Research on Belief in God

Page 42 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 23, 2014
6,543
1
0
The Hitch said:
I don't claim to know what happened when "everything was made". I just know that your (alleged) version of events is wrong.
And since you weren't there how exactly do you know that I'm wrong?
 
Jun 10, 2013
8,352
0
0
Jspear said:
A basic definition of faith is believing in something or someone that you cannot see. You weren't there when everything was made, so sir, you're belief system(or the lack of one....how ever you want to word it) requires faith.
I am aware of the basic definition of faith. But when you write something along the lines of ''not believing takes more faith than beliving'', I have to say that one must see atheism as only the lack of, because what you said only served poetical purposes and essencially isn't true. Therefore I also said not to complicate what is a basic concept. There is no need to do so.


It doesn't take more faith to not belive in god than it does to believe. Because atheists don't need faith. Atheists simply assume that what cannot be seen or seems illogical isn't true and therefore does not exist.

Jspear said:
BigMac, I was not singling you out as arrogant. I don't believe at all that you're an arrogant person. I just think that it is an arrogant statement to say that you know for certain(implying infinite wisdom) that there is no God, and He couldn't have created people.
I know you weren't. When I said 'I', I was portraying (or trying to) a group where most atheists include themselves. ;)
 
Feb 23, 2014
6,543
1
0
BigMac said:
I am aware of the basic definition of faith. But when you write something along the lines of ''not believing takes more faith than beliving'', I have to say that one must see atheism as only the lack of, because what you said only served poetical purposes and essencially isn't true. Therefore I also said not to complicate what is a basic concept. There is no need to do so.


It doesn't take more faith to not belive in god than it does to believe. Because atheists don't need faith. Atheists simply assume that what cannot be seen or seems illogical isn't true and therefore does not exist.



I know you weren't. When I said 'I', I was portraying (or trying to) a group where most atheists include themselves. ;)
I understand where you're coming from but I respectfully disagree. Even if you have a lack of belief, that's still a belief in what I don't believe. What I mean is that you believe that there is no God. That's a belief system, not a lack of belief. I could say that I don't believe in God, I just have a lack of belief in no God....doesn't really make much sense. We all believe something, and whatever that something is, we have faith in it. You have to hope(have faith) that you're right because you can't prove your position with physical evidence.

You said, "Atheists simply assume that what cannot be seen or seems illogical isn't true and therefore does not exist." Well, you weren't around when things came to be, so according to this statement, you can't believe in evolution.
 
Jun 10, 2013
8,352
0
0
Jspear said:
I understand where you're coming from but I respectfully disagree. Even if you have a lack of belief, that's still a belief in what I don't believe. What I mean is that you believe that there is no God. That's a belief system, not a lack of belief. I could say that I don't believe in God, I just have a lack of belief in no God....doesn't really make much sense. We all believe something, and whatever that something is, we have faith in it. You have to hope(have faith) that you're right because you can't prove your position with physical evidence.
I also get where you are coming from, and what I wrote on my previous post was concerning you saying that it takes more faith not to believe than it does to believe. Which isn't true, because atheism is more than a belief. Atheists are completely sure of the non-existance of god. Atheists do not believe god doesn't exist. They are sure it doesn't.

Not the same way you are sure god exists, because you have no visual evidence. And you don't need visual evidence to be sure that someting doesn't exist.

Do you beieve in Zeus? Of course not, and you don't need faith not to believe Zeus doesn't exist. Or do you have faith he doesn't exist?

And is the concept of this mythological figure any different from the christian/hebrew god?

Anyway this all happened because one of us took the meaning of the word 'faith' more literally than the other. ;)


Jspear said:
You said, "Atheists simply assume that what cannot be seen or seems illogical isn't true and therefore does not exist." Well, you weren't around when things came to be, so according to this statement, you can't believe in evolution.
I wasn't around when things came to be, but evolution is logical and observable. If you watch any documentary on the Galapagos you'll notice several species on evolution, on different phases. Evolution is just not a theory. Here I quote The National Academy of Science on evolution.

''The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed. In scientific terms, “theory” does not mean “guess” or “hunch” as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world''.

As I said, atheists assume what is illogical is wrong. To atheists evolution is logical, so it is to science. Therefore I can and do believe in evolution.

''Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong''.
 
