions denouncing unbelief. Zealotry among the faithless is as bad as the zealots of religion.

I agree, atheism is not a certain fact. It's simply a statement of position. As an atheist, I do not believe that gods exist! What I denounce about religion is not the fact that they believe, but the fact that they seem to want to FORCE everyone else to believe, just as they do. They want to brainwash MY children and grandchildren, not just their own. They want to STOP the science which disproves so much of their beliefs, claiming that the only necessary answer is God.

I don't claim to know everything, either. I don't want to destroy faith. I think a little faith can be good for people. But religion is not about faith. It's about control. Let religious people keep their faith, and their religion, in their churches and out of the real world and I'll be quite content.

[MMI]

My stand is that, since there is no evidence for gods, there is no reason to think that they exist, therefore I do not believe in any gods.

You reject blind faith and/or revelation, although all religious faith is based on either or both of those.

Rather than saying "you can't", I would say, "you haven't." Once again, we cannot make the definitive statement "you can't" because we don't know for certain whether someday someone just might!

My point exactly

The existence of the universe, or of life, is not evidence for either argument. IF you could prove a god exists you would then still have to prove that he created the universe and was not, himself, a creation of it!

A god who is not supernatural is not what we are debating, although I agree that a supernatural god might not be the Creator. But existence implies a creator to our feeble intellects and the only possible candidates are a supernatural creator or spontaneous creation. As I've said before, an eternal creator who is not bound by the laws of science seems more plausible (!) than an inconceivably large amount of energy and mass erupting out of nothing at all at some point in the past, for no evident reason, when that flies in the face of all laws of science as we know them. If an atheist claims rational analysis as the bedrock of his position, how does he explain spontaneous creation?

Of course, he could fall back on the Steady State theory, but that's fantastic too!

Claiming that there something exists, without evidence, is vastly different than claiming that something probably doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it.

We're back to the faith/revelation v evidence argument again.

They've come pretty close to that already. Not quite there, certainly, but they can certainly explain the existence of just about everything in the universe from the first tiny fraction of a second after the big bang on up to the present. Granted, we don't know what happened in that first tiny fraction of a second, or what happened before that, and we may never know. But saying, "We can't know, therefore God!" is silly.

Theories! Thought experiments and maths only. What is more, the religions have a complete answer!

Personally, I find the spontaneous creation far more rational than the supernatural creation. For then you have to explain the existence of the supernatural agent. Where did God come from? How was HE created?

God is eternal - came from nowhere we can comprehend, and not created. If an atheist can accept an uncaused cause leading to the creation of the universe, why can not a god also be uncaused?

Yeah, I don't understand it either. I didn't see anything in the article which explains how we could all be an illusion.

Maybe it was a nod in the direction of Plato's Cave

If God exists and is benevolent, he would not interfere in the world, whatever befalls it, except to rescue it entirely.

I don't see benevolence in this stance. I see indifference.

Yes, indifference. Otherwise he would be unjustly favouring individuals, and we all know, God is just.

What I denounce about religion is not the fact that they believe, but the fact that they seem to want to FORCE everyone else to believe, just as they do. They want to brainwash MY children and grandchildren, not just their own. They want to STOP the science which disproves so much of their beliefs, claiming that the only necessary answer is God.

That view, which I see as a mixture of paranoia and exaggeration worthy of a tipsy Orangeman on 12th July can be turned on its head; if you stop religions proselytising, you cut of their life blood and will kill them all off.

Only the extreme religions deny the value and validity of science. Most religions embrace science, knowing it is limited to describing the natural world. Proof of god goes beyond science.

But religion is not about faith. It's about control.

In a different discussion, I'd be inclined to agree, but, in fact, religion is about explaining life and giving it meaning. Cynical individuals have bent religion to their own agendas, and they cannot be regarded as religious at all. They do not deny god, as we do, but they clearly have no fear of him.

[Thorne]

You reject blind faith and/or revelation, although all religious faith is based on either or both of those.

