To the Anti-Religious

[Smoke]

Face it. You don't believe in God for no other reason than that's just how you perceive the world. In that sense, theists are no different from atheists who show belief in God without any quantifiable, empirical proof.

Both groups of people are equally justified.

Do you believe that:

• People who believe in the Abrahamic God and people who do not believe in the Abrahamic God are equally justified?
• People who believe in Odin and people who do not believe in Odin are equally justified?
• People who believe in the Spider Grandmother and people who do not believe in the Spider Grandmother are equally justified?
• People who believe in Santa Claus and people who do not believe in Santa Claus are equally justified?
• People who believe in astrology and people who do not believe in astrology are equally justified?
• People who believe in leprechauns and people who do not believe in leprechauns are equally justified?
• People who believe in unicorns and people who do not believe in unicorns are equally justified?
• People who believe the world was created last Tuesday and people who do not believe the world was created last Tuesday are equally justified?
• People who believe that Paula Abdul is an avatar of Vishnu and people who do not believe that Paula Abdul is an avatar of Vishnu are equally justified?

Why or why not?

Do you believe that, in the absence of any evidence supporting any claim, a belief in that claim is just as valid and reasonable as disbelief in that claim? Why?

 

[dogsgod]

I don't think that he is trying to convince you. I think he is arguing that with all of our evidence or lack of we all end up with an opinion. We all experience reality differently but evidence of evolution neither validates nor discounts any belief in God. Remember that he was initially replying to a comment that a person's atheism is based on evidence. But such evidence would have to actually indicate a lack of divine existence. There is none, as far as I know.

It's not a matter of opinion that 2+2=4, it's a proven fact, and so is evolution. Believing in God is one thing but as soon as one states what a God does it's a matter of science, and god is not included in scientific theory because theory is only concerned with facts. God is a belief and that's all it is, nothing more. Evolution is a fact regardless of what any of us believes, so no, evolutionary processes are not a matter of opinion, but rather a matter of fact. Evolution satisfactorily explains how things have come to be and notions of Gods are merely superfluous and play no role in our origins regardless of anyone's opinion.

 

[ragordon168]

evolution's not a fact like 2+2=4 its and observation and pediction and doesnt completely answer the question of life's origin. so until such times as these holes are plugged god can still be used as an possibility.
scientists are trying to work out how to create life from scratch, so how do we no that some super-advanced civilisation worked out how to do it and set up earth as an experiment to watch lifes evolutionary process.

god as the omnipotent guy in the sky never really made sense to me, if god exists then i believe that its another name for nature, things grow, die and feed the next generation. so to show love for 'god' you need to show appreciation for the most important thing created for us. you should be able to work out what i mean

 

[Madhuri]

It's not a matter of opinion that 2+2=4, it's a proven fact, and so is evolution. Believing in God is one thing but as soon as one states what a God does it's a matter of science, and god is not included in scientific theory because theory is only concerned with facts. God is a belief and that's all it is, nothing more. Evolution is a fact regardless of what any of us believes, so no, evolutionary processes are not a matter of opinion, but rather a matter of fact. Evolution satisfactorily explains how things have come to be and notions of Gods are merely superfluous and play no role in our origins regardless of anyone's opinion.

That is another example of people thinking evolution OR God. Please realise that many spiritual theists believe in the big bang and evolution yet still believe in God. Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of something greater, such as a higher intelligence that creates or a Source.

Again, none of the theists so far on this debate are saying that we should believe in God. We're saying that evidence or lack of evidence does nothing in regards to the God concept except to disprove the literal interpretations of Biblical scripture. If you think that is all it needs to do to solve the matter, then that is very ignorant (not saying that you think this, I really don't know what you think).

When it comes to God, I do not think that all of us have absolute faith. I certianly don't. It is simply my inclination to think that there is a great possibility that there is something more, and I do not call it magic. God is not any more magic than you and I are. There's no such thing as magic, imo.

The great possiblity of God or the great unlikelyhood of God is a matter of opinion; an opinion that arises from a lifetime of experience.

 

[dogsgod]

That is another example of people thinking evolution OR God. Please realise that many spiritual theists believe in the big bang and evolution yet still believe in God. Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of something greater, such as a higher intelligence that creates or a Source.

Regardless of what theists believe, God is just a belief, but as soon as one claims what God does, such as creates, then they are making a scientific claim, and evolution suggests that other processes are at work that do not require a creator which disproves the baseless and superfluous claims regarding creator gods.

 

[PureX]

Regardless of what theists believe, God is just a belief, but as soon as one claims what God does, such as creates, then they are making a scientific claim, and evolution suggests that other processes are at work that do not require a creator which disproves the baseless and superfluous claims regarding creator gods.

This is not a "God OR science" issue. First of all, you are using the term science way more broadly than is appropriate. And secondly, you are assuming that any and all definitions of God must involve God being something other than natural. And if that were so, science would be unable to aggress it at all.

 

[Madhuri]

Regardless of what theists believe, God is just a belief, but as soon as one claims what God does, such as creates, then they are making a scientific claim, and evolution suggests that other processes are at work that do not require a creator which disproves the baseless and superfluous claims regarding creator gods.

Well, I agree. But if one is able to say 'I believe that God does this' placing emphasis on the word 'believe' they are not claiming it as an absolute, or that they -know- it to be true, but simply that they have some reason to believe such a thing and they are not obligated to provide evidence to anybody unless they are trying to convince you.
So yes, God IS just a belief. Then again, everything is a belief regardless of the amount of evidence to support it. Evidence serves to increase probability. It can make your belief seem more reliable or valid. but even with all the evidence in the world you could still be wrong, even if the chance is small.

