How do physicians/med students/pre-meds feel about religion?

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Originally Posted by BarlowGirl

You want an insult? Ok: you're a nitpicker searching for a fight.

I stated my opinion then left the topic alone. Yet you act like I got up on a soapbox and preached hell and damnation to atheists. I didn't.
You gonna go postal when a patient thanks their respective deity when the tumor isn't benign before they thank you?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Who insulted you? No one insulted you..

A little insecure, are we?

I guess you are new here. This has been one of the most civil conversations on a polarizing subject in months.

Originally Posted by BarlowGirl

You want an insult? Ok: you're a nitpicker searching for a fight.

I stated my opinion then left the topic alone. Yet you act like I got up on a soapbox and preached hell and damnation to atheists. I didn't.
You gonna go postal when a patient thanks their respective deity when the tumor isn't benign before they thank you?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile

Not sure if you are refering to me or not. If so, refer to my earlier post at the top of page 5 about pt. interaction. I'm not picking a fight, I'm engaging in a mostly civil thread. There was a comment about Dawkins being too militantly anti-thiest, which he is. I was stating that it is the view that you posted which can irk people like Dawkins into that frustration. It would be along the lines of me saying "you can either live life as an intelligent person or you can live life believing in a ridiculous sky man" (I am not making this arguement, intelligent arguements are made by intelligent people on both sides). Like yours, this is an ignorant statement that benefits this discussion in no way.

Originally Posted by LockDoc

Not sure if you are refering to me or not. If so, refer to my earlier post at the top of page 5 about pt. interaction. I'm not picking a fight, I'm engaging in a mostly civil thread. There was a comment about Dawkins being too militantly anti-thiest, which he is. I was stating that it is the view that you posted which can irk people like Dawkins into that frustration. It would be along the lines of me saying "you can either live life as an intelligent person or you can live life believing in a ridiculous sky man" (I am not making this arguement, intelligent arguements are made by intelligent people on both sides). Like yours, this is an ignorant statement that benefits this discussion in no way.

No need to explain yourself man. Not worth it.

Can we agree that people are free to believe (or not believe) in what they will, and that these convictions should not be used to influence policy, nor should they try and convert others?

Hitchens always said, "You can believe whatever you want -- just don't try and teach it to my kids." I think that's a commendable view.

Originally Posted by JESSFALLING

Richard Dawkins is driven by bigotry, and comes off sounding as religious as any radical theist in his beliefs. Having strong personal beliefs is a lot different than feeling the need to trash others' opposing views and them personally.....if the crusades were still going I'm sure he'd be heading out with an axe to save society.

I think you're confusing Dawkins with Hitchens. Hitchens was more inclined to trash people than Dawkins.

Dawkins has indeed blamed religion for 9/11. He commented on religion emboldening people to give up life so easily and removes barriers to killing other people (suicide bombing).

Dawkins has gone more to the extremist side of things. I think one of the main reasons he does this is because religion is treated with such a delicate glove in society garnering tax breaks, political influence, etc. Even so he will never be as vile as Falwell or Bill O'Reilly or a televangelist.

For disclosure I'm an atheist.

Originally Posted by Valadi

Can we agree that people are free to believe (or not believe) in what they will, and that these convictions should not be used to influence policy, nor should they try and convert others?

Hitchens always said, "You can believe whatever you want -- just don't try and teach it to my kids." I think that's a commendable view.

As long as someone's beliefs do not act as justifications for negative actions on others, then I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm an atheist who used to be Catholic.

Originally Posted by Neurosis

...which god(dess)? that's what's wrong with Pascal's wager, that among other things...

Pascal's Wager isn't an argument for the existence of a deity, but for the belief in one. Seem counterintuitive? It is.

Originally Posted by bpigz

I don't know why people have to be reminded of past religious scientists (Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Mendel etc.). I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of people from the 1500's to the late 1800's associated themselves with a particular faith until people were able to feel comfortable (and also safe) proclaiming no faith, or skepticism towards it. IMO, advances in science have played a fairly substantial role in this shift. [/SIZE]

While this is true, it is also true that scientists like Newton and Leibniz also wrote prolifically on the topic of theology; certainly no one was expected to 'pretend' to such an extent. It was also entirely possible to be publicly atheist even in the middle ages and certainly during the enlightenment depending on where you lived - the Netherlands immediately comes to mind.

