Poll Does God exist? Is science true ? (Multiple choice!)

[Spike Spiegel]

I've got a question. Does anyone believe that there is any amount of logic or reason, from any side of the argument, that is sufficient to change the mind of a person who is already certain in what they believe? These sort of arguments tend to go on and on with no resolution.

Also, I like to define "religion" as the rules that people made up. Sometimes those rules are irrelevant, and sometimes they are damaging. It sucks when those rules mess up a person's mind or emotions. That's known as setting a bad example, and it's a shame that some of you had to experience that.

 

[IgnoreThisBarrel]

Obligatory relativism aside, I highly doubt that any deity is required for the creation of the universe, so from there I use Ockham's Razor...

Edit: Pay no attention to the signature of the funny man dressed like a barrel.

 

[Linguofreak]

I've got a question. Does anyone believe that there is any amount of logic or reason, from any side of the argument, that is sufficient to change the mind of a person who is already certain in what they believe? These sort of arguments tend to go on and on with no resolution.

No, but not everybody involved in such an argument is so certain. And, if you subscribe to a religion that believes in such a thing as hell, there's a sense of responsibility to at least try to change people's minds, no matter how long the odds seem. (Of course, this isn't made any easier by the types that use the fear of hell as a bludgeon to try and get people to follow their pet rules).

Also, I like to define "religion" as the rules that people made up.

That, unfortunately, makes up a lot of the *practice* of religion, but I wouldn't say that it's what religion *is*. Religion, simply put, is worldview. People make up the rules they live by (or try to make others live by) according to their worldview, but the two are not the same. And where a religious text may outline certain rules, it's followers often waste no time in making rules to clarify the rules. The Bible, while it does set forth some rules, and affirm that they are good rules, makes clear loudly and repeatedly that they are not the point. (It's a little realized fact that Jesus probably preached the most on hell of any person in the Bible. But probably at least half of the fire-and-brimstone sermons he gave were directed at the rule-makers of his day. Matthew 23 gives an excellent example).

---------- Post added at 03:26 ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 ----------

I was raised catholic and when I realized that catholics had substituted the jewish passover lamb sacrifice with the son of god (human and deity all rolled into one) AND THEN WERE EATING HIS BODY AND BLOOD! I couldn't continue in the church or the school as such a barbaric belief couldn't be true. I was eight years old at the time and as the rest of my family and immediate relatives were all catholic, it caused quite a bit of emotional and mental trauma that I have yet to fully recover from.

I really believe that the catholic religious indoctrination at such a young age and subsequent revelation I experienced has totally changed my life for the worst and is why I have a hard time fitting in anywhere in any group, it ruined me, and I hate catholicism for that.

Reasonable. Not all of Jesus' followers liked the concept when he first talked about it. See John 6:35-60, or all of John 6 for context.

 

[bujin]

I'll come right out and admit I'm an atheist. I put up with being raised Catholic for my entire childhood and eventually came to the conclusion that Catholicism offered no persuasive evidence for God's existence, and really had more to do with power, politics, and manipulation than genuine faith. I believe that we're on our own in this existence and it's up to use to figure out how to solve our own damn problems, and that there is no heavenly rapture to make everything okay in the end.

This is the sort of thing I want to see corrected in America - that you have to "come out and admit" you're an atheist, as if it's something you're perhaps a little bit ashamed of, or are a bit worried about how people will react if you say that.

I'm quite lucky to live in a secular country that doesn't consider religion as being of massive importance in everyday life. For me, I'm quite proud of the fact that I'm an atheist and would never have to "admit" to being one. If anyone asks if I believe in God (which rarely happens here), I don't hesitate in saying "no".

I understand that the term "atheist" in America has very negative connotations. I'd love to see that perception change in the near future. There's nothing at all wrong with being an atheist.

I've got a question. Does anyone believe that there is any amount of logic or reason, from any side of the argument, that is sufficient to change the mind of a person who is already certain in what they believe? These sort of arguments tend to go on and on with no resolution.

For the evolution or big bang vs creation part of the argument, I've seen it time after time that creationists simply don't want to accept the evidence. They are the very definition of closed minded. If the evidence contradicts their beliefs, they discard the evidence. That's the exact opposite of how science works.

