posted 06-09-99 04:10 PM ET            

A heaven with all nice all the time? Yeh right.
A hell where devils prick things into your ass? Not likely.

I think the only reason religion is surviving is cos so many people just dont have the balls to go "this is all bullcrap, I'm outta here". Social pressure is strong to conform.

posted 06-09-99 05:20 PM ET            

"I doubt they will ever be able to create life (not just clone it using existing life forms)."

posted 06-09-99 06:54 PM ET            

Yes, we can hypothesize that there was the Big Bang and all that followed. But where does all the matter that was present before the Big Bang came from? What triggered the Big bang? Scientists agree that the Big Bang was triggered by a too large mass in the center of the universe? Where did this mass came from? We may assume God created it, or we may find another theory for its existence. But then another question would arose. So, I think there must be a higher presence that created the universe somehow. I believe in the Bible if you take it as paraboles. For instance the creation was not done in seven days. All you must retain is that God created the universe somehow.
But then, what created God? There is no answer and there will never be.

Unless, you believe in paradoxal theories as we created the god that created us.

posted 06-09-99 08:59 PM ET            

It good to see so many people with open minds in these forums...

Krushala (I'm assuming you aren't into organized religion from your post): What do you think God is like, without religion to tell you? Is he (or she, or it) omnipotent? Does he care about humanity? Or do you think he is unknowable?

Titan:
But then, what created God? There is no answer and there will never be

posted 06-09-99 09:53 PM ET            

God is science, but science is not God.

Simply put, science can be seen as the rules, the actions, and the things of God.

posted 06-09-99 10:27 PM ET            

Atheism is, indeed, the only way. Release yourselves from the shackles of organised
religion!

my so called "shackles" are self imposed. Atheism is the only way to a narrow-minded atheist, just so much as Theism is to the narrow minded Theist. I am a Christian, and though I admit that there may not be a God, I would gladly bet my life on it.

Atheism- Obviously not the only way, but easily the most sensible one. Any person who
looks at religion logically will come to this conclusion.

I have looked at religion sensibly. I haven't always been religous, though when I did take a logical look at religion, I found as much proof of a God as I need.

Religious freaks take that
stuff literally

I agree. Fundamentalists take the literature of that religion literally whereas it is meant, imho, symbollically and metaphorically.

Actually,
with Christianity, it's unfortunate that certain groups make all Christians look bad.

Precisely. The so called "religous" right in the U.S. is a painful example. Pat Buchanan, imho, is more likely to go to hell than all the groups he speaks against. Hypocrisy of the individual should not reflect on the religion of the whole.

For instance the creation
was not done in seven days

IIRC, that was a mistranslation. I remember hearing that the word for "day" in Hebrew is close to the word for "a long period of time", though I can't vouch for the validity of that since I don't speak Hebrew.

God is science, but science is not God.

Nice way of putting it, Q. This is how I view God, to an extent. To know how the universe works is to know God's law.

posted 06-09-99 10:31 PM ET            

President Korian-- Maybe it is true that "everything can be explained," but I doubt that the human mind will ever develop to the point at which such a feat is possible.

So my point here is that though this is a fun matter to discuss, for anyone here to even for a moment think they have the answer to this question is just being ignorant. I certainly can't prove or disprove anything, and I am quite certain that neither can any of you. Personally I have had many significant events in my life that have made me (even in my skepticism) believe in a God, and I will continue to do so.

I can tell the atheists here one thing-- you certainly are missing out on a wonderful, spiritual aspect of life that I would not want to be without myself. And if you are wrong, then you're all going to burn in hell!

posted 06-10-99 12:12 AM ET            

The commonly understood definition of atheist is "someone who believes that there are no god or gods".

posted 06-10-99 12:54 AM ET            

If you're right, and there's no Heaven or Hell, and when we die, that's it--why do you spend so much time trying to convince us there's no god?

If atheism is the true path, then it shouldn't matter what anyone believes.

posted 06-10-99 05:58 AM ET            

I really don't think any rational person needs a deity to tell him/her what's right and wrong. But then again, I'll never know if some wacko who hated me set up a plan to kill me only to decide not to because of fear of a deity.

