Beliefs in God and Religions

[quankanne]

I see that neither Quank nor johan came back to substantiate their drivelous "most atheists would do..." generalisations.

 

sorry, haven't been here in a few days.

 

"Most atheists" terminology = used because I believe that when someone has a staunch opinion, it's not gonna be easily forfeited no matter how credible the contrary evidence is. Simply because it's easier to keep on believing as they have been than to admit their thinking might be mistaken. Same thing goes for believers tossing aside their faith in God to say He don't exist – the stronger the conviction, the less likely of it being put aside. In either case, I'm thinking that only a small handful will switch teams as wholeheartedly as they've played for their own team.

 

or did I misunderstand the question?

[FleshNBones]

I fail to see where this would be unethical.

 

 

Science is not screwing up kids, it's just opening their eyes to the real world. Perhaps the human race is finally waking up and the real screw-up is religion.

Try this link

http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-human-experiments/

[TaraMaiden]

Why go through with it in the first place?

 

Ever heard the phrase "it seemed a good idea at the time"....?

 

Convent education, Roman Catholic family peer pressure....Butt ugly as a kid.... you know, usual stuff.

 

I have moved on, thankfully.

I still consider myself butt ugly, but I don't give a $h1t any more.....

[Rooster_DAR]

You are trying to act smart and yet you don't realize that science and religion don't contradict each other. It's common knowledge for God's sake. Honestly, get some education in this subject before you start making retarded threads. You look like a complete idiot to anyone who has any knowledge in this area. Stop thinking you're some kind of philosopher just because you have an opinion

 

First of all I never claimed to be an intellect or philosopher, nor did I instantiate a claim. This thread was just a general discussion, not to push my views on anyone.

 

If you can't handle the content, perhaps you should move on and and find a forum you can relate to like "The United Spongebob Forums".

 

Cheers!

[Rooster_DAR]

You are trying to act smart and yet you don't realize that science and religion don't contradict each other. It's common knowledge for God's sake. Honestly, get some education in this subject before you start making retarded threads. You look like a complete idiot to anyone who has any knowledge in this area. Stop thinking you're some kind of philosopher just because you have an opinion

 

 

Here's something for you to read and interpret bonehead:

 

The most essential conflict between science and religion is not in their conclusions — such as evolution, the heliocentric solar system, or the origin of disease — but in their ways of arriving at their conclusions. The fundamental disagreement is in how, rather than in what.

 

Religion relies on authority — from a person, book, or tradition — and its Truth is supposed to be universal and eternal. But in science, the authority is in the evidence and reasoning, which are always open to challenge; so science's truth is relative and tentative.

 

 

A scientific investigation starts with a question, and tries to reach a conclusion by finding evidence and applying reason. A theological investigation, though, starts with a conclusion, and tries to wiggle around any impediments of evidence and logic in order to justify that conclusion.

 

 

 

To superstitious people, things not understood might be assigned to the realm of supernatural whims, which to a scientist represents a very pessimistic outlook. But as things that were once not understood become understood, this realm gets smaller and smaller. For example, most of us no longer attribute bad weather and disease to curses, mental disease to possession by devils, or earthquakes, storms, and eclipses to angry gods.

 

 

An interesting item along this line is that Isaac Newton had a small deficiency between his calculations of the motions of planets and the actual observations, so he invoked the hand of God. But a century later the great mathematician Laplace made better calculations with Newton's own equations and showed that there was no such deficiency

 

 

Strangely, although religious people nowadays don't usually blame the god for illnesses and other catastrophes, they tend to credit the god for any relief from these!

 

 

 

It's true that many intelligent people embrace both science and religion. They seem to compartmentalize their thinking; it's as if they use different parts of the mind for science and religion, with hardly any interconnection between those parts. They adopt the comfortable myth that there isn't, or shouldn't be, a conflict between science and religion.

[disgracian]

sorry, haven't been here in a few days.

You posted that on the 13th, I replied on the same day. You've since made other posts in this section prior to yesterday's reminder.

"Most atheists" terminology = used because I believe that when someone has a staunch opinion, it's not gonna be easily forfeited no matter how credible the contrary evidence is.

Why do you assume that the majority of atheists are staunch in their (non) beliefs?

 

That aside, what you implied goes well beyond conviction and firmly into the territory of full-blown denial of reality. It's comfortable territory to convince yourself that "the other side" is completely unreasonable than admit you actually have nothing to present them with in the first place. Easier to just tell yourself that they wouldn't accept it anyway.

 

Cheers,

D.

[NoIDidn't]

I fail to see where this would be unethical.

 

 

Science is not screwing up kids, it's just opening their eyes to the real world. Perhaps the human race is finally waking up and the real screw-up is religion.

