Given that I'm talking about the importance of ideals as a whole, are you claiming ideals are "superstitious"? Yes. Because a bad answer is better than no answer at all. And really, since purpose is what we make of it, there is no such thing as a bad answer, as long there is one. Not to mention, the idea of "evidence" is my point. We can't empirically/scientifically prove many things in this world, how are we to determine those? As I stated earlier, Plato didn't use the scientific method in The Republic to determine the nature of justice, and obviously his answer isn't a final answer at all given the nature of Western philosophy. That does not mean that there is no value in what he says.
You are falling into the same fallacy. If time did not exist before the universe / Big Bang - and this is what our science can tell us at least....and if god transcends space and time...then saying "god always existed" makes no sense as there the word "always" and "existed" have no context in a reality devoid of time and space. Without time and space - there are no "elements", there is no 'thoughts'. No change - because any change of state implies the passage of time. You can make it an act of faith - sure why not. By god - you are merely saying that "some entity I don't understand created this reality which I can not explain". Sure - there is probably some reason WHY existence exists at all. For me, I simply choose to accept that there is a WHY, but it's a WHY I don't need to explain. I simply can not know. My faith is to assume that WHY exists and I just play my role as I really have no choice in the matter....just as our individual cells play their role without question, without realizing they are part of something much larger. You call that WHY GOD, I just prefer not to label it anything.
To follow on Sweet Lou's post. Evolution isn't about origin. The theory of Evolution is conflated with the theory of how life began but that really isn't what it is about. It is about explaining why we have the diversity of species that we see. Also as noted directed panspermia doesn't have to do with the origin of life but with how life got to Earth. Under that idea life originate through some other process somewhere else and then was seeded to Earth.
This is exactly what I am talking about. If you can't see what is wrong with this, there is no point in further discussing this issue with you. Been interesting none the less.
I think you are missing my point. I am not talking about substituting faith for science but that there are certain questions regarding our existence and the existence of the Universe that can not be answered empirically. As I said the why of the Universe. Clearly there are several answers to those questions provided by multiple religions and philosophies so my point isn't that there is one correct answer or one that can be proven when my focus is that as a rational beings we ask those type of questions. Once again you are focusing on answers. I am focusing on the questions. You are saying that what is important is that we find an answer that logically fits. I am saying that as rational humans we ask the questions because we are curious about our existence. My point is though if all we are is just material and when we die there is nothing further than just our material then there really isn't a qualitative difference between life and death. If you have nothing more than just your material existence what does it matter if you make the free throw to win the championship? Other than passing on your genes what is there to maximize in this time on Earth? Clearly the fact that you bring that up shows that life has a some sort of meaning beyond just mere physical existence and there is something qualitative about it. Can you prove scientifically that winning a championship matters really in any deeper way? I mean if it was just about the money to live more comfortably and have more chances to mate there are many other ways to do that yet part of the human condition is to strive to find fulfillment in ways that are beyond survival, comfort and reproduction. My point is that we value our lives because we perceive that there is something special about our existence beyond just a collection of interacting matter and energy. Why that is is a fundamental question of existence. I am not saying atheists are unhappy. There are many happy atheists and many happy extremely religious people. What makes people happy are different. I am saying though as a thinking species I believe, and yes that is a personal belief, that both science and faith are necessary and that they are not in conflict with each other. It is only an extremely shallow view of both that says that there is only way of viewing existence. Either scientifically or spiritually.
I see no fallacy in stating that God transcends space and time, because he is a Spirit and therefor is not bound by the laws of nature/universe! You and I because we are physical beings would not exist without time and space, this is OUR reality! Since there were no elements before the Bid Bang then we both agree that the universe began from nothing! Ironic because that's exactly what the Bible says! ....... ....... .......
Except, of course, I noted that a "bad" answer is fundamentally a matter of perspective. One's bad answer is another's good answer. Mathloon has an answer, for example. It's one that I utterly reject, but I acknowledge it as answer, and thus it's superior to purposeless existence, the concept of the last man.
LOL Magic! And God so loved the world, he forgot to tell people about germ theory, and watched millions die horrific, unnecessary deaths. That's some nice Nostradamus sh** right there.... The bible doesn't tell you anything useful about the universe. Once science proves something, someone digs out a vague bible quote to fit. Apologies to the numerous Christians who are good people, and do good things, for my tone... I have no tolerance for nonsense on important matters.
Mayans: Why do we have a drought? Mayan Priests: Because we are not offering enough blood to the gods. We need to sacrifice 10K lives in 3 days. Mayans: Cool. Lets do it. Salem folks: How do we tell if somebody is a witch? Priest: Witches don't drown or burn Salem folks: Let's gather all the suspected witches and put them to the test. LOGIC and REASON does not demand an answer. That is how SCIENCE works. It is perfectly fine to say... I DONT KNOW.
