This I Believe: There is no God [Archive] - Whistle Stopper Political Forums

towski

11-22-2005, 09:58 AM

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

NPR has this little series called "This I Believe" where people you know discuss their beliefs. I've always thought Penn Jillette was clever, I didn't realize that he was a pretty good writer. Anway, just thought some might enjoy and want to discuss...

I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond Atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The Atheism part is easy.

But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

mataj

11-22-2005, 10:25 AM

Typical theist/atheist debate usualy goes like this:

theist: "You must do this, you may not do that, because God says so"

atheist: "There is no God"

theist: "Prove it"

atheist: "Blah blah blah ... modern science ... blah ... supersticious nonsense ... blah blah ... middle ages ... blah blah ... "

theist: "Enough of your foolishness (*). You are just making excuses, so that you can continue with your immorality and abominability."

. . .

atheist: [Loses his nerves, runs in circles, and howls at the moon]

The issue here is not whether God exists or not. The issue here is why do we have to bother with this question in the 1st place. Before he/she starts thinking about God, every atheist should ask himself/herself: "OK, I don't have to bother whether the Loch Ness monster exists or not. I don't have to bother about dwarfs, santa claus, and flying pigs either. So, why do I have to bother about God then? Whose fault it is, that I have to waste my time with this nonsense?"

That's the only important question here.

________________________________________________
(*) The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (Ps 14,1)

prst31

11-22-2005, 02:14 PM

Got to love Penn. BS is a great show as well.
Interesting take he has I think. It's almost as if he's saying "I really do believe there is a God but don't want to because it'll make me mad so I'll just try and believe really hard that there is no God". Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong.See he doesn't say there isn't. He contemplates how much easier life would be if there isn't one.
Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future. Same thing here. He wants there to be no God because like he says at the end, he can have "fun" then.
Maybe that's the point though deep down, by wanting to believe there is no God, he really is saying there is a God in which I would agree, it makes him a good author.

Russikan

11-22-2005, 03:12 PM

prst31

11-22-2005, 03:24 PM

I think you're reading what you want into it.I think I made a couple of observations and comments.

Dangerrmouse

11-22-2005, 03:30 PM

Indeed. One aspect of solipsism is the danger of so identifying our own preferences, experiences and theological commitments with gospel truth that the only route to acceptance of seeming contradiction is through converting it to one's own point of view.

prst31

11-22-2005, 05:02 PM

Dangerrmouse

11-22-2005, 06:32 PM

Sauniere

11-22-2005, 06:48 PM

The article is about starting from a negative absence of belief in God, and turning it into a positive belief in the absence of God. Neither of those positions implies a belief in God, however it is irrationalised.

I agree, he has turned what many would perceive to be a negative into an absolutely beautiful thing.

Wow, I have never thought of it this way before! Reading this was an epiphany.

Thanks Tows for posting! :flowers:

towski

11-22-2005, 07:24 PM

I agree, he has turned what many would perceive to be a negative into an absolutely beautiful thing.

Wow, I have never thought of it this way before! Reading this was an epiphany.

Thanks Tows for posting! :flowers:

It struck a nerve. The whole series is actually quite good, if you have the time and inclination...

(editorial: just another reason we should be thankful for the existence of NPR)

Russikan

11-22-2005, 07:25 PM

I think I made a couple of observations and comments.

And your "observations" are that an entire article about not believing in God means that he really believes. I'd say that if he wrote an article about not believing then he doesn't believe. Occams Razor and all that.

Sauniere

11-22-2005, 07:43 PM

It struck a nerve. The whole series is actually quite good, if you have the time and inclination...

(editorial: just another reason we should be thankful for the existence of NPR)

Amen to that, and I will check out the whole series!

Churlant

11-22-2005, 08:17 PM

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Beautiful.

-JC

Duo_Maxwell

11-22-2005, 09:49 PM

No God and no Heaven strip the desire to do good for one's sake and replace it with doing goodness for Goodness's sake.

prst31

11-23-2005, 12:25 AM

And your "observations" are that an entire article about not believing in God means that he really believes. I'd say that if he wrote an article about not believing then he doesn't believe. Occams Razor and all that.I said no such thing of absolute. It struck me he might be "protesting too much" with a possible underlying point or, "on purpose".

prst31

11-23-2005, 12:27 AM

Sauniere

11-23-2005, 01:10 AM

Unless he doth protest too much. So irrational.

Sorry Amigo, there is no interpretation here, no confusion. No way to turn the meaning of this around. Penn does not believe in God and he is exhalting the possibilities that opens to life, love, peace, and understanding. That's it.

prst31

11-23-2005, 08:02 AM

Forgive me all for seeing the essay as somthing much deeper. I didn't realize comments like this "So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something." meant the absolute. I'll be more careful to not to consider and comment on any other possibilities from now on.

towski

11-23-2005, 08:24 AM

I'll be more careful to not to consider and comment on any other possibilities from now on.

That sounds suspiciously like "I'm going to take my ball and go home" Priest.

You're better than that.

prst31

11-23-2005, 10:00 AM

That sounds suspiciously like "I'm going to take my ball and go home" Priest.

You're better than that.More like "I just don't know what the answer is to this situation. It really should never have been a big deal but it seems because I'm a "big bad righty" people seem to have a propensity or desire to oppose anything I say." I thought I provided a different point of view that could be discussed. I love Penn and agreed with a lot of what he says in that "This I Believe".
I guess what I'm saying is this I believe - People assume too much. Of course, I'm just assuming.

towski

11-23-2005, 10:05 AM

More like "I just don't know what the answer is to this situation. It really should never have been a big deal but it seems because I'm a "big bad righty" people seem to have a propensity or desire to oppose anything I say." I thought I provided a different point of view that could be discussed. I love Penn and agreed with a lot of what he says in that "This I Believe".
I guess what I'm saying is this I believe - People assume too much. Of course, I'm just assuming.

Oh, I agree. I'm not quite sure why you got jumped on on this thread. You know, other than the "you agree with me, therefore you must be crushed" nature of this forum sometimes.

I just wanted you to stick it out. You're a master debater. ;)

Russikan

11-23-2005, 11:52 AM

More like "I just don't know what the answer is to this situation. It really should never have been a big deal but it seems because I'm a "big bad righty" people seem to have a propensity or desire to oppose anything I say." I thought I provided a different point of view that could be discussed. I love Penn and agreed with a lot of what he says in that "This I Believe".
I guess what I'm saying is this I believe - People assume too much. Of course, I'm just assuming.

Maybe when the Pope says he believes in God he is really being deeper then that. Maybe he really means that he doesn't believe in God. Because he is deep.

Sauniere

11-23-2005, 05:44 PM

prst31

11-23-2005, 06:12 PM

Sorry the guilt trip won't work, I was raised by masters... :D :flowers:...baters? Who said anything about a guilt trip? Feeling guilty about something? ;)

prst31

11-23-2005, 06:27 PM

Maybe when the Pope says he believes in God he is really being deeper then that. Maybe he really means that he doesn't believe in God. Because he is deep.Who's hearing/seeing what they want to hear/see? Even though that was a semi-smug and twisted interpretation of my original comment I will say, if the pope is writing the next "This I Believe" about how there is a God with fifty different reasonings to justify this belief, it would be possible he's actually providing himself reasoning for his own inner questionings.

Scaryclouds

11-23-2005, 06:36 PM

Maybe when the Pope says he believes in God he is really being deeper then that. Maybe he really means that he doesn't believe in God. Because he is deep.

