faustuz

I’m curious. Why? Personally I’ve never wanted to believe in a God, except during a period of my life when I was dating a Catholic girl. (Yeah, I know. How pathetic).

Anyway, I too have always been searching, not out of a desire to believe but out of a feeling of obligation. The consequences of being wrong are potentially severe, i.e. the potential for eternal suffering vs. eternal bliss. I’ve had doubts before and those doubts caused me pain, but never desire. It was sort of my own version of Pascal’s wager, but without the conclusion that I should just play it safe and believe regardless. Fortunately I’m now at a point in my life where I don’t doubt. The major monotheistic religions now seem extremely silly to me and I wonder why I ever doubted at all. That’s not to say that I don’t still search but I don’t let doubt gnaw on me. I’m much happier now.

Tercel

Then why not? If you want to believe go ahead. If you are going to insist that you need rational proof, then I'm going to ask you if you believe that the world actually exists and is not all in your head, or that you actually exist beyond being a brain in a jar which scientists on the planet Xasd -who are analysing the ways of creating and stimulating consciousness- are experimenting on and what rational proof you have that these things are true or false. Of course you don't have rational proof for these sorts of things, you simply assume them true or false for convenience. If you really want to believe in God why not go ahead and assume he exists?

Well actually...
I do not understand why naturalists always take offense at the idea that there might be something "outside our world". Even under naturalism it would seem likely that our world is not all there is. Quantum physicists seem to want to argue about whether there are 6 or 27 dimensions, and we seem to only see four (3 space + time). And under naturalism, it seems eminently possible that whatever processes gave rise to our universe could have done so for other universes.
What then is so amazing about the idea of a place outside our universe? Even under naturalism it is perfectly plausible, and if God exists then there is obviously no problem with it at all.

The actual evidence for heaven is threefold.
1. For those who recognise a dualism between body and mind, it would seem reasonably likely that after the death of the body the mind might live on in a place beyond standard matter or be re-incarnated in a new body.
2. Those who have had <a href="http://www.near-death.com" target="_blank">Near Death Experiences</a> and reported seeing heaven. (even if they do all contradict each other )
3. The Biblical evidence (for those who believe the statements of Jesus etc have any value).

Are any countries ever satisfied with government leaders whether they speak aloud or not? Not from what I've seen of politics...

I can think of a few reasons, but I have no idea which is the True Reason(s), if any. A few thoughts:
1. Don't be so earth-centric. We are a tiny planet in a galaxy with a million million or so stars in a universe with about as many galaxies. The Bible speaks of all sorts of other spiritual powers in such a way as to suggest we are pretty weak and pathetic as far as things go. ie We are not the center of all creation. God's sole goal was not the creation of humans on earth and his number one desire was not to reveal himself to you personally. The created universe (even if we assume that the one we are in is all there is) is huge, and you are not the centre of it, nor its sole reason for being. Just because God is not doing everything to your wishes doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't love you or that he doesn't exist. You've got no idea what sort of contraints that might be on God due to agreements he might have made with other beings or any of the higher purposes that might be important.
2. Don't forget it's only temporary. It's "frustrating" for only a very limited period of time. Given that the universe has lasted 15 Billion years or so and God is eternal and so are you, I think a little frustration on your part for a mere 80 years or so is no big deal. (If you were to go to hell because of it, that's a different matter, however it is my belief that you will find out for certain that God exists when you die and have a chance to accept him then)
3. It gives you a chance to do what you want and be yourself. You are not constrained by any absolute certainties about purpose or morality. You can decide for yourself where you are going to stand and what you want to make of yourself.

How do you know that your disbelief in God is not being caused by a demonic spirit who is psychologically disturbing your rational judgment leading you away from God? Alternatively how do you know that your disbelief in God does not stem from some deep seated subconscious emotional problem which is affecting your rational judgement on the issue without you realising it?

It sounds like we still have our imaginations though: If you can imagine something coming from nothing you're doing better than me. At least you have the honesty to write 'what we consider "nothing"'. Of course in this case "nothing" consists of a rather complex set of quantum mechanical principles and reality.

Isn't it presumptuous to assert that any who disagree with your conclusions are irrational?

Fiach

[b]It sounds like we still have our imaginations though: If you can imagine something coming from nothing you're doing better than me. At least you have the honesty to write 'what we consider "nothing"'. Of course in this case "nothing" consists of a rather complex set of quantum mechanical principles and reality.