Yes, I do. Without evidence, neither of them is worth the paper they are printed on.

an eternal creator who is not bound by the laws of science seems more plausible (!) than an inconceivably large amount of energy and mass erupting out of nothing at all at some point in the past, for no evident reason, when that flies in the face of all laws of science as we know them.

Just HOW is it more plausible? If you cannot imagine an infinite universe, which obeys all the laws of nature, how can postulating an infinite being, who does NOT obey all the laws of nature, seem more plausible? And just because we don't know how the universe began doesn't mean that some supernatural being did it.

If an atheist claims rational analysis as the bedrock of his position, how does he explain spontaneous creation?

I don't explain it. I leave that to the scientists who study the universe. They are constantly coming up with new theories, and testing them, seeking data to support, or deny, them. How much testing can we do on a god? Where is the data to support that hypothesis? Again, a lack of knowledge or understanding does not automatically mean god.

We're back to the faith/revelation v evidence argument again.

It's the only real argument, after all. Science has evidence. Faith does not.

Theories! Thought experiments and maths only. What is more, the religions have a complete answer!

No! Theories are more than just thought experiments. Sure, you can hypothesize just about anything, and claim it to be true. But without data to support it, without evidence to show it explains the universe as we know it, it's nothing more than ... religion. Any answer that religion can provide is only imaginary. They have no evidence for an afterlife, they have no evidence for their gods, they have no evidence for heavens or hells. Anyone can make claims, for anything at all. They can answer all the questions in the world if they wish. Without proof, without evidence, it's no better than fiction. Hell, it IS fiction.

God is eternal - came from nowhere we can comprehend, and not created. If an atheist can accept an uncaused cause leading to the creation of the universe, why can not a god also be uncaused?

I do not accept an uncaused cause, but an unknown cause. We know the universe exists, though. We can see it, measure it, feel it around us. Not so gods.

And if a theist can accept an eternal god, why can't he accept an eternal universe? Why do you assume the universe had a beginning? Yes, our minds are more comfortable thinking that there is a beginning and an end, and it's quite probable that the universe as we know it had a beginning and will have an end. Perhaps, some umpteen quadrillion eons from now all of the universe as we know it will be dark and dead, slowly mixing, gradually coming together, until it ultimately collapses back into a singularity and explodes once again. After all, as far as we know energy cannot be destroyed, so all of the energy being dispersed throughout the universe will exist forever, as near as we can tell. Who can say that this energy won't eventually combine back to form matter once again? All without gods.

Yes, indifference. Otherwise he would be unjustly favouring individuals, and we all know, God is just.

And yet God, as defined in the holy books of the theists, always seems to favor a particular group. The Hebrew God favored the Jews. The Islamic God favors the Muslims. The Christian God(s) favors (a particular brand of) Christians.

That view, which I see as a mixture of paranoia and exaggeration worthy of a tipsy Orangeman on 12th July can be turned on its head;

I suggest you look into what's currently happening in American politics, thanks to religious fanatics. Abortion laws being gutted (because women really aren't smart enough to control their own bodies, don't you know), creationism being touted as a science, and one superior to evolution. Elected officials openly promoting Christianity over any other religion! ("On the day of his swearing-in, Alabama Republican Gov. Robert J. Bentley raised concern among the state's non-Christians by declaring that people who had not accepted Jesus Christ were not his brothers and sisters.") Does that sound like paranoia or exaggeration to you?

if you stop religions proselytising, you cut of their life blood and will kill them all off.

That works for me! But I didn't SAY stop them from proselytizing. But it has no place in schools, no place in the science class, and no place in politics.

Only the extreme religions deny the value and validity of science. Most religions embrace science, knowing it is limited to describing the natural world. Proof of god goes beyond science.

