Imagine No Religion- Page 11

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:24pm

So it would explain my question of what instigated the Big Bang, which created the universe, which created us? It would answer the question of why this all happened in the first place?

[soapguy17]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:27pm

Typical BWWer fashion. I'm pretty sure you figured out what I meant, again that goes back to the whole intelligence thing. And again, my point was ignored.

[DG]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:28pm

Ok, Namo (sorry for the bristle I guess you just had) - if you're taking that route, there's really nothing left to be said. Have a good night.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:31pm

So it would explain my question of what instigated the Big Bang, which created the universe, which created us? It would answer the question of why this all happened in the first place?

No, and I didn't say that. But it would give you a much better understanding of the origins of life (your "first cell" question) and clear up what seem to be some misconceptions about early humans and the way that biological and intellectual evolution played into the development of the human race as we know it today.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:35pm

And don't worry, GG, you can still duck out on the infinite regression argument for your creationist beliefs even though it's a total cop out.

[soapguy17]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 10:56pm

Namo, most religions believe that god just is. So no one really knows where he came from. If she is right, which she might be. She'll have no problem sending you a postcard to let you know where where God says he came from.

Updated On: 12/11/07 at 10:56 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 11:14pm

My point is, the same standards must be allowed to apply to the poor lowly cell.

The cell just "was."

Even though that's not where the cell came from but clearly the tenets of evolutionary biology are way beyond this discussion.

[soapguy17]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 12:01am

Namo, again you seem to be missing MY point. You have no way of knowing how that cell or the stuff that formed into that cell got there. There might be evidence that convinces you one way or the other, but that's evidence, there are some people who are given the exact same evidence you are and believe the exact opposite. You strongly believe that we all came from nothing. That's fine, but you could be wrong. . as could everyone else. I'm fully willing to admit that I have no clue.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 12:08am

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo. I don't believe we came from nothing. I am just saying if "god" is allowed to have just always been there, why does the cell have to account for each of its pre-cellular iterations?

[soapguy17]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 12:12am

It doesn't, that's the point. No one on earth knows for sure how it got there. Wait, I think you're referring to GG's comments. Never mind then.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 12:18am

Yes, I have been all along which is why I may be coming across as rather exasperated.

[DG]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 1:12am

"which is why I may be coming across as rather exasperated."

I'm not responding to Namo - I certainly wouldn't want to cause any more 'bristles' - but perhaps we shouldn't focus on how anyone is 'coming across'. I think the viewing audience can - and is - determine that for themselves. No matter what anyone thinks of their capacity to do so.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 1:54am

Okay Namo, we must conceed that the theory of simple carbon life having always existed is about as likely as there being a god, but I have to address where the argument is splitting here (boy, I missed a lot!):

"Namo, most religions believe that god just is. So no one really knows where he came from. If she is right, which she might be. She'll have no problem sending you a postcard to let you know where where God says he came from."

Soapguy, you're operating under a mighty presumption about God here. First of all you're assuming that God is an all knowing, all mighty prescient being with some sort of cosmological, undefinable force that can or can not actively interfere in the universe.

THIS MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

This idea is as laughable as the idea of a greek man who hangs around in the clouds tossing lightning bolts down, or turtles belching up whole planets.

According to human faith there is an all mighty force in this universe that superseeds natural science and morality to generate such things. In other words, a humanoid figure with human ideas who created humanity in its image.

This is akin to the idea that a turtle puked up the earth upon which we live (and upon which smaller turtles live); that Vishnu is dreaming of all reality. Vishnu is a humanoid figure that people dreamed up. Who dreamed who first?

I'm just saying. This is a case of the chicken before the egg. You are not picking the most likely belief. You are merely adhering to the one you have always heard. There are a lot of beliefs out there and they mostly sound the same.

Men created Gods in their image to somehow empower their consciousness, their creative power, to justify it. God is the ultimate goal of man (total dominion over self, morality, humanity, nature and science--this must be the goal of evolution): in other words, nirvana.

