belief in god VS athiest
-
well said phoge
however, it is human nature to be curious abt things beyond wat can be observed. While it perfectly all right to cast that curiousity aside and live our lives based on morals and goodness .. there r those times where those annoying questions keeps popping up in your head .. age old questions like "where did we come from? who brought us here? Who designed this grand order of things like the cosmics, the human body, the elements? Or simply the chicken or the egg first?
It is thru these relentless pursuit of life's answers that led to the development of the spiritual side of us, with most reaching out to religions for answers. While there is no 1 single religion that can answer these questions (some hv attempted to but have met with contradictions from scientific discoveries), the strong desire to understand our origin still persist after thousands of yrs since the earliest civilisations, and that's why we in 2009 yr AD are still discussing this topic, thru an online medium this time.
While it is convenient to disregard these aspects and declare ourselves atheists ...it is merely an act of throwing that thought to the back of our mind, but still in the mind that is. To deny the existent of it, is to deny one's own human nature. Long periods of such suppression leads to emotional vacumns, spiritual death and meaningless in life. You can spot people in this state easily : when their thoughts, words and actions are formulated and justified with science and logic ONLY.
-
sometimes i wonder y are you people so free? especially the atheist, y do u waste ur time and effort trying to argue over something tt doesn't exist as u so believe? its so stupid, its like arguing that superman doesn't exist.. pls spend your time doing something more contructive la..
-
Originally posted by VivId CrItiQuE:
sometimes i wonder y are you people so free? especially the atheist, y do u waste ur time and effort trying to argue over something tt doesn't exist as u so believe? its so stupid, its like arguing that superman doesn't exist.. pls spend your time doing something more contructive la..
What do you care?
-
Originally posted by Phorum Noob:
Science = believe in something only when there's evidence. Science do not make claims with absolute certainty and admit that we can only know what we can possibly know with the current information (evidence) that we have, and even so, the current theories are allowed to change in the face of evidence.
Religion in contrary requires faith, due to the very absence of evidence. It plays in important role in society to satisfy people's emotional needs and fear of death. And delude otherwise bad people into behaving out of fear of being tortured in hell, for example.
Many Scientists believe in a certain kind of God, although the naming of "God" is quite superfluous. It is the "God" which Stephen Hawkings or Einstein frequent refer to. The Non-personal Indifferent Naturalistic Pantheist God, which is simply the renaming the universe and its natural laws and everything that exist (including us) as "god".
For any other more complex versions of gods of the various existing religions with their particular personalities, a believe in such extraordinary things would require extraordinary evidence to support it. Otherwise, it's only delusion -- but as I've said previously, such delusion might be a useful thing to some (especially those trying to get through difficult times).
There are others who'd prefer to face reality though. They hold the view that it is better to be honest with themselves with regards to any gods, or any other invisible undetectable beings, that "we simply don't know" and since there's no evidence for any particular possible-versions of gods out there, we should regard them all as highly improbably until we've personally experienced such evidence -- just like we treat any other extraordinary claims that might affect our lifes.
Many Atheists do not claim they are absolutely certain that any type of possible-gods which do not defy logic and which defination of them contain contradictions do not exist. They simply hold the stance that for anything that's completely undetectable, and have no solid justisfiable compelling scientific evidence, the probability for things such as "gods" to exist is so negligible that we should not concern our lives with it.
-
Originally posted by VivId CrItiQuE:
sometimes i wonder y are you people so free? especially the atheist, y do u waste ur time and effort trying to argue over something tt doesn't exist as u so believe? its so stupid, its like arguing that superman doesn't exist.. pls spend your time doing something more contructive la..
"its like arguing that superman doesn't exist..." Last I checked there wasn't a 'Superman Church', nor mass (sometimes unquestioning) followings of the man in the cape. If there was, you bet your ass I would question, and discuss.