Feb 23, 2014
6,543
1
0
BigMac said:
I also get where you are coming from, and what I wrote on my previous post was concerning you saying that it takes more faith not to believe than it does to believe. Which isn't true, because atheism is more than a belief. Atheists are completely sure of the non-existance of god. Atheists do not believe god doesn't exist. They are sure it doesn't.

Not the same way you are sure god exists, because you have no visual evidence. And you don't need visual evidence to be sure that someting doesn't exist.

Do you beieve in Zeus? Of course not, and you don't need faith not to believe Zeus doesn't exist. Or do you have faith he doesn't exist?

And is the concept of this mythological figure any different from the christian/hebrew god?

Anyway this all happened because one of us took the meaning of the word 'faith' more literally than the other. ;)




I wasn't around when things came to be, but evolution is logical and observable. If you watch any documentary on the Galapagos you'll notice several species on evolution, on different phases. Evolution is just not a theory. Here I quote The National Academy of Science on evolution.

''The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed. In scientific terms, “theory” does not mean “guess” or “hunch” as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world''.

As I said, atheists assume what is illogical is wrong. To atheists evolution is logical, so it is to science. Therefore I can and do believe in evolution.

''Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong''.

You cannot be totally sure that there is no God. That is impossible unless you claim to have unlimited knowledge of everything....Which I don't think you do. ;)

Let me start off by saying I am not a scientist so my knowledge on science is limited. But, there are many christian scientist who are very learned men, and they think very differently from you. Check out some more stuff from the Answers in Genesis website. They have a wealth of information on a ton of science subjects.

You cannont observe evolution. We don't see fish becoming land animals. Dogs always produce dogs, cats always produce cats. It's pretty simple. I do recognize that there are variations in different species(say dogs), but they are all still dogs.

Give this video a watch. It's close to 40 minutes long, but it's worth the watch. I posted this several pages back but here it is again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ
 
Jspear said:
You cannot be totally sure that there is no God. That is impossible unless you claim to have unlimited knowledge of everything....Which I don't think you do. ;)
I absolutely can be totally sure that the Christian God doesn't exist. All one has to do is look at whether the ideas make any sense.

The idea that he waited for 99% of human history before even revealing himself alone makes no sense.

The idea that he is benevolent but sends people to hell for doing things he made them do in the first place. Thats just a contradiction and can't possibly be true.
One cannot possibly be benevolent and yet create people purely for the purpose of torturing them eternally. These are not compatible.

The idea that he bases all eternity on a few thousand years of human history is proposterous. Do you know how long 13.8 billion years is. If God exists you think he sat through all those years, 12 billion of which nothing happened, 1 billion of which was just bacteria, 800 million of which was non humans eating eachother, purely so that he could watch you and a handful of other humans who represent 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(continue for about a few hous)1% of beings that ever lived, make an attempt at living life for a few thousand years, and off that base what is going to happen for the rest of all eternity?

Why doesn't he just send everyone to heaven? What is the point of all this? It makes no sense.

These ideas made some sense before humans new all this.

Not anymore.
 
Feb 23, 2014
6,543
1
0
The Hitch said:
I absolutely can be totally sure that the Christian God doesn't exist. All one has to do is look at whether the ideas make any sense.

The idea that he waited for 99% of human history before even revealing himself alone makes no sense.

The idea that he is benevolent but sends people to hell for doing things he made them do in the first place. Thats just a contradiction and can't possibly be true.
One cannot possibly be benevolent and yet create people purely for the purpose of torturing them eternally. These are not compatible.

The idea that he bases all eternity on a few thousand years of human history is proposterous. Do you know how long 13.8 billion years is. If God exists you think he sat through all those years, 12 billion of which nothing happened, 1 billion of which was just bacteria, 800 million of which was non humans eating eachother, purely so that he could watch you and a handful of other humans who represent 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(continue for about a few hous)1% of beings that ever lived, make an attempt at living life for a few thousand years, and off that base what is going to happen for the rest of all eternity?

Why doesn't he just send everyone to heaven? What is the point of all this? It makes no sense.

These ideas made some sense before humans new all this.

Not anymore.

The idea makes sense....just not to the unbeliever. The word of God doesn't make sense to those who have chosen to reject him. The bible says in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 that God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. The origin of the earth is so simple that any child can understand it. Nonbelievers can't understand it because they have rejected the only truth....God and His word.

