Religious Debate

[Jim E]

There is no God.

There is, however, a Place. The Place is endless and has no borders, no boundaries, and it never stops. Even if you went to the farthest point imaginable, you still wouldn't be at the end of this Place, because this Place has no farthest point.

The Place is simply there. It isn't made of anything, it's just a place. It's just Somewhere that Things could occupy. And there's absolutely no reason for it to exist. None at all. It wasn't made, it simply began. There was no reason for it to begin, no need, no purpose. But it did begin.

You and everybody you know is currently in this Place.

Things occupy the Place, too. All kinds of things; planets, stars, dust, etc etc.. These things just float around in the Place. They don't do anything, they just float around. They exist for absolutely no reason, and they serve no purpose to anything else in the Place. There's absolutely no reason for them even to have begun to exist. But they did begin, all by themselves.

At some point in time, for absolutely no reason and in response to no need, some of the bits of stuff that the Things are made of began slowly to turn into Things that can move by themselves. These other Things are called "Life". This happened for absolutely no reason whatsoever. There was no need for Life to begin, no necessity for it at all. It began for no reason, and it didn't fill a need nor serve a purpose. And this "Life" simply stayed attached to the Things and didn't do anything that matters to the Thing or the Place. There's absolutely no reason for this to have happened. But it did happen.

All of the above just is. There's absolutely no reason for it, it just is. All of the tiny bits of stuff that make up the Things, simply started up for absolutely no reason. First they didn't exist, and then they did exist. There was absolutely no reason for the bits to exist, and there is absolutely no reason why they ever started to exist.

The Things that are called "Life" don't even stay in existence. They exist for a period, then they cease to exist. There's absolutely no reason why they exist for that period at all.

If every Thing and every Life-Thing in the Place suddenly ceased to exist, and disappeared totally, all that would be left would be the Place. Since the Place is made of nothing, it follows that there would only be Nothing left.

But there would still be a Place for the Nothing to exist in. And if there wouldn't even be a Place, then even Existence wouldn't exist.

Don't know about anyone else, but for me all that is just as hard to swallow as religion.

[Dr. Benway]

All of the above just is. There's absolutely no reason for it, it just is.

That's how I see it. I am not scared that when I die no Big Daddy's going to welcome me home.

[Jim E]

I don't expect a Big Daddy either, but I was being a bit satirical there, Doc. I was trying to make the point that to think that Everything just is, and doesn't mean a thing, seems just as untenable to me than to think there's a Holy Creator.

And if there is a Creator, he must be a bit like Howard Bloody Hughes!

[cgbier]

You mean there's nothing to look forward to once you kick the bucket?

[Bob Sanders]

I am very aware that many people might be reading my words and feeling rejection for my position. I have come to accept that, and I apologize if I am offending you in any way. Thinking and reflection is always good, and I am always willing to examine my own beliefs, so if you want to enlighten me as to why I am wrong,

I disagree with you. I think abortion today is a requirement.... not one to be taken lightly mind you, but a kid having a kid is just plain unacceptable

At the end of the day however this is all a personal choice (and belief) and we the people have no right to judge, persecute, prod, or poke those who are forced into a position of having to weigh this option.... and THIS is what pisses me off about those (you?) tree hugging, picket sign carriers standing outside abortion clinics. These people should be rounded up and shot for their thoughtless and childish actions.

When it comes to this sort of thing it's okay to think any way you want about it.... but keep your F*CKING thoughts to yourself.

[HueyNRolf]

That's how I see it. I am not scared that when I die no Big Daddy's going to welcome me home.

Nobody complains about what it was like before they existed, so when you stop existing, it's the same thing, no? I'm sure it isn't so bad.

[Jim E]

You mean there's nothing to look forward to once you kick the bucket?

Stuffed if I know! My best guess is we end up as tiny bits of static electricity discharging in the cosmos, heading towards the Big Spark.

I dunno, the total and complete absence of any Reason whatsoever just seems silly to me.

[Bob Sanders]

You mean there's nothing to look forward to once you kick the bucket?

Nope. When you die there is nothing. No thoughts. No ideas. No future. No past. No present. This all comes from a set of chemical reactions which are no longer taking place. You are a rock, and God is for those in the living who can't accept this. IMO... these people should be talking to Art Garfunkel and not God.

[Jim E]

Nobody complains about what it was like before they existed, so when you stop existing, it's the same thing, no? I'm sure it isn't so bad.

That's pretty much exactly what a mate of mine says. "Do you remember before you were born?" he asks. "That's how it'll be after you die".

Which throws absolutely no light on the question at all.