So what we are arguing is probability, I think. The lack of evidence pointing to God makes it seem as though God is very unlikely. But to a person who has had many personal spiritual experiences, that probability increases. They can't provide suffiecient evidence for past experiences so that probability is only held by them. That's just the way things are.

 

[dogsgod]

Again, none of the theists so far on this debate are saying that we should believe in God. We're saying that evidence or lack of evidence does nothing in regards to the God concept except to disprove the literal interpretations of Biblical scripture. If you think that is all it needs to do to solve the matter, then that is very ignorant (not saying that you think this, I really don't know what you think).

If you don't care to commit as to how you define your God it matters not, evolutionary processes do not require a higher intelligence of any kind. Intelligence is a product of evolution, not the other way around as theists would like to believe.

 

[Madhuri]

If you don't care to commit as to how you define your God it matters not, evolutionary processes do not require a higher intelligence of any kind. Intelligence is a product of evolution, not the other way around as theists would like to believe.

You can't know that. Whether evolutionary processes require a higher intelligence or not depends on if that higher intelligence exists or not. Because if God exists, then evolution is a process set in motion by God. If God does not exist, then evolution is some great freak accidental, random and incredible process that has happened to actually create intelligence AND consciousness. Rather spectacular that consciousness could evolve from nothing, but hey thats for a different topic.

 

[Commoner]

You can't know that. Whether evolutionary processes require a higher intelligence or not depends on if that higher intelligence exists or not. Because if God exists, then evolution is a process set in motion by God. If God does not exist, then evolution is some great freak accidental, random and incredible process that has happened to actually create intelligence AND consciousness. Rather spectacular that consciousness could evolve from nothing, but hey thats for a different topic.

How did you come to that conclusion?

We'd first have to agree on a particular definition of god to say that.

 

[Madhuri]

How did you come to that conclusion?

We'd first have to agree on a particular definition of god to say that.

God represents the Source of everything, who is generally attributed to have Intelligence. I'd say that this view is common to all theistic belief systems.

 

[dogsgod]

You can't know that. Whether evolutionary processes require a higher intelligence or not depends on if that higher intelligence exists or not. Because if God exists, then evolution is a process set in motion by God. If God does not exist, then evolution is some great freak accidental, random and incredible process that has happened to actually create intelligence AND consciousness. Rather spectacular that consciousness could evolve from nothing, but hey thats for a different topic.

It took billions of years for consciousness to evolve,(and who says it's from nothing, could energy not always have existed?) and we can see the process by which solar systems evolve and here on earth how life forms became more complex over time, what would be even more spectacular than that would be the creation of a God out of nothing, and for what reason, certainly not to set evolutionary processes into motion, for that is unnecessary.

 

[dogsgod]

This is not a "God OR science" issue. First of all, you are using the term science way more broadly than is appropriate. And secondly, you are assuming that any and all definitions of God must involve God being something other than natural. And if that were so, science would be unable to aggress it at all.

Science can observe people and how they come to formulate beliefs, such as the belief of an invisible god.

 

[Madhuri]

It took billions of years for consciousness to evolve,(and who says it's from nothing, could energy not always have existed?) and we can see the process by which solar systems evolve and here on earth how life forms became more complex over time, what would be even more spectacular than that would be the creation of a God out of nothing, and for what reason, certainly not to set evolutionary processes into motion, for that is unnecessary.

Of course energy had always existed; it can never be created or destroyed, much as God is described. Energy is also described as one aspect of God, in Vedic literature. But never mind that.

We aren't discussing God's reasons here so lets not start that. I'm saying that we cannot know if the process of evolution is dependent on a God or not. We cannot know that without knowing if God exists, and neither of us -know- that.

 

[Commoner]

God represents the Source of everything, who is generally attributed to have Intelligence. I'd say that this view is common to all theistic belief systems.

I wouldn't have brought this point up, but some of the posters on this thread seem to keep jumping from one definition of god to another.

 

[Madhuri]

Science can observe people and how they come to formulate beliefs, such as the belief of an invisible god.

Really, so scientists can observe the events that occurred to form a God concept in people's minds? Do they know what was communicated among the people? Please elaborate.

 

[dogsgod]

You can't know that. Whether evolutionary processes require a higher intelligence or not depends on if that higher intelligence exists or not.

No it doesn't depend on whether God exists or not. Evolutionary processes depend on whether or not the explanations are adequate to explain what is observed. God does not even get a mention.

 

[Commoner]

Of course energy had always existed; it can never be created or destroyed, much as God is described. Energy is also described as one aspect of God, in Vedic literature. But never mind that.

Conservation of energy only applies to a closed system.

We aren't discussing God's reasons here so lets not start that. I'm saying that we cannot know if the process of evolution is dependent on a God or not. We cannot know that without knowing if God exists, and neither of us -know- that.

Of course we can. We can't know (if we don't know if god exists or not) if it was started by god, but we can certainly know if something like a god is necessary. Maybe "dependent on" is not the best description of what you meant?

 

[dogsgod]

Really, so scientists can observe the events that occurred to form a God concept in people's minds? Do they know what was communicated among the people? Please elaborate.

Modern psychology includes the study of how humans formulate beliefs. The study of religious beliefs and how people come to acquire them is of particular interest, at least it is to me.

 

[Madhuri]

Modern psychology includes the study of how humans formulate beliefs. The study of religious beliefs and how people come to acquire them is of particular interest, at least it is to me.

Something tells me that any study on this is limited and full of knowledge gaps.