Like so many of you, I grew up around religion. However, I was never very devout and my academic education in science eventually moved me into the egnostic/atheist category. In my experience, I have found that science can explain the mysteries of the universe and that human nature creates the need for religion.

Please don't get me wrong. I think that a belief in God is great and I encourage it in my family and friends. Why put someone down for believing something if it does not affect you and it makes them happy?

Nevertheless, I am curious how religion is viewed in medical school. In several of my undergrad bio classes, the instructor would give a disclaimer before starting lectures on things like evolution. This was mainly done to be pollitically correct and try and neutralize any accusations that religious students might make in the future. What is the prevailing attitude in medical school?

Religion and Medicine are very involved with one another.

You'll find that many of your patients will be deeply religious and that is important to them when they are sick. You'll work with chaplains in the hospitals at times to make important decisions about their care.

Many medical students are very religious.

My personal thoughts are that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Nope. I'm a hardline atheist. :)

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm saying there's nothing wrong with being religious though. To each their own! :D

Why put someone down for believing something if it does not affect you

But unfortunately it often does.

What is the prevailing attitude in medical school?

I would say a decent percent of our faculty are creationists. One often talks in lectures about god and how this or that in the body is too complex to have come about by evolution. From a show of hands earlier in the semester, I would estimate at least 90% of my class believes in a god that occasionally violates the laws of nature to assist in surgeries or cure medical conditions. Think about that for a minute. It's genuinely frighting.

After 2 years of medical school my belief in God has been strengthened.

When you see how complex the human body is and how even a minute variation in a biochemical pathway can alter the outcome, chance evolution becomes (for me) unlikely.

How is it so frightening to believe that there is a creator out there who directed a creation. If what we feel about evolution is correct (I feel much of it probably is), why is it so frightening to think that there could be a "god" who is making it work?

If that is the case and there is a God who defines the laws of nature, why is it impossible to think that he could abide within set laws to help heal those in need. Do we feel that we have a perfect understanding of nature or of the human body? If so then why do we continue to do scientific research?

We continue to do research because any educated person knows that we still don't know much of anything.

If there is an all knowing creator, why couldn't he try something that we didn't know how to do? Completely within the laws of nature... Just something that we haven't figured out yet.

Not trying to argue... Just trying to share another point of view.

From a show of hands earlier in the semester, I would estimate at least 90% of my class believes in a god that occasionally violates the laws of nature to assist in surgeries or cure medical conditions. Think about that for a minute. It's genuinely frighting.

Another believer here, but to each their own.

I will be a believer med student. I think medical school just like any other group with have a wide range of belief systems.

This just in: People are afraid of death. They have created their own coping mechanisms.

This just in: People are afraid of death. They have created their own coping mechanisms.

:thumbup: Amen:o

Like someone else said "To each their own." I don't have to face death in anyone's but my own shoes. However, it bothers me that society has been so brainwashed that I can't tell someone that I personally don't believe in God without being judged as deviant or immoral or some other synonym.

Why doesn't god heal amputees?

also, scarlet A anyone?

This just in: People are afraid of death. They have created their own coping mechanisms.

+2

This hits the nail on the head and I believe is the driving force behind all religious belief.

Yes, a lot of medical students believe in "God". Sadly, though, this very often just involves them looking at themselves in the mirror.

After 2 years of medical school my belief in God has been strengthened.

When you see how complex the human body is and how even a minute variation in a biochemical pathway can alter the outcome, chance evolution becomes (for me) unlikely.

Not trying to burst any bubbles, but this type of "it's so complex it must have been designed" argument simply doesn't hold water, it just reflects a current lack of understanding and knowledge. Show a man in the middle ages a modern jet engine, and he would have felt that only god could design such a thing, which is now simple for engineers. The human body is far more complex then any mechanical object, but the idea remains the same. "God(s)/spirits did it" is a response to the unknown that has persisted as long as human society has been around.

The "life hangs on such a slender balance" argument is also a self-referential one, namely that only those organisms that survive are capable of making that argument. For every mutation that is beneficial, there are many more that are harmful. For every genetic rearrangement that produces some important new enzyme, there are many more that are fatal. However, we only see the successes, not the failures, and are thus predisposed to view the string of evolutionary successes that lead to our existence as being impossibly unlikely.

God and science can certainly co-exist, and religiosity definitely plays a role in real-world medicine, but I am wary of a medical student that equates anything unknown or seemingly complex with god.

Yes, a lot of medical students believe in "God". Sadly, though, this very often just involves them looking at themselves in the mirror.

:laugh:

92% of americans believe in God according to a recent poll. Surprised its so low in this poll.

I come from a pastor's family but was staunchly atheist as a preteen/teen because: 1) of my study at university (started as a preteen with research and classes) and 2) my life experiences of violence in the inner city and the horrible things going on in war (lots of refugees in my area).

I came back to a belief in God and a faith through some personal circumstances (kid in recovery here) and through my study of theoretical particle physics, philosophy, and mathematics (anyone interested: Dr. John Polkinghorne has written some excellent books and articles on particle physics and faith). I have a deep appreciation for evolution, quantum physics, and geology, and I don't think that it has to clash with God giving meaning to the world around me or his mercy throughout history (Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Kenneth Miller have written a bit about this).

I have several friends in the atheist camp and in the creationist camp, and I think we can all learn from each other and gain a more complete picture of reality by doing such. For me, nothing is more beautiful than learning about M-Theory and marveling at the interconnectedness of different branches of science and mathematics forming a foundation that allows us to exist :)

Tim Minchin - Thank You God (http://grooveshark.com/s/Thank+You+God/3DhAQU?src=5)

92% of americans believe in God according to a recent poll. Surprised its so low in this poll.

Funny, I was kind of shocked so many have said they believe in God here. I thought by this point almost no one would actually believe believe in gods, though I could understand taking comfort in the cultural and ceremonial aspects of religion.

stephen where do you live that you would think no one believes in god. I mean the head of the human genome project was a believer.

stephen where do you live that you would think no one believes in god. I mean the head of the human genome project was a believer.

Bay Area. Of course I don't think that no one believes in gods. I do know some people IRL that are staunchly in that camp. I have some friends that I think have a sort of fuzzy religiosity that is tied up in their culture, but I'm not sure if pressed they would say, "yes, I believe there is a god, and that he 'occasionally violates the laws of nature to assist in surgeries or cure medical conditions'", as tehdude put it. I don't really, know, though, because I'm not a dick and wouldn't pry about something like that. And then I know a sh*t ton of people, probably the majority, that are not religious at all. I was just surprised that out of a med-student population this many people were in the "i'm sure there is a God" camp, that is all.

For those interested, this is an article from Time magazine about Einstein and his faith. It's not medical related but interesting to see how he viewed science and God.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-1,00.html

I think the bay area (i assume san francisco area) would have a higher rate of athiesm due to the specific population. You should visit the midwest sometime.

I think the bay area (i assume san francisco area) would have a higher rate of athiesm due to the specific population. You should visit the midwest sometime.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/gallery/redneck-randal/redneck-randal-were-all-gods-children.jpg

I am 3 of those (well technically socialist not communist).

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/gallery/redneck-randal/redneck-randal-were-all-gods-children.jpg

Ha, scientists. :laugh:

How is it so frightening to believe that there is a creator out there who directed a creation. If what we feel about evolution is correct (I feel much of it probably is), why is it so frightening to think that there could be a "god" who is making it work?

If that is the case and there is a God who defines the laws of nature, why is it impossible to think that he could abide within set laws to help heal those in need. Do we feel that we have a perfect understanding of nature or of the human body? If so then why do we continue to do scientific research?

We continue to do research because any educated person knows that we still don't know much of anything.

If there is an all knowing creator, why couldn't he try something that we didn't know how to do? Completely within the laws of nature... Just something that we haven't figured out yet.

Not trying to argue... Just trying to share another point of view.

The language behind this point of view is interesting.
Evolution and other scientific theory really isn't a "feeling." It is something you can demonstrate, observe, re-create etc.

A creator is a feeling or a belief, but that language really shouldn't be applied to hard science. It is perfectly acceptable to believe, feel or speculate about the possibility of a god but it is a slippery slope to try to integrate a belief that has so scientific backing into a scientific framework with well defined and reproducible laws.

While not everything in science, and especially medicine, is understood there is at least a framework of working to try to understand it. The same cannot be said about religion or god and until people apply the same standards and scrutiny to religion it is difficult to mix the two.

However, I am not implying that religion/god has no role in science (medicine). Pts have beliefs that have to be respected and often play a role in their care or the care of a loved one.

Not trying to burst any bubbles, but this type of "it's so complex it must have been designed" argument simply doesn't hold water, it just reflects a current lack of understanding and knowledge. Show a man in the middle ages a modern jet engine, and he would have felt that only god could design such a thing, which is now simple for engineers. The human body is far more complex then any mechanical object, but the idea remains the same. "God(s)/spirits did it" is a response to the unknown that has persisted as long as human society has been around.

The "life hangs on such a slender balance" argument is also a self-referential one, namely that only those organisms that survive are capable of making that argument. For every mutation that is beneficial, there are many more that are harmful. For every genetic rearrangement that produces some important new enzyme, there are many more that are fatal. However, we only see the successes, not the failures, and are thus predisposed to view the string of evolutionary successes that lead to our existence as being impossibly unlikely.

God and science can certainly co-exist, and religiosity definitely plays a role in real-world medicine, but I am wary of a medical student that equates anything unknown or seemingly complex with god.
Well said. :thumbup:

For those interested, this is an article from Time magazine about Einstein and his faith. It's not medical related but interesting to see how he viewed science and God.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-1,00.html

That was a good read, not just about religion. I had no idea he was a rebel at such a young age. Thanks for posting. :thumbup:

No. Very strong atheist. And lol@complexity argument being trotted out after studying only the end result of 3 billion years of evolution.

Man created God in His image. But I don't really care what people believe as long as it doesn't affect my life (eg they start legislating their morality in terms of schools or abortion or gay rights).

For those interested, this is an article from Time magazine about Einstein and his faith. It's not medical related but interesting to see how he viewed science and God.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-1,00.html

Thank you for this wonderful read.

i believe. very strong catholic here:D

:rolleyes:
Religion is too broad to discuss. It has millions of variations with often contradictory messages and philosophies. It is easy to pick something out and try to build a case against or for God. There is no lack of evidence for both.

I believe in God. In its truest sense, a belief in God is not something that's concerned with external and temporal things but strengthening the inner life. A person is greatly hindered in so far as he/she is entangled in external cares. Once this internal peace is taken care of, the external life will naturally mirror it without apprehension or inner conflict.

If a person's belief in God becomes centered on any external benefit (monetary gains, social approval etc), it seizes to become a 'belief in God'. In this case, the word 'God' will be thrown around while the meaning has long been lost.

So, it is good to explore meanings and representations before coming to an understanding.

I've seen life where people lacked almost all the comforts of a 'civilized' life yet kept that inner spark alive within them and maintained their happiness. I've also seen life where people had whatever they 'wanted' but were ridden with depression and anxiety and have let go of their happiness.

i believe. very strong catholic here:D
oh yah? whats your bench?
lulzzz

Probably more atheists at allopathic schools since religiosity is negatively correlated with intelligence.






















































I keed I keed

There is no lack of evidence for both.

Actually, there's a complete lack of evidence for a god. That's the very definition of faith. It's an illogical belief in improbable, unsubstantial occurrences.

I've always found it odd that Christians consider faith to be a virtue. What's noble about blind belief?

Probably more atheists at allopathic schools since religiosity is negatively correlated with intelligence.

Many a truth is told in jest. :D

Actually, there's a complete lack of evidence for a god. That's the very definition of faith. It's an illogical belief in improbable, unsubstantial occurrences.

I've always found it odd that Christians consider faith to be a virtue. What's noble about blind belief?

Ah but the realm of science is a religion/faith unto itself. It is a belief in mankind. His mind and knowledge, which has been shown many times to be flawed and faulty and tinged with more than a little bit of self promotion/pride.

It takes faith to surrender yourself to concepts such as evolution because there is no real evidence for interspecies evolution. But the church of the enlightened has declared that this is what is required of its disciples. So the followers embrace the doctrine by faith. It's the same thing you are saying about Christians.

But why is it so hard to beleive in God? Can you look out into this universe and be content that we are just a cosmic accident? Why is that so appealing? Can you look at the millions of biochemical pathways in a human body and write it off to a series of fortunate combinations over billions of years? To me, that takes some real strong faith to believe.

It takes faith to surrender yourself to concepts such as evolution because there is no real evidence for interspecies evolution.

Umm...fossils?

Umm...fossils?

...and mitochondrial DNA of existing species, and the evolution of dogs within the past few hundred years.... you know what? Why bother.

I'm surprised the poll is about 50/50.

Umm...fossils?

When the fossil record is examined you find life forms as complex at the bottom of the strata as that in later strata. You see fossils appearing in the record without less evolved transitional ancestors prior to them. In the Cambrian layer (the oldest) virtually all phylums of life seem to have abruptly appeared on the scene without any preceding ancestors.

"The fact that bones similar to human or ape bones exist does not prove that they belonged to humans or apes. Such bones may be the remains of creatures outside the ancestral line of either. They could point to extinct species of apelike or humanlike creatures with no kinship to humans at all. To claim that the bones of such creatures are stages in the process of evolution is an unwarranted jump to a biased conclusion.

Scientists who are firmly entrenched in the evolutionary theory should be embarrassed by the lack of fossil evidence for transitional species that would demonstrate evolution conclusively. Charles Darwin himself was troubled by the absence of fossil evidence for evolution. He said, “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of transitional species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”

Despite claims to the contrary, evolution is not a fact; it is a theory. Data is often interpreted to support the theory by using the assumptions of the theory as the starting point. The result is a tautology—a closed circle of logic without a solid premise: We know that evolution must be true because we have found the bones of evolving humans. We are convinced that these are the bones of evolving humans, because we know that evolution must be true. It just doesn’t work that way.

Unfortunately, the bones paleontologists dig up do not come with identifying labels already attached. As it is, the discoverers name them and give them histories that fit their theories. Dogmatic evolutionists insist that these bones show us stages in the evolution of humans. Dogmatic creationists might as easily insist that they point to some form of human or ape or the remains of an independent, extinct species. The truth is, no one knows what these bones are. All claims are guesses."

Josh Mcdowell 2008

Ah but the realm of science is a religion/faith unto itself. It is a belief in mankind. His mind and knowledge, which has been shown many times to be flawed and faulty and tinged with more than a little bit of self promotion/pride.

It takes faith to surrender yourself to concepts such as evolution because there is no real evidence for interspecies evolution. But the church of the enlightened has declared that this is what is required of its disciples. So the followers embrace the doctrine by faith. It's the same thing you are saying about Christians.

But why is it so hard to beleive in God? Can you look out into this universe and be content that we are just a cosmic accident? Why is that so appealing? Can you look at the millions of biochemical pathways in a human body and write it off to a series of fortunate combinations over billions of years? To me, that takes some real strong faith to believe.

xkcd says it better than I ever could. (second to last panel)
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg

When the fossil record is examined you find life forms as complex at the bottom of the strata as that in later strata. You see fossils appearing in the record without less evolved transitional ancestors prior to them. In the Cambrian layer (the oldest) virtually all phylums of life seem to have abruptly appeared on the scene without any preceding ancestors.

"The fact that bones similar to human or ape bones exist does not prove that they belonged to humans or apes. Such bones may be the remains of creatures outside the ancestral line of either. They could point to extinct species of apelike or humanlike creatures with no kinship to humans at all. To claim that the bones of such creatures are stages in the process of evolution is an unwarranted jump to a biased conclusion.

Scientists who are firmly entrenched in the evolutionary theory should be embarrassed by the lack of fossil evidence for transitional species that would demonstrate evolution conclusively. Charles Darwin himself was troubled by the absence of fossil evidence for evolution. He said, “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of transitional species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”

Despite claims to the contrary, evolution is not a fact; it is a theory. Data is often interpreted to support the theory by using the assumptions of the theory as the starting point. The result is a tautology—a closed circle of logic without a solid premise: We know that evolution must be true because we have found the bones of evolving humans. We are convinced that these are the bones of evolving humans, because we know that evolution must be true. It just doesn’t work that way.

Unfortunately, the bones paleontologists dig up do not come with identifying labels already attached. As it is, the discoverers name them and give them histories that fit their theories. Dogmatic evolutionists insist that these bones show us stages in the evolution of humans. Dogmatic creationists might as easily insist that they point to some form of human or ape or the remains of an independent, extinct species. The truth is, no one knows what these bones are. All claims are guesses."

