Do you believe in God and why

[sirineou]

12 minutes ago, sirineou said:

You would surely have a hard time to convince a Neanderthal man to work in a factory or an office, they were not so stupid as you seem to believe ????

What in what I have said so far makes you belive that I thought Neanderthals were stupid?

Quite the opposite. when people look at incredible achievements thousands of years ago  and infer that they must had being done by elients, My answer is always that humans then possessed the same mental capacity than we do now. We have not involved in the past few thousands of years, genius occurs at the same rate, idiot savants occur at the same rate,  in fact I propose that back then they were smarter than as , because they did not depend on technology as much as we do today.  But they had slaves, lots and lots of slaves. 

As far as Neanderthals are concerned , we know very litle about them, but from the litle we know it seems that the were not all that different from as.  In fact there is a theory that they never went extinct and that they got assimilated  with as. Actually I belive in the US we elect one of them president ????

Edited November 17, 2019 by sirineou

[mauGR1]

14 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 What did did the hungry man say to the Buddhist Hotdog vendor?

  Make me one with everything

we are talking in circles because you are not talking about god in the conventional sense which is what I think this thread is about. IMO in that sense you are an atheist also.

Why cant you be spiritual and an Atheist?

Of course we can. I am spiritual everyday. Some days i am a believer, some days less. Some days i don't care.

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Of course we can. I am spiritual everyday. Some days i am a believer, some days less. Some days i don't care.

Nothing wrong IMO with spirituality on a personal level. if it produces positive results for yourself , Great!!

If it hurts you, you are only hurting yourself.

It is Organised religion and biblical gods that I have a problem with.  

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

It is Organised religion and biblical gods that I have a problem with. 

Those are 2 different subjects, both have been discussed big time, but i understand about your view, and in some aspects i can totally agree with you.

Even some priests will agree that Catholic Religion and other branches of Christianity have degenerated.

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Those are 2 different subjects, both have been discussed big time, but i understand about your view, and in some aspects i can totally agree with you.

Even some priests will agree that Catholic Religion and other branches of Christianity have degenerated.

 With organisation there is power . Any time you organise something there will always be those who will attempt (almost always successfully) to usurp it's power . 

[VincentRJ]

6 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

As discussed previously, the notion of "modern man intelligent, ancient man stupid" is one i disagree with.

 

I didn't use the words intelligent and stupid, but rational and irrational. I associate rationality with logic, mathematics, philosophy, and science. When someone became sick in ancient times there was no option to take an antibiotic drug prescribed by a knowledgeable doctor, that would usually be effective. The person would instead be treated by a Shaman or Priest who would summon special spirits to heal the sick person. The placebo effect might sometimes have been sufficient to cure the person, depending on the type of ailment, but most often probably not.

 

The placebo effect depends on a belief or confidence that the treatment will work, so in ancient times a belief in the existence of healing spirits was essential for that placebo effect to exist. However, in modern times, all drugs are tested against a placebo, and are not approved unless they have a significantly greater effect than the placebo. No belief in supernatural spirits or Gods is required.

 

See the difference?  ????

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I didn't use the words intelligent and stupid, but rational and irrational. I associate rationality with logic, mathematics, philosophy, and science. When someone became sick in ancient times there was no option to take an antibiotic drug prescribed by a knowledgeable doctor, that would usually be effective. The person would instead be treated by a Shaman or Priest who would summon special spirits to heal the sick person. The placebo effect might sometimes have been sufficient to cure the person, depending on the type of ailment, but most often probably not.

 

The placebo effect depends on a belief or confidence that the treatment will work, so in ancient times a belief in the existence of healing spirits was essential for that placebo effect to exist. However, in modern times, all drugs are tested against a placebo, and are not approved unless they have a significantly greater effect than the placebo. No belief in supernatural spirits or Gods is required.

 

See the difference?  ????

Sure, i see the difference, and i find your posts rather stimulating, but every paragraph would be worth of a lengthy discussion, and perhaps this is not the time and place.

Obviously, when we talk about unspecified "ancient times" we generalise a lot, so the discussion gets rather confused, and you are no doubt aware that the historical data cannot be accurate.

The point which i tend not to agree with you, being you considering the ancient people ( before the script, let's say 5000 yrs ago) uncivilised and ignorant, while i have reasons to believe that they were not uncivilised, and probably having some kind of knowledge that we could define "supernatural" in modern times.

If you have seen the movie "Avatar" you'll know what i'm talking about .

[Skeptic7]

22 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sure, i see the difference, and i find your posts rather stimulating, but every paragraph would be worth of a lengthy discussion, and perhaps this is not the time and place.

Obviously, when we talk about unspecified "ancient times" we generalise a lot, so the discussion gets rather confused, and you are no doubt aware that the historical data cannot be accurate.

The point which i tend not to agree with you, being you considering the ancient people ( before the script, let's say 5000 yrs ago) uncivilised and ignorant, while i have reasons to believe that they were not uncivilised, and probably having some kind of knowledge that we could define "supernatural" in modern times.

If you have seen the movie "Avatar" you'll know what i'm talking about .

Ive seen the movie and loved it...TWICE!

 

No idea what you're talking about. ????

[Sunmaster]

12 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

No idea what you're talking about. ????

Now there's a surprise...????

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/16/2019 at 7:40 PM, geronimo said:

and as we head to page 247, the debate is again hotting up. Of course, if a few religious fanatics would get on board, we might make it to 300!!!

Apart from one pro religion poster, most "fanatics" on this thread are atheists.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, VincentRJ said:

The Methodology of Science has taken us thousands of years to develop. This is now the gold standard for obtaining what is at least provisionally true.

The universe is how many billions of years old and some apparently think that something only been in existence for a cosmic microsecond is somehow perfect?

On 11/16/2019 at 8:11 PM, VincentRJ said:

Before this Methodology was clearly defined and applied, lots of intelligent people in the past believed in so many incorrect concepts

I choose to think that in a few thousand years or so, this methodology will be seen in the same light as believing the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.

We know nothing, Jon Snow.

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apart from one pro religion poster, most "fanatics" on this thread are atheists.

If in your alternate reality "fanatic" equates to rationalism and critical thinking...then we're in agreement. 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The universe is how many billions of years old and some apparently think that something only been in existence for a cosmic microsecond is somehow perfect?

'Perfect' is a human concept. Whatever you think, whether you think God exists or doesn't, it is a human concept. All the so-called Laws of Physics and rules of Mathematics, are human concepts.

 

The issue for the rational person is how consistently and reliably our concepts and views, whether scientific or otherwise, correspond to, or match the environment that surrounds us and the activities we engage in.

 

When our views usually match or fit with the environment that surrounds us, we survive and prosper. When they tend not to correspond, we fail to prosper and could eventually become extinct, as most creatures in the history of our planet have.

 

I choose to think that in a few thousand years or so, this methodology will be seen in the same light as believing the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.

We know nothing, Jon Snow.

 

We know whatever helps us to survive, otherwise we wouldn't exist. At the most basic level, almost everyone knows that their bare hand will burn if they stick it in a fire. There are countless examples of things that most people will avoid because they know they are harmful or fatal. 

 

Likewise, there are countless things or activities that most people know are beneficial and embrace them.

 

For anyone to claim that 'We know nothing', is pure nonsense in terms of the usual definition of word. However, if you define 'know' as having a complete and absolute understanding of something in all its details and intricacies, down to the movements of its most fundamental particles and waves, then it's reasonable to claim that we know very little.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

'Perfect' is a human concept. Whatever you think, whether you think God exists or doesn't, it is a human concept. All the so-called Laws of Physics and rules of Mathematics, are human concepts.

 

The issue for the rational person is how consistently and reliably our concepts and views, whether scientific or otherwise, correspond to, or match the environment that surrounds us and the activities we engage in.

 

When our views usually match or fit with the environment that surrounds us, we survive and prosper. When they tend not to correspond, we fail to prosper and could eventually become extinct, as most creatures in the history of our planet have.

 

 

 

 

We know whatever helps us to survive, otherwise we wouldn't exist. At the most basic level, almost everyone knows that their bare hand will burn if they stick it in a fire. There are countless examples of things that most people will avoid because they know they are harmful or fatal. 

 

Likewise, there are countless things or activities that most people know are beneficial and embrace them.

 

For anyone to claim that 'We know nothing', is pure nonsense in terms of the usual definition of word. However, if you define 'know' as having a complete and absolute understanding of something in all its details and intricacies, down to the movements of its most fundamental particles and waves, then it's reasonable to claim that we know very little.

I say we know nothing because we only know what we know and there is so much we don't. We can't cure cancer, stop malaria, AIDS, plague, poverty, psychosis, stop people killing each other, be polite on anonymous media. We can't make people feel they belong, feel loved, feel useful, and feel confident in themselves, other people, the future. We can't stop greed, hate, racism, ageism or any other ism.

All in all, we are a pretty bad animal, destroying the environment that sustains us, exterminating other species, overexploiting resources, making war for bad reasons.

We know nothing Jon Snow.

 

Likewise, there are countless things or activities that most people know are beneficial and embrace them.

Such as?

The things I see people embrace are bad food, selfishness, hatred, greed, destruction, war, big cars, big houses, credit, social media, sloth, bad manners, bad music, bad people.

 

Sometimes I think evil is mankind's default position as I see so much hate, and so little charity.

 

At least modern religion urges people to be good, as opposed to bad, so that has to be a good thing, while atheism has no position on good or evil- just do whatever you want to.

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

All the so-called Laws of Physics and rules of Mathematics, are human concepts.

 

Really ? I think those are laws of the physical world, not human concepts.

The fact that humans can understand some of the physical laws don't make them "human concepts".

 

[Tagged]

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

while atheism has no position on good or evil- just do whatever you want to.

I liked you post all up to this last sentence. Deleted you figured out this one? You misread Atheism wit Anerchy or, what happend here?

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, Tagged said:

I liked you post all up to this last sentence. Deleted you figured out this one? You misread Atheism wit Anerchy or, what happend here?

Religion says be good and go to heaven, be bad and go to hell.

Atheism doesn't tell anyone what to do, does it? Perhaps I missed the atheist book of how to be a good person, but if there is no reward for being good, and no punishment for being bad, why would people be good, as against being bad? Of course, everyone is a product of their upbringing, but looking at the world, I see a lot of bad people out there.

[Tagged]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Religion says be good and go to heaven, be bad and go to hell.

Atheism doesn't tell anyone what to do, does it? Perhaps I missed the atheist book of how to be a good person, but if there is no reward for being good, and no punishment for being bad, why would people be good, as against being bad? Of course, everyone is a product of their upbringing, but looking at the world, I see a lot of bad people out there.

If you have missed out somtehing important, most people have good and bad in them, regardless religion or belief system. 

[Skeptic7]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Religion says be good and go to heaven, be bad and go to hell.

Atheism doesn't tell anyone what to do, does it? Perhaps I missed the atheist book of how to be a good person, but if there is no reward for being good, and no punishment for being bad, why would people be good, as against being bad? Of course, everyone is a product of their upbringing, but looking at the world, I see a lot of bad people out there.

And the vast majority adhere to some religion. Mostly Christianity and Islam. 

[Skeptic7]

The Federal Bureau of Prisons released an April 2013 survey of 218,167 prisoners that reports 0.07% of prisoners call themselves atheists. You read that right. Not 7%, or even 0.7 percent, but 0.07% of American prisoners are atheists. 

Hemant Mehta first reported the statistic on his popular blog, The Friendly Atheist. Mehta wanted to corroborate the oft-quoted but dated, statistic that 0.7% of prisoners are atheists. 

His open records request to the Federal Bureau of Prisons proves that an even smaller percentage of American prisoners, 0.07%, identify as atheists. Because 2.4% of the general population of Americans are atheists, according to a 2012 Pew study, atheists make up a disproportionately small percentage of prisoners. (Pew shows one in five U.S. adults identifies as “nonreligious,” but doesn’t necessary use the term “atheist.”)

That goes a long way to debunk the myth that a person can’t be good without a god. “Atheists have their own moral compass that doesn’t involve a holy book,” Mehta wrote. 

Another reason for the low representation of atheists in prison is atheists tend to be well-educated and have above-average socioeconomic status. Inmates in general tend to be less- educated and poorer than the average American. This points out a flaw in American society, not in atheists’ morality. 

Holy books may condemn and vilify atheists as terrible people, but this statistic just adds to the long list of their inaccuracies: 99.93% of people going to prison are not atheists. 

 

— Andrew Seidel, Staff Attorney FFRF

[Tagged]

28 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

 

That goes a long way to debunk the myth that a person can’t be good without a god. 

Religious Seek forgivnes, and is accepted by all book religions included Buddhism and Hinduism. 

 

So, doesnt matter how bad you have been, just ask forgivness and seek out Jesus, you will be fine. 

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

The Federal Bureau of Prisons released an April 2013 survey of 218,167 prisoners that reports 0.07% of prisoners call themselves atheists. You read that right. Not 7%, or even 0.7 percent, but 0.07% of American prisoners are atheists. 

Hemant Mehta first reported the statistic on his popular blog, The Friendly Atheist. Mehta wanted to corroborate the oft-quoted but dated, statistic that 0.7% of prisoners are atheists. 

His open records request to the Federal Bureau of Prisons proves that an even smaller percentage of American prisoners, 0.07%, identify as atheists. Because 2.4% of the general population of Americans are atheists, according to a 2012 Pew study, atheists make up a disproportionately small percentage of prisoners. (Pew shows one in five U.S. adults identifies as “nonreligious,” but doesn’t necessary use the term “atheist.”)

That goes a long way to debunk the myth that a person can’t be good without a god. “Atheists have their own moral compass that doesn’t involve a holy book,” Mehta wrote. 

Another reason for the low representation of atheists in prison is atheists tend to be well-educated and have above-average socioeconomic status. Inmates in general tend to be less- educated and poorer than the average American. This points out a flaw in American society, not in atheists’ morality. 

Holy books may condemn and vilify atheists as terrible people, but this statistic just adds to the long list of their inaccuracies: 99.93% of people going to prison are not atheists. 

 

— Andrew Seidel, Staff Attorney FFRF

It is no surprise that the majority of criminal are hypocrites and self deluded individuals. Anyone can call themselves religious. But we know a tree by its fruit.

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Really ? I think those are laws of the physical world, not human concepts.

The fact that humans can understand some of the physical laws don't make them "human concepts".

 

This is a common fallacy. A true 'Law' of the physical world would not be regularly modified, broken, or debunked. The science would be settled. Only scientific illiterates, like the recent US President Obama, think that science could be settled. (Reference to climate change). ????

 

Laws of science are continually being broken or modified. This is how our understanding of our world progresses.

 

For example, as I've mentioned before, our so-called 'Laws of Physics' informed us that that the expansion of the universe is currently slowing down, 13 to 14 billion years after the Big Bang. However, recent observation through the Hubble telescope suggests that the expansion is actually accelerating, just the opposite. 

 

Either the current 'Laws of Physics' need modifying, or 95% of the matter and energy in the universe is currently invisible and undetectable.

 

Perhaps some time in the future there will be another scientist with the innovation and insight of Albert Einstein who will modify Einstein's theories to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. On the other hand, perhaps the existence of Dark Matter and Dark energy will eventually be detected, and our current theories confirmed, until the next observations cast doubt on them.

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

This is a common fallacy. A true 'Law' of the physical world would not be regularly modified, broken, or debunked. The science would be settled. Only scientific illiterates, like the recent US President Obama, think that science could be settled. (Reference to climate change). ????

 

Laws of science are continually being broken or modified. This is how our understanding of our world progresses.

No fallacy, just misunderstanding ( not necessarily your misunderstanding)

I was referring to obvious laws, like gravity ( i assume gravity existed before humans) not a human concept but something eternal, like any simple math calculation).

The theory of the expanding universe, yeah definitely a human theory, which leaves me slightly perplexed.

So, if you say that physical laws (gravity) and math (2 plus 2 >  4) are human concepts, i disagree with that, those laws existed before the humans, and will exist imho, after the humans.

 

[Elad]

The rules of mathematics is a universal language, only interpreted different ways, but the same rules would apply.

For example, in Euclidean Geometry the sides of a right angle triangle are related by:

If we received a message from an alien race, and that message was mathematical, then I think they would use simple rules like Pythagoras theorem to communicate with us. From this one rule alone we could decrypted their code and understand their language for the +sign, =sign and the square of a quantity. Mathematics would be the only way to communicate with an alien race.  

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

No fallacy, just misunderstanding ( not necessarily your misunderstanding)

I was referring to obvious laws, like gravity ( i assume gravity existed before humans) not a human concept but something eternal, like any simple math calculation).

 

The 'laws' of gravity exist as written texts and mathematical symbols, recorded in books and computer data bases, and stored in the memory of certain humans. They are products of the human mind, and only humans can understand such laws. Such human-constructed laws (or explanations) are true only to the extent that our continuing observations find them consistent with reality as we experience it.

 

Gravity for example is a continuing mystery. There's nothing obvious about it. We've speculated for ages it might consist of wave/particles we'd call 'Gravitons', if we were to discover them, but so far we've not found any. 

 

Dark Energy, if it exists, is an anti-gravity force. It's hypothetical existence has been created in order to explain observed phenomena. The following article provides an interesting overview.

 

"Embarrassingly, the largest part of the pie chart is dark energy. This is a type of energy, or field, that causes an anti-gravity force on the universe itself—pushing it apart. Another way of thinking about it is that dark energy exerts a negative pressure. Rather than the universe just expanding at a constant rate, the expansion is accelerating as a consequence of dark energy."

 

https://singularityhub.com/2017/12/01/study-finds-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-may-not-exist-heres-what-to-make-of-it/

 

Assuming that our explanations for observed phenomena are eternal, fixed laws, embedded in the structure of the universe, is extreme hubris, equivalent to believing in the existence of a Creator God. ????
 

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Assuming that our explanations for observed phenomena are eternal, fixed laws, embedded in the structure of the universe, is extreme hubris, equivalent to believing in the existence of a Creator God. 

Nope, "our explanations" is just our way to explain certain phenomena, but the physical world has laws, nothing to do with hubris.

Our explanations are not eternal, but it's logical to expect that the physical laws are eternal.

Admitting that a creator existence is possible is not hubris.

Believing that the big bang theory is a better explanation than God creator, on the other hand, IS hubris.

[VincentRJ]

6 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

...but the physical world has laws, nothing to do with hubris.

Really! Where do you find such laws? Under a rock? Hanging on a tree. On the sea floor?
The only places I've been able to find such laws are in my book case, or on my computer, or in my memory, or in the spoken word of teachers; in other words, in man-created devices and the human mind.

 

The history of such 'laws' reveals that most of them were either completely or partially wrong in the past, in the sense they did not accurately represent what they were claimed to represent.

 

Do you think we have now reached such an advanced stage of development that whatever a consensus of scientists agree upon, must be absolutely true, and is a fixed law of the physical world? ????
 

[mauGR1]

33 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Do you think we have now reached such an advanced stage of development that whatever a consensus of scientists agree upon, must be absolutely true, and is a fixed law of the physical world? ????
 

No, exactly the opposite.

I think that you are not understanding at all what i am saying, so it will be probably useless that i keep on trying.

See ya.

[Elad]

On 11/19/2019 at 3:29 AM, VincentRJ said:

Perfect' is a human concept. Whatever you think, whether you think God exists or doesn't, it is a human concept. All the so-called Laws of Physics and rules of Mathematics, are human concepts.

I agree with you on the laws of physics, theories will always remain theories, and no laws are proven to be true, if they were then those laws would be fixed until the end of the universe. 

As for the rules of mathematics, would you agree that the same rules would apply across the entire universe? Like the right angle triangle in flat geometry. Intelligent civilizations on other planets would use those same rules but interpreted different, ie their math symbols wouldn't be the same as ours.