Norwegian Scientists Disprove God

[Ghetto Goose]

You guys seem hopelessly devoted to this, so I'm done with trying to talk sense into you. You'll agrue every point til you die and then you'll argue about dying.

If anything, talking with you guys has made my opinion of God even more negative. Good work.

 

[Briosafreak]

This is a tough but full of substance thread, i like it, it`s normally not a good idea in any board start a debate over religion, but on this case and for those that watch it from a distance it really is one great general discussion moment, congrats, hope you`ll keep it heartfelt and loud but civil.

Thumbs up 8)

 

[Gwydion]

Of course you'll still believe that your belief is justified simply because no one bothered to dump what you consider good evidence into your lap. Good riddance, goose.

 

[Sander]

As was mentioned before, religion is simply a comfort to those to do not know everything within the universe (and none of us do). How interesting is it how as science advances and religion retreats, religion always seems to adapt, and people believe just as strongly in this day and age as they did 500 years ago? Religion is a great way to fill the niche to make people feel better.

Perhaps, OSRP, but that does not mean that there are other reasons. Religions exist for many reason, because a charismatic man started one, out of a genuine (or at least perceived as genuine) religious experience.
It sounds to me as if you're saying that religion is a fraud in this clause, although your later statements contradict this, could you perhaps rephrase it? Or say that it was not meant to sound like this

Tone: Thank you for acknowledging that I'm an agnost I like to say I'm very open-minded about things like this, and I'd think that most people should be, it would make the world a whole lot easier(No more people saying "Die christian dogs!" or people getting pissed at religious people.) However, that is my point of view, please dont take it as me saying that you have to be open-minded, but I'd like to see people at least see where other people are coming from and not dismissing them as idiots because of beliefs they can't disprove themselves.
Yes, some atheists are perhaps hypocrits, but not all of them are, some genuinely believe in nothing, or believe that god does not exist, because of multiple reasons. People claiming that there are reasons behind evil, or claiming that they are just plain wrong won't help this.

What I'd also like to add, is that not being open to the possibility that god may _not_ exist, is a form of arrogance here as well. You are currently denying any form of non-existance of god(which is fine, I don't want to know your reasons or anything), however, this means you believe in something without having facts to back this up(Yes, you may have had that genuine religious experience, however, perhaps it was a dream, or there was some other experience, please, don't say "It WAS real!",because I am certain YOU believe it was real, and perhaps it was, but that doesn't mean it automatically IS real.), and as such, you cannot claim that the other is a hypocrit without looking at yourself, since you don't seem to be open to the possibility that god does NOT exist, and thus you are doing what you accuse the atheists of doing.

I'd like to quote myself here, since it seems Tone has not seen this post by me...

Goose:
Silly, silly Goose. YOu actually thought you could sway people to stop believing?? It's a belief, beliefs don't change because you throw seemingly rational(But obviously disproven) logic into it. The best argument you coul dever give is "Why won't he interfere?" and that has already been countered...

Tone; Religion HAS changed, most notably with the belief in the devil(This did NOT exist until the middle ages) and baptism as a child(Baptism will only count when done CONSCIOUS of what is being done, when you're a month old, you don't know what is happening...), as well as that, the pope was brought in about a century after Christ's death by the Romans. Those are some of the more notable changes, then there is also the seperation of a protestant movement and other things.
So, yes, religion HAS changed...

 

[megatron]

But the concept of good or evil doesn't make any sense. Who's to judge anyway? One man's holy crusade is another mans tall building with a plane sticking out of it.

How exactly would you tell it's day if it never was night?

Why do you need day or night? Why not just have some kind of mellow greyness.

It doesn't need to be black or white, like a lot of arguments seem to be. Why have a few good men when there's hundreds of other shitty things happening. It doesn't balance out. Why do people have to suffer? So we can pray to god and hope everything gets better? Yah that's a good reason for stuff you can't explain.