A post with no substance other than to ride down a person who only wanted to look deeper into an article. Yea thats cool :thumbsup:

Sauniere

11-23-2005, 06:45 PM

...baters? Who said anything about a guilt trip? Feeling guilty about something? ;)

Hey I wrote the book on that subject, no Catholic guilt stopping me... :D

Russikan

11-23-2005, 08:11 PM

Who's hearing/seeing what they want to hear/see? Even though that was a semi-smug and twisted interpretation of my original comment I will say, if the pope is writing the next "This I Believe" about how there is a God with fifty different reasonings to justify this belief, it would be possible he's actually providing himself reasoning for his own inner questionings.

The Pope doesn't have to justify. He has legions that do that for him. However an athiest trying to do good work must perform all the leg work themself.

A post with no substance other than to ride down a person who only wanted to look deeper into an article. Yea thats cool.

Ride him down? I always thought sarcasm was used to provoke a response.

Senor Herberto

11-27-2005, 02:56 AM

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God.

why do athiests take existance, consciousness, and life for granted? first there was nothing...

Dangerrmouse

11-27-2005, 08:59 AM

Why Senor, do you take for granted that all of the above require an invisible sky-person to create them?

Void Image

11-27-2005, 11:59 PM

What's so bad about nothingness Senor? Personally, I look forward to nothingness when I die someday. It's not pleasant, it's not unpleasant..it's not eternal punishment, or eternal bliss..it's just nothingness. You are done. You lived your life and now it's over, and you will not be around any longer to contemplate that fact.

eugene40

11-28-2005, 12:05 AM

sub_zer0

11-28-2005, 12:12 AM

JoeR

11-28-2005, 01:29 AM

You make your own meaning.

eugene40

11-28-2005, 01:34 AM

Then what is the point of life?

A great movie quote..... livin man. L I V I N.

sub_zer0

11-28-2005, 02:44 AM

You make your own meaning.

Why not to follow a specific one?

A great movie quote..... livin man. L I V I N.

Exactly how I feel, living this life in preperation for the next.

Craig

11-28-2005, 03:00 AM

Why not to follow a specific one?

Because, short of there being good evidence of another religion being correct, any meaning you could follow would be arbitrary.

Exactly how I feel, living this life in preperation for the next.

No, you've missed the point entirely. You're talking about life as a means to an end; Eugene is talking about life as an end in itself.

Art of War

11-28-2005, 03:44 AM

I just have to say that the very finity of the universe implies a god. Not only does the universe have a definite end but a definite beginning. The idea that the universe exists in cycles (big bang/big crunch) has proven to be the opposite of what is being observed (well the big crunch part at least). The idea that the universe is not infinite points to something to cause a beginning. I believe that the laws of the universe were put into place by this god (or these gods) to bring order to chaos. I believe the mere existence of these laws speaks to the incredible (near infinite) complexity of god.

I in no way believe in any god thus far that has been described by man. I am stricly agnostic in my views on god. I hold religion to be a completely fallacious impossible endeavor to understand God. A feat that is impossible. (just wanted to be clear)

I also believe that there are many atheists out there who are atheist because they view the gods created by man as the only interpertations of god availible. They reject the ideas of man thus rejecting god and are locked into an either or idea. Either man is correct some where or there is no god. I think alot of atheists have rejected the idea of religion not the idea of god.

Void Image

11-28-2005, 05:35 AM

Then what is the point of life?

In my humble opinion, the point of life is to live sub. Live, try to be happy, and eventually die, like every other living thing on this planet. Do you really need justification to live? Why is it so important to believe you a part of something bigger? I believe that really life IS pointless. The planet is pointless. This existance is pointless...but that doesn't mean I'm going to end it all right now or start smuggling illegal weapons and committing genocide. As Carl Sagan once said, life is a way for the cosmos to know itself. The atoms that are arranged to allow you to live came into existance billions of years ago. They became massive clouds, then stars. The stars died, exploded, and those atoms eventually found their way back into new stars, planets, and you. When you die, they will disperse and become soil, plants, rocks, more humans. Eventually our sun will die, and the story of our solar system will come to an end. We ARE the cosmos, so in a way, we are a part of something bigger.

Loch

11-28-2005, 11:15 AM

atheist: "Blah blah blah ... modern science ... blah ... supersticious nonsense ... blah blah ... middle ages ... blah blah ... "

The atheist belives everything can be solved with scince, cause he's a fool.

Void Image

11-28-2005, 12:01 PM

The atheist belives everything can be solved with scince, cause he's a fool.

Sort of a generalization, dontcha think? 'The atheist' does not believe everything can be solved with science. 'The athiest' believes we can try to understand more about the world through science. In other words, if I take this beetle, and put it under a magnifying glass, I may be able to learn more about it. After collecting enough solid facts, I will state my results. 'Christians' believe God made the beetle, nothing else matters (unless the beetle is a homosexual, in which case it's the work of satan), and will push for this 'fact' to be taught in science class alongside the other 'theories' of the beetle.

Strel

11-28-2005, 12:35 PM

Then what is the point of life?

Why do you need for there to be a point? I think that is a more interesting question.

eugene40

11-28-2005, 01:45 PM

Sort of a generalization, dontcha think? 'The atheist' does not believe everything can be solved with science. 'The athiest' believes we can try to understand more about the world through science. In other words, if I take this beetle, and put it under a magnifying glass, I may be able to learn more about it. After collecting enough solid facts, I will state my results. 'Christians' believe God made the beetle, nothing else matters (unless the beetle is a homosexual, in which case it's the work of satan), and will push for this 'fact' to be taught in science class alongside the other 'theories' of the beetle.

It is like I say,,,, next time one feels god is really really on their side... Test that theory of gravity by jumping off a 8 story building and see if God will help ya out with that. :D

But I think eventually science will be able to explain all things. Assuming no one esle follows the ignorance of KansAS and start instituting mythology into out science curiculum.

Duo_Maxwell

11-29-2005, 02:02 AM

The atheist belives everything can be solved with scince, cause he's a fool.

A fool? One is a fool for believing in something that can be tested with his own hand to cause the same result over and over again?

So one that is not a fool is one who believes in something without evidence, without verification, without any sign, without anything tanigble to exist?

Seems who is a fool should be switched based on the definitions you provided.

Art of War

11-29-2005, 04:01 AM

The atheist belives everything can be solved with scince, cause he's a fool.

The fool is the one who shuts his mind to possibilities. The fool is the one who blindly follows the religion of science or God. The only fools are the ones who stop asking what is out there and where do we come from.

eugene40

11-29-2005, 02:39 PM

The fool is the one who shuts his mind to possibilities. The fool is the one who blindly follows the religion of science or God. The only fools are the ones who stop asking what is out there and where do we come from.

Not to mention,, that anyone with even a lay knowledge of science,, knows that science is merely a process to know something. And it is never based 100% because science can't predict what is going to happen tomorrow. Many theories have been negated or proven wrong and stronger ones have taken their place. It is an ongoing process... Only the ignorance of religion deals in absolutes.

Loch

11-29-2005, 03:18 PM

It is like I say,,,, next time one feels god is really really on their side... Test that theory of gravity by jumping off a 8 story building and see if God will help ya out with that. :D

But I think eventually science will be able to explain all things. Assuming no one esle follows the ignorance of KansAS and start instituting mythology into out science curiculum.

But he won't help us.
the reason why we are living is cause he is testing us on our faith.
and if we kill ourselfs we fail atomaticly

eugene40

11-29-2005, 03:53 PM

But he won't help us.
the reason why we are living is cause he is testing us on our faith.
and if we kill ourselfs we fail atomaticly

Who is he? I am sorry I have no imaginary friend.. Gave that up when I was 3.... catholicism when I was ten.. THough that doesn't really count because I never truly believed in the first place. Though Mr. Bernard (imaginary friend,,, I believed in him.) :D

And the reason we are living is merely to live, to enjoy this life.. Without being a "slave to a god that doesn't exist" (I was listening to Marylin Manson on my run this morning.)