It is completely and utterly possible that our existence was begat by something else, but this something else was in turn probably the product of another process, etc...

I'm just saying, look at biology. We're not plastic models walking around talking. We are literally made up of countless smaller life forms, each with their own ambition. We are the product of years of genetic engineering. I am quoting proven science at you now, not belief, not postulation. We are merely a speck in the wide galaxy, held together by waves of energy we have only scratched the surface of understanding.

To turn an old curio on its head, There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your mythological and theological philosophy. Religion is a pretty thing but it is in stasis; all religions regurgitate and recycle one another. Science, on the other hand, is developing all the time. Personally, I'll put my faith in progress.

Sorry this was so long.

Ps. the point of deism, guitargirl, is that God is no longer interfering. That's the POINT. He set things in motion and went away.

PPS. Faith is by its very nature irrational. That's the point of faith.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 2:03am

As my grandmother used to say, "And man created God..."

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 2:04am

I'm sorry. I just thought this thread could to have its head pulled out of the mighty ass of new aged spiritual ignorance and take a shot of science and history. Anyone who is more versed than I am (which is not hard), feel free to add.

I just wanted to give two examples: First of all, viruses and computers. Viruses are technically not living things, yet they breed. They live off of other living creatures. They adapt, they alter, they move, they spread. They function much like humans do. Yet, they are not considered sentient beings. Neither are computers, which do many of the same things.

At what point does sentience become a factor? Could viruses or computers DEVELOP sentience at a high enough level of evolution? Note that both of these things can be artifices (man made)--or sometimes viruses develop spontaneously. Sometimes computers make spontaneous moves and developments too. Does this not imply that we humans, who so often have the power to set things in motion, have the power of Gods?

Example number 2: I'd just like to say that religious philosophy reaches far deeper than anyone has yet in this thread. Most of our questions have been redressed time and time again. Any atheist worth listening to you will concede that there could be a god, but until you can prove it, I won't believe you.

It's the same thing as the chicken on the desk theory. The existence of god is NOT the natural conclusion, and a mere cursory glance at the sheer variety and nuance of religious belief in the world will prove to you that god is not the natural conclusion but rather the afterthought. The primary religions were all animalistic and naturalistic also. First we had the Earth. God came later.

I've often thought that existence itself is a paradox. To quote Harry Potter, "What came first; the Phoenix (universe) or the Flame(god)? I think the answer is a circle has no beginning."

Who's to say time isn't cyclical? Or that all moments of time are happening all at once? But that's string theory, quantum physics. The fact remains. Science has a lot more to say and religion is merely a footnote. In a way, God is beside the point. We created him so he could create us, and now we don't need him anymore.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 2:12am

"Any atheist worth listening to you will concede that there could be a god, but until you can prove it, I won't believe you."

That's an agnostic. An atheist is adamant that God or a higher being doesn't exist.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 2:28am

An agnostic merely expresses doubt or ambivalence or refuses to commit. An atheist does not believe in the supernatural. Like any ideology there are varying degrees to militance and promotion of the idea (which is where atheism can get as dangerous as any belief) but I stress this:

You don't begin at the belief that there is no god but at NOT believing that there is a god. There really is a difference. You can take that absence of belief as far as you want, that's up to you.

There are different kinds of atheists. Obviously if they had scientific proof that God existed tomorrow, it would change the game for a lot of people.

In other words the difference between an atheist and an agnostic is a person who is willing to say "No, I do not believe in God".

In this sense perhaps agnosticism is the world's least dangerous belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Practical_atheism

Updated On: 12/12/07 at 02:28 AM

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 2:34am

As my grandmother used to say, "A believer says yes. An atheist says no. An agnostic says I don't know."