As Isacc Asimov said, "Life is pleasant; Death is peaceful; it's the transition that's a bit troublesome."

[cgbier]

I dunno, the total and complete absence of any Reason whatsoever just seems silly to me.

I dunno, that is exactly the thing that makes most sense to me.

But the weird thing to me is that the musings about an afterlife is what makes us human - conscience of one self***. Archeologists have deducted from graves that even the Neanderthals must have had thoughts about the meaning of their lives already. Once you start thinking about this meaning, it is only a small step to either start believing in a deity or making a funny movie....



***has been observed in other higher mammals, but still

[Bob Sanders]

Archeologists have deducted from graves

Graves.... just another thing built for the living and not the dead. Why would you want to do that to your kids?? Force them into coming and visiting.... or to feel guilty if not.

[Halsu]

Remember that if the Universe doesn't exist then there is nothing (assuming, as you do, that there is no God.) Furthermore, it is impossible for nothingness to change, as it is self contained. In nothingness there are no elements of change by definition.

Who said there was nothing? We do not know what was there before the universe (if "before" even means anything, as time as we know it is a feature of our universe), but there are some suggestions that are not "nothing": for example, this universe may be just one "bubble" among many, in a foam of a load of universes. Or, that this universe is one in a series of universes that start and end with a bang. And so on. Or not. We do not know.

The fact that we cannot observe beyond big bang, or that this universe's physical laws break there does not imply divine, it only implies ignorance by us.

Of course it is not a fluke! God doesn't play dice.

You do know that Einstein used that only as a metaphor, that he didn't believe in a personal god?

When you say that the emergence of life is a rather straightforward process I can't help but smile for two reasons:
- It is nothing but straightforward. Nobody has ever been able to manufacture life from inert matter, and nobody ever will.

I'd argue to say you're wrong. We're already very close - synthetic bacteria with man-made DNA already exists, and most of the building blocks of life have been shown to emerge in the conditions in early earth. I'd guess less than ten years before we have undeniably created "life in a test tube" (some might argue that's already happened).

This set of links is worth a repost, i seems to have been missed or ignored:

Edit: As far as the new life thing goes, i base my guesstimate on the recent developments on the subject - we're really, really close:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...etic-cell.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ticellularity/
http://www.helium.com/items/2141881-...t-fossil-based
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0915091625.htm
http://telicthoughts.com/the-current...esis-research/

- The question in itself is moot, because we haven't even begun to explain the existence of the Universe itself! In other words, even if you find a plausible set of chemical reactions that would have caused life to rise from inorganic matter, you still have to explain how the matter came to be. (Please remember this when I respond to your Occam's Razor argument below.)

Occam's razor suggests that the simpler argument is usually true. Adding god to the mix does not make the question of how all began any simpler, it makes it much more complicated. Ina addition to explaining the universe, we would ALSO have to explain god, and how he (she?) came to be.

I am sure you didn't intend to, but you just insulted my intelligence. I am very aware of how the evolution of species works. But until you can explain how the Universe (and life) was created in the first place, this (again) is a moot point.

I didn't intend to, as you guessed. Your wording (namely the randomness you emphasized) just made it look like you didn't accept the fact of evolution, or understand how it works. Many religious people do not - i'm sorry for bundling you to the same lot.

Do you realize you are defining the Universe in terms of itself? "Natural" is that which is in accordance with the laws of the Universe. The Universe could be arranged any other way, and everything would still be "natural".

Yes - but nothing indicates that the current conditions are the only ones that could cause sentient life to emerge. In an another kind of universe, we might be blobs of goo pondering the origins life universe and everything instead of humans - and that universe would be just a likely as ours, and seem just as unlikely to the blobs living in it.

Yes, I have thought about this a million times myself. You are not telling me anything new. What baffles the mind is that in order to play dice you need dice and someone to throw them.

Replace dice with any random series and you have the same result.

Lack of belief in God is just as based on faith (of the wrong kind, mind you) as belief on God is. There is no "scientific" evidence for either outcome, yet the most reasonable explanation for everything is the existence of a Creator who exists outside time, and that we call God. Jesus is real.

No. Lack of evidence does not suggest existence, but rather the lack of it.

Plato lived before Jesus and I have never heard anyone argue about the fact that Plato was a hoax. I never saw George Washington, yet I believe he lived. The evidence is very strong, even if you wish to ignore it.

The evidence of the existence of Jesus is, well, somewhat mediocre: it's very much possible there are no surviving first hand eye witness accounts and that all books in New Testament were written dozens or maybe even hundreds of years after Jesus, none of them actually by the people that were claimed to be the authors. The oldest surviving fragments of the new testament are from the 2nd century i recall.

