Undertones of Non Belief

lenina said:
@SealHammer

first off, im not Christian. BUT i do think that a primary aim of the Judeo-Christian Bible is to teach moral laws and how to live, not every single secret of the universe. That's like me being like where in the constitution does it talk about Hawking radiation?

second, and this is to everyone reading, humans haven't even figured out how to stop global warming, cancers, depression. our knowledge and ability to act on knowledge is limited. it will improve in time. but we're really not that great. but even if we did solve all that, why does that mean God doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Thats not true, we know how to stop global warming. We just aren't doing it.
 
lenina said:
[MENTION=6650]SealHammer[/MENTION]

first off, im not Christian. BUT i do think that a primary aim of the Judeo-Christian Bible is to teach moral laws and how to live, not every single secret of the universe. That's like me being like where in the constitution does it talk about Hawking radiation?
Click to expand...

LOL what? How the fuck do you even equate the two? Have you even read the US Constitution? It's the basis for the organizational structure of the US government, it doesn't deign to say anything about how Americans should live their lives. The Bible is a storybook entirely about telling people how to live their lives. The two pieces aren't even in the same ballpark.

second, and this is to everyone reading, humans haven't even figured out how to stop global warming, cancers, depression. our knowledge and ability to act on knowledge is limited. it will improve in time. but we're really not that great. but even if we did solve all that, why does that mean God doesn't exist?
Click to expand...
Ignoring that you're partially wrong there, it wouldn't, and nobody ever said it would - you are imagining arguments where there are none. That said, a lack of knowledge does not imply the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent being.
 
God is the principle of consistency and cohesion that holds the universe together.

Those with an education in higher physics recognize that a form of universal intelligence exists that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, the very attributes of a God.

I believe that science, the search for understanding of this world, is an exploration that will only draw us closer to the Artist who made it.

This doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be a Jesus freak or even follow a religion. Just remember that if you do good by the universe, it'll do good by you, and if you do bad by it, it'll make even with you.



(coming from a former atheist)
 
Last edited:
Izan said:
Individuals with an education in higher physics recognize that a form of universal intelligence exists that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, the very attributes of a God
Click to expand...
[citation needed]

Not trying to be a dick, bro, I just think everyone debates better when they have the facts in hand.
 
@SealHammer
The Bible is a storybookentirely about telling people how to live their lives.
Click to expand...
then why did you expect it to tell you about science?

To my knowledge, there's nothing about human behaviour that can't be explained through neuroscience and evolutionary psychology. Even if there was, it wouldn't prove that your God exists.
Click to expand...
i dont think its an imagined argument. i think some people believe that more knowledge equals less of a reason to believe in God.

@UBERROGO
Thats not true, we know how to stop global warming. We just aren't doing it.
Click to expand...
i agree we have the knowledge, but not the ability to make everyone conform to that knowledge. but that is besides the point.
 
[MENTION=4313]lenina[/MENTION]

I think i understand what you mean about the undertones of non belief. Bascially people buy into a dogma of non belief and may close their minds to other possibilities. For me, it was through my exploration of science and the natural world that i found God. I never found God in religion, only fear and rules.

There are also undertones of belief. Belief in a God, gods, deities, divine or creation also creates certain dogmas. Why does creation imply 'sin'? What does sin have to do with anything? What is sin other than a man defined term? Most beliefs relating to creation or God/s come with a lot of contructed baggage. Frankly, this baggage often makes no logical sense and it tends to scare people off and irritate them. It irritates me.

I think there is another way- keep an open mind and try not get bogged down by the dogma and associated baggage.
 
lenina said:
@SealHammer then why did you expect it to tell you about science?
Click to expand...

Chulo claimed that belief in God isn't unnecessary until we can understand the entirety of the universe. I merely pointed out that belief in supernatural entities is outdated when considering the scale of information that we as a rational people are beginning to process in the present-day. I was using the Bible as a reference point, it being the supposed word of God and all that.
 
well the first thought and belief i've chosen to build my life on is about the higher-power/god , away from most of religion's nonsense , theories and fanatics , i believe that there's a higher power who's controlling this universe .
clearly , its existence lacks scientific evidence except for a mind who chooses to believe or not !

lenina , i think they try to keep people away from believing in god for several reasons ( which i think positive ones ) , because lots of religious people count on the idea of him helping them instead of going after what they need to solve their problems , lots of people suicide because they believe in another life ( which they think is happier and better than this one ) , lots of people blame ( EVIL SPIRITS ) - which means there's a good spirit/god - for what's happening to them instead of figuring out what is really happening , and obviously people kill each other in the name of him ! so being atheist in these cases is more rational and helpful .

nothing more real than science , so i think people believe in it more , so what science fail to explain they tend to disbelieve it , i mean thinking is very tiring eh ?

the bottom line is people's beliefs are up to them and I have no right to judge them , being civilized doesn't mean you have to be a non-believer , your actions define whether you're or not .
so please don't come here bragging about how civilized you are while you're making fun of other's beliefs ( which is a very sensitive subject ) , one of the aspects of being civilized is being respectful .