In the words of Hubert H. Humphrey "Freedom is hammered out of the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate"
Secondly, that little comment I mentioned about respect and tolerance? In your opinion our discussions are not constructive, then why do you mock, and more importantly, why do you participate...? or dare I say, you think you are better?
-
Originally posted by Lohck:
well said phoge
[snip]
While it is convenient to disregard these aspects and declare ourselves atheists ...it is merely an act of throwing that thought to the back of our mind, but still in the mind that is. To deny the existent of it, is to deny one's own human nature. Long periods of such suppression leads to emotional vacumns, spiritual death and meaningless in life. You can spot people in this state easily : when their thoughts, words and actions are formulated and justified with science and logic ONLY.
Thank you,
Although not only I am not an atheist (i know odd, hu?) I very much think the topic of God and religion is worth discussing. I find it most fascinating. What I said, or was trying to say, was that in my opinion the question of whether an individual believes in (a) God shouldn't matter to anyone but the person in question. There is a saying "each person to their own beliefs".
-
What am I correcting you? I was trying to tell u a simple fact .. ie Christianity is not the ONLY religion one can belive in. Proving the Bible wrong does not add weight to the atheist camp.
You are too engrossed in Christinaity and the Bible and forgot the topic here .. we're talking about Belief systems and how religion and science plays a part in the formation
If u r talking about beliefs based on a personal god (or agnostic), which is also something einstein probably subscribed to, then frankly speaking tat belief doesn't really clash with science. This issue is with people with fixed religious scriptures describing certain events tat does not coincide with the events stated by science. The clearest contrast is with christainity or judaism, or islam, or certain idol worship or probably hindusim etc.
While it is convenient to disregard these aspects and declare ourselves atheists ...it is merely an act of throwing that thought to the back of our mind, but still in the mind that is. To deny the existent of it, is to deny one's own human nature. Long periods of such suppression leads to emotional vacumns, spiritual death and meaningless in life. You can spot people in this state easily : when their thoughts, words and actions are formulated and justified with science and logic ONLY.
First of all I have to say is, I find myself more of a free thinker than agnostic or atheist. If something shows me irrefutable evidences of a certain supernatural, I will become its most strongest believer immediately. To me is really wat I see is wat I get. If there is absence of evidence of something supernatural, it probably means it doesn't exist. Tat doesn't means suddenly I become depressed,or find life meaningless or become emotionally detached or become evil etc. I find life more meaningful since I control my future and life and not under some superior beings with fiery tempers and wierd favourtism. I don't commit crime because I know the importance of laws and how they help society to live together. I understand happiness and sadness and pain since they do not require religion to understand these (babies r happy and sad regardless of knowledge of religion)
-
Heh why the obsession over the supernatural?
Isn't the structure of Nature and Physics powerful enough?
-
'Isn't the structure of Nature and Physics powerful enough?'
it is precisely Nature and Physics we are obsessed over that's why we are looking for the laws tat govern them
-
let me get it straight... u believe there is some being out there making these laws or something right ?
then telling me there should be laws governing physics and nature is the same as expecting some superhero like spiderman should exist to fight crimes
-
they cant make me feel guilty or sin enough to have belief and faith.
Thanks the person who help you before instead of god
-
stupidissmart,
u again understd out of context, this Law I'm talking about is not like the written law that every society has. it's not a set of rules and regulations designed to guide our everyday behaviours and actions
The law I'm talking about is a set of conditions where Nature and Physics operate under. eg adding 2xH and 1xO produces water. This 'law' is unrefutable and remains the same universally and across eras.
On a more personal basis, you mentioned that Babies are happy regardless of religion, education, politics etc .... Have you wondered why ALL babies behave this way? This 'law' is universal and we know our next babies will adhere to the same 'law' too. Now, who decided this law that has a 100% adherence?
You dun need superman or spiderman to ensure no one flout these laws of physical and human nature, cos there is NO WAY it can be flouted at all.
