Do you believe in God? (3 Viewers)

[Annihilist]

For the Mayans it did, the science of cosmology was central to their religious beliefs and predictions and required vast scientific feats in the field of mathematics, as seen in the accuracy of their calendar and constellation commentaries.

So the world is going to end this year?

But fair enough

 

[kaz1]

yeah but it wasnt religion that caused the contributions

In Islam they had to invent ways for predicting when they had to pray using algebra and astronomy and someone already said something about mayans

 

[alstah]

So the world is going to end this year?

Haha. How would I know when the world is going to end?

In what alternate universe does 'calendar' mean prophecy or predictions!? They were the only civilisation, which was not part of what Sir Halford Mackinder, described as the "World-Island", that is, composed of the continents of Europe, Asia or Africa, who came close to figuring out 1 calendar year. Indeed, they achieved this centuries before the West did!

Edit: My apologies, the West never worked out 1 calendar year, did they? Sigh...Julian calendar lol. I believe it was the Persian mathematicians who discovered the 365 day year and the West copied it from them?...Well, either way, 100s of years.

 

[Annihilist]

Believing in atheistic evolution, like believing in creation, requires acceptance of a certain presuppositional dogma and it requires placing one’s faith in a story about the unrepeatable past. To accept that worldview, you must have faith in a professor or textbook—or yet another secondhand source and that secondhand source’s interpretation. After all, not a single person was alive to see how the universe began (Big Bang) or how life began (Abiogenesis) or the supposed evolution of life on earth (Darwinism). Any argument or idea that makes claims about the unrepeatable past requires belief. We may have reasons (right or wrong) to believe what we believe, but we cannot go back in time to see if that belief is right.

You are arguing that scientific evidence, experimentation, rational observation and overall science, is an equally valid and plausible theory to religion. Which is absurd, because religion is entirely faith based, and by that I mean it has nothing to back up it's claims. So all belief in religion in this context is entirely blind faith. Science, by complete contrast, only makes claims where there is sufficient evidence to back up said claims. By definition, a scientific claim must have evidence to back it up.

I don't need to believe in gravity. I don't need to believe in inertia. I don't need to believe in the second law of thermodynamics. Because these are facts. Science is facts - science measures facts through observation. That is what it is by definition. Evolution is a theory, sure, but it is based on evidence. Maybe not enough to establish it as a fact set in stone, but the alternative (creationism) is based on zero evidence whatsoever, so evolution is far superior.

And science isn't narrow minded bigotry like religion. Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed - faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

 

[Annihilist]

Haha. How would I know when the world is going to end?

In what alternate universe does 'calendar' mean prophecy or predictions!? They were the only civilisation, which was not part of what Sir Halford Mackinder, described as the "World-Island", that is, composed of the continents of Europe, Asia or Africa, who came close to figuring out 1 calendar year. Indeed, they achieved this centuries before the West did!

Edit: My apologies, the West never worked out 1 calendar year, did they? Sigh...Julian calendar lol. I believe it was the Persian mathematicians who discovered the 365 day year and the West copied it from them?...Well, either way, 100s of years.

I was kidding.

 

[AAEldar]

Religious people, on the other hand, believe anything they are told - and we know this because they believe in religion, and it's portrayal of a God.

Except that's not true.

 

[alstah]

You are arguing that scientific evidence, experimentation, rational observation and overall science, is an equally valid and plausible theory to religion. Which is absurd, because religion is entirely faith based, and by that I mean it has nothing to back up it's claims. So all belief in religion in this context is entirely blind faith. Science, by complete contrast, only makes claims where there is sufficient evidence to back up said claims. By definition, a scientific claim must have evidence to back it up.

I don't need to believe in gravity. I don't need to believe in inertia. I don't need to believe in the second law of thermodynamics. Because these are facts. Science is facts - science measures facts through observation. That is what it is by definition. Evolution is a theory, sure, but it is based on evidence. Maybe not enough to establish it as a fact set in stone, but the alternative (creationism) is based on zero evidence whatsoever, so evolution is far superior.

And science isn't narrow minded bigotry like religion. Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed - faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

You said religion is a dogma, which I do not disagree with, but I pointed out that atheism, science or anything for that matter, requires a presupposed dogma as well.

I never said there aren't observable facts in the physical world - in fact, I agree with you to the point where, if I may, use it against you. As a materialistic, it'll be interesting to know if you believe that the laws of nature and science are eternal.