Also, I don't think a spiritual meaning in life is needed to live happily. I'm perfectly happy with the biological meaning of life and don't really care much if another meaning existed. I'll find out soon enough. But just becuase I don't believe in a 'higher' purpose in life doesn't mean I'll go around and kill everyone.

HolyWarrior: I'd really hate to live in a world where the only people who made a noise are the religious freaks. Silence is too often taken as an affirmative gesture. By the way, why do Christians try so hard to convert others? Why should they care? They know the meaning of life, are loved by God and are living the 'right' way of life.

posted 06-10-99 06:39 AM ET         

A. The first story of the Bible basically says that God created Adam and Eve, the first humans. The story goes on to say that both God and the Devil quite literally walked among them. One day, the devil tempts Eve to eat fruit from the tree that God has forbidden them from eating from. Eve, however, eats the fruit and causes God to no longer be able to walk among humans. The spiritual significance of this fable is that it was a trial for humanity, and humanity failed. The question I have, then, is if God knew what was going to happen in advance, then why hold this trial?

posted 06-10-99 09:48 AM ET            

OK, this is something worth arguing about. You go on to say...

"It extends the notion that complexity does not require a creator to be an all-encompassing philosophy."

Here you're defining atheism by what it isn't. I liked the first part of the explanation much better.

As to complexity (this is really what we're all arguing about--the way to explain it), I can understand the existence of these things--galaxies, stars, bacteria, etc., by small, unintelligent processes interacting. However, the order inherent in these processes is striking, don't you think?

This order is beautiful to many scientists, since they see a guiding hand at work, and that's why not all scientists are atheists (probably not even a majority). So I grant you the plausibility of existence part. But what about the plausibility of order part?

PM: "It's not 'I don't believe in god', it's 'I don't believe in any religious dogma'."

To quibble a little... not all religions deal with a creator or God, or do so in a very "stylized" manner.

On to the heart of the matter... Again, you haven't help explain what atheism is. As you describe it, atheism is merely a reaction against religious dogma. Isn't the concept of atheism built on stronger stuff than this?

"Is there a reson to believe in God?"

posted 06-10-99 10:17 AM ET            

What "order" is that? I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about. Each of these things is complex, I'll grant you, and I find it astonishingly beautiful that all of this complexity can arise, in a completely "undirected" fashion from many small, simple rules. My favorite example of this is a whirpool. The next time you take a bath and open the drain, watch the whirlpool. It is a complex and dynamic phenomenon, but there is no "intelligent creator" behind it, it is simply a result of many simple interracting forces.

"Here you're defining atheism by what it isn't."

Actually, no, I'm not. Many Creationists argue the "if there is a design there must be a designer" argument. The notion that complexity can arise "naturally" is a new, positive claim as far as they are concerned (and as far as most people are concerned, since it is somewhat counterintuitive).

"How are you going to prove that he doesn't exist."

posted 06-10-99 10:18 AM ET            

I believe that religion and science are compatible (even evolution and creationism -- yes really!)... and should be. I believe there's nothing 'irrational' about religion inherently, even though certain religiously based explanations are irrational. Likewise, I believe that scientists make plenty of mistakes about why things work, and sometimes refuse to admit they just don't know.

I feel as sorry for people who feel a need to insist there is nothing spiritual about the world as those who feel that there's only one valid religion. Both, in my opinion, are missing something in life.

And while it is up to each individual what to believe, a denial of the spiritual side bothers me. What /does/ that give you to believe in? Do you still look at the world with a sense of wonder at how it all works and falls together? At the complexity of the human languages or at the incredible ability for a two tiny things combining to grow into a living, breathing creature? Do you ever feel a sense of awe at the world around you?
Or do your rational explanations comfort you more than realizing you really don't know how things work -- and is that why you stick to them?

posted 06-10-99 10:33 AM ET            

I think that unintelligent processes interacting in a complex manner equals chaos. But we don't see chaos, we see order. We see order everywhere, from the smallest string to the largest universe. From where does that order come? Doesn't it just tickle your curiosity more than a little?