Josh Mcdowell 2008

I really like it when intelligent people make cases for God's existence thru knowledge and critical thinking. However, let's just say that you are correct, the gaps in the fossil record were caused by the devine influence of God. Then, where did God come from? This brings us right back to evolution.

Actually, there's a complete lack of evidence for a god. That's the very definition of faith. It's an illogical belief in improbable, unsubstantial occurrences.

I've always found it odd that Christians consider faith to be a virtue. What's noble about blind belief?

Well along with there being no evidence for a god, I also feel there is a complete lack of evidence that there is no god. I find it hard to to believe one way or another with no evidence for either side.

As previously mentioned, religion is a comfort system. Comfort centuries ago involved the need to believe in a heaven because you were a peasant with a crappy life and the noble class didn't want you to revolt. Today, people fear death, so medicine gives them something to look forward to (hint: notice how the average age of people in church is 60+)

Belief in God just doesn't make a damn bit of senseto me. There is no logic justifying any of it, which is what makes it confusing in my opinion that scientists and those with scientific minds (physicians) could believe in it. Why are people proud of blind faith? Its a placebo effect, and God is never at fault. Something goes right, oh thank god. Something goes wrong, oh its God's plan.

And then Religion: I can't see how any physician could be proud of being catholic when you have the pope telling Africa not to use condoms, you have bishops excommunicating the family of a girl in south america who got her an abortion because she was 9, pregnant with twins thanks to her rapist uncle, whose pregnancies would have killed her.

Now don't get me wrong, I realize that many future patients are going to be spiritual and especially in desperate health crises will be clinging to their faith. I have no problem praying with a patient or their families because its not about me, its about the patient and what makes them comfortable. And contrary to the lunatic atheists who start massive protests because somebody put up a christmas tree decoration in the office, I'm not looking to convert anybody to my beliefs. You're free to believe what you believe, as long as you're not stuffing it in my face.

Someone once said to me "What kind of doctor could you possibly be without your faith?" The way I see it, I can be the kind of doctor that doesn't require the validation of an invisible entity and the threat of hell-fire and torture for eternity in order to act like a decent human being

The abortion topic will lead no where good very fast. Emma, for me at least I don't see a contradiction between faith and evolution.

Well along with there being no evidence for a god, I also feel there is a complete lack of evidence that there is no god. I find it hard to to believe one way or another with no evidence for either side.

I don't see any evidence disproving the existence of pink unicorns on Alpha Centauri either. Doesn't mean I'm going to hedge my bets on that front.

Well along with there being no evidence for a god, I also feel there is a complete lack of evidence that there is no god. I find it hard to to believe one way or another with no evidence for either side.

Agnosticism.

I kind of feel the same way. My rational mind tells me "There's no reason for a God, everything can be explained by science." But there's always a thought in the back of my mind that tells me: "Maybe God does exist..." And there's no existing evidence that I can use to completely quell that curiosity. All I can say is that it's very likely that God doesn't exist, but there's still a chance that he does.

But if God does exist, I wouldn't expect him to be anything like that in the various Abrahamic religions, or in any religion for that matter.

When the fossil record is examined you find life forms as complex at the bottom of the strata as that in later strata. You see fossils appearing in the record without less evolved transitional ancestors prior to them. In the Cambrian layer (the oldest) virtually all phylums of life seem to have abruptly appeared on the scene without any preceding ancestors.

It's pretty hilarious to believe in the Cambrian explosion without evolution because then the only other possible explanation is that God has been spontaneously winking species in and out of existence for the past three billion years for ****s and giggles. I'm waiting for the next species to spontaneously arise. And no, it wasn't 'abrupt' but it was a time of great diversity and there are plenty of reasons why that might have been the case.

And when you say life as 'complex' at the bottom of the strata as the top, what do you mean? Examples?


"The fact that bones similar to human or ape bones exist does not prove that they belonged to humans or apes. Such bones may be the remains of creatures outside the ancestral line of either. They could point to extinct species of apelike or humanlike creatures with no kinship to humans at all. To claim that the bones of such creatures are stages in the process of evolution is an unwarranted jump to a biased conclusion.

Really, it is? That doesn't make any sense? What about other evidence, such as genetic evidence that shows similarities?

Scientists who are firmly entrenched in the evolutionary theory should be embarrassed by the lack of fossil evidence for transitional species that would demonstrate evolution conclusively. Charles Darwin himself was troubled by the absence of fossil evidence for evolution. He said, “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of transitional species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”

Err, we do. A google search will give you thousands.

Despite claims to the contrary, evolution is not a fact; it is a theory. Data is often interpreted to support the theory by using the assumptions of the theory as the starting point. The result is a tautology—a closed circle of logic without a solid premise: We know that evolution must be true because we have found the bones of evolving humans. We are convinced that these are the bones of evolving humans, because we know that evolution must be true. It just doesn’t work that way.

You don't understand the scientific meaning of theory. And the bolded statement is false. Again, a google search showing the overwhelming and multidisciplinary evidence for evolution, all gathered from independent sources will fix this illusion for you.

Unfortunately, the bones paleontologists dig up do not come with identifying labels already attached. As it is, the discoverers name them and give them histories that fit their theories. Dogmatic evolutionists insist that these bones show us stages in the evolution of humans. Dogmatic creationists might as easily insist that they point to some form of human or ape or the remains of an independent, extinct species. The truth is, no one knows what these bones are. All claims are guesses."

Josh Mcdowell 2008
Clearly, you've never actually spoken to a paleontologist.

Let's get specific:

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m239/floyda/evolution/evolution4ah1.png

I think the two choices in the poll that highly doubt God's existence are difficult to separate. Even a staunch "atheist" would still say there's no way to prove God doesn't exist, much like you can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc, making him/her agnostic in the strictist sense.

That being said, God is clearly fictitious.

I think the two choices in the poll that highly doubt God's existence are difficult to separate. Even a staunch "atheist" would still say there's no way to prove God doesn't exist, much like you can't prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc, making him/her agnostic in the strictest sense.

That being said, God is clearly fictitious.

Yeah, the gods portrayed in existing and extinct religions are clearly apocryphal. Zeus, Thor, Jupiter, The Trinity, etc.

and just to inject some semi-relevant fun into this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqeC3BPYTmE

I also find it hilarious that almost every culture in history has had some form of divine being, whether god, gods, ancestors, spirits, mother earth, etc, yet we are so convinced that "our" god is right and theirs are wrong. There is no more evidence for our judeo-christian monotheistic deity than any other god out there.

I also find it hilarious that almost every culture in history has had some form of divine being, whether god, gods, ancestors, spirits, mother earth, etc, yet we are so convinced that "our" god is right and theirs are wrong. There is no more evidence for our judeo-christian monotheistic deity than any other god out there.

Exactly. It's very annoying when people think their religion is the "right" religion.

I grew up in a Muslim family, and I can easily see absurdity in all Abrahamic faiths. I have yet to openly tell anyone that I don't fully agree with the religion, because I am very aware of the social rejection that would result if I told such a thing. I have to put up this facade, as I think many of us with religious upbringings do.

The whole logic and reasoning behind the concept of God and how religious people can manipulate and cherry pick ideals, while creating their own sub-religious beliefs and assumptions (for instance, the body is too complex to just have evolved) is astounding to watch.

With the whole body is complex instance, is that not jumping to conclusions on something we do not fully understand? "I dunno why ______ happened; therefore, Godditit"

Caveman: Fire is hot, but we can not make fire yet, therefore I believe the fire-god has created this divine phenomenon.

What exactly is God? Different religions has different views. Don't you just love inconsistencies? Why do people need a God? Comfort? Statements people hear: God gives life - people believe it. Why not go even further to analyze life. People see the world as God's creation. Well the body perceives different wavelengths of light into different color. What is the world - just a bunch of elements and molecules. Beautiful sound is nothing but changes in sound frequencies that hairs deep in your ears convert to a signal your brain will understand.

And the concept of a "soul" people will bend over backwards to defend, even without the presence of evidence to support. Imagine having no senses or control of muscles. You'd just become thought in void of everything else. And without thought or being dead, you will live again...but first you'll enter through a golden gate in the clouds. Even if you're not religious, rather just believe in a God, humans should not even come close to knowing the plans, details, thought level or any conscious level about something clearly beyond the grounds of comprehending. The worst is when people attribute human characteristics to a supreme being.

The concept behind science offers me more comfort than pure speculation of something purely without evidence. Taking a leap-of-faith of that magnitude screams of intellectual dishonesty.

Now, religion, does offer great things to people who rely on it, which is great. I just wished people critically thought about things more, let alone why people believe in what they do.

The whole logic and reasoning behind the concept of God and how religious people can manipulate and cherry pick ideals, while creating their own sub-religious beliefs and assumptions (for instance, the body is too complex to just have evolved) is astounding to watch.

With the whole body is complex instance, is that not jumping to conclusions on something we do not fully understand? "I dunno why ______ happened; therefore, Godditit"

Caveman: Fire is hot, but we can not make fire yet, therefore I believe the fire-god has created this divine phenomenon.

What exactly is God? Different religions has different views. Don't you just love inconsistencies? Why do people need a God? Comfort? Statements people hear: God gives life - people believe it. Why not go even further to analyze life. People see the world as God's creation. Well the body perceives different wavelengths of light into different color. What is the world - just a bunch of elements and molecules. Beautiful sound is nothing but changes in sound frequencies that hairs deep in your ears convert to a signal your brain will understand.

And the concept of a "soul" people will bend over backwards to defend, even without the presence of evidence to support. Imagine having no senses or control of muscles. You'd just become thought in void of everything else. And without thought or being dead, you will live again...but first you'll enter through a golden gate in the clouds. Even if you're not religious, rather just believe in a God, humans should not even come close to knowing the plans, details, thought level or any conscious level about something clearly beyond the grounds of comprehending. The worst is when people attribute human characteristics to a supreme being.

The concept behind science offers me more comfort than pure speculation of something purely without evidence. Taking a leap-of-faith of that magnitude screams of intellectual dishonesty.

Now, religion, does offer great things to people who rely on it, which is great. I just wished people critically thought about things more, let alone why people believe in what they do.

Agree. I think many people read Scripture as a scientific textbook, when it should be read as a moral guidebook of sorts.

The bolded also questions the existence of free will. Because, since we are just a bunch of molecules put together, how could such molecules have the ability to make "decisions" on how the body should act, on how to think. All of our complex behaviors and thoughts are the result of chemical reactions we have no control over.

Ah but the realm of science is a religion/faith unto itself. It is a belief in mankind. His mind and knowledge, which has been shown many times to be flawed and faulty and tinged with more than a little bit of self promotion/pride.

It takes faith to surrender yourself to concepts such as evolution because there is no real evidence for interspecies evolution. But the church of the enlightened has declared that this is what is required of its disciples. So the followers embrace the doctrine by faith. It's the same thing you are saying about Christians.

But why is it so hard to beleive in God? Can you look out into this universe and be content that we are just a cosmic accident? Why is that so appealing? Can you look at the millions of biochemical pathways in a human body and write it off to a series of fortunate combinations over billions of years? To me, that takes some real strong faith to believe.

It is not worth addressing the comment of interspecies evolution, as posters below have pretty much summed that up, but your comments on the complexity of science are extremely flawed.

It is very easy to believe in god, but it is much more difficult to look at the complexity of the universe or even some biochemical pathways and say "we don't know." God is not the default answer for the scientific unknown. Past decades are riddled with concepts once attributed to god that are now adequately explained by scientific evidence. Is it possible that a god created the universe? Sure, but there is not a shred of evidence to support that at this time. Sometimes it is difficult for humans to come to grips with the fact that there is a great deal we do not understand or may never understand even in our lifetime, but science offers a means to provide actual explanations and evidence, despite how slowly it progresses.

The "church of the enlightened" as you describe it is not required to believe anything. If actual evidence shows a theory is incorrect, the scientific community adjusts...this happens every year in medicine. This has nothing to do with faith. Faith in some instances limits your ability to search or accept alternate explanations if they conflict with preconceived world views...and this is where science and faith actually have a dangerous interplay. For example, I have classmates that are advocates of evidence based medicine, participate in research and search for answers to medical questions based on biologic understanding, yet have an unwavering belie that the world is 6,000 years old because that is what their faith dictates.

Again, if you choose to inject the concept of a divine being into a scientific conversation, you have to be willing to subject your beliefs to the same scrutiny that scientific theory receives. It is not enough to say I have a strong faith, so it must be true. "The church of the enlightened" is comfortable with "we don't know" in regards to the unknowns of the universe (actually, this has been quite motivating in terms of research), but to say "we don't know, so it must be god" is clearly flawed.

The whole logic and reasoning behind the concept of God and how religious people can manipulate and cherry pick ideals, while creating their own sub-religious beliefs and assumptions (for instance, the body is too complex to just have evolved) is astounding to watch.

With the whole body is complex instance, is that not jumping to conclusions on something we do not fully understand? "I dunno why ______ happened; therefore, Godditit"

Caveman: Fire is hot, but we can not make fire yet, therefore I believe the fire-god has created this divine phenomenon.

What exactly is God? Different religions has different views. Don't you just love inconsistencies? Why do people need a God? Comfort? Statements people hear: God gives life - people believe it. Why not go even further to analyze life. People see the world as God's creation. Well the body perceives different wavelengths of light into different color. What is the world - just a bunch of elements and molecules. Beautiful sound is nothing but changes in sound frequencies that hairs deep in your ears convert to a signal your brain will understand.

And the concept of a "soul" people will bend over backwards to defend, even without the presence of evidence to support. Imagine having no senses or control of muscles. You'd just become thought in void of everything else. And without thought or being dead, you will live again...but first you'll enter through a golden gate in the clouds. Even if you're not religious, rather just believe in a God, humans should not even come close to knowing the plans, details, thought level or any conscious level about something clearly beyond the grounds of comprehending. The worst is when people attribute human characteristics to a supreme being.

The concept behind science offers me more comfort than pure speculation of something purely without evidence. Taking a leap-of-faith of that magnitude screams of intellectual dishonesty.

Now, religion, does offer great things to people who rely on it, which is great. I just wished people critically thought about things more, let alone why people believe in what they do.

:bow:

imo people aren't advanced enough in their understanding of science or anything else to be able to feel really strongly one way or the other. I say to each their own. Enjoy it while it lasts and I guess we'll all find what (if anything) comes next.

imo people aren't advanced enough in their understanding of science or anything else to be able to feel really strongly one way or the other. I say to each their own. Enjoy it while it lasts and I guess we'll all find what (if anything) comes next.

I assume you're referring to this life and the possible afterlife?

As previously mentioned, religion is a comfort system. Comfort centuries ago involved the need to believe in a heaven because you were a peasant with a crappy life and the noble class didn't want you to revolt. Today, people fear death, so medicine gives them something to look forward to (hint: notice how the average age of people in church is 60+)

Belief in God just doesn't make a damn bit of senseto me. There is no logic justifying any of it, which is what makes it confusing in my opinion that scientists and those with scientific minds (physicians) could believe in it. Why are people proud of blind faith? Its a placebo effect, and God is never at fault. Something goes right, oh thank god. Something goes wrong, oh its God's plan.

And then Religion: I can't see how any physician could be proud of being catholic when you have the pope telling Africa not to use condoms, you have bishops excommunicating the family of a girl in south america who got her an abortion because she was 9, pregnant with twins thanks to her rapist uncle, whose pregnancies would have killed her.

Now don't get me wrong, I realize that many future patients are going to be spiritual and especially in desperate health crises will be clinging to their faith. I have no problem praying with a patient or their families because its not about me, its about the patient and what makes them comfortable. And contrary to the lunatic atheists who start massive protests because somebody put up a christmas tree decoration in the office, I'm not looking to convert anybody to my beliefs. You're free to believe what you believe, as long as you're not stuffing it in my face.

Someone once said to me "What kind of doctor could you possibly be without your faith?" The way I see it, I can be the kind of doctor that doesn't require the validation of an invisible entity and the threat of hell-fire and torture for eternity in order to act like a decent human being

This is one of the best posts I ever read, and it pretty much summed up my thoughts. I have no issues with what others believe in, as long as their liberties do not conflict with mine. I have the right to feel the way I feel or think the way I think, about any particular subject, as long as my actions do not affect negatively others.

Not to mention that I also believe that, if He does exist, he won't value the fact we believe in him as much as the fact we act "Good/Bad". Religion has a lot of flaws, but also the merit of establishing a reasonably good moral compass. To be honest, I think it's far more honorable to be "Good" for Good itself, than being "Good" with a goal of not being burnt to ashes on post-life.