Malone1234

12-05-2005, 01:15 AM

What is the point of life?

"To be the eyes and ears and conscience of the creator of the universe." - Kurt Vonegut

This is my favorite answer because it's somthing to really chew on, if you think about it.

Art of War

12-05-2005, 02:55 AM

Not to mention,, that anyone with even a lay knowledge of science,, knows that science is merely a process to know something. And it is never based 100% because science can't predict what is going to happen tomorrow. Many theories have been negated or proven wrong and stronger ones have taken their place. It is an ongoing process... Only the ignorance of religion deals in absolutes.

I would have to take the position that the mind of man as it currently exists does not posses the capability to completely understand the universe. I truly feel we need to evolve some before we get to that point.....IF we ever get to that point.

eugene40

12-06-2005, 12:18 AM

I would have to take the position that the mind of man as it currently exists does not posses the capability to completely understand the universe. I truly feel we need to evolve some before we get to that point.....IF we ever get to that point.

Well considering that we only use what minimal percentage of our brain I would have to say that your hypothosis would be correct. Although as it appears in Kansas we are going to have to fight tooth and nail every step of the way with people that can't figure that out.

Void Image

12-06-2005, 01:35 AM

Well considering that we only use what minimal percentage of our brain I would have to say that your hypothosis would be correct. Although as it appears in Kansas we are going to have to fight tooth and nail every step of the way with people that can't figure that out.

Actually, the minimal percentage or more popular "ten percent" myth is just that, a myth.

1) Brain imaging research techniques such as PET scans (positron emission tomography) and fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain does not lie fallow. Indeed, although certain minor functions may use only a small part of the brain at one time, any sufficiently complex set of activities or thought patterns will indeed use many parts of the brain. Just as people don't use all of their muscle groups at one time, they also don't use all of their brain at once. For any given activity, such as eating, watching television, making love, or reading, you may use a few specific parts of your brain. Over the course of a whole day, however, just about all of the brain is used at one time or another.

2) The myth presupposes an extreme localization of functions in the brain. If the "used" or "necessary" parts of the brain were scattered all around the organ, that would imply that much of the brain is in fact necessary. But the myth implies that the "used" part of the brain is a discrete area, and the "unused" part is like an appendix or tonsil, taking up space but essentially unnecessary. But if all those parts of the brain are unused, removal or damage to the "unused" part of the brain should be minor or unnoticed. Yet people who have suffered head trauma, a stroke, or other brain injury are frequently severely impaired. Have you ever heard a doctor say, ". . . But luckily when that bullet entered his skull, it only damaged the 90 percent of his brain he didn't use"? Of course not.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

JoeR

12-06-2005, 03:21 AM

I can't believe that that one is still believed by so many people.

Loch

11-30-2006, 02:06 PM

Who is he? I am sorry I have no imaginary friend.. Gave that up when I was 3.... catholicism when I was ten.. THough that doesn't really count because I never truly believed in the first place. Though Mr. Bernard (imaginary friend,,, I believed in him.) :D
And the reason we are living is merely to live, to enjoy this life.. Without being a "slave to a god that doesn't exist" (I was listening to Marylin Manson on my run this morning.)

HAHAHAHAHAHA I'm not here to convert you. If you want to not belive in GOD, thats cool. Its your choice.

brainpan

11-30-2006, 02:37 PM

And it is your choice if you want to believe in things, such as "God," that have no logical justification whatsoever.

Loch

11-30-2006, 02:41 PM

Exactly... If I want to belive in GOD, then it is my choice and it is no ones place to judge.

Izdaari

11-30-2006, 04:29 PM

Got to love Penn. BS is a great show as well.
Interesting take he has I think. It's almost as if he's saying "I really do believe there is a God but don't want to because it'll make me mad so I'll just try and believe really hard that there is no God". See he doesn't say there isn't. He contemplates how much easier life would be if there isn't one.

Same thing here. He wants there to be no God because like he says at the end, he can have "fun" then.

Maybe that's the point though deep down, by wanting to believe there is no God, he really is saying there is a God in which I would agree, it makes him a good author.
I gotta say, I think prst31 is onto something here, and not just on something. ;) :flowers:

Penn's argument is not an argument at all: he does nothing to prove that God isn't real, but only argues from the perceived positive consequences of God's non-existence. It makes him feel good to believe God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist. Well, whatever floats your boat, but it isn't a sound argument.

For that matter, Ayn Rand's argument for disbelieving in God amounts to the same thing. If God doesn't exist, that fits better into Objectivism, therefore God must not exist. And I adore Rand in many other ways, but I think she was just being silly on that one.

In both cases, it's the wishful thinking fallacy.

The Big Bog

11-30-2006, 04:32 PM

I gotta say, I think prst31 is onto something here, and not just on something. ;) :flowers:

Penn's argument is not an argument at all: he does nothing to prove that God isn't real, but only argues from the perceived positive consequences of God's non-existence. It makes him feel good to believe God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist. Well, whatever floats your boat and I'm glad it works for him, but it isn't a sound argument.

For that matter, Ayn Rand's argument for disbelieving in God amounts to the same thing. If God doesn't exist, that fits better into Objectivism, therefore God must not exist. And I adore Rand in many other ways, but I think she was just being silly on that one.

In both cases, it's the wishful thinking fallacy.

So if I believe the Easter Bunny is real and unless you prove otherwise ... he exists. ;)

Izdaari

11-30-2006, 04:37 PM

So if I believe the Easter Bunny is real and unless you prove otherwise ... he exists. ;)
No. If I claim God exists because I like the positive consequences of God existing, that would be just as unsound an argument as Penn and Rand make. I'm not making any argument for God's existence or for belief in God in this thread. I'm simply pointing out that all Penn is really saying is that disbelieving in God makes him feel good. That's all well and good, but that's still all it amounts to, and it's still a classic case of the wishful thinking fallacy if taken for anything more.

The Big Bog

11-30-2006, 04:45 PM

No. If I claim God exists because I like the positive consequences of God existing, that would be just as unsound an argument as Penn and Rand make. I'm not making any argument for God's existence or for belief in God in this thread. I'm simply pointing out that all Penn is really saying is that disbelieving in God makes him feel good. That's all well and good, but that's still all it amounts to, and it's still a classic case of the wishful thinking fallacy if taken for anything more.

But to me he's just reasserting the status quo--that God does NOT exist. He's erasing the blackboard of all preconceived notions about God and starting over and commenting along the way on how good that feels. I don't think he's MAKING an argument at all. He doesn't have to.

Izdaari

11-30-2006, 04:52 PM

But to me he's just reasserting the status quo--that God does NOT exist. He's erasing the blackboard of all preconceived notions about God and starting over and commenting along the way on how good that feels. I don't think he's MAKING an argument at all. He doesn't have to.

Turn it around for a second: Suppose I posted something about how I believe in God, and you ought to also, because believing in God makes my life better, and well, because it makes me feel good to believe, and I think believing in God would make you feel good too. And so, God must exist! You know people would be right here pointing out to me how that's the wishful thinking fallacy. Right?

Now of course, you guys can claim the non-existence of God as the status quo all you want. But you know, if you'd be honest with yourself for a moment, what you're really saying is you have FAITH that God doesn't exist. And I can claim the opposite all I want, because I have FAITH that God does. Of course Penn doesn't have to argue God doesn't exist, because he has faith. But his faith won't convince anybody who doesn't already share it, just as mine won't, so unless he's going to go ahead and make the argument, he's just preaching to the choir.

Lumpen Prole

11-30-2006, 05:04 PM

Then what is the point of life?