Based on this, it's likely that a person called Jesus did exist, but the tales associated with him are not necessarily at all accurate, but possibly largely work of fiction by later members of the church. The fact that there are miracles being performed etc. talks in favor of this interpretation.

There's very scarce evidence outside bible, by secular contemporaries, there's a few brief mentions by Tacitus, but that's about it. This would be rather surprising, if all the miracles etc. really happened as described in the testaments.

As for the null hypothesis, do you agree that the most plausible default position is for there to be nothing? Unless there is something to act as an agent of change and creation. In other words, we (and everything around us) shouldn't exist, yet here we are having this nice conversation.

I guess you could say that the null hypothesis is that universe, life and everything does not exist. However, there's extremely strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

That does not need a god in the equation.

to be continued

[Halsu]

We are not alive for the sole reason that we may witness the glorious release of the iPhone 5. I know we have an immortal soul because we were created, and because Jesus made it very clear to us.

So you say, but is there any evidence to suggest this is true? A mere gut feeling is not nearly enough.

I am sorry, but that's baloney. Just because a nerd in some dark dungeon has programmed a chunk of metal and plastic to do something in respond to certain stimulus it doesn't make it an "emotion." I know how if-else blocks work.

But you do not seem to understand how artifical intelligence and self-awareness is programmed nowadays. It's not just a simple input - select from predetermined choices - output cycle, but rather a learning, evolving "mind" for the lack of better word. Even the programmers themselves do not know what exactly it will do. Check the links and you'll see what i mean.

So you read the Bible? How many times have you read it, and which is your favourite part? The Bible is not a science book, but the essential truths are clear enough.

I've read quite a lot of it, but never the whole thing from cover to cover.

No evidence of the divine in the Bible? Jesus was just the David Copperfield of his day and his disciples stole his body to make it seem he had risen from the dead, then gave their lives for something they knew to be a lie?

That's a strong possibility (or something similar).

The existence of false gods discredit the existence of one true God? Really? That's pathetic as far as logic deductions go.

Well, that's what all those who pray for the other gods say too (Christian God is a false god to Hindus).

You can't all be right, and most likely none of you is.

The events in religious text are impossible? Nothing is impossible for God, by definition. Again, another pathetic attempt at logic.

What's pathetic about it? Unless you've already fully made your mind and are certain that god exists before asking the question (which is always a wrong approach - regardless of the subject), it's a perfectly valid question to ask when you ponder the likelihood of god's existence.

The advances of science have given us very little in terms of actual advantages towards survival.

Okay - i guess you think electricity, medicine, etc. are useless for us humans. I beg to differ - before science, most people's lives sucked. They lived a short, disease ridden and violent life compared to that of today.

If we were to become aware of the existence of a large enough asteroid or comet in a trajectory towards Earth, chances are there is nothing we would be able to do about it.

So? That makes everything us humans have accomplished worthless for you, today?

Science (and industrialization) has created an imbalance in the planet which has endangered our own existence. Overpopulation, global warming, depletion of natural resources... You name it. So yes, I happen to think that science (when not moderated by higher ideals) is nothing but a dangerous dead end.

Science is a tool, not an entity. It can be (and is) used for the betterment of human kind. But, the results of scientific discoveries can also cause harm.

Luckily, it's science that can help us detect and hopefully avoid the harmful effects of, say, overpopulation, global warming, depletion of natural resources...

I already talked about Occam's Razor. You want me to believe that the Universe either always existed (which we know not to be true) or came out from nothing. Every effect has a cause, except that which always has existed outside of time. And the Universe is not it.

No. I want you to believe that we do not know where the universe came from.

I know it's difficult to live in uncertainty, but that's the way it is. Sorry.

As i said earlier, this difficulty is in my opinion the most likely reason for the existence of religions - us humans are curious, we always want to have an answer, and if one can not be found we'll usually make our own.

Evil is very real. And it's ultimate victory is to make people believe it doesn't exist. So to you human actions are just "actions"? Talk about a poor excuse for a glorified race of scientifically complex amoebas!

Well, i really do think that "evil" is nothing more than a byproduct of human culture. Knowing "right" and "wrong" is very likely an evolutionary advantage, and it's not surprising that many other species can grasp the concept too (as a simple example, a dog usually knows when it's done something it's not supposed to have).

Some things you just have to believe and accept (even if you continue learning about them through continued study.) When your parents told you not to cross the road when you were a child I'm sure you didn't question their authority in the matter but trusted their judgement. If you trusted those who created you, why aren't you willing to trust the being who created them?