Supposedly matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed only transformed. We don't know how or where the Universe came from, but it is intuitively unlikely to me that it came from nothing. Does the Quantum Explanation prove it? No. Could the universe just pop out of the arse of a a black hole from another dimension? I don't know that either, but it would make a good fantasy movie. I also see no justification postulation a God creating the universe. God is usually defined as having human mental characteristics (love, hate, vengeance, rage, homicidal sprees, doubt, ambivalence.) That is all nonsense. If a God make the universe then God is a Natural force, more likely than not unconscious, not cognitive. God needs no consciousness (animal traits to avoid predation, find food, and select a reproductive mate.)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b]Many theists are quick to question the weight of science but never to take the unbiased approach to question their own faith in God. In addition, how can anyone properly question the weight of science without a thorough education in the field they wish to criticize? I have taken the time to study both religious and nonreligious writings, and I have come to the only rational conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science by its very nature, constantly challenges itself. As a molecular neurogeneticist, I know that every paper of mine is dragged through a gauntlet of criticism, and for good reason. I do the same. My cricisms in the European Journal of Neurology have been at times even unkind.

Religion is based on faith. It must never be questioned. When questioning is allowed the faith detiorates because it is not based on reason but authority. The Church of Scotland in my youth did not permit questioning. Then a liberalising influence took hold. Now even ministers openly question the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, the literal Biblical Genesis. As a result a C. of S. member can accept evolution, the 16 billion year old universe, the electro-neurochemical basis of thought in the brain. Religious affiliation in Scotland and the UK is deteriorating, so that more Scots are Atheist/Agnostic then Christian by about 51-49%.

Lesson is that if you take away authority, allow doubt, you weaken faith/religion. It is not evidence that kills it. It is the loss of impelling authority and emergence of doubt that well eventually finish off religion.

[b]Isn't it presumptuous to assert that any who disagree with your conclusions are irrational?

Perhaps, but it is also nearly every person's honest opinion in debates, even if you are wrong. The other chap is irrational, and fails to see your logic, eh? Yet there is also a methodology of thinking that can be classed as logical/rational or irrational/authority or fear based/and just plain gullibility. All religious belief requires a certain amount of irrational thought processing. All religion requires some degree of reliance on authority (Scriptures, Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, Pat Robertson). And all Christian religions especially fundamentalists use fear.

They use Pascal's Wager. If there is a choice between no God, mild mannered-kind Gods, violent-vindictive and cruel gods. Your best bet is to pick the worst god so if you are wrong he will not punish you. No god and nice gods will not punish you so pick the bad god. It is ALMOST a rational approach, eh?

Fiach

Family Man

Actually, it isn't about rational proof. It is about rational evidence. There is plenty of rational evidence that the world around is pretty much how we perceive it -- none for God or any of the other silly hypotheticals you posted.

Actually, we assume them false because of a lack of evidence, not convenience.

Because the evidence doesn't warrant the conclusion.

But the supernatural is by definition outside of the natural, which is I'm sure what he meant. Thus, your response doesn't address his point.

A dualism that is highly suspect.

And for which a natural explanation probably exists -- especially since most people have be indoctrinated into the concept of heaven.

They don't have any value.

That's not what he meant, and you know it.

An all-powerful God that is restricted. He can't make a clear appearance every once in a while?

Or he just might not exist. A much simpler solution to the problem.

That's just an entire lifetime, and perhaps the only time we have. We're to waste it on a belief that has no evidence for it?

And knowing God exists changes that not.

How do you know your belief in God doesn't have the same cause?

What is this, argument by insult? How do you know your belief isn't a result of cultural indoctrination? Doesn't that seem more likely?

Umm, that "something from nothing" bit is a theistic strawman.

No, he said that only rational conclusion is that God doesn't exist. That doesn't imply believers are irrational; it only implies that they hold an irrational belief.

[ December 13, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Eclectic eye

Romain Rollard, French Nobel laureate in literature and professor of the history of music at the Sorbonne, wrote in his book "Life of Ramakrishna":
"Religious faith in the case of the Hindus has never been allowed to run counter to scientific laws, moreover the former is never made a condition for the knowledge they teach, but they are always scrupulously careful to take into consideration the possibility that by reason both the agnostic and the athiest may attain truth in their own way. Such tolerance may be surprising to religious believers in the West, but it is an integral part of the Vedantic belief"

Carl Sagan wrote:
"Hinduism is the only religion in which the time scales correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang."