The idea of a saviour like jesus doesn't make any sense. Why then? Why in that part of the world? Why did god suddenly interfere some time before, with prophets and jesus then suddenly take a break for a thousand years or two? Blah.

I'm not that up-to-date with the bible, so if god has made an appearance through a burning bush or anything in the last few hundred years let me know yo.

 

[JJ86]

Of course you'll still believe that your belief is justified simply because no one bothered to dump what you consider good evidence into your lap. Good riddance, goose.

Gwydion, I suggest you take your baiting and insults elsewhere. They don't have any place here. You have made several innapropriate comments to Goose too many.

 

[Sander]

But the concept of good or evil doesn't make any sense. Who's to judge anyway? One man's holy crusade is another mans tall building with a plane sticking out of it.

Then why did you bring it up about god?
Besides, that is a very very bad joke...

It doesn't need to be black or white, like a lot of arguments seem to be. Why have a few good men when there's hundreds of other shitty things happening. It doesn't balance out. Why do people have to suffer? So we can pray to god and hope everything gets better? Yah that's a good reason for stuff you can't explain

YOu don't know what good and evil is, you just said it yourself.
However, why would god even give a fuck that we were here? He's most probably leaving us in our little mess(if he exists at all), as well as that, things could also be a LOT worse. As such, this is a bad argument....

Jesus is a crooked concept, perhaps and perhaps not. Why did he appear there? YOu'd be better off asking why he would appear elsewhere, any place with people would've sufficed, and also any other time would've sufficed. If it would've gappened three hundred years ago in South-Africa you would've asked this very same question.

As well as that, if you've payed attention, god did NOT leave this alone, according to Christian religion, first of all, there are saints. Second, there are people all over the place claiming they are in contact with god(However, there is no way to check it...). Then there is also the fact that Jesus existed(according to Christian religion) to take all our sins upon himself, and have man make a clean start, if that is so, then he may have done that, and left the rest up to us and up to us to fuck it up...

As for the good-bad thing:
IMagine what this would be like if everything was a "grey blur".....that's right: Boring, unsatisfying, bland and without any sight for something better. EVERYTHING needs an opposite for it to be distinguishable...

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

Tone; Religion HAS changed, most notably with the belief in the devil(This did NOT exist until the middle ages) and baptism as a child(Baptism will only count when done CONSCIOUS of what is being done, when you're a month old, you don't know what is happening...), as well as that, the pope was brought in about a century after Christ's death by the Romans. Those are some of the more notable changes, then there is also the seperation of a protestant movement and other things.
So, yes, religion HAS changed...

Are you talking about devil worship? Some religions are changing, I should have clarified that, but I said that mine was based on the same beliefs and structures as when Christ walked. I should add we have further revelations from our Prophets, but nothing that changes the beliefs set down over 2000 years ago.

My faith believes that children should not be baptized until they are at least 8 years old because an infant that knows not what is right or wrong can not sin. So, when you are looking at the whole picture, you can say, yes, religion has changed with the Protestant revolution, and even the Community of Christ which branched off from my denomination changed, but my denomination, though new, probably follows the structure and beliefs of the Bible the most literally.

Sander, if I'm missing anything else you want me to comment on, let me know. I wasn't avoiding it, but I just didn't realize I missed (misinterpreted) what you wanted me to comment on.

Megatron:

Read John 10:16. The savior visits "other sheep". This is chronicled in the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. He came to visit those in the Americas.

God did not just take a break either. He has continued to reveal truths, and will continue to reveal truths. We have a Prophet today (Gordon B. Hinckley), 12 Apostles, Seventies, etc... (Ephesians 2:20, 4:11-13, Luke 10:1)

As for the comment by Gwydion to Goose, I would say it may have been harsh, but a good point was brought up about "acceptable evidence". I might have not included the last sentence but I've seen a lot worse in this thread.

Alright, I gotta run, so you kids play nice. I see another topic by Sander at the end, I'll address it tonight (Pacific Time).

