Is there a God?

[HAL9000]

Or as Bob Dylan once wrote: The answer is blowing in the wind.

[Narnia]

Yeah but he was assuming it was windy!

[reggie]

commenting on religion versus science...

dont you think that all religious types would jump on evidence from science that supported their claims

the trouble is the evidence is weak and so they blame science instead

its not enough..for me..for someone to stick their head in the sand and just yell BELIEF

[Narnia]

Why is GOD a religion versus science issue? My little experience is that neither could possibly define him/her/it!

[macroban]

> You are a Scientologist

I don't think the fictional Zenu is regarded as a "god".

[HAL9000]

Declan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If there is a heaven then how

> could it be more amazing than our planet

One possible interpretation of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic Scriptures is that a Messiah will inaugurate the Kingdom to Come on Earth.

[reggie]

surely by investigating something we hope to gain more understanding and reach some

conclusions.

if you define god as undefinable then talking about god is pointless

Declan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why is GOD a religion versus science issue? My

> little experience is that neither could possibly

> define him/her/it!

[HAL9000]

macroban Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > You are a Scientologist

>

> I don't think the fictional Zenu is regarded as a

> "god".

He isn't. But MM's statement is Scientology in a nutshell: Survive!

[arriety]

if there is a god, he/she/it is not very nice

if there is meaning outside of our own making i haven't discovered it

so probably a good discussion here would be,

'what matters to existence and why?'

[Narnia]

But you can FEEL things that are indefinable can't you? If you've ever looked into a baby's eyes you might just have seen something that indefinable.

[mockney piers]

Does anything matter? Personally i say no.

What i loved about MMs assertion that we are her by dumb luck and our purpose is continuation. How can a cosmic coincidence have a purpose, that implies design. So in one statement denies then affirms god.

I'm generally inclined towardsthe dumb luck, thud there is ni hell, no commeuppance, no reason to be nice. But yet here we are and we know, and we have to try and get by and nice works for me and most of us.

Pascals wager is stupid. Surely you have to make about a zillion of them, Zeus for starters will be pretty pissed of if you lean towards Baal or Yahweh.

And annaj, if you managed to discern anything from antijen's stream of conciousness I can but doff my hat!!

Ps ata wedding and trollied hence spelling and little sense

[jctg]

It's highly unlikely there is a God. It's time we all moved on.

[macroban]

Why, thank you, Mr mockney piers.

Pascal's Wager is a little more subtle than you suggest when it comes to the non-Abrahamic gods.

[louisiana]

According to KICC, it's not about continuation, it's about money and assets and property and wealth and... Oh, and about buying timeshares from people running the church, and about handing over ?1,000 cheques into big buckets.

With the odd song here and there.

Read this paragraph (from the movie maker).

and then watch her little movie.

But then what's the church got to do with God, anyway, eh?

[antijen]

Annaj wrote

I think that's a rather narrow minded view of science, antijen. For me science is not about finding proof in order to take the moral high ground. Far from it, it is about an endless and exciting curiosity and the search for the truth. I entirely accept that there is much that can't yet be expained by science, and may never be, but that just makes the journey and the attempt all the more exciting and necessary.

As for empathy for people's suffering, I would say that is exactly what drives many scientists, particularly those in medical fields. From your posts elsewhere it is clear that you don't put much faith in the the medical community, but I would ask you to open your mind a little and consider the possiblity that many doctors are motivated, not by money (certainly not in this country) or by arrogance, or by a desire to control and dictate, but by a true vocational desire to do what is best for their patients.

Annaj I'm sorry if how I see science or my meaning for science differs from you, you may think I am narrow minded but seriously this was not a personal attack on you, it is my belief there is so much corruption in the scientific establishments and an arrogance of playing with peoples lives, I am not specifically speaking of doctors. Yes I do not put much faith in the medical profession, but as I've said to you before I have friends working, suspended, and given up on this systematic healing, of course I know individuals in this system want to do good.

Mockney

Does anything matter? Personally i say no.

Is that when everyone is being nice to one another, nothing matters?