Going from the micro to the macro... Doesn't it prick your curiousity just a little that a whirlpool spins in much the same way as a galaxy? That's order. That's physical laws. Not chaos.

For instance, how does an atheist explain something like the "unified theory"--the holy grail of physics (pun intended). We're getting close to understanding the order of the universe. From what we can gather, the universes are very structured phenomenon (not just one universe as we're finding out). Nothing like chaos at all.

posted 06-10-99 11:08 AM ET            

Then you must have some other reason for believing in god. Undisprovability is not a feature unique to god. In fact, it is quite common among things which don't exist .

When I talk about "complex" behavior, I think of it in terms of halfway between chaotic behavior and "rigid" order (think if crystals...). If you want to say that "God is the laws of physics", there is no way I can dispute that. What I can dispute is whether or not that is a god worth believing in. If that is the case, why do we attribute intelligence to god? Gravity and electromagnetism and the like seem to be very "dumb" in that they make absolutely no judgements. They affect one thing just as much as they affect others. There seems to be no morality, etc., associated with it. Why would we call this "God"? That sort of god has very little relationship to the sort of god we are thinking of when we discuss the god of Christianity, or whatever other religion comes to mind. In my mind, a god which merely exists as a set of physical laws and not as a dynamic presence in the universe is not a god worth believing in, and certainly not a god worth worshipping. There have been a number of religious believers here claiming that atheists have no "direction" in their lives. What does a "sterile" and "detatched" god like this give you that atheism doesn't?

Now, as to the "similarity". Yes, since the same sorts of forces are acting, we can expect some general trends, like common geometries. I don't find that very awe inspiring, in and of itself. I find I am inspired by the inherent complexity of many processes, but that a galaxy and a whirpool are similar to me has very little effect on me. I assume you agree that God is not spending a great deal of time orchestrating the events in your bathtub, right? Why would I then think that he would be taking an active part in the orchestration of the galaxies, which you claim are "similar"? (or, if you think that God is simply the laws of physics, then see my previous point).

Eris: "I believe there's nothing 'irrational' about religion inherently, even though certain religiously based explanations are irrational."

The concept of religious "faith" is inherently "irrational". It is predicated (more or less) on belief for the sake of belief, in complete absense of evidence. There are many who would say that "evidence denies faith", saying essentially that they believe precisely because there is no evidence.

"a denial of the spiritual side bothers me. What /does/ that give you to believe in?"

The inherent beauty and majesty of the natural world. The awe-inspring spectacle of the universe is even more awe-inspiring when you realize that its beauty and majesty come from itself, not some outside agency. We don't need to beg some god to give us something amazing and wonderful, we can do it on our own. Isn't the concept of "life" even more spectacular when you realize that it needs no assistance other than its own compelling nature? If a musician invented a new and beautiful musical style, he would be rightly praised. If another musician studied the first's work, and imitated him exactly he would be ridiculed as "derivative". We see beuty in accomplishment. Attributing all of these things to some "god" or other supernatural entity diminishes them.

"Do you still look at the world with a sense of wonder at how it all works and falls together?"

posted 06-10-99 11:43 AM ET            

*shakes her head* I disagree that it's "belief for the sake of belief", though I will happily grant you that it is belief in the absence of proof (but not in the absence of 'evidence', per se). The logical process works: "There must be some reason it works this way. In absence of any proof otherwise, my feelings and my observations lead me to believe in another entity or entities that have influenced it."

Belief in the absence of proof means in the absence of any proof, not merely in the failure to prove the existence of a deity. Not a single theory about the creation of life or language or anything else is anything more than a theory. Other-directed creation is just another theory. It just happens to be one I agree with. It does not contradict scientific explanations outright, either.

"The awe-inspring spectacle of the universe is even more awe-inspiring when you realize that its beauty and majesty come from itself, not some outside agency. "

I think that spirituality and (of a necessity therefore) any deity is necessarily inextricably entwined with the universe, not an "outside agency". (It's kind like how people talk about 'natural' structures versus 'man-made' ones; aren't humans 'natural' too?) I know some people don't think that way; they talk of a God sitting outside the Universe somewhere as if an old grandmother with knitting needles creating things, or sitting in a big Director's chair and overseeing every part of life. I don't think it works that way.