What is more absurd—to believe this is a result of God’s design, or that given enough time, hydrogen turns into humans? Are we the ones with blind faith? Where you there when something popped into existence from nothing and exploded or expanded? No, well do you see something popping into existence from nothing today? Were you there when non-living matter gave rise to life? No, well do you see non-living matter giving rise to life today? Where you there when single-celled organisms gave rise to true multicellular organisms, when invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, etc. No, well do you see it happening today? Sounds like faith to me. You have to believe that matter came into existence by itself and then arranged itself into information systems—that is what goes against real science.

The problem is, no bit of evidence (no argument or scientific discovery) is going to change your (or any atheist's for that matter) mind. There are plenty of unanswered questions in secular science that require divine intervention (e.g., the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of genetic information, the origin of language and consciousness and morality, etc.), but atheists, like you, keep saying religion is narrow minded and bigotry and cling onto your just-so stories and hold on to their faith that science will eventually provide them with a way around the God conclusion. Well, good luck to them, but I think they are foolish.

Also, you are unequivocally wrong if you think creationism is the alternative to evolution.

Evolution tells us nothing about how life came to be on this planet, all evolution tells us is what can happen when life is already there. It tells us nothing about how that life came to be!

 

[funkshen]

all philosophical and scientific conclusions require priors?

oh, what a scholar you are.

 

[wilsondw]

well, a friend show me a documentary...not sure if posted yet...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg

Just a perspective from stephen hawking

 

[alstah]

all philosophical and scientific conclusions require priors?

oh, what a scholar you are.

No philosophical or scientific conclusions are derived from previous discoveries and arguments, and if the big bang theory was truly and original scientific conclusion, its just that, a theory with no proof or substance, other than faith in a presupposed dogma, and reason. Since questioning human beings existed, scientific conclusions require faith and reason. It might not be what you associate faith to be, but objectively, it is faith.

 

[alstah]

well, a friend show me a documentary...not sure if posted yet...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg

Just a perspective from stephen hawking

Yes, that was a fascinating documentary, watched it a while back now.

I highly recommend Antony Flew's books. Antony Flew occupied Richard Dawkin's position as the world's most famous atheist, until his conversion. Nevertheless, the books he wrote whilst he was an atheist were fascinating. I highly recommend them, and his book upon conversion, 'There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind'...none of that Richard Dawkin's garbage...Urgh the agony when an atheist scientist suddenly turns into a philosopher overnight.

 

[funkshen]

No philosophical or scientific conclusions are derived from previous discoveries and arguments, and if the big bang theory was truly and original scientific conclusion, its just that, a theory with no proof or substance, other than faith in a presupposed dogma, and reason. Since questioning human beings existed, scientific conclusions require faith and reason. It might not be what you associate faith to be, but objectively, it is faith.

first of all, your epistemological nihilism is fucking childish, and it blows my mind that somehow you consequently justify some arbitrary religious code (unless you are a deist) which is quite clearly a non-sequitor. how ironically Nietzschean

second of all, your misuse of language is tiring. science does not require faith. to the average person, the acceptance of scientific knowledge requires a little faith (certainly a lot less than an arbitrary religious code.) the average person cannot, of course, go out and test all the facets of scientific knowledge (although he can test a great deal of them.) it is remarkable that the average person today could disprove the the Aristotelian physics upheld absolutely by the christian church for 1300 or so years, specifically because gallileo and descartes said fuck you to the church and made science happen. and wouldn't you know it the Aristotelian physics was eventually dropped (but not before the Philosophers told gallileo that the mountains he was seeing on the moon, which was supposed to be a perfect sphere, were actually in his telescope, not on the moon). but science isn't based on faith. science advertises its priors, assesses them (see: karl popper or hans albert etc.) a scientist discards falsified theories (unless he is a social scientist) and moves on. dogmas coerce and indoctrinate people instead.

third of all, yes, the big bang theory is a fairly absurd scientific project. your point is that it isnt reproducible (yet?). that doesn't matter. it is a theoretical derivation from the broader corpus of scientific knowledge that produces a model. models are valid (or useful) if they make falsifiable predictions. the big bang theory makes predictions (i.e. stellar nucleosynthesis) that are also untestable. but that is completely beside the point. no scientist would say that the big bang theory is "true", nor would they say it has been proven. they would say that it is valid (i.e. internally consistent). and in that regard, it is a worthwhile project - an entertaining conjecture, a worthwhile intellectual discussion, but not a lynchpin of the foundations of science by any means.