Granted. I agree that it is currently the extremists who are the major offenders. But it's taken the Catholic Church nearly 2000 years to admit that. It took them 600 years before they finally admitted that Galileo was right. The Church has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the real world, but don't for one minute think that they wouldn't gladly return us to the dark ages when the Church was paramount, ruling over kings and peasants alike. And Islam is right there with them. The only science they will ever truly accept is that science which doesn't contradict their dogma and holy books.

in fact, religion is about explaining life and giving it meaning.

I disagree. Religion is about explaining the unknown and making people feel better about it. If the priest tells you that throwing your virgin daughter into the volcano will keep it from erupting and destroying the village's crops, you'll tend to feel better when the volcano doesn't erupt. Until it finally does, of course. And when you are staggering away from the devastation, clinging to the few meager possessions you have saved, would you mourn the wasted life you tossed down the hole? Or will you listen to that priest as he "explains" that some promiscuous slut is a witch and has to be burned at the stake to appease the god?

And this is why religion and science cannot mix. Because science helps to remove the mystery. The erupting volcano is no longer a sign of an angry god, but a simple, natural event that happens for no reason at all. But the priests will manage to come up with some new reason to keep donating your money, to keep sacrificing those virgins, to keep your wives barefoot and pregnant, because they're only women and they deserve it.

Cynical individuals have bent religion to their own agendas, and they cannot be regarded as religious at all.

What is religion if not the teachings of those self-same individuals? I hear that excuse all the time: "It's not religion that's wrong, it's the people who pervert it." But a religion does not exist independent of people. When the last human disappears from the planet, there will not be some great, ugly lump of religion left behind, moldering, waiting for someone to come along and kick it back to life.

The people who make up a religious organization, from the top man down to the lowest parishioner, ARE that religion. It's the top men (it almost always seems to be men, after all) who espouse the dogma, who send down their pronouncements, revealed to them by God. And it's the little men and women who accept these pronouncements, believing that some posturing con artist is really in communication with God. THAT is religion.

So yes, it can be, and has been, twisted and broken by selfish, greedy men. But the parishioner goes right on believing those men! Oh, some will call bullshit and leave that Church. Most will likely latch onto another Church, one which is more in line with their own beliefs. Some may, like me, realize that they are all alike down deep, promising everything but delivering nothing but lies and fables.

Look into the horrific damage done by the Catholic Church in Africa with it's stand against condoms. They even lied, claiming that condoms do NOT protect against AIDS. Look at the devastation being wrought on gays in Nigeria(?), supported by homophobic preachers in the US. Are the followers of these men walking away and taking their money with them? Not hardly! They go right on donating to the collection plates, while shaking their heads at those poor misguided souls in Africa.

So don't tell me it's not religion that is bad. Religion is only what its people make it.

[Lion]

I believe in a god. It gives me comfort, especially in bad times. I don't spend my day thinking about doing the right thing to go to heaven, I try to do the right thing because I feel sick in my gut to be bad. There are some things I won't do because of my religion, but I don't judge anyone who does (like eating pork). My best friend has been agnostic since I've known her, and now wants to explore religion more. I've asked her if I can share mine with her, but I have not criticized her choice for going to church despite being a different religion then mine. My previous room mate was staunchly atheist, and while we touched on the topic of religion, I've never asserted she was wrong and that I am right. I've never used my religion's beliefs to take away the rights of others (gays), or promoted it other then talk about it if someone seems to show a bit of interest.

My point with this all is, live and let live. I couldn't care less if someone is atheist, or believes in the spaghetti monster. I'm not sure as to the purpose of this thread other then to completely vilify the opposite side. Unlike political, economic and other issues, where science, philosophy and experience can help with the solution, only death can answer this question.

Lastly, I've seen religion being blamed for divisions and archaic beliefs. It is my humble opinion that religion is the simplest scapegoat. If there were no religion, greed, lust, envy, and all those bad things won't vanish. We will have wars, we will look towards a specific group as evil, and we will find something else to divide us.

kthxbai

[Thorne]

My point with this all is, live and let live. I couldn't care less if someone is atheist, or believes in the spaghetti monster.