When I talk about spirituality and religion, I don't mean just a god or gods, either. I mean things like the spiritual manifestion of animals, plants, objects (man-made or otherwise, in fact), etc. I suppose I'm less concerned with a disbelief in God than in the usually accompanying disbelief in similar things...

posted 06-10-99 02:08 PM ET            

But we see signs of chaos permeating this order. The orbit of the Sun around the galaxy. The orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The seemingly simple 3-body problem. The way a faucet drips. Any driven harmonic oscillator, such as a mechanical clocks pendulum. All these are chaotic to some extent(using a mathematical definition of chaos -- two starting point in phase space move apart exponentially). Some cases are constrained, some are not. Chaos is the order of the Universe.

Octopus:
"'a denial of the spiritual side bothers me. What /does/ that give you to believe in?'

The inherent beauty and majesty of the natural world."

posted 06-10-99 03:34 PM ET         

I perceive many sets of three mutually interacting objects. Eventually, I come up with the abstraction "triangle" to represent the essential three-ness of such perceptual experiences. While the experiences are clearly physical and have finite duration, the abstract notion of triangle is metaphysical and timeless -- eternal, if you will.

So we have two complementary components of Universe, the physical and metaphysical. Universe always denies direct observation, requires a vivisection into (at least) a pair of things in order to be considered.

To ask "what existed before existence", i.e., before Universe, is strangely perverse, because we cannot think except temporally, so we cannot peer into the eternal except in roundabout ways.

It is this eternal mysteriousness that suggests and points to an act of consummate creation, a primitive vivisection of nothing, which may motivate a suspicion of a creator.

Why would the null-ness of eternal fullness shatter in the the first place? I don't know. I suspect.

Maybe there is a creator?

- icosahedron

posted 06-10-99 04:36 PM ET            

(Wow, I get to post this link:

http://www.spacelab.net/~catalj/

to a Richard Dawkins' website on two threads.)

My theory is that God started off with a really simple universe, but when people developed intelligence and started asking questions, then he had to 'design' the answers to those questions. As people started asking harder and harder questions, then he started thinking a bit more carefully about his answers, so that they would all fit together neatly when we got on to the *really* difficult ones.

Now we've got as far as strong and weak electromagnetic forces, and the other one (which I can't be bothered to go and look up at the moment), and we find that they don't quite fit together into a TOE. God obviously made a mistake back in his calculations somewhere, therefore he's not omnipotent, therefore he doesn't exist.

Q.E.D.

Noisy
Micromanager to the ....

posted 06-10-99 05:37 PM ET         

I think to focus in on the question of God, one must consider thoroughly the known, knowable but not know, and unknowable properties of Universe, because if God exists, then Universe is the manifestation of God (the "Father" part of the holy trinity).

One thing about Universe that seems clear to me is that we cannot escape it -- every point is connected to every other. If, say, we discover another universe, then in fact we will have to revise our notion of Universe to be the union of the old and new, because the new "universe" will now be connected to ours.

This sounds paradoxical, but the point is that Universe is all that exists, and vice versa.

Perhaps if we can accept the preeminence of Universe, we may begin to get closer to seeing whether God is necessary and/or sufficient in explaining the existence of Universe.

posted 06-10-99 06:23 PM ET            

Someone who looks at religion objectively will not believe in a God.

posted 06-10-99 07:34 PM ET            

Someone who looks at the Universe objectively will believe in God.

if you try to do both at the same time, your head will hurt, believe me. For all the atheists here, assume for a minute that God does indeed exist. if you do what is suggested above, you will come to find that either the universe, or religion, is flawed. The universe, is, of course, true, therefore, religion is flawed. While this may sound like an atheist arguement, consider this: what on this earth has survived intact for millenia after human hands have touched it? I believe that the Bible is the word of God, translated roughly by humans, thereby making it not completely true, though a good starting point for one's life.

as for understading God, think about this: it is pretty commmon knowledge that a non -sentient creature, in this case, a ctp programmer(had to work that in somehow ), cannot understand a sentient creature. We, as sentient creatures, temporal in nature and objective in viewpoint, cannot comprehend God, for he is the "next step up", if you will. He( i'm using He to describe Him, though only since we do not generally label sentient beings as "it") is eternal and non-objective, and since we cannot fully understand either of these concepts, we cannot fully understand Him.

posted 06-11-99 12:16 AM ET            

Someone who looks at the Universe objectively will believe in God.