fourth of all, the fundamentally absurd nature of science is that science cannot prove the scientific project wrong. but you know what? science doesn't give a fuck. it makes useful knowledge, which is what matters.

fifth of all, you seem to be making an argument from the every man about science. this is plain ol' retarded. science doesn't care nor is it predicated on what the every-man believes. the every-man's existential struggle is beyond science, clearly.

without any priors no system of knowledge can get anywhere. this is why we agree on certain principles of inquiry (e.g. the scientific method) and go from there. it doesn't mean that science and religion are the same. they are qualitatively different, and equivocating priors with faith is quite clearly a fallacy. learn you something for fucks sake.

edit: yes i realise posting in this thread is beyond idiotic.

 

[alstah]

first of all, your epistemological nihilism is fucking childish, and it blows my mind that somehow you consequently justify some arbitrary religious code (unless you are a deist) which is quite clearly a non-sequitor. how ironically Nietzschean

second of all, your misuse of language is tiring. science does not require faith. to the average person, the acceptance of scientific knowledge requires a little faith (certainly a lot less than an arbitrary religious code.) the average person cannot, of course, go out and test all the facets of scientific knowledge (although he can test a great deal of them.) it is remarkable that the average person today could disprove the the Aristotelian physics upheld absolutely by the christian church for 1300 or so years, specifically because gallileo and descartes said fuck you to the church and made science happen. and wouldn't you know it the Aristotelian physics was eventually dropped (but not before the Philosophers told gallileo that the mountains he was seeing on the moon, which was supposed to be a perfect sphere, were actually in his telescope, not on the moon). but science isn't based on faith. science advertises its priors, assesses them (see: karl popper or hans albert etc.) a scientist discards falsified theories (unless he is a social scientist) and moves on. dogmas coerce and indoctrinate people instead.

third of all, yes, the big bang theory is a fairly absurd scientific project. your point is that it isnt reproducible (yet?). that doesn't matter. it is a theoretical derivation from the broader corpus of scientific knowledge that produces a model. models are valid (or useful) if they make falsifiable predictions. the big bang theory makes predictions (i.e. stellar nucleosynthesis) that are also untestable. but that is completely beside the point. no scientist would say that the big bang theory is "true", nor would they say it has been proven. they would say that it is valid (i.e. internally consistent). and in that regard, it is a worthwhile project - an entertaining conjecture, a worthwhile intellectual discussion, but not a lynchpin of the foundations of science by any means.

fourth of all, the fundamentally absurd nature of science is that science cannot prove the scientific project wrong. but you know what? science doesn't give a fuck. it makes useful knowledge, which is what matters.

fifth of all, you seem to be making an argument from the every man about science. this is plain ol' retarded. science doesn't care nor is it predicated on what the every-man believes. the every-man's existential struggle is beyond science, clearly.

without any priors no system of knowledge can get anywhere. this is why we agree on certain principles of inquiry (e.g. the scientific method) and go from there. it doesn't mean that science and religion are the same. they are qualitatively different, and equivocating priors with faith is quite clearly a fallacy. learn you something for fucks sake.

edit: yes i realise posting in this thread is beyond idiotic.

Your first point makes no sense whatsoever, it's just a bunch of confusing words put together, try again. Epistemology requires faith. It requires faith that ontology is correct. The same applies for scientific conclusions and the scientific method, which is epistemology, but requires a presupposed dogmatic belief in the onotogical aspects of the world or the universe it is studying.

I disagree with your premise. Scientific conclusions require faith. As I have said before, you have to believe that matter came into existence by itself and then arranged itself into information systems—that is what goes against real science, and that sounds like faith to me. Aristotelian philosophy is still a major part of Western philosophy, his philosophical arguments have stood the test of time. In my opinion this is the only thing that matters, as it is only through philosophy that one can really question the existence of God, science cannot.

Based on your third, fourth and fifth points, would that mean you're an agnostic, not an atheist?

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter or count for anything. I believe in God and have felt the special presence of God. No post will change that, neither will any post I make change your mind.

 

[mirakon]

Your first point makes no sense whatsoever, it's just a bunch of confusing words put together, try again. Epistemology requires faith. It requires faith that ontology is correct. The same applies for scientific conclusions and the scientific method, which is epistemology, but requires a presupposed dogmatic belief in the onotogical aspects of the world or the universe it is studying.