As for me, I have always felt that God exists, as if it were a perfectly natural belief since I was a very small child and without any encouragement from my family. Kierkegaard had it right when he called it a leap of faith, and I find it impossible to convince others to just believe, so I just go about my business and hope it rubs off! One argument I do find to confound my atheist friends is the source of Being (in the existential sense, not the metaphysical sense). Atheist philosophy is constantly arguing over the true state of the mind, whether it's some form of materialism or even epiphenomenalism, I'm dissatisfied by the inability to argue away perhaps the only thing about which anyone can be certain - that one perceives and one exists. Never mind the more specious arguments for and against intentional thought; while it is certainly no argument for God in itself, it is hard to say that there is some physical mechanism by which some 'thing' perceives anything at all. I think Berkeley's subjective idealism is possibly the most sound argument in the arena of philosophy of the mind.

Originally Posted by gettheleadout

Pascal's Wager isn't an argument for the existence of a deity, but for the belief in one. Seem counterintuitive? It is.

well thanks for correcting/informing me.

Originally Posted by Neurosis

well thanks for correcting/informing me.

Oh I didn't mean it to be correcting you, I agree with what you said about its nonspecificity as well, I was just saying.

Originally Posted by NickNaylor

Knowledge of how the universe fundamentally works doesn't provide one with meaning or purpose in life. There will almost certainly always be religion in society unless it is forcefully eradicated.

It does not provide meaning to you and, most likely, nor does it provide meaning to many others; however, as someone who is an atheist, I find that understanding brings a sense of beauty and amazement to the universe that no belief in God could [for me]. Furthermore, there are enough aspects of one's life to find meaning without a deity, such as through one's profession, family, service to others, hobbies and other pursuits. God is not necessary for one to feel their life has meaning or purpose -- one can choose to create meaning in a world that is random and, inherently, meaningless.

Originally Posted by GreenStyle

I never said I refute anything. I am saying that believing in magic unicorns is as ridiculous as believing in the big bang as far as science has come.

The occurrence of the big bang is not impossible. I never said it was. And really, who cares if I spit on decades of hard work? That has nothing to do with my actual point.

Patooie~

I disagree with your statements.

There is no evidence, as to date, of the existence of magical, horse-like, horn-possessing beings known as unicorns. Absolutely nothing.

There is evidence, though it is not near complete, that suggests the occurrence of the Big Bang Theory. You can argue that the evidence is not conclusive enough to fully accept the theory; however, the idea that it is on the same level as the existence of unicorns is absurd and shows ignorance of the evidence for the Big Bang Theory.

Originally Posted by BarlowGirl

In regard to the OP's original question; I would rather live like God exists and find out he doesn't, then live like he doesn't and find out he does.

It is impossible to do this. There are far too many possible Gods and Goddesses, many of which require devotion to him/her over all others. No matter how you live, you risk being wrong and having lived as if [a] God(ess) does not exist.

Furthermore, the need for a person to be religious to be ethical is thin and philosophically unsound.

Originally Posted by Valadi

Can we agree that people are free to believe (or not believe) in what they will, and that these convictions should not be used to influence policy, nor should they try and convert others?

Hitchens always said, "You can believe whatever you want -- just don't try and teach it to my kids." I think that's a commendable view.

Amen [no pun intended].

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

....One argument I do find to confound my atheist friends is the source of Being (in the existential sense, not the metaphysical sense). Atheist philosophy is constantly arguing over the true state of the mind, whether it's some form of materialism or even epiphenomenalism, I'm dissatisfied by the inability to argue away perhaps the only thing about which anyone can be certain - that one perceives and one exists. Never mind the more specious arguments for and against intentional thought; while it is certainly no argument for God in itself, it is hard to say that there is some physical mechanism by which some 'thing' perceives anything at all. I think Berkeley's subjective idealism is possibly the most sound argument in the arena of philosophy of the mind.