I do trust in the laws of evolution, the "creator" of my parents. And i do trust science is correct with the heliocentric solar system too. However, if better opposing evidence emerges, i'll turn my coat in a second.

BTW; i did indeed cross the street as a kid, and got a decent spanking when i got caught ;-)

Of course our brains don't function anymore! The point is that we don't need them either when that time comes.

So far, there's nothing to suggest that there's any thinking going on beyond our brain, unfortunately. The thought of life after death is very soothing (which makes it popular), but very likely it's also just fiction, nothing more.

[Halsu]

You don't need to be religious in order to reject abortion, the same you don't need to go to church to appreciate that stealing is not nice.

And do you think ANY of the ones committing the acts in question were nonreligious? Seriously?

[cgbier]

Adding god to the mix does not make the question of how all began any simpler, it makes it much more complicated. Ina addition to explaining the universe, we would ALSO have to explain god, and how he (she?) came to be.

It gets even more complicated when you think that every culture on earth has or had their set of gods with their own creation story. And each of these culture believe that theirs is the true story and for this truth).

Funny thing is that the people in the Pacific (besides the Australian Aborigines) linguistically are very closely related. They originate from the same area and populated the islands over the last 5000 or so years, but, still, each island group has their own gods and creation myths.

[cgbier]

And do you think ANY of the ones committing the acts in question were nonreligious? Seriously?

That's called skeleton in the wardrobe.

[Halsu]

How does the act of birth itself determine whether killing a living being is murder or not? I guess you can kill the comatose too and get away with it (since it's not really a sentient human being either, right?)

Most of this stuff has been discussed already by others, but i will comment on the act of birth: There is a reason why we celebrate the birthday, not the the inception day of an individual, and we do not count the life of a person from the inception to death, but rather from the birth. The period when one is alive is the time from birth to death.

The keywords are "alive" "person" and "individual". These are the difference between an unborn baby and a born one - birth is the event where one becomes an alive individual person.

Side note on comatose, i'm pro-choice in the end of life too: in my opinion, legalizing active euthanasia would be a good thing, either by the decision by the dying person, or by the relatives of someone who is in permanent, unrecoverable deep coma or in vegetative state.

[Halsu]

If atheism is a belief in the non existence of god.

It's not. It's the lack of belief in the existence of god. For example, all newborns are atheists, as they do not believe in god yet.

[Halsu]

Don't know about anyone else, but for me all that is just as hard to swallow as religion.

...but that's of course simply because what you wrote is just a straw man (bad one at it too), and doesn't have much to do with the way anyone thinks. Everything just is, without any reason we know of, that part is true. But the path you described is deeply flawed.

A river flows "for no reason at all", in the sense that water has no deeper motivation than to follow gravity. But a river does not flow "for no reason at all" when we talk about the physics and chemistry etc. of water circulation that causes rivers to form and flow.

[HueyNRolf]

It's not. It's the lack of belief in the existence of god.

I guess my dictionary is wrong.

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist.

So you don't believe in the non-existance of god?

[HueyNRolf]

...but that's of course simply because what you wrote is just a straw man (bad one at it too)

It has to misrepresent the position of another to be a straw man. Krute clearly presented this as his own opinion. I don't think that's a straw man.

[HueyNRolf]

For example, all newborns are atheists,

I would argue that they're born ignostic, because without a meaningful explanation they're not going to know, either way.

[Halsu]

I guess my dictionary is wrong.

atheism |ˈāθēˌizəm|
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist.

It is, if that's all it has to say about atheism. That's like defining crime as the act of making a burglary.

It seems you chanced the dictionary from Oxford to something else.. Oxford's definition "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." is correct, yet very brief. But i think wikipedia says it best: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2][3] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3][4] "

The most inclusive version includes (surprise) the more narrow ones, so it can also be used as the sole descriptor.

So you don't believe in the non-existance of god?

My beliefs are not that important for the definition, there are more than one kind of atheists. But for the record, i find it very unlikely that god or gods exist. But i do NOT find it impossible. You could say i'm a hard atheist who thinks god does not exist, but reserves the right to be wrong - which also makes me an agnostic in the technical sense.

[Halsu]

I would argue that they're born ignostic, because without a meaningful explanation they're not going to know, either way.

Ignostics are atheists.

[Halsu]

It has to misrepresent the position of another to be a straw man. Krute clearly presented this as his own opinion. I don't think that's a straw man.

He presented a straw man version of the scientific knowledge.