To live your life to the absolute fullest, if anything for the very reason that you have but one life to live.

serenity

11-30-2006, 05:07 PM

brainpan

11-30-2006, 05:07 PM

Penn's argument is not an argument at all: he does nothing to prove that God isn't real, but only argues from the perceived positive consequences of God's non-existence. It makes him feel good to believe God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist. Well, whatever floats your boat, but it isn't a sound argument. I don't think he needs to debate God's existence in order for his comments to be considered an argument. Clearly it was not his intent to argue against God's existence. His point was that non-belief allows an intellectually honest view of the world and that he is happy enough already without presuming God.
In both cases, it's the wishful thinking fallacy.Penn's reasoning is not fallacious.

Lumpen Prole

11-30-2006, 05:08 PM

Now of course, you guys can claim the non-existence of God as the status quo all you want. But you know, if you'd be honest with yourself for a moment, what you're really saying is you have FAITH that God doesn't exist. And I can claim the opposite all I want, because I have FAITH that God does. Of course Penn doesn't have to argue God doesn't exist, because he has faith. But his faith won't convince anybody who doesn't already share it, just as mine won't, so unless he's going to go ahead and make the argument, he's just preaching to the choir.

Nope. You have faith that God does exist. That is the very definition of theism. An atheist does not believe that God exists; atheism is the absence of theistic belief. I don't have faith that God does not exist; I have no faith that He does. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of theistic belief.

brainpan

11-30-2006, 05:14 PM

Now of course, you guys can claim the non-existence of God as the status quo all you want. But you know, if you'd be honest with yourself for a moment, what you're really saying is you have FAITH that God doesn't exist.Logically, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. The fact both sides cannot be absolutely certain of the claim does NOT put them on equal standing intellectually.

I have to assume you read Penns article. Remember how he mentioned a hypothetical elephant in the trunk? He wasn't too subtle on that point, actually he beat his audience over the head with it. ;)

The Big Bog

11-30-2006, 05:15 PM

Turn it around for a second: Suppose I posted something about how I believe in God, and you ought to also, because believing in God makes my life better, and well, because it makes me feel good to believe, and I think believing in God would make you feel good too. And so, God must exist!
If you’re going to make the assertion that something exists, then yes generally you are required to prove the object exists before asking others to undertake the same belief. I don’t think man built that many bridges nor shot men into space nor cured very many diseases without first sitting down and proving that their assertions were correct.

Now of course, you guys can claim the non-existence of God as the status quo all you want. But you know, if you'd be honest with yourself for a moment, what you're really saying is you have FAITH that God doesn't exist.
No I don’t. I don’t have faith one way or the other. I don’t know whether God exists or not. I just haven’t seen any concrete evidence of it yet. I remain open to the notion. But like Penn, I do think it’s quite nice to not feel OBLIGATED to believe in something for which I’ve seen no convincing evidence of. That’s freeing.

The only reason I commented was because I thought the tone of your post was a tad gleeful in your pointing out that Penn hadn’t PROVEN the nonexistence of God when it wasn’t what he set out to do. It’s like somebody saying, “Gee, it’s nice to be retired and not have to work” and then you retorting, “What have you got against working people?”

Izdaari

11-30-2006, 05:18 PM

Nope. You have faith that God does exist. That is the very definition of theism. An atheist does not believe that God exists; atheism is the absence of theistic belief. I don't have faith that God does not exist; I have no faith that He does. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of theistic belief.
That may be true for you, LP. I've read with great interest most of your posts in the religious forum, and I've never found any fault with your logic. I'm not accusing you in particular, or for that matter atheists in general, of having faith in the non-existence of God. But Penn is claiming something more. He's gone beyond saying he lacks a faith in God. He's saying he actively disbelieves. In effect, Penn says he has faith in the non-existence of God. He provides no evidence for that faith, other than that it makes him feel good. That's why it looks to me like the wishful thinking fallacy.

Izdaari

11-30-2006, 05:24 PM

But this is precisely the Evangelical method--surely you know that!--and I've heard it ad nauseum my entire life.
So have I, my friend, and I like it no more than you do. It's an unsound argument when they make it, and it's just as unsound when Penn makes it.

If in fact that's what he was doing. Perhaps Brainpan and Big Bog are correct, and that wasn't Penn's intent. But if so, Penn isn't going to win any converts and is only preaching to the anti-theist choir.

Izdaari

11-30-2006, 05:30 PM

Logically, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. The fact both sides cannot be absolutely certain of the claim does NOT put them on equal standing intellectually.
That will fly only if you go as far as LP does and no further; that atheism means you lack a belief in God. It's reasonable to lack a belief in something that hasn't been demonstrated to be true, and I have no quarrel with that. Penn went further; he said he actively disbelieves, and since he can't back that up beyond saying it makes him feel good, it sure looks like faith to me.

brainpan

11-30-2006, 05:53 PM

That will fly only if you go as far as LP does and no further; that atheism means you lack a belief in God.Nah, I can go all the way with it. Otherwise, I should be allowed to make any fantastic unfalsifiable claim and demand it receive equal consideration from those who don't believe in them. Even the strongest Evangelical-type theists wouldn't sign on to that kind of reasoning (unless it involves their most cherished fantastic unfalsifiable claim).
Penn went further; he said he actively disbelieves, and since he can't back that up beyond saying it makes him feel good, it sure looks like faith to me.It is similar to the kind of faith that allows for a positive denial of the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, and ghosts, which is logically on more solid ground than the belief in those things.

Lumpen Prole

11-30-2006, 05:57 PM

That may be true for you, LP. I've read with great interest most of your posts in the religious forum, and I've never found any fault with your logic. I'm not accusing you in particular, or for that matter atheists in general, of having faith in the non-existence of God. But Penn is claiming something more. He's gone beyond saying he lacks a faith in God. He's saying he actively disbelieves. In effect, Penn says he has faith in the non-existence of God. He provides no evidence for that faith, other than that it makes him feel good. That's why it looks to me like the wishful thinking fallacy.

Fair enough. And I agree that believing (or not believing) something simply because it makes one feel good is not only absurd, but has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not something exists.

Izdaari

11-30-2006, 06:59 PM

Nah, I can go all the way with it. Otherwise, I should be allowed to make any fantastic unfalsifiable claim and demand it receive equal consideration from those who don't believe in them. Even the strongest Evangelical-type theists wouldn't sign on to that kind of reasoning (unless it involves their most cherished fantastic unfalsifiable claim).
I've never asked for that. I agree that it's reasonable to lack a belief in something that hasn't been shown to be true. I couldn't believe in God myself until I'd seen enough evidence that it seemed probable to me that the story of the Gospels was actually the truth. Now, I'm not here to convince you or to present that evidence, but just grant that I'm not a complete idiot, that I can reason and that I know evidence when I see it.

It is similar to the kind of faith that allows for a positive denial of the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, and ghosts, which is logically on more solid ground than the belief in those things.
I think it highly probable that leprechauns and unicorns don't exist. I'm not so sure about ghosts. Why? I've seen no credible evidence at all for the existence of the former, but there is at least some for that latter. Conclusive? I don't think so, but IMO it bears further investigation. You could say I lack a belief in ghosts, but I don't actively disbelieve.

Izdaari

11-30-2006, 07:10 PM

No I don’t. I don’t have faith one way or the other. I don’t know whether God exists or not. I just haven’t seen any concrete evidence of it yet. I remain open to the notion. But like Penn, I do think it’s quite nice to not feel OBLIGATED to believe in something for which I’ve seen no convincing evidence of. That’s freeing.
Nope, no obligation, express or implied. I don't require that you believe in God, though when you have seen the evidence, I trust you'll be fair minded enough to give it due consideration? Bearing in mind that absolute proof is impossible, and that "preponderance of the evidence", just as in civil court, is the highest standard that can reasonably be met. But from that article, I don't think Penn is sufficiently open minded on the subject to be a fair judge. Perhaps you are, though I'm not so sure.

