What is religion?
Offline I guess I should be a Catholic Christian, but never fully believed in God. I don't believe I am an atheist either. I see that many call themselves atheist and they or you believe that atheism is not religion. Why is that? From arguments that you make that religions like Christianity and Judaism create some sort of pressure on people or dogma. Well, what would happen when most of the people in the world start to change their ideas of god and change their belief to atheism? When person sitting next to you is more likely to be an atheist than Christian, aren't atheists creating pressure and dogma? If there are more atheists in this world, we will have general belief that science is the truth that if you believe in god, you are "crazy". I am saying this because that is what people do. Christians told me several times that I should go read the bible or I am crazy. What would be the difference? Freedom is what we should be enduring. If people want to believe that there is a god somewhere, then let them believe. Christians should do the same. They should not go out to each house and knock on their door.
When you talk about science, we do not yet have enough scientific knowledge to disprove god's existence. Even famous scientists and philosophers who are much knowledgeable than you, are religious people. Why is that? If science tells us anything close to what you are saying, then why wouldn't all these famous and intelligent people believe in god? I would say that people are rational one way or the other. But they are all incomplete. We seek Supreme Being or even recognize that there could be a Supreme Being in the universe (You wouldn’t be an atheist if you simply do not care about Supreme Being or do not RECOGNIZE (or are CONSCIOUS) that there is one). Would you believe that there could be alien somewhere who might be watching us right now? Wouldn't science prove in very small details that there is possibility that we are not alone? That is why I do not count out god. I disregard bible, but it is a study that transcended for years. Bible may be inaccurate, but it can be somewhat true. That means that there are possibilities. There might be a god, but the god may not be what we envisioned. It may be something else. Of course, we might be alone or there is not god. To me, arguing about god with evidence is stupid because it is impossible. Those fighting those impossible evidences are equally stupid.
Why is that people count out philosophy when they talk about religion? Atheist does the same. In the past, you know that popes baptized dead philosophers. Why? Because it would ultimately hurt the church in a long run if those intellectual thoughts flow around the world without covering them with Christian thoughts. Now, you see that atheists try to cover or replace philosophy with science. That is just a non sense. Philosophy is the first science created by mankind and it is the main core of our knowledge. You can compare philosophy with earth. There is a core in the center of earth. The core is philosophy. Every knowledge we gain, unknowingly, comes from philosophical thoughts. You see that nowadays people try to replace philosophy with bible or science. That is just a non sense. I think people are frustrated that philosophy never gives them an answer. There is never right or wrong, but there is right or wrong in your own thoughts. You might say what would be the difference between philosophical thoughts and atheist thoughts? Well, philosophy studies pure reason, but evidence. It does not hold it self to physical evidence because it sets limits. You might say that even Plato used some sort of evidence. Well, he did, but that was too just an theory and thoughts with no intention to add any real evidence that you might see when you walk out the door of your house. In a way, all philosophers ask about the truth. They will say that reasons give us to believe that there might or might not be a god or not, but they would never fight you with physical evidence because finding truth is beyond any physical evidence.
- Login to post comments
We're not pressuring anyone to do anything. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. People have the right to believe whatever it is that they want to believe and we are more than happy to have intelligent debates on what we believe with one another. However, when people start advocating and forcing their beliefs onto other people is where we have a problem.
Actually, we are advanced enough in the terms of science to determine that logically a god does not exist. If you want examples and well-thoughout scientific process's as to how we can logically deduce that god does not exist, read "God the failed hypothesis" By Victor J Stenger.
Just because they are religious does not mean anything. Personal belief, even in the most intelligent people do not matter. It comes down to the facts and evidence that the scientific process/method produces that we look to, not faith.
If a God were evident, there would be means of testing for him and there would be obvious supernatural, or at least testable evidence to support God. As of now, there is none so we can logically assume that God does not exist.
So me evidence of this if you please.
