Thread: God

>>One question: What's with the CAPITULAIZATION of God?

sorry, I feel that if GOD did exist (not saying he/she doesn't) he/she would want their name capitalized.

>>God gave us free will

I have a question pertaining to that. Since GOD gave us free will, what if the non-believers wiped out all of those people who do believe in GOD, would he/she just let that happen, and thet there exist a world that had no belief in hem/her?

for god sakes... (pun inteded )

i've given up all hope for reasonable religious conversation at cprogramming.com. let's face it: everyone has opinions, and disagreement isn't a bad thing!

i feel the god exists my reason is that we all need something to believe in why cant people believe in an enity called GOD

Originally posted by adamviper
i feel the god exists my reason is that we all need something to believe in why cant people believe in an enity called GOD

Because it's dumb to believe in something "because people need something to believe in." I dunno about you, but I don't need to believe in anything.

"If this is your statement, then you know nothing about Jesus at all. He was a humanist."

..... I mean humanism as in the moral/ethical teachings that do not rely on God. Humanists offer ethical teaching, funnerals, marriges etc. for people who do not believe in God. My point was that you do not need religious beliefs to have ethics.

"The thing about relgion is that it is paradoxical. I do not deny that religion can be irrational at times, but then again it can be quite rational"

Religious beliefs are inherently irrational, they are based on faith, not evidence or reasoning.

"But just because religion at times has done the wrong thing, is that grounds to say "let us never use it again"?"

You are moving the goal posts, most of this debate has been centreing over whether or not religious beliefs are true, not whether or not they are socially usefull.

However if you look at history or even just current problems you can see that religion does bad bad things to man. I say never use it again because it is an irrational belief system, as this thread demonstrates you cannot get through to people with religious convictions with logic, their beliefs are far too strongly bored into their brain. Why do you think conflict in Israel is so hard to solve? Both sides are fueled by religious extremists who are 100% certain that God is on their side ie. that they are 100% in the right.

If you want an example closer to home look at how poorly US education in regards to evolution is, that is entirely due to religious intervention, or even the obvious link between religion and the attrocities that occured on Sept 11th.

Religion is a social disease, it splits people apart by cementing differences, it is a natural aid to xenophobia, and can be seen as one of the major causes of conflict over human history. If i could wipe it out tommorow i wouldn't think twice.

"In WWII scientists in Australia tested mustard gas on Australian servicemen. Now I'm sure there isn't a person alive who would say that this was a fine thing to do! But again, because some unethical scientists did this, should I then say that we must never use science again?"

You are blurring the line between science and technology, science is merely about understanding the world around us, scientific knowledge can be used for applications both good and bad, but the science itself is just the search for knowledge.

"Correction - HOW I am here, not WHY I am here."

As has already been pointed out, the question requires an assumption that we have some sort of purpose. Science points very much the other way.

"You have a very strong sense of your beliefs which you defend admirably"

I know you mean this as a compliment, but i do not think its admirable to defend ones beliefs, just because they are ones beliefs. I think it is far more admirable to change ones beliefs based on what is the most logical position at the time.

"But can either of us say we honestly don't feel anything more than what we see when we look at a sunrise, sunset, or storm? Yes, the sun is hydrogen gas - but do you see hydrogen gas when you look at it or do you see something more than that, something perhaps that you cannot say what it is you see?"

There is a very big difference between the way things 'feel' and the way things 'are'. The sun might not 'just' look like hydrogen (probably because its helium too), but what happens when we take a closer look at that statement:

The sun does not 'just' look like hydrogen/hellium.

What does it mean? Does it mean that hydrogen/healium is not enough to explain the sun's properties? Presumeably not, since we understand pretty well what makes the sun tick. No what it means is that we find it difficult to merge our emotional responses with mechanistic knowledge about the universe. The reason is because the mechanistic explanation does NOT explain how we feel towards something, but then, why should it? The awe I feel during a storm is nothing to do with storm, its to do with my mind, and a very different kind of response than those involved with the reasoned argument i'm attempting to weave right now. I have an emotional response to many different stimuli, now theres nothing magical in the nature of that response its still all neurones, neuro-transmitters, hormones and nerves, but the interactions between them create the sensations we feel.

Keats had a similar issue, he felt that Newton's unweaving of the rainbow robbed it of its beauty somehow, by reducing it to its component parts Keats felt there was no room left for wonder and awe......... well Dawkins smashed that argument into the dust in "Unweaving the Rainbow" by showing just how beautifull understanding can be, infact just how much more beautifull the universe is to the trained eye than to the untrained one.

Now rather than you agreeing with keats that the unweaved rainbow has robbed the rainbow of its beauty you seem to believe that there is a part missing, that accounts for the beauty perhaps this is where your spirituality comes in, well you're half right, there is a bit missing, but you won't find the answer in spirituality, you will find it in evolutionary psychology.

"Yes I have studied Darwin's theory of evolution. But all this does not describe why we are here, only how. The how is pointless without the why"

There is no reason to believe there is a 'why'. The cause for the reaction between sodium and chlorine does not need a 'why' only a 'how', so then why does the reaction of a bunch of organic chemicals to form a primitive replicator need a 'why' either?

"I do not misunderstand anything - I do not buy your argument"

And which part of my argument do you not buy?

Okay, this post is meant mostly for Clyde, seeing as how most people here are simply arguing the validitidy of religion, while he seems to want to eradicate it all together.

