The God Poll

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by stuartj
I dont think the atheists are out to prove there is no god, Turbo.

That is precisely what the Atheist movement is attempting to do. Just visit a few of the many web sites that have popped up of late and you'll see that removing God from public influence and disproving the "God myth" is exactly the agenda.

Originally posted by stuartj
The atheists say there is no evidence to support the existence of god, that the probability of god's existence is so low as to be unlikely, and that faith in said god is therefore irrational. Further, that they will immeadiatly alter their position should convincing evidence of god's, or unicorn's for that matter, existence be produced.

In the world of art, it would be irrational to see a sculpture and assume that the piece of art just happened.
The rational person assumes an artist even if that artist is not available for an interview. The Venus De Milo was created and yet there is no proof that the artist ever existed.

We do not know the name of the artist (some experts have ventured a guess yet we do not call them delusional) , no historical documents has ever identified the artist, we're not certain of the exact time it was created and in fact there is no evidence that the artist ever existed, just his/her work. Most rational people would assume that he/she did exist and that it did not just evolve from an ape sculpture or randomly appear.
To observe art in nature and assume there is no artist is equally irrational.

Originally posted by stuartj

As an atheist I cant disprove your god, anymore than I can disprove the faeries in the bottom of your garden.

Although my belief system does not include fairies, I would not attempt to demean a person based on that belief.
The phrase "Fairies in the garden" like "God Delusion" is an obvious attempt to demean the believer. If the belief promotes a feeling of belonging and well-being your criticism is just mean spirited and brings nothing to a discussion between reasonable people.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Turbo_pro
Most rational people would assume that he/she did exist and that it did not just evolve from an ape sculpture or randomly appear.
To observe art in nature and assume there is no artist is equally irrational.

So, statues and other pieces of artwork reproduce!?!? They pass their genes onto the next painting and evolve based on the selective pressures of museum goers and art critics? Wow.

You argument does not have any merit. If you make the rule that everything must have a creator, then you must violate your own rule when you're asked "who created the creator?".

Just because you do not understand the principles behind the evolutionary explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, that doesn't mean there isn't overwhelming support for it among those who do.

[kang]

Originally posted by Turbo_pro
To observe art in nature and assume there is no artist is equally irrational.

Jim,

You are just making the “the world is so complex there must have been a designer” argument. This is the teleological argument. It has been refuted. You can read about this argument here. Please note section 3, “Formal objections and couterarguments.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by IROC
.....edit....
You argument does not have any merit. If you make the rule that everything must have a creator, then you must violate your own rule when you're asked "who created the creator?".
.....edit....

I have no problem with the creator of our existence having a creator of his/her own. The issue isn't "does the creator have a creator" but "is there a creator?"
Do you?

[IROC]

Originally posted by Turbo_pro
I have no problem with the creator of our existence having a creator of his/her own. The issue isn't "does the creator have a creator" but "is there a creator?"
Do you?

So, it's creators all the way down, huh? Didn't it used to be turtles?

I don't "have a problem" with a creator, I just don't see any evidence that one exists or was required.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally posted by kang
Jim,

You are just making the “the world is so complex there must have been a designer” argument. This is the teleological argument. It has been refuted. You can read about this argument here. Please note section 3, “Formal objections and couterarguments.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

Kang, I can see why you think this was refuted. If you read the first part of the new argument you will see it is no longer a dead issue. READ IT HERE!

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by kang
Jim,

You are just making the “the world is so complex there must have been a designer” argument. This is the teleological argument. It has been refuted. You can read about this argument here. Please note section 3, “Formal objections and couterarguments.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

I am not arguing complexity, I am arguing creation. All thing that exist are created and I call the creator God.

[kang]

Originally posted by Turbo_pro
I am not arguing complexity, I am arguing creation. All thing that exist are created and I call the creator God.

Same diff.

[kang]

Originally posted by 72doug2,2S
Kang, I can see why you think this was refuted. If you read the first part of the new argument you will see it is no longer a dead issue. READ IT HERE!

Gasp! On the Internet? It must be true! That game goes both ways.

I see nothing really new in this, just a slight variation of the original. In fact, this very article discounts the teleological argument:

In our own day, arguments from design are generally considered irrelevant, because it is believed that purely naturalistic explanations can be offered to account for the origins of the physical world. The addition of any kind of metaphysical explanation, like how the apple tree may have grown up in my back yard, is considered purely speculative, adding no objective knowledge beyond what is empirically tenable.

All I see that is new is

Swinburne seeks a stronger version of the teleological argument which tends to bypass the co-present (spatial) regularities in favor of the successive (temporal) regularities that seem apparent in the universe.

And you can make the same objections to the temporal teleological argument as the spatial one.

There must be a reason that “Richard Swinburne is one of the few contemporary theistic philosophers attempting to mount a teleological argument” because “historically, there is good reason others hold their peace.”

[72doug2,2S]

Originally posted by kang
Gasp! On the Internet? It must be true! That game goes both ways.