I can respect the fact you disagree with me, but really these type of comments are childish. You didn't even bother to try an give your input, all you did was come out swinging trying to instigate a fight. ....... ....... .......
Wow, this was an entertaining thread! Answering everyone in detail would take a whole day probably and I don't have that sort of time. So some thoughts: FranchiseBlade, by claiming that "God is love", was pretty much playing language tricks which in this case are harmful and, I'd agree, insulting. If I agree with FB that love exists and he then tells someone "eMat believes God exists", I would be pissed. Because that would not at all be what I had meant and, more importantly, very unlikely what others would understand by that. I think the comparison to a blue dragon (or whatever) was spot on. And the insinuations that not believing in God means not believing in love - asinine and insulting. It's much worse than religious people claiming Einstein was religious. He at least invoked the name "god". The metaphysical (i.e., no evidence whatsoever) bull**** of Caltex2 was pretty fun reading. Kojirou claiming that he is an atheist is about as legit as jgreen91 claiming that he is not a Heat fan. :grin: My answer is, of course, NO. And until evidence is presented to the contrary, it shall remain so. You (and someone mentioned Boeing and scrap yard) don't understand the theory of evolution by natural selection (TENS). What you stated is exactly what it is not claiming. This sort of misunderstanding is very common, however (both examples, I think, come from Richard Dawkins by the way, it's funny how the religious have read only the first sentences regarding the discussion of these examples). In fact, I've yet to see a single person who argues that TENS is wrong while actually understanding what it claims. Which is a shame and somewhat puzzling, to be honest, because fundamentally it is very simple. You've been addressed before and your lies and non sequiturs have been called out. All I'll add is that if you need a god to make you good or moral, if being a "**** person" would be fine by you, you are not a good person, and professing a belief in God doesn't make you one. Pretty much the same answer to you. The guy is just wishfully thinking. As for life being more glum if there's no afterlife, the logic completely escapes me (religion and logic are enemies but still). If there was an afterlife, wouldn't this life become less "cherishable"? After all, you get to live forever, what's the hurry? On the other hand, knowing that you have some 80 years, that is a much better incentive to actually living. And again, he talks about "treating people like he wants". The hell does that mean? Would you really treat people differently if it was somehow proven (which is impossible but humor me) that God doesn't exist? Why? And how? It's a scary thought that a large fraction of the population would act much differently if they weren't told (indoctrinated) not to. I agree to the bolded part but are you seriously claiming that your attitude towards fairies (or God) existing is "50/50"? It's true that they either exist or they don't but that doesn't at all mean that the probability of them existing is as likely as them not existing. I can't believe someone would claim that, on a basketball forum no less. This sort of sentiment is also common. Whether something is possible for you to believe has no bearing on it being true or false. And before someone goes and spins this around, what I mean is that if evidence points to something being X, but I'd rather wish it be Y because X I don't understand or find glum/scary, that is no argument for Y being true or X being false. It's ignorance or wishful thinking. Religions/faith make scientific claims. They are either correct or false, and if they're the latter, they shouldn't be confused with or proposed as equally acceptable as correct claims. Scientific claims may be wrong but they'll be superseded by more adequate scientific claims. As for both being necessary, depends on what you mean by faith (which you may have defined somewhere). If by that you mean belief without evidence, then I'd like to see your argument. What is the most shallow interpretation of TENS? And sure, you can do all sorts of mental gymnastics to somehow force God into it. But it's either unnecessary or over time proves to have been unnecessary. Other people have rightfully called you out but still let me restate - you are full of ****. And you don't understand TENS. "I used to live near NASA". LOL. :grin: p.s. It's unfortunate spoilers can't be used within quotes.
Uh, yeah. On the individual level, correct. On the societal level, no. Saying "I don't know" in regards to the philosophical questions of "why are we here" or "why do we exist" ( not the scientific ones you just strawmanned) from a societal perspective is really, really bad. Individuals without purpose can be tolerated. Societies cannot tolerate ignoring the answers to those questions, in order to unite the people around common bonds, common ideals, and such which aren't answered by science. A purposeless society creates a purposeless community, a purposeless people, and the result is legitimate moral decay, mediocrity, and decadence. Now, if your response is "You're claiming atheists don't have purpose", that's not what I'm saying. I am saying religion provides a purpose for many people. And if atheists wants to knock down religion which serves a purpose for many people, they better think about what comes afterwards, when people discuss what to turn to next. Hence Ray Bradbury's quote about us being a lost people since Darwin.