I agree with you, Lion. It's not my intention to force anyone to give up their faith, or to force anyone to accept someone else's faith. My problem is with those people, people who are becoming increasingly more powerful in the US, who expect everyone to live their lives by what THEY say is right. That is what I argue against. If theists would be willing to keep their religions in their own homes and churches, and keep it out of the public schools and governments, I'd be fine with it.

I'm not sure as to the purpose of this thread other then to completely vilify the opposite side.

No, that's not my purpose. My purpose is to have a relatively open thread where these issues can be discussed freely, wandering down various pathways, venturing far and wide from the OP, or sticking close to it, without anyone claiming that the topic is not being discussed. As long as people show respect for one another, that's all I care about. But that does not necessarily mean showing respect for someone's belief system. If you can present your arguments rationally, then I have no problem with someone saying my ideas are crazy. Just show me the proof.

Lastly, I've seen religion being blamed for divisions and archaic beliefs. It is my humble opinion that religion is the simplest scapegoat. If there were no religion, greed, lust, envy, and all those bad things won't vanish. We will have wars, we will look towards a specific group as evil, and we will find something else to divide us.

Again, I agree with you. Eliminating religion won't stop any evil. What it would do would be to keep people from using their religion as moral justification for the evil that they do. Claiming the moral high ground while actively hiding the evil acts of religious leaders is nearly as bad as the evil done in the first place. Yet this is what religious organizations, and their leaders, are doing every day.

[thir]

My point with this all is, live and let live. I couldn't care less if someone is atheist, or believes in the spaghetti monster. I'm not sure as to the purpose of this thread other then to completely vilify the opposite side. Unlike political, economic and other issues, where science, philosophy and experience can help with the solution, only death can answer this question.

Some here enjoy fencing with each other, that is not a problem as I see it. Apart from that, it is a very interesting topic, and has a bearing on so many things.

Lastly, I've seen religion being blamed for divisions and archaic beliefs. It is my humble opinion that religion is the simplest scapegoat. If there were no religion, greed, lust, envy, and all those bad things won't vanish. We will have wars, we will look towards a specific group as evil, and we will find something else to divide us.
kthxbai

I believe you are right :-(
Maybe it is in the structures in society, and the more equal and thriving they are, the more peaceful too, regardless.

[MMI]

OK, let's try again from another angle.

God[s] is/are supernatural, subject to no rule of nature, and wholly unconstrained. His/their "existence" is not the kind of everyday existence you and I can comprehend, but something other entirely. To try to use science, or even rationality, to support a view that there is no god is utterly pointless. Science is concerned exclusively with the natural and has nothing - absolutely nothing - to say on the matter of gods. Likewise, it is impossible to conceptualise the nature of gods, so it is impossible to disprove them by rationalisation.

If you don't believe in god, you can only support your stance by saying it is mere opinion based purely on faith and instinct.

As for scientific theories of creation, they fail in one important aspect: they stop short of the moment of creation because they can find no scientific explanation for it. And they jettison all known science in order to explain the Big Bang as far as they can understand it. Nothing can move faster than light ... yet the universe would not be as it is now were it not for the inflation period ...

According to science there's not enough matter in galaxies for gravity to keep them together, and they should be spinning apart ... but for the effect of dark matter. Yet no-one can find any dark matter or say what it is, although it should be the most plentiful substance there is

Science does not even know what reality is in the natural world - we may only be reflections of (or in) a quantum mechanical universe. How, then, can it even begin to address questions about the supernatural?

[Thorne]

Science is concerned exclusively with the natural and has nothing - absolutely nothing - to say on the matter of gods.

I agree, as long as the gods don't intervene in nature. Like creating things, for example. Or performing miracles. Or even appearing as burning bushes and chatting with their peeps.

Likewise, it is impossible to conceptualise the nature of gods, so it is impossible to disprove them by rationalisation.

Which means it would be impossible to know they exist, even if they did. And it would be impossible for any of us to know what they want, or what they might have done. Unless, of course, they intervene somehow. Which puts them under the microscope again.

