Imagine No Religion- Page 9

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:18pm

The first cell evolved, of course.

Again, YOU have to prove God exists, I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Because it's obvious.

[DG]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:18pm

How is proving that something doesn't exist self-evident when we know virtually nothing? Namo, I give you full credit for the obvious intelligence you possess and exhibit, but honestly - if the greatest minds we've known so far have barely been able to scratch the surface of what exists (forget agreeing on the determinations,) then who are you or anybody to say definitively what CAN'T be.

I see the declarations as the same - 'this IS' versus 'this CAN'T be'. Either is taking a stand based on almost no knowledge.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:21pm

But, do you find it comforting to think that there is more to this world than what is in front of you? And, is your belief in part an escape mechanism for dealing with the world as it is?

Again, I don't have the answer either way - but find that many people use religion and God as a crutch when they cannot face the world as it is.

Don't you find it ironic that some of the people who have been traditionally abused or taken advantage of also have cultures that have a deep religious bent? Is not religion also a tool to pacify those who have a poor lot in life, letting them think that there will be salvation at death.

Again, I do not have the answers, but many questions.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:21pm

Here are a few theories on how the 1st Cell came into being.
The First Cell

[DG]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:25pm

"I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist. Because it's obvious."

I'm sorry, but why is it 'obvious'? Because we have no evidence? We know almost nothing - NOTHING - and yet we're allowed to make this leap, but not the one thinking there MIGHT be?

[soapguy17]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:28pm

Ooh, DG did it again with his last paragraph.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:29pm

You keep repeating that DG. Repeating it and repeating it and repeating it. We know PLENTY. And we know more every day. All SORTS of things people used to know, like that certain poor suckers are possessed by the devil and need to have a religious rite performed to rid them of their affliction, are disproven with understanding of brain function and things like schizophrenia.

The science of evolution pretty much explains EVERYTHING, and new knowledge comes along that supports it all the time.

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:34pm

And I also wouldn't feel compelled to try and prove that there wasn't a chicken on my desk, no matter how many times you looked over my shoulder and said, "well maybe there is. We can't really know."

[DG]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:35pm

Namo - what you describe has to do with this infantessimal rock in a remote corner of the universe we have been able to see - so far. And that knowledge doesn't begin to cover all that exists even here - look at the oceans - much LESS what it all might MEAN.

And you are willing to take that extremely limited - to the point of being non-existant - knowledge and make grand proclomations about the state of all 'being'?

I don't buy it. At all.

[soapguy17]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:38pm

Wait. . wait. . wait. Not all religious people believe that all people with chemical imbalances are possessed and since when does the belief of the followers have anything to do with an actual god/gods?

Arts, that's because you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no chicken on your desk. Religion is up in there we really won't know until we die.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:38pm

Yeah, I know, that's your whole schtick, DG.

I'd recommend the 30th Anniversary Edition of The Selfish Gene if I thought for a second you had either the attention span or the ability to trust the "form of communication" by a leading evolutionary biologist, but I'm pretty sure it's not high chakra enough for you.

ETA Oh come ON, 17. My point obviously is that what was formerly universally agreed to be demonic posession (including by the J-Man Himself, remember the swine leaping off the cliff?) is now known to be mental illness.

Updated On: 12/11/07 at 09:38 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:39pm

By the way, Namo is my older and smarter person in this thread.

[DG]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:41pm

"And I also wouldn't feel compelled to try and prove that there wasn't a chicken on my desk, no matter how many times you looked over my shoulder and said, "well maybe there is. We can't really know."

Arts - there's a big difference between being able to look on your desk and determining whether or not a chicken is there and looking out into the universe and being able to put it into perspective.

And Namo - it's not my 'schtick' - that's something you've ascribed to me, not something I've created or embraced. And whatever it is, it still exists as a question of debate that you're not answering.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:45pm

No, DG, your schtick is to totally go on about the limits of communication and knowledge no matter what the topic, which conveniently lets you off the hook from ever expanding your own communication abilities or your knowledge. Remember your understanding of the failure of HIV prevention based on nothing other than the fact that you write checks to agencies you don't even know what they do with the money?

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:45pm

"Arts, that's because you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no chicken on your desk. Religion is up in there we really won't know until we die."

No, religion is not "up in there we really won't know until we die." god is everywhere, according to most religions (I assume that includes on my desk, right now, with the chicken)

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:46pm

I'm calling PETA about that chicken, by the way.

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:46pm

EDIT: (this part of my post refers to the post near the top of the page) Evolved from what? Life evolved from cells. Biology doesn't answer the question of where the first cell came from.