If your odds of answering a question correctly is 50% (true or false), then yes those probabilities are correct. I am sure you can find a few people that do believe in them and provide you with 'evidence' on why they think it is true. I am sure that those same 'evidence' will be inline with how evidence is provided in the religious world. I think you are equating "because almost everybody does not believe in fairies", hence, the probability of it being true is less. It does not matter if 99 out of 100 people say TRUE, the probability of getting it correct is still 50%.
Nice of you to remove my Mayan and Salem examples as those were societal questions that were answered and actually implemented. I will ask again... WHERE DO YOU GET THIS? Show me proof that this what will happen. I need studies and evaluation from an unbiased organization. What I am saying is that religion is not the only path to have a purpose in life. So for people that say "religion gives me purpose", my response is, you can also get it in other ways. With regards to Hence Ray, I wonder what he feels about Noah's flood and Sodom and Gomora, both predated Darwin and according to god, was a justified event because people were 'lost'. One last note, I know promise i said I am done. . Saying that " Because a bad answer is better than no answer at all" is the reason why the term.. "pulling ***** out of your a$$" was coined.
Not knowing the origin of the universe doesn't deprive people or society of purpose. People can rely on anything for purpose, some people use religion and other people don't.
You need to define what god is then beyond it being a "spirit" and something that transcends time and space.
Do I believe in God? Yes I do. It is because that is what I chose to "believe." And by choosing, I have made a decision. Sometimes mankind's greatest weakness is the inability to make a decision. For example, you and your significant other is planning on having dinner or going out, and the following dreaded question is asked: "where are we going" Most of reply, "I dont know...anything is fine"...She/or he(dudes do it too) often gets pissed "Stop being indecisive and just pick something." Its really about choice. And once you make that decision. You have to have the willpower and strength to stick by it regardless of the circumstance and consequences that the decision leads us to... The Title of this thread is actually quite simple: Do You believe in God? and your answer should be either yes or no. Trying to contemplate why people believe what they believe or trying to force your beliefs on others is just irrational. It gets you no where. However seeing how someone's beliefs have changed their lives for the better may provide you a model of success. The visaversa is also true. Seeing a belief that has yielded negative results can be a blueprint of things to avoid. Just like I would use Yelp for advice when trying to make a last minute decision on going somewhere, I look to others to help guide me to making the best decision possible. And in the end, my experience is going to be unique to me.
Correct. I don't use belief in the gods as my purpose, after all. And in time, I want to destroy religion. You're talking to someone who's a borderline fascist after all, which means that instead of veneration towards "God", I want to replace it with veneration towards the nation, the community, and the traditions which follow the nation. That's the source of my statement that my loyalty to the United States trumps that to God, even if I knew God existed. And that's your problem right there. Who the heck demands studies and evalution like a scientist when we're discussing ethics and morals? What study can measure decadence after all? Heck, what study would want to? But if you want an actual example, I'll give you one I'm familiar with. Japan. Japan's basically been an atheist country by the standards of the West for its entire history. It slumbered under the Tokugawas, and then found purpose under the Restoration, great purpose and the will to do great things. Said purpose was corrupted, and well, ended badly. Afterwards, Japan simply focused on improving itself economically, on catching up with the power of the United States and improving its wealth after enduring the hardships of war. And now Japan is there. It's behind the US, but given its resource limitations, it's done a reasonable job at providing a comfortable lifestyle. Great. Good job. Round of applause. Now what? Japan's never been able to answer that question since it really hit in the early 90s. It doesn't really have a religion to fall back on, especially since religion is tied so heavily into the national Japanese identity, which is thus tied into the Empire...and contrary to what Western media likes to report, Japan has a better understanding of what it did than Westerners think it does, which means that it is reluctant to embrace a proper national ideal. The European states are distracted by the prospects of unification and fragmentation as we see things like those idiot Scots, but Japan has none of the former and would never seek to unite with the rest of Asia. So, what then? The result? A country with no purpose. One that's just bumbled along, existing for the past 20 years. And the result is very real problems of moral and society crumbling as a result, which has begun to really appear over the last 7 to 10 years. That is what I mean. Countries, societies, communities, require something to keep them together, united. It can be a political ideal, or a religious ideal, or something else. But they need ideals, common ethics, and common bonds to keep people together. And atheists, from my perspective, in the name of reason and individual freedom, try to tear apart one of the largest of those common bonds without bothering to think about what will replace those societal bonds if religion is gone. Is the story of God silly? To a degree, yes. But so is say, much of the story of the founding of the United States that is taught to our children. Will you tear that apart in the name of the "truth"? We all have myths, secrets, even little things like "Fido went down to the farm where he'll be happy forever". What will be spared in the name of truth? I've mentioned before how much I despise post-modernism. A good chunk of it is that. tl;dr Truth is not an absolute good. At all.