If you don't believe in god, you can only support your stance by saying it is mere opinion based purely on faith and instinct.

Even if you DO believe in gods you can only use faith as the basis for your belief.

As for scientific theories of creation, they fail in one important aspect: they stop short of the moment of creation because they can find no scientific explanation for it.

They don't know YET! Doesn't mean they never will. And anyway, saying we don't know does not mean God did it.

And they jettison all known science in order to explain the Big Bang as far as they can understand it. Nothing can move faster than light ... yet the universe would not be as it is now were it not for the inflation period ...

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. As far as I know, no one has claimed that anything is moving faster than light. Yes, two galaxies moving in opposite directions at very high speeds may APPEAR to be moving faster than light RELATIVE to one another, but not relative to the center of expansion. But again, there is much we don't know about conditions at the instant of the Big Bang, and how the laws of nature as we understand them are affected. And again, lack of knowledge does not mean gods.

According to science there's not enough matter in galaxies for gravity to keep them together, and they should be spinning apart ... but for the effect of dark matter. Yet no-one can find any dark matter or say what it is, although it should be the most plentiful substance there is

"Dark matter" is just a term, a placeholder if you will, that scientists use to refer to unknown material which MAY be there. Or perhaps there are some peculiar, non-intuitive laws of nature which we haven't deduced yet. Or any of an almost infinite number of possible NATURAL explanations. And yet again, lack of knowledge does not equal gods.

Science does not even know what reality is in the natural world - we may only be reflections of (or in) a quantum mechanical universe. How, then, can it even begin to address questions about the supernatural?

I'm not equipped to deal with such philosophical questions. As far as I'm concerned they're nothing more than games for bored philosophers to play to keep themselves sane (or to drive others insane). Reality is what we can see, or measure, either directly or indirectly.

So yes, I'm perfectly willing to accept that we do not know everything, and cannot explain everything. But that does not mean it's OK to just make stuff up! Claiming that some kind of supernatural being is responsible for everything, just because it makes you feel good, is just not acceptable. That leads to chaos as everybody is then free to make up anything they like, without evidence or rationale, and claim it to be true, because they have "faith".

[MMI]

Science is concerned exclusively with the natural and has nothing - absolutely nothing - to say on the matter of gods.

I agree, as long as the gods don't intervene in nature. Like creating things, for example. Or performing miracles. Or even appearing as burning bushes and chatting with their peeps.

There you go again, trying to limit the illimitable. If God really did appear to Moses as a burning bush, scientific reality would have been unable to prevent it or explain it; but science's inability to explain the event does not mean it did not happen.

Likewise, it is impossible to conceptualise the nature of gods, so it is impossible to disprove them by rationalisation.

Which means it would be impossible to know they exist, even if they did. And it would be impossible for any of us to know what they want, or what they might have done. Unless, of course, they intervene somehow. Which puts them under the microscope again.

And your point is what, exactly? The only "knowledge" believers claim is the "certainty of faith". Where believers witness an intervention by god, they see a miracle. Faith and miracles go beyond your scientific rigour, which is irrelevant to a believer on the question of belief.

If you don't believe in god, you can only support your stance by saying it is mere opinion based purely on faith and instinct.

Even if you DO believe in gods you can only use faith as the basis for your belief.

That's not a problem. Belief and faith are the level at which this discussion should proceed, not whether there is evidence for something that cannot be evidenced.

As for scientific theories of creation, they fail in one important aspect: they stop short of the moment of creation because they can find no scientific explanation for it.

They don't know YET! Doesn't mean they never will. And anyway, saying we don't know does not mean God did it.

I applaud your affirmation of faith, with which I heartily concur.

But it seems to me that if a believer says, "God did it," our answer should be, "We don't know," not "He didn't!"

And they jettison all known science in order to explain the Big Bang as far as they can understand it. Nothing can move faster than light ... yet the universe would not be as it is now were it not for the inflation period ...