God revealed Himself to Adam(The first man). You are right, Jesus didn't come to the earth at the beginning of creation, but all those who where born and died before Jesus came, who put their faith in God(people like Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Daniel, ect.) were saved. They were looking ahead to the promises of a Savior.

If you asked God to save you He would. It says in Romans that if You confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in Your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

He doesn't send everyone to heaven because not everyone wants to be with Him. People reject Him, and thus are separated from Him. If you focus on that you are missing the point. You CAN be with Him. Recognize that only He is God. That you(and I and everyone else) are a sinner, repent, confess Him as Lord and you'll be saved.
 
Jspear said:
The idea makes sense....just not to the unbeliever. The word of God doesn't make sense to those who have chosen to reject him. The bible says in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2 that God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. The origin of the earth is so simple that any child can understand it. Nonbelievers can't understand it because they have rejected the only truth....God and His word.

God revealed Himself to Adam(The first man). You are right, Jesus didn't come to the earth at the beginning of creation, but all those who where born and died before Jesus came, who put their faith in God(people like Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Daniel, ect.) were saved. They were looking ahead to the promises of a Savior.

If you asked God to save you He would. It says in Romans that if You confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in Your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

He doesn't send everyone to heaven because not everyone wants to be with Him. People reject Him, and thus are separated from Him. If you focus on that you are missing the point. You CAN be with Him. Recognize that only He is God. That you(and I and everyone else) are a sinner, repent, confess Him as Lord and you'll be saved.
What I don't get is how some can feel at all comfortable with getting all their information from one book, or to see in it a "revelation” that is anything other than the product of its authors.
 
Guys, if you want to argue with a Bible literalist, you can't just explain that the Bible makes no logical or scientific sense. That will only lead to a gigantic waste of time on everyone's side.

Either engage in a theological debate, or don't bother.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,557
0
0
BigMac said:
No. I'm not vegan, I am vegetarian and I do think that ultimately, humans are on par with mice, insects, whatever. All of the fauna. It is extremely arrogant to think we are superior when we are made of the same matter. Just because we have developed intellectually as a species more than all the others, it doesn't make us special or better. Considering most of them were here before we did.

''If all the insects were to disappear from the earth, within 50 years all life on earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish''.
Obviously, saying I think humans are superior to animals, doesn't mean I think animals are not important. Of course we are dependant on animals.

However, do you use any clothing that uses leather? Do you drink milk? Do you have a pet? Either you need to say no to all these things and become a strict vegan or you, however important you think animals are, don't feel animals are equally worthy as humans. Can you imagine clothing made from a human skin? Can you imagine keeping humans as slaves to produce milk for you? Can you imagine keeping a human as a pet? I for one cannot, because I feel it would devalue human life. Nevertheless I don't care at all about the fact that cows are forcefully restrained in farms and are being forced to produce milk for me.

So can you explain to me, why we can force animals to serve our comfort while we can't do the same to humans? Or do you object to drinking milk and eating eggs and keeping pets as well?
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,068
0
0
Buffalo Soldier said:
What about a real debate, based on real science? Facts?
We already had this discussion a while ago, a religious poster said that religion transcends science, science is not applicable to religion, therefore cannot be disproven by science (I am paraphrasing)
 
It's pretty obvious, really. If you're up against a Bible literalist, they'll handwave any scientific fact you throw at them (with "Satan put up those fossils to fool humankind", or "God created the universe 6,000 years ago but he made it so that this new universe was already in an aged state from the beginning" if your opponent is more sophisticated). The only way to argue with a Bible literalist is to accept the premise and then point out the contradictions in the Bible.
 
Jun 10, 2013
8,352
0
0
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Obviously, saying I think humans are superior to animals, doesn't mean I think animals are not important. Of course we are dependant on animals.

However, do you use any clothing that uses leather? Do you drink milk? Do you have a pet? Either you need to say no to all these things and become a strict vegan or you, however important you think animals are, don't feel animals are equally worthy as humans. Can you imagine clothing made from a human skin? Can you imagine keeping humans as slaves to produce milk for you? Can you imagine keeping a human as a pet? I for one cannot, because I feel it would devalue human life. Nevertheless I don't care at all about the fact that cows are forcefully restrained in farms and are being forced to produce milk for me.