I see nothing really new in this, just a slight variation of the original. In fact, this very article discounts the teleological argument:


All I see that is new is

And you can make the same objections to the temporal teleological argument as the spatial one.

There must be a reason that “Richard Swinburne is one of the few contemporary theistic philosophers attempting to mount a teleological argument” because “historically, there is good reason others hold their peace.”

Actually, the difference is they are no longer at odds with the data.

The world of science is not against theories that have explanatory or predicting power, for theories are the provisional glue that holds various data together in meaningful ways. A theory that does not offer an efficient means of coalescing observed data, however, is dismissed as irrelevant. Therefore, others who have tried to frame teleological arguments have lost credibility because rather than working within the framework of the overwhelming scientific consensus of Darwinian mechanisms, they proposed arguments that were at odds with this data while purporting that their arguments were scientific. By contrast, Swinburne’s argument set forth in The Existence of God is unique in that it seeks to work fully in concert with scientific consensus.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Turbo_pro

Although my belief system does not include fairies, I would not attempt to demean a person based on that belief.
The phrase "Fairies in the garden" like "God Delusion" is an obvious attempt to demean the believer. If the belief promotes a feeling of belonging and well-being your criticism is just mean spirited and brings nothing to a discussion between reasonable people.

I think the rest of your post has been dealt with turbo, by others, but im interested in this part.

I am not trying to demean you, but i think your beliefs are irrational, and frankly, ridiculous. That doesnt mean i think you are those things- there is hope for you yet.

For me, and I think more and more atheists, Im not prepared to give religion a free kick any longer. Why do we exempt religous beliefs from the scrutiny we apply to anything else? Why is "because this is what I believe" good enough, even often for courts of law? Why is my belief in faeries in my garden less valid than your beleif in god when the evidence for both is the same?

Its time we started asking -why do we unquestioningly beleive/accept these things? Its absolutely correct to ask people who beleive what you do to substantiate those beliefs- or take them out of the courts, achools, the public realm.

Finally you say religion offers us a feeling of well being, of belonging, and its mean spirited to attack it. So on two points on the this

1. Religion consoles us. And it does. You will never be disappointed about not getting eternal life in heaven, but your belief that this will occur can surely affect the way you live here and now.
2. Religion offers a feeling of belonging. Yep sure does. Every suicide bomber, every jihadist knows the feeling.

[Turbo_pro]

Originally posted by stuartj
I think the rest of your post has been dealt with turbo, by others, but im interested in this part.

I am not trying to demean you, but i think your beliefs are irrational, and frankly, ridiculous. That doesnt mean i think you are those things- there is hope for you yet.

For me, and I think more and more atheists, Im not prepared to give religion a free kick any longer. Why do we exempt religous beliefs from the scrutiny we apply to anything else? Why is "because this is what I believe" good enough, even often for courts of law? Why is my belief in faeries in my garden less valid than your beleif in god when the evidence for both is the same?

Its time we started asking -why do we unquestioningly beleive/accept these things? Its absolutely correct to ask people who beleive what you do to substantiate those beliefs- or take them out of the courts, achools, the public realm.

Finally you say religion offers us a feeling of well being, of belonging, and its mean spirited to attack it. So on two points on the this

1. Religion consoles us. And it does. You will never be disappointed about not getting eternal life in heaven, but your belief that this will occur can surely affect the way you live here and now.
2. Religion offers a feeling of belonging. Yep sure does. Every suicide bomber, every jihadist knows the feeling.

You call my belief ridiculous when in fact you have no idea what my beliefs are, now that's ridiculous.
You changed the topic from belief in a creator to religion. This rather feeble attempt to change the subject suggests a lack of a good argument.
I never mentioned any religion, nor would a rational person believe this conversation is about religion.
Next you lie to make a point. Isn't that the sign of a truly desperate combatant? You don't believe in fairies and you claim you do to make a point. I don't challenge your belief just your integrity.
To remove God from the public realm is an attack on the very fabric of our culture. Our very freedom is granted to us not by man or government or even a piece of paper. If our very freedom was granted to us by any of these entities then it could be revoked by that entity. Our constitution clearly state that "we are endowed by our creator" and if in the public realm you eliminate the creator the next thing to go is our freedom.
Next you quote me inaccurately in an attempt to make your point. Have you any integrity at all. I never said anything about reline and yet you say " Finally you say religion offers us a feeling of well being, of belonging, and its mean spirited to attack it".
1. Religion consoles us. And it does. You will never be disappointed about not getting eternal life in heaven, but your belief that this will occur can surely affect the way you live here and now. I never said I have any belief in an after life. Once again you're just making ***** up.
2. Religion offers a feeling of belonging. Yep sure does. Every suicide bomber, every jihadist knows the feeling.
Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Lincoln, 90% of the charitable organizations world wide, 90% of the solders fighting for our freedom, a vast majority of the founding fathers, a vast majority of the health care workers that strive to provide the us with longer, healthier lives. In short of the 6 billion people on earth I might agree that .0001% might distort their view of God to an evil goal. Basically a meaningless noise.

