Why do/don't you believe in God (page 8)

LittleToe

Mtbatoon:

I did and shall be going to the New Forest to commit arson this very weekend.

Is that in a metaphoric or literal sense

Inquirer:

LIFE SHOULDN'T BE LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why?

Tal:
The difficulty I have with using Lennon's words in this context is that Hitler, Kennedy, Elvis, and the Beatles DID exist...

Kazar:

I don't believe in God. Evolution did it for me.

They're not mutually exclusive. I happily believe in both!

Tetra:

You partially quoted me. Please don't do that! My comments were to the following highlighted text:

...all the nagging unanswerable questions of how did we get here, how should we live our lives and where do we go, questions that each religion tries to answer, some more successfully than others... Science has answered many of these questions for us

Science has described some of the processes about how we eventually took on human form, and the process of decay of the deceased physical human body, but it doesn't truly address any of the questions vaunted.

Dustin:
Interesting strategy you have there...

Pole:

Elaborate illustrations don't undermine the simple precept that whilst there might not be strong evidence for something, that doesn't in and of itself "prove" anything.

It isn't that long since the existance of "black holes" was evidenced, yet there were plenty of scientists who poopoo'ed the idea before then. As it happens, many of their speculations about them are likely groundless (such as them being wormholes to other dimensions), and this may ultimately prove to be true in the "god of the gaps" debate. Meanwhile, he who merely ridicules only opens himself up to the potential of having egg on his face.

mtbatoon

It isn't that long since the existance of "black holes" was evidenced, yet there were plenty of scientists who poopoo'ed the idea before then. As it happens, many of their speculations about them are likely groundless (such as them being wormholes to other dimensions), and this may ultimately prove to be true in the "god of the gaps" debate. Meanwhile, he who merely ridicules only opens himself up to the potential of having egg on his face.

Whilst it is certainly true that many scientific discoveries are poopoo'ed initially, the poopoo'ers base their stance on the available evidence not their beliefs or faith. More importantly they change their stance when new evidence is presented. Is there a mechanism in religion where evidence takes precedence over scripture?

I don't believe in God. Evolution did it for me.
They're not mutually exclusive. I happily believe in both!

If this is true why isn't it written down in any religions texts?

Pole

LittleToe,

I think your analogy is grossly mistaken. Unless you think God is subject to some form of scientific discovery. Plus, black holes don't care if they get "discovered" beyond doubt. God should care.
As for this:

Elaborate illustrations don't undermine the simple precept that whilst there might not be strong evidence for something, that doesn't in and of itself "prove" anything.

You again unfairly throw the burden of proof upon non-believers. Why so? If there is no "strong evidence" for answering the most fundamental question in the universe, then what does it say about the hypothetical God? This is precisely what helped me to break free from the idea of God. If there are good people who consciously refute the idea of God and they have good reasons for it, then how is the idea of God universally necessary?
Pole

Lilycurly

To me, the God from the Bible looks like an explanation to what those people could not explain, as someone else pointed out. Like a whole city getting on fire, fatalities, rainbows, certain nations winning over others. (And to excuse the horrible acts of certain persons)

I do beleive in a higher spirit though...not sure what they have to do with us, but I'm inclined to beleive in two kind of spiritual forces, male and female, God and Goddess, regulating nature and humans. That's the one beleif that makes most sense to me. As almost everything on earth has a Ying and a Yang, why not the supreme forces?

LittleToe

Mtbatoon:

Whilst it is certainly true that many scientific discoveries are poopoo'ed initially, the poopoo'ers base their stance on the available evidence not their beliefs or faith.

Like the evidence that the world exists, or that people die and there's often a residual feeling that it's not the end, or...

...I didn't say that "belief" was always based on strong evidence, necessarily, but it's not based on an absolute vaccum. Give some of us a little credit...

More importantly they change their stance when new evidence is presented. Is there a mechanism in religion where evidence takes precedence over scripture?

The reformation had a lot to do with that, and some denominations continue to revise the "hymn sheet" as evidence becomes available. How many denominations have you researched? They aren't all of the "seven 24hr creative days" genre.

Pole:

I think your analogy is grossly mistaken. Unless you think God is subject to some form of scientific discovery.

Isn't He? Black holes weren't initially subject to such discovery, but eventually a means was found. You can let me know if you find a little man behind the curtain, Dorothy If I find him there first, I'll reciprocate.

Plus, black holes don't care if they get "discovered" beyond doubt. God should care.

Why? Isn't that a presumption on your part, that colours the whole concept of "God" for you?

You again unfairly throw the burden of proof upon non-believers. Why so?

Because you are hell bent on "disproving" someone else's paradigm. If you didn't care, I wouldn't. A discussion usually works that way - one person offers proof of their objection, and another counters. In this case I haven't attacked your beliefs, but I have undermined your arguments where they were underminable. You think that unfair?

If there is no "strong evidence" for answering the most fundamental question in the universe, then what does it say about the hypothetical God?

What would that question be? Have you got empirically and widely acknowledged support for it being the "most fundamental question", from a range of reputable sources?

Let's face a fact here. Any such "most fundamental question" has more likely been in the realms of religion for millenia before science became a separate "art". Religion WAS the very custodian of science for long enough. Personally I'm glad that it's separated, given the current fundamentalist bent to most mainstream beliefs on certain specific scientific subjects

This is precisely what helped me to break free from the idea of God. If there are good people who consciously refute the idea of God and they have good reasons for it, then how is the idea of God universally necessary?

Sure, I can accept that

I didn't work from that premise, myself, but I can see how you did, and the conclusions you came to.

Can you equally accept that some of us have "subjective" experiences that potentially add additional data into the pot? Our conclusions are "our" conclusions. You may disagree with them, and are perfectly entitled to do so, but please don't mock us when we are entitled to our opinions and paradigms, also.

If you state something to be fact and proven, when it is not, and it contradicts my paradigm, surely you must expect disagreement that's a little louder than a whimper?

LittleToe

Mtbatoon:

Sorry, I just realised that I didn't address this:

If this is true why isn't it written down in any religions texts?

Ermm, it's only in certain people's interpretation that it's contradicted and becomes mutually exclusive. I have no difficulty with the idea of "kinds" of animals, or the earth "swarming forth" with different species. Sounds like as good Bronze Age explanation of evolution as you're likely to get, to me.

Legolas

If the bible is gods word and a manual for how we should live our lives then it should be clear and uncomplicated, not hidden in metaphor.

Oh my gosh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I agree 100% If I left my house to the kids for the weekend I would have writen down "CHRYSTAL CLEAR" what I expect them to do, so that there would be NO excuses of why something happened or didn't happen!!!!!

This subject right now in my life is like trying to hold mercury in my hand!!

RichieRich

I believe in myself... does that count?

LittleToe

How many assumptions can you spot in the following sentence? Further, how many of them are based on the WTS view:

If the bible is gods word and a manual for how we should live our lives then it should be clear and uncomplicated, not hidden in metaphor.

Richie:

I believe in myself... does that count?

Going for the Adonis approach?

Legolas

How many assumptions can you spot in the following sentence? Further, how many of them are based on the WTS view:
If the bible is gods word and a manual for how we should live our lives then it should be clear and uncomplicated, not hidden in metaphor.

Little toe please explain.

Why do/don't you believe in God

Share this