Why God is Imaginary

[sputnik]

Originally posted by A790


Absolutely! Look at the Holy Inquisition that was once carried out by the Catholic church? Thousands tortured and murdered... all in the name of "god".

We live in a world today with low crime, stable homes, or at least, we can say that when compared to the lives of the past. How many catholic priests have molested little boys again? How many people have died because of religion and "god"? I'm sorry, where are these divine morals and "peace, love, and happiness" that religion promotes?

I have yet to see it.

Straw man.

How many people have murdered or crimes committed without doing it for "god". Lets try and keep this within the last 200 years.

Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Mao are modern examples that come to mind. Many of them killed millions to rid the world of religion and other free thought. Not to mention the atrocities in Darfur, Rwanda and other genocides of the past 100 years or so.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by 3g4u
Whatever. /out/

nobody likes a quitter

[TKRIS]

^When an intelligent man finds himself in a hole, he knows the first thing he should do is to stop digging.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by 89coupe



Science does not have faith in the unknown. Science seeks the undeniable truth, fact!

Science provides theories, yes, but only as theory until proven.

Science and faith do not belong together.

So essentially someone believing in God is currently at the same place as someone who believes in the Big Bang.

Not until either is proven or unequivocally disproven can one stand above the other.

Unfortunately both currently stand on some pretty shaky ground. The theory of God has an old book and personal beliefs and feelings. The Big Bang Theory requires the first law of thermodynamics to be broken.

Whichever one is more socially acceptable at this time is irrelevant to which one is ultimately correct.

Personally I find understanding the possible existence God to be as hard as understanding the theoretical existence of infinite space and absolute void.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by 89coupe


Science and faith do not belong together.

Wouldnt the true irony be if you required both to find the "answer" of how and why are we here?

Lets face it - atheists reject outright claims of religion and put 100% of their trust in science, and religious people are on the flip side of the coin.

Im willing to accept anything, and cant possibly believe for 1 second we're the greatest things ever. What if we're just bacteria of some larger being? A cell in a body? Marbles to aliens (yes, MIB reference lol)

Hell what if we're just product of somebody playing SIM City , who the fuck knows.

Im catholic, but i dont goto church, i have premarital sex, i drink a lot, use birth control and like to get into a fight every now and again. Im hardly a bible thumper, and i dont even know if i believe in "god" but rather just... believe. Does it hurt anybody? No. Would i goto war over religion? No.

As said before, nobody can prove where the impossibility of the energy of the big bang came from - some fluke chance, or a methodical plan? Like i said, what if we're just a cell? A product of a new life?

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by 403Gemini


i have premarital sex

after you started lying, I stopped reading

[sputnik]

Forgot to address the "science and faith do not belong together" part.

I think that only applies in places of conflict. I personally believe that when you see those conflicts is when you have differing faith issues. Either you have faith in one side or the other and conflict arises.

No one that believes in a God will question that table salt is NaCl or that water evaporates into a gas or that the ozone layer protects the world from UV rays.

However explaining God with science or vice versa is dangerous and ultimately impossible as they exist in 2 different realms... the physical/scientific and the metaphysical/philosophical.

[lint]

Originally posted by sputnik
Take the inverse of what you just said and you will also see that it is equally as invalid.

There is no inverse to that statement. But I would like to see your attempt at constructing one.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by Weapon_R


after you started lying, I stopped reading

haha i hate you so much

[sputnik]

Originally posted by lint


In other words, just because the scientific community hasn't found all the answers yet, doesn't mean that the default answer should be "God must have created it"

Here is the inverse.

Because I think all of this "God stuff" is false, it must be science that will have the REAL answer and prove that there is no God.

Essentially you are putting your faith into something else because you don't agree with the other side.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by lint
Interesting point. I would argue however that religion does indeed call for the shoving of your beliefs down the throats of others. The zealots as you put it, believe in the literal word. The masses, who tend to be moderate, only wish to practice what they want. For an interesting read on the subject, pick up "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris.

The problem with the book is that Sam Harris takes people that believe in God and whitewashes them with the same zealot brush.

If you talk to modern day Christian theologians you will realize that faith is not something to be jammed down someones throat. The Bible does not call people to force their beliefs on others, it calls them to "be like Jesus" which is loving those around you and genuinely caring for them regardless of their race, religion or status.

Whether or not they come to believe in God is not up to Christians it is believed that it is up to God to "change their heart".

Interestingly enough I was flipping the channels a few months ago and saw Evel Kneivel on TV at a church saying how he became a Christian. He said that it had nothing to do with anyone harassing him but a feeling he had one night. Weird.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by sputnik


Here is the inverse.



Essentially you are putting your faith into something else because you don't agree with the other side.

No.
Once again: Celestial Teapot.

It is in religions best interest to prove a god exists, as their entire belief structure is based on that assupmtion.

Science does not concern itself with the possibility of god's existence because there is no evidence to indicate such a being exists.
I don't spend my days trying to prove that my car isn't a transformer because there's no evidence that would suggest that my car is a transformer...

[lint]

Originally posted by sputnik


Here is the inverse.



