If there's no God...

[Norsefire]

Well you are entitled to your opinion as we are entitled to ours, and I dont know that I would ever make the claim that society should be devoid of religion. If you want to take a theistic approach what you believe by al means do so, but I myself look at the facts and lean towards the opposite end of the spectrum. Thats just me. :shrug:

I think the benefit of religion is that it gives people hope, a common goal, unity*, and an overall air of friendliness and common ground among the people; it's difficutlt to explain, but theistic societies are usually much more family-oriented and tend to be more "good"

(not extremist theistic societies)


Again, a moderate form is more beneficial, in my opinion, than either extremism or atheism.

* assuming they have the core concepts in mind. However, politics or economy are just as capable of division as religion.

 

[Norsefire]

The trouble with society is that there are too many people squabbling about faith, each wanting to outdo the other. Why not visit Pastor Phelps for a start, then head for Kansas.

Yes, I agree, but if all the people had the same core concepts in mind, effectively the same Faith (not religion), it would be beneficial for what I described earlier; the problem only arises with division.

 

[shichimenshyo]

If everyone followed the same theistic belief system yes, it would bring people together, but no everyone does. Extremism can be spawned from that which is moderate.

 

[Norsefire]

Just because there is no proof either way is does not make it a 50/50 thing. Those making claims without a shred of supporting evidence stand a near 100% likelihood of being false.

That's simply it though; not only is there no proof, but there is neither no evidence to give us some sort of indication of a direction of likeliness; although when you get into specifics, they usually tend to have been forged over the years: but the concept of a Creator is no more unlikely than anything else.

You don't know anything when you are dead.

Attention sciforums!
We have a God on our forums!

 

[spidergoat]

The idea of a God is just as silly as garden fairies because human-type intelligence is relatively new to the universe, as far as I know. For 14 billion years or so, there was nothing that could be called a consciousness. So, using a form of human consciousness as an explanation for the world rather than the more obvious natural interactions of atoms and sub-atomic forces is among the most improbable explanations there could be. People like Norsefire can't even say what a God is, they refuse to define it, and so create an idea that has no meaning and no testability.

The idea of God came from men, for all anyone here knows. They get the idea indirectly from holy texts, which people grant respect only because they are old. The concept of fairies is no less rational than the concept of God. In fact, Muslims believe in Jinns, which are the same as fairies, more or less. If there could be a God (rather, if I cannot disprove God), then there could be two, or three, or an infinite number, or there could be levels of Godness, or God could have a God that even he doesn't know about. Once you give in to irrationality, there is no limit to the silliness you can invent.

 

[Norsefire]

If everyone followed the same theistic belief system yes, it would bring people together, but no everyone does. Extremism can be spawned from that which is moderate.

And that which is moderate can be applied to anything; again, as the benefits from religion to society are massive, the only problem in the way is that all people won't agree. That's why it, like democracy, could be taken as a majority thing; but really, I think Faith overall (and perhaps you agree) in a moderate form is better than atheism, as it gives that extra element of tradition, hope, culture, celebration, unity, goals, common ground, etc, and promotes family values.

 

[spidergoat]

I think the benefit of religion is that it gives people hope, a common goal, unity*, and an overall air of friendliness and common ground among the people; it's difficutlt to explain, but theistic societies are usually much more family-oriented and tend to be more "good"

(not extremist theistic societies)


Again, a moderate form is more beneficial, in my opinion, than either extremism or atheism.

* assuming they have the core concepts in mind. However, politics or economy are just as capable of division as religion.

What value could a theist hold that an atheist could not? What quality of togetherness and unity could theists display that a rational person could not?

 

[Norsefire]

The idea of a God is just as silly as garden fairies because human-type intelligence is relatively new to the universe, as far as I know. For 14 billion years or so, there was nothing that could be called a consciousness. So, using a form of human consciousness as an explanation for the world rather than the more obvious natural interactions of atoms and sub-atomic forces is among the most improbable explanations there could be. People like Norsefire can't even say what a God is, they refuse to define it, and so create an idea that has no meaning and no testability.

The idea of God came from men, for all anyone here knows. They get the idea indirectly from holy texts, which people grant respect only because they are old. The concept of fairies is no less rational than the concept of God. In fact, Muslims believe in Jinns, which are the same as fairies, more or less. If there could be a God (rather, if I cannot disprove God), then there could be two, or three, or an infinite number, or there could be levels of Godness, or God could have a God that even he doesn't know about. Once you give in to irrationality, there is no limit to the silliness you can invent.