 

I believe it would be unethical because it is a psychological experiment using humans that may limit their movement and growth by basically asking them to go backwards from where we are right now.

 

It would be one thing to observe a culture with the controls in place that you mention. Its a different thing entirely to *create* this society for the purposes of seeing "what they come up with" by way of spiritual/scientific beliefs, if you will.

 

Do you know any ethicists to bounce this idea off of?

[NoIDidn't]

You posted that on the 13th, I replied on the same day. You've since made other posts in this section prior to yesterday's reminder.

 

Why do you assume that the majority of atheists are staunch in their (non) beliefs?

 

That aside, what you implied goes well beyond conviction and firmly into the territory of full-blown denial of reality. It's comfortable territory to convince yourself that "the other side" is completely unreasonable than admit you actually have nothing to present them with in the first place. Easier to just tell yourself that they wouldn't accept it anyway.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Hey, be nice to Quank!

 

I happen to agree with her, like it or not. Its not an asumption as evidenced by many discussions with the atheists here in this forum.

 

I think that most atheists are so stuck in their skepticism that they simply won't believe in a god even if proof were provided. I truly believe that they will be looking for the little man behind the curtain no matter what.

 

I don't think that makes me or Quank, or even the atheists that I have judged to be this way, bad people. It just means that we have a difference of opinion of the other's beliefs and motivations behind those beliefs.

 

I really see atheists saying the same thing to believers - "It's comfortable territory to convince yourself that "the other side" is completely unreasonable than admit you actually have nothing to present them with in the first place. " The atheists haven't presented anything disproving a god and think that we believers are too unreasonable to accept their proof too. But I don't think its "Easier to just tell yourself that they wouldn't accept it anyway." Its just the way it is. We won't be changing your mind, and you won't be changing ours.

 

And, yet, we can still get along with such differing opinions/beliefs.

[Rooster_DAR]

I believe it would be unethical because it is a psychological experiment using humans that may limit their movement and growth by basically asking them to go backwards from where we are right now.

 

It would be one thing to observe a culture with the controls in place that you mention. Its a different thing entirely to *create* this society for the purposes of seeing "what they come up with" by way of spiritual/scientific beliefs, if you will.

 

Do you know any ethicists to bounce this idea off of?

 

Fair enough, point taken.

[RA1]

I don't see what having a belief in a religion/god has to do with Santa Claus, though.

That was a very clever post about Santa Claus. To many unbelievers, belief in the god of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims is every bit as child-like as a belief in Santa Claus.

[RA1]

Regardless of who is right about human nature, if God himself knocked on every atheist's door and said, "here I am. You have no choice but to believe in me now. I need you to change your life, because I have a mission for you." the majority of them would tell Him to go to Hell. From that perspective, there not much point in arguing the values of faith or religion with them.

I don't think the atheist would tell god to go to hell if god knocked on his door but I think would invite god in for a serious discussion on how god got the earth into this mess and what the remedies might be.

[FleshNBones]

That was a very clever post about Santa Claus. To many unbelievers, belief in the god of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims is every bit as child-like as a belief in Santa Claus.

Appealing to one's prejudice is hardly convincing.

[Ross PK]

That was a very clever post about Santa Claus. To many unbelievers, belief in the god of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims is every bit as child-like as a belief in Santa Claus.

 

I've heard people say that God is an adults version of Santa Claus, and I think it's true. I think the bible is a fairy tale book for adults.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Ross PK

[FleshNBones]

I don't think the atheist would tell god to go to hell if god knocked on his door but I think would invite god in for a serious discussion on how god got the earth into this mess and what the remedies might be.

Nice! You would be belligerent to God over all of the things he has given you which you have kindly squandered.

 

So how did you become one of the anointed?

[Rooster_DAR]

Nice! You would be belligerent to God over all of the things he has given you which you have kindly squandered.

 

So how did you become one of the anointed?

 

 

Belligerent to someone who is very self centered and non-forgiving perhaps. This does not sound like it would be a god I would want to worship.

 

Cheers!

[NoIDidn't]

I think if God were to knock on someone's door, it would be because He wants to talk to them about whatever is on their minds.

 

I doubt He would feel disrespected by the questions of a doubter. Doubting something doesn't change whether or not it exists.

 

There are numerous instances in the Bible where God is said to personally speak to someone - even those who doubted Him. He said to Isaiah, "come let us reason together". I don't think He would have a problem with direct questioning. And yet, I have never read a story about someone actually feeling bold enough to be belligerent with the Holy and Omnipotent One, anyway. We humans recognize even the power in other humans, so I doubt one would not know it was God at their doorstep after a few moments and act accordingly. LOL.

 

I think how we perceive God has more to do with others than to do with Him. So many people seem so upset with Him over what others have done in His name. Instead of blaming people for doing exactly what people do, God gets the blame instead.