You seem to think that religion is detrimental to society. I couldn't disagree with you more. While I personally do not believe in religion, I believe that it is extremely BENEFICIAL to society! It teaches and helps people in ways that society and science does not. It gives meaning and value to people's lives, a specific reason to be moral, and a sense of purpose. Who is much less likely to commit crime, an atheist or religious person? Who is more likely to help charity or people in need? Who is more likely to contribute to society? Who is less likely to do drugs or become alcoholic? Who is less likely to be depressed or suicidal, especially after the loss of a loved one? The answer to all of these is the religion person. Who is more likely to do something wrong (crime, suicide, etc), a person who believes his life has meaning and that God is watching him, or the person who believes his actions mean nothing and that he is only the smallest speck of insignificance in this vast universe? Now, I completely agree with you that one does not need religion to find meaning in life, and that one does not need religion to find a beauty in a rainbow or to see the wrongness in ones actions, BUT for every one of you or me, there are dozens if not hundreds of people who DO need religion. In a perfect world, society would teach them these things, but this isn't a perfect world and society is VERY terrible at that. Without religion this world would be a much unhappier and crime filled place.

You blame religion for much bloodshed in this world. Do you really think that without religion Pakistan and India would love each other, that Hitler would have been up for man of the century, and Osama bin Ladin would suddenly become our closest ally? Nonsense! Religion is the scapegoat, and without it, there would just be another scapegoat. Blood is shed all the time in the name of nationality, maybe we should eradicate countries as well?

Has religion gotten in the way of science before? Yes, but they aren't solely to blame. Of course they were going to get upset at such observation like we aren't the center of the universe, they were in power at the time! Such a claim clearly put a question to their power, of course they were going to fight it, they are only human after all. If science were to make claims that put questions to the rule of a king or the power of a nation, could you possibly blame them for fighting it? Has religion objected to more recent advancements? Sure, but again are not the only ones, ethics has a huge say in it. I personally have reservations about where science is going with the advancements of cloning. I agree that it is great that we can manufacture organs, but anything thats one step closer in the direction of cloning full perfect humans I am extremely wary of. I don't believe science will stop in time, and I am certainly not the only one who feels that way, religion has nothing to do with it. Actually, one should probably blame science fiction which has shown over and over again the horrors of a future with genetically perfect humans. Maybe we should eradicate science fiction too?

Do I agree that religion is illogical and that god is unlikely? Yes. But the mere fact that religion, god, or your kangaroo for that matter cannot be disproven entitles a person to believe in them if they so choose. It helps them become a better person with the only drawback being that they have a different opinion than you. Science APPEARS (at least to you and me) to be the answer, but we DON'T KNOW for sure! God is a possibility whether you or I like it or not, no matter how infinitely small. So people should be allowed to believe in him and not be criticized.

"You seem to think that religion is detrimental to society."

I do.

"I believe that it is extremely BENEFICIAL to society!"

Eepas!

" It teaches and helps people in ways that society and science does not"

It teaches people no better than non-religious substitutes like humansim do.

"Who is much less likely to commit crime, an atheist or religious person? "

I don't know, your conjecture is an atheist? Based on what? Statistical evidence? Or perhaps more likely suppostion?

The reason we are moral, ethical people is not because we fear hell-fire its because we are socially and genetically programmed to feel guilt when we do things that are bad.

"Who is more likely to help charity or people in need?"

Again i don't know, but I with the exception of Islam i don't see why religious people would be more likely to give more money to charity, be kinder/ more ethical people, etc.

"Who is more likely to contribute to society?"

What by screwing up education? I rather think not, I see no basis to these conclusions.

"Who is less likely to do drugs or become alcoholic?"

Perhaps people who are more likely to become addicts are less likely to become religious rather than the other way round. I don't know again its conjecture, i see no evidence supporting your claims here.

"Who is less likely to be depressed or suicidal, especially after the loss of a loved one?"

Perhaps, but i'm not convinced, not untill i see data supporting these conclusions.

"Who is more likely to do something wrong (crime, suicide, etc), a person who believes his life has meaning and that God is watching him, or the person who believes his actions mean nothing and that he is only the smallest speck of insignificance in this vast universe? "

People's ethics are not derived rationally, they are socially and genetically imposed, I consider myself to be just as ethical and moral as any religious person, and yet i do not have God weighing in on my decisions.

"Now, I completely agree with you that one does not need religion to find meaning in life, and that one does not need religion to find a beauty in a rainbow or to see the wrongness in ones actions, BUT for every one of you or me, there are dozens if not hundreds of people who DO need religion"

I have yet to meet one of these people, one of my friends at school was very religious, literal word of God, memorised the Koran from a very early age, not exactly a fundamentalist but religion was the largest part of his life......... well after a few years with me he's know a dinfinitive atheist, has a girl-friend and everything. Making the transition is certainly hard, perhaps too hard for some people, BUT that does not mean they could never have lived without it. Infact i'd bet a fair amount that there are very few if any people on this Earth who could not live without religion IF they had never been brought up with it.

"You blame religion for much bloodshed in this world. Do you really think that without religion Pakistan and India would love each other, that Hitler would have been up for man of the century, and Osama bin Ladin would suddenly become our closest ally?"

Pakistan and India would not exist, there would have been no separation. Hitler would still have been Hitler, Bin Laden would not have set his life to destroying the west.

Hitler had nothing to with religion, the other two on the other hand did. It would be foolish to claim that all war would cease without religion, it is not to claim that some wars would, and that a fair amount of human suffering and misery has been brought about primarily because of religious beliefs.

Religion is not always a scapegoat religion can and does fuel conflicts.

"Blood is shed all the time in the name of nationality, maybe we should eradicate countries as well?"

Sure i'm all for it, wipe out countries, break down national and cultural borders, let us all live as one unified super continent, let there be no more 'us and them's. However that all takes a long long time, and if does happen (and btw i think it will) it will be due to the slow rise of economic and political.............

blah must go to Tai Chi..... (and enhance my spritituality - LOL)

Ill finish off later. (sorry for spelling mistakes, no time to check)