[wonderboy416]

urbanboom, I realized when I created the poll that there would be responses such as yours, I was expecting a whole lot more of them.

I appreciate your response, it threw me off how often you kept referring to evolution as a created process. As I stated in a previous post these two ideas simply can't co-exist... it defies all logical thought to allow for the possibility of both.

There are many holes as science cannot explain everything. That's the beauty of it, as more and more work is done, everything gets refined, the gaps start to fill in and we get a clearer and clearer picture as to what our remarkable history consisted of. I must respectfully disagree with the idea of evolution being a created process -this is not an idea that Christians would have accepted 300 years ago. As science does more and more work will Christians further alter their beliefs yet always conclude that it's all part of some master plan? The one thing that can never be proven is what Christians will always support.

 

[afransen]

Of course. Christians have been in retreat on that front for centuries. They are left holding positions like 'God created the universe by setting the physical constants that make it behave the way it does.' If that's what you're left with, why even bother holding the belief?

 

[urbanboom]

^

Wonderboy,

I appreciate your response, it threw me off how often you kept referring to evolution as a created process. As I stated in a previous post these two ideas simply can't co-exist... it defies all logical thought to allow for the possibility of both.

And that is where I fundamentally disagree with you. Science may be anti-religious, but does that mean that religion should be anti-science? I think and hope not. Heck, science doesn't have to be anti-religious, either.

There are many holes as science cannot explain everything. That's the beauty of it, as more and more work is done, everything gets refined, the gaps start to fill in and we get a clearer and clearer picture as to what our remarkable history consisted of.

I agree. But the beauty of the unknown can also be applied to religion. I think its terribly arrogant to say that one particular 'side' or the other can clearly show ALL the answers. It simply can't, and that's fact.

I must respectfully disagree with the idea of evolution being a created process -this is not an idea that Christians would have accepted 300 years ago.

First of all, the theory of evolution didn't exist 300 years ago, but I get your point. Religion, much like science, is also in a state of constance change and... evolution . Darwin was (mostly) proven to be correct: it would be foolish for the church to simply abandon all reason - a concept that isn't unique to the secular.

As science does more and more work will Christians further alter their beliefs yet always conclude that it's all part of some master plan? The one thing that can never be proven is what Christians will always support.

As more things come into light, will the scientific community constantly change it's position? Of course it will, as will religion's! But here's another thought: perhaps the the thing that cannot be proven, isn't proven for a reason? You may doubt that, but neither you nor I can prove or disprove it. Perhaps we'll have confirmation long after we're dead.

Thank you for your respectful response.

 

[wonderboy416]

Urbanboom, thanks for your response
I enjoy such conversations, I know they can be time consuming so please don't feel obliged to respond. I am in the fortunate/unfortunate position of having a lot of time on my hands as of late lol.

I agree. But the beauty of the unknown can also be applied to religion. I think its terribly arrogant to say that one particular 'side' or the other can clearly show ALL the answers. It simply can't, and that's fact.

I fully agree with you that science will never have all of the answers.
However, most religions do in fact claim to have the answers. Christianity is not alone. The bible is pretty certain as to how everything came to be and why the world works the way it does. Some more liberal Christians acknowledge that this is not possible and are open to the ideas presented by the scientific community. My problem with this is how can the bible, the very basis for the entire religion be taken as fact in some regards and merely symbolic (to be kind) in others? How is one to discern what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken symbolically? The bible provides no such insight. The very thing that is the basis for Christian beliefs is full of so much implausibility that even the catholic church (as you pointed out) admits it's merely symbolic in many ways. Then what are you believing in exactly?

Religion, much like science, is also in a state of constance change

I would argue that it's only in a state of change because most religions simply aren't applicable to the modern world and require updating to allow for social progression as well as advances in science. They're not changing because they want to, they're changing because it's required to stay relevant.

perhaps the the thing that cannot be proven, isn't proven for a reason? You may doubt that, but neither you nor I can prove or disprove it. Perhaps we'll have confirmation long after we're dead.

Oh you're talking about the celestial tea pot in space right? You're right, maybe one day we'll be able to prove it. Why stop at god? There's all kinds of crazy things that could be out there that we don't know about!

 

[Brandon716]

I'm an atheist because there is no evidence that God exists or that any divine being had any effect on anything. On the contrary, all the evidence points to the myths we read in the Bible and the religious conflicts we are in happen to be man-made.