So can you explain to me, why we can force animals to serve our comfort while we can't do the same to humans? Or do you object to drinking milk and eating eggs and keeping pets as well?
We don't. Or we can, but we should not.

To objectively answer those questions, no I do not use clothing made from leather. I consume biological dairy (as far as milk is concerned I will end up switching do soy (in fact I think milk is the only dairy product I consume)). I would have switch already if I could. So yes, essentially I am against all that.

And no I don't have pets (don't like this word), though I do volunteer in a few shelters. Given the circumstances (our society's life style it is), there is nothing wrong with keeping what we call domestic animals with the sole purpose of helping them live, because they don't have a proper habitat and would end up dying as stray. Hit by a car or on the local municipal vet with a lethal injection. I am completely against Zoo's (circus. Complete bull**** they're inetersted in species conservation and study, because all they care about is income).


Anyway, this is all off-topic... Would be interesting to have a thread on this kind of subjects. :)

Since the first people on earth, according to the bible, were vegetarians, I think most of you should be too. :p
 
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Can you imagine clothing made from a human skin? Can you imagine keeping humans as slaves to produce milk for you? Can you imagine keeping a human as a pet? I for one cannot, because I feel it would devalue human life.
You do realize these things have been practised by humans historically, en masse quite recently and on a large scale even today?

The only one you may even have a point with is - don't eat humans, and it's not like that is unique in evolutionary history. Plenty of animals don't eat their own species, unless they get desperate. Humans have behaved exactly the same way.

We don't tend to do these things today because it works to our own benefit and is about a million times easier to take these things from animals.

You think that makes you superior to them?

That's an arrogant claim and the idea that having the power to destroy something makes you superior to it is perfectly in line with the brutal medieval ideology from which your religion comes.
 
Mar 13, 2009
5,068
0
0
hrotha said:
Francoism was fascist until it was obvious the Axis was going to lose the war, basically.

The Falange wasn't Catholic? BS.
http://www.filosofia.org/his/h1933a1.htm
Falange was catholic but very different from the national-catholicism that Franco later created. Falange was socially and culturally advanced in many ways, national-catholicism and the Opus Dei was socially and culturally backwards.

Vino attacks everyone said:
Echoes is actually correct about Franco. Franco was indeed supporting the fascist part of the falange. But when he got the power he minimized thier ideology in favour of more like a technocratic society. He was an catholic nationalist though. And alot of his staff was die hard fascists.
It seems to me Franco was using the Falange to achieve his goal, just like he was using Royalists and Carlists, and none of those ended up getting what they had hoped for. But Franco got ridd of the real fascists real quick. The fact that José Antonio was executed was highly convenient for him, thus he could build his legend in the way that he wanted to, without actually having the man disturb him. The die-hard fascists were sent as a little present to Hitler to fight in Russia (blue division), and again it was a convenient way to get ridd of them. When you refer to his "staff", in the early days yes, but again he got ridd of them real fast. He practiced economic autarchy, as proclaimed by the Falange, until he realized that it didn't work at all, then got ridd of all the fascists and did the exact opposite.

Echoes said:
1) Dozens of political analysts studied Franco's regime and came to the same conclusion: Javier Tusell, Stanley Payne, Manuel Perez Ledesma, Edward Malefakis, Virginie Philippe, ... Franco's regime was not a totalitarian state, there were different power centres (which he manipulated; "divide and conquer"), he didn't mobilize his people, did not wish to create a "New Order", etc. It was a classic dictatorship like there have been thousands in history but not a Fascist one.
My history professor in Sevilla put it this way: "If you are looking for a specific ideology in Franco, you are wasting your time. Franco's only ideology was always to keep Franco in power"
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,557
0
0
The Hitch said:
You do realize these things have been practised by humans historically, en masse quite recently and on a large scale even today?

The only one you may even have a point with is - don't eat humans, and it's not like that is unique in evolutionary history. Plenty of animals don't eat their own species, unless they get desperate. Humans have behaved exactly the same way.

We don't tend to do these things today because it works to our own benefit and is about a million times easier to take these things from animals.
Obviously these things have happened and they still happen, I'm just saying everybody agrees those things are moraly reprehensible. If I look at my naturalistic/atheistic friends, none of them think it's morally reprehensible to have leather shoes, but all of them would think it morally reprehensible to have shoes made of a human skin. None of them would feel it wrong to own a cow and take its milk, but all of them would feel it wrong to own a woman and take her milk. So my conclusion is that, regardless of worldview, almost everybody thinks humans are superior.