Just like engineeredout, I have no trouble praying with a patient or talking to him about his beliefs. He is, like I am, entitled to his own ideas and faiths. If he feels that talking/praying will ease his pain, make his disease more bearable, or simply enjoy a bit more the awful experience that is being stuck in an hospital bed, then by all means, it's worth it.

I could try to shove my beliefs (or lack of them) through other men's throats; However, I find that behaviour to be extremely immature, contraproducent, and perhaps even irrational. I do not feel offended or attacked by antagonist thoughts, exactly because I am not insecure about my own.


P.S. On a more humorous note, and on a sort of anti-religion joke: ever noticed how when something goes right, it's "Thank God", but if something goes wrong, it's "Thanks to the Doctor"? :D

Please do not take offense to what I am about to ask. Also, I'm just a pre-med so please excuse me.

To those of you that want/are going to be physicians and also fervently believe in god: Isn't medicine, in general, contrary to god's will? When a doctor gives you a pill, he's interfering with the "natural" process of crippling disease. Does this not, by definition, go against god's will? When you're a doctor, you are basically playing god which is appropriate, since (as previously inferred) many doctor's seem to think that they are god.

What about in surgery? When heart transplants first started, I'm sure many people thought that ripping somebody's chest open and replacing the heart was pretty devastating, and that it went against god's will, simply because of the very nature of the transplant. They were not only interfering with the natural process of the body, but surgeon's were basically ripping out their patient's "god given" organs. You can be sure there was a lot of controversy surrounding heart transplants because of god and religion in general.

What about Anesthesia? It had been around centuries before modern surgical procedure came to fruition, yet patients undergoing surgery went without this for years. Patients often had to suffer mental and physical trauma of being cut open! In summation, patients were basically being cut open while they were awake! Why? Because of religious dogma, and that a god almighty merely willed us to suffer. If he wills it, then surely we must follow it. Right?

The very nature of medicine seems to go against god's will. Why then do you believe in one and still want to be a physician?

Exactly. It's very annoying when people think their religion is the "right" religion.
Agreed.

That said, I do believe in a God. I was raised Catholic, and still identify as such (my disagreement with some of the stances the Church has notwithstanding), but I don't think God gives half an omnipotent crap if you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, Pastafarian, etc., as long as you're generally a good person and not a giant, hateful A-hole.

Also, thank you for the link to the Einstein article. Fascinating read.

xkcd says it better than I ever could. (second to last panel)
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg


Well, a NASA report stated that 95.6% of the "universe" is made up of an invisible dark matter/energy - a glue that directs the integrity of what we can see/feel/etc, which is 4.4%. That 4.4% is the combination of the hundreds of millions of the stars in each galaxy with their own solar systems and the hundreds of millions of galaxies that we assume to exist. But, we sit on this little planet and haven't even discovered 1% of the microbe species living on it. My point, science is a neutral tool developed from limited observation, with the rest filled in with faith..

"Some parallels between Horus and Jesus Christ:

1. Horus born of a virgin. <> Jesus born of a virgin.

2. The foster father of Horus was Seb or Seph. <> Jesus was fostered by Joseph.

3. Horus was of royal descent. <> Jesus was of royal descent.

4. Horus birth accompanied by three solar deities [star gazers] who followed by the morning star of Sirius bearing gifts. <> Jesus birth accompanied by three wise men [Zoroastrian star gazers] who followed by a star “in the east” bearing gifts.

5. The birth of Horus announced by angels. <> The birth of Jesus announced by angels.

6. Herut tried to murder the infant Horus. <> Herod slaughtered every first born in an attempt to kill Jesus the forthcoming messiah.

7. Horus is baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptiser at a river. <> Jesus is baptized at age 30 by John the Baptist at a river.

8. Horus resists temptation by the evil Sut [Sut was to be the precursor for the Hebrew Satan] on a high mountain. <> Jesus resists temptation by Satan on a high mountain.

9. Horus had 12 followers. <> Jesus had 12 disciples.

10. Horus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water. <> Jesus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water.

11. Horus raised someone from the grave [his father Osiris] <> Jesus raised Lazarus [notice the name similarity] from the grave. Lazarus is short for Elasarus - the “us” on the end is romanized. Elasarus was derived from “El-Asar” which was the name given to Osiris.

12. Horus was buried and resurrected in the city of Anu. <> The place Bethany mentioned in John was a derivative of the words “Bet” and “Anu” which translates “the house of Anu”. The ‘y’ on the end of bethany is interchangeable with the letter ‘u’.

13. Horus was killed by crucifixtion. <> Jesus was crucified.

14. Horus was accompanied by two thieves at the crucifixtion. <> Jesus was crucified with two thieves.

15. Horus was buried in a tomb at Anu. <> Jesus was buried in a tomb located in Bethany [Bet-Anu].

16. Horus was resurrected after 3 days. <> Jesus was “said” to resurrected after over a period of three days.

17. The resurrection of Horus was announced by three women. <> The resurrection of Jesus was announced by three women.

18. Horus was given the titel KRST which means “anointed one” <> Jesus was given the title Christ [Christos] meaning “anointed one”"



Horus is like a bajillion years older, btw

Agreed.

That said, I do believe in a God. I was raised Catholic, and still identify as such (my disagreement with some of the stances the Church has notwithstanding), but I don't think God gives half an omnipotent crap if you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, Pastafarian, etc., as long as you're generally a good person and not a giant, hateful A-hole.
Also, thank you for the link to the Einstein article. Fascinating read.

Same here. I'm Muslim...but I don't agree with everything in the Quran. I don't think any real God would condemn anyone to Hell for not belonging to religion X. You can find good and bad in all religions if you're looking for it. But what's important, like you said, is being a good person, and I think most people have an idea of what a good person is, whether they belong to a religion or not.

"Some parallels between Horus and Jesus Christ:

1. Horus born of a virgin. <> Jesus born of a virgin.

2. The foster father of Horus was Seb or Seph. <> Jesus was fostered by Joseph.

3. Horus was of royal descent. <> Jesus was of royal descent.

4. Horus birth accompanied by three solar deities [star gazers] who followed by the morning star of Sirius bearing gifts. <> Jesus birth accompanied by three wise men [Zoroastrian star gazers] who followed by a star “in the east” bearing gifts.

5. The birth of Horus announced by angels. <> The birth of Jesus announced by angels.

6. Herut tried to murder the infant Horus. <> Herod slaughtered every first born in an attempt to kill Jesus the forthcoming messiah.

7. Horus is baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptiser at a river. <> Jesus is baptized at age 30 by John the Baptist at a river.

8. Horus resists temptation by the evil Sut [Sut was to be the precursor for the Hebrew Satan] on a high mountain. <> Jesus resists temptation by Satan on a high mountain.

9. Horus had 12 followers. <> Jesus had 12 disciples.

10. Horus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water. <> Jesus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water.

11. Horus raised someone from the grave [his father Osiris] <> Jesus raised Lazarus [notice the name similarity] from the grave. Lazarus is short for Elasarus - the “us” on the end is romanized. Elasarus was derived from “El-Asar” which was the name given to Osiris.

12. Horus was buried and resurrected in the city of Anu. <> The place Bethany mentioned in John was a derivative of the words “Bet” and “Anu” which translates “the house of Anu”. The ‘y’ on the end of bethany is interchangeable with the letter ‘u’.

13. Horus was killed by crucifixtion. <> Jesus was crucified.

14. Horus was accompanied by two thieves at the crucifixtion. <> Jesus was crucified with two thieves.

15. Horus was buried in a tomb at Anu. <> Jesus was buried in a tomb located in Bethany [Bet-Anu].

16. Horus was resurrected after 3 days. <> Jesus was “said” to resurrected after over a period of three days.

17. The resurrection of Horus was announced by three women. <> The resurrection of Jesus was announced by three women.

18. Horus was given the titel KRST which means “anointed one” <> Jesus was given the title Christ [Christos] meaning “anointed one”"



Horus is like a bajillion years older, btw

That's amazing. I honestly never knew that.... (the more you know...)

That's amazing. I honestly never knew that.... (the more you know...)

That story has been floating around the Mediterranean for millenia.

Every December I hear that "Jesus is the reason for the season", when in actuality the solstice is the reason for the winter holiday. You know, the period where the "Sun/Son" reaches it's lowest point in the horizon, maintains it's position, and then "raises" 3 days later? Lot's of things to think about.

Not to take anything away from the comfort religions bring people, but I find this stuff terribly interesting.

Not only do I believe in a God, I believe in the importance of organized religion.

Well, a NASA report stated that 95.6% of the "universe" is made up of an invisible dark matter/energy - a glue that directs the integrity of what we can see/feel/etc, which is 4.4%. That 4.4% is the combination of the hundreds of millions of the stars in each galaxy with their own solar systems and the hundreds of millions of galaxies that we assume to exist. But, we sit on this little planet and haven't even discovered 1% of the microbe species living on it. My point, science is a neutral tool developed from limited observation, with the rest filled in with faith..

We 'assume' galaxies exist? What is this "rest" that is filled in with faith?

To anyone interested in the subject (religious or not) I highly suggest The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Amazing book.

Two of my favorite quotes (I was reminded of them reading through this thread) are "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" (Seneca the Younger) and "I do not fear death. I had been dead billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it" (Mark Twain).

"I do not fear death. I had been dead billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it" (Mark Twain).

:thumbup:

Death is something to be embraced...not feared. I'm curious to see (or not) how many would lose their "good" nature once all emotional and physical crutches are taken away and are faced with death. That's why good nature has to be accountable to a higher power...not particularly for when times are cozy, but for times that test our humanity.

Ive been having a hard time grasping the initial creation. Something can't come from nothing right? People have this dichotomy-type thinking where its believe in Evolution or God. Human evolution: one has to believe some bacterium was placed on this earth. but before that, an amino acid had to be brought about, allowing a perfect string of amino acids to create a cell which has all the complexities such as DNA and the biochemistry that goes with it, all forming due to random guess and try. Even the miller experiment had to have the right atmosphere to create an amino acid with unlikely circumstances ( constant elictrical impulse) just to create on AA, not to mention the right string of AA for one little but complex cell to exist. I believe instead for all the right things to happen, some external intelligence had to be there i guess guiding it to make the right decisions like evolution. Kind of like every design has a designer. Every watch maker has a watch. Every cell phone had some intelligence that put it together. I've never seen any scientific experiment showing order coming from disorder. Denying the existence seems to me as absurd as denying your great great grandmother. Yes I cant physically prove to you she ever existed, but logically, I wouldn't even have to. Same way, we either came from nothing, or had a creator.

I think the problem is that religion has been manipulated in the past, used to control others, people of power manipulating their positions, so we have
just equated everything God related to be bogus. But if we believe in simply one creator, there's really only one solution out there that fits the needs of this belief, a belief you dont need anything other than thinking and reflecting on your own.

If God created us, then who created God. Doesn't this just lead back to evolution?

If God created us, then who created God. Doesn't this just lead back to evolution?

The nature of his existence lies beyond the realm of human understanding (according to most theists). Kind of like the Big Bang. How could something have arose from nothing? As a child, I used to ask this question a lot.

God is the cause of the big bang. he formed the world out of nothing in a very small space which blew up.

The problem with infinite regression is that you will never find a satisfactory answer. Ever. Some say God exists outside the confines of time and space and so therefore has "always" existed in what we think of as a linear timeline. But since he is outside of that linear idea of time, he simply exists and therefore has "always" existed. But then you have the problem of the identity of God. How does one know this creator is the Judeo-Christian God? Why not the Muslim Allah or any other of the thousands of gods who have existed.

In the absence of God, one finds infinite regression frustrating because you get back to the big bang. Random gaseous stars with centers of gravity. Okay, before that? and that? and that? etc etc.

What it comes down to for me is what is more probable and scientifically believable. Dawkins uses the example of a teacup in space. If I tell you that there is a teacup somewhere in space millions of miles away orbiting an unknown planet you have no way of disproving my theory. You'll most likely roll your eyes after the "are you kidding?" phase and leave me be with my strange belief. Why would you have that reaction? Because it is completely unlikely that there is actually a teacup orbiting somewhere in space millions of miles away. Same thing with the idea of a creator. We do not understand exactly how things happened to form our universe so in order for us to satisfy our need to "understand" make up a creator (there have been thousands throughout history) and the case is settled. Only scientists can really say with comfort "I don't know what really happened" at the same time saying "I'm fairly certain that it did not happen THAT way".

Sorry for butchering the teacup example. Dawkins is a much more effective writer ;-) Seriously, read his book The God Delusion. It is the book that "broke the straw on the camel's back" for me as far as a faith in God. Was Christian for my entire life. Church 4x a week, leading Bible studies, "witnessing", church camps, etc etc etc. But started doubting a lot when I went to school and majored in Biochemistry. A year later I read the book and couldn't be intellectually dishonest with myself anymore. Anyway, that's another issue :laugh:

oh Vishna, you had me at Dawkins.

I was atheist until I met this airforce pilot who mentioned humanism and how it's sort of the "transcended" atheism. I found it beautiful, and have since taken on that philosophy for living.

The nature of his existence lies beyond the realm of human understanding (according to most theists). Kind of like the Big Bang. How could something have arose from nothing? As a child, I used to ask this question a lot.

Quantum fluctuations. It is not against the laws of physics for something to come from nothing. That is a hypothesis that we do not fully understand - we know fairly well what happened post Big Bang but not prior (if we can use that term as time as a concept may not have existed but that too is a poorly understood concept). Think of it this way - we know time slows down as gravity increases - at the point of big bang, there was the mass of the entire universe compressed into a volume that was infinitely small (density =m/v) so a lot of mass in zero volume = infinite density and thus infinite gravity and thus time moves infinitely slowly. This is why our physics falls apart at the center of black holes and at the beginning of the universe. You end up dividing by zero volume (which is undefined). However time may have been effectively been infinitely slow at the point of the big bang. We don't know though - our physics start working from the fraction of a second post big bang though physicists are hoping for the theory of everything which combines relativity with quantum mechanics which will hopefully let us use our physics in a singularity.

Whatever the answer is, you cannot explain complexity by positing the existence of an even more complex entity (eg God) because then you need to explain that as well. If you're not willing to, then you need to remove yourself from reasonable or scientific discussion and instead discuss it in Church.

I don't know is a valid answer and in fact is the root of all scientific progress. However if you put forward the God hypothesis then you better attempt to explain the origin of infinite complexly that is God and why randomly adding infinite complexity makes the problem simpler or it's not a real hypothesis. Otherwise you're no different than the cavemen who said God was responsible for lightning and for every other phenomena he did not understand.

oh Vishna, you had me at Dawkins.

I was atheist until I met this airforce pilot who mentioned humanism and how it's sort of the "transcended" atheism. I found it beautiful, and have since taken on that philosophy for living.

I see. Are the two mutually exclusive? I thought humanism had more to do with where you derive your ethics from. Does that still make you an atheist or...? Sorry. No real reason except curiosity now that it was brought up.

No they aren't. I'm an atheist and a secular humanist.

No they aren't. I'm an atheist and a secular humanist.

Know of a good book on secular humanism? For a novice though, please :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism :p.

My first foray away from religion was Russel's brilliantly scathing "Why I am not a Christian."

Your right, after you get to the point that, you have to humble yourself in knowing that we know very little. about our existence. We'll keep going in circles with infinite regression because its like the soldier example who wanting to fire his gun, awaiting orders from his commander, who awaits order from his commander ad infinitum, the gun will never be fired, and likewise if this type of infinite regress was possible, the world would not be in existence.

But not knowing how we came into being exactly still doesn't take away from the fact that were just too perfectly formed down to a minute cell for 'mother nature' to just figure itself out in creating complex DNA.

So yea were still at square one in that He probably exists but we dont know enough so forget about it. And thats all you can really get to on your own. Thats where I find solace in a book that tells you about Him, a book unchanged that explained the big bang, stages of development of a human being thousands of years ago and calls to knowing that there is One creator that explains our existence. It was either made up and happened to be right. but thats just my belief, thought I'd share if anyone was interested.



The problem with infinite regression is that you will never find a satisfactory answer. Ever. Some say God exists outside the confines of time and space and so therefore has "always" existed in what we think of as a linear timeline. But since he is outside of that linear idea of time, he simply exists and therefore has "always" existed. But then you have the problem of the identity of God. How does one know this creator is the Judeo-Christian God? Why not the Muslim Allah or any other of the thousands of gods who have existed.