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how you came to these conclusions.

it is pretty commmon knowledge that a non-sentient creature cannot understand a sentient creature. We, as sentient creatures, temporal in nature and objective in viewpoint, cannot comprehend God. He is eternal and non-objective, and since we cannot fully understand either of these concepts, we cannot fully understand Him.

Which is why I became agnostic. What sense is there in saying something exists or not if we can't even comprehend what that something is?

Also, the argument that God is eternal and therefore needs no preceding God is flawed. Who are we to say that the universe is not eternal? And if we use DanS' argument that God most likely exists because there is something striking about the order in the world, even at the tiniest scale then why can we not say that a God of God and a God of God of God and a God of... probably exists too? After all, there is something so striking about such a majestic and powerful being. Don't you think? And if this God of God of... chain exists then which God do we worship?

posted 06-11-99 01:34 AM ET            

Someone who looks at the Universe objectively will believe in God."

Huh?!?! What are these statements based on?

"it is pretty commmon knowledge that a non-sentient creature ... cannot understand a sentient creature."

Depends on your definitions of "sentience" and "understand".

"[God] is ... non-objective"

What do you mean by "non-objective"? And what is so incomprehensible about something being "eternal"?

posted 06-11-99 01:35 AM ET         

What's wrong with atheism being defined by negatives? Buddhists have defined nirvana this way since Siddartha sat down under the Bo tree.

I'll restate that I do not have to prove that god doesn't exist. I, at present, have no reason to believe god exists. The burden of proof is on you guys. Convince me.

posted 06-11-99 11:11 AM ET            

"I'll restate that I do not have to prove that god doesn't exist."

That's fine. But what is "atheism" anyway then? If you're saying atheism is not such-and-such, then you have to prove that negative. Try it. I dare you. Octopus has laid out what he thinks atheism is. Let's hear what you think.

Octo: "Huh?!?! What are these statements based on?"

Agreed. Sophistry.

"The concept of religious "faith" is inherently "irrational". It is predicated (more or less) on belief for the sake of belief, in complete absense of evidence."

Not irrational (they are not opposing forces). More like the rational and faith coexist. In many cases complement. In many cases they inform each other.

"the universe is even more awe-inspiring when you realize that its beauty and majesty come from itself, not some outside agency"

Sounds like you're trying to explain spontaneous combustion.

Spoe: "But we see signs of chaos permeating this order."

OK, that's fine. That's the way the universe works. I didn't mean to state that everything happening in the universe is directed toward one monolithic end. Rather, I was appealing to the scientific poetry of it all. In the face of chaos, order exists. Not only exists, but displays itself in a grand, beautiful fashion. There are laws in this order and it "works" somehow. How do you explain it? What's the cause? (not to be confused with the creator--sometimes they overlap, I'll admit).

posted 06-11-99 11:22 AM ET            

Well, I wouldn't rule it out.

posted 06-11-99 01:07 PM ET            

If find it more interesting(poetic, beautiful, etc.) that chaos exists in the face of order. I sincerely doubt that either chaos or order alone would be beautiful.

posted 06-11-99 04:44 PM ET            

Anyways - the short: Each individual does not have their own understanding of an "Ultimate" universe, they have their own universe that is determined by their belief. Humans are very weak-willed creatures - we are trained to have a certain perception of the world when we are very young, and then force this perception to continue around us as we grow.

It's taking the "I think therefore I am" to it's final conclusion - "I think therefore Everything Is".

In effect - You are God.

But only in your own little universe. And you've given up most of your power. Sucks to be you...

posted 06-11-99 05:12 PM ET            

What do you mean by "non-objective"? And what is so incomprehensible about
something being "eternal"?