"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.
i'd go so far as too say that atheism is even simpler than "a lack of belief in god". i believe that atheism is simply the natural human state. we're all born atheists, and most of us are later converted to some form of religion.
if religion had never existed, and concepts of deities and higher powers never came to be, we would all be "atheists" from birth to death, though we wouldn't have a label for it. we would just consider ourselves "human", with tendencies toward different scientific theories regarding the development of life on earth.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
I do not think I said that atheists pressure people to disbelieve in god. I do not think Christianity or Judaism act in such way as well. If Christians pressure people to force their ways, then we would see more and more people entering churches. That is not the case. You see that less and less people go to church or even practice religions. There are some people out there believe they can save us, so they would go out and knock on peoples’ doors. That is, from what I heard, not accepted by many religious communities these days. I do get upset when people would knock on my door for such reason, but I do not believe general religious groups force anything to anyone anymore. I do accept the fact that some religious groups try to force their social laws into our society, but that is democracy. If there are believers who would like to have such laws implemented, then they have the right to vote, so do you. If you are fighting to stop what they do, that is normal. As long as one is not pointing guns at someone, it is what we have to accept if we want democracy.
Maybe you did not get my point. Perhaps this does not make sense to you. Still, I will try. I hope I do not have to spend so much of my time writing here. Let’s say that 50 years from now, major religions lose their control, and majority of population becomes atheist. Instead of bible, we go by scientific evidences or “logic” and we believe proven theories (or believe in law). Atheism is what the public believes. When that happens, could you possibly promise that atheists would not (and unintentionally) put pressure on those who still believe in god? That is my point. I have few more thoughts on this, but I rather say it after you answer this question.
When you say that atheism is “simply a lack of belief in god”, are you still recognize god? I am using word “recognize” in terms of how you are conscious about god. If you are not conscious, then why would it be necessary for you to question god? What I believe is that we all believe there is a “supreme being” or at least think about it. Remember that I am using “supreme being”, not “god”. That has been the question for many centuries. Not necessarily that people would talk about god, but they would be curious about “supreme being”. Why would it be? Because people did not have clear knowledge of creation and destruction in universe? Maybe so. Yes, you could say that 100 or 500 or 2,000 years ago, they did not have science to prove it. But what about now? You are saying “logically”, not scientifically. If it is logical, but not necessary scientific, then why would many atheist try to argue in terms of scientific evidence? Today, I talked to a geoscientist (professor). What he told me is that even the big bang theory is likely to change over the years and that we still do not have enough knowledge to know what the dawn of time is. This is my point. If I believe in god, the god that I believe would not be what the church discusses.
Yes, I will try to buy the book you suggested. I still have many books to read, so it will take some time, but I will try to get back to you on that.
“Just because they are religious does not mean anything. Personal belief, even in the most intelligent people do not matter. It comes down to the facts and evidence that the scientific process/method produces that we look to, not faith.”
You missed the point again. I was suggesting that people who know so much about science that they should know all the theories, are still religious. “Logically” when they know so much about science, would their knowledge disprove their belief about god? Isn’t that what you are saying? “scientific process/method” is something that these people live by and they still believe in god. From your term, they should know better, right? Why would faith come to matter when there is undisputable evidence?
“If a God were evident, there would be means of testing for him and there would be obvious supernatural, or at least testable evidence to support God. As of now, there is none so we can logically assume that God does not exist.”
Again, you missed my point. The god you are thinking of is from the bible. I would say that there might be a “supreme being”. If so, how could we say that there should be an obvious supernatural? If we have that much knowledge and evidence, then there would be no religion.
“So me evidence of this if you please”
Well, I think this sentence shows you all the evidences you need. Even though you talk of logic, when push to shove, you talk about scientific evidence when you clear know there is no undisputable evidence. Why would you bring “logic” when you have scientific evidence? Also, atheists these days are evidence driven, but reason driven. That should be enough evidence for you or any person in this world.
If I get a chance, I would like to argue with the Christian groups. If you know how to do this or where, please inform me.
Thanks for the reply.
I really don't know what to say about your comment. You actually proved my point about people disregard philosophy.
When you say that everyone is born atheist, why is that? Is that even a reasonable debate? How would you know whether we are born as atheist or not? What is your reason behind it?
Yes, we tend to convert to some sort of relgion, but we yet do not know whether we are born atheist. Why would converting to some religion be a problematic? If you are atheist, are you not believing? You are still believing, just not believing in god. Or, you are still conscious. Are human being conscious about supreme being when they are born? Do they have innate power to be atheist?