The only reason I commented was because I thought the tone of your post was a tad gleeful in your pointing out that Penn hadn’t PROVEN the nonexistence of God when it wasn’t what he set out to do. It’s like somebody saying, “Gee, it’s nice to be retired and not have to work” and then you retorting, “What have you got against working people?”
Careful about reading between the lines; a lot of times it means you see things that aren't there.

Lumpen Prole

11-30-2006, 08:36 PM

About that evidence... where is it?

Dangerrmouse

11-30-2006, 08:50 PM

As faith is belief without evidence, then having "proof" obviates the need for and actually undermines for the existence of faith. Why bother to invoke faith in the face of a proven verifiable fact?

The Big Bog

11-30-2006, 09:01 PM

... I don't require that you believe in God, though when you have seen the evidence, I trust you'll be fair minded enough to give it due consideration? ... Perhaps you are, though I'm not so sure.

Careful about reading between the lines; a lot of times it means you see things that aren't there.

Anyone who knows me knows that no one in the world wants to believe in God more than me. So perhaps I might suggest that you not read between the lines with me as well. ;)

JD3

11-30-2006, 09:50 PM

It struck a nerve. The whole series is actually quite good, if you have the time and inclination...

(editorial: just another reason we should be thankful for the existence of NPR)

I agree. I love listening to these.

Izdaari

11-30-2006, 09:54 PM

About that evidence... where is it?
I already told you in that other thread that I'm not going to present it, and why I won't. There is no point in asking again. I'm not going to change my mind.

Lumpen Prole

11-30-2006, 10:35 PM

I already told you in that other thread that I'm not going to present it, and why I won't. There is no point in asking again. I'm not going to change my mind.

Why am I not surprised? In discussions about the existence of the supernatural, the theist claims to have verifiable evidence but won't present it because (s)he is afraid it won't change any minds. If such evidence truely existed it would change minds, because that's what verifiable evidence does! I'm going to ahead and assume this evidence doesn't exist. Not only would such evidence be widely publicized, but it would be of immense interest to theists and atheists alike.

This is just laughable, really. "I have evidence for God but I'm not going to provide it. I have my reasons."

Puh-leeze.

Izdaari

12-01-2006, 12:56 AM

steveksux

12-01-2006, 01:13 AM

It struck a nerve. The whole series is actually quite good, if you have the time and inclination...

(editorial: just another reason we should be thankful for the existence of NPR)NPR would still exist if it was broadcasting from GITMO! ;) where the rest of the liberal media belongs also! :D

Randy

steveksux

12-01-2006, 01:27 AM

People only use 10% of their brainsI can't believe that that one is still believed by so many people.

That myth is probably only believed by people that really DO only use 10% of their brains...

Having said that...

I believe there are many people that believe we only use 10% of our brains.

I believe those people who believe that only use 10% of their brains.

Therefore I believe lots of people only use 10% of their brains.

Therefore I only use 10% of my brain.

Randy

Sauniere

12-01-2006, 01:28 AM

Late to this thread, but not Penn's post. I think Penn is a total MCP, but I've seen him and Teller in person three times. I read this last year when it first came out. And I have two of the guy's books, so I know they can definitely write.

I believe what he has to say deserves a lot of merit. It is the faith in G-d that controls so much of this world, be you Christian or Muslim. And look and know the past and know that 95% of New World populations were destroyed by those pretending to spread the word of "he who must be obeyed."

More people have died on this planet [look Mods, not trolling, you want links, references, I will gladly post them, because I have a million, which you know because human history is my profession and passion] from supposed religious "good" than from anything to do with outright hatred.

That said, why can't humanity be happy without believing that a supreme being is watching over your ever move. This almost smacks of Santa Claus, "he knows if you've been naughty or nice." Come on, if you think that those who do not believe in a supreme being are unhappy or will go to hell, then I want to say get a life or show me some proof.

steveksux

12-01-2006, 01:29 AM

I gotta say, I think prst31 is onto something here, and not just on something. ;) :flowers:

Penn's argument is not an argument at all: he does nothing to prove that God isn't real, but only argues from the perceived positive consequences of God's non-existence. It makes him feel good to believe God doesn't exist, therefore God doesn't exist. Well, whatever floats your boat, but it isn't a sound argument.

For that matter, Ayn Rand's argument for disbelieving in God amounts to the same thing. If God doesn't exist, that fits better into Objectivism, therefore God must not exist. And I adore Rand in many other ways, but I think she was just being silly on that one.

In both cases, it's the wishful thinking fallacy.

I bet if Penn dug a foxhole in his backyard he'd believe in God. There are no atheists in foxholes.

Randy

steveksux

12-01-2006, 01:32 AM

So if I believe the Easter Bunny is real and unless you prove otherwise ... he exists. ;)Just remember: those aren't eggs. Bunnies don't lay eggs. I don't care how colorful they are.

Don't pick them up and eat them!!!!!

Randy

steveksux

12-01-2006, 01:38 AM

That will fly only if you go as far as LP does and no further; that atheism means you lack a belief in God. It's reasonable to lack a belief in something that hasn't been demonstrated to be true, and I have no quarrel with that. Penn went further; he said he actively disbelieves, and since he can't back that up beyond saying it makes him feel good, it sure looks like faith to me.I have to say, you cannot prove a negative. Thus you cannot prove the non-existence of God. So Izdaari seems correct that Penn, necessarily lacking proof that God does NOT exist, must be relying on faith. I see where she's coming from.

Randy

Lumpen Prole

12-01-2006, 01:47 AM

That's fine, LP, you think what you want. I explained why in the other thread: Discussions of that sort are not enjoyable for me, and not a productive use of my time. I've done them before enough to learn my lesson. I am no longer willing to participate in them. I did provide a link to a good starting point should you care to investigate for yourself.

But assuming it doesn't exist is easier, and gives you an excuse to browbeat and insult me in a vain attempt to make me do something that I've refused to do, so I understand. I'm not happy about it -- I hoped you were a more courteous person than that -- but I understand. :mad:

And I went to your link, the one that brought me to a book on amazon.com. Forgive for not getting out my wallet and spending money on a book that you claim provides verifiable evidence for the existence of the God you happen to believe in. I told you that I read the overview and that I was interested, yet you still refuse to say anything on the matter.

But like you said, you have more productive things to do, like spending your time not validating your outlandish claims. More productive things, such as excusing your obligation to back up what you say by saying you have more productive things to do.

The only thing is, wasting time and energy to say all that was, as I've just pointed out, highly non-productive. So if you're worried about wasting your time on things that aren't productive, then why did you waste time and energy on that last post? Wouldn't it be more productive to actually discuss and validate your original claims?

brainpan

12-01-2006, 02:24 AM

Anyone who knows me knows that no one in the world wants to believe in God more than me. So perhaps I might suggest that you not read between the lines with me as well. ;)Then I suspect you eventually will. When it comes right down to it, I think religious faith is a choice, it owes to our ability to believe what we want to believe (which isn't always a bad thing).

DPlague

12-01-2006, 02:27 AM

Just remember: those aren't eggs. Bunnies don't lay eggs. I don't care how colorful they are.

Don't pick them up and eat them!!!!!

Randy

Uh oh...maybe I shouldn't have given them to all the neighbourhood kids... why would the commercials lie!!??!

*Runs around the neighbourhood stealing the wrapped "eggs" back from the children* Like stealing candy from a baby ;)

JD3

12-01-2006, 01:38 PM

We could add another view?