The rest of my opinion has been said by other members , no need to repeat =)
 
Last edited:
SealHammer said:
[citation needed]

Not trying to be a dick, bro, I just think everyone debates better when they have the facts in hand.
Click to expand...

The most famous of them all is Albert Einstein.
 
SealHammer said:
Chulo claimed that belief in God isn't unnecessary until we can understand the entirety of the universe. I merely pointed out that belief in supernatural entities is outdated when considering the scale of information that we as a rational people are beginning to process in the present-day. I was using the Bible as a reference point, it being the supposed word of God and all that.
Click to expand...

Information we have does not prove nor negates the existence of god. To some, it does pose the question as to how this universe of such complexity came about.



I am going to let you in on a secret: we don't really have that much information, despite all the time we spent observing, analyzing and studying. Human capacity to decipher its environment and its own existence haven`t evolved all that much.


I think it could be due to our own arrogance and desire to give value to our existence that we like to think we've accomplished so much. But when you compare how much we know against how much we don't know, objectively, you would realize that we have a long way to go before we say "we got most of it figured out."


I think there is a streak of dogmatism in the way which we look at the world and attempt to decipher it. It is more than possible that it is the scientific method that is becoming outdated, and it needs to evolve. It was Albert Einstein's opinion that problems cannot be solved with the same level of awareness that created them. We need a shift in perspective in order to truly advance in our understanding of the world.


Clinging to the scientific method as if it is the only form of truth that exists is a bias that we refuse to acknowledge, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Odyne said:
Information we have does not prove nor negates the existence of god. To some, it does pose the question as to how this universe of such complexity came about.



I am going to let you in on a secret: we don't really have that much information, despite all the time we spent observing, analyzing and studying. Human capacity to decipher its environment and its own existence haven`t evolved all that much.


I think it could be due to our own arrogance and desire to give value to our existence that we like to think we've accomplished so much. But when you compare how much we know against how much we don't know, objectively, you would realize that we have a long way to go before we say "we got most of it figured out."


I think there is a streak of dogmatism in the way which we look at the world and attempt to decipher it. It is more than possible that it is the scientific method that is becoming outdated, and it needs to evolve. It was Albert Einstein's opinion that problems cannot be solved with the same level of awareness that created them. We need a shift in perspective in order to truly advance in our understanding of the world.


Clinging to the scientific method as if it is the only form of truth that exists is a bias that we refuse to acknowledge, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Preach on sistah.
 
niffer said:
I don't think that people who aren't interested in the idea of God existing are going to think in terms of sinning or consider that whole framework at all, including whether or not they're justifying anything.
Click to expand...

Yep. There's not really any analogy I can use that can describe the completely different mental planes of thought that create the void between someone who believes and someone who doesn't. Nope... just tried to think of a few and they all fall short.

My biggest question for the OP is, why do you think these people are sinning? What brings you to that conclusion? Do you think everyone needs a belief in God to act moral and just? Do you think Commandments carved in stone are the only way people can determine right from wrong? Do you have such little faith in humanity that you think people won't do a good deed because it feels good to help others, without the promise/threat of Heaven or Hell?
 
To clarify: I believe in God.

But I also think 'God' might just be a label we ascribe to an as-of-yet undiscovered emergent phenomenon; perhaps from the unified field or whatever. I think, in time, we'll refine our observations about God and discard the superstition that accompanies it - just like we still observe the sun 'moving' across the sky as the Greeks did but we've pretty much ruled out that it's Helios pulling it behind his golden chariot.

With regard to overvaluing testability as a criteria for truth, here is something I wrote recently and will re-post it here (in a somewhat refined state). It's about atheism specifically, but the principle behind it still applies:

Despite my inherent skepticism and lifelong love for science and reason, I've always regarded atheism as being prohibitively narrow - to the point it often borders on foolishness.

This is mostly due to it's disregard for experiential evidence. Of course, I will be the first to say such evidence is scientifically unreliable, but I do not think it is at all insignificant or beneath consideration.

I mean, I can hold the image of a rose in my mind and I am certain the image exists. But it resides in a location that makes it beyond testability despite being easily accessible by me. In fact, I can't NOT have access to it - it's permanently established and intimately close whether I like it or not. Arguably, it is life itself. It's qualia. It's why we are aware there's something instead of being unaware there's nothing.

To me, that is extraordinarily vital and I think it's unwise to wholly dismiss claims that originate from this interior experience simply because they aren't testable.

Moreover, I don't find it unreasonable to assume that if a God existed, it would necessarily interface with us through these foundational, experiential channels - perhaps exclusively. It would be the difference between reading about the color red and actually experiencing what red looks like.

Again, I am not (and never will be) suggesting experiential evidence ought to be included as legitimate, scientific data. But I am suggesting such evidence ought not be wholly dismissed simply because the scientific method can't be calibrated around literally everything in the universe.
Click to expand...