Then when the shit hits the fan, does it matter then.

A break down for you, I'll doff my hat to you if you can paddle in my stream. Science refuses to accept things without concrete evidence, I gave an example of the documentary I saw. While watching this it blew my mind I believed we would hear much from the experts who seemed absolutely sure of some of the brain functions, nothing. I'm saying quite simply, my belief of how I live has nothing to do with science or religion in an instituitionalised way.

[KatoTheCat]

the original question was simple...

this is slipping into CERTAIN PEOPLE clearly trying to encourage their ideas upon others.

this should not be permitted, as Atheism, in itself is a religion, at least in my eyes, i hold deep respect for religion.

i am still surprised how wars can be waged for such a name...

and as my mother would say... "goodnight, god bless"

[macroban]

Apologies. I was writing from memory. That should read "Xenu".

[bignumber5]

Like others on this thread, i consider myself to be agnostic by default. I have always found organised religion to be a bit militant, intolerant and judgemental. The culture surrounding Dawkins and his atheist following is that they have taken on the very worst of all of these traits: it has now become atheists that verbally attack with their teachings and attempt to convert others to their beliefs and their faith (yes, Atheism is a faith) in the name of debate. If a Christian attempted to convert a Jew in this country with the aggression with which Atheists attempt to convert everyone else, it would be considered intolerant of the individuals faith.

Atheists seem to be the newest, fastest growing, and one of the least tolerant religious groups in our society. Whatever conclusions one reaches about the presence or absence of any God, to be accepting of those who disagree is a basic courtesy that many religions seem to have adopted. At what point does debating the existence of God become militant preaching for the faith of Atheism?

-----------------

To prove or to disprove God? The Great Unicorn Hunt...

[SeanMacGabhann]

Atheism is NOT a faith - and it REALLY bugs me when people say it is

Not believing in spaghetti monsters in space is NOT a faith

They are the only realistic position in the face of zero evidence to the contrary.

To choose to believe in something that can't be in any way shape or form is entirely everyone's right, and good luck to them. But that is not the same thing as inventing something, and then claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in it is choosing a similar "faith" based path

If I genuinely believe I can heal the sick by power of thought alone and you choose to not believe me - you are not adopting a similar but different "faith" - you are just, quite rightly saying "you're making it up!"

[daizie]

God knows!

[mockney piers]

You're right about atheism not being afaith SMG, but BN5 is also rift in saying there is a very vocal minority of atheists who demonstrate all the characteristics of an intolerant faith.

It was a trend that was born, as ever, in the states where faith is politicised to a quite hideous extent. I hoped we might stay free of the preaching tendencies of the atheist camp on tuis side of the pond, as in politics we famously don't do god.

However it is happening more often.

I'm all for live and let live. Religion should have mo say in the law in this country. Likewise rationalist atheism shouldn't intefere with peoples right to practice their faith.

[bignumber5]

Atheism is NOT a faith

"Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing: faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief not resting on logical proof or material evidence." - some online dictionary or other.

Atheism is based, as I understand it, on the absence of proof of God. But cannot disprove God. To follow it absolutely, therefore, requires at least an element of faith, no?

If I have misunderstood the foundation of your belief system, as with any other belief system, I had no intention of misrepresenting your and your fellow followers and am genuinely happy to be corrected in the interests of education.

[SeanMacGabhann]

And I was overexasperated in my reply - sorry for that - but still, your statement that because we cannot disprove God therefore to deny he exists is in itself a faith is, as I understand it, no different from Jeremy's pasta monster in space example?

I do like Mockney's statement

"Religion should have mo say in the law in this country. Likewise rationalist atheism shouldn't intefere with peoples right to practice their faith."

I'm not aware of any atheist actually interfering with people's rights to practice their faith.