The concept of an entity creating our universe is not ridiculous.

I myself find the concept of pure nature, without intelligent influence, ridiculous in every way;

I also do not think you were alive for 14 billion years. I think the universe has more out there than we can sense, so we shouldn't talk as if we've seen all of it.


And that is why the concept of a Creator, an outside force having led to the creation of our universe, is not ridiculous at all.

 

[Cris]

Norsefire,

People keep comparing all these different, fantasy concepts to the concept of God; they aren't the same.

If you consider the concept of gods more objectively and put your emotions to one side for a moment then you will find that there is no difference or perhaps its even worse.

That is, although in principle both CAN exist, one actually is a TRUE mystery that we just don't know; we don't KNOW whether or not there is a God, and in my opinion, it is a very plausible Scientific theory.

Why could either exist? What single fact could you highlight that demonstrates that a god could exist? You will not find anything. That total absence of evidence places the god concept firmly in the imaginative fantasy camp alongside all other fantasies and fairy tales.

So please point out to me, what is ridiculous about the concept of a Creator (not necessarily a supernatural being) having created our universe?

You mean beside the requirement of an incredibly unimaginable super powerful single invisible immaterial being capable of creating an entire universe without any single piece of evidence and absolutely no idea how such an incredible feat might be possible? And somehow you don’t find that ridiculous? Do you have any examples of anything remotely close that could give some clue as to whether such a thing is feasible?

Or, to put it bluntly, I am Faithful, but not religious.

Not quite. Religious simply means that you hold beliefs about a supernatural entity which qualifies you as religious. What you mean is that you do not follow the dogmas of any of the recognized established religious institutions. And being faithful simply means you hold a conviction that something is true in the absence of any evidence.

Believing that there is a God and, perhaps, a place for our spirit after our death is not at all a silly concept;

Why don’t you? I’ve described the bizarrely silly idea of a god above and now we have the spirit/soul concept that is even more central to religious fantasies.

The spirit/soul concept is derived from the concept of air or breath and originated in ancient times when it was observed that when a person died they no longer had any breath. It was assumed that that breath was their life-force and had departed their body and was floating around somewhere in the ether. This led to all the consequent fantasies about people breathing in these spirits some of which were evil and which caused most of the illnesses that people suffered. And of course to remove an evil spirit it was customary to drill a hole in the skull to let it out, and all variations on that theme.

Later on more sophisticated variations on the soul fantasy were devised and eventually the many concepts of duality, i.e. a human is comprised of a physical body and a soul. All of these ideas arose and became common memes in the total absence of modern science and especially neurology. The soul was espoused as the home of thought, emotions, personality, memory, identity, consciousness, etc. With the development of modern science and countless examinations of brain impairments, accidents, and drugs, science has determined that all those factors supposedly caused by a soul are in fact entirely related to brain function.

If a soul were to exist and the body in which it was housed died then it would have no emotions, no personality, no memory, no identity, and no method to think, since all these require a brain. Without any of those features what can we say about a soul? It is effectively a null entity. It serves no purpose and has no function. In essence, and let’s be realistic, it doesn’t exist.

 

[ashura]

And that which is moderate can be applied to anything; again, as the benefits from religion to society are massive, the only problem in the way is that all people won't agree. That's why it, like democracy, could be taken as a majority thing; but really, I think Faith overall (and perhaps you agree) in a moderate form is better than atheism, as it gives that extra element of tradition, hope, culture, celebration, unity, goals, common ground, etc, and promotes family values.

How about faith in human beings?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

 

[Norsefire]

What value could a theist hold that an atheist could not? What quality of togetherness and unity could theists display that a rational person could not?

Are you implying theists are irrational?


The problem would be that, with atheism, the elements you are removing from society as a whole are massive, not to mention there is no longer that unity and hope among the people, which unite them, in a higher force; regardless of whether that force is real, that faith is beneficial. In an atheist society, what would be the point of fighting for anything? Of having hope? Of ever wondering?
Life would descend into the kind of world portrayed in "Brave New World"; in fact, within the book if I remember correctly, the Leader of the Europe area said he had to hide the Bible from the people because it would make them want more and have a higher calling and action, than if he kept them in the dark.