Easy vote: Life on this planet originated and evolves from natural processes

 

[Brandon716]

^

Wonderboy,



And that is where I fundamentally disagree with you. Science may be anti-religious, but does that mean that religion should be anti-science? I think and hope not. Heck, science doesn't have to be anti-religious, either.

Science is non-religious, not "anti-religious" because science has nothing to do with matters of faith. Faith is a feel-good feeling inside of someone with no evidence required. Its the polar opposite of what science is founded on.

What makes science appear anti-religious to those who believe is that science provides no evidence for religious beliefs. In fact, observing evidence and learning history tends to make one believe that all our current religious structures are man-made mythology.

So if science promotes the idea that its a myth, it may appear anti-religious to those who want to believe, but in reality its non-religious as its just what the evidence and facts show.

I understand religion gives people a sense of purpose and sense of hope under certain circumstances, but for other people it can be depressing and annoying equally as much as it helps someone else. At the end of the day its just a feeling, not facts or evidence.

 

[detroitbootybass]

God is for those who need a god/goddess/deity.

 

[jenny_zhang]

I think its terribly arrogant to say that one particular 'side' or the other can clearly show ALL the answers. It simply can't, and that's fact.

Neither side knows ALL the answers. The only difference is that science takes a reasoned approach to try and answer them, while religion fabricates one particular answer (God did it) and expresses it as a fact.

Religion is blind belief, and this will never be a positive thing. Does science know everything? No. But what is the benefit, and what is the point, of going from "we don't know everything yet", to an easy "God did it"? Might as well just say "an alien race did it", or that we are all part of a science experiment for some greater species. All of these represent humans grasping at straws for easy answers to difficult questions.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

 

[urbanboom]

I'd like to have a discussion. I really would. But that's not going to happen. Not here. This place will be always one sided, so why does the religion thread appear every three months?

I'm not even going to bother to argue here. I shared my opinions and I'll have to leave it at that. I can't handle 27 people sniping from 27 angles, even on an anon forum. Have fun, you guys - I'm taking my leave from here.

 

[wonderboy416]

urbanboom,

With all fairness it was just people doing as you did and sharing their opinions on the subject matter. Whether it's 1 vs 100 or the other way around should not be relevant. As long as there's no personal attacks and all posts adhere to the terms of service than what's wrong with the discussion that's taken place? I think it's a testament to the UT forums that such a thread can exist without bows and arrows being flung directly at individuals. All responses seem well thought out.

That said, in any debate I would hate to go up against a side that is armed with logic, reason and verifiable science while I have not much more than a book that's the product of hearsay and a gut feeling to go on. That's not meant to be an insult, that's just the very nature of such a topic as this.

The other day I was approached by some fellows and asked if I had heard the good news, I politely responded with a no and then they both got really really passionate and starting talking about Jesus before I could blink. I also found myself holding a pamphlet... I was very polite and said I'm sorry we don't share common beliefs and walked off... and one of them actually followed me asking if I wanted to learn about the good Lord. I wonder what kind of society we live in when we tolerate this type of behavior in public. Had an atheist started approaching strangers in the mall I'm sure security would have been notified as someone would have been deeply offended... I wasn't offended as much as I was mildly annoyed.

 

[Dan416]

I'm agnostic. And I have a big problem with anyone with beliefs trying to force them on others, whether they be atheists or fundamentalists. In fact, I place atheists and fundies in the same category as undesirable. Belief is belief. Believe whatever you want, just leave everyone else alone. Like the extreme left and the extreme right, facism and communism, militant Islam/fundamentalist Christian and atheism have a lot in common.

To be frank, I don't trust anyone who believes in anything that is unknowable so fervently. It just screams of self-deception to me.

 

[wonderboy416]

Coruscanti Cognoscente,

Many atheists make their case known because they believe that religion is to the detriment of man-kind. There's a common belief that teaching people to be good to please god and thus be rewarded is corruption at its best. What's wrong with being good because you want to? Why must there be a reward with the fear of punishment? Why must people buy into their religion to the point of madness? Surely no one would strap a bomb to their chest if they didn't feel they would be in their god's good books in the after life... not the best of career choices if they're wrong isn't it?