Although Christianity is grossly at odds with science, not all religions are. The Hindus not only have the most ancient religion, they also have the most ancient science. Their religion and their science are mutually inclusive. Their Golden Rule is the most ancient. Heraclitus learned his atomic theory from them.

A Google search under "Hindu Cosmology" and "Ancient Hindu Science" turns up some very interesting reading.

...and no, I'm not a Hindu fundie!! LOL

SecularFuture

God is a manmade concept and the concept can only be found through self-delusion or an overactive imagination. If there really was a God you wouldn’t need to use religious faith to find Him. You would be able to use reasoned faith, faith backed by reason and naturalistic evidence.

The Divine Plan. If there is a Divine Plan, prayer is pointless, and we have no freewill.

The God concept is comforting. That is why I wanted to believe, and that is why most people refuse atheism.

I will not believe in something without evidence or reason.

Why should there be a place (Heaven) outside of our world? And naturalism promotes and embraces natural concepts and not supernatural ones. God, heaven, etc are all supernatural concepts, and without evidence they can only be seen, rationally, as manifestations from our early imaginations.

A.K.A. A Dream

Why do you believe Christianity should be considered the default / true religion?

An invisible leader wouldn’t make situations any better.

And why should I believe the bible, I mean *your* bible? Because you believe it’s the word of a God? If there is no proof for the existence of God, your bible is nothing more than a well written novel.

Tercel ~ Please don’t answer any more of my questions with questions. And no, I’m not trying to avoid your questions. You say there is a God, demonic spirits, etc… but why should there be? Because you say so? Because of a bible that you *believe* was inspired by a God says so? Where is the evidence for your claims?

Its possible.

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: SecularFuture ]</p>

Fiach

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. For those who recognise a dualism between body and mind, it would seem reasonably likely that after the death of the body the mind might live on in a place beyond standard matter or be re-incarnated in a new body.

I do not recognise a dualism. There is one body containing a brain. Brain functions include thought, emotion, perception, language, rational processing, memory, mathematical calculation, and association of all of the above. It is done by now recognised brain circuits. These circuits have been observed in action on Spectroscopic MRI imaging of the brain. We can even image mystical experiences. There is no doubt whatsoever that mind is just a brain function. It is not separate. It ceased entirely under general anaesthesia. Stimulation of the brain can produce thoughts, images, auditory experiences, as noted in partial epileptic seizures. There is no evidence of mind (thought etc) when the brain is electically silent under anaesthesia or following irreversible cell death. The Duality is an obsolete superstition from the Middle Ages long before neurophysiology was a science.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A dualism that is highly suspect.

Suspect? I'd say entirely unsupported by evidence and actually contradicted by modern neuroimaging studies.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b]Those who have had Near Death Experiences and reported seeing heaven. (even if they do all contradict each other )[B/]

NDE's have been well studied. They never occur in a dead person. They occur in a stressed brain either by shock/hypotension, hypoxia (lack of oxygen), or physical blunt trauma. The events are mediated by electrical signals in the limbic lobe of the brain and include pre-frontal parasagittal areas, hippocampus, inferior and superior temporal gyri, and parietal lobules. A slow wave of depolarisation utilising Sodium and potassium channels, a shift of negative ions from inside to outside the neuron and back again. This is passed on like falling dominos. But each neuron connects to hundreds or thousands of others. The signal passes to the regions identified above. The Electroencephalogram localises the repetitive spike discharges. Spect MRI will actually picture the parts of the brain engaging in the activity.

People typically see a bright light, often feel that they are outside of their body (Parietal disinhibition of spatial centers), hear the voice of God, the Virgin Mary, Mohammad, or Brahma depending on the culture, and visual hallucinations of God, Jesus, Mary, dead relatives, heaven or hell. (auditory hallucinations come from the superior temporal gyrus, visual ones from the inferior temporal gyrus. The key information here is that otherwise perfectly normal, temporal lobe epilptic people have these spells but are not NEAR death. It has been shown that very religious people may activate these pathways in intense prayer or meditation and have the same experiences. (Out of Body, Light, Tunnel, dead people, Gods, angels, heaven or a firey lake.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And for which a natural explanation probably exists -- especially since most people have be indoctrinated into the concept of heaven.