EDIT: I still maintain OP was just a bunch of conjecture and generalizing, held together with a loose webbing of misinformed bullshit. Or, as I like to call it: fail.
 
SealHammer said:
[citation needed]
Click to expand...

One: Do your own research. If you truly want to understand this debate and not repeat what others say because it appeals to you, you're gonna have to put in some time and effort, and not expect to be spoonedfed evidence whether a god exists or not. Otherwise, you are not different from the ones you criticize.

Two: I don't see much citation on your end either. All we saw was biased judgement on whether neutral concepts such as facts or information deny the existence of a god, without any proper knowledge on your part whether "the scale of this information" truly suffices to arrive at a conclusion or not.

Three: and to rip this little half-assed reply of [citations needed] from under your nose, Albert Einstein's answer when asked if he believed in God: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." When Einstein developed the theory of Relativity, his equations gave Time a beginning (an initial condition, in math terms) which, to him, it meant that a non-created universe was impossible. He meddled with the equation to take that beginning away, but later on he admitted it was a mistake on his part.

If you want citations feel free to read his (auto)biography. This is the kind of spiritualism that most physicists arrive at, the one @Izan referenced to.










I am not attempting to prove whether there is a god here or not, I am saying that it is important to admit humility when it comes to our own nature and how much knowledge we've come to accumulate during the short lifespan of our species.


The rift between Faith and the pursuit of Truth (which is NOT strictly science btw) began when an attempt was made to control populations through religion by those who wanted to preserve power to themselves, such as the Church. The best way to control people is to convince people not to think for themselves. I think this is a deep psychological scar that a part of the human race have decided to deal with through eschewing any form of structured faith. It's understandable, but it is hindering our pursuit of the bigger and more complete picture.


Science and Faith are not at odds.Take a look at the ancient Muslim civilization and how scholarly they were. Math, physics, chemistry, architecture, engineering, and even eye surgery. I think the knot that bothers every one in this discussion is the idea of God and morality. Does God have a say in how we behave and live our lives or not as a species, and I think the answer will only be known when we know the nature of God itself.


I personally don't think we will ever arrive at the answer. Not with our current abilities to understand and reason. We might need a couple of more billion years for those faculties to evolve enough. For now, we have our microscopes, telescopes and a couple of silicon based machines to think for us.
 
Last edited:
Odyne said:
Clinging to the scientific method as if it is the only form of truth that exists is a bias that we refuse to acknowledge, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The scientific method isn't a form of truth-- it deals only in probabilities. Theories only grow more popular when they accurately and thoroughly demonstrate a probability, not because they're uncovering some indisputable truth about the universe.

The only reason that the scientific method and religion 'contradict' each other is because religious people claim an authority on 'truths' that aren't meant to be challenged and apparently don't need to be proven. This is why people have issues with religions.

For example: A believer would say 'this is true!', a scientist would say 'it's possible, but is it likely?', and an atheist would say something like 'I don't believe it until you prove it'.

Science can never disprove the existence of God because believers can't agree on what God is, and in many cases they actually change what 'God' is. It's a moral authority that only priests talk to oh no wait it's a celestial father figure who loves everyone equally oh no wait it's actually a cosmic energy that doesn't have a body oh no wait actually it can be anything it wants to be at any time, etc. etc. How are you supposed to disprove that? The second you demonstrated that their version of God is unlikely to exist, someone would just say-- 'well, actually God is blah blah blah...' and you'd have to start all over again!

You can't disprove the existence of something that is only a concept with no agreed-upon definition. Of course the concept of a 'creator' (if that's how you define it) exists and will probably always exist. And some 'Gods' are more likely to exist than others... but the burden of proof is always on the believer, not the non-believers-- hence, the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument. If you can't prove that your God exists without resorting to the whole 'science can't prove this, God is real' argument, then there really is no legitimate reason for you to have the beliefs that you do.

I agree that humility is probably important, and in some cases it is important to trust our intuition-- but there's always a point to learning more and to forming hypotheses-- it's how we grow as people. Saying that our gut feelings are equal to science is the same logic that made people think that they could cure bubonic plague with prayer or that AIDS is God's wrath on gay people... it makes logical sense if you have faith, but it doesn't mean anything if you don't, and it definitely doesn't mean that you've tapped into the 'truth'.

Science is all about humility.
 
Last edited:
Science is all about what happens given a set of circumstances. That's what being testable is all about.

Occasionally when looking at the 'what' we also see a 'how' or a 'why' but typically we just have a hypothesis about some result that follows from initial conditions.
 
Carl Sagan as well as Einstein.

What did Feynmann say? Anyone?

I was reading about his work on the atomic bomb at Los Alamos and I liked him, he seemed very down-to-earth, but I don't remember what he said about spirit, if anything.
 
"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
-Carl Sagan

Hardly a ringing endorsement… and I really don't think that Einstein actively believed in God, it was more like he didn't feel that he could dismiss the idea outright. Regardless, it doesn't exactly have any bearing on anything-- neither of these people were famous for having talked to God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top