Essentially you are putting your faith into something else because you don't agree with the other side.

I'd like to say nice try, but it's not even close. The religious argument is that the unexplained must be attributed to God. The scientific argument is that the unexplained simply remain unexplained, and the search will continue for the answers.

[403Gemini]

I think too many things transcend our grasp of explanation.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by TKRIS


No.
Once again: Celestial Teapot.

It is in religions best interest to prove a god exists, as their entire belief structure is based on that assupmtion.

I personally don't believe this to be true, especially in a physical sense.

You have apologetics written by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity but he doesn't try to use science to prove God's existence he talks about it at a more spiritual or metaphysical level.

There are some people that will try to discredit theories that clash with their beliefs. However there are few (taking into consideration the BILLIONS of people that believe in God) that will try but most are brushed off as zealots. In the end that really doesn't do much other than create conflict between one faith (in religion) and the other faith (in theoretical science).

Talk to any Christian clergy and you will probably realize that they aren't in the business of trying to prove the physical existence of God but rather a metaphysical one that goes beyond what we can see or comprehend, and if you don't believe that is fine with them. Christianity isn't in the business of "proving" God. Some zealots perhaps, but not your average Charlie Church.

Basically I leave it with the following interaction.

Mr Zealot - I believe in God you should too. God exists and helps me be a better person and my life has been so much better since I started to believe.

Mr Atheist - I don't need to believe in God. I believe in science and I am doing just fine. I am happy and like my life, why do I need God to make it better?

Mr Zealot - Because then you get to go to heaven.

Mr Atheist - I don't believe that heaven exists.

At the end of the day it is pointless to try to convince someone there is or isn't a God. One side will believe in one thing and the other will put their faith in another thing.

Church doesn't need to prove anything. The Christian church isn't even told to prove that God exists. The Christian church is told that if someone will believe they will do so on their own by witnessing the actions of other Christians. Unfortunately many Christians that are appearing on TV and throughout history aren't doing so well.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by lint
The scientific argument is that the unexplained simply remain unexplained, and the search will continue for the answers.

That is assuming that the answer can somehow be explained.

You still have to put a great deal of faith in that.

It would be simple if it was FACT that the unexplained will be explained eventually via science, but thats not a given.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by sputnik


I personally don't believe this to be true, especially in a physical sense.

You have apologetics written by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity but he doesn't try to use science to prove God's existence he talks about it at a more spiritual or metaphysical level.

There are some people that will try to discredit theories that clash with their beliefs. However there are few (taking into consideration the BILLIONS of people that believe in God) that will try but most are brushed off as zealots. In the end that really doesn't do much other than create conflict between one faith (in religion) and the other faith (in theoretical science).

Talk to any Christian clergy and you will probably realize that they aren't in the business of trying to prove the physical existence of God but rather a metaphysical one that goes beyond what we can see or comprehend, and if you don't believe that is fine with them. Christianity isn't in the business of "proving" God. Some zealots perhaps, but not your average Charlie Church.

Basically I leave it with the following interaction.



At the end of the day it is pointless to try to convince someone there is or isn't a God. One side will believe in one thing and the other will put their faith in another thing.

Church doesn't need to prove anything. The Christian church isn't even told to prove that God exists. The Christian church is told that if someone will believe they will do so on their own by witnessing the actions of other Christians. Unfortunately many Christians that are appearing on TV and throughout history aren't doing so well.

First, I didn't say that religion was required to prove god's existance, I said it is in their best interests to prove god's existence. Since the choices we've been discussing revolve around god either existing or not existing, they're better off with the former.
To clarify and simplify, it is in religions best interests to have people believe that god exists.

Second, you've once again ignored the flaws I've pointed out in your arguments of science's vested interests (or lack thereof) on the subject of god's existence and the irrationality of your assumptions on his probability: The Celestial Teapot.

I can only assume that you have no valid rebuttle.

[FatalError]

Originally posted by 89coupe


I don't agree. I think God believers are the route to the demise of the human race.

A quick glance in the mirror might reflect otherwise. Try starting with yourself, I'd guess you'll be there for a while, and then work outward.

[lint]

Originally posted by sputnik


That is assuming that the answer can somehow be explained.

Assuming that an answer cannot be explained is what religion does to attribute events to the hand of God. Not only that, all attempts to seek the answers must stop.

Who was that fellow again, foolish enough to contradict the scriptures and support the Copernican theory of a heliocentric solar system?

Was that a question that could not be explained? I guess only if you don't want the question to be asked.

[mark4091]

Originally posted by 3g4u


Ya a world without faith is a great thing to look forward too. I look at the world in the last 50 years and the more people loose faith, with time the more this world has just become shit in my opinion. So when we loose all religion and everybody believes in nothing like you, then there are no consequences to our actions and we surely will be SHIT.

Thats bullshit, working with each other without thinking a certain group of people are lesser because they believe in a different saviour, is somehow going to be worse?

And in you're other post you mentioned something about insulting you're faith...so I guess everytime a christian tells me I'm going to hell it's not insulting because it's a part of his/her faith?