 

[megatron]

Then why did you bring it up about god?

I didn't, somebody else was talking about good and evil.

Besides, that is a very very bad joke...

It was a very very good joke and I need a medal for my bravery.


YOu don't know what good and evil is, you just said it yourself.
However, why would god even give a fuck that we were here?[/quote]
Uh, because we're the most intelligent species IN TEH UNIVERSE!!!111

He's most probably leaving us in our little mess(if he exists at all), as well as that, things could also be a LOT worse. As such, this is a bad argument....

Things could also be a lot better? Thing's can't be that good if kids can shoot up their school and stuff mabye? Perhaps things like that show that society is a bit fucked up mabye.

Jesus is a crooked concept, perhaps and perhaps not. Why did he appear there? YOu'd be better off asking why he would appear elsewhere, any place with people would've sufficed, and also any other time would've sufficed. If it would've gappened three hundred years ago in South-Africa you would've asked this very same question.

So?

Second, there are people all over the place claiming they are in contact with god(However, there is no way to check it...).

Yeah, strange how god chooses crazy old women in the middle of no-where who eat dogs as their 'chosen ones'. Why doesn't god show himself to world leaders or something.

Then there is also the fact that Jesus existed(according to Christian religion) to take all our sins upon himself, and have man make a clean start, if that is so, then he may have done that, and left the rest up to us and up to us to fuck it up...

Or he could have just been some crazy dude that didn't change anything besides starting a load of wars. WAY TO GO!

IMagine what this would be like if everything was a "grey blur".....that's right: Boring, unsatisfying, bland and without any sight for something better. EVERYTHING needs an opposite for it to be distinguishable...

Everythings fucking boring anyway, yay go to work and get money that's exciting yayayaya. Everything is gray. As I've already said, good and bad things are only in the eye of the sausage or something

 

[Old School Role-Player]

Perhaps, OSRP, but that does not mean that there are other reasons. Religions exist for many reason, because a charismatic man started one, out of a genuine (or at least perceived as genuine) religious experience.
It sounds to me as if you're saying that religion is a fraud in this clause, although your later statements contradict this, could you perhaps rephrase it? Or say that it was not meant to sound like this

Rephrased, I mean that religion is a comfort to the people, and that is what religion does best. Regardless of whether God is real or not, the religion is set as a comfort for people who don't understand everything in the universe. Although, I would say that I don't have a lot of respect for organized religion. A better way would be to differentiate organized religion and spirituality. They are not mutually exclusive, of course, but neither is one required for the other. I am a very spiritual person, but I do not believe in organized religion. The way I see it, each man must find his own path to God, and no other man can tell him the way.

How's that work?

 

[JJ86]

Contrary to the masses, a free country was founded by Deist adherents. Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Allen, Paine, Madison were names of men who believed, notwithstanding the contemporary continental views. Escapists from a turmoil generated by the "right", the Church, ordered by god toying with his Clements, enemies of intellect.

Twisting holy words into a lust for domination was the norm that continues with 'holier than all' missionaries blindly subjugating any standing beneath the steam of empire. No longer about spirituality, the cry was dominance - my masses lead me into temptation behind the crowns of European war machines.

Freedom nullified the shackles of prepotency from the east in a nation, bound by no ideals which would subjugate the wills of all free men.

 

[welsh]

Damn, that's beautiful JJ86. Really, no BS.

Man, this thread it better than sunday school. But I think we need to be careful to distinguish our individual beliefs from what we know.

I also think that Ghetto and some of the non-believers have great points which should be considered carefully.

I agree with OSRP on this, that the search for God is an individual journey, but normally it occurs in the community of others. The Christian faith takes the notion of worship in community seriously, and think its a great way to think about religion. But you can't ignore the argument of the non-believer, because I think its the securlarists who will probably keep the rest of us straight.

