3 days away and 6 pages behind... maybe there is a god. I'd like to respond to most of the posts because most of them are good. I may be setting a record for length here... your girlfriend can tell you more about that
2percent, after you signed your real name I finally get your nickname - it's brilliant! the argument about 'if god wanted us to know he exists he'd show us, but instead he wants us to believe despite no evidence so that we have faith' (
2%, page 101) can be applied to the flying spagetti monster and to santa claus the same as to god. and besides, how do you know this? if god shows no physical evidence, how do you know what you said to be true? you may say the bible. but if the bible is evidence of god's existence, and the bible is physical, then you're contradicting yourself. and to answer your question, science points 100% toward evolution, and evolution is not random at all. if you think it's random you need to read more about it.
Red,
your post on page 101 is about the best thought out and written post from the belief side so far. you correctly call 'shenanigan' - I exagurrate and declare premature victory precisely to motivate guys like you to participate - guys that have a lot to say and know how to say it, but usually have no motivation to chime in, because in your own mind you also declare an early victory.
you agree, then, and I quote
"that there is no direct, measurable, quantifiable evidence of God's existence." in that case, referring to the very first post on this thread ("god doesn't exist, prove me wrong")
we can answer conclusively, with both sides agreeing, that we cannot prove god's existence. which doesn't mean god doesn't exist, just that we can't prove it. this is a major step for your side and I admire your courage, because it takes strong faith to admit this, which
most believers don't have, which is why most are reluctant to concede this.
the suggestion that god purposely does not present himself but will if you open your heart to him is the same as 2% which I touched on above. it applies equally to santa claus and leprechauns. it is the quintessential example of a self-fulfilling prophecy or the placebo effect.
your accusation of a persecution complex or self fulfilling inferiority complex is (while interesting as simple freudian psychoanalysis) completely off the mark. I wasn't referring to the attitude of the atheist, but that of the theists, as evidenced in condescending posts like "get over it" and such. ask yourself, what would happen to a perfect presidential candidate if they came out tomorrow and announced that they are atheists... they'd share romney's fate. Kudos for saying this is an unchristian thing to do.
I sincerely don't understand your last paragraph. if I don't believe in god, I should ask him to come into my heart? this goes along with what others have posted to the tune of "if you listen he'll talk to you" or "if you have faith you'll have evidence". this is a complete bunch of bu!lsh!t. I have believed in god in the past, and he never talked to me. maybe I didn't believe hard enough? that's like saying that pray hard enough you'll win the lottery, and if you don't win it's because you didn't pray hard enough.
maybe you misunderstood what "I'm looking for" (U2). not looking for faith, thanks. my heart is fine, no need to change it (with a delusion). rather I'm looking for
evidence. I see no reason to abandon logic and reason in favor of blind faith. maybe that's the question we should be discussing -
what is the reason for people to abandon the need for evidence in favor of blind faith? do you do this in other aspects of your life? like dropping an alternate even though the forecast is bad?
to quote your post: "wherever you are sitting right now, take a moment and sincerely ask Him to change your heart. Hey, if He's not real, no harm no foul - but if it is time for you to find out about Him, He will answer you." (a variation on pascal's flawed wager.) what I would say to this is "wherever you are sitting right now, take a moment and contemplate the possibility that god doesn't exist. let me know what you come up with"... (don't come up with gaps though... that failed in the past)
judge, if the crackpipe is the wrong place to look for proof, what is the right place? are you saying there is physical evidence of god's existence, just not on the crackpipe? are you saying god talks to you? do you physically hear his voice? if so this is physical evidence of his existence, as long as you are truthful. are you the only one that hears it? do you hear any other voices?
Gabriel12, we're not trying convince anyone, just discussing whether we can prove god exists or prove god doesn't exist. this isn't about faith, it's about proof. by definition faith doesn't require proof (which makes faith illogical). we've defeated pascal's wager (which you refer to) several times by saying that it applies equally to belief in any god or gods, and in aliens, speagetti monsters and santa claus. you're suggesting that not-believing is faith, because it can't be proven. this is acceptable in philosophy, but not in logic. in logic no assumptions can be made unless there is a basis. if we can't prove santa claus doesn't exist, this doesn't mean we have faith in his non-existence. it means logically that we have NO REASON to believe he exists until evidence is shown that suggests or proves his existence.