If religion never existed, then we would not be conscious about supreme being. That means, we could already know about the truth of life and universe. That means there would be no necessary for the existence of atheism.
Do you know what theory is? Do you know what proven theory is or law? Come on, please. Do you think scientists have all the answers?
I suppose it's possible but I doubt it. Atheist's aren't in the sense united like christians. The only thing the majority of atheist's share is the disbelief in God. Other than that, it varies completely, so... I find it hard for the bulk of atheist's to pressure others into atheism, when the bulk of atheist's do not even share the same view.
Well, we can do scientific hypotheses as well as research and find evidence and facts. But the point stands that we can never truly prove God non-existent, so the possibly, however small, that God exists still lingers there. However, from the lack of evidence for God, we can conclude that he probably doesn't exist.
Well, that right there I admit is a touchy subject. It's a combonation of faith and science. They believe soley in the scientific method, but you have to remember people are still humans. And they are still susceptible to human nature. One can believe soley in the scientific method, and everything points to the non-existence of God, but out of fear of death he believes in God because it gives him hope. I admit that is a complicated subject and can get a bit distorted at times.
It's not just the judeo-christian God. It's God in general, theoretically, everything up to the point of the big-bang and before has occured naturally. If there were a God and he did make us, it would make sense for them to occur supernaturally but they did not. Theoretically of course.
We do have that much knowledge and evidence. Look at the evidence for Evolution. It is so completely overwhelming, to deny it exists is being absurd. Yet people still do. It is because they do not want to let go of their faith. Humans are still stuck on the idea that they need religion. When infact, I believe religion to only be a crutch.
We will always only have theories and observations and maybe some impericle evidence here and there. But, I imagine nothing short of a time-machine will allow us to see what truly happened at the beginning of time.
And that sir, is your right to believe that. :] I respect it.
Well. Look at it this way. There's not way to prove the non-exstence of God. But, knowing that God is the almighty being that he is, and that he created the universe and everything. We should be able to technically, through scientific process's, check for the existence of God. Yet, after our hypotheses's and our scientific evaluations of whether God exist's, we come up with no reliable data when, if God is there, there should be some. This doesn't disprove God, but from that we can Logically assume, we can use logic from the data provided, that since there is no evidence for God's existence when supposedly there should be, God probably doesn't exist. Note I say probably because, we still can't Disprove him, however with the lack of evidence his existence becomes a lot lest likely. Logic comes into play because, we can logically assume things from the data presented.
Perhaps you understand a bit better now? I am sorry if I misunderstood your points. Hopefully, I was able to rectify that, if I have not, I apologize again lol.
The Theist vs atheist part of the forums.
"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.
By saying that everyone is born atheist, he is implying that we are born into this world fresh. Clean of faith, clean of God, clean of every religious affiliation. Essentially, we don't believe in God because we haven't been introduced by others the belief in God. It is through this basis that we can assume that everyone is born atheist. it is not till later when children are introduced to religion do they come to have a faith.
Scientists do not have all of the answers. They only choose to seek them through natural means. :]
"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.
You have to think much closer to the point. This is sociological hypothesis that I am suggesting to you. Yes, it is not too much philosophical. Well, you cannot really talk philosophy in these topics or in such ways.
“I suppose it's possible but I doubt it. Atheist's aren't in the sense united like christians. The only thing the majority of atheist's share is the disbelief in God. Other than that, it varies completely, so... I find it hard for the bulk of atheist's to pressure others into atheism, when the bulk of atheist's do not even share the same view.”
“If” Christians tend to unite more, why would they? Yes, their general belief in god makes them to unite. (In reality, Christians tend to hate each other. They always fight about originality of god.) Now, if this is true, what is the general belief of atheism? Yes, “disbelief in god” as you mentioned. Then, you see that Atheists try to make arguments against Christians or other major religions. Christians will defend since they are the majority. When it is opposite, you will see that majority will be those who disbelieve in god and minority would be those who believe in god. Do you see the connection now? That is why I might have to suggest that it is likely since both parties have objectives. You might argue that not all (atheists) will do this, but you have to know that not all or most Christians are not doing this either.