Now, why are we discussing this topic in this forum? Cos we, including you, is curious why is it the way it is .. who designed the equation H2O in the very very first place? where the FIRST drop of water was produced? And now, why ALL babies are happy.
If you do some research on the marvels (and amazing consistency) of the world and even out of this world into the cosmics .. you'll realised that in order for earth and human beings to survive till this day, there are millions and billions of variables that are working together to support life and sustenance. Any slight variation in any of these elements will mean instant deatha nd earth's destruction. eg, any change in distance of the earth from the sun will result in huge changes in the environment .. either you are BBQ alive if we move an inch nearer, or you're b frozen Airpork if an inch further.
For the Big bang to happen, again millions of conditions have to be present and operate exactly the way they did billions of yrs ago to result in the explosion. It is long known in science that in order for those conditions to happen, statistically speaking, the probability for it to happen is like you kanna TOTO twice a week for the next XX yrs straight without any break.
These remarkable phenomenon are the 'evidences' that led to VERY intelligent scientist like Einstein to concede and accept this existence of a Higher Being (aka Law maker) who made life possible for you and me.
For more info on 'The Big Bang, and God' the best reference to refer to is Stephen Hawking, the most famous physicist in history.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html
-
If something shows me irrefutable evidences of a certain supernatural, I will become its most strongest believer immediately. To me is really wat I see is wat I get. If there is absence of evidence of something supernatural, it probably means it doesn't exist.
These remarkable phenomenon are the 'evidences' that led to VERY intelligent scientist like Einstein to concede and accept this existence of a Higher Being (aka Law maker) who made life possible for you and me.
It is worth understanding that when Einstein accepted the existence of a Higher Being, he too made that decision with "irrefutable evidences of a certain supernatural"
But the difference is he 'saw' those evidences with his brain, but for you you are only relying on your eyes. ie He don't need the naked eye to see it physically before it can become evidence for him.
-
The law I'm talking about is a set of conditions where Nature and Physics operate under. eg adding 2xH and 1xO produces water. This 'law' is unrefutable and remains the same universally and across eras.
On a more personal basis, you mentioned that Babies are happy regardless of religion, education, politics etc .... Have you wondered why ALL babies behave this way? This 'law' is universal and we know our next babies will adhere to the same 'law' too. Now, who decided this law that has a 100% adherence?
I don't think I see the problem wrongly. U ask why does H2O become water, or why babies r happy and why certain things of nature is like tis.
Well the answer is simple.
It is just like tis. It is same as saying why r there stones on the ground or why black look like black etc. There is no higher reason. It ends here. If everything have a reason, tat will never end. U can ask why wat is the reason behind tat reason and wat is the reason behind the reason's reason. And so on. In the end, the answer is just... It is just there. Why not just cut the cake and say the rock is there because it is there and water is there because it is there and baby r happy if they r treated well (I said babies already display emotion. I never say babies r always happy)
Thinking tat must be a higher reason for certain events, is like hoping there is a superhero to stop crimes. U just hope there is something behind it all but in reality it probably is nothing
you'll realised that in order for earth and human beings to survive till this day, there are millions and billions of variables that are working together to support life and sustenance. Any slight variation in any of these elements will mean instant deatha nd earth's destruction. eg, any change in distance of the earth from the sun will result in huge changes in the environment .. either you are BBQ alive if we move an inch nearer, or you're b frozen Airpork if an inch further.
The answer is simple. Living things adapt to the environment earth have. If some conditions is altered, the living things may become slightly different to adapt to tis environment. The way of calculation backward for such a possibility is really flawed
I give u an example. Out of so many characters tat can be typed with the computer, a book such as Da vinci code is written. Wat is the possibility of the computer coming out with the da vinci code ? 1 is to Billion and billions and billions. But the book "da vinci code" do exist. How about the probability of someone like u exist ? Out of the billions of possibility of woman, your mum is chosen and out of the billion of people, your dad is chosen. And they chose each other, reproduce at tat moment in time produce the seed for u. Then out of the billion of possibility of things tat can happen during her pregnancy, she give birth to u. Then out of the billions of possibility on the environment u experienced, such as your classmate and neighbour, they provide the environment for u to become... u. The possibility of someone like u existing is probably as low as earth supporting life or big bang, but u still exist.
counting backwards of anything occuring is really out of point.