How Is It Possible to Believe in God?

by William F. Buckley, Jr.

I've always liked the exchange featuring the excited young Darwinian at the end of the 19th century. He said grandly to the elderly scholar, "How is it possible to believe in God?" The imperishable answer was, "I find it easier to believe in God than to believe that Hamlet was deduced from the molecular structure of a mutton chop."

That rhetorical bullet has everything -- wit and profundity. It has more than once reminded me that skepticism about life and nature is most often expressed by those who take it for granted that belief is an indulgence of the superstitious -- indeed their opiate, to quote a historical cosmologist most profoundly dead. Granted, that to look up at the stars comes close to compelling disbelief -- how can such a chance arrangement be other than an elaboration -- near infinite -- of natural impulses? Yes, on the other hand, who is to say that the arrangement of the stars is more easily traceable to nature, than to nature's molder? What is the greater miracle: the raising of the dead man in Lazarus, or the mere existence of the man who died and of the witnesses who swore to his revival?

The skeptics get away with fixing the odds against the believer, mostly by pointing to phenomena which are only explainable -- you see? -- by the belief that there was a cause for them, always deducible. But how can one deduce the cause of Hamlet? Or of St. Matthew's Passion? What is the cause of inspiration?

This I believe: that it is intellectually easier to credit a divine intelligence than to submit dumbly to felicitous congeries about nature. As a child, I was struck by the short story. It told of a man at a bar who boasted of his rootlessness, derisively dismissing the jingoistic patrons to his left and to his right. But later in the evening, one man speaks an animadversion on a little principality in the Balkans and is met with the clenched fist of the man without a country, who would not endure this insult to the place where he was born.

So I believe that it is as likely that there should be a man without a country, as a world without a creator.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4656595

JD3

12-01-2006, 01:42 PM

Or this one:

The Elusive Yet Holy Core

by Kathy Dahlen

All Things Considered, October 31, 2005 · I entered college in the early 1970s and my belief in God and Christ were intact, but it was through an unlikely class that I became convinced beyond dogma of a powerful truth.

Since I was an English major, I immersed myself in ideas and philosophies. But somewhere between Wordsworth's nature poems and Kafka's existential short stories, I felt a need to study something tangible -- something in the world of blood, bones and cells.

So, I signed up for the class "Human Anatomy and Physiology 101." As part of the coursework, our professor took us to an autopsy so we could see first hand what had so far been limited to textbooks and drawings.

When we entered the morgue, our voices dropped to whispers, our eyes drawn to the human parts preserved in jars lining the walls.

In the autopsy room, a male body lay on a stainless steel table. His skin was a waxy yellow, sunken, almost plastic. His mouth gaped.

He was a suicide.

The physician made a bloodless incision. A couple students on the outer rim of the group fainted; I managed to keep my ground and edged closer. There inside, just as we had been taught, were the heart with its ventricles, the stomach still smelling of yeast, the bony frame, the paper-thin coils of intestine.

For some reason, it struck me that all these parts and pieces didn't explain fear or lust, ambition or love. There wasn't an organ I could probe to uncover kindness, or some tissue I could explore to find human will, or the drive to make music.

The doctor folded back a part of the man's scalp and, with an electric saw, cut carefully through the skull. The brain lay exposed as though in a cocoon, creased and wrinkled by thoughts and experiences.

Gazing at that mass of gray nerve tissue, I was unable to reconcile the evidences I had known of self-sacrifice and forgiveness, or even this suicide, with the notion that a human life consists only of one's biology. I know myself well enough to admit to yearnings, imaginings and thoughts that can't be reduced to chemical reactions or electric impulses.

The class, and particularly the autopsy experience, had taken me deeper than I anticipated. I had entered the study of the human body expecting to learn of our concrete physical existence. Instead, I discovered in a more profound way the human body as transitory and fragile, and, by contrast, the soul as enduring.

This elusive, yet holy core whispers to me of God, of my ability to know and enjoy Him. It compels me to look beneath the surface, to remind myself that, like me, the lady next door who scowls on her way to the mailbox, or the kids who strut down the street, or my atheist friend who enjoys a good conversation, each bear an undying soul and deserve compassion.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4975444

I really enjoy reading well reasoned and deep held convictions.

brainpan

12-01-2006, 02:07 PM

We could add another view? WFB Jr.So God is to be found in the unexplained origin of imagination?

brainpan

12-01-2006, 02:12 PM

Or this one:Looks like more of the same to me, except he included the existence of emotion to his formula.

I grant that I might be missing something really important here, I often do, but aren't these two guys just saying: emotion + inspiration = God? Are their pronouncements more profound than the three-word statement I offered?

JD3

12-01-2006, 03:09 PM

So God is to be found in the unexplained origin of imagination?

I think that's the argument.

Lumpen Prole

12-01-2006, 03:32 PM

This is what the argument boils down to:

"I do not see how it is possible to explain phenomenon X with any answer other than 'God.'"

There is a an organ that pumps blood --> I can see that organ in a dissected body --> the human heart exists

THEREFORE:

There is no organ I can point to that dictates my imagination --> I cannot explain the origins of this phenomenon (my imagination) --> God exists!

Imagination indeed. Again, I fail to see how there is somehow an argument for the existence of God in our inability to explain everything.

ProfessorBobo

12-01-2006, 03:43 PM

I don't particularly understand the idea that "there is no organ for imagination" means there is a god. Quite clearly, the brain is responsible. If thoughts and feelings were so intangible as to be only explained by the existence of a supernatural being, then we wouldn't have medical and psychological wonders of today. No Prozac for the depressed, no LSD for the unenlightened, and no Ritalin for the ADHD afflicted. You can argue about the pros and cons of those drugs and others like them, but if thoughts and feelings were as ethereal as Kathy Dahlen makes them out to be, then no amount of drug use would affect them.

Although you may not know the root of something, that doesn't make God the default source.

The Big Bog

12-01-2006, 04:32 PM

Dutch

12-01-2006, 04:34 PM

I don't believe in god. I do, however, wish I could.

JoeR

12-01-2006, 05:23 PM

That seems a strange statement to me. Is it because you wish you had the piece of mind?

JustinH

12-01-2006, 05:41 PM

That seems a strange statement to me. Is it because you wish you had the piece of mind?

Because it's intellectually easier to say "Godidit" then actually apply ones self to the solution. While I try my best to keep an open mind, I have a tendency to lean less and less towards the possibility of any being that could even be construed as a god.

I still align myself with the apathetic agnostic however. If there is a God, he doesn't particularly care what I'm doing so I return the favor in-kind.

ProfessorBobo

12-01-2006, 06:15 PM

When I was in high school my World Civilizations teacher gave a religious sermon to the class one day (yes, it was a public school but that's fodder for another thread...)

But what he repeated to us over and over has stuck in my head throughout the years: "You can't be good without God!"

Well, if God doesn't exist ... why are we? (Mostly)

Read Plato's "The Republic." The entire thing basically is a long, philosophical case for morality and justice that isn't based on religion. Socrates refutes the idea that it is in every man's interest to act unjustly for the betterment of himself so long as he doesn't get caught.

FlyingGuineapig

12-01-2006, 06:39 PM

Looks like more of the same to me, except he included the existence of emotion to his formula.

I grant that I might be missing something really important here, I often do, but aren't these two guys just saying: emotion + inspiration = God? Are their pronouncements more profound than the three-word statement I offered?

Well, I think the essay discussing the autopsy brings up an interesting point. How does science explain where life comes from? I'm not talking evolution - I believe in evolution, some folks don't, that's fine - let's talk abiogenesis for a minute. (Please, no evolution followup. Do a search on evolution on this forum - it's been debated to death)

Abiogenesis is the "non-living matter" -> "life" step. Now, Miller & Urey showed you could create complex organic moleculars from inorganic ones, but to my knowledge, no one has ever created something that's alive other than through traditional reproduction. And while Miller & Urey had some good initial results, they seem to have run into roadblocks in getting past amino acids. And that was about 50 years ago - since then, not much new (at least that I've heard about).

Now, maybe 100 years from now, we'll have figured it out. That's fine - wouldn't upset my view of God. But it's a pretty huge gap in the claim that "science has it all figured out".

At best, they can offer up a belief and a reasonable explanation for why they can't reproduce it. If the odds of life "starting" from primodeal soup are extremely small - say, 10e-24, then you'd need to use a lab the size of the Earth for a few million years in order to reproduce it. Which would have existed a few billion years ago. But that's not proof - it's an explanation for why it can't be reproduced.

So what does science say about life is (vs non-alive)? Well, it's going to give a long list of "processes" that living things do that non-living things don't (grow, adapt, metabolize, generally reproduce, etc).

But explaining the difference between a cadavear and a living person, using science, seems...tricky. Sure, it's obvious to everyone that there's a difference...but what is it? If there is something that seperates the quick from the dead, what would it be called?

From Hebrew, they called the difference "vital breath", or nephesh. What we call a "soul" (if you prefer psyche or theta). The Hindus would call it "Atman" - basically, the portion of Brahman (God or the Absolute Universe, depending on your intepretation).

But what does science call it? Or does even conventional science recognize that life is "God's domain". Perhaps it's the leftover from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein echoing through our culture. But it seems interesting that both Western and Eastern throught (and that all mankind) has the notion of an eternal soul.

steveksux

12-01-2006, 07:36 PM

Well, I think the essay discussing the autopsy brings up an interesting point. How does science explain where life comes from? I'm not talking evolution - I believe in evolution, some folks don't, that's fine - let's talk abiogenesis for a minute. (Please, no evolution followup. Do a search on evolution on this forum - it's been debated to death)

Abiogenesis is the "non-living matter" -> "life" step. Now, Miller & Urey showed you could create complex organic moleculars from inorganic ones, but to my knowledge, no one has ever created something that's alive other than through traditional reproduction. And while Miller & Urey had some good initial results, they seem to have run into roadblocks in getting past amino acids. And that was about 50 years ago - since then, not much new (at least that I've heard about).

Now, maybe 100 years from now, we'll have figured it out. That's fine - wouldn't upset my view of God. But it's a pretty huge gap in the claim that "science has it all figured out".

At best, they can offer up a belief and a reasonable explanation for why they can't reproduce it. If the odds of life "starting" from primodeal soup are extremely small - say, 10e-24, then you'd need to use a lab the size of the Earth for a few million years in order to reproduce it. Which would have existed a few billion years ago. But that's not proof - it's an explanation for why it can't be reproduced.

So what does science say about life is (vs non-alive)? Well, it's going to give a long list of "processes" that living things do that non-living things don't (grow, adapt, metabolize, generally reproduce, etc).

But explaining the difference between a cadavear and a living person, using science, seems...tricky. Sure, it's obvious to everyone that there's a difference...but what is it? If there is something that seperates the quick from the dead, what would it be called?

From Hebrew, they called the difference "vital breath", or nephesh. What we call a "soul" (if you prefer psyche or theta). The Hindus would call it "Atman" - basically, the portion of Brahman (God or the Absolute Universe, depending on your intepretation).

But what does science call it? Or does even conventional science recognize that life is "God's domain". Perhaps it's the leftover from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein echoing through our culture. But it seems interesting that both Western and Eastern throught (and that all mankind) has the notion of an eternal soul.How does that saying go? Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to a more primitive group? We've been really making wild progress in science for the last hundred years or so, medically speaking. Life is pretty complex, not easily understood or investigated. It will take time.

Today's $10 hand held calculator would be used in the 1900s as an argument proving the existence of God because man could never do such a thing.

Randy

FlyingGuineapig

12-01-2006, 07:43 PM

How does that saying go? Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to a more primitive group? We've been really making wild progress in science for the last hundred years or so, medically speaking. Life is pretty complex, not easily understood or investigated. It will take time.

Today's $10 hand held calculator would be used in the 1900s as an argument proving the existence of God because man could never so such a thing.

Randy

Randy, as I said above: Now, maybe 100 years from now, we'll have figured it out. That's fine - wouldn't upset my view of God. But it's a pretty huge gap in the claim that "science has it all figured out".

I don't want to make you (or others) defensive over the fact that science hasn't figured it out. Maybe some day you will. I certainly can't prove that you can't, or that this inability proves God. But it is kind of obvious as a gapping hole that never gets talked about. I'm kind of curious why.

steveksux

12-01-2006, 07:50 PM

Randy, as I said above: Now, maybe 100 years from now, we'll have figured it out. That's fine - wouldn't upset my view of God. But it's a pretty huge gap in the claim that "science has it all figured out".

I don't want to make you (or others) defensive over the fact that science hasn't figured it out. Maybe some day you will. I certainly can't prove that you can't, or that this inability proves God. But it is kind of obvious as a gapping hole that never gets talked about. I'm kind of curious why.
Sorry you misunderstood, I was agreeing with that part... Just making a comment... did not mean to dive in swinging like you interpreted... :D I would not assume science has it all figured out... been around long enough to know that it has a lot of stuff figured out wrong, in ways subtle and great...

Randy

Bassman

12-01-2006, 08:04 PM

(editorial: just another reason we should be thankful for the existence of NPR)

BWAHAHAH!!!!!! NPR?!?! That's hilarious! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-006.gif

FlyingGuineapig

12-01-2006, 08:05 PM

Sorry you misunderstood, I was agreeing with that part... Just making a comment... did not mean to dive in swinging like you interpreted... :D I would not assume science has it all figured out... been around long enough to know that it has a lot of stuff figured out wrong, in ways subtle and great...

Randy
Hehe - OK - sorry if I took it the wrong way.

Just as a bit of background - my wife is an oral surgeon, so I'm somewhat familar with the medical world. Been dragged along to gross anatomy lab. I prefer engineering myself, but it's not uncommon for me to wind up chatting w/ another surgeon, professor or med/dental school dean (my wife used to teach as well).

towski

12-01-2006, 08:06 PM

BWAHAHAH!!!!!! NPR?!?! That's hilarious! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/lachen/laughing-smiley-006.gif

Thanks. I like to use any opportunity I can conjur up to provide you with the bandwidth eating opportunity to retort with emoticons rather than actual words.

And how clever of me to do it a year in advance, before you were even a member?

The Big Bog

12-02-2006, 01:11 AM

Well, I think it might be a bit helpful if we all take a gander at the Official God FAQ webpage before discussing discussing this thread any further:

Question: “Is there a God?”

Answer: “No.”

In the quite unlikely event that you were to discover any omissions or inaccuracies on this page, they may be reported to the international headquarters of The Official God FAQ, at aod@400monkeys.com, where they will be thoroughly investigated, submitted to rigorous scientific testing and, if substantiated, included in a subsequent update. Thank you.

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

TomAZ

12-02-2006, 11:07 AM

There are no atheists in foxholes.

Randy

Wanna bet, Randy? Please share your experiences that drew you to this conclusion.

http://maaf.info/

brainpan

12-02-2006, 01:37 PM

Wanna bet, Randy? Please share your experiences that drew you to this conclusion.

http://maaf.info/Was his humor too subtle for you?

steveksux

12-02-2006, 08:02 PM

Wanna bet, Randy? Please share your experiences that drew you to this conclusion.

http://maaf.info/That's just a joke based on the old saying "there are no athiests in foxholes", maybe Patton or some other General in WWII I think. Guess I'm just showing my age...