On the other hand, science adapts to the evidence. If a creationist ever shows evidence for the creation story being true (and of course, you'd have to ask which of the many thousands of creation stories we're talking about), then science will adapt. The thing is that so far, the creation "science" has all been blown out of the water.

It's an indication of how delusional creationists can be when their arguments are utterly destroyed on Monday, but on Tuesday they will be back out preaching exactly the same arguments again in their favour.

On the God/No God debate, from my atheist point of view, I'm pretty convinced that there is no God. However, I'm certainly willing to change my mind if anyone can show me some solid evidence that he (or she, or it!) does exist.

---------- Post added at 10:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------

Obligatory relativism aside, I highly doubt that any deity is required for the creation of the universe, so from there I use Ockham's Razor...

I use a Gillette Mach 3. :thumbup:

 

[Gumok]

What about option "God exist & Evolution is true."? :thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

What about option "God exist & Evolution is true."? :thumbup:

Its Multiple Choice, so it is already implemented.

 

[indonesianorbinaut]

?? My english is also bad and i don't wanted to flame him for his english,
i really tought that he WAS a muslim. If i am wrong and you wanted to say that you ARE a muslim then sorry Indonesianorbinaut!

i accept youre apology:thumbup:

 

[streb2001]

Though that was probably many years ago, I can clear up the fact that Catholics believe that, while the bread and wine at Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ, it does not physically turn into flesh and blood (although miracles are noted where this has occurred). Instead, the bread and wine are 'accidents' left over after transubstantiation. So it actually still is bread and wine, physically. If that means anything to anyone :tiphat:

Thanks, you explained this better than I did. It was the act of faith involved in turning bread into flesh while still remaining bread that made no scientific sense to me. That and the mystery of the Trinity (also faith).

I suppose this could be compared with the duality of matter. Is it a wave or a particle? The difference is that one does not need "faith" to witness the results of real experiments.

 

[Jarvitä]

As long as all claims of a god, divine intervention etc. are presented as unclear definitions with no obvious falsification criteria, there is precisely zero reason to assign them any validity. You don't get to say "prove me wrong" until you define what there is to prove wrong and criteria that would make you accept the fact that you're wrong.

Who am I kidding? The most lucid argument of the 'faithful' is something to the effect of "If evolution is true, how come there are still monkeys?"

Channel goes up, channel goes down. Always a miscommunication...

 

[Pinguinboy]

Well, I'm a convinced Atheist and Biocentrist, and I believe in Evolution, Panspermia and The Almighty Probe.

 

[Topper]

cool, just sounded a bit flamey to me... Cause it was a bit Grammar nazi-esque.

I've overreacted a bit, because i've associated "grammer nazi" with "nazi", and thats a very bad insult.

I havn't known that this expression has nothing to do with nazi.
I don't wanted to flame anyone :facepalm:

 

[Nazban]

Well, I'm a convinced Atheist and Biocentrist, and I believe in Evolution, Panspermia and The Almighty Probe.

What exactly is god? different people will tell you different things.


I believe in god:<--------- god is the probe :lol:

 

[Pinguinboy]

<--------- god is the probe :lol:

Aye, I agree with that. :lol:

 

[Turbinator]

During discussions like these it is very important not to forget that there are many religions on our planet. Some of these religions can and do co-exist with science in harmony; where there is a God, and the science demonstrates the beauty and the complexity of his creation. Where the rest of the universe is there for us to explore and and to discover its secrets and its beauty.

 

[Unstung]

There is little discussion about evolution and the Big Bang; I'm disappointed how little the Big Bang is taught in this country's public education system. I'm not certain of the Big Bang, but it's buy-able to me.

 

[insanity]

Rather or not there is a god is kind of an irrelevant question to me. Personally, I have no problem with uncertainty, but I want to invest my understanding of the world on what is understandable with the highest degree of certainty possible, i.e. science. There is a point at which science can't answer the questions of 'ultimate reality', but I don't suppose I have divine insight to understand it either; so I just accept that there are answers (and questions) in which I cannot rationally understand.

Instead, I just try to live the best life I can given the circumstances dealt to me. What I dislike is people who are so certain that their answers are right that they are willing to discount the beliefs of others or people who reject rationality because they fear what they don't understand. I will fiercely defend the value of the scientific method as the best way to explain the physical universe in knowable terms, but I will not say there is (or is not) a more divine explanation.