bigman, people who don't believe in god or gods or supernatural forces are able to face the idea that there is no spirituallity or meaning or pupose beyond what we see and what we make for ourselves. one of the meanings we can manually add to our lives is to create a purpose for our lives, namely god. I accept this but no theists admit this. if you do not have the emotional capacity to face the lack of purpose and meaning, you create one for yourself to ease this. so I agree with half of what you said. you have to choose though because in the question of whether there is or isn't a god, there is no middle.
skiy, whether it's 49-51 or 80-20 is irrelevant because this is not a vote. when galilleo was the only person in western civilization to suggest the earth revolves around the sun, it was 99.99% to .01%, but the .01 was right. the 80% certainly have the right to practice their religion and no one should be interferring. but this reigion should have NO PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT over any other religion or lack of religion when it comes to the federal government, which is required by the constitution to "make no law respecting the establishment of religion." congressmen praying after 9/11 is their right (although they should deduct the time it took from their paycheck if they're paid by the minute
) but creationism taught in public school is a problem, regardless of how many people are christian. when the majority is wrong, being a majority doesn't make them less wrong.
flying145s, the odds of us being here in the form that we know is more staggering than you can imagine. you can call it an accident, I call it a succession of predictable and unpredictable occurances all of which follow the laws of physics. you're right - IT IS AMAZING! explaining it by "god did it" takes away the beauty. some of the occurences were accidental, some were not, but all followed physics. we used to not be able to explain any of it, back in the time the bible was written. now we can explain 95% of our universe (I'm making up the numbers, not important) with the 5% being known as gaps. how the first single cell organism (a collection of amino acids and proteins, all of which can be created in a lab today) started to self-multiply is not YET known. YET. how the universe looked before the big bang is also not YET known (actually it is the definition of the word BEFORE that is not fully understood in that question) none of this calls for an explanation outside of physics. it calls for more research and patience.
red already addressed your irreducable complexity reference, and like he says, I wouldn't use that one.
ask yourself if god had any direct intervention in any of the decisions you made in your life. he certainly did NOT in my life. the chance that I'd be sitting at this chair, next to this computer, on this day at this time, corresponding with this set of people, all of which are pilots, on the same airplane, and go to the same web site to read this, is much much slimmer than winning the lottery. and yet here we are. god had nothing to do with it, at least in my case. is it an accident? not really. just statistically improbable, yet it took place.
skiy, just because
aussie calls you bluff with 'majority rules' doesn't make him arrogant. smarter people than you or me are trying to solve the questions you mentioned such as the beginning of time, and they may or may not get it done. the same was true about the nature of lighting, 5000 years ago. people like you concluded that because lighting is impressive and we have no physical explanation for it, there must be a supernatural explanation. they then made one up (unless you can explain to me how people in different parts of the world came up with different supernatural explanations, and with different god/s). since then scientist fully explained how lighting works, fully disproving the supernatural explanations. the same could happen with the questions you raised. of course, you included spirits and sixth sense, for which there is no evidence of their existence, and hope, love, and faith, which are emotions and can be explained by psychology, not physics. I can accept that god is an emotion. this means he exists within you, like a dream or an imaginary friend. feel free to call me arrogant, we superior beings are used to it.
you also mention christmas and easter being federal holidays (again) as if that has any relevance. memorial day and labor day are atheist federal holidays. finally, your assumtion that atheism is empty of emotion is ignorant and arrogant.
using israel as an example to show that the u.s. govt is christian is silly, because the u.s govt is non-religious by constitution, and israel is clearly a jewish state, by declaration of independence... these are complete opposites. israel purposely made itself a jewish state (sunday is a weekday, jewish holidays observed by law, etc) and the us purposely made itself a non-religious country (see first amendment and article 6)
the federal govt making days in which 70% of the population needs a day off anyway 'federal days off' shows an unrequired respect for christianity, not a willingness to be ruled by it. is the fact that we have saturdays off same as sunday an indication the government is jewish? if so, why are we neglecting muslims? we should have 3 day weekend starting friday, the muslim holy day. and while we're at it, beef should be banned in respect for hindus. incence burnt in the senate respecting budhists... the government is not muslim, it's not jewish, hindu, budhist, and belive it or not it's not christian. it shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. what part of this is hard to understand?
did i set a record for length? welcome to jamaica man.