How can you possibly be an athiest?

[Kontiki]

Slightly off topic, but one question that always springs to my mind is "Why do you believe in God?" (in the Christian sense). Don't take this at all as a knock against the belief, but I'm curious as to why many people do. If you believe that you have some personal connection with God, then fine, so be it. But I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of Christians (or any other religion, for that matter) are placing their faith in something without really knowing why. I mean, is it simply because you were raised with this belief in your family and accept that it's true? Is it what you were taught at school? Have you really thought about it, understand many of the issues involved (including some of the "controversy") and made an informed choice? From my experience, it seems like at least a few of the Christians here have (Obiwan and Rogan Josh spring to mind, and I'm sure there are others) but I'm curious about some of the other Christians here (or members of any other religion).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Lincoln, would you gracefully quit this regurgitation of the same tripe over and over again? Last time when there was a serious discussion on this, you failed to substantiate your position. As I told you before, I still have the thread archived.

Oooh, link, link, link. I was looking for that before. I wanted to see again how loinburger et al demolished Lincoln's nonsense so handily...

[orange]

But Boris, even Darwin marvels at the Human Eye, and say that no man could possibly create such a thing

[Wtiberon]

I personally do not believe in religion but there is no doubt in my mind that there is a higher intellegence out their...now is that intellegence meant to be worshiped? I doubt it. However the Universe is a far too complex place and we are a far too complex species to have had happen by accident.

[St Leo]

Um, "Opinion" and "Belief" are synonymous...

Opinions are ever-changing. Beliefs change with generations.

But Boris, even Darwin marvels at the Human Eye, and say that no man could possibly create such a thing

1. That's absurd. Humanity has been creating human eyes for the last two million years and we are coming close to creating artificial ones.

2. In his books, Darwin gives examples of eyes of varying effectiveness throughout the animal kingdom (from binary light sensors all the way to our level and beyond) and outlines a possible evolution plan.

[orange]

St.Leo - you do realize that I was saying that jokingly, right? Were the smileys not enough?

Bible-bangers bring that one up all the time

[Wtiberon]

Originally posted by St Leo

1. That's absurd. Humanity has been creating human eyes for the last two million years and we are coming close to creating artificial ones.

Wha wha whaaaaaaat are you talking about? If we had no idea what an eye was do you think we could create one? Many of the inventions we have created have come from imitations of nature. I marvel alot of times at how anything (or anyone) could create all this from nothing.

[St Leo]

The other problem with "intelligent design" is that our design and that of other species isn't always so intelligent. Thanks for the appendix, Lord. Oh, and the tailbone remnant, that's really useful. And having the testicles dangle outside the body in a vulnerable position was a real great idea, yessirree!

You forgot to mention the way we give birth to our young. It makes sense in the partially bipedal chimps, but our hipbones are positioned in a way that makes it a horribly dangerous evolutionary relic.

[Frogman]

OK, I buy into the hard and soft atheist definition. I guess I always assumed it to be the hard position, but the hard soft thing appears pretty popular in the atheist world so I accept that an atheist doesn't necessarily believe there is no God, just lacks a belief in one.

I'm a theist, I think there is a God, but I'm an agnostic because I think He is unknown to us, an in fact I might even be a hard agnostic because I think he is unknowable, and unproveable.

Three things point me to the God side. First is the lack of data to really prove the mechanism of evolution, I don't see chance and mutation working to get us this far. Second is prophecy. If prophecy can be believed, then our concept of time, chance, fate, everything must be shifted. It means there is an order and a plan. Third is spiritual encounters. People have them. Maybe they can't prove it, but many people say they connect with God and for them its more than faith, its experience. Not having had a convincing experience myself, I am inclined to look at it like people who report alien encounters. Still, you get enough of them and you have to at least consider the possiblity.

Does any religion have it right? I don't think so.

[cinch]

Without getting bogged down in semantics, here's me attempting to answer the question, in regards to myself:

The question, "What happened before the big bang?" is faulty, because 'before' is a term implying time, and time only exists with space, and space only exists after the big bang. So it's a faulty question, and a paradox that can make one's mind hurt. Personally, I feel it's things like that lead me to just say "I don't know". I don't know if there's a greater being, but if there is, it's so far beyond our comprehension that it's no use bothering to worry about. It does not love us, nor does it hate us; it does both. It is the Campbellian duality and Paine's First Cause, mixed. Meh.

Anyway, if I ever were inclined to join a religion, I would definitely go for Hinduism. It's just simply the bee's knees.

[cinch]

Frogman:

I'm a theist, I think there is a God, but I'm an agnostic because I think He is unknown to us, an in fact I might even be a hard agnostic because I think he is unknowable, and unproveable.

Wouldn't that make you a deist?

I mean, if we're into self-catagorisation here. It really doesn't matter, though. I'm just wondering.

[Wtiberon]

I agree with Frogman I don't think that God or however you want to refer to it is knowable but it is provable. I think the mere fact that we are all here that the universe exists at all proves that and I have a hard time understanding how anyone can't understand that fact.

Our universe as we understand it is set on a series of laws and limitations...one of those laws is that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So there MUST exist another dimension or entity that follow a wholly different set of laws (or none at all) that led to our creation.

[Frogman]

Originally posted by cinch

Wouldn't that make you a deist?

I mean, if we're into self-catagorisation here. It really doesn't matter, though. I'm just wondering.

According to my Websters Collegiate Dictionary, a theist believes in God, while a deist believes in "natural religion based on reason"

My understanding then is that a deist will discount revelations from God or testimonies to them and they restrict God's abilities to the physical laws of the universe.

Not having really looked at it before, I thought you might be right, but the definitions I have would make me a theist. I'm just not religious. Thats a hard one too since most people who know me would say I'm religious, being a Sunday School teacher and all. On the other hand, when you see all the different beliefs we have under one roof, its easy to say that we don't have God quite figured out.

[cinch]

Our universe as we understand it is set on a series of laws and limitations...one of those laws is that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So there MUST exist another dimension or entity that follow a wholly different set of laws (or none at all) that led to our creation.

That leads to the question, though:

If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then how can 'beings from another dimension' create our universe? Matter cannot be created, therefore it never was created.

It is my understanding that 'the big bang' simply means that all matter in the universe was compressed, and that it exploded outward. Is it not possible that the matter we know and are has, quite simply, always existed, just in different forms? Why is 'creation' necessary?

I'm just thinking out loud, here.

[cinch]

Frogman (against, just thinking out loud here, no offense intended):

My understanding then is that a deist will discount revelations from God or testimonies to them and they restrict God's abilities to the physical laws of the universe.

But didn't you yourself say that God was unknowable? If 'He' is unknowable, then how can revelations exist?

I may be confused about where you stand:

Do you feel that God created the universe, and then took a step back to just 'let it run', without interference?