In the absence of God, one finds infinite regression frustrating because you get back to the big bang. Random gaseous stars with centers of gravity. Okay, before that? and that? and that? etc etc.
What it comes down to for me is what is more probable and scientifically believable. Dawkins uses the example of a teacup in space. If I tell you that there is a teacup somewhere in space millions of miles away orbiting an unknown planet you have no way of disproving my theory. You'll most likely roll your eyes after the "are you kidding?" phase and leave me be with my strange belief. Why would you have that reaction? Because it is completely unlikely that there is actually a teacup orbiting somewhere in space millions of miles away. Same thing with the idea of a creator. We do not understand exactly how things happened to form our universe so in order for us to satisfy our need to "understand" make up a creator (there have been thousands throughout history) and the case is settled. Only scientists can really say with comfort "I don't know what really happened" at the same time saying "I'm fairly certain that it did not happen THAT way".

Sorry for butchering the teacup example. Dawkins is a much more effective writer ;-) Seriously, read his book The God Delusion. It is the book that "broke the straw on the camel's back" for me as far as a faith in God. Was Christian for my entire life. Church 4x a week, leading Bible studies, "witnessing", church camps, etc etc etc. But started doubting a lot when I went to school and majored in Biochemistry. A year later I read the book and couldn't be intellectually dishonest with myself anymore. Anyway, that's another issue :laugh:

But not knowing how we came into being exactly still doesn't take away from the fact that were just too perfectly formed down to a minute cell for 'mother nature' to just figure itself out in creating complex DNA
http://images.wikia.com/sonicfanon/images/2/2e/WRONG.jpg

Quantum fluctuations. It is not against the laws of physics for something to come from nothing. That is a hypothesis that we do not fully understand - we know fairly well what happened post Big Bang but not prior (if we can use that term as time as a concept may not have existed but that too is a poorly understood concept). Think of it this way - we know time slows down as gravity increases - at the point of big bang, there was the mass of the entire universe compressed into a volume that was infinitely small (density =m/v) so a lot of mass in zero volume = infinite density and thus infinite gravity and thus time moves infinitely slowly. This is why our physics falls apart at the center of black holes and at the beginning of the universe. You end up dividing by zero volume (which is undefined). However time may have been effectively been infinitely slow at the point of the big bang. We don't know though - our physics start working from the fraction of a second post big bang though physicists are hoping for the theory of everything which combines relativity with quantum mechanics which will hopefully let us use our physics in a singularity.

Whatever the answer is, you cannot explain complexity by positing the existence of an even more complex entity (eg God) because then you need to explain that as well. If you're not willing to, then you need to remove yourself from reasonable or scientific discussion and instead discuss it in Church.

I don't know is a valid answer and in fact is the root of all scientific progress. However if you put forward the God hypothesis then you better attempt to explain the origin of infinite complexly that is God and why randomly adding infinite complexity makes the problem simpler or it's not a real hypothesis. Otherwise you're no different than the cavemen who said God was responsible for lightning and for every other phenomena he did not understand.

I agree. I'm saying most theists believe God to be above scientific inquiry/explanation, and so yeah, they should remove themselves from scientific discussion. And yeah...just because something can't be explained with current scientific evidence doesn't mean it should be attributed to God or something supernatural.

http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html
according to this study 76% of physicians believe in a god and most scientists in general.

http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html
according to this study 76% of physicians believe in a god and most scientists in general.

Polls show somewhere around 90% of the general public believes in a god. You say 76% of physicians do. Yet 93% of the National Academy of Science do not. This only goes to show that intelligence, education, and scientific thinking tend to lead people away from religion.

http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html
according to this study 76% of physicians believe in a god and most scientists in general.

This is a horribly written article. No details are given as far as the statistical analysis used, how the physicians or scientists were selected, etc. Assuming that the 76% number is true (which I don't doubt entirely), tehdude's observation is still true. The more educated an individual is the less likely he or she is to believe in the supernatural.

I love Intelligence Squared debates.

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/america-is-too-damn-religious/

But not knowing how we came into being exactly still doesn't take away from the fact that were just too perfectly formed down to a minute cell for 'mother nature' to just figure itself out in creating complex DNA.

So yea were still at square one in that He probably exists but we dont know enough so forget about it. And thats all you can really get to on your own. Thats where I find solace in a book that tells you about Him, a book unchanged that explained the big bang, stages of development of a human being thousands of years ago and calls to knowing that there is One creator that explains our existence. It was either made up and happened to be right. but thats just my belief, thought I'd share if anyone was interested.

1. "too perfectly formed" is nearly as bad as the "too complex" argument to explain the existence of a creator.

2. The bible is not unchanged, this includes both new and old testaments. It has been extensively revised, edited and changed throughout its existence. The biblical apocrypha is a prime example, as entire gospels have been added and removed over the years. This does not even take into consideration the issues authorship, scribes and translation of the current King James version.

3. "thousands of years ago"...really?

*previous question*
I'd still like to know the answers as they have some sort of relevance toward this thread (I would've been called out on it if it wasn't). Thanks. :)


Quantum fluctuations. It is not against the laws of physics for something to come from nothing. That is a hypothesis that we do not fully understand - we know fairly well what happened post Big Bang but not prior (if we can use that term as time as a concept may not have existed but that too is a poorly understood concept). Think of it this way - we know time slows down as gravity increases - at the point of big bang, there was the mass of the entire universe compressed into a volume that was infinitely small (density =m/v) so a lot of mass in zero volume = infinite density and thus infinite gravity and thus time moves infinitely slowly. This is why our physics falls apart at the center of black holes and at the beginning of the universe. You end up dividing by zero volume (which is undefined). However time may have been effectively been infinitely slow at the point of the big bang. We don't know though - our physics start working from the fraction of a second post big bang though physicists are hoping for the theory of everything which combines relativity with quantum mechanics which will hopefully let us use our physics in a singularity.

Whatever the answer is, you cannot explain complexity by positing the existence of an even more complex entity (eg God) because then you need to explain that as well. If you're not willing to, then you need to remove yourself from reasonable or scientific discussion and instead discuss it in Church.

I don't know is a valid answer and in fact is the root of all scientific progress. However if you put forward the God hypothesis then you better attempt to explain the origin of infinite complexly that is God and why randomly adding infinite complexity makes the problem simpler or it's not a real hypothesis. Otherwise you're no different than the cavemen who said God was responsible for lightning and for every other phenomena he did not understand.

You're awesome. This has to be the best post I've ever read...and it makes complete sense. I wish I was as eloquent when explaining my beliefs, however.

It kills me when people try to debate faith. If God wanted you to know he existed you would know. It's hard to believe in something when there isn't any solid proof. That's the point of religion. Faith. Believing in something when you can't prove it.

Also you can't use laws of this world to prove the presence of an omnipotent being. Natural laws only apply to things in the natural world. Supernatural beings require a different set of laws that we don't know yet. But this is all just a thought, take it as you want.

It kills me when people try to debate faith. If God wanted you to know he existed you would know. It's hard to believe in something when there isn't any solid proof. That's the point of religion. Faith. Believing in something when you can't prove it.

Also you can't use laws of this world to prove the presence of an omnipotent being. Natural laws only apply to things in the natural world. Supernatural beings require a different set of laws that we don't know yet. But this is all just a thought, take it as you want.

I don't think a lot of people are debating faith. People are entitled to their beliefs...although it is not out of line to question if faith / religious belief is an ideal. That was a question I asked myself when I was younger...why is faith a good thing?

If you believe that a supernatural realm/ being exists and is not subject to the laws of the natural world, that is fine. What I (and I assume others) take issue with is when people mix the two realms and try to inject the laws of the supernatural into the laws of nature. As I said, just because we don't know the answer to something in nature doesn't mean we can immediately attribute it to the supernatural. For example, a previous poster noting that life is thousands of years old because that is what his/her beliefs include.

Part of the problem is that the creation of life / the universe often blurs the line between what people consider the natural world and the supernatural. People that consider a belief in the supernatural to be a type of magical thinking also make an argument that there is only a "natural" world, even if we have not yet been able to fully explain it. Again this returns to the idea of being comfortable with the unknown without relying on speculation to provide answers. You can see how this gets complicated.

The poster did not say that life was thousands of years old, just that human beings are only thousands of years in development. He may have meant what you think he meant but he didn't say it.

Although I believe the original message of the prophets before were the same(theres one creator), I wasn't referring to the bible. But i don't want this to turn into preaching. To each his own, as long as were trying to be true to ourselves, and truth seekers. pm me

Initial creation can never be explained because we were never witnesses to the big bang. I am taking the 'leap of faith' that everything created with complexity and a purpose...had a creator. Others see it as it being something we don't know, so take the 'leap of faith' that in this instance, there was no creator.



1. "too perfectly formed" is nearly as bad as the "too complex" argument to explain the existence of a creator.

2. The bible is not unchanged, this includes both new and old testaments. It has been extensively revised, edited and changed throughout its existence. The biblical apocrypha is a prime example, as entire gospels have been added and removed over the years. This does not even take into consideration the issues authorship, scribes and translation of the current King James version.

3. "thousands of years ago"...really?

Initial creation can never be explained because we were never witnesses to the big bang. I am taking the 'leap of faith' that everything created with complexity and a purpose...had a creator. Others see it as it being something we don't know, so take the 'leap of faith' that in this instance, there was no creator.

So if you went home to find your mother's door busted down and her body decapitated and gutted, who could say what happened to her, because you were never witness to it. Some may look at the bloody knife next her body with DNA matching her ex-husband and take a leap of faith and assume she was murdered, but really how her head left her body can never be explained. :sleep:

Note the number of people that chose "I am certain that God exists"

The fallacy of choosing that answer stems from the certainty of knowing a god exists when no evidence is available. Not only that, but the word certain by definition is it is as fact, beyond all doubt.

If that was the case, then you should be God's elite disciples since you know a supreme deity exists!

Although I believe the original message of the prophets before were the same(theres one creator), I wasn't referring to the bible. But i don't want this to turn into preaching. To each his own, as long as were trying to be true to ourselves, and truth seekers. pm me

Initial creation can never be explained because we were never witnesses to the big bang. I am taking the 'leap of faith' that everything created with complexity and a purpose...had a creator. Others see it as it being something we don't know, so take the 'leap of faith' that in this instance, there was no creator.
You need to look up what faith means.

We don't know is not a leap of faith. It's simply means that.....we don't know. Eg we do not have enough data to come up with a conclusion that is logical. A infinite complexity diety is not logical because it explains nothing. You could have (and people did) used it to explain lightning and fire and the seasons by saying we can never know so god must have done it.

I believe in evolution and am a devote Catholic. I also believe in Devine Initiation.

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." - Pope John Paul II

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." - Pope John Paul II

So if you went home to find your mother's door busted down and her body decapitated and gutted, who could say what happened to her, because you were never witness to it. Some may look at the bloody knife next her body with DNA matching her ex-husband and take a leap of faith and assume she was murdered, but really how her head left her body can never be explained. :sleep:

Wow that's disturbing. This was the only situation you could think of to demonstrate your point??? When will this thread just die already?

I believe in evolution and am a devote Catholic. I also believe in Devine Initiation.

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." - Pope John Paul II

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." - Pope John Paul II

Was this before or after he condemned condom use to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa? Why do you seldom hear Catholics talk about the millions who will die needlessly from AIDS? Or about him sheltering those who raped and tortured children?

Was this before or after he condemned condom use to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa? Why do you seldom hear Catholics talk about the millions who will die needlessly from AIDS? Or about him sheltering those who raped and tortured children?

Minimizing cognitive dissonance by ignoring contradictions and other less desirable things.

Was this before or after he condemned condom use to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa? Why do you seldom hear Catholics talk about the millions who will die needlessly from AIDS? Or about him sheltering those who raped and tortured children?

This has obviously hit a nerve with you. I fail to understand how your response relates to the discussion at hand however. You don't hear me talking about those things because none of them pertain to this discussion.

I believe in evolution and am a devote Catholic. I also believe in Devine Initiation.

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory." - Pope John Paul II

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." - Pope John Paul II

Purify religion from error and superstition sounds like the Catholic faith is copping out and altering their beliefs for the sake of appearing valid and reasonable. In fact, the irony is that a lot of religious dogma is not reasonable on a whole bunch of grounds.

Religion can do nothing to science, because science is not affected by outside means. Science does not discriminate nor construe false truths...unless I missed a step of the scientific method and forgot to include "divine intervention".

Lol @ religion needing to tell science about absolutes.

Religion does affect science and vice versa. Religion puts moral rules upon the scientist (varies by religion).

This has obviously hit a nerve with you. I fail to understand how your response relates to the discussion at hand however. You don't hear me talking about those things because none of them pertain to this discussion.

This does relate. You chose to quote the late Pope to support that Catholicism and science can play nice, as long as scientific theory can fit nicely within Catholic doctrines, yet you fail to recognize that this is a man who blatantly ignores scientific truth and reason when it comes to the use of condoms in Africa. Condom use unquestionably lowers HIV transmission rates, and John Paul II's stance once again demonstrates the dangers of mixing science and religion / faith.

The sex abuse scandal may not relate, however....

Religion does affect science and vice versa. Religion puts moral rules upon the scientist (varies by religion).

No it doesn't. Religion justifies amoral acts by turning them into moral acts. And often it lags behind society when trying to change it's morality. When slavery was legal, religion was used to justify it. When it started to become unfashionable, the abolitionists also used religion to combat it. Same thing with women's rights. And in 50 years we will say the same thing about gay rights. It's disgusting.

I think respecting patients and their wishes about treatment is fine. I am opposed to the deference of true science to fairy tales. Blood transfusions, immunizations and reproductive health, among other medical issues, need to be free from the trappings of antiquated magical thinking, in my opinion.

Neil deGrasse Tyson had a GREAT talk about religion and it's influence on science in the world. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weu7Rh6dYrM)

I saw The Tree of Life last night. It was an interesting response to this question.

Originally Posted by hfdoc
But not knowing how we came into being exactly still doesn't take away from the fact that were just too perfectly formed down to a minute cell for 'mother nature' to just figure itself out in creating complex DNA

http://images.wikia.com/sonicfanon/images/2/2e/WRONG.jpg

One of the problems with intelligent design is that the human body just isn't designed very intelligently at all. Look at our spines. They are a horrible vertical support system. It's prone to many injuries and puts far too much stress on such a narrow support column. We have one which evolved from the lateral support system in fish who use the aquatic environment for body support.

The skeleton we have, for a bipedal hominid, is terrible. It's anything but intelligently designed.

Religion does affect science and vice versa. Religion puts moral rules upon the scientist (varies by religion).

No it does not. Reasoning, the outcomes, and choice & consequence, affects morality.

What people do not understand is that religion does NOT dictate moral grounds. Anyone with a normal functioning brain (and without religious dogma) can interpret that conscious murder for instance is wrong by reasoning out: why do I want to kill someone (angry?), what are the consequences (prison), will it hurt their friends and family (probably), do I value life and do they have their own freedom to live (most likely yes).

Also, that reasoning alone is more honest than:

I will not murder so-and-so because I am afraid of the consequences (going to hell).

No it does not. Reasoning, the outcomes, and choice & consequence, affects morality.

What people do not understand is that religion does NOT dictate moral grounds. Anyone with a normal functioning brain (and without religious dogma) can interpret that conscious murder for instance is wrong by reasoning out: why do I want to kill someone (angry?), what are the consequences (prison), will it hurt their friends and family (probably), do I value life and do they have their own freedom to live (most likely yes).

Also, that reasoning alone is more honest than:

I will not murder so-and-so because I am afraid of the consequences (going to hell).

yeah, morality is independent of religion. everyone has a sense of right/wrong whether they are religious or not.

One of the problems with intelligent design is that the human body just isn't designed very intelligently at all. Look at our spines. They are a horrible vertical support system. It's prone to many injuries and puts far too much stress on such a narrow support column. We have one which evolved from the lateral support system in fish who use the aquatic environment for body support.

The skeleton we have, for a bipedal hominid, is terrible. It's anything but intelligently designed.

Spine? How about genetic diseases and the high percentage of pregnancies which end in spontaneous (and frequently unnoticed) abortion. There are some diseases that children a born with that are so unbelievably cruel I would never even think of them as a punishment for the worst of criminals >.>

This does relate. You chose to quote the late Pope to support that Catholicism and science can play nice, as long as scientific theory can fit nicely within Catholic doctrines, yet you fail to recognize that this is a man who blatantly ignores scientific truth and reason when it comes to the use of condoms in Africa. Condom use unquestionably lowers HIV transmission rates, and John Paul II's stance once again demonstrates the dangers of mixing science and religion / faith.