Stuart
One last question. If you eliminate religion, what do you propose to replace it with?

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Turbo_pro
You call my belief ridiculous when in fact you have no idea what my beliefs are, now that's ridiculous......

OK, Turbo. That’s quite a tirade. I do owe you two apologies. I used the concepts of belief and religion interchangeably, and that was poor- semantics are important in this discussion. Second, to the extent that I have misrepresented your beliefs, if indeed i have. So-

“Next you lie to make a point. Isn't that the sign of a truly desperate combatant? You don't believe in fairies and you claim you do to make a point.”

Lie Turbo? A bit harsh, perhaps? My belief in fairies is for sake of the discussion- sorry you were mislead by that. Beleiving fairies would be as silly as beleiving in an Invisible Friend in the Sky or unicorns. I accept I cannot disprove god exists. But you cannot disprove fairies exist. There is equal evidence for both. That is, exactly none.

“To remove God from the public realm is an attack on the very fabric of our culture.”

Perhaps. But I would argue that The God Delusion is a greater danger to your freedoms. I don’t know the history of your constitution (although I admire it very much) so I don’t know how the reference to a “Creator” got there. I would suspect it was simply the mores of the day. That’s a problem the citizens of the USA need to grapple with.

Now, I should have said “Believers” (rather than “you” ) will never be disappointed about not getting eternal life in heaven.” But, given you question my integrity, perhaps you will clarify- do you belief in an afterlife, Turbo, that you will go to Heaven? Given what you said about my integrity, I think it only fair that you answer that question.

I’m not sure what point you make in your last para. That lots of people believe in god? Yep.all sorts of gods. Lots don’t, too. And at least a couple of civilised societies in recent times (Ireland, Bosnia) have endured bloody civil wars in the name of their gods and their beliefs. And another is happening right now in Iraq. Thats before we start on history. I'm of the view that moderate "belief" allows extremist "belief" to flourish. Ive just come back form Thailand. Even the peaceful Bhuddists are at it in the south of Thailand, slaughtering Moslems. About 2000 so far, in the ethnically Islamic southern provinces. In the name of their god.

“One last question. If you eliminate religion, what do you propose to replace it with?”

Humanism, Turbo. The good bits in the bible are pretty universal. God bothers have no monopoly on morality, they just thnk they do. In fact, it may be the opposite. The “morals” practiced in gods word are simply appalling, and I would wager that most people who hold up, say, the Bible as our moral guide have never actually read it in all its blood thirsty, cruel, racist, homophobic, mysoginist, contradictory, nonsensical spleadour.

[IROC]

Originally posted by stuartj
God bothers have no monopoly on morality, they just thnk they do.

This point is actually supported by data. I read an article last night about morality and the brain and it stated that in *every* objective morality test administered to both believers and atheists, there was no discernable difference between the morals of the two. None. It appears that morality is derived from some other source than religion.

[72doug2,2S]

Originally posted by IROC
This point is actually supported by data. I read an article last night about morality and the brain and it stated that in *every* objective morality test administered to both believers and atheists, there was no discernable difference between the morals of the two. None. It appears that morality is derived from some other source than religion.

Quite true! And your full understanding of it is either one of education or ignorance.

The more ignorant you are, the more moral you think your behavior is.

Good post IROC!

[Taz's Master]

IROC, if that is indeed the case, if the benefits of religious beliefs to society are overblown, then certainly the dangers to society of those beliefs must be as well. So society would be no better or worse off with or without religion.

[IROC]

Originally posted by Taz's Master
IROC, if that is indeed the case, if the benefits of religious beliefs to society are overblown, then certainly the dangers to society of those beliefs must be as well. So society would be no better or worse off with or without religion.

I don't think that making the point that morality is not based on religious belief is different than stating that the benefits of religion to society are overblown. I think many would argue that religion provides benefits to society beyond morality.

By the same token, religion leads to dangers for society also that go far beyond the discussion of the basis for human's morals.

[Taz's Master]

IROC, what are the societal benefits or dangers of religion apart from the moral behaviour of the religion's adherants?

[IROC]

Originally posted by Taz's Master
IROC, what are the societal benefits or dangers of religion apart from the moral behaviour of the religion's adherants?

Well, that's a big subject that might be better served outside of this thread, but the fact that you imply that religion's adherents behave morally...

Benefits? Emotional comfort to the adherents, a feeling of belonging, answers to the "why" questions in life, yada yada yada... Dangers? Believing in something that's not proven to be true and using this belief as justification to kill other people for starters.

A good book on this subject:




http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807

[Taz's Master]

You listed individual benefits, and a dangerous moral behavior. Are there societal dangers or benefits outside of the moral behavior?

The reason I ask this is because if there are no significant benefits or dangers outside of the moral behavior (which is not impacted by religious belief) then this argument simply centers on trying to change someone's beliefs because they disagree with you.