Goose made a good point earlier. Many people have died for religion, and the point above also makes that point, that religion has been used as a veil over other, more human purposes. The journey of religion is an article of faith, of belief, but there's nothing wrong with having that faith or belief tested. Remember, it's not knowledge that gets in you into heaven, nor is it the things you believe are true, its your faith.

WHo is to say that spirituality and religiosity are mutually exclusive? Why?
Who is to say that God probably has no role to play in your daily life.

Maybe God, whatever form it may be, plays every role in every decision at every damn moment of everyone's damn life? What then?

Not to question your faith, to think about it critically, opens you to chauvenism, dogmatism and blindness. If religion has done many great things for us, its also screwed us on more than a few occassions. Churches have been supporters of resistance against tyrants, but they have also supported tyrants as well. Empires have been spread for spreading the faith (and we saw a bit of that in the debates about whether Christians should try to convert Muslims to Christianity). Religions may have a relationship with God, but they are also organizations of men.

ANd if there is a truth to the history of man's nature, it's probably this.
People fuck up. A lot. A good part of the time, and usually in the most fucked up way.

So it's a good think to be a bit skeptical some of the time.

It is also interesting that in this discussion the notion of God has also been a Christian one. Why? If you talk to a good Islamic scholar he'll smoke your Christian scriptures, Hindus would tell ya, "of course, that's yet another incarnation of Vishnu," Buddhists might say, "Oh its all just a phenomenal world anyway."
Then there's Confucius, who general attitude on Christianity was more, "Who the fuck cares, you got enough problems here, dude!" (although not exactly those words).

So when the non-believers says, "God, Ha! What's it good for? Absolutely nothing!" And then says it again, well its worth thinking about it.

There are a lot of good side discussions as well, the beginning time, the philosophy of silence. Briosafreak is right, its interesting.

But be civil.

We live in very fundamentalist times. Religion is becoming politicized again and can divide us. Europe fought a 30 Years War as a consequence, which depopulated a good part of that continent.

In the US my wife told me there's an ad today that says, Judges needed, good Catholics need not apply, because good catholics would rule one way on abortion. What the fuck? Since when has a man not allowed to think and have faith? That scares me, especially in a country where the seperation of church and state was supposed to mean something.

One has impressed me about man and God is that there are people of many different faiths who have had similar religious experiences. I would argue with OSRP that you can't really have spirituality (spirit) without religion (the rules) but you can't have the rules without the spirit. What if everyone of us has a chance to experience the spirit in our own unique different ways?

Well, that would be some wild notion of God, wouldn't it?

 

[Brother None]

Also, the whole "God gave man free will" thing is always of infinite amusement to me. Antropocentrism, you gotta love it.

Care to elaborate a little more? I know you are agnostic, so that comment really sounds a bit odd coming from you. Free agency is a large factor in my denomination. This life is a test to see where we go in the next. If we don't have free agency, what kind of test would it be? If the teacher scores your test before you take it, why take it seriously?

What I meant was this; the free-will thing makes sense from the Christian point of view. What amuses me to infinity is how free-will is actually copied by agnostic or atheist people, even though there is no actual logic behind free will UNLESS you acknowledge there's a reason human beings have free will.

Like Carroll said, "God gave man free will, the only one amongst all the animals" And this is a strange concept for an atheist. None of the animals have free will, lots of atheists will agree on this point, but if so, what reason exactly is there for human beings to have free will? (however, you could also state "all animals have free will", but this would deny determinism, and determinism is completely logical according to modern science. Don't give me no chaos-theory bullcrap either)

On the premis "God is testing us", this works, lose that premis, and you lose the whole statement. Human beings as having free will stems from antropocentrism, and antropocentrism stems from Christianity.

Heh, athiests...they're so Christian.

Megatron; the problem with living in grayness is that you loose everything, all awareness. If something (like the amount of light) is constant, you can no longer be aware of it. A balance between good and evil is necessary, this is true for a book being good or being bad, but also for the stinky rich American compared to someone from Sierra Leone, trying to carve a life out of the mud.