I disagree with your premise. Scientific conclusions require faith. As I have said before, you have to believe that matter came into existence by itself and then arranged itself into information systems—that is what goes against real science, and that sounds like faith to me. Aristotelian philosophy is still a major part of Western philosophy, his philosophical arguments have stood the test of time. In my opinion this is the only thing that matters, as it is only through philosophy that one can really question the existence of God, science cannot.

Based on your third, fourth and fifth points, would that mean you're an agnostic, not an atheist?

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter or count for anything. I believe in God and have felt the special presence of God. No post will change that, neither will any post I make change your mind.

idgi, this is a vast oversimplification

 

[Annihilist]

You said religion is a dogma, which I do not disagree with, but I pointed out that atheism, science or anything for that matter, requires a presupposed dogma as well.

Wrong. Christianity is a set of beliefs. Atheism is a lack of said beliefs. An atheist can follow a separate non-religious dogma if he chooses, but it is not inherent within "atheism".

I never said there aren't observable facts in the physical world - in fact, I agree with you to the point where, if I may, use it against you. As a materialistic, it'll be interesting to know if you believe that the laws of nature and science are eternal.

The laws of nature and science are based on observation and have hitherto been consistent. That they are eternal is a reasonable deduction, although the possibility of the alternative should not be entirely ruled out

What is more absurd—to believe this is a result of God’s design, or that given enough time, hydrogen turns into humans? Are we the ones with blind faith? Where you there when something popped into existence from nothing and exploded or expanded? No, well do you see something popping into existence from nothing today? Were you there when non-living matter gave rise to life? No, well do you see non-living matter giving rise to life today? Where you there when single-celled organisms gave rise to true multicellular organisms, when invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, etc. No, well do you see it happening today? Sounds like faith to me. You have to believe that matter came into existence by itself and then arranged itself into information systems—that is what goes against real science.

As I said, I don't need to believe in science, because science describes fact; and where it cannot describe fact it does the best it can with what it has. The theory of evolution is a prime example because it explains how we got to be here as best as it can. What it does not explain it does not try to; science says "we don't know yet". Which is true. We don't know yet. Maybe we will in the future. But we cannot know for sure because there is no evidence for it. There is compelling evidence for evolution, but not enough for firm proof. Yet. Religion, on the other hand, attempts to explain things with theological theories based on no evidence whatsoever. Faith in religion, therefore, is blind, and thus naive. Even if it takes faith to "believe in science", it is far superior to believe in science over religion, because it is based on at least some evidence and rational thought and observation.

The problem is, no bit of evidence (no argument or scientific discovery) is going to change your (or any atheist's for that matter) mind. There are plenty of unanswered questions in secular science that require divine intervention (e.g., the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of genetic information, the origin of language and consciousness and morality, etc.), but atheists, like you, keep saying religion is narrow minded and bigotry and cling onto your just-so stories and hold on to their faith that science will eventually provide them with a way around the God conclusion. Well, good luck to them, but I think they are foolish.

Wrong again. If there is evidence for divine intervention then you will find many atheists re-evaluating their views. Many will not, but many will. And as I said before, the unanswered questions do not require divine intervention. They are best left unanswered until the evidence can be found. Do we need to answer everything? If we do not know the answer, we do not make one up. Religion, as an explanation for the origin of life, is made up to fill in the blanks of what we know already - which is naïvety. Science says "we don't know". Because we don't. If there is something we don't know, we admit it. We do not require all questions to be answered right away, because we value truth. We will not settle for an untrue answer. That is why we do not accept religion - and it is also why evolution remains a "theory" and not a "law".

Also, you are unequivocally wrong if you think creationism is the alternative to evolution.

Evolution tells us nothing about how life came to be on this planet, all evolution tells us is what can happen when life is already there. It tells us nothing about how that life came to be!

Of course it doesn't. It is not meant to. The equation 2+2=4 does not tell you what 426 squared is, because it is not meant to. It is the answer to one question, not all. And the answer to "how life originally came to be", currently, is "no one knows". And saying that "unknown = divine intervention", not only takes blind, stupid faith, but it is also, as I said, naïve.

 

[AAEldar]

As I have said before, you have to believe that matter came into existence by itself and then arranged itself into information systems—that is what goes against real science, and that sounds like faith to me.

And God came into existence by his self?