Randy

TomAZ

12-03-2006, 08:39 AM

That's just a joke based on the old saying "there are no athiests in foxholes", maybe Patton or some other General in WWII I think. Guess I'm just showing my age...

Randy

Ooops! Sorry Randy. That quote always prompts a hair-trigger response from me. I read too fast.

Actually the tale goes that the quote was coined by an army chaplain during the Battle of Corregidor, but being there are no chaplains in foxholes, I kind of doubt it. Sky-pilots all.:angel:

Ethos

12-04-2006, 12:08 PM

I'm impressed NPR would broadcast such a commentary. I admit to enjoying their "This I Believe" series (resurrected from the 1950's).

I am also impressed the thread has accumulated this many responses. Until the day someone proves the existence of their God, I am content with being an atheist. It seems the reverse holds true for the theist. What more is there to argue about?

Ethos

Demote

12-04-2006, 01:42 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHA I'm not here to convert you. If you want to not belive in GOD, thats cool. Its your choice.

Is this guy for real? You need to convert people if you a true Christain. Remember, What would Jesus Do?

Loch

12-04-2006, 01:50 PM

Is this guy for real? You need to convert people if you a true Christain. Remember, What would Jesus Do?

Demote, I see where your coming from. You think everyone needs to convert to being a Christian, thats a good thought. Also you think that Jesus would convert people now days. But sad to say your wrong. He would not try to convert people to being a Christian because he is tolerant of all people of all races and religons. There are too many converters that say there christian, but there just people who dont have a good relationship with God. So if you don't, fine, just leave me out of converting people.

Izdaari

12-04-2006, 02:11 PM

Is this guy for real? You need to convert people if you a true Christain. Remember, What would Jesus Do?
There are effective ways to win people over to Christ and ineffective ways. IMO debating the existence of God on message boards is one of the least effective ways. At best it's a waste of time, and indeed an endless time sink.

Another ineffective method is to "hard sell" people who aren't ready to hear it. That's worse than merely ineffective; it's actually counter-productive because it makes people permanently resistant, turned-off to the message. But I'm always happy to witness when/if people indicate they're ready, and of course praying for guidance on that and for what to say is always a good idea.

FlyingGuineapig

12-04-2006, 02:22 PM

Well, let's actually look at what the Bible says about how Jesus converts people (Matt 9:9):

As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field."

And in Matt 23:1 (and so on)
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
...
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are"

I'm sure everyone reads into Jesus what they want to, but my interpretation is He's showing conversion by example, rather than through a holy roller hard-sell.

Lumpen Prole

12-04-2006, 03:21 PM

Izdaari

12-04-2006, 03:37 PM

I think it's a waste of time to keep saying it's a waste of time to do something.
Perhaps, but I thought my post was appropriate and perhaps helpful, to Demote and maybe some others who might be interested. If you don't find it helpful, kindly skip it rather continuing to harass me.

FlyingGuineapig

12-04-2006, 03:48 PM

I think it's a waste of time to keep saying it's a waste of time to do something.

So aren't you wasting your time in making that post?
Of course, then I'm wasting my time in making this post. :)

ProfessorBobo

12-04-2006, 03:56 PM

I think it's a waste of time to keep saying it's a waste of time to do something.

Dude, you need to let stuff go. Iz doesn't want to talk about it. Why does that bother you so much?

DPlague

12-04-2006, 06:11 PM

I think it's a waste of time to keep saying it's a waste of time to do something.

Wow....that was such an incredibly amazing post and very much not a waste of time. :rolleyes:

DPlague

12-04-2006, 06:15 PM

Perhaps, but I thought my post was appropriate and perhaps helpful, to Demote and maybe some others who might be interested. If you don't find it helpful, kindly skip it rather continuing to harass me.

I definitely found it useful. It's good to know that not everybody believes in trying at all times to convert other people to their faith, and that there are times and places for that sort of thing. Thanks.

brainpan

12-04-2006, 06:22 PM

There are effective ways to win people over to Christ and ineffective ways. IMO debating the existence of God on message boards is one of the least effective ways. At best it's a waste of time, and indeed an endless time sink.This board, in particular, is not conductive to that. I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but the same dynamic prevents the back and forth between different denominations and religions that I find interesting.
Another ineffective method is to "hard sell" people who aren't ready to hear it. That's worse than merely ineffective; it's actually counter-productive because it makes people permanently resistant, turned-off to the message.You betcha'. Especially when different missionary groups compete for the same people, and that seems to turn them off to all religion, kinda' how extreme partisan politicing makes people cynical about the entire political process.

steveksux

12-04-2006, 07:10 PM

Ooops! Sorry Randy. That quote always prompts a hair-trigger response from me. I read too fast.No problem, I assumed you didn't get the humor, didn't take offense at the tone which was not intended for me at all, merely who you thought I was... :D

Actually the tale goes that the quote was coined by an army chaplain during the Battle of Corregidor, but being there are no chaplains in foxholes, I kind of doubt it. Sky-pilots all.:angel:

Dont' doubt it, I figured was something like that, I just suspected a WWII vintage....

Randy

life makers

12-10-2006, 08:32 PM

ok if there is no god so tell me how this world is managed
from where the sky the earth , sun,moon, u and me came
it's not from the logic that all of this came from nothing no way
as example: did u came to the life by ur self or ur mother borned u?:rolleyes:
if it's my mother borned me so who borned ur mother and so and so
so waiting ur comment but u must convience me with ur opinion
waiting
peace

brainpan

12-10-2006, 10:25 PM

ok if there is no god so tell me how this world is managedThings like physical constants, natural laws, and probability.
from where the sky the earth , sun,moon, u and me cameBig Bang. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang)
did u came to the life by ur self or ur mother borned u?She'll probably try to deny it, but it was my mom who gave birth to me. Who do you think gave birth to God? And who borned God's creator?

Dangerrmouse

12-10-2006, 10:42 PM

If this world were managed, they are pretty crap at it!

brainpan

12-10-2006, 11:27 PM

If this world were managed, they are pretty crap at it!"This universe isn't the work of a supreme diety. It's more like the work of an office temp with an attitude." -George Carlin

life makers

12-11-2006, 09:34 AM

[She'll probably try to deny it, but it was my mom who gave birth to me. Who do you think gave birth to God? And who borned God's creator?[/QUOTE]

no one gave the birth to allah simply beacause allah the one who gave the life to us
he is the creator
as example when u made some thing this some thing don't born u
so allah created us so no one gave the birth to allah he is already exisit
as u when u make some thing u are already here no way that u will make any thing and u aren't on the life or without ur exisitance

i hope that u got what i mean here
waiting the comment
peace

Craig

12-11-2006, 10:14 AM

[She'll probably try to deny it, but it was my mom who gave birth to me. Who do you think gave birth to God? And who borned God's creator?

no one gave the birth to allah simply beacause allah the one who gave the life to us
he is the creator
as example when u made some thing this some thing don't born u
so allah created us so no one gave the birth to allah he is already exisit
as u when u make some thing u are already here no way that u will make any thing and u aren't on the life or without ur exisitance

i hope that u got what i mean here
waiting the comment
peace

If we are willing to hold the belief that Allah has simply always existed, there should not be any great difficulty for us to also allow for the possibility that the universe came into existence by itself. Both premises- a causeless entity in a universe where everything seems to depend upon causation, and a universe that spontaneously came into existence when everything within it seems to depend upon causation- are equally improbable. It comes down to which premise you are willing to believe, regardless of how probable or improbable the other premise may be.