I should have clarified. Non objective in viewpoint. We have an objective viewpoint, we use the sensory organs given to us to percieve the world around us. Our view is incomplete, whereas a non objective viewpoint of the universe would allow God to know all that is in that universe. As for not comprehending eternal, let's look at it this way. The known universe is, by all evidence, not eternal. It was created, and it will most likely be destroyed. We were created, and we will be destroyed. There is nothing tangible that has not been created, or will not eventually be destroyed. That which is eternal is intemporal. It is outside of this cycle of creation and destruction. Tell me, can you trully understand something which is outside of your reality?

In general, I find arguments like this to be unsatisfying at best and annoying at worst.

sorry to dissapoint. No offense, though the same could be said of your arguements, Oct.

They seem like poor substitutes for explanations of real ideas, instead opting to assign labels that communicate little real information.

Explain why my use of symbolism is not an explanation of a real idea. I communicate my idea with, imho, a valid comparison.

What is it about me that prevents me
from understanding God?

The fact that you are not God, to put it simply.

What other concepts am I incapable of understanding, could
you give me a list?

I could, but I'd be being a bit harsh

What tests do you have to see whether I really can understand
them or not?

if you could comprehend them, we would not be having this debate, since you would have already shattered my arguement with some mind blowing arguement of your own, correct? Therefore, you fail the test. Better luck next time.

How do you know you aren't just inventing words and labels, defining them
as "incomprehensible to our limited minds", and then patting yourself on the back
because you've thought up such a wonderful new label?

posted 06-11-99 10:51 PM ET            

On the whole chaos/order thing, I recommend the book At Home in the Universe by Stuart Kauffman. It is an excellent book, and very readable. Basically, he explains what "complexity science" is all about. Essentially, you can view processes along a continuum, with total chaotic behavior at one end, and rigid order at the other. Somewhere between these two extremes lies "complexity", things like life, or stock markets, or other interesting pheonomena. The hope of complexity researchers like Kauffman is that "complex" phenomena have certain properties and obey certain rules, and that we may be able to learn about the general class of "complex" phenomena. This may address some of your questions about the "similiarity" or "order in the chaos" questions.

The idea that a large number of very simple interactions can get together and form a complex process or behavior is, in fact, what made me realize that atheism was a viable (and preferable) world view (although I came to the realization long before I read Kauffman's book -- I realized it when doing a school project about "Cellular Automata", purely mathematical constructs which can exhibit complex and unpredictable behavior).

Kefaed: "Explain why my use of symbolism is not an explanation of a real idea. I communicate my idea with, imho, a valid comparison."

It isn't your symbolism that I object to (although: what symbolism?), but the nature of your argument. Your argument feels to me a lot like Descartes' attempt to prove the existence of God. You more or less want to invent a label, "godliness" or something, say it must apply to god, and we shouldn't even bother trying to figure it out because it is inherently beyond us. Why is that? Because of the arbitrary definition (or so it seems to me). You are more or less assuming your conclusion as a premise for your argument. Let me try: assume there is a triangle somewhere, who's triangularity is completely beyond your comprehension. It's triangularity is so intense that we (who aren't even close to triangular) can't even begin to comprehend its awesome triangularity. You think you understand triangles? Bah! This triangle is so far beyond what you know of triangles that it is nonsensical to even talk about what you think you understand about triangles. That's all you can ever understand about this triangle: it's very triangularity defies your comprehension.

"We were created, and we will be destroyed."

Speak for yourself

"The fact that you are not God, to put it simply."

So God's Godness makes God not understandable? That's silly. That's about as helpful as saying "The best description of him is that he's indescribable". This feels to me like you are trying to play word games with the universe, and trick yourself into thinking you've said something profound.

"I could, but I'd be being a bit harsh"

I'm serious. You believe that there are things beyond comprehension (by me, or others). List some. Explain why. If you want to insult me, go right ahead. I've got a thick skin.

"if you could comprehend them, we would not be having this debate, since you would have already shattered my arguement with some mind blowing arguement of your own, correct? Therefore, you fail the test. Better luck next time."