 

[Ark]

This is the sort of thing I want to see corrected in America - that you have to "come out and admit" you're an atheist, as if it's something you're perhaps a little bit ashamed of, or are a bit worried about how people will react if you say that.

I'm quite lucky to live in a secular country that doesn't consider religion as being of massive importance in everyday life. For me, I'm quite proud of the fact that I'm an atheist and would never have to "admit" to being one. If anyone asks if I believe in God (which rarely happens here), I don't hesitate in saying "no".

I understand that the term "atheist" in America has very negative connotations. I'd love to see that perception change in the near future. There's nothing at all wrong with being an atheist.

I feel no shame in it, and some pride. However I have no choice but to recognize that the US is so heavily religious that stating your lack of belief in God, in any public forum, will probably touch off a huge and usually very hostile argument. Keeping your religious beliefs under your hat in daily conversation is polite practice in general, but I definitely feel an added pressure to keep quite just to avoid a big ordeal.

Hopefully that changes in the future, but I doubt it. We're still the least-trusted minority in the country, even in a nation where being Muslim automatically makes you a terrorist. :lol:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1

It's been half a century since the Civil Rights movement and we still have laws in the books stating a belief in God as a requirement for public office.

 

[joertexas]

I firmly believe that God - a divine being of limitless power, intelligence, beauty and love - exists. He is not bound by the laws of time of of this universe or any other; He created time and this universe. He created each of us, and invested in each of us the freedom to choose how, and even if, we believe.

I believe these things through the evidence of my own faith, and more than a few bits of physical and tangible evidence. Most of these things of God cannot be measured with science, since it comes from outside our finite existence.

Cheers

JR

 

[Jarvitä]

I firmly believe that God - a divine being of limitless power, intelligence, beauty and love - exists.

Define "god". Define phenomena that influenced you to believe in that concept. Define criteria that would make you accept the fact that you're wrong.

Can't? Than you have blind faith in an unfalsifiable, incomplete hypothesis.

He is not bound by the laws of time of of this universe or any other; He created time and this universe. He created each of us, and invested in each of us the freedom to choose how, and even if, we believe.

In other words, you have an invisible dragon in your garage, and if anybody tries to touch it, it flies out, and it doesn't need to be fed. You, or the people who influence your beliefs, have set up the entire belief system so that it's impervious to rational reasoning. If you don't recognise the fundamental wrongness of this approach, you're beyond help.

I believe these things through the evidence of my own faith, and more than a few bits of physical and tangible evidence. Most of these things of God cannot be measured with science, since it comes from outside our finite existence.

Something that comes from outside our universe, can by definition not influence it. Universe means literally "all there is". If you're going to claim a god can't be measured with science, please stop trying to explain the concept in scientific terms and just admit it's blind faith.

 

[bujin]

I feel no shame in it, and some pride. However I have no choice but to recognize that the US is so heavily religious that stating your lack of belief in God, in any public forum, will probably touch off a huge and usually very hostile argument. Keeping your religious beliefs under your hat in daily conversation is polite practice in general, but I definitely feel an added pressure to keep quite just to avoid a big ordeal.

Yep, I'd agree with that. We usually keep religious beliefs under our hats here too in daily conversation, although there isn't a massive problem if people do admit to not believing in god (or gods).

Having said that, my sister and her family are very religious and it very occasionally starts a rather heated discussion!

I do tend to hold my tongue a little bit on most public internet forums though, because it's not worth the hassle of a big argument. And as you say, those arguments usually become pretty hostile.

Hopefully that changes in the future, but I doubt it. We're still the least-trusted minority in the country, even in a nation where being Muslim automatically makes you a terrorist. :lol:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1

It's been half a century since the Civil Rights movement and we still have laws in the books stating a belief in God as a requirement for public office.

There is hope, I think. The number of people claiming "no religion" in America has grown pretty rapidly over the last decade or two, going by the polls. I don't think there are actually any more atheists than there were in the past, but more and more people are "coming out" as an atheist. Once that hits a "critical mass", I think attitudes will change over there.

As for the laws that state belief in God is a requirement for public office - I would bet that a significant proportion of people in public office are atheists. They cannot admit to being so at the moment, but that will eventually change.