 

[spidergoat]

The concept of an entity creating our universe is not ridiculous.

I myself find the concept of pure nature, without intelligent influence, ridiculous in every way;

I also do not think you were alive for 14 billion years. I think the universe has more out there than we can sense, so we shouldn't talk as if we've seen all of it.


And that is why the concept of a Creator, an outside force having led to the creation of our universe, is not ridiculous at all.

It is for one important fact, the early universe was too chaotic for any coherent structure to endure. It was too hot. All complex forms had to come later, after it cooled.

 

[shichimenshyo]

And that which is moderate can be applied to anything; again, as the benefits from religion to society are massive, the only problem in the way is that all people won't agree. That's why it, like democracy, could be taken as a majority thing; but really, I think Faith overall (and perhaps you agree) in a moderate form is better than atheism, as it gives that extra element of tradition, hope, culture, celebration, unity, goals, common ground, etc, and promotes family values.

I agree that for some religion offers a foundation of hope, and a reprieve form the fear of death. To others though it offers nothing but an interesting fairy tale story. Relgion will bring some together, but divide others. I do not claim that religion is bad, just that for all the good it does it has inherant flaws that can be seen on a daily basis around the world.

 

[spidergoat]

Are you implying theists are irrational?


The problem would be that, with atheism, the elements you are removing from society as a whole are massive, not to mention there is no longer that unity and hope among the people, which unite them, in a higher force; regardless of whether that force is real, that faith is beneficial. In an atheist society, what would be the point of fighting for anything? Of having hope? Of ever wondering?
Life would descend into the kind of world portrayed in "Brave New World"; in fact, within the book if I remember correctly, the Leader of the Europe area said he had to hide the Bible from the people because it would make them want more and have a higher calling and action, than if he kept them in the dark.

So you are pleading the case of beneficial ignorance? Yes, I think theists are irrational. Again, what quality could theists embody that atheists cannot?

 

[Norsefire]

How about faith in human beings?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

At the cost of much from society itself, and much from motive and a "higher calling", doing something greater, rather than petty charities and bullshit organizations and institutions; I've always believed a man needs to prove himself to the world.


We are created equal, but afterwards it is up to us to prove our worth; a bum is not equal to a hardworking man. Not at all.

Even in your America, God is everywhere; do you honestly want to remove that spiritual element from all of society?

 

[Norsefire]

So you are pleading the case of beneficial ignorance? Yes, I think theists are irrational. Again, what quality could theists embody that atheists cannot?

No, this is what I am trying to avoid! This is what I am worried an atheist world will lead to, a world like in Brave New World.

The faith wouldn't make the people ignorant so much as set a common ground, a hope and understanding in something higher, and that faith can help each individual find that certain healing and motive that I feel that, in an atheist society, would not be as prominent.

 

[Norsefire]

I agree that for some religion offers a foundation of hope, and a reprieve form the fear of death. To others though it offers nothing but an interesting fairy tale story. Relgion will bring some together, but divide others. I do not claim that religion is bad, just that for all the good it does it has inherant flaws that can be seen on a daily basis around the world.

There is no reason we cannot live in peace among other religions; however, still, again, it would be beneficial for that faith to exist.

 

[shichimenshyo]

No, this is what I am trying to avoid! This is what I am worried an atheist world will lead to, a world like in Brave New World.

The faith wouldn't make the people ignorant so much as set a common ground, a hope and understanding in something higher, and that faith can help each individual find that certain healing and motive that I feel that, in an atheist society, would not be as prominent.

Your saying that giving someone false hope is better than jst giving them the truth. Given the choice I would rather have the truth. :shrug:

 

[shichimenshyo]

There is no reason we cannot live in peace among other religions; however, still, again, it would be beneficial for that faith to exist.

Sure there is, look at the world today.

 

[Norsefire]

It is for one important fact, the early universe was too chaotic for any coherent structure to endure. It was too hot. All complex forms had to come later, after it cooled.

Within the universe; again, a Creator would not be within the universe.

And the reason I just said that is because, again, nobody knows if there is a Creator. It isn't like comparing it to a massive ogre or fairy; we are talking about simply, in essence, if an intelligent force had somehow led to the creation of our universe
And I see nothing ridiculous whatsoever about that concept. Do you?