The sex abuse scandal may not relate, however....
http://lolebrity.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/pope-vader-i-find-your-lack-of-faith-disturbing.jpg

Ok, I think my last comment was missunderstood. I was just commenting that religion does affect what goes on with science. I never said good or bad.

Well yea it interferes with science.....or blocks it entirely.

Ok, I think my last comment was missunderstood. I was just commenting that religion does affect what goes on with science. I never said good or bad.

Another swing and a miss...

Do you happen to recall the debate over federal funding of embryonic stem cell research a few years ago? Once again religious groups and the pope (who related stem cell research to abortion) was a driving force in banning public funding. Now this did not stop research since private funding was available, but religion unquestionably played a role in denying public government funding of this research.

Did the lack of public funding slow it down? of course it did. Did the federal research funding go into other types of research? Of course it did. Is this not affecting science at all? You are again confusing my point. Religion can delay research. It can speed up research.

Did the church's imprisoning people in the middle ages slow down progress? Of course it did. Did it steer research into more church approved subjects? Of course it did.

Haha what research has religion sped up?

Boggvir,
I would say religion has helped speed up excavation research of the middle east. The jesuits and a few other major religious groups are very involved in a variety of educational and research projects.

Boggvir,
I would say religion has helped speed up excavation research of the middle east. The jesuits and a few other major religious groups are very involved in a variety of educational and research projects.
:laugh:
You mean the groups that keep lying about having found Noah's ark?

Obviously you don't understand what an excavation is. A lot of them are done in jerusalem etc due to the people seeking biblical sites.

If u believe in God but it turns out he does not exist, what do u have to lose? Nothing. If u don't believe in God and it turns out he exists what do u have to lose? Everything
Jesus was one of 3 things: a liar, a lunatic, or he was who he said he was. If he was a liar or lunatic Christianity would have never spread much less still be here today. The reason I say this is because most of Christ's disciples were killed for spreading his message, and they would not have risked their lives for something they knew to be a lie.

If u believe in God but it turns out he does not exist, what do u have to lose? Nothing. If u don't believe in God and it turns out he exists what do u have to lose? Everything
Jesus was one of 3 things: a liar, a lunatic, or he was who he said he was. If he was a liar or lunatic Christianity would have never spread much less still be here today. The reason I say this is because most of Christ's disciples were killed for spreading his message, and they would not have risked their lives for something they knew to be a lie.
Yea, because there is no way a lot of people can believe in something that isn't true.

If u believe in God but it turns out he does not exist, what do u have to lose? Nothing. If u don't believe in God and it turns out he exists what do u have to lose? Everything
Jesus was one of 3 things: a liar, a lunatic, or he was who he said he was. If he was a liar or lunatic Christianity would have never spread much less still be here today. The reason I say this is because most of Christ's disciples were killed for spreading his message, and they would not have risked their lives for something they knew to be a lie.

Wow @ the text.

Pascal's Wager...

The problem with Pasal's wager is that you have no clue which out of the tens of thousands of gods to believe in. So it's not an on/off 50/50 switch. Even within Christianity, should I be a catholic or should I believe in Joseph Smith or neither of the two?

And of course, by that dumbass wager, I can say: You can choose to believe in a pink invisible unicorn on Mars or you can choose not to. If you choose not to and you're wrong, blah blah blah...see what I'm getting at?

The problem with Pasal's wager is that you have no clue which out of the tens of thousands of gods to believe in. So it's not an on/off 50/50 switch. Even within Christianity, should I be a catholic or should I believe in Joseph Smith or neither of the two?

And of course, by that dumbass wager, I can say: You can choose to believe in a pink invisible unicorn on Mars or you can choose not to. If you choose not to and you're wrong, blah blah blah...see what I'm getting at?

http://i56.tinypic.com/70v1g5.jpg

Yea, because there is no way a lot of people can believe in something that isn't true.
There is a big difference in believing in something that isn't true and dying for believing in something that isn't true.

Doctor to be. Does this mean that islam is true? I mean look at all these people willing to actually choose to die for their religion. I'm religious myself, but that logic means nothing. Also there are more than those three that jesus could be. The people who wrote the books could be ad libing to his life etc.

The problem with Pasal's wager is that you have no clue which out of the tens of thousands of gods to believe in. So it's not an on/off 50/50 switch. Even within Christianity, should I be a catholic or should I believe in Joseph Smith or neither of the two?

And of course, by that dumbass wager, I can say: You can choose to believe in a pink invisible unicorn on Mars or you can choose not to. If you choose not to and you're wrong, blah blah blah...see what I'm getting at?
I agree that it seems daunting to find a religion because there are so many choices, I guess if you were truly interested the best thing to do would be to research the beliefs of the different religions and choose based on which you find works for you. I don't know your personal situation, maybe you have already done that. The thing that sets Christianity apart from the others is that it is the only one that says eternal life is a free gift that you can receive through faith in Jesus Christ, it does not require good works to get to heaven. Also Christianity is more about your personal relationship with Christ, than it is about following the different rules set by each denomination (Methodists, baptists, Catholics, pentocostal, etc). That was something that I had trouble understanding at first.

I agree that it seems daunting to find a religion because there are so many choices, I guess if you were truly interested the best thing to do would be to research the beliefs of the different religions and choose based on which you find works for you. I don't know your personal situation, maybe you have already done that. The thing that sets Christianity apart from the others is that it is the only one that says eternal life is a free gift that you can receive through faith in Jesus Christ, it does not require good works to get to heaven. Also Christianity is more about your personal relationship with Christ, than it is about following the different rules set by each denomination (Methodists, baptists, Catholics, pentocostal, etc). That was something that I had trouble understanding at first.

I am in the market looking for something that promises me an enlightening return. Something where with a little dedication on my part, giving up me, for a nice little investment into the heaven of financial gain.

Hmm, I really like the appeal of an exchanged traded fund. Perhaps I'll invest 150,000k in that within my lifetime. It will have a great personal relationship with me and the market, but has volatility (you know just like in life). But hey! At least it is dividend yielding at a divine .90 cents/share per quarter... 'nuff to keep me content!

Oh, well I could be safe and say I am investing my hard earned righteous money in a money market savings...I don't have to do much if anything, but will feel great about myself since in the end I will have a meager, if anything, return. Even if inflation is hindering my gains, at least I will know deeeeep down that if I didn't risk anything, I would either end up with no gain or a small gain! Thank you financial adviser Dr. Pascal.

Lets see finally, the Jumbo CD (Christ of Deposit) option offers me a promised 7.77% APR for a deposit of $666,000 + being a devout member of that bank. Wow what a wonderful deal, I will cherry pick that investment since it benefits and is easiest for me!

I sure love looking at the market of available religions, I mean, countless investment options that look good, since I am afraid of the scary idea of not making money.

If religion is not for u then thats fine, it's your choice. I don't poke fun or pass judgement on you because you choose not to believe the things I do, so I would appreaciate the same respect, if you can't have an adult debate without having to make a big joke out of my beliefs then I'm not going to continue this discussion. I hate how some people who choose not to believe in God think that they are smarter than everybody else and that if a person is a believer they are automatically intellectually inferior to you.

There is a big difference in believing in something that isn't true and dying for believing in something that isn't true.

People have died for communism and fascism and their country and for hinduism and for Christianity and for Zeus and for Islam....some of those can't be true if others are.

If religion is not for u then thats fine, it's your choice. I don't poke fun or pass judgement on you because you choose not to believe the things I do, so I would appreaciate the same respect, if you can't have an adult debate without having to make a big joke out of my beliefs then I'm not going to continue this discussion. I hate how some people who choose not to believe in God think that they are smarter than everybody else and that if a person is a believer they are automatically intellectually inferior to you.

I only think I'm smarter than someone when they open their mouths to make illogical and specious arguments, regardless of what side they're on. One side usually (though not always) has a bit of a monopoly on that though.

I was always surprised that Pascal himself didn't see how stupid of an argument "Pascal's Wager" is.

+1 on boggvir


I went to a Catholic school all my life and an all-male prestigious Jesuit college prep high school, but after growing up, learning about science, logic, reasoning, and making my own decisions did I begin to really see religion and its side effects (good and bad). It took a lot of intellectual honesty, open-mindedness, and courage to leave religion, but the point I stress it to (like I said earlier in this thread) reason why you believe things, does it make sense?, what is the motivation behind it?, are you religious for more cultural reasons or because you were raised that way? Just looking at all the Gods mentioned in human history, comparing religions, their acts, dogma, rules, etc. really opens your mind up to this whole phenomenon. Religion seems like a glamorized, dogmatic, enhancement to simply the concept of "hope" for a better [anything] that fits what you desire or would want to happen, example: life after death.

I only think I'm smarter than someone when they open their mouths to make illogical and specious arguments, regardless of what side they're on. One side usually (though not always) has a bit of a monopoly on that though.

Yeah, about 99% of the time.

Tim Minchin - Thank You God (http://grooveshark.com/s/Thank+You+God/3DhAQU?src=5)
Since it doesn't look like anyone listened to this, perhaps I ought to elaborate. Tim Minchin is a comedian and if you haven't heard of him, I think you should. :)

That was pretty epic.

I have an apology to make. I’m afraid I’ve made a big mistake. I turned my face away from you, Lord.
I was too blind to see the light. I was too weak to feel Your might. I closed my eyes; I couldn’t see the truth, Lord.
But then like Saul on the Damascus road, you sent a messenger to me, and so…
I have had the truth revealed to me. Please forgive me all those things I said. I’ll no longer betray you, Lord. I will pray to you instead.
And I will say “Thank you, thank you, thank you God. Thank you, thank you, thank you God.”
Thank you God for fixing the cataracts of Sam’s mum.
I had no idea but it’s suddenly so clear now. I feel such a cynic. How could I have been so dumb?
Thank you for displaying how praying works: a particular prayer in a particular church. Thank you Sam for the chance to acknowledge this omnipotent opthamologist.
Thank you God for fixing the cataracts of Sam’s mum. I didn’t realize that it was so simple, but you’ve shown a great example of just how it can be done.
You only need to pray in a particular spot to a particular version of a particular god, and if you pull that off without a hitch, he will fix one eye of one middle-class white bitch.

I know in the past my outlook has been limited. I couldn’t see examples of where life had been definitive. But I can admit it when the evidence is clear, as clear as Sam’s mum’s new cornea.
That’s extremely clear! Extremely clear!
Thank you God for fixing the cataracts of Sam’s mum. I have to admit that in the past I have been skeptical but Sam described this miracle and I am overcome!
How fitting that the sighting of a sight-based intervention should open my eyes to this exciting new dimension. It’s like someone put an eye chart on the wall in front of me and the top five letters say: I C G O D.
Thank you, Sam, for showing how my point of view has been so flawed. I assumed there was no God at all but now I see that’s cynical. It’s simply that his interests aren’t particularly broad.
He’s largely undiverted by the starving masses, or the inequality between the various classes. He gives you strictly limited passes, redeemable for surgery or two-for-one glasses.
I feel so shocking for historically mocking. Your interests are clearly confined to the ocular. I bet given the chance, you’d eschew the divine and start a little business selling contacts online.
**** me Sam, what are the odds that of history’s endless parade of gods that the God you just happened to be taught to believe in is the actual one and he digs on healing, but the AIDS-ridden African nations, the victims of the plague or the flood-addled Asians, but healthy, privately-insured Australians with common and curable corneal degeneration?
This story of Sam’s has but a single explanation: a surgical God who digs on magic explanations. It couldn’t be mistaken attribution of causation, born of a coincidental temporal correlation, exacerbated by a general lack of education vis-a-vis physics in Sam’s parish congregation. And it couldn’t be that all these pious people are liars. It couldn’t be an artifact of confirmation bias, a product of groupthink, a mass delusion, an Emperor’s New Clothes-style fear of exclusion.
No, it’s more likely to be an all-powerful magician than the misdiagnosis of the initial condition, or one of many cases of spontaneous remission, or a record-keeping glitch by the local physician.
No, the only explanation for Sam’s mum’s seeing: they prayed to an all-knowing superbeing, to the omnipresent master of the universe, and he liked the sound of their muttered verse.
So for a bit of a change from his usual stunt of being a sexist, racist, murderous ****, he popped down to Dandenong and just like that, used his powers to heal the cataracts of Sam’s mum – of Sam’s mum!
Thank you God for fixing the cataracts of Sam’s mum! I didn’t realize that it was such a simple thing. I feel such a dingaling, what ignorant scum!
Now I understand how prayer can work: a particular prayer in a particular church in a particular style with a particular stuff and a particular book for particular problems that aren’t particularly tough, and for particular people, preferably white, for particular senses, preferably sight – a particular prayer in a particular spot, to a particular version of a particular god.
And if you get that right, He just might take a break from giving babies malaria and pop down to your local area to fix the cataracts of your mum!
Hallelujah!


http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=14661

@ the people who chose response #1, how are you all certain God exists, as you claim?

If u believe in God but it turns out he does not exist, what do u have to lose? Nothing. If u don't believe in God and it turns out he exists what do u have to lose? Everything
Jesus was one of 3 things: a liar, a lunatic, or he was who he said he was. If he was a liar or lunatic Christianity would have never spread much less still be here today. The reason I say this is because most of Christ's disciples were killed for spreading his message, and they would not have risked their lives for something they knew to be a lie.

Is there any evidence that He actually existed?

Not trolling, genuinely interested.

Is there any evidence that He actually existed?

Not trolling, genuinely interested.

One could very easily say that their experience of God is evidence that He exists.

One could very easily say that their experience of God is evidence that He exists.

JKGtcVoBhBQ

JKGtcVoBhBQ

All that that video illustrates is that Richard Dawins is mean-spirited. His response pre-supposes that he is the final arbiter of the experiences of all individuals. How can he know what that man experienced? What does his opinion that the man is hallucinating matter? Notice that I did not necessarily establish what God one would experience, only that experience cannot be denied. Empirical evidence is a wonderful tool, but is not the de facto best tool for every subject. As stated earlier, if we keep science where it should be and religion where it should be, they are both useful and meaningful. One cannot, in a wholesale manner, completely disregard the existence of God because there is not necessarily empirical evidence for the existence of such a being. There are other systems of logic that support belief in a God. It is my understanding that those who state with assurance that there is absolutely no God (and, remember, empirical evidence is not the only defensible means of discussing the issue) are as misguided (and faith-based) as those that say without doubt that God does exist. One must have faith in either position.

Is there any evidence that He actually existed?

Not trolling, genuinely interested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

Consensus is that he did. As far as him being the Son of God and all that, well, YMMV.

All that that video illustrates is that Richard Dawins is mean-spirited. His response pre-supposes that he is the final arbiter of the experiences of all individuals. How can he know what that man experienced? What does his opinion that the man is hallucinating matter? Notice that I did not necessarily establish what God one would experience, only that experience cannot be denied. Empirical evidence is a wonderful tool, but is not the de facto best tool for every subject. As stated earlier, if we keep science where it should be and religion where it should be, they are both useful and meaningful. One cannot, in a wholesale manner, completely disregard the existence of God because there is not necessarily empirical evidence for the existence of such a being. There are other systems of logic that support belief in a God. It is my understanding that those who state with assurance that there is absolutely no God (and, remember, empirical evidence is not the only defensible means of discussing the issue) are as misguided (and faith-based) as those that say without doubt that God does exist. One must have faith in either position.

Then why not free every patient that suffers from hallucinations onto the streets? If you cannot explicitly prove that what they're seeing is not real you have no right to keep them contained. Just because millions of people suffer from the same delusion does not make it any less of a delusion. If you have listened to Dawkins a bit more than this, you would know that even he would never say that there is empirically and undeniably no God. Because that position would be impossible to prove. Same goes with the "there absolutely is a God" position. The more logical and evident side of the two, however, is that there most likely is no God.

When you say we should keep science and religion where they should be, they are indeed both useful. Science for the progress of man and his accomplishments and religion for the containment, brainwashing, and control of the masses.

Then why not free every patient that suffers from hallucinations onto the streets? If you cannot explicitly prove that what they're seeing is not real you have no right to keep them contained. Just because millions of people suffer from the same delusion does not make it any less of a delusion. If you have listened to Dawkins a bit more than this, you would know that even he would never say that there is empirically and undeniably no God. Because that position would be impossible to prove. Same goes with the "there absolutely is a God" position. The more logical and evident side of the two, however, is that there most likely is no God. <-- "in my opinion" should be attached to this sentence.