That was the point of my post, I didn't even say anything about why I think humans are superior to animals. I just tried to show that regardless of worldview almost everybody at least acts as if they feel humans are superior to animals.

Though I disagree with him, BigMac at least shows that his actions are more in line with his words. So then I'd like to ask you the same questions. Do you feel it is unethical to forcefully restrain humans and have them serve our comforts? Do you feel the same about animals? If so, how does this relate to your actions, with regard to eating meat, using leather, drinking milk, owning animals, etc.?

&quot said:
You think that makes you superior to them?

That's an arrogant claim and the idea that having the power to destroy something makes you superior to it is perfectly in line with the brutal medieval ideology from which your religion comes.
So, again, you seem to have missed my point, because my post wasn't about this at all. It was about the fact that, at least in my experience, almost everybody, including naturalistic atheists, feels the same about the superiority of humans, judging by their actions.

But sure, if you want to know why I think humans are superior to animals; as a Christian I believe humans were created in the image of God and their value is derived from that. So it doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that I have the power to destroy animals, I don't really understand where you got that idea. I'm sure you feel my belief in this matter is silly and based on a fairy tail or whatever, but at least with regard to the issue at hand, it doesn't make me any more arrogant than your average naturalistic atheist, who doesn't mind animals being killed for his arbitrary comfort either.

So I'm curious, why do most atheists feel it moraly wrong to exploit humans in the same way they don't mind animals being exploited? After all, they feel humans are really just another species of animals.
 
Buffalo Soldier said:
What about a real debate, based on real science? Facts?
Lol always the same with atheists. Debate on facts, as if facts could be debated.

Morality can be debated, which means religion. Facts can't because they are what they are, stubborn. You can ignore them, invent them but that would be lies. Atheists are masters in that field.

I think it illustrates what GK Chesterton argued on page 1 of his "Heretics". Modernists care for details and not for the whole. They care for tramcars, for zoos, for Modigliani paintings, for bricks in a wall, but not for the whole.

"Everything matters except everything."

"There is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period. General theories are everywhere condemned; the doctrine of the Rights of Man is dismissed with the doctrine of the Fall of Man. Atheism itself is too theological for us today. Revolution itself is too much of a system; liberty itself is too much of a restraint. We will have no generalizations. Mr Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram: "The golden rule is that there is no golden rule." We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters - except everything."

I tend to bow before a genius... :cool:
 
Apr 12, 2009
2,282
0
0
Lol, you don't debate about the fact of course since they are facts (proven facts, not dogmas), you use the facts to point out the craziness of instituted religions.
Fact: fossil. Dogma: creation.
Fact: brain. Dogma: soul
Fact: history. Non-fact: fairytales on which people base their whole life.

@BigMac: if we as humans can -unlike other animals- set aside our lust for meat based on ethics and morals, does that make us superior to other animals?
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,363
0
0
Echoes said:
Lol always the same with atheists. Debate on facts, as if facts could be debated.

Morality can be debated, which means religion. Facts can't because they are what they are, stubborn. You can ignore them, invent them but that would be lies. Atheists are masters in that field.

I think it illustrates what GK Chesterton argued on page 1 of his "Heretics". Modernists care for details and not for the whole. They care for tramcars, for zoos, for Modigliani paintings, for bricks in a wall, but not for the whole.

"Everything matters except everything."

"There is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period. General theories are everywhere condemned; the doctrine of the Rights of Man is dismissed with the doctrine of the Fall of Man. Atheism itself is too theological for us today. Revolution itself is too much of a system; liberty itself is too much of a restraint. We will have no generalizations. Mr Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram: "The golden rule is that there is no golden rule." We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters - except everything."

I tend to bow before a genius... :cool:
Good post. According to some we've moved beyond science into systems theory; systemics. "In this world-wide functioning machine system all theories will be correct".:confused:

One of the best documentaries I've seen (and I watch a lot whilst doing other things), it's basically about the cybernetic revolution but it's about a whole lot more too.
The Net: The Unabomber, LSD and the Internet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLqrVCi3l6E
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts