[MikeS]

No.

I have come to acknowledge that widespread atheism in recent decades appears to have played no small part in the downfall of Europe - and I think Christianity established moral values worth upholding - but that doesn't make it the least bit easier for me to view any kind of faith in a higher entity, or even looser "spiritualism", as more than superstition that ideally should have been left in the dark ages with islam and the muslims.

I think the universe is astoundingly complex - as science suggests in countless examples - and quite likely to never be comprehensively understood by science (assuming a progression and no apocalyptic scenarios in the coming years, decades or centuries), but religion or other similar less structured beliefs - any and all from my non-believing perspective obviously constructed by Man - are just too far fetched and too based in fear and need of higher, supernatural guidance for my taste.

[h3ltrsk3ltr]

Yeah, why do Christians keep spinning the broken record of inferring intelligence out of complexity. That makes no sense!

[Mark Fletcher]

(01-24-2016 08:06 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 08:01 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 07:58 PM)Anabasis to Desta Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 07:39 PM)storm Wrote:  

lol

You're so edgy and anti-establishment.

I wish i be as cool as you.

You're trolling. I'm not edgy or cool in any way. Not lately. I'm a little depressed and lost, actually.

That response was not directed at you The Father. It was at the guys engaging in your childish antics so typical amongt atheists.

Like I said, there's a reason I don't like to call myself an atheist.

[Anabasis to Desta]

Most people get it wrong from the get go when trying to rationally decide whether or not to believe in God. Because their idea of God stems from the literal interpretation of the Bible or other holy books.

For example, you hear the story of Adam, Eve and the serpent. "Hahaha how could a serpent talk? Fuck those fairy tales".

Instead, it provides the basis for the belief that humanity is in essence a single family, with everyone descended from a single pair of original ancestors.
Very similar to the most widely accepted scientific theory that, modern humans all descend from a group of couple hundred Homo Sapiens in East Africa.

The basis for the scientific origins of the earth is the Big Bang theory. Which essentially was a "random" event. But the more you study science, especially disciplines like Structural biology, Combinatorics and Algebraic Topology ... you realize the world and the universe is anything BUT random.
Because it's pure perfection.

Symmetry. From DNA molecules at the full cycle of the double helix, to tree branches, sea shells, the human body and even hurricanes all follow the Golden Ratio and the Fibonacci series.

Go spend 3 days out in the woods with nothing but a blanket, a knife and water purifier. Nature itself is a miracle that we fail to appreciate .The Human brain and digestive system is magic. I refuse to believe all this is random. There is "purpose and intent" written all over.

[LEMONed IScream]

Whether God or not exists is irrelevant to me.

Religions do exist, regardless of God's existence. Religions have had a multitude of actions across centuries, some were positive and some were negative.

Culturally and as a European, I have to acknowledge the importance of Christianity towards the formation of the continent's identify, even if I am not a practicing Christian.

This becomes even more stridently evident when you consider the danger Europe is currently in.

So you could say that even though I'm not religious, I'm a "cultural" Christian.

PS: Anabasis, regarding the argument of perfection, you might want to look at Pantheism, perhaps it fits.

Though in a way, this perfect system has "imperfections", "Mother Nature" is a really cruel mother sometimes.

[Truth Teller]

(01-24-2016 08:18 PM)h3ltrsk3ltr Wrote:  

Yeah, why do Christians keep spinning the broken record of inferring intelligence out of complexity. That makes no sense!

If you're talking about something along the lines of Intelligent Design (ID) then I agree with you. Bad science and bad theology.

The argument from design is beholden to a different God than the one I believe in.

[Dr. Howard]

Yes.

Even if God isn't real, dedicating my life to an imaginary, invisible, infallible, benevolent master is more comforting than putting my trust in money, other people, cars or intoxicants.

To be shown proof that God doesn't exist would simply mean that I've done some charitable works for benevolence's sake, tried to live by a moral code and have the same bruised ego at being proven wrong as a few other million christians, then I die and turn to dust, who cares. Compare that to being shown proof that God DOES exist, I'd feel like quite the asshole having to get on the down escalator of eternity because I was too stubborn to accept a free gift from Jesus.

The opportunity cost to believe in God is pretty low. A lot less costly than say, believing that your wife is your soulmate and only reason for living and then being cucked.

If its not a woman we pedestalize, its something else. We all have our idols, be they immaterial or material.

[Gmac]

(01-24-2016 09:28 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

The opportunity cost to believe in God is pretty low

What I find most interesting is people act like it's a choice. You don't choose whether you believe in god or not, it's an opinion, a belief, based on your own observations, experiences, influences, and rational thinking. My life would probably be a lot easier for me if I believed in god. It's not that simple. Having been raised well by Protestant parents who weren't big churchgoers, I still do know that I'm a good person and strive to do the right thing,

The image I posted earlier was mocked, but it wasn't that off the mark.

[Wutang]

I do.

I will admit of course that I could be wrong. Ultimately there is an element of faith involved. I've read a lot of good reasoning for both sides of the argument but I think the nature of the question is that a definite answer will be impossible no matter which position you take unlike say in mathematics. I think that's true for any of the ultimate "big questions" though.

We'll all find out eventually; unless the atheists are right in which case no one will ever find out about anything.

[The Father]

(01-24-2016 09:31 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 09:28 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

The opportunity cost to believe in God is pretty low

What I find most interesting is people act like it's a choice. You don't choose whether you believe in god or not, it's an opinion, a belief, based on your own observations, experiences, and rational thinking. My life would probably be a lot easier for me if I believed in god.

The image I posted was mocked, but it wasn't that off the mark.

I think it is a choice.

[Disco_Volante]

The fact that the whole world is under mass psychosis of hating Christians makes me think Christianity is the truth.

When we plainly see how delusional, stupid, and degenerate these people are (everyone from muslims to libtards) worldwide that can't be a coincidence. They are possessed.

I don't think I could ever marry a girl who didn't attend church and at least follow to some degree. They are mentally ill without it.

[joecolombia]

I like to consider myself as an agnostic, since I have no clue of what is really going on out there. I don`t want to deny it and I leave room for error, but I don`t want to say I do beleive because religion and everything that is surrounding it has always been filled with death and corruption, and I don`t see that as god-like things.

Us humans fuck up everything. Si if there was a god, I would say it wasn`t followed by the christian values or policies, but with a totally unbiased way of looking at life.

[alecks]

alllllaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh oooooooo aaaakkkbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrr

[Dr. Howard]

(01-24-2016 09:31 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 09:28 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

The opportunity cost to believe in God is pretty low

What I find most interesting is people act like it's a choice. You don't choose whether you believe in god or not, it's an opinion, a belief, based on your own observations, experiences, influences, and rational thinking. My life would probably be a lot easier for me if I believed in god. It's not that simple. Having been raised well by Protestant parents who weren't big churchgoers, I still do know that I'm a good person and strive to do the right thing,

The image I posted earlier was mocked, but it wasn't that off the mark.

I think its an accurate image. Like with aliens, those that spend their lives trying to prove, or disprove their existence will probably spend a frustrated lifetime grasping at that last key piece of evidence that puts irrefutable proof just out of reach.

I don't understand how an individual does not make the choice to believe or not though? I choose to put my faith in the scientifically uncertain or even dubious existence of a Christian God. What am I missing? I agree that it is difficult to make that assertion the first time if thats what you mean.

[iop890]

(01-24-2016 07:20 PM)The Father Wrote:  

Sometimes I get very clinical...scientific method..."there's no evidence of it"

Of course there's no physical evidence, because God, the classical theist idea of God at least, is not an item within the universe. God is not 'highest being', god is 'ipsum esse subsistens', the act of existing itself.

God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you. -Exodus 3:14

The "sky fairy/flying spaghetti monster/imaginary friend/etc" straw-man of God that the new atheists love to attack is an entirely different idea of God from what classical theists believe in, and most Christians would deny that idea of God as well.

Disclaimer: I'm not particularly well read on this. But then again neither are the New Atheists, and they write books on the subject.
Also,
*paging scorpion*

[BortimusPrime]

Here's a question for the believers: can God generate logical paradoxes? For example, could a universe be constructed in which natural selection favors animals that are more poorly adapted to their environment than others?

If God is constrained by logic, then is he really omnipotent, or if you define God as the rules/laws of nature, is he really a sapient entity or just a set of physics equations and logic axioms?

[BillyTalented]

Yes, I am a practicing Roman Catholic

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

I'm with Anabasis to Desta on this one. I can't imagine the existence of the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci ratios in nature without some sort of intelligence "up there" so to speak.

Then again, I'm an baptized Orthodox Christian but haven't gone to church in years, for what it's worth.

[RatInTheWoods]

YES

[Wutang]

(01-24-2016 10:25 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Here's a question for the believers: can God generate logical paradoxes? For example, could a universe be constructed in which natural selection favors animals that are more poorly adapted to their environment than others?

If God is constrained by logic, then is he really omnipotent, or if you define God as the rules/laws of nature, is he really a sapient entity or just a set of physics equations and logic axioms?

Omnipotency means that a Being is able to do anything that is possible ie. he possesses all possible powers. A logical contradiction is impossible and there is no power available for what is impossible so not being able to bring about a contradiction would violate not God's omnipotency.

In more details:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/02/...ience.html

Quote:

As to the substance: Note first that for almost all theists, “omnipotence” does not entail the power to bring into being a self-contradictory state of affairs (e.g. creating a round square or a stone that is too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift). The reason is that there is no such power; the very notion of such a power is incoherent, precisely because the notion of a self-contradictory state of affairs is incoherent. God’s power would be limited only if there was some power He lacked. Since there is no such thing as a power to make contradictions true, His inability to do so is no limitation on His power. (And if an atheist insists that an omnipotent being would have to have such a power, that only hurts his own case. For that enables the theist to say, in response to any possible objection that the atheist could ever raise: “Since God can make contradictions true, He can make it true that He exists even though your argument shows He doesn’t!”)

[Windom Earle]

The thing I can't get my head around, if there is a god, a creator, a powerful being, a higher power that willed us and the universe into existence through their "intelligent design"...then what created them?

This conundrum aside, philosophers have posed some thought provoking ideas on intelligent design. Paley puts forward an interesting scenario:

Quote:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. ... There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. ... Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.
— William Paley, Natural Theology (1802)

Hume highlighted some flaws in this idea however:

Quote:

One of the main assumptions of Paley's argument is that 'like effects have like causes'; or that machines (e.g. the watch) and the universe have similar features of design, therefore they must both also have the same cause of their existence i.e. they must both have an intelligent designer.

However, Hume points out that what Paley does not comprehend is to what extent do these 'like causes' extend; i.e. how similar the creation of a universe is to the creation of a watch. Instead, Paley moves straight to the conclusion that this designer of the universe is the 'God' he believes in - of traditional Christianity.

Hume, however takes the idea of 'like causes' and points out some potential absurdities in how far the 'likeness' of these causes could extend to if the argument were taken further as to explain this. One example he uses is how a machine or a watch is usually designed by a whole team of people rather than just one person, therefore surely, if we are analogizing the two in this way, it would point to there being a group of Gods who created the universe not just a single being.

Another example he uses is that usually, complex machines are the result of many years of trial and error with every new machine an improved version of the last. Also by analogy of the two, would this not hint that the universe could also have been just one of many of God's 'trials', and that there are much better universes out there? However, if this were taken to be true, surely the 'creator' of it all would not be 'all loving' and 'all powerful' if they had to carry out the process of 'trial and error' when creating the universe?

[Veloce]

I believe in the Eastern concept of God.

That is, I am non-theistic. I do not believe in a singular divine being that created the cosmos.

But I would say, "I believe in God." I believe that God, guru, and self are one. In my mind this shares a parallel with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

While I believe that Christianity and Buddhism are very different as practiced religions, the teachings of Buddha and Christ are very similar. I believe that God is more of a conceptual understanding than a literal being.

I believe the Christian concept of saints and the Buddhist concept of gurus are one and the same. That certain individuals are a perfect representation of Godliness that serve to teach other humans how to achieve religious fulfillment.

When you meditate, or pray, or recite a mantra, or walk down the street without a thought in your head, no thoughts of past or future, no ego-driven impulses, when each rock, bird chirping, and crack in the pavement is a perfect continuation of the universe, when you become aware of your "self" as one fragment of the eternal perpetuation, when "you" become a fixed point of consciousness and feel a oneness with the universe, that is "God".

[mickeyd]

I went through an atheist period. That is when my understanding of things was based purely on book science and knowledge.

Nowadays, I see things through a more philosophical lense, and through that, it's very obvious there is a God, and he/she/it is very powerful.

From my perspective, nature and human life has a distinct balance to it. Right and wrong, yin and yang, male and female, this theme shows up nearly everywhere. Too far from the sun and we all freeze over. Too close, and we burn up. Eat too much and you become sick and fat. Eat too little and you become malnourished. There are a thousand other and probably better examples but to me, that shows a clear design, an architechture in which we must make choices for the betterment or the detriment of ourselves and this world.

The other foundation of my belief in God is creation. Not just of life, but of all matter in general. Creation has to be the most mysterious, profound, and unexplainable aspect of anything. Science has no answer to this, and likely will never (atleast not in my lifetime). In addition , I think the physics, chemistry, and biology show the "engineering" or "design" of our creator, as other posters mentioned earlier in this thread.

[Hades]

I don't like that atheism has been hijacked by poorly socialized childish men, liberal virtue signalers, ugly fat women, redditors, fedoras, etc; (go to any local Secular Student Alliance group and you'll see exactly what's up) but I don't consider myself religious in any sense. This would fit in the hater's lounge but it's consistent with what I've seen.

(On a side note, I went to an SSA meeting out of curiosity, and I didn't see a single person there I would ever consider associating with in real life. It's almost as if the second you make atheism a serious part of your personality that you define yourself by, it's a symptom of being some kind of contrarian asshole who always wants to be right and is mentally diseased because of it.)

Take a look at the founding of Mormonism, for instance. If a guy looking into a hat at imaginary golden tablets and "deciphering" them as some kind of new word of God doesn't set off a lot of bullshit alarms, there's a problem.

What seems consistent with the founding of all religions out there is that at the time, people really wanted it to happen. Jesus came about in a time when Jews demanded a Messiah to deliver them from the Romans, and when Jesus decided to play it cool with the establishment and give unto Caesar his dues, they didn't like that and had him killed as a result.

Maybe God exists but Man just got everything wrong. That's a good enough guess.

[BortimusPrime]

There must be something to the idea that people are biologically predisposed to be believers or not. Personally I think the existence or nonexistence of God is unproveable, and that God existing adds unnecessary complexity to reality so odds are on the nonexistence side.

That said, all the posts here explaining where one sees evidence of God sound to me like "Math works out nicely" or "Things do what they're supposed to do", so I guess in my mind religious belief just does not compute.