I believe as an atheist that religion is bad for everyone. There is countless evidence to support that as well... so why should I be quiet? Truth is I am rather quiet about it in person as I care not to always engage in such conversations, but perhaps I shouldn't be.

I sincerely believe that religion is a cancer to man kind. It gives us the wrong motivation for being virtuous, it teaches us that god likes people to suffer to test everyone around them and so forth. What kind of sick message is that?

Perhaps if there weren't millions upon millions of deaths and countless more suffering attributed to religion I'd hold it in a higher regard, but since that's verifiable I will think the way I do... and wish more atheists were vocal about their beliefs. Supporting the notion that we don't need religion is drastically different then selling a particular faith.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

science may never be able to answer every single question. there will always be room for god because of this. for me, this isn't a good enough reason to believe in one.


personally, i can't understand how anyone who accepts evolution as fact but guided by the hand of god can worship, adore and call such a god good. the processes that sustain life are absolutely cruel. life is extremely unfair for most. in order to keep your life going, you have to consume the lives of other things; it's called eating. we had to figure everything out for our selves as we have gone along, many times with great consequence. most of this planet is uninhabitable for humans, there's disease, injury, war, etc. the actual process that shaped us (evolution) is such a slow process and not perfect. we are filled with design errors and poor repair mechanisms. those who come into this world are not given an equal starting point. the difference being born of one family and another is that if you are born of one, you may be end up doctor, if you are born of another, you may end up dead of starvation.

i can see why some would want to believe in a good god and an afterlife but i for one can't fathom why a good good would design such a harsh system in the first place.

some say it's a test but i don't believe that a good god would be so cruel to subject us to such a test in the first place. i also don't see why god would need to create humans or anything else for that matter. i also don't understand how god would permit evil to exist at all.

while god and religion may help people some cope with the harshness of reality, it had the opposite effect on me.

here's a concept: we are all victims of our own morality. if you believe it's a good thing for others to die for your sins, to be god's chosen people, that this world isn't important, that it's okay to harshly test people, to punish people in hell, to deny them an afterlife, etc. then you have sadly earned your relationship with a monster.


personally, i'm happy to exist at all and i can't blame the natural universe for its crudeness, horrors & inefficiencies because it is not a conscious entity nor is it controlled or guided by one. there is no god that cares for us so we better care for each other if we want to make our existences somewhat pleasant ones. enjoy whatever you can, attempt to find solutions for problems that can be fixed & for the problems that can't, for the harsh aspects of reality that we yet don't have the means to correct, do your best to cope.


for me, the gaps are best left empty than filled with speculation that makes everything else not make any sense at all. advice? fill your mind with knowledge that is true and those gaps get smaller. you won't find yourself falling into the gaps. the paving stones of knowledge on the road of life are far more useful than the small gaps between them. at the time when the gaps were larger, the road of life was much more bumpy and progress was hard.

 

[gristle]

gristle, i wasn't arguing for a creator, i was making another point. read that post more carefully.

there's no evidence for a god (that's why they call it faith) so in addition to being agnostic, you can be atheist too since you don't have to have proof of non existence (which is impossible) in order to disbelieve in something.

don't be afraid to say that you're an atheist.

I know you were not arguing for a creator. I was remarking on your commentary of my post. That should be clear if you reread what I wrote.

I've stated that there is no evidence for a god, creator or ultimate creative force. I've gone one further and pointed out that there is no clear definition concerning the specific qualities of a deity, gods or fundamental universal creative force.

Sure, I could call myself an atheist, but my preference is to define myself as an agnostic. And rest assured, it's a well thought out choice. Atheists claim that deities do not exist. My view is that there is no proof either way because the definitions are simply unclear and unfixed. In other words, there is no proof for a deity, creator, or universal creative force, but there is also no absolute refutation of any of these things either. There can't be.

To be more blunt, questions regarding the existence or nonexistence of a deity, deities or an ultimate creative universal agency - along with the nature of ultimate reality - is simply unknowable by reason of our inability to verify any such experience with anything but another subjective experience.

Going one step further, would you deny the existence of the universe by virtue of the fact that you cannot prove its existence in any form of totality? It is quite likely that the ultimate nature of the universe (all that lying beyond the visible universe) will never be known by human beings, yet it makes up by far the greater portion of reality. Do we deny that it exists because we can't prove it? Do deny the concept of infinity because we can't account for the content?

I simply can't know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you. Neither can the true believers.