“Well, we can do scientific hypotheses as well as research and find evidence and facts. But the point stands that we can never truly prove God non-existent, so the possibly, however small, that God exists still lingers there. However, from the lack of evidence for God, we can conclude that he probably doesn't exist.”
You have touched very good topic here. Let me clear this before I go on. “Hypothesis” is something that is yet proven. “Theory” is something that is proven, but not enough. “Law” is something that is proven within many applications. This means, most people accept the Law.
Now, you have proven my point by accepting the fact that we are conscious about supreme being. Thank you for recognizing that. Not too many atheists will recognize this reasoning. Again, modern atheists are too evidence driven that they will not accept this.
Just because there is not enough evidence of existence of god, it does not mean that god does not exists. If everything has evidence of existence, then you could argue, but it does not. Well, this is somewhat fallacious debate that I want to avoid, but that is easiest I can explain. (If you were suggesting a hypothesis that every existence has evidence, then I would love to help you research and put it in to application)
“Well, that right there I admit is a touchy subject. It's a combonation of faith and science. They believe soley in the scientific method, but you have to remember people are still humans. And they are still susceptible to human nature. One can believe soley in the scientific method, and everything points to the non-existence of God, but out of fear of death he believes in God because it gives him hope. I admit that is a complicated subject and can get a bit distorted at times.”
Yes, they are all human beings. Yes, they do make personal judgments. However, people can reason and those who have learned so much will reason well. To those people I would be a peanut. That is probably why they might be laughing at us if they knew we are discussing these topics in such styles.
Moving on. When you said, “everything points to the non-existence of God”, are you admitting that there is no undisputable evidence to disprove god? If so, are you accepting the fact or suggesting that from what you “see”, you make such decision of not believing in god? This is where my point is. Those intellectuals will believe in god because they choose to and that they somehow know that there is no undisputable evidence to count out god. If there is such evidence that most modern atheists believe, then I would say that all intellectuals should be atheist or non-believer.
“It's not just the judeo-christian God. It's God in general, theoretically, everything up to the point of the big-bang and before has occured naturally. If there were a God and he did make us, it would make sense for them to occur supernaturally but they did not. Theoretically of course.”
Yes, now you got my point. From the evidences that sciences brought us, you “can” certain think that there could be a supreme being who might have created us or he/she might be the responsible for the big bang. That is, without being philosophical, my thoughts on this issue. Yes, bible could be right, but I do not believe so. I do think that there is a chance that there is a supreme being, but I would not know if he/she or it is the creator. Again, this is non-philosophical thoughts. I am just thinking in terms of modern thoughts.
“We do have that much knowledge and evidence. Look at the evidence for Evolution. It is so completely overwhelming, to deny it exists is being absurd. Yet people still do. It is because they do not want to let go of their faith. Humans are still stuck on the idea that they need religion. When infact, I believe religion to only be a crutch.”
If evolution theory is good enough, then we would not have religions. If there is such evidence that can disprove, then there is no point for religion or god. Again, is evolution undisputable evidence? Is it even a law?
“We will always only have theories and observations and maybe some impericle evidence here and there. But, I imagine nothing short of a time-machine will allow us to see what truly happened at the beginning of time.”
You have proven my point again. Yes, all we have are theories and empirical evidences. They are not undisputable. Yes, if we can prove the big bang theory and prove the dawn of time, then you might convince everyone in this world.
“And that sir, is your right to believe that. :] I respect it.”
Just to remind you that I do not necessary believe in god, but I believe there might be a supreme being. I just wanted to clear that up.
“Well. Look at it this way. There's not way to prove the non-exstence of God. But, knowing that God is the almighty being that he is, and that he created the universe and everything. We should be able to technically, through scientific process's, check for the existence of God. Yet, after our hypotheses's and our scientific evaluations of whether God exist's, we come up with no reliable data when, if God is there, there should be some. This doesn't disprove God, but from that we can Logically assume, we can use logic from the data provided, that since there is no evidence for God's existence when supposedly there should be, God probably doesn't exist. Note I say probably because, we still can't Disprove him, however with the lack of evidence his existence becomes a lot lest likely. Logic comes into play because, we can logically assume things from the data presented.”
“Perhaps you understand a bit better now? I am sorry if I misunderstood your points. Hopefully, I was able to rectify that, if I have not, I apologize again lol.”