When you say we should keep science and religion where they should be, they are indeed both useful. Science for the progress of man and his accomplishments and religion for the containment, brainwashing, and control of the masses.

Goodness, I cannot disagree with you more. We often contain those with what we consider delusions (because, really, how do we know it isn't real?) because they are a danger to themselves or to society (mostly if they're a danger to society because we have laws against hurting other people). The more logical stance is that there is no God? If one cannot empirically prove one way or the other, then all we are left with are philosophical discussions of the issue, and it isn't nearly as settled as you state. There are serious theologians and philosophers that have very sound logical arguments for their beliefs in God.

Just because religion isn't for you doesn't mean that it is worthless. Science can, and has, been used to harm people. Atheists have hurt people, as have religious people. Sweeping generalizations about theists (or atheists) serve no purpose. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, and others like them, appear to be very angry with religion. Being angry with religious people and what some religious people have done to harm societies in history is one thing, but it has very little bearing on making a logical case for God not existing. I have heard their arguments picked apart by people who are actually philosophers (William Lane Craig, for instance).

Just a friendly reminder for everyone to try to be cordial and professional.

Religion is a very hot topic, and have been debated since the dawn of time. Many wars have been started over religion. From world leaders to vagabonds, religious belief (or lack thereof) comes in many shapes, style, etc.

You are free to disagree, to defend your position, or questions other. But please try to remain respectful. Treat others how you want to be treated, in real life and online too.



*I don't want to close this thread but if it degenerates, then it will be closed.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/gallery/redneck-randal/redneck-randal-were-all-gods-children.jpg

:laugh::thumbup:

I have heard their arguments picked apart by people who are actually philosophers (William Lane Craig, for instance).
Oh, pray tell, what are these arguments? They don't exist because you can't prove something like God using logic or science or any other methods.

Oh, pray tell, what are these arguments? They don't exist because you can't prove something like God using logic or science or any other methods.

I don't understand your question, really. My point was that religious (or any other kind of) philosophers, like Craig, can pick apart arguments against the existence of God by some non-philosophers with a bone to pick with the institution of religion, like Hitchens and Dawkins. The whole concept of faith insists that we cannot "know" or "prove" that God exists in an empirical way. There are, however, many defensible philosophical and logical stances that one can take in support of believing in God's existence and divine influence on all of us.

I don't understand your question, really. My point was that religious (or any other kind of) philosophers, like Craig, can pick apart arguments against the existence of God by some non-philosophers with a bone to pick with the institution of religion, like Hitchens and Dawkins. The whole concept of faith insists that we cannot "know" or "prove" that God exists in an empirical way. There are, however, many defensible philosophical and logical stances that one can take in support of believing in God's existence and divine influence on all of us.

And I'm asking what would those be?

And I'm asking what would those be?

Read some articles and listen to debates with Atheists from academic Christian theologians and Apologists (I would offer William Lane Craig and N.T. Wright as examples) on natural theology, teleological, and axiological arguments. While you may not be inclined to believe in God or be a religious person, those arguments are sound and defensible for those that believe when faced with criticism. I don't really want to devote any more time to this debate, but I did want to at least attempt to illustrate that Christianity isn't some willy-nilly fairy tale by which simpletons go around perpetrating violence and suppression of science. There are serious scholars that spend their entire careers researching the minutiae of theology and philosophy (which is incredibly complex). It's interesting to me that people are willing to paint with such a broad brush.

It's been an interesting discussion. Thanks for it.

Read some articles and listen to debates with Atheists from academic Christian theologians and Apologists (I would offer William Lane Craig and N.T. Wright as examples) on natural theology, teleological, and axiological arguments. While you may not be inclined to believe in God or be a religious person, those arguments are sound and defensible for those that believe when faced with criticism. I don't really want to devote any more time to this debate, but I did want to at least attempt to illustrate that Christianity isn't some willy-nilly fairy tale by which simpletons go around perpetrating violence and suppression of science. There are serious scholars that spend their entire careers researching the minutiae of theology and philosophy (which is incredibly complex). It's interesting to me that people are willing to paint with such a broad brush.

It's been an interesting discussion. Thanks for it.
So you presented your side by presenting no arguments.

Natural Theology (what people like Lane Craig advocate) is not a valid logical position. That's been debunked by people like Hume since the 18th century. Need to come up with a better argument. That belief is indeed unsound and unreasonable regardless of what people spend their entire careers doing.

So you presented your side by presenting no arguments.

Natural Theology (what people like Lane Craig advocate) is not a valid logical position. (<-- in your opinion) That's been debunked by people like Hume since the 18th century. Need to come up with a better argument. (<-- what I have is just fine, thank you. I provided others upon which you didn't comment.) That belief is indeed unsound and unreasonable regardless of what people spend their entire careers doing.

I presented three different arguments that are valid philosophical stances in support of religious belief. You've been pretty scant on your critique of positions that are quite complex. As with the other poster, I doubt very seriously that the "debunking" of natural theology is as settled as you seem to think. Yes, Hume did pen a work about it, but there has been refinement and continued debate of the subject beyond what was done in the 18th century.

Debate of these positions continue. I will also provide the Kalam Cosmological Argument as a further argument in defense of belief in a higher power. Finally, I hope you are not expecting an all-out, point-by-point defense of these arguments. I'm merely providing arguments by which people who are interested in defending their faith in a deity can debate with confidence those that would posit that believing in a higher power is settled as absurd. It goes far beyond the scope of this forum and thread to engage in an all-encompassing debate on the issue. If you're interested in reading about those arguments (they absolutely are not settled positions), you can do so.

So you presented your side by presenting no arguments.

Natural Theology (what people like Lane Craig advocate) is not a valid logical position. That's been debunked by people like Hume since the 18th century. Need to come up with a better argument. That belief is indeed unsound and unreasonable regardless of what people spend their entire careers doing.

A better argument? On being reasonable: People believing in a___pick one of the 1000+ super natural existing beings concocted since prehistoric times___ without any concrete irrefutable evidence.

'Nuff said.

I will also provide the Kalam Cosmological Argument as a further argument in defense of belief in a higher power.

FYI physics does allow something to come from nothing. And even if it didn't first cause would then still need a cause. Claiming that everything needs a cause and then positing the existence of something that doesn't makes no sense and is not a logical solution. Eg, it is as stupid as pascal's wager.

FYI physics does allow something to come from nothing. And even if it didn't first cause would then still need a cause. Claiming that everything needs a cause and then positing the existence of something that doesn't makes no sense and is not a logical solution. Eg, it is as stupid as pascal's wager.

Alrighty. I'm sure scholars (theist and atheist) go back and forth on this argument in academic journals because they're stupid and want to waste time. I'll write them all letters and tell them it's already been figured out, and that they should devote their time elsewhere.

A better argument? On being reasonable: People believing in a___pick one of the 1000+ super natural existing beings concocted since prehistoric times___ without any concrete irrefutable evidence.

'Nuff said.

We've covered this about empiricism already. "'Nuff" really hasn't been said with regard to this issue at all. I wish there was a way to have this discussion without words like "stupid" and "illogical" being used to describe either side.

Dawkins is a f*ckin jerk if ever i've come across one.
Not because of his beliefs, but because he comes across as so arrogant and acts so superior to anybody who doesn't agree with him; he's a very spiteful man.

Too much to say, but some points:

If there is a case for evolution, then I think it would be Gould's view. Evolution occurs to diversity not for long-term progress. Natural selection just eliminates those that diversified in not-such-a-great-result. But I don't see why evolution went past bacteria. Super reproduction and super adaptation. God?

God exists, and is a vengeful but caring God. However, the many so-called Christians, the very literal Bible reading Christians, the very lax, and so many more...all lead to the general public's wrongly understood view of what is really means to be a Christian or not. So many examples can be said on the wrong view.

Just to be brief, these are two examples. God made a covenant, and one part of that covenant not to destroy everyone. The wrong view: these earthquakes and tornadoes and peopletrafficking occurs, where's God? The better view: God's to test the people that are so called "Christians" for an eventual reward if successfully completed...in this life or the next. The wrong view: God was made up to rely during hard times. The better view: God's also there for the good times, and should be justly thanked.

A being made up just for fun is no good.... but the amazement factor is not just what leads me to believe. It's knowing that someone to guide you when no one's there will lead you to the right path that's best for you.

Well there's a shark, and here we go jumping over it.

Alrighty. I'm sure scholars (theist and atheist) go back and forth on this argument in academic journals because they're stupid and want to waste time. I'll write them all letters and tell them it's already been figured out, and that they should devote their time elsewhere.

I am just pointing out that if they are still trotting out the first cause nonsense, they simply need to get caught up on the latest science.

Imagination veiled as superior science is something we should be mindful of. 'Are not quantum fluctuations themselves a manifestation of natural law (e.g. the laws of quantum mechanics)? How then could quantum fluctuations be the ultimate cause of natural law as you claim? Did the laws governing quantum fluctuation invent themselves? Not even Stephen Hawking believes that. ' Random quantum fluctuations may not be so random. Just because we can prove an instancethat is very unlikely with an equation doesn't negate that a higher complex being might have put it into motion. There is a vast amount of research done for both arguments. Listening to people Dawkins can have arrogant effects on people IMO, regardless of whether hes right or wrong.
I think many of the athiest side have this fear of being deluded and taken for a ride into 'believing' and having 'faith' as these terms have a negative association nowadays, and rightfully so after how in the name of God many evil things have taken place. But this baggage needs to be dropped and looked at with clear eyes.

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's...."If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset." -C.S. Lewis

This isn't a proof, but I think it brings up one point. It takes someone humble to accept that there might be things we can't explain and to submit to unlikely assumptions rather than submitting to a higher Being might be the true test as to why we are here. Are we submitting to our desires of no divine means freedom to do what I think is in my best interest or submit to a creator because his knowledge is far greater than mine. Some say why doesnt he just reveal Himself in his true form? He does through signs and logic. But it would defeat the purpose of life, as to see who is rational and humble enough to submit and lower himself out of love for the one that gave him life. AlsoHe is not governed by our laws of physics.

I know people are thinking, thats ignorant,why would I stop at being humble? I dont say stop, but research deeply. It can only further your mind into thinking how little we know.

He is not governed by our laws of physics? Of course he isn't, positing anything that might be remotely refutable would cause the argument to fall apart. I like how you'd accept that answer but get in a tizzy about quantum fluctuations. Saying 'I don't know' is the most important answer in science. Saying 'I don't understand so God did it you heretic' is the opposite and is the important answer if you want the dark ages.

Also, CS Lewis needs to look up the meaning of an accident. The whole world is an illusion and nothing can be known cause we're in the matrix is also another one of those irrefutable irrelevancies.

My point in saying he is beyond our laws of physics was to say we will never be able to 'scientifically' prove the Divine because its beyond our realm. So its not a proof He doesnt exist.

My point in saying he is beyond our laws of physics was to say we will never be able to 'scientifically' prove the Divine because its beyond our realm. So its not a proof He doesnt exist.

I realize that and by positing such an entity, you have shown that there is no way that such an entity can ever be disproven. You can make up any phenomena or entity (flying spaghetii monster, invisible pink unicorns, Shiva, Zeus etc) and simply make him, her or it irrefutable by claiming that it does not exist within the laws of physics and thus voila, you now have a logical reason to believe in such a phenomena. It's an irrelevant claim without proof.

this is an example of that

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

An example of what? None of what he says points to a necessary presupposition of an entity that by definition makes the problem of origin twice as complex.

Your right, I'm just pointing to the side that it isnt as clear cut as science vs. religion because even science pre supposes logic.

With regards to pascals wager, I think what I am saying is that its not as easy as ok I believe in a creator, so ill choose whatever is popular to my culture or where I live, i.e. Zues, etc. But you can certainly narrow it down. Has to be One single creator, not greek mythology or anything else that was made by man that is incoherent with reality. Really only leaves monotheistic faiths. But what messages do they have? Which one believes in a sole creator and has a book unchanged with a message no more than believe in One God, nothing in return for the human(prophet/ messenger) that facilitated it to be brought to people? That was my method of thinking, just wanted to put it there to refute pascals wager to say its not as simple as just choosing anything.

But you can certainly narrow it down. Has to be One single creator, not greek mythology or anything else that was made by man that is incoherent with reality. Really only leaves monotheistic faiths. But what messages do they have? Which one believes in a sole creator and has a book unchanged with a message no more than believe in One God, nothing in return for the human(prophet/ messenger) that facilitated it to be brought to people? That was my method of thinking, just wanted to put it there to refute pascals wager to say its not as simple as just choosing anything.

Wait, why does it only leave monotheistic faiths? If one creator can be true, why can't multiple Gods? I have a bunch of Hindu friends. I don't have any friends who believe in Zeus, granted, but there are plenty of smart Greek philosophers who I look up to, who did.

Well this pre-supposes a belief in a supernatural creator first, so everything we see is created. Everything created is not eternal. So to not be created means one is eternal. otherwise it was creation as well. Multiple gods indicates that one ‘God’ is incompetent of certain acts or moreover he is also ignorant or not capable of the other Gods’ powers, duties, functions and responsibilities. So logically, there cannot be an ignorant and incapable God.

Well this pre-supposes a belief in a supernatural creator first, so everything we see is created. Everything created is not eternal. So to not be created means one is eternal. otherwise it was creation as well. Multiple gods indicates that one ‘God’ is incompetent of certain acts or moreover he is also ignorant or not capable of the other Gods’ powers, duties, functions and responsibilities. So logically, there cannot be an ignorant and incapable God.


Why does it indicate that? Why can't there be multiple Gods who are capable of creating?

I am just pointing out that if they are still trotting out the first cause nonsense, they simply need to get caught up on the latest science.

From what I've read, serious theist academics are very well aware of quantum fluctuations and how they factor into cosmological arguments, as well as other theories regarding time. These are not slouches. The debate about the existence of God(s) rages on as it has forever.

Also, I would like to point out that the argument of infinite regress is at least debatable. An application of the paradox of Hilbert's Hotel proves arguments against the existence of God on the grounds of infinite regress when applied to cosmological arguments to be logically shaky. As I've said, these things aren't as "settled" or certain as they appear. I am under no delusion that I'm changing anyone's mind about this issue. It's fun to debate, though.

2 or more makes less sense than 1. If you trace your existence and everything that wasn't eternal, your back to one sole creator. He possesses the quality of All powerful because He originated everything. There is only indication of One creator for our existence, and another would remove Him from being All-powerful, a logical fallacy. Hinduism I would say is the other polytheistic faith you brought up, but I don't want to bash any other religions, to each his own as long as were all truth seekers.

2 or more makes less sense than 1. If you trace your existence and everything that wasn't eternal, your back to one sole creator. He possesses the quality of All powerful because He originated everything. There is only indication of One creator for our existence, and another would remove Him from being All-powerful, a logical fallacy. Hinduism I would say is the other polytheistic faith you brought up, but I don't want to bash any other religions, to each his own as long as were all truth seekers.

I'm asking why there can't be multiple creators, or why a being must be "all powerful" to create the universe and not merely "very powerful". And whether he is all powerful or not, that there can't be more than one being with such a power. If being all powerful is not in itself a logical fallacy (can he create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?) then having two beings that are that powerful is also not a logical fallacy.

if you believe there is a God, the only logical thing is to believe in One
had there been multiple, the interests of each would conflict. For there to be harmony in creation, points to One. one would say, it will be sunny, the other would say, no, cloudy. one would say, this person shall be punished, the other would say no, he is one of my worshipers, he is to be forgiven. one would say it is time for him to die, the other would say no, he deserves a longer life; causing much chaos. So having One would be logical.

if you believe there is a God, the only logical thing is to believe in One
had there been multiple, the interests of each would conflict.

If they were all perfect, then by definition they wouldn't conflict. If they were imperfect, then it doesn't matter if they did conflict. Again, if you ignore the logical paradox that comes with having one all powerful creator, then there is no logical reason for there not to be two, or four, or five hundred.

For there to be harmony in creation, points to One. one would say, it will be sunny, the other would say, no, cloudy. one would say, this person shall be punished, the other would say no, he is one of my worshipers, he is to be forgiven. one would say it is time for him to die, the other would say no, he deserves a longer life; causing much chaos. So having One would be logical.

So what you're saying is having more than one creator makes more logical sense considering the world we live in.....cause what you described regarding who gets punished and who dies and chaos is pretty much a description of life.

