I addressed that in previous post. Some Asian cultures are more superstitious than others but I don't think Asians are in general more superstitious than other cultures. Consider for example that while Americans and Canadians might not have religious superstitions there are still all sorts of sports superstitions. Such as rallycaps at ball games. I'm betting that during the OT period of the Gold medal hockey game last week a lot of Canadians were engaging in superstitious behavior.
Yes, I believe UFOs are real. I doubt UFO was the term you really meant to use. Do I believe life from other planets is visiting the earth. No. I don't believe in ghosts either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempor...sy.2C_Neurotheology_and_Paranormal_Experience
No, I meant to use the term UFO. Just trying to get a feel for those who can't believe in a god, but can believe in other things that may or may not be real.
A "UFO" is an unidentified flying object. There are plenty of objects that fly and cannot be identified by individuals who view them. If you're asking about whether the people who see these UFOs and believe they are extra-terrestrial in nature are correct, then I think most atheists would probably believe that they are not. But to an atheist, the idea that a life form from space could visit our planet is much less far fetched than the existence of a god, because god is supernatural, while an alien would not be. You can presume that the explanation behind the alien visit would be based on natural phenomena. I think most atheists wouldn't believe the people who believe UFOs are extra-terrestrial because those types of explanations aren't based on hard evidence, but instead seemed to be based on an "I don't know what it is so it must not be from here" type of logical fallacy. Given that there are natural explanations for certain people's misperceptions that UFOs are alien, it often makes more sense to believe those explanations rather than to believe the idea that aliens would visit our planet, look a heck of a lot like humans, expose themselves to only a few people, and never get caught.
God vs. The God Particle...Son of God vs. Sun of The God Particle...really whats the difference, everything and everyone is relative, everything has a purpose, Where would we be without men of science pushing past religious taboos in interests of technology and where would we be without the order of religion...no two sides of anything will get along perfectly but thats the point, the friction moves us forward, i personally have nothing against anyones beliefs would it be so wrong to be a man of god and science and believe that after you die your energy or 'spirit' crosses into another dimension where you live eternally
I’m jumping back for a minute to pick up one part of a post and then I’ll address the most recent posts. Faith isn’t believing in something when no evidence exists for it. In fact if all you’re doing is deciding to believe in something without having done any kind of soul searching and without any conviction, then you may well not really have faith at all. This is debatable point, however, even from a Christian perspective, and it's a much more involved question in general, but please understand that people who have faith do have strong reasons for their faith. Ministers/priests/imams in particular with have lot of evidence, both first hand and from things they’ve seen in other people. Even from a very detached scientific standpoint there is a lot of evidence that a god or gods exist, as we’ve been discussing in this thread.
There will always be much that science doesn’t have the answer for because science generates as many questions as it does answers. Every new discovery leads to many new questions. “So we hang on to our belief in the supernatural, because we don't like not having answers to fundamental questions.” This is an opinion on the matter, but I don’t see this way. IMO, I don’t think there’s a convincing amount of evidence to support the conclusion that we hang on to the supernatural because we don't like not having answers.
I think it’s logical. It could be surprising but I do think there is a solid logic to it. From an evolutionary standpoint it’s not surprising that the highest form of life on earth would have as part of its makeup something that the others don’t have. From a religious standpoint I believe all the faiths address this question. We also don’t know whether god possibly interacts with animals in a different way. Religion is a human form of interaction with God, but it’s not necessarily the only way. But, why would there have been a church in the first place? Why do we need a god or religion in such a power structure? The point you raise is a very good one to consider, however. What you’re referring to here I think relates to why Marx called religion the opiate of the masses. He believed that the peasants were led to accept their harsh treatment at the hands of the kings and upper classes because the church leaders told them that it was a sin to rebel and that their reward would come in the afterlife. What he was suggesting was that religion was a big con made up by the ruling classes for the purpose of controlling the lower classes. This is a very important historical point to consider, but i think it’s also a very European perspective, and I think that it largely looks at a fairly narrow period in history. Do we have any Muslims reading this? In Islam I believe that faith is generally associated with liberation and prosperity. The Islamic empire expanded rapidly not long after the time of Muhammad. Also, in early Christian history Christianity rose from nothing to become the official religion of the Roman Empire. I do think Marx had a point, but I think what he was seeing was the workings of a corrupt church during a specific time period, and not the nature of religion in general. I’ll have to get to the rest later.
neither side of the argument can win because one is based on theory, and the other is based of faith. the end. /end this old thread peezt edit: on the topic of why atheists get so much grief, the answer is nobody knows. old thread is old.
You cut off the rest of my quote. I think that is one of many reasons for why belief in supernatural deities would be so pervasive. Your argument is essentially the following, if I'm not mistaken: It is unlikely that so many disparate cultures would continue to belief in supernatural deities for natural reasons. Therefore, it is probable that there exists a supernatural deity that has given us some sort of impulse to believe in him. I would say the burden is on your to offer convincing evidence in support of that first sentence. I think there are plausible, natural reasons for why that would happen, and why those beliefs would persist. Humans universally share an impulse to come up with explanations for the unknown, and history is full of evidence of that. Making up supernatural explanations where natural explanations are either difficult to come up with or difficult to accept would be a way of dealing with the unknown. Many specific examples of this have been brought up already in this thread -- astrology, superstitions, believing in "luck", etc. It is not mere opinion. You wrote "I don't see it that way". Alright. But, again, I can't be convinced of your argument unless you explain why you don't see it that way. As far as I can tell, every point you put forward has been addressed. If I neglected to address something, let me know. Edit: I think here is the basic difference between our thinking on this matter: I'm not going to believe in supernatural explanations, unless I am convinced that there are no adequate natural explanations. You will believe in supernatural explanations until you are convinced that a natural explanation is more likely. Is that about right? Tell me if I am mistaken on your views.
i think this thread is A #1@http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=5165735#post5165735 grizzled seems to have fizzled random thoughts and what i rly rly rly want----------> one of those GOD HELMUTS!!!
Thanks. That explains it for you. I'm still curious where others may fall in their beliefs regarding ghosts, UFO's, Santa, etc as a measure of their level of philosophical commitment. I would just find it a tad hypocritical to believe in ghosts or UFO's.
I don't see why. I don't believe in ghosts or alien UFOs from other planets, but those who do will point to what they consider convincing, documented evidence. That is different from believing in something purely out of faith.
I’ll jump ahead to this one and then pick up some of the earlier ones a bit later. From our discussion I think we largely understand each other’s positions, but I will quibble with your wording here, in particular the use of the words natural and supernatural. If 75% of the world believes in a god or gods then I would say that that is the natural state, or at least it's the normal state, and I think the first assumption would have to be that it’s the natural state as well - although I agree that that’s not a certainty. It is common in large parts of western culture to view spiritual issues as supernatural, but if you look at world history I don’t think that’s the case. I think overall most people believe that man has a spiritual side to him as part of his nature, and that much is known about that spiritual nature. I will grant, however, that the bulk of the evidence we’ve been discussing here has been indirect evidence, which is a less reliable form of evidence. It is at least one step further removed and there is more room for other factors to be involved. I think what we’re doing here is essentially mulling over as many of those factors as we can think of. We haven’t even addressed to any real extent the nature of god, or whether we’re talking about the Hindu gods or the Christian god. I see this more as a factual exercise that will hopefully clarify and possibly challenge some of these other factors and background beliefs, on both sides. Both sides of this issue have developed traditional beliefs which are not accurate. Some people, on both sides, like to accept unquestioningly the beliefs that were handed down to them, and others like to question and dig into the issue and eventually come to their own conclusions. I think we’re questioning and digging here.