So you are saying "if there was evidence that you had this capability, I would have seen it by now. I have not seen this evidence, therefore you do not have this capability". Isn't this dangerous ground to tread for somebody who believes in a God who is so intent on hiding that he leaves no evidence around to convince skeptics like me?

"For any characteristic, so far as we know, there is an opposite characteristic."

posted 06-12-99 11:24 AM ET            

'I think, therefore I am'. From what I can interpret, it stems from the brain in a jar kind of thing, eg, who gives a ****, just get on with it. Quite axiomatic really, why did he need to say it? Descartes was never consistent.

I am atheist. I believe the chances of God is so improbable. I believe in no divine truth; I will not be told how to think. And what is consciousness. Fast being unravelled by science. Religion has been on the defence for decades, and continually retreats into the last shadows of doubt, as science reveals the truth. In short, religion is an out-of-date method for satisfying peoples curiousity, albeit, falsely. Also, science is not the antithesis of religion. One religion is the antithesis of another religion. Atheism, is a completely new school of thought.

Why should there be a higher order? Nothing else has one! Why should a God have created the universe at any point? If he didn't create us, as religion now argues, and was 'the cause', why should he be implicated anywhere in the process. Surely humankind should have more faith in himself, and find the answer. Science does not know all of the answers. But sure as hell it will try and find them. Religion claims to hold the truth, on no grounds, whatsoever. An old book! (Koran, Bible, I make no exception). Really, why should that be correct? Above logical and scientific reason. These books contridict themselves. And are taken totally out of context.

posted 06-13-99 10:03 PM ET         

Cynical thought: Might Christianity have really kicked off when the apostles got together after Jesus died? I can see it now.
"Well, our leader was executed. Now what do we do?"
"Hey, this doesn't have to end, you know."

posted 06-14-99 01:12 AM ET            

Descartes was trying to start with no preconceptions. His statement of "I think therefore I am" is the first (and arguably only) deduction that one can make without sensory information. This isn't a profound statement by Descartes (and he didn't think it was), it's basically his starting point. Unfortunately for Descartes, this is about the only part of it that he got right.

Descartes basically (from what I remember) has two arguments for God's existence. The first, as I already alluded, was that he had a notion of the infinite. Descarte assumed that since he himself was finite, the notion of the infinite could not have come from himself, and must therefore have come from something else which was infinite (i.e. God). He then goes on to say that since God is such a nice guy, he wouldn't let Descartes be mistaken about some of the things he knows about God (such as that he is all-loving, etc.). For me, this all falls apart in two places: 1 - why can't something which is finite develop a conception of the inifinite? 2 - how can he be sure he's not proving the existence of an infinitely evil, infinitely deceptive being?

posted 06-14-99 11:04 AM ET            

But self-awareness is the result of interactions of a large number of neurons on a large scale. This we do not understand.

posted 06-16-99 11:09 PM ET            

Weak minds cannot grasp the concept that humanity is alone in the universe therefore we must create elabortie stories which not only explain our creation but glorify ourselves in the process. You know there is a reason the bible is so abstract. Only by letting go of the primitive concept of religion will humanity reach a new and more enlightened state of existance. Also, have you notice that most Christian churches are more discrimitating that the average person? I mean look at the way they treat homosexuals. If "God" is so perfect and loving, why would he hate them? Also, if he wasent going to like them, why did he create them?

posted 06-17-99 12:33 AM ET            

In all of these conversations, the only responses I have ever seen to this stuff are people slinking away (as Kefaed apparently did) or the stock "famous scientist x was religous", which (to me) says absolutely nothing. Some of the most brilliant scientists have been horrible philosophers. Why don't you guys stand up and demonstrate that you can hold your own? Why don't you prove that your argument has merit by making a good, solid case?