As Epicurus said: if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent. If God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good. If God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

if you believe there is a God, the only logical thing is to believe in One
had there been multiple, the interests of each would conflict. For there to be harmony in creation, points to One. one would say, it will be sunny, the other would say, no, cloudy. one would say, this person shall be punished, the other would say no, he is one of my worshipers, he is to be forgiven. one would say it is time for him to die, the other would say no, he deserves a longer life; causing much chaos. So having One would be logical.

If gods are perfect and whole and infallible, why do they need trillions of souls throughout the millenia to bow down and worship them? Why does a god need me to act a certain way or perform certain actions, if in reality it doesn't effect this perfect being at all? It seems to me that a perfect being who likes to create things would not need anything else to keep it satisfied. In fact, such an incomprehensible thing as a god probably wouldn't have anything we could identify as emotions or wishes (especially if it is "perfect," implying that it would not have needs/wants/wishes at all). There is no way for us to have knowledge of something that is completely beyond the human experience.

Just a thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-63cTYJDCA

I found this video to highlight some of the problems with the ten commandments.

http://i1140.photobucket.com/albums/n565/A_is_A1/purse-fight.gif

I definitely do not believe in god, I am more of a science based fact person. However that doesn't mean Im going to tell someone they are wrong for believing something. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as some religious person isnt throwing their religion in my face and trying to convert me etc

Very interesting thread...an argument I've had over and over again with many people. A couple of things that I think are poorly thought through though.

1. If there is a God, then that God MUST exist within physical laws of science. Though those laws would be millions of times better understood than the human race does currently. If he were not bound by those laws, then in fact, they would not be laws, natural laws would not exist and the universe would only be bound by chaos (both a philosophical and scientific definition of chaos), and if this were the case, we would likely not exists and we certainly, in what little we know of these natural laws, would have consistent contradictions, which they seem to not have. Therefore, it is extremely likely that if God exists he exists bound to some sort of law.

2. Christians really need to get a better understanding of faith. Cause it is really quite embarrassing to see people thing that faith is blind belief...IT IS NOT. Hebrews 11:1 - "EVIDENCE of things not seen." In other words, faith can be compared to talking to you mom on the phone and knowing it is her by the evidence that it sounds like her, the conversation is like one you would have with your mom, and she knows things about you that others would not know. But you don't see her, and therefore it is faith. Or, another example, when you leave in the morning to go to school you believe your school will be there...why? cause you have been there every day for the last 6 months or 6 days or w/e and it's been there every time. That is evidence.

3. This one is for both those who believe and those who don't. Why are you so worried about being right? The fact is, you have evidence that makes your belief one way or the other...but that evidence may be wrong. You may be wrong. No matter how powerful the evidence is...it may be wrong. So why do you spend so much time defending your own point of view instead of understanding others'? If you open your mind to the possibility of the opposite being true, you open your mind to possibilities you have never before thought of and likely will come to better conclusions. I recommend stopping your comments that dig yourself further into your position and instead start asking each other questions...you will be enlightened instead of arguing.

4. Lastly, the scientific method is a powerful tool. But it has severe limitations. The evidence that those of you on this forum seek is evidence that is bound by the scientific method. But out of necessity the scientific method ignores the individual and only studies the population. Therefore, even if one person has enough evidence to substantiate a belief in God, unless he is able to show others that same evidence, he will be ignored by the scientific method. We see this in a real world example with eastern medicine, let's look specifically at acupuncture. As a population, acupuncture demolishes western medicine in the controlling of pain. But the scientific method cannot explain why. It can't get any more precise then just the fact that it is helpful because the treatment differs so much for the individual. Those who receive treatment know it works, those who are married to the scientific method as the only source of truth say it is placebo (even though the statistical significance of the difference is astronomical).

God seems to behave in just this way. That is to say, on the basis of the individual. If God exists, he either wants us to know him or he doesn't. If he wants us to know him, he must give us a way to know him. Every major religion and every set of scriptures in the world portray of God that manifests himself/itself (I don't know of any major religions that believe in a female god) to the individual. Prayer, meditation, divine experiences. These are all in the norm. They are similar to the the experience that the person with chronic back pain has. "I can't really describe why or how...but it really works" likewise "I can't explain how I know beyond these experiences, I only know that he exists." Those experiences act as evidence, that evidence is a basis for faith. It isn't about seeing, it isn't about knowing everything. It IS about having experiences that bring you to a belief that can eventually become as strong as knowing that your heart beats inside you.

I know God exists. I know it with the same power as I know I have a left hand. Could I be wrong? Yeah, I could also be nothing but a battery used by artificial intelligence used only as a bat of energy, and therefore not have a left hand. But all evidence of both points to the existence of both. When I die and I touch the marks on the hands and feet of Jesus Christ himself, I will know no better then as I know now that he is indeed the Savior of the world. Why? Because I have experienced that truth enough in my life, that the evidence for me personally backs it up. It is not blind belief nor is it provable through the scientific method...yet...but it is true. I'm sure I'll be flamed for this post, and that is ok. However, for me, I have all the evidence I could have ever wanted. As Christ said to Peter, "man has not revealed these things unto you (logic), but my father which is in heaven (personal contact with God to the INDIVIDUAL)." You don't have to believe in God, it doesn't take anything away from me one way or the other. But, IF you do want to know if God exists, start asking him. If you ask him every day for a year and still have no answer, all the while learning about God and trying to understand him. You'll get an answer too. But hey, the same goes for evolution and the scientific method too right? Investigate a problem until you get an answer.

Now I should apologize cause this is way too long of a post for a forum. But feel free to shoot some holes in the logic. I'm always open to learning more. I'll check back tomorrow though likely not much more after that due to school schedule. Thanks all of you for your posts, many of them have been very well thought out and presented.

Lastly, the scientific method is a powerful tool. But it has severe limitations. The evidence that those of you on this forum seek is evidence that is bound by the scientific method. But out of necessity the scientific method ignores the individual and only studies the population. Therefore, even if one person has enough evidence to substantiate a belief in God, unless he is able to show others that same evidence, he will be ignored by the scientific method. We see this in a real world example with eastern medicine, let's look specifically at acupuncture. As a population, acupuncture demolishes western medicine in the controlling of pain. But the scientific method cannot explain why. It can't get any more precise then just the fact that it is helpful because the treatment differs so much for the individual. Those who receive treatment know it works, those who are married to the scientific method as the only source of truth say it is placebo (even though the statistical significance of the difference is astronomical).

True and false. Acupuncture has been shown to be better than a placebo but studies done where a group got actual acupuncture and another group got needled poked in random places...they both had equal effect. There are actually hypothesis on why poking needles in nerves can help ease pain.

Secondly, as has been mentioned multiple times, 'I don't know at this moment' is the most fundamental question in science - that's how you learn new things. That does not imply 'I don't know at this moment so it must be supernatural xyz'.

All that that video illustrates is that Richard Dawins is mean-spirited. His response pre-supposes that he is the final arbiter of the experiences of all individuals. How can he know what that man experienced? What does his opinion that the man is hallucinating matter? Notice that I did not necessarily establish what God one would experience, only that experience cannot be denied. Empirical evidence is a wonderful tool, but is not the de facto best tool for every subject. As stated earlier, if we keep science where it should be and religion where it should be, they are both useful and meaningful. One cannot, in a wholesale manner, completely disregard the existence of God because there is not necessarily empirical evidence for the existence of such a being. There are other systems of logic that support belief in a God. It is my understanding that those who state with assurance that there is absolutely no God (and, remember, empirical evidence is not the only defensible means of discussing the issue) are as misguided (and faith-based) as those that say without doubt that God does exist. One must have faith in either position.


That is not mean spirited at all that is just something people say to to rule out Dawkins and I'm not an atheist. There are tons of more ministers who are more arrogant and condescending than dawkins

That is not mean spirited at all that is just something people say to to rule out Dawkins and I'm not an atheist. There are tons of more ministers who are more arrogant and condescending than dawkins

I'm sure there are. However, that has nothing at all to do with my opinion that Dawkins is making a claim in a mean-spirited way that he has absolutely no way of verifying. I'm not ruling out Dawkins based upon what he said in that clip. I'm ruling out a lot of what Dawkins says because he often incorrectly uses empiricism to denigrate people who believe in a god.

Not only am I an atheist but I am an anti-theist. I get much amusement out of hearing people try to say, "I don't believe in god, but hey whatever makes you happy." It never stops at one.
I grew up in an extremely oppressive religious atmosphere and after many years I am still feeling the effects of breaking free. And the consequences don't end there. I can't go back to my community, express my opinions and expect not be excommunicated.
If someone approaches me with religious sentiment, they will sure enough know they confronted the wrong person.

With that being said, I understand the the field I am in for which there is no place for this type of bitterness. People will need their faith to get through hard times and I have accepted that.

"This just in: People are afraid of death. They have created their own coping mechanisms," such as the study of medicine.....


To try and “prove” that “GOD” (whatever you believe him/her to be) exists is fundamentally flawed (but so is trying to "prove" that he doesn't exist). With that being said, just because you can’t prove something, doesn’t mean it isn’t so. And just because a good deal of information might suggest one conclusion to be correct, also doesn’t make it so. We are all science minded people who must understand that in science (and religion both) there are no absolutes. To suggest otherwise of either is a mute point.

I think that part of being a physician is respecting people's beliefs even if they're not your own. I, personally, have been skeptical about God's existence for a long time now. With knowledge of genes, chromosomes, immunology, congenital anomalies, microbiology, and evolution it makes it difficult for me to believe in a caring God. Why these subjects? Well, they symbolize our existence and struggle within this world. Genes with accumulating knowledge of inheritance patterns, allelic variations, and mutation rates shows us that natural selection is a logical process. Immunology is a basic study of why we are able to defend ourselves against pathogens--animate or inanimate.

The power of faith has always kept me thinking about the possibility of God. Without getting too personal, I think faith has some merit within the medical community. It will be a continuing struggle with me for a long time. It's hard for me to believe it's all random--I need to look more into what experts believe when it comes to the cosmos and their existence. The study of the universe is the last frontier in our struggle

The immune system is still being figured out. Intense research in that area. It is very difficult to grasp how such an intricate system developed.

The immune system is still being figured out. Intense research in that area. It is very difficult to grasp how such an intricate system developed.


I do believe in god, so take this with a grain of salt. But, above in this thread, this very issue is discussed quite well. Just because something is too complex for us to understand at this point, does not mean that it must be some supernatural entity that is responsible for it. I do believe that humans are sort of internally programmed to think like this. Consider the pyramids in Egypt for a minute. We build infinitely more complex buildings than this today, in a very complex manner. Yet, to people today, a lot want to look towards either alien or supernatural means for people in that day to have done something so complex. Complex problems can be solved; while they are difficult, just because something is complex does not mean that it shows proof of god. I'm a firm believer that god is not something we will EVER be able to prove or disprove; you just either believe or not, for whatever reason you choose.

On a side note, please, any and all pre-current-post medical students should read Atul Gawande's book "The Checklist," as well as any of his other works. Discusses the complexity of things quite well, as well as MANY medically related issues that should be interesting for any of us to read.

I do believe in god, so take this with a grain of salt. But, above in this thread, this very issue is discussed quite well. Just because something is too complex for us to understand at this point, does not mean that it must be some supernatural entity that is responsible for it. I do believe that humans are sort of internally programmed to think like this. Consider the pyramids in Egypt for a minute. We build infinitely more complex buildings than this today, in a very complex manner. Yet, to people today, a lot want to look towards either alien or supernatural means for people in that day to have done something so complex. Complex problems can be solved; while they are difficult, just because something is complex does not mean that it shows proof of god. I'm a firm believer that god is not something we will EVER be able to prove or disprove; you just either believe or not, for whatever reason you choose.

On a side note, please, any and all pre-current-post medical students should read Atul Gawande's book "The Checklist," as well as any of his other works. Discusses the complexity of things quite well, as well as MANY medically related issues that should be interesting for any of us to read.

I agree with you. I do not believe nor intended to imply that complexity = necessity of a designer.

How is it so frightening to believe that there is a creator out there who directed a creation. If what we feel about evolution is correct (I feel much of it probably is), why is it so frightening to think that there could be a "god" who is making it work?

If that is the case and there is a God who defines the laws of nature, why is it impossible to think that he could abide within set laws to help heal those in need. Do we feel that we have a perfect understanding of nature or of the human body? If so then why do we continue to do scientific research?

We continue to do research because any educated person knows that we still don't know much of anything.

If there is an all knowing creator, why couldn't he try something that we didn't know how to do? Completely within the laws of nature... Just something that we haven't figured out yet.

Not trying to argue... Just trying to share another point of view.

:thumbup:



I come from a pastor's family but was staunchly atheist as a preteen/teen because: 1) of my study at university (started as a preteen with research and classes) and 2) my life experiences of violence in the inner city and the horrible things going on in war (lots of refugees in my area).

I came back to a belief in God and a faith through some personal circumstances (kid in recovery here) and through my study of theoretical particle physics, philosophy, and mathematics (anyone interested: Dr. John Polkinghorne has written some excellent books and articles on particle physics and faith). I have a deep appreciation for evolution, quantum physics, and geology, and I don't think that it has to clash with God giving meaning to the world around me or his mercy throughout history (Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Kenneth Miller have written a bit about this).

I have several friends in the atheist camp and in the creationist camp, and I think we can all learn from each other and gain a more complete picture of reality by doing such. For me, nothing is more beautiful than learning about M-Theory and marveling at the interconnectedness of different branches of science and mathematics forming a foundation that allows us to exist :)

:thumbup:

I am religious, but I don't think that evolution and God's plan have to be mutually exclusive. Also, I think the evolution versus creationist debate creates too much unneeded controversy between religious people and less religious people. Personally I do not think that the idea of creationism holds up to scrutiny. Even though evolution is based on random chance mutations, my belief is that what seems like lack of control is God's plan. Obviously, atheists and other may believe that evolution disproves religion. My answer is that the theory of evolution does not have to contradict religion because God's plan is beyond what we can understand. Who says that God needs to physically create everything? He can do things His way.

I wonder whether there are other folk who think this way too. Just curious...:)

I was very surprised to find how many students at my school not only believe in God but also want to use Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics to dictate medical protocol and restrict actions, such as medically assisted suicide.

I've come across people like this in high school and college but I'd say a good 5-10% of the students in my class are the above, whereas these students were much more in the minority during college and high school.

Personally, I flow between deism and agnosticism, but don't in any way, shape, or form believe private religious ideals should dictate public ethics.

I was very surprised to find how many students at my school not only believe in God but also want to use Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics to dictate medical protocol and restrict actions, such as medically assisted suicide.

I've come across people like this in high school and college but I'd say a good 5-10% of the students in my class are the above, whereas these students were much more in the minority during college and high school.

Personally, I flow between deism and agnosticism, but don't in any way, shape, or form believe private religious ideals should dictate public ethics.

Then you should be pissed at our forefathers who used Judeo-Christian principles to enforce the expression of free speech and freedom of religion and liberty and all that religious nonsense that pretty much developed the Constitution.

Then you should be pissed at our forefathers who used Judeo-Christian principles to enforce the expression of free speech and freedom of religion and liberty and all that religious nonsense that pretty much developed the Constitution.

I didn't know the ancient Greeks & Romans were Jews. Regardless the Forefathers derived most of the laws from English common law and antiquated Greek and Roman beliefs, not to mention the more prominent ones were far from Christians.

I didn't know the ancient Greeks & Romans were Jews. Regardless the Forefathers derived most of the laws from English common law and antiquated Greek and Roman beliefs, not to mention the more prominent ones were far from Christians.

Where do you think the English common laws were derived from? Look at the authors and the thinkers who were influential in forming these laws and then come back and try to retort...

Very interesting thread...an argument I've had over and over again with many people. A couple of things that I think are poorly thought through though.

1. If there is a God, then that God MUST exist within physical laws of science. Though those laws would be millions of times better understood than the human race does currently. If he were not bound by those laws, then in fact, they would not be laws, natural laws would not exist and the universe would only be bound by chaos (both a philosophical and scientific definition of chaos), and if this were the case, we would likely not exists and we certainly, in what little we know of these natural laws, would have consistent contradictions, which they seem to not have. Therefore, it is extremely likely that if God exists he exists bound to some sort of law.

2. Christians really need to get a better understanding of faith. Cause it is really quite embarrassing to see people thing that faith is blind belief...IT IS NOT. Hebrews 11:1 - "EVIDENCE of things not seen." In other words, faith can be compared to talking to you mom on the phone and knowing it is her by the evidence that it sounds like her, the conversation is like one you would have with your mom, and she knows things about you that others would not know. But you don't see her, and therefore it is faith. Or, another example, when you leave in the morning to go to school you believe your school will be there...why? cause you have been there every day for the last 6 months or 6 days or w/e and it's been there every time. That is evidence.

3. This one is for both those who believe and those who don't. Why are you so worried about being right? The fact is, you have evidence that makes your belief one way or the other...but that evidence may be wrong. You may be wrong. No matter how powerful the evidence is...it may be wrong. So why do you spend so much time defending your own point of view instead of understanding others'? If you open your mind to the possibility of the opposite being true, you open your mind to possibilities you have never before thought of and likely will come to better conclusions. I recommend stopping your comments that dig yourself further into your position and instead start asking each other questions...you will be enlightened instead of arguing.

4. Lastly, the scientific method is a powerful tool. But it has severe limitations. The evidence that those of you on this forum seek is evidence that is bound by the scientific method. But out of necessity the scientific method ignores the individual and only studies the population. Therefore, even if one person has enough evidence to substantiate a belief in God, unless he is able to show others that same evidence, he will be ignored by the scientific method. We see this in a real world example with eastern medicine, let's look specifically at acupuncture. As a population, acupuncture demolishes western medicine in the controlling of pain. But the scientific method cannot explain why. It can't get any more precise then just the fact that it is helpful because the treatment differs so much for the individual. Those who receive treatment know it works, those who are married to the scientific method as the only source of truth say it is placebo (even though the statistical significance of the difference is astronomical).

God seems to behave in just this way. That is to say, on the basis of the individual. If God exists, he either wants us to know him or he doesn't. If he wants us to know him, he must give us a way to know him. Every major religion and every set of scriptures in the world portray of God that manifests himself/itself (I don't know of any major religions that believe in a female god) to the individual. Prayer, meditation, divine experiences. These are all in the norm. They are similar to the the experience that the person with chronic back pain has. "I can't really describe why or how...but it really works" likewise "I can't explain how I know beyond these experiences, I only know that he exists." Those experiences act as evidence, that evidence is a basis for faith. It isn't about seeing, it isn't about knowing everything. It IS about having experiences that bring you to a belief that can eventually become as strong as knowing that your heart beats inside you.

I know God exists. I know it with the same power as I know I have a left hand. Could I be wrong? Yeah, I could also be nothing but a battery used by artificial intelligence used only as a bat of energy, and therefore not have a left hand. But all evidence of both points to the existence of both. When I die and I touch the marks on the hands and feet of Jesus Christ himself, I will know no better then as I know now that he is indeed the Savior of the world. Why? Because I have experienced that truth enough in my life, that the evidence for me personally backs it up. It is not blind belief nor is it provable through the scientific method...yet...but it is true. I'm sure I'll be flamed for this post, and that is ok. However, for me, I have all the evidence I could have ever wanted. As Christ said to Peter, "man has not revealed these things unto you (logic), but my father which is in heaven (personal contact with God to the INDIVIDUAL)." You don't have to believe in God, it doesn't take anything away from me one way or the other. But, IF you do want to know if God exists, start asking him. If you ask him every day for a year and still have no answer, all the while learning about God and trying to understand him. You'll get an answer too. But hey, the same goes for evolution and the scientific method too right? Investigate a problem until you get an answer.

Now I should apologize cause this is way too long of a post for a forum. But feel free to shoot some holes in the logic. I'm always open to learning more. I'll check back tomorrow though likely not much more after that due to school schedule. Thanks all of you for your posts, many of them have been very well thought out and presented.

I agree 100%. Thanks for this post.

I'm a scientific instrumentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism) and think the question "Is evolution true?" is simply not the right question to ask.

The question is "is the theory of evolution useful for making predictions?" and the answer is certainly "yes" in many cases. It doesn't follow that you should base your morality on it, and "evolution by means of natural selection is a very useful theory" does not imply "God does not exist." (For that matter, I don't think evolution being true necessarily implies it either, but that's beside the point.)

That said, I do believe God exists, but not that He magicked the world out of the void in six days a few thousand years ago. I don't even think that that's what the Bible conclusively implies:


1:11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

How is "and the earth brought forth grass and herb &c &c" in any way inconsistent with accepted scientific theory? Are interpreters of this scripture focusing on the "after his kind" business and thinking that it rules out any kind of change, rather than describing the situation at any moment? I don't get it.

Then you should be pissed at our forefathers who used Judeo-Christian principles to enforce the expression of free speech and freedom of religion and liberty and all that religious nonsense that pretty much developed the Constitution.

Your point? This seems like a straw man to me but I'm willing to be enlightened. Any philosophy can contribute some positive aspects to society. Taking the best aspects of different religions and incorporating them into a single doctrine doesn't mean we need to use fear of FSM to pass laws and dictate medical ethics.

As an aside, the founders, in general, were strong deists, not theists. It is true that many, but not all, wanted religion to play a large role in moral life and wanted churches to be a powerful force in local politics, but none wanted a single religion to dictate the law of the land.

Your point? This seems like a straw man to me but I'm willing to be enlightened. Any philosophy can contribute some positive aspects to society. Taking the best aspects of different religions and incorporating them into a single doctrine doesn't mean we need to use fear of FSM to pass laws and dictate medical ethics.

As an aside, the founders, in general, were strong deists, not theists. It is true that many, but not all, wanted religion to play a large role in moral life and wanted churches to be a powerful force in local politics, but none wanted a single religion to dictate the law of the land.

My point is that many social, moral, and yes medical ethics are dictated by individuals who hold strong beliefs to a single philosophical thought, i.e. religion. And for you to be pissed at your classmates who want to dictate their life and their career by those parameters is not only unfair, but borderline discriminatory towards your classmates.

Just like I wouldn't be pissed at you for using social/darwinian philosophies to dictate medical ethics, you shouldn't be pissed at me for using Christian philosophies to dictate medical ethics.

My point is that many social, moral, and yes medical ethics are dictated by individuals who hold strong beliefs to a single philosophical thought, i.e. religion. And for you to be pissed at your classmates who want to dictate their life and their career by those parameters is not only unfair, but borderline discriminatory towards your classmates.

Just like I wouldn't be pissed at you for using social/darwinian philosophies to dictate medical ethics, you shouldn't be pissed at me for using Christian philosophies to dictate medical ethics.

Gotcha. I think we have a simple misunderstanding. I am annoyed that some my classmates want to use their own religious beliefs to restrict me from doing certain medical procedures (e.g. banning medically assisted suicide). I'd never force a physician to do or not do a procedure if it conflicted with their core beliefs. I expect them to have that same respect towards me.

Gotcha. I think we have a simple misunderstanding. I am annoyed that some my classmates want to use their own religious beliefs to restrict me from doing certain medical procedures (e.g. banning medically assisted suicide). I'd never force a physician to do or not do a procedure if it conflicted with their core beliefs. I expect them to have that same respect towards me.

I understand. It's similar to elective abortions. I don't understand, morally and intellectually, why elective abortion is appropriate but I also know that so long as it's legal many patients and physicians won't have a problem with it, and as such, I can't force them to not do it. Sure, I'll go as far as to oppose that law but that's different from me going up to every physician who does the procedure and telling them that they're worthless and sinners or whatever.

"How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your eye?"

I understand. It's similar to elective abortions. I don't understand, morally and intellectually, why elective abortion is appropriate but I also know that so long as it's legal many patients and physicians won't have a problem with it, and as such, I can't force them to not do it. Sure, I'll go as far as to oppose that law but that's different from me going up to every physician who does the procedure and telling them that they're worthless and sinners or whatever.

"How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your eye?"

I think we're at an impasse then. If I understand correctly, you want to use a law (anti-abortion laws in this example) to dictate your own set of morals.

I can't support that and strongly believe we should defer to individual freedom and letting both physicians and patients choose their own set of morals.

Not only does legislating morality not work, as illustrated by the failure of the drug war/prohibition, continued systemic racism in this country decades after the civil rights movement, back alley abortions before legalized abortion, the existence of homosexual relationships even when sodomy was illegal, etc., but it drives these "amoral" people into the fray and prevents them from getting expert medical care where applicable.

It is one thing to legislate morality when an act is clearly against society's standards. Murder is wrong as it takes away a life and we accept that we have a right to life. Theft is wrong as we all accept a right to property. But with something as gray as abortion and medically assisted suicide, where there are rational arguments to be made on either side, I think your position is a dangerous one to take.

I think we're at an impasse then. If I understand correctly, you want to use a law (anti-abortion laws in this example) to dictate your own set of morals.

I can't support that and strongly believe we should defer to individual freedom and letting both physicians and patients choose their own set of morals.

Not only does legislating morality not work, as illustrated by the failure of the drug war/prohibition, continued systemic racism in this country decades after the civil rights movement, back alley abortions before legalized abortion, the existence of homosexual relationships even when sodomy was illegal, etc., but it drives these "amoral" people into the fray and prevents them from getting expert medical care where applicable.

It is one thing to legislate morality when an act is clearly against society's standards. Murder is wrong as it takes away a life and we accept that we have a right to life. Theft is wrong as we all accept a right to property. But with something as gray as abortion and medically assisted suicide, where there are rational arguments to be made on either side, I think your position is a dangerous one to take.

There it is. Without taking this thread off-topic, conception is when life begins. Hence, abortion is murder.

There it is. Without taking this thread off-topic, conception is when life begins. Hence, abortion is murder.

Come on! You're not that closed minded, are you? Maybe life does begin at conception. Maybe not. We as society have not determined that yet. It's a gray area.

Come on! You're not that closed minded, are you? Maybe life does begin at conception. Maybe not. We as society have not determined that yet. It's a gray area.

Medically, it does. You're right, societally, we can't make up our minds.

Society (those religious or not) tend to think that people who hear god are crazy or schizophrenic...

Yet a lot of people supposedly are talking to god through prayer.

Maybe we should medicate them?

:laugh:

It's impossible to settle a lot of the debate going on in this thread, because an argument from faith cannot be rebutted against with reason. Faith by its very nature requires a suspension of reason, so you're really barking up the wrong tree if you're planning on convincing a staunch believer that god doesn't exist.

Personally, I see god as an abstraction created by a scared and lonely human species searching for meaning within a universe that seems largely indifferent to its existence. "God" has meant many different things throughout history, and across cultures the notion of a divine entity or entities takes countless forms-the vast majority of which predate the now-popular Abrahamic faiths by thousands of years.

If you want to know why the Trinity, Allah, and Yaweh are so popular today, you can thank the horrible living conditions for most people living on feudal fiefdoms during the middle ages as well as the schizoid nature of world politics at the time. Like someone said earlier, the Abrahamic religions were simply in the right place at the right time to be used as a tool by the papacy and others to establish a modicum of law and order throughout their domains. If you have a bunch of peasants thinking that the way into paradise is to not to revolt against your lord and be a productive citizen, you won't have to deal with huge uprisings all the time (note that I said all the time-uprisings were common during the middle ages, although few reached the level of being able to destabilize an entire country). Eventually, these societies grew out of the monarchy as well as the political control of the church, but the influence of the church's philosophies and morals endured in a variety of forms. The Reformation produced Protestantism, politics produced the Anglican church, and the Great Awakenings in the 19th and 20th centuries were responsible for the breed of American christian fundamentalism we still see today.

My questions to those who defend the existence of a divine creator would therefore be the following:

1) What is so threatening about not believing in a divine creator? If we're here by accident, isn't it more useful to accept that and use the time to study the beautiful universe that we happen to exist in? Dogmatic belief can blind us to some of the intricacies of our natural world-is it so difficult to suspend such faith?

2) What makes your religion or your god the 'one true god' or whatever phrase du jour you prefer? What about the billions of people currently who do not share these beliefs in the slightest and the billions more who existed before modern day religions were even thought of? How is your belief system any more valid than theirs?

3) What is god? I'm not asking what he/she/it means to you, I'm asking you to tell me what it is, for if something is known to exist, you should be able to describe it in concrete terms.

Let me make it clear that I'm not looking to prove anybody wrong or right here. In keeping with my statements earlier, I simply want to discuss how the faithful among us mentally organize their beliefs. Throughout history, religion and spirituality have been pretty important parts of being human, and it's something worth exploring.

After 2 years of medical school my belief in God has been strengthened.

When you see how complex the human body is and how even a minute variation in a biochemical pathway can alter the outcome, chance evolution becomes (for me) unlikely.

Call me overly critical and even mean but this thinking seems short-sighted and emotionally based.

It's impossible to settle a lot of the debate going on in this thread, because an argument from faith cannot be rebutted against with reason. Faith by its very nature requires a suspension of reason, so you're really barking up the wrong tree if you're planning on convincing a staunch believer that god doesn't exist.
[...]
1) What is so threatening about not believing in a divine creator? If we're here by accident, isn't it more useful to accept that and use the time to study the beautiful universe that we happen to exist in? Dogmatic belief can blind us to some of the intricacies of our natural world-is it so difficult to suspend such faith?

2) What makes your religion or your god the 'one true god' or whatever phrase du jour you prefer? What about the billions of people currently who do not share these beliefs in the slightest and the billions more who existed before modern day religions were even thought of? How is your belief system any more valid than theirs?

3) What is god? I'm not asking what he/she/it means to you, I'm asking you to tell me what it is, for if something is known to exist, you should be able to describe it in concrete terms.

Let me make it clear that I'm not looking to prove anybody wrong or right here. In keeping with my statements earlier, I simply want to discuss how the faithful among us mentally organize their beliefs. Throughout history, religion and spirituality have been pretty important parts of being human, and it's something worth exploring.

First off, there are several definitions of faith. Faith, in Christian sense at least, is the ability to trust someone i.e. God that He works for the good of those who love Him in all things. So no, faith does not require suspension of reason, in fact it calls to use reason to understand that this beautiful universe and all its intricacies wasn't created by just time + matter + chance. I will argue that those who do believe in the time + matter + chance dogma have the blind faith that require suspension of reason because ultimately, these people ASSUME that the theories and their scientific deductions are accurate.

Second, I believe I answered your first question above. And honestly, there is nothing dangerous about NOT believing if you're so inclined. Because as C S Lewis puts it, "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell."

Third, there is wide variety of historical, architectural, metaphysical and philosophical proof that proves Bible right more often than not. The answer you're looking for to your second question is quite lengthy and frankly, it's something that I'm still discovering and I believe will continue to discover for the rest of my life as part of "God's revelation of His will to me".

Finally, God is good. God is love, joy, hope, and peace. He is trinatarian in that He resides in heaven, He came down in flesh as a human being like you and I, and He is with us in Spirit working in people's lives whether they may or may not know it. God is complex, yet He is also simple. God is intimidating, yet He is also comforting. God disciplines, yet He freely loves. God is within those who love Him, yet He is also very far apart. God is a paradox that as soon as we think we understand Him, we trip up and realize that we are not supposed to have all the answers.

So there hopefully, I was able to answer your questions in such a way that it displayed how I organize my beliefs. I tried my best not to come off as a scared, lonely human being who is schizophrenic and philosophically uneducated and poor.

Third, there is wide variety of historical, architectural, metaphysical and philosophical proof that proves Bible right more often than not.


I would like to hear you elaborate on this.

I would like to hear you elaborate on this.

The intellectual exercise in exploring this topic is beyond the scope of this thread. I suggest you do some research on your own because this topic is too extensive for me to sit here and type up couple paragraphs on it. It wouldn't do justice to the comprehensive and complex nature of the issue.

The intellectual exercise in exploring this topic is beyond the scope of this thread. I suggest you do some research on your own because this topic is too extensive for me to sit here and type up couple paragraphs on it. It wouldn't do justice to the comprehensive and complex nature of the issue.

In other words, you're just talking out of your ass.

In other words, you're just talking out of your ass.

Nice to have a civil conversation, isn't it? :)

I voted the option about it being made up by people, though my own views are agnostic atheism. I believe it's highly unlikely there is a higher power, but, to be humble, I can't say without absolute certainty there isn't since I don't know and that would come off pompous. I don't believe there is any proof of higher power, but I also haven't been presented with every bit of evidence and neither has anyone else.

Religion itself IS made up by humans as shown by the hundreds of religions that exist around the world today. All of them cannot be right. That is not to say there isn't a higher power somewhere, but I find the great diversity in societal dieties evidence that there isn't one.

I think South Park said it best in their episode about the agnostic family and their code:

"We cannot know with certainty if god or Christ exists. They COULD. Then again there COULD be a giant reptilian bird in charge of everything. Can we be CERTAIN there isn't? NO, so it's pointless to talk about it."