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 6:29am

I do have this question though: Why can we imagine a God? What put those feelings and thoughts into us? The idea of a god, any god, is very creative and very detailed when it comes to what type of god, but people all throughout history have believed in some form of greater being, and have had some form of religion. It could not have been just a story, just a stupid idea for so many people to have faith in it. People tend to put their faith in what their best interests are, and if someone doesn't think that something is worthy of putting their faith in, than they won't put their faith in it. But many people did, and still are putting their faith in some sort of god, because they feel that it is worth their while. Would a stupid idea, a childish thought, a creative story be worth someone's faith?

The point is, not only has faith in a god (gods) transcended history, but it is shared by many people, from many different countries, educated and uneducated. Great leaders, well known philosophers, down to the most unknown of people have believed, or at least acknowledged that their is some sort of greater being, a god of sorts. A lot of these people are rationally thinking people. It's not likely that what they put their faith in is totally irrational and doesn't exist.

[colleen_lee]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 6:54am

"I do have this question though: Why can we imagine a God? What put those feelings and thoughts into us?"

The idea of god is quite simple, really. Humans need explanation, and when unable to find an explanation, humans will justify. Before we had the scientific knowledge to understand relatively simple phenomena such as weather, fertility, etc. It was easiest to attribute it to a greater, all-knowing being. Throughout time, the beliefs have evolved, but the theory itself is incredibly primitive. It is the easy answer to the hard questions.

"The point is, not only has faith in a god (gods) transcended history"

Are you one of those people that believes the earth is only 6000 years old?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 6:55am

repent, you heathens, before this thread and all in it save for me - the grand enlightened on - are smited (smitten, smited?) within an inch of their lives. repent!

[soapguy17]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 8:16am

Soapguy, you're operating under a mighty presumption about God here. First of all you're assuming that God is an all knowing, all mighty prescient being with some sort of cosmological, undefinable force that can or can not actively interfere in the universe.

THIS MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

This idea is as laughable as the idea of a greek man who hangs around in the clouds tossing lightning bolts down, or turtles belching up whole planets.

Fine it doesn't make sense to you. For me, the fact that ANYONE thinks that they can be absolutely sure of weather or not a higher being exist makes no sense. How do you know that a gigantic turtle didn't cough up the planets? It might sound ridiculous to modern day people but, it could've happened. You can't really know. I might not make sense to you, but it very well could've happened. That guess is just as good as yours for how everything got here. Again, we could all be wrong.

And I don't assume anything about god. I openly admit, as I did before in this thread, I have no idea weather he's there or not(I'm agnostic). Neither does anyone else. People might have strong beliefs one way or the other, but no one knows.

Updated On: 12/12/07 at 08:16 AM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 9:24am

How do you know that a gigantic turtle didn't cough up the planets? It might sound ridiculous to modern day people but, it could've happened.

This is one of those points where I just feel like sighing audibly.

Thanks for taking the time you did to type all that out Roninjoey.

A lot of these people are rationally thinking people. It's not likely that what they put their faith in is totally irrational and doesn't exist.

Man creating God again, GG.

[soapguy17]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 9:35am

I feel like I'm repeating myself, because I am.

Namo, why the sigh? You don't believe that happened. Some people did. There is a possibility that they could be correct. There is a possibility that you could be correct. There's a possibility that GG could be correct or the Hindus, Jews, Buddists, ect. Nothing's obvious when it comes to the explaining the universe no one knows SH*T. People have theories and even evidence to support those theories, but no one knows. As certain as you guys seem, you really don't know anything. So could you please stop presenting your theories and hard facts.

[smartpenguin78]

Posted: 12/12/07 at 9:38am

"Would a stupid idea, a childish thought, a creative story be worth someone's faith?"

Just because it is created by man doesn't mean it is stupid, the idea as presented by others here was created out of necessity and true desire. Just because it isn't verifiable or real doesn't mean there are not real and valuable lessons people can learn from it. Myth and hero stories have value, but that does not prove their existence.
Again, I can not place your argument GG, reading what you write seems to indicate that all the various views of God are somehow true at once- that position seems precarious at best.
Colleen's answer as to why man created god(s) seems to express this with clarity.

Ronin, excellent points, and I must say very close to if not exactly what I actually believe.