See the circular argument that unfolds?

I try not to use how God became, or how the universe became, in any theological argument.

Out of curiosity though, how many of the so called Atheists here have read the Bible?

 

[Annihilist]

Out of curiosity though, how many of the so called Atheists here have read the Bible?

I keep meaning to but I have other things to read, for school and otherwise. But I find it fascinating how it has created such a profound cultural impact.

edit: I am tempted to use Jesus Christ, and the Bible in general, as my related text for Julius Caesar. So there's a good excuse to read it.

 

[Absolutezero]

Out of curiosity though, how many of the so called Atheists here have read the Bible?

Yes, mostly. Qur'an is a better read IMO.

 

[mirakon]

I don't really get what people mean by asking if something came before God/The Big Bang, because considering that these "created" time, and the notion of "before" is entirely dependent on the notion of time, the notion of "before" doesn't have to exist for God/The Big Bang

 

[hopsin]

This debate is really pointless, if you are truly seeking God you'll find him. This is the way it works in Christianity, you can read all the apologetics books you want, listen to all the philosophers, and still not be fulfilled in your belief. Why? Because Christianity is about a relationship with God, you don't need a Bible, a theology textbook or a church to understand who God is and whether here is real to him. My relationship with God has really been shaky. I grew up in a Catholic home which went to sunday every week and was a believer (not a very good one I must say, I was very ignorant). However my beliefs changed as I started questioning the Bible and God. I came across some YouTube videos made by Thunderf00t and other YouTube atheists then from then I was introduced to famous atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. I read the God Delusion - I became very convinced that religion was a cancer and that it was a strong source of violence and ignorance and that there was absolutely no evidence of god. I've been an atheist for a few months until I listened to some Christian apologetics such as Dr. William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Normal Geisler, Gary Habermas etc. and I became a Christian again but then went on to become an agnostic because I couldn't reconcile evolutionary theory with the biblical account of creation, then I became a theistic evolutionist and then went back to Christianity and then I doubted again - I just couldn't believe that a all-powerful, all-loving, all-merciful creator could let people go to hell forever just because of unbelief.. so I became an atheist again. I struggled with my beliefs, it's been a long ride and I'm still 17. I'm really interested in the whole atheism/theism debate. I've realized that both sides have some strong compelling arguments and that to say that Christians are ignorant is a very naive assumption to make considering the amount of strong apologetics material there is out there.

But I want you guys to know that all this debating will only lead to confusion after confusion. The only way I believe that you could find god is to simply follow what Jesus said:

Luke 11:9-12
9 “So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

11 “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Basically, what I find is that people who are atheists have never really even sought God in the first-place, have you actually prayed with all your heart, mind and soul for answers to these questions? Most people think that praying a regurgitated 5-min prayer is somehow prayer.. well it is not. Prayer is actually seeking and crying out to God, it may take days, weeks or even months but let me tell you God will answer your prayer, he will show you that he is real and you will experience him like you have never experienced before. I can tell you that once you experienced god the joy, peace and happiness that comes out of this is unimaginable - where else can you find this bliss without resorting to human pleasures and materialistic desires and ambitions? Nowhere, it is only through god that true happiness and peace can be found. If you are an unbeliever and are really sincere - you want to know that he is real. Pray with all your heart, it doesn't matter whether you know how to pray or not, just talk to God with everything you have and you will find that he will answer. Even if you don't know which God to choose and don't know whether Jesus is the way, I recommend you pray to God to guide you on what is true. Also read the Bible after your prayers.

I'm still learning and I know that God is not done with me. But I want to tell you guys that I have been in a similar situation - I have doubts regularly. But I know that no amount of evidence, logic and reason can convince someone to give their lives and follow God - it is only through a personal relationship with God that you truly know without a shadow of a doubt that he exists. The majority of Christians are blatant hypocrites and don't practice what they preach. The earliest Christians died for their faith yet the modern day Christians not only are ignorant of their beliefs but they don't even practice what they believe, which is an absolute shame.

So I'll by saying that Christianity is not about church, the Bible, being a good person, or any of that stuff. It is simply about a personal relationship with the creator of the universe, this is a very fulfilling relationship. Once you believe in God and have realized that he exists he will work through your life, convicting you of sin and will give peace and fulfillment to your life.

God bless! Remember - God is a personal god - the only through him is by knocking at the door and seeking his face, otherwise you will never truly experience him.