See: Newsweek,May 7, 2001, Religion And The Brain Author: Sharon Begley With Anne Underwood


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Biblical evidence (for those who believe the statements of Jesus etc have any value).

The Bible is fragmented oral hearsay from pre-civilised desert savages. Jesus is a controversial figure whose very existence is unproven. He was preceeded by multiple other god-man redeemer gods, conceived of virgins, and died with resurrection. It is an old and plagiarised story. There is no relevance to this discussion.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are any countries ever satisfied with government leaders whether they speak aloud or not? Not from what I've seen of politics...

I can't disagree with you there.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't be so earth-centric....Just because God is not doing everything to your wishes doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't love you or that he doesn't exist.

I don't blame God for anything. Crikey the poor wanker doesn't even exist yet you Christians blame him for Noah's Flood, plagues, disease, malformations, childhood brain tumours. I don't blame God because natural events don't turn out ideally. That's life. And that is followed by Death. I don't like Death but I know it can't be avoided. Every baby or child that I have watched die slowly of an inoperable brain tumour with seizures, horrid headaches, blindness, vomiting, partial to complete paralysis, often taking several years of suffering to die, tells me that nature is indifferent. If God designed this then he is a sadistic pervert. But don't take me seriously there. He isn't real in the first place.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've got no idea what sort of contraints that might be on God due to agreements he might have made with other beings or any of the higher purposes that might be important.

Isn't this a bit like arguing over whether a mushroom would win a chess match with a cabbage?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or he just might not exist. A much simpler solution to the problem.

And so obvious, eh?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't forget it's only temporary. It's "frustrating" for only a very limited period of time.

Right, eventually die, and our neurons turn to mush in 24 hours. There is no more synaptic activity, no functioning circuits, no thought. It will be just like it was before we were born.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's just an entire lifetime, and perhaps the only time we have. We're to waste it on a belief that has no evidence for it?

Amen, Brother


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It gives you a chance to do what you want and be yourself. You are not constrained by any absolute certainties about purpose or morality. You can decide for yourself where you are going to stand and what you want to make of yourself.

Aye.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And knowing God exists changes that not.

Not knowing or caring if God exists frees your mind for more productive activities.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know that your disbelief in God is not being caused by a demonic spirit who is psychologically disturbing your rational judgment leading you away from God?

Demons are supposedly immaterial or spirits. They cannot interact with the elements of the matter-energy universe. We know that one believes, does't believe, or disbelieves because of the way his/her brain works coloured by family-cultural indoctrination. There is no reason for assuming that Demons or space aliens can take over a human brain. You have been watching too many grade D movies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know your belief in God doesn't have the same cause?

We know this because our beliefs are mediated entirely by neuro-axonal circuits in the brain with only the colouring or content being derived from indoctrination.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatively how do you know that your disbelief in God does not stem from some deep seated subconscious emotional problem which is affecting your rational judgement on the issue without you realising it?

Nobody knows for certain that they are being totally rational about everything. But your family, friends, employers can notice signs of psychosis in your work performance, relationships. Atheists by a California study turned out to have the lowest divorse rate compared to every religious group. US prison statistists show that less than 0.05% of violent prisoners are atheists or agnostics, while Atheists/agnostics are about 10-11% of the general population. Similar statistics apply in the UK and Europe considering the relatively secular populations we have.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is this, argument by insult? How do you know your belief isn't a result of cultural indoctrination? Doesn't that seem more likely?

Cultural influences play a role for sure. But even in a hyperreligious theocracy like the US, at least 10% are rational enough to reject the superstitious indoctrination.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It sounds like we still have our imaginations though: If you can imagine something coming from nothing you're doing better than me.

Right. It is counterintuitive that the universe came from nothing. I think it came from quantum actions or a belch from another dimension but I really don't know. Thinking that the universe came from nothing makes no more sense than inventing a God with a human personality did it. Afterall, where did such a anthropomorphic god come from? Out the arse of a Black Hole?

[b]Isn't it presumptuous to assert that any who disagree with your conclusions are irrational?{/B]

No. If I consult on a patient in a mental ward who tells me he is invisible, from a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy, and that he eats through his anus