Kefaed, you implied that my response to your post was inadequate. What about it was inadequate? What point do you believe that you've made that hasn't been properly addressed/rebutted by the opposition? What weak points do you see in the posts made by the various atheists here? What parts of our arguments are unclear, questionable, or wrong? I'm also still waiting for the list...

posted 06-17-99 12:21 PM ET            

What really surprieses me is that when I told one of my freinds I didnt blive in God, his immeadite response is, "Your going to hell, you know that." On Sunday when my parents (yes, I'm still in High School, so you're gonna have to deal with my sophomoric immatuirity) told me to get ready to go to church and I told them that I did'nt want to go because I did'nt beilve in God any more, thier first reaction was that I was trying to get out of church today. Then when they found out I wasent lying, thier minds registered this as *bad*, and tried to convince to belive again. It ultimatly came to, "fine, don't blame me when you're in hell forever". My father also told me I had a "twisted outlook on life". The reason most people feel this way is because of predetermined images of Athiests. Did you ever see that epiode of Home Improvement when the middle kid told his parents that organized religion doesnt make any sense to him? The immadiate reaction is to get preist Dan Akroyid from the now canceled show "Soul Man" to cinvince the kid the err of his ways in the cheap show cross-overs we all know and love. Of course at the end, the kid says something along the lineas of, "Maybe I was wrong after all! Golly thanks for the help!" Point is, this tells parents that Athiesm is akin to a mental defect that can be "cured".

So Philp, back to the point you made, what I meant by weak minded is that most people who belive in God belive this because they beilve it is the "right" thing to do, they never put much thought towards thier religion and base it on what other poeple are doing and what they think. This traslates as weak to me, when they let something as major as religion be decided by common opinion. Now Philip, if you carefully looked at your religion, and foundout for yourself that beliving in God makes sense for *you*, then you are quite strong minded.

posted 06-17-99 01:02 PM ET            

The more advanced is: While you were agnostic, there was no Christian God in your life. However, now that you are Christian, there is. Your personal belief in the Christian god creates that god for you, and the collected belief of the large number of christian beings makes it pretty easy for you to embrace (others are believing the same way as you).

It would be difficult for me to believe that I could fly, primarily because I have been trained to believe that stuff falls, and also because anyone watching me would not accept that I can fly, so would believe very strongly that I was not going to fly.

Science is a way of standardising the way everyone looks at the universe. In effect, it's limiting our abilities, not expanding them. ICK! But it's so darn interesting...

posted 06-17-99 01:36 PM ET            

Be yourself. Don't believe this nonsense about 'going to hell'. It never said that in the bible, it is a terror tactic of organised religion, and goes hand-in-hand with such ignorances as herecy. It is a constraint on the development of free society. So hurrah for atheism and free thought. It is not religion that offers enlightenment, it is free thought. DO NOT go down the road of religion, for it is a false one. I am, and I am not ashamed of, being vehemently anti-religious. It's not on the ground of peoples thoughts, it's the lack of freedom. There is so much beauty to nature that religion fails to acknowledge. Lack of faith in a god is not weak, despite what the religious say. It is very fulfilling to know that we control what we do. And another thing is never look at the situation that we are small and insignificant compared to the universe. What does this mean anyway? The universe is big. it makes it all the more interesting and beautiful, and all the more for us to look at and explore and enjoy. Religion would not let you do this.

posted 06-17-99 02:16 PM ET            

"Repent now and be saved!"
"Be saved from what?" I replied.
"Eternal Damnation!"

At this point I was trying to get awayand get to class, so I said,
"Why would I go to hell for not beliving in God? Maybe blind faith isn't good enough for some people!"
He left me alone after that

posted 06-18-99 01:55 PM ET         

Some other people have talked about the 'you'll go to hell' threat. I'm going to post my counterargument to that.

Blaise Pascal, in addition to being a man of science, was also an extemely devout Christian. (He thought Descartes had taken too much of God out of science!) He is the inventor of 'Pascal's Wager'. Essentially, he argues that a logical man will endorse Christianity, because if the Christians are wrong, the man loses nothing. If the Christians are right, the man doesn't go to hell.

Needless to say, the argument's rubbish. To be a Christian, one must have faith in God. And for that, one must be convinced of the existance of God. Thus, if I am not convinced of the existance of God, but am only hedging my bets, I'm only paying God lip service. I'll still go to hell, because in my heart (brain, whatever) I still don't believe.