If the balance makes no sense, then that's no fault of God in any case (if he exists). God, like Tone mentioned, gave men free will. You either accept free will and move on (which is preferable, I think) or we all en mass ask God to take free will from us and please to make the world a nicer place.

However it may be, if you acknowledge man has free will, then man is responsible for the suffering in the world. We could makeit better, but we're not doing that, and that's our fault.

And be THAT as it may, we do always need a degree of suffering. Without it, you'd go insane.

 

[Old School Role-Player]

Contrary to the masses, a free country was founded by Deist adherents. Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Allen, Paine, Madison were names of men who believed, notwithstanding the contemporary continental views. Escapists from a turmoil generated by the "right", the Church, ordered by god toying with his Clements, enemies of intellect.

I can't remember off the top of my head all of them, but I do know for certain that Thomas Jefferson was a devout atheist, and he stresses the separation of church and state in the Federalist Papers. However, and this is going to blow the minds of a lot of Americans, there is absolutely *nothing* in the U.S. Constitution involving the separation of church and state. Seriously. The separation is a tradition among the American government and the people, but it is not law. First Amendment prohibits the establishment of an official government religion and right to worship as you choose without fear of repercussions, but that's it. The legal fight with the Ten Commandments being on government buildings is actually an argument that this "sets" an official government position of Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that is the argument the lawyers are shooting for.

Welsh, I am not sure why you do not believe that spirituality cannot exist without religion, but I assure you that I am a living, breathing example of this. I utterly reject all organized religion because they are the tools of man and not God. If God had a plan for Jesus, Moses, or Muhammed, then great--but none of those three men have anything to do with me. I will find God without someone preaching their experiences to me because, again, that was their path and not mine.

Kharn, just a quick one here. To augment your argument about suffering, one need only to imagine if all suffering were to be eliminated from the world. All that would do is raise the bar. Now, with no more "real" suffering in the world, anybody who suffers a paper cut or a headache suddenly experiences an "inhumane loss" and people will question why God allows this kind of suffering to go on. Just like we no longer have any trouble with the Bubonic Plague or many problems encountered 4000 years ago, yet we still talk of suffering. All that we've done through our societal advancement is raise that bar. Remember on the other thread where someone mentioned the "human rights" treaty that the United States wouldn't sign? The one where everybody is "entitled" to this, that and the other thing. The part that struck me as odd is that somehow, every human being was entitled to--above all else--a job. You can bet that a thousand years ago, not having a job was never an issue of suffering. So I hope this helps strengthen your point.

 

[welsh]

Well the US Constitution says this about religion
Amendment I- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

The Establishment Clause has basically been read to mean that the government will not establish or even endorse religion, while the exercise clause means that the government will not get involved in forcing a person to change their religious values or even taking up religious values. Free exercise means free denial as well.

So OSRP is literally correct in saying there is nothing in the US Constitution that says seperation of church and state, but Amendment 1 pretty much says that- no government establishment, no infringement on exercise, or lack there of. Essentially that does mean seperation of church and state, with the notion that when the two come together, trouble arises. Remember this is a document written in the18th century by guys familiarywith the past three years of European history.

REcent changes to that might have more to do with political leanings of the country than what the law has been understood to mean. In the US, we have a system of stare decisis which constrains the role of the court in making decisions, forcing them to pay heed to earlier decisions. THis makes the law very conservative but durable. However, law is a creature of politics as well, and politics comes from man and is most fickle.

With regard to the division of religion and spirit, what I meant was that no spiritual movement can exist for long as a community without some religion (the rules). You often come across this problem when talking to people of the Born-Again or New Age faiths who have lots of spirit and ideas, but little to hold them together. If a spiritual movement is to last more than one person's life, it needs some set of religious rules to hold it together, and that comes through in the very language. To exchange ideas one needs some common level of understanding. With regard to the individual, yes, one can be spiritual without being religious, but that's also very difficult. Humans form habits and people like structure. Where you have structure you have religion. So if there is a structure to your spiritual beliefs and you can communicate them, well then you have a sense of religion.