It is worth understanding that when Einstein accepted the existence of a Higher Being, he too made that decision with "irrefutable evidences of a certain supernatural"
But the difference is he 'saw' those evidences with his brain, but for you you are only relying on your eyes. ie He don't need the naked eye to see it physically before it can become evidence for him.
Well, there r a lot of intelligent people with different beliefs. He can be smart and he chose to be agnostic and believe something he did not verify.
And then ? Wat is your point ? He is he and u r u. He marry his wife doesn't means his wife must be the most beautiful and perfect woman in tis world.
-
I really don't know what else to say to you stupidissmart ...
while I am here with the full understanding that I might not be correct and everything is open for debate and discussions. But your stance is that u know it all and that has effectively ended the discourse.
Maybe someone else would like to contribute their thoughts to this discussion?
and btw, the correct analogy is : the computer withe the keyboard writing the Davinci Code by ITSELF .. and not Dan Brown being the Higher Being of the title :)
-
To all who are fanscinated by the quest for the unknown : there're some good points made in this article : http://www.tuxedo.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=806:realism-the-critical-link-between-spirituality-and-science&catid=76:chimology&Itemid=196
-
while I am here with the full understanding that I might not be correct and everything is open for debate and discussions. But your stance is that u know it all and that has effectively ended the discourse.
I never state tat I knew everything... U state your arguments, I state mine and I do not really understand how u get the idea tat I knew everything. It is just tat the arguments u pointed out r really decades old arguments which I have countered in the past before.
Well, it is your life and u can choose to follow watever route u like to go.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I never state tat I knew everything... U state your arguments, I state mine and I do not really understand how u get the idea tat I knew everything. It is just tat the arguments u pointed out r really decades old arguments which I have countered in the past before.
Well, it is your life and u can choose to follow watever route u like to go.
You may not actually mean it, but your tone of language puts an end to any meaningful discussion. -
You may not actually mean it, but your tone of language puts an end to any meaningful discussion.
Tat is sad...
I exit tis thread then. U guys enjoy
-
stupidissmart,
if you are still surprise why your contributions are viewed as non constructive, I try explaining to you. you made a very big mistake when it comes to stating your points, and the same mistake repeats itself over and over again. If you allow it to happen in your daily life .. work, friends, family so on .. you'll find that it'll affect your happiness in the long run.
The mistake : You are arguing just for the sake of arguing. eg :
It is just like tis. It is same as saying why r there stones on the ground or why black look like black etc. There is no higher reason. It ends here. If everything have a reason, tat will never end. U can ask why wat is the reason behind tat reason and wat is the reason behind the reason's reason. And so on. In the end, the answer is just... It is just there. Why not just cut the cake and say the rock is there because it is there and water is there because it is there and baby r happy if they r treated well (I said babies already display emotion. I never say babies r always happy)
Did you really understand what you are trying to say in the above? We'll still be living in stone caves if our ancestors adopt this attitude you suggested above. The earth will still be flat, and only birds and insects can fly, and your computer is still bigger than your wardrobe. I have no doubt you dun subsrcibe to it actually, if not it really is a big contradiction with your stated support for Science as this is the basic premise for any form of Science to exist.
So wat's the conclusion, you are defending points for the sake of defending, and countering points for the sake of arguing. And in doing so, simply grab the closest thing along the way to attempt to justify your argument... while the whole picture is far and getting further from being clear what is your argument.
Rule #1 - join a discussion (of this nature) only if you are genuinely interested in the topic, which is always controversial.