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. As far as I know, no one has claimed that anything is moving faster than light. Yes, two galaxies moving in opposite directions at very high speeds may APPEAR to be moving faster than light RELATIVE to one another, but not relative to the center of expansion. But again, there is much we don't know about conditions at the instant of the Big Bang, and how the laws of nature as we understand them are affected. And again, lack of knowledge does not mean gods.

I refer you again to the concept of inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29). Basically, at some early point during the Big Bang
the whole universe expanded from the size of a proton to the size of a grapefruit far quicker than the speed of light.

Of course, explanations are offered, but without inflation, the universe does not satisfy scientific predictions, so inflation has to be "fixed". How much more convincing does that make science than the Creation story in Genesis? At least God took a week to finish his work, giving light much more time to illuminate it.

According to science there's not enough matter in galaxies for gravity to keep them together, and they should be spinning apart ... but for the effect of dark matter. Yet no-one can find any dark matter or say what it is, although it should be the most plentiful substance there is

"Dark matter" is just a term, a placeholder if you will, that scientists use to refer to unknown material which MAY be there. Or perhaps there are some peculiar, non-intuitive laws of nature which we haven't deduced yet. Or any of an almost infinite number of possible NATURAL explanations. And yet again, lack of knowledge does not equal gods.

So, when scientists realised current theories about the universe would not work, they "invented" something which would "fill in" until a proper explanation is found?

If you are now admitting science is invention - even if only partially - then your cry that gods are a fiction is pure hypocricy.

I agree that lack of knowledge does not equal gods, but neither is an absence of knowledge sufficient to say there are no gods.

Science does not even know what reality is in the natural world - we may only be reflections of (or in) a quantum mechanical universe. How, then, can it even begin to address questions about the supernatural?

I'm not equipped to deal with such philosophical questions. As far as I'm concerned they're nothing more than games for bored philosophers to play to keep themselves sane (or to drive others insane). Reality is what we can see, or measure, either directly or indirectly.

So yes, I'm perfectly willing to accept that we do not know everything, and cannot explain everything. But that does not mean it's OK to just make stuff up! Claiming that some kind of supernatural being is responsible for everything, just because it makes you feel good, is just not acceptable. That leads to chaos as everybody is then free to make up anything they like, without evidence or rationale, and claim it to be true, because they have "faith".

Didn't we just see you saying that scientists made stuff up? Yes, here it is:

"Dark matter" is just a term, a placeholder if you will, that scientists use to refer to unknown material which MAY be there.

I'm an atheist not because there is no evidence for a god, but because I simply don't believe the stories I have heard.

[Thorne]

There you go again, trying to limit the illimitable. If God really did appear to Moses as a burning bush, scientific reality would have been unable to prevent it or explain it; but science's inability to explain the event does not mean it did not happen.

Perhaps not, but there would be a burned bush to investigate, wouldn't there? In fact, scientists have not been able to even confirm the existence of Moses or the Exodus, outside of the Bible. One would think that several million, or even several hundred thousand, people trekking across the Sinai peninsula for 40 years would have left a mark.

Faith and miracles go beyond your scientific rigour, which is irrelevant to a believer on the question of belief.

Interesting that you would place these intangibles above science, rather than beneath it. I see science as having evolved from religious thought, finding realistic, natural explanations for those things which religion claim to be supernatural. And as long as faith and belief are kept in the churches and minds of theists they are irrelevant to science.

That's not a problem. Belief and faith are the level at which this discussion should proceed, not whether there is evidence for something that cannot be evidenced.

But how can one discuss atheism using only belief and faith? It is neither. One can believe anything he wishes, can have faith in anything he desires. If he does NOT believe in gods, he is an atheist.

I applaud your affirmation of faith, with which I heartily concur.

An affirmation of trust rather than faith. I trust that science will continue to advance and get ever closer to the answers. I suppose in this connotation the two terms are almost synonymous, but 'faith' has a religious connotation which does not apply. A handicap of the English language, I guess.