Ok, but first that requires that you accept the concepts that spirit is about the feeling and religion is about the rules around developing that feeling. I sympathize with OSRP in being skeptical about organized religions for the very reason that they can use faith and spirit for very human goals. Yet without a sense of religion, however flimsy or simple, it is difficult to transend the spiritual experience from one person to the other. Descartes might have figured out in his meditation that he and God exists but the rest is phenomena, but the rest of us need more to work with. Humans are social creatures, so a sense of common understanding and values (upon which religion begins) is needed.

Oh and that was me who raised the International Declaration of Human Rights as well as explained why it couldn't be signed in the US (its just impossible to quantify those rights and in the US the law is more than a policy declaration but would be enforceable against the government). SInce we talk about religion here, it says-

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

 

[talk2michael999]

How does this disprove God? Maybe I don't understand the definition of "proof."

It doent prove that god doesnt exist. However it does prove that one of his miracles was actually a natural thing, showing people then were mistaken. Combined with the facts that when the red sea turned to 'blood' it was actually algae tinting the water, and when it rained frogs, it has been proven that nowadays tornadoes occassionally suck frogs from lakes and 'rain' them elsewhere, it means that people could have been mistaken about the whole religion. But i still dont know as there needs to be more evidence than that to PROVE he doesnt exist.

 

[Gwydion]

It doent prove that god doesnt exist. However it does prove that one of his miracles was actually a natural thing, showing people then were mistaken. Combined with the facts that when the red sea turned to 'blood' it was actually algae tinting the water, and when it rained frogs, it has been proven that nowadays tornadoes occassionally suck frogs from lakes and 'rain' them elsewhere, it means that people could have been mistaken about the whole religion. But i still dont know as there needs to be more evidence than that to PROVE he doesnt exist.

Actually, claiming this proves one of his miracles to be a natural phenomenon is still quite a liberal use of the word proof. This has certainly provided a viable theory as to what might have happened, but there's no way to prove it either way.

 

[Demostrike]

It doent prove that god doesnt exist. However it does prove that one of his miracles was actually a natural thing, showing people then were mistaken. Combined with the facts that when the red sea turned to 'blood' it was actually algae tinting the water, and when it rained frogs, it has been proven that nowadays tornadoes occassionally suck frogs from lakes and 'rain' them elsewhere, it means that people could have been mistaken about the whole religion. But i still dont know as there needs to be more evidence than that to PROVE he doesnt exist.

Actually, claiming this proves one of his miracles to be a natural phenomenon is still quite a liberal use of the word proof. This has certainly provided a viable theory as to what might have happened, but there's no way to prove it either way.

Well nothing can prove God exsists or dsnt its all up to your personal opinion and belif.
Also we will never know how God was created (He was suppost to exist all the time) i dont buy it.

 

[Vikingsoldat]

If that is the case, then everyone in the entire world is fucked. There isn't a single person who follows all of the requirements of the current christian(catholic, mailny) religion.

So true........

I dont believe in any god, I believe in nature and man. But im just a mortal and I could be wrong like everyone else. Nobody here knows what the hell they are talking about if they are stating facts about god and the afterlife. They too are only mortal men. Maybe when you die, and find some way to come back, then tell me about it. Anyway if there is a Christian god, then we are all screwed and going to hell. Its funny how Christians sin all their lives and then expect forgiveness and a ticket to heaven right before they die. AHAAHAH hypocrites! But here is a fact. The bible was written by men and only men. These men were primitive and could not turn to the science of today to explain things. So maybe they believed everything they saw had to be the act of god. Lets say they saw a comet crash into the earth, they would think god is angry or something.

 

[Gwydion]

Well nothing can prove God exsists or dsnt its all up to your personal opinion and belif.

Exactly what I've been saying all along.