Rule #2 - If you were to make a point, that point's objective is to share and benefit in someone's understanding, and not just adding noise to the discussion by just wanting to argue.
Rule #3 - we are humans and subjected to the fallacies and weaknesses of all human, so we make mistakes and may not always be right. Use a tone and language consistent with this understanding.
-
The mistake : You are arguing just for the sake of arguing
Actually i do not wanna come into tis thread again. However it seems no other people seems to be interested to discussing with u and tat is why u decide to drag me back into the picture. I don't think u got my message right. Lets see your example
It is just like tis. It is same as saying why r there stones on the ground or why black look like black etc. There is no higher reason. It ends here. If everything have a reason, tat will never end. U can ask why wat is the reason behind tat reason and wat is the reason behind the reason's reason. And so on. In the end, the answer is just... It is just there. Why not just cut the cake and say the rock is there because it is there and water is there because it is there and baby r happy if they r treated well (I said babies already display emotion. I never say babies r always happy)
U felt tat tis passage is against science because it is not enquiring deeper into the reason why such a phenomenon exist etc. However in fact u have misinterprete the rationale of the above paragraph.
If I am not wrong, u expect there is a "higher" reason why certain physic laws exist. In a way, u r arguing why these laws exist is there because it is "designed" or "planned" to exist.
My answer to u is, why do u expect there should be a higher reason for certain phenomenon to exist ? Why should such laws be planned or designed but not there because it is there. The law of gravitation is there because it is there. We can go and probe deeper into how it originate but we should not expect it to suddenly link with some higher plan from some higher being because we think tat should be it.
If u ask me about silly passages, the passage where u bring out H2O and how it seems it does not lead science to conflict with religion to be really... silly. Throughout the thread people r talking about the conflicts with religious scripture and here u r coming out with a point tat shows u do not understand the issue at hand. Obviously after tat there is complete silence about your example of H2O since it was shown to be out of point
Rule #1 - join a discussion (of this nature) only if you are genuinely interested in the topic, which is always controversial.
Rule #2 - If you were to make a point, that point's objective is to share and benefit in someone's understanding, and not just adding noise to the discussion by just wanting to argue.
Rule #3 - we are humans and subjected to the fallacies and weaknesses of all human, so we make mistakes and may not always be right. Use a tone and language consistent with this understanding.
If u ask me I am genuinely interested in tis topic and I do present valid opinions. Or do u view people tat is against your stand as "uninterested", "add noise" and use a poor tone and language ?
If u talk about noise, u talk about your last reply where it present zero contribution to the discussion and just act as personal insults to attempt to invalidate the things I said. In a forum, my way of debating is already considered muted compared with others (such as u). If u find it too harsh, then i guess debating in tis forum is not suitable for u
-
BTW, nobody is saying my posts is non constructive (other than u). If u talk about the post from stevenson, it probably meant my tone is too harsh and not because the things i had said to be irrelevant to the topic. It seems u have failed to read properly again.
-
people are not discussing further because you have killed the fun of it. There are always controversies in such topics but if a certain point of view is to be met with such strong oppositions and criticisms from someone already in the discussion, who would find it meaningful to raise further opinions? Phoge was trying to join in and we had a very brief but meaningful exchange, but you rammed in again and directed all your efforts solely on countering my views., as you have did for the last string of posts, as if only you and me are the only parties in the conversation. And for courtesy reason, no one is interrupting you by just listening.
-
people are not discussing further because you have killed the fun of it. There are always controversies in such topics but if a certain point of view is to be met with such strong oppositions and criticisms from someone already in the discussion, who would find it meaningful to raise further opinions?
I was wondering if I do have something to say about the points brought out, should I just shut up and not voice it out ? Nevertheless with discussion having such controversies, one should expect some people to be strong in their views and being vocal about it.
-
you have definitely proven to be strong and vocal ... against the views of others that is. You'd have been more construtive and interesting if you are using all those time and energy expressing and refining your own convictions on the topic, if any that is.