But it seems to me that if a believer says, "God did it," our answer should be, "We don't know," not "He didn't!"

"God did it" is a statement of fact, not of faith. As such, the proper response would be, "Prove it." That seems to me to be the biggest chasm between science and religion. When scientists are unable to explain something, they say, "We don't know," and hopefully add, "but we're working on it." The theist's response, though, is generally, "God," which leaves no reason to investigate further.

Basically, at some early point during the Big Bang the whole universe expanded from the size of a proton to the size of a grapefruit far quicker than the speed of light.

Yeah, I skimmed that. Sadly I don't have the math to understand it completely, but from what I can gather it's not all that different from what I said in my last post. And Einstein's equations do not prevent particles from traveling faster than the speed of light, only from traveling AT the speed of light. FTL travel is mathematically plausible. And remember, inflation theory is not proven, but only strongly suggested. Scientists are not saying, "This is how it happened." They are saying, "This is one possibility."

Of course, explanations are offered, but without inflation, the universe does not satisfy scientific predictions, so inflation has to be "fixed".

That's not what the article said. The theory "makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observation." That's how theories work. You make a proposal, you make predictions based upon that proposal, then you observe/perform experiments to determine how accurate your predictions are.

How much more convincing does that make science than the Creation story in Genesis?

Well obviously, to me, it is far more likely to have happened naturally than supernaturally.

At least God took a week to finish his work, giving light much more time to illuminate it.

Ahh, but the universe has taken nearly 14 billion years to reach this point in time, and it isn't finished yet! What's a week compared to that? And why would a supposedly omnipotent being require a full week to do it? Why not just wish it all into existence in one blink? And just how did God manage to illuminate the world with light BEFORE making the sun? A supernatural flashlight, perhaps?

So, when scientists realised current theories about the universe would not work, they "invented" something which would "fill in" until a proper explanation is found?

Not quite so blatant as that, but in essence that's how science works! From the beginning of civilization people believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. But too many discrepancies in observations occurred, and the "fixes" which had to be made became too cumbersome. So Copernicus "invented" the heliocentric theory, with the Sun at the center. He then used this theory to make predictions regarding the orbits of the planets, and observations proved them to be accurate. Kepler improved the theory, determining that the planets revolved around the Sun in elliptical rather than circular orbits. Fact built upon fact, all confirming the invented hypotheses. So what scientists are saying with dark matter is that certain measurements of the expansion of the universe are not consistent with the current cosmological theory. They could, of course, just scrap the current theory and start all over. But current theory does explain so much else about the observed universe so they "invent" a possible, or several possible, explanations for the discrepancy and then seek to find evidence, through observation, for or against those explanations. In one case, there is a need for there to be more matter in the universe. It's a POSSIBLE explanation, not a confirmed one. Only further observations will determine how accurately that hypothesis works.

If you are now admitting science is invention - even if only partially - then your cry that gods are a fiction is pure hypocricy.

Again, I do not say that gods are necessarily a fiction, only that there is no evidence to show that they are real. Certainly, though, the gods currently worshiped by people are fictitious. Of course, it is possible that ONE of them could be accurate, but since they generally contradict one another it's not possible that they can ALL be real.

I agree that lack of knowledge does not equal gods, but neither is an absence of knowledge sufficient to say there are no gods.

Which I have agreed to multiple times!

I'm an atheist not because there is no evidence for a god, but because I simply don't believe the stories I have heard.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it implies that someone could possibly make up a much more believable story which would convince you, even without proof.

Scientology anyone?

[denuseri]

MMI:

I dont know why Tantric doesnt post more often, it could be becuase he is the mod for this section or it could be that like myself he sees no point in it. We have after all went over this subject to death in I dont know how many other threads with Thorne to no avail.

In my case I've found that its of no use to try and have a discussion with someone who refuses to accept logic unless it supports his own position.

Be well, nice to see you around again!

denuseri