The reason I get so worked up about it (to the extent of annoying others) is the extent religion contaminates public life - wether it's the 25 grand fine in Ireland recently introduced, or seeing women forced to cover their faces ( and if anyone thinks that's a good idea, I'll start to believe the "but it's my choice" brigade when I see their menfolk adopt a similar liberating dress code)

and examples ad infinitum

[louisiana]

bignumber5 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Like others on this thread, i consider myself to

> be agnostic by default. I have always found

> organised religion to be a bit militant,

> intolerant and judgemental. The culture

> surrounding Dawkins and his atheist following is

> that they have taken on the very worst of all of

> these traits: it has now become atheists that

> verbally attack with their teachings and attempt

> to convert others to their beliefs and their faith

> (yes, Atheism is a faith) in the name of debate.

Atheism is a default position in the absence of evidence in support of various belief systems.

If someone sets up a religion based on a belief that there exists a blue fairy somewhere in the universe, until there is evidence of such blue fairy, or at the very least until someone can provide a rigorous scientific basis for the probable or possible existence of said blue fairy, my default position will be: 'Various people believe in the existence of blue fairies, but theirs is a belief not based on what we know (fact, evidence) about the world. I reject that belief system. There is an absence of blue fairies.'

> If a Christian attempted to convert a Jew in this

> country with the aggression with which Atheists

> attempt to convert everyone else, it would be

> considered intolerant of the individuals faith.

One of my countries of origin is Spain.

Christians spent many centuries trying to do exactly that conversion of Jews, and those of other faiths, by force.

Many tens or perhaps even hundreds of thousands (I can't recall the numbers, but I think the estimates went as high as 800,000) of Jews fled the country or were expelled; many more converted or pretended to convert (conversos) and those found out faced trial and retribution. There were no other options.

There are many, many families in places like Istanbul that hold the original keys to their Spanish homes, abandoned under threat of annihilation.

Similar things happened to moriscos.

Well into the late 20th century, it was still not possible in Spain for a non-Catholic to have a recognised burial in Spain. You were a Catholic or you did not exist, even in the late 1990's. Muslims dying in Barcelona in the late 1999's were still being flown out of the country for burial elsewhere (at vast expense to their families) owing to the state authorities in the city not accepting the implementation of a formal non-Catholic burial ground.

My other country of origin is Ireland...

Christianity 'tolerant'? Don't make me barf.

>

> Atheists seem to be the newest, fastest growing,

> and one of the least tolerant religious groups in

> our society. Whatever conclusions one reaches

> about the presence or absence of any God, to be

> accepting of those who disagree is a basic

> courtesy that many religions seem to have adopted.

I beg to differ. Many religions have been known for their intolerance. The history books...

Have any atheists yet mounted a 'religious' war against others? Invaded countries? Killed people? Wiped out towns and cities? Forced hundreds of thousands of people to abandon their homes and countries?

> At what point does debating the existence of God

> become militant preaching for the faith of

> Atheism?

Militant preaching is what I'd like to see less of. And militant preaching given financial support by governments (charitable status) more so. And militant preaching in schools more so: 'religious education' is compulsory in all UK schools, in case you hadn't noticed.

Note that the National Secular Society cannot be a charity, while thousands of organisations preaching religion (many of them very militantly) are accepted as charities (with all the consequent financial benefits).

[bignumber5]

seeing women forced to cover their faces ( and if anyone thinks that's a good idea, I'll start to believe the "but it's my choice" brigade when I see their menfolk adopt a similar liberating dress code)

I think the point they might also make is that they don't necessarily need to explain the traditions and practices of their faith to an outraged Atheist. Whether or not that is a valid response is interesting... because you have touched upon the one area where organised religion is down a point to Atheism, and it is on the subject of coercion: I find it hard to believe that there are households where a chap forces his wife to take control of her body and life in a religion-free manner when all she really wants is female circumcision and a lifetime of subservience.

But that is all a bit off topic, so apologies: Is there a God? and Do people do mindbogglingly-hard-to-understand things as a result of their belief in a God? are 2 separate questions, and this thread is for the former.

Edit for cross post with louisiana: all of your points about religious intolerance are the point i was trying to make. i think i wasn't being clear, i wasn't saying that organised religion has bee tolerant throughout history, i was saying the opposite, but also that atheism is now in danger of following.