For you viewing pleasure, a brief overview of the Proofs for the Existence of God:
The Five Ways (from looking at the world around us):
Argument from Motion: Everything in the universe is in motion, and nothing can move itself without another force moving it, but something greater had to set everything in motion. That would be God.

Argument from Existence: This goes with the cell theory. There had to be a first cause for something (such as a cell) to exist, if there was nothing else before it.

Argument from Death: Everything dies and/or ceases to exist. If there was no God who had never died to, then eventually everything would die. Nothing would begin again, and as a result nothing would exist. But things do exist, and the universe has gone on for millions of years without ceasing to exist. The explanation is that something that always did and always will exist, God, is allowing for life to begin again even when other life ceases.

Argument from Goodness: Something had to set the standards of what we (physically) see as "good" and "bad" things. Otherwise, nothing could be truly good or bad if we did not have a set standard. God, who is truly Good, is the ultimate standard.

Argument from Design: The universe and the earth were either the result of an extremely lucky series of events, or something "designed" everything, so to speak, with a plan in mind.

The next set of Arguments are Arguments from the Heart, and are based on what people feel:
Argument from Unquenchable Thirst: We always want more, whether it be something like food or more goodness, truth and beauty in the world. Everything is finite and nothing lasts forever on this earth. This argument concludes that only God can satisfy our desires, as he has always, does, and will always exists and therefore supplies us with endless truth, goodness, and beauty (as he is all three of those things).

Argument from the Experience of Beauty and Truth: This argument comes from the belief that God is the ultimate Goodness, and Truth and Beauty are inherently good, so when we experience such things we are having an experience of God.

Argument from Conscience: There had to be someone to instill in us our morals and conscience, a sense of what is good or bad. The first person on earth could not have learned from others, so something had to give him those morals.

Argument from Love: God is Love according to the Christian faith. He had no reason to create us or to keep us here. He created us to share his glory. It is his love reaching out. In the same way, we experience love for others. god gave us free will, and without free will there would be no love. We are able to love, and if God is love, than God must exist.

These aren't scientific, but they were concluded using reason.

Updated On: 12/11/07 at 09:46 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:48pm

And what set God in motion?

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:49pm

I'll stick with the chicken -- fried, with a side of mac and cheese and a big bowl of greens.

[trinaaron]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:49pm

You keep repeating that DG. Repeating it and repeating it and repeating it. We know PLENTY. And we know more every day. All SORTS of things people used to know, like that certain poor suckers are possessed by the devil and need to have a religious rite performed to rid them of their affliction, are disproven with understanding of brain function and things like schizophrenia.

The science of evolution pretty much explains EVERYTHING, and new knowledge comes along that supports it all the time.

And here is where I think some people are making just as big a leap of faith as those who believe in a higher power. You cannot claim that we know plenty when the next big discovery could disprove everything we think we know as fact. This has happened millions of time throughout history and almost certainly will happen again. Scientists believe they have things figured out, from evolution to the creation of the universe, except in both cases they really have no idea of the cause. What caused the explosion that began the universe? Scientists claim they can trace it back to several seconds before the explosion, but then they don't know what happened. It is the same with the beginning of life. In both of these cases we can easily see the effect, but the cause is a completely mystery. So to say we know plenty is foolish.

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:51pm

God exists eternally, and had no beginning. He was the first of everything. Otherwise, if you don't have a first, you can't have a second, third, ect. and nothing would exist were it not for the first thing to exist.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:51pm

But you know what, it's about being OPEN to being disproven as fact and replaced by something demonstrably truer.

Which is where the "I don't need a single correct answer because I have FAITH" completely collapses.

Or, to put it the way Courtney Love did on the second Hole album:

I don't really miss God, but I sure miss Santa Clause.

[soapguy17]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:51pm

Arts, god is everywhere according to religion. You can prove no religion or lack there of. One can strongly believe that god is nowhere/some places/everywhere, but no one can really know. You know(sooner or later) if there's a chicken alive or otherwise on your desk.

[GuitarGirl]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:53pm

Namo, you haven't proven that God doesn't exist, just that we have gained plenty of knowledge to explain evolution.

Evolution explains how things came to be. Belief in God explains why.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/11/07 at 9:55pm

God exists eternally, and had no beginning.

Okay, let me get this straight. Something complicated enough to have created (just on this planet, ok, DG?????) such intricate systems and species and atmospheres in which they could survive (which means far more complicated than the most complicated real world example than we can think of in order for It to have created everything we see -- and don't see, okay DG?) is given the all clear to have existed ETERNALLY and to have HAD NO BEGINNING, while a single cell isn't given the same free pass.

That single cell has to have been created by something, but a being complicated enough to create a UNIVERSE does NOT?

Ah, such "proofs" really do hold up!