There is no need to apologize. I should have been clear. I do thank you for responding.
Still, you are guessing that god does not exist since what you call evidences are not undisputable. Therefore, it is just a belief. That was my point as well. Atheism is a religion.
Just to tell you about my view. I call myself rationalist. I do not care who is majority or minority, but I care about democracy. I care about justice and peace. I care about real concept of questions or at least try my best to concentrate on real questions. I believe if you think in just terms and try best to keep in just terms, then religions would only be religions. I believe reason is the key and most important aspect of knowledge or reasoning itself is enough for knowledge.
I will try to participate on the forum that you suggested. Thank you.
Evolution in the scientific world is widely accepted as fact. The only thing I imagine that stops us from actually proving it 100% true is being able to replicate it and... who can replicate a million year process in a lab?
I think you were missing my point somewhat. As far as I know, there is no irresputable way to disprove God. However, God implies something supernatural. God implies... not natural. And, in science everything is suppose to happen naturally, that is what science is, the explaining of the natural. That is why, when there is a lack of evidence for God, we are more proned to not believe in God because everything seems to have come about naturally. If everything came about naturally, and there is next to no evidence supporting the existence of God, it is logical to assume that God does not exist. It's not really a leap of faith. I see more as, logically making a conclusion from the data presented. It's not like I'm just randomly, on a random thought deciding that God probably doesn't exist.
I'd have to disagree with you on that one. We're not irrationally making a decision that god doesn't exist from evidence that is irresputable. We're making a rational, logical decision that God doesn't exist from a "Lack of evidence when there should be some for god". That's a logical assumption. I can't really see atheism being a religion at all, plus this is just me. You can't really generalize my thoughts with other atheists because we all have different views and opinions, mine is just 1 in thousands of thousands.
Anyways, enjoy the forums.
"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.
I enjoyed having to communicate openly.
To just conclude.
Most of the evidences that you refer to are from "logic" based on proof. They do not necessarily have to be proved in a lab. In reality, researchers and scientists continuously research about countless things. Atheism has a long history, perhaps longer than Christianity. Therefore, it is normal to see people use researched data to see if their hypotheses hold. If it holds, it becomes a theory. When theory is tested rigorously and it is almost bulletproof, it becomes a law. That, I was referring to when I said about undisputable evidence. I am willing to accept that if there is a law which contradicts god, then perhaps all religious groups should look at it and try to understand it to test their faith and knowledge. If there is such a law, then you wouldn't have to argue with religious groups. Of course, I think arguing about god regarding to evidence is perhaps overrated, therefore, I will no longer waste my brain on this web site or anything related to this. I thought I could use reasoning, but I feel like I am becoming a liar, I mean lawyer. I will tell you why I am saying this. A simple question to your recent comment would be: "What is natural or supernatural?" Of course, you could bring god to this topic. Well, if there is natural, can level of naturalness change? Do we have enough data and studies to show that throughout the centuries, nothing has changed? Meaning, can you explain changes in Earth (You may say yes, but you have to accept the fact that scientists are still in process of explaining)? How about weather? Weather seems to be the most disturbing thing these days. You don't have to answer these questions. This is just to show you how I feel like I have to dissect everything when I discuss religion in this matter.
Overall, I thank you again for your openness. You have actually tried to reason with me more than others. Yes, your thought is just one of many in this world. That really was what I look for when I do any discussion. When there are too many people participating, I have to read too many and most of them give me trashy (without thoughts or reasons) answers. In reality, most people will not accept, therefore, I have to really dumb it down so they would understand it. That is why after seeing the forum that you suggested, I decided this web site is almost trashy as ?....
To tell you the truth, I have only taken one philosophy class in my life. I do read some major works done by famous philosophers, but I don't believe there is an answer there. Perhaps answer is not what I should look for, but what would life be if there is no reason to seek answer? Overall, being a human being is to seek answer. Boy, do I sound like a Christian or what? The answer does not have to be god, but it does not have to be no god. Anyways, I remember asking my philosophy professor about religion as I was sure there is no god (even though I was Catholic Christian). He simply laughed and told me that is not how you can discuss this issue in such way. Now, I think, I understand what he meant by that.
Thanks again.