 

end, thread jack.

[deux ex machina]

...I think the bible is a fairy tale book for adults.

 

In the church I just went to, they don't believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. So you might fit right in!

 

Join us-s-s...

[Miko]

I believe in god. I do not believe I know any of the details. Any religion that believes in god who is good and encourages people to be better people is something to be admired. The believers I know personally seem to be more generous, kind and just plain nicer. All things considered I call religion a good thing to have...logically.

[TaraMaiden]

It would of course help, if a Deistic Religion had any logic to it to begin with......

[Moai]

As an atheist, I can say that if god showed up at my door and wanted to have a chat, I would reach for my phone, call 911, and tell the operator that I need an ambulance because I am having a serious psychotic break.

[knaveman]

I was always under the impression that a belief in God, or any higher power, was a personal matter and didn't rely on the input of others. Why should anyone care what someone else thinks of their God, or any other God for that matter?

[disgracian]

I was always under the impression that a belief in God, or any higher power, was a personal matter and didn't rely on the input of others. Why should anyone care what someone else thinks of their God, or any other God for that matter?

It bothers them whenever critiques of their beliefs cut a bit too close to the bone. A lot of believers have a hard time defending their beliefs intelligently which is why they so often seek to silence the opposition rather than respond to it.

 

Cheers,

D.

[TaraMaiden]

I was always under the impression that a belief in God, or any higher power, was a personal matter and didn't rely on the input of others.

That, if I may say so, is an extremely naive point of view.

How do you think a belief in God or a Higher Power ever came about in the first place?

Put a newborn baby in a desert, and (laying aside the impossibility of survival for an instant) without any form of human contact, it's pretty certain he'd grow up with no notion of God or a Higher Power.

therefore, this belief has to be engendered by input from others.

It has to be planted by an initial instruction.

If that instruction is questionable, then the notions that follow from that first questionable input, will also remain questionable.

And should be.

 

Why should anyone care what someone else thinks of their God, or any other God for that matter?

 

perhaps a brief look at the History of Religion and its spread throughout the centuries will add fuel to that question....

Why do you think the UK has a Monarch who is head of the Church of England when, historically, there should be a Catholic one there?

 

Answers your question.

[NoIDidn't]

That, if I may say so, is an extremely naive point of view.

How do you think a belief in God or a Higher Power ever came about in the first place?

Put a newborn baby in a desert, and (laying aside the impossibility of survival for an instant) without any form of human contact, it's pretty certain he'd grow up with no notion of God or a Higher Power.

therefore, this belief has to be engendered by input from others.

It has to be planted by an initial instruction.

If that instruction is questionable, then the notions that follow from that first questionable input, will also remain questionable.

And should be.

 

 

 

perhaps a brief look at the History of Religion and its spread throughout the centuries will add fuel to that question....

Why do you think the UK has a Monarch who is head of the Church of England when, historically, there should be a Catholic one there?

 

Answers your question.

 

Disagree with this.

 

It does not only take human interaction to create religious leanings. Certainly humans can help perpetuate them, but they certainly don't cause them. All it takes is having the ability to rationalize (often incorrectly) about ones' surroundings.

 

Taking a good look at native societies reveals this. They didn't have a "higher power" and yet, they did rain ceremonies (in the desert, water is life) to get the rain to fall. They didn't pray to a god, but yet they asked that their food animals come so they could take one and respectfully feed and clothe themselves.

 

So, no "god" or "higher power" but a religious doctrine, nonetheless.

 

All this talk about untarnished minds rejecting religion is simplistic AND wrong, IMO. Humanity didn't start out with religious beliefs. Starting out without religious influence is more likely to put us right back where we currently are, not the opposite.

[Eve]

There are numerous instances in the Bible where God is said to personally speak to someone - even those who doubted Him. He said to Isaiah' date=' "come let us reason together". I don't think He would have a problem with direct questioning. And yet, I have never read a story about someone actually feeling bold enough to be belligerent with the Holy and Omnipotent One, anyway. We humans recognize even the power in other humans, so I doubt one would not [i']know[/i] it was God at their doorstep after a few moments and act accordingly. LOL.

 

 

According to what Scripture says, the end game point is that people do outrightly reject God and attempt to make physical war against God with a new leader. I suppose this is for rulership of the Earth. The physical war thing is said to occur at a point where the Holy Spirit will be removed from the Earth and so all non believers will get their day (well, seven years) to feel existence without the presence of God and be lead entirely by their own leader, (described as the anti-christ in Scripture)

 

Fair enough really.

 

I know its hard to imagine all this but I could easily see people going against God in such a way.. in order to protect their way of life etc.

 

Take care,

Eve xx

Edited December 19, 2009 by Eve