As an Atheist, I am comfortable with the fact that, as of current, we do not know everything that there is to know about the natural world, particularly as it pertains to the mechanisms of the mind. And, due to the vast complexity of the universe, I am comfortable, though disappointed, with the fact we will likely never understand everything.

That said, a lack of knowledge or understanding is not a sound reason to conclude that a supernatural, non-evidence based belief is true or likely, such as the belief in a spirit or God. If it provides you comfort, you are free to believe it as you wish; however, the argument that X is not understood, thus, it must be something beyond the natural world is flawed.

Originally Posted by dr zaius

Umm, it's evidence in favor of the big bang. There is plenty of other evidence, too. Do you think a bunch of physicists and cosmologists got together in a secret room and had a secret meeting to put out this made up theory because they hate religion? What credentials do you bring to the table to refute their evidence? You're smugly spitting in the face of decades of hard work.

here is a new theory to boggle your mind. all of the galaxies are moving away from the milky way, and the one's that are further away are moving much faster.

We always think we're at the center of the universe. The theory makes sense based on the data, but it does put us in the center of the universe again.

Originally Posted by pre med 2014

here is a new theory to boggle your mind. all of the galaxies are moving away from the milky way, and the one's that are further away are moving much faster.

We always think we're at the center of the universe. The theory makes sense based on the data, but it does put us in the center of the universe again.

Scientists now say 'with certainty' that Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way will collide in 4 billion years.

Guess this topic won't matter much then 0.o

Originally Posted by pre med 2014

here is a new theory to boggle your mind. all of the galaxies are moving away from the milky way, and the one's that are further away are moving much faster.

We always think we're at the center of the universe. The theory makes sense based on the data, but it does put us in the center of the universe again.

What lol? That theory makes sense even if we aren't at the center of the universe....

Originally Posted by ur2l8

Scientists now say 'with certainty' that Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way will collide in 4 billion years.

Guess this topic won't matter much then 0.o

Yes it will based on current projections. In a million years, I think (and would hope) that Earth will only represent a small sliver (like 0.00001%) of the total humans living in the universe.

Originally Posted by pre med 2014

here is a new theory to boggle your mind. all of the galaxies are moving away from the milky way, and the one's that are further away are moving much faster.

We always think we're at the center of the universe. The theory makes sense based on the data, but it does put us in the center of the universe again.

The effect of space expansion is observable in that sense from any point in the universe. It doesn't mean one is at the true "center."

Originally Posted by ur2l8

Scientists now say 'with certainty' that Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way will collide in 4 billion years.

Guess this topic won't matter much then 0.o

Given the distance between solar systems within galaxies, it's not like the earth will necessarily be absorbed into some random Andromedan star.

Originally Posted by Starlightembers

As an Atheist, I am comfortable with the fact that, as of current, we do not know everything that there is to know about the natural world, particularly as it pertains to the mechanisms of the mind. And, due to the vast complexity of the universe, I am comfortable, though disappointed, with the fact we will likely never understand everything.

That said, a lack of knowledge or understanding is not a sound reason to conclude that a supernatural, non-evidence based belief is true or likely, such as the belief in a spirit or God. If it provides you comfort, you are free to believe it as you wish; however, the argument that X is not understood, thus, it must be something beyond the natural world is flawed.

I actually explicitly stated that this does not prove the existence of God. The rest of your comment leads me to believe we both argue first that no one can actually know or prove anything and we should simply be content with what makes sense to us. If you are willing to adhere to academic or pyrrhic skepticism full stop, then I applaud you for the consistency of said beliefs.

I, on the other hand, do have faith that we can know things. Believing this, subjective idealism - a form of monism in which thoughts and things are both real in the same 'way' - seems to me more parsimonious than any other theory of the mind. Any monist alternative must still concede that thoughts are actually matter in the common sense but without any basis upon which to stand on their own. Try reading Leibniz's Monadology and not laughing at the strangeness of it all. Most attempts to solve this problem fall into dualistic traps or fail the solipsism test, but the greatest argument against Berkeley is that he uses God as a stopgap for the inexplicable as had all his forebears. It all boils down to whether you believe we can know anything or not - once you make that first leap of faith, it's hard to say anything else is less absurd.

There has to be a concept of God on the table in order to not believe in that concept of God.

You can't just be atheist to any ideas of God or whatever (I mean, I guess you could, but that would be silly). You are atheist to a particular idea of God. In my experience, most people who discuss the existence of God or atheism don't seem to understand this concept. They seem to think that atheism means that you don't believe in any possibility of the essentially limitless crapshoot personal concepts of God that any given person may believe in.

Smarter religious people who I've talked to have this tendency of constructing these ridiculously vague, practically self-immunizing, concepts of who or what God is. Like -

"Well, I mean there's gotta be some greater force out there and some design behind it."

Ummmm... ok. Be more vague and self-immunizing.

Then there are (seemingly lots of) people who seem to think that there being some kind of greater intelligence that created life/the universe/whatever means the exact same thing as - there's not only some force that created everything, but also that force is omnipotent, listens to prayers, and has some kind of current active control over everything that happens.

Yeah... because not believing the latter is completely the same as not believing the (much much much more likely) former.

The more contingencies get thrown into it, the less and less likely the concept becomes. That's just Occam's Razor.

I'd venture to say that with everyone's unique perspectives, it would be hard to find two people who believe in the same God. People gather and worship as if they all believe in the same God, but they probably don't.

Sorry.

Originally Posted by STAT EKG

There has to be a concept of God on the table in order to not believe in that concept of God.

You can't just be atheist to any ideas of God or whatever (I mean, I guess you could, but that would be silly). You are atheist to a particular idea of God. In my experience, most people who discuss the existence of God or atheism don't seem to understand this concept. They seem to think that atheism means that you don't believe in any possibility of the essentially limitless crapshoot personal concepts of God that any given person may believe in.

Smarter religious people who I've talked to have this tendency of constructing these ridiculously vague, practically self-immunizing, concepts of who or what God is. Like -

"Well, I mean there's gotta be some greater force out there and some design behind it."

Ummmm... ok. Be more vague and self-immunizing.

Then there are (seemingly lots of) people who seem to think that there being some kind of greater intelligence that created life/the universe/whatever means the exact same thing as - there's not only some force that created everything, but also that force is omnipotent, listens to prayers, and has some kind of current active control over everything that happens.

Yeah... because not believing the latter is completely the same as not believing the (much much much more likely) former.

The more contingencies get thrown into it, the less and less likely the concept becomes. That's just Occam's Razor.

I'd venture to say that with everyone's unique perspectives, it would be hard to find two people who believe in the same God. People gather and worship as if they all believe in the same God, but they probably don't.

Sorry.

First of all, not only is it entirely possible to be an atheist who does not believe in God in any form, it is actually the definition. What you describe is just an apostate.

Secondly, that is not the definition of Occam's Razor, nor is Occam's Razor some kind of truth or axiom - it is simply a useful tool. Probability also has little place in metaphysics.

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

5 page rage thread inc.

Called it

Originally Posted by calvnandhobbs68

Called it

congratulations. when i first saw your post i was like: "damn, that ain't never gonna happen, the mods probably gonna bust this thread up." then when it did happen i was like: "whoa, this guy must be psychic or a prophet!"

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

First of all, not only is it entirely possible to be an atheist who does not believe in God in any form, it is actually the definition. What you describe is just an apostate.

Secondly, that is not the definition of Occam's Razor, nor is Occam's Razor some kind of truth or axiom - it is simply a useful tool. Probability also has little place in metaphysics.

So, ok, God is a Chevrolet in my opinion. Now anyone who is an atheist does not believe in Chevrolets, lol.

Trying to apply 1+1 = 2 logic to something ridiculously subjective is kind of comical.

Originally Posted by STAT EKG

So, ok, God is a Chevrolet in my opinion. Now anyone who is an atheist does not believe in Chevrolets, lol.

that doesn't make any sense. if you say god is a Chevrolet why would atheists disbelieve in Chevrolet? god isn't all Chevrolet/all Chevrolet aren't god...

Originally Posted by Neurosis

congratulations. when i first saw your post i was like: "damn, that ain't never gonna happen, the mods probably gonna bust this thread up." then when it did happen i was like: "whoa, this guy must be psychic or a prophet!"

He is a prophet! We must worship his god!

Originally Posted by Cornu Ammonis

I actually explicitly stated that this does not prove the existence of God. The rest of your comment leads me to believe we both argue first that no one can actually know or prove anything and we should simply be content with what makes sense to us. If you are willing to adhere to academic or pyrrhic skepticism full stop, then I applaud you for the consistency of said beliefs.

I, on the other hand, do have faith that we can know things. Believing this, subjective idealism - a form of monism in which thoughts and things are both real in the same 'way' - seems to me more parsimonious than any other theory of the mind. Any monist alternative must still concede that thoughts are actually matter in the common sense but without any basis upon which to stand on their own. Try reading Leibniz's Monadology and not laughing at the strangeness of it all. Most attempts to solve this problem fall into dualistic traps or fail the solipsism test, but the greatest argument against Berkeley is that he uses God as a stopgap for the inexplicable as had all his forebears. It all boils down to whether you believe we can know anything or not - once you make that first leap of faith, it's hard to say anything else is less absurd.

I did notice that you mentioned that it does not prove the existence of God; however, you seemed to be implying, despite that, that it makes the existence of God more likely, rational or plausible, via your note on how you doubt such a mechanism could be purely biological and how the question confounds your atheist friends. Thus, I repeated this point, stating that it does not only not prove that God or other supernatural entities [such as a spirit] exist; but it does not make its existence or belief in said existence more likely or plausible or reasonable, either.

Furthermore, I never stated that I believe nothing can be proven and/or explained. I stated that not everything has been as of this point in time and, as a consequence of the vast complexity of the universe, it is unlikely that we will ever understand [B]all of it. That is distinct from believing that none of it can be understood or proven. Though I do accept that it is theoretically possible this is all a simulated or false experience of some sort or other philosophical hypothetical situation, I find it more probable that the physical world does exist and, if the physical world does exist, it can be observed and, as a consequence, things can be proven about it.

Originally Posted by Neurosis

that doesn't make any sense. if you say god is a Chevrolet why would atheists disbelieve in Chevrolet? god isn't all Chevrolet/all Chevrolet aren't god...

More than this, he completely reversed the two definitions I delineated in his attempt to create an argument from absurdity. Atheists don't believe in any god or gods, so their answer to 'god is a chevrolet' is 'no.'

Originally Posted by Starlightembers

I did notice that you mentioned that it does not prove the existence of God; however, you seemed to be implying, despite that, that it makes the existence of God more likely, rational or plausible, via your note on how you doubt such a mechanism could be purely biological and how the question confounds your atheist friends. Thus, I repeated this point, stating that it does not only not prove that God or other supernatural entities [such as a spirit] exist; but it does not make its existence or belief in said existence more likely or plausible or reasonable, either.

Furthermore, I never stated that I believe nothing can be proven and/or explained. I stated that not everything has been as of this point in time and, as a consequence of the vast complexity of the universe, it is unlikely that we will ever understand [B]all of it. That is distinct from believing that none of it can be understood or proven. Though I do accept that it is theoretically possible this is all a simulated or false experience of some sort or other philosophical hypothetical situation, I find it more probable that the physical world does exist and, if the physical world does exist, it can be observed and, as a consequence, things can be proven about it.

You appeal to probability many times in this post as if probability and our understanding of it is a priori true and applicable to metaphysical statements, but then you go on to admit that it requires several steps of exclusion and abstraction before you can prove things. Assuming any of that is true or makes any sense, by definition it is in fact less likely at every step that you are correct, with the least likely statement being the last one: that we can prove things about the physical world. I'll go a step further, however, and ask you to prove anything at all without appealing to axioms. You would be the first person to do so.

I was born a Christian and over the years i have become more accepting of other faiths. I acknowledge many of the teachings and values of the Church, but i also believe there is a lot to learn from other beliefs, and that not everything in the Bible is exactly true. I pray to God everyday and know there is a higher being, and learning more about science has only strengthened my belief in God.

Originally Posted by MathewsMD

I was born a Christian and over the years i have become more accepting of other faiths. I acknowledge many of the teachings and values of the Church, but i also believe there is a lot to learn from other beliefs, and that not everything in the Bible is exactly true. I pray to God everyday and know there is a higher being, and learning more about science has only strengthened my belief in God.

NO you don't!!!

You may "feel" as if you have a deep and personal connection with god. Feel being the key word here.

In case if I'm wrong, tell me, how do you know that there is a higher being?

Also, I am surprised that no one has mentioned the god gene yet

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

Edit: I'm not saying this is an established gene, but it is a very interesting read.

Originally Posted by tmax619

That's not true. Atheists and agnostics are more knowledgeable about religion in general (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html). Most were religious, but gradually realized that no proof for the existence of good has been presented.

Can you really, with a straight face, call Richard Dawkins an extremist and a fundamentalist simply for criticizing religion? Does he violate diplomatic immunity or blow up the nearest church for being offended?

Anti-theist here.

Correction: September 29, 2010

An article on Tuesday about a poll in which Americans fared poorly in answering questions about religion misspelled the name of a beatified Roman Catholic nun and Nobel Peace Prize winner. She was Mother Teresa, not Theresa.

:Laugh:

Also, the breakdown data shows that your conclusion is a little inappropriate. The survey demonstrates more of an ignorance by the religious on other religions than a higher level of religious knowledge by atheists (who still failed the test )

Also I hope you apply this definition of extremist fairly in the other direction as well....

Originally Posted by Venom5

NO you don't!!!

You may "feel" as if you have a deep and personal connection with god. Feel being the key word here.

Correct. This is why this debate is an uphill battle for me.... It is unavoidable to have my argument lumped in with this guys...

I like Dawkins' work, but he does come off as obnoxious sometimes. I disagree with the assertion that he's as fanatical as the people he rallies against. He openly acknowledges that it's impossible to know 100% one way or the other. He simply states his arguments for why there is "almost certainly" no God.

I just prefer when people aren't so obnoxious about their beliefs. I've heard:

"God doesn't exist you stupid religious sheep."

"If you can't see the proof for God, you're blind."

"There are so many truths and scientific facts in the Bible."

Not being religious due to a lack of solid evidence is perfectly fine. Being religious, while acknowledging your beliefs are just that - faith - is perfectly fine.

As has been said many times before, religion has no place in medicine.
Doctors are there to treat patients; if the patient wants to discuss religion, they can go see a priest (or Imam, Rabbi, etc.)

PS: to the "Christians" who have decided that not everything in the Bible is true - once you throw out the premise that the Bible is the perfect word of god, there is no longer any reason to believe anything it says.

Originally Posted by Cynicalbrit

As has been said many times before, religion has no place in medicine.
Doctors are there to treat patients; if the patient wants to discuss religion, they can go see a priest (or Imam, Rabbi, etc.)

PS: to the "Christians" who have decided that not everything in the Bible is true - once you throw out the premise that the Bible is the perfect word of god, there is no longer any reason to believe anything it says.

Exactly! That's when it describes this place called "Jerusalem" I'm all like "pshhhhh like that fairy tale place actually exists!".

Sorry, the level of intelligence (or lack there of of) in your post didn't warrant an actual response

Originally Posted by Venom5

In case if I'm wrong, tell me, how do you know that there is a higher being?

Venon5 has a point here: For all we know, we might actually be living in the matrix...not likely, but perhaps the screen writers were on to something?

Religions have also used miracles in the past to 'prove' their deities' existences.....however, how do we reconcile the problem that so very many religions have taken this approach? Perhaps there is some unifying spiritual truth - a 12th dimensional spiritual realm, so to say - which hasn't been discovered by science yet, which will one day be found and will reconcile our human experience to the scientific and religious narratives we so enjoy? Or, perhaps, religious experience is all in our minds and the psychologist have it right?.......Or, lastly, perhaps our mind is simply in the machine, like the matrix, and the perception of 'reality' is more flexible for some than others>>??

Originally Posted by JESSFALLING

Venon5 has a point here: For all we know, we might actually be living in the matrix...not likely, but perhaps the screen writers were on to something?

Religions have also used miracles in the past to 'prove' their deities' existences.....however, how do we reconcile the problem that so very many religions have taken this approach? Perhaps there is some unifying spiritual truth - a 12th dimensional spiritual realm, so to say - which hasn't been discovered by science yet, which will one day be found and will reconcile our human experience to the scientific and religious narratives we so enjoy? Or, perhaps, religious experience is all in our minds and the psychologist have it right?.......Or, lastly, perhaps our mind is simply in the machine, like the matrix, and the perception of 'reality' is more flexible for some than others>>??

You should read on the philosophy of the mind. You would probably enjoy it.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

Exactly! That's when it describes this place called "Jerusalem" I'm all like "pshhhhh like that fairy tale place actually exists!".

Sorry, the level of intelligence (or lack there of of) in your post didn't warrant an actual response

Fair enough, I will amend my original statement as follows: there is no reason believe any of the Bible's other supernatural claims. We all agree that Jerusalem is a real place, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it's in the Bible. If the only evidence for the existence of Jerusalem was the fact that it was mentioned in the Bible, would that really be a good reason to believe that it existed?

Originally Posted by JESSFALLING

Venon5 has a point here: For all we know, we might actually be living in the matrix...not likely, but perhaps the screen writers were on to something?

No, we are calculations in a futuristic society's supercomputer-simulation of a universe designed to demonstrate what the world would be like if [insert random religion] were true. The true religion in our universe isn't the same as the one outside the computer

Originally Posted by Suncrusher

No, we are calculations in a futuristic society's supercomputer-simulation of a universe designed to demonstrate what the world would be like if [insert random religion] were true. The true religion in our universe isn't the same as the one outside the computer

I raise your futuristic supercomputer simulation an alien wizard enchantment spell and we are all sleeping vampires living a dream... within a dream.

Originally Posted by Suncrusher

No, we are calculations in a futuristic society's supercomputer-simulation of a universe designed to demonstrate what the world would be like if [insert random religion] were true. The true religion in our universe isn't the same as the one outside the computer

Matrix style thinking... I like it!

Well in that case I guess nothing matters and I should spend the rest of my life in Vegas with expensive hookers and aged wine

Originally Posted by Venom5

Matrix style thinking... I like it!

Well in that case I guess nothing matters and I should spend the rest of my life in Vegas with expensive hookers and aged wine

Sounds like a plan.

Good luck, buddy!

Originally Posted by Venom5

Yes it will based on current projections. In a million years, I think (and would hope) that Earth will only represent a small sliver (like 0.00001%) of the total humans living in the universe.

Or there will be no "humans" at all, ... anywhere.

Originally Posted by Venom5

Well in that case I guess nothing matters and I should spend the rest of my life in Vegas with expensive hookers and aged wine

"Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do. Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." - Bible

Regardless of religious belief, the bible offers some great literature (:

Originally Posted by Cynicalbrit

Fair enough, I will amend my original statement as follows: there is no reason believe any of the Bible's other supernatural claims. We all agree that Jerusalem is a real place, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it's in the Bible. If the only evidence for the existence of Jerusalem was the fact that it was mentioned in the Bible, would that really be a good reason to believe that it existed?

So your argument is "because an inaccuracy exists, everything must be false". Do you understand the problem with this argument? The real issue here is not whether or not this constitutes a valid reason to believe something, but whether or not your argument constitutes a valid counterpoint. It does not btw....

I will say this: I think everything in the bible is true with respect to the perspective and understanding of the author.

Originally Posted by SpecterGT260

I will say this: I think everything in the bible is true with respect to the perspective and understanding of the author.

and the author was inspired by god right?

Originally Posted by Hermeneutics

If God does not exist, what caused the big bang?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Originally Posted by Hermeneutics

If God does not exist, what caused the big bang?

See this is why I think religion is so dangerous. Sentences like these. And it's not just the poster it's most Americans (including elementary teachers) that think like this.

I hope you were being facetious

Originally Posted by Hermeneutics

That doesn't make any sense. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist. Consequently, the universe had a cause.

Ok take a sodium ion and a chlorine ion.

They readily bond and exist as NaCl

They exist, does this mean god was responsible? Or should we say that it is because of subatomic interaction? (my chem book states the latter)

Now you can say that god was responsible for the interaction behaving in this particular was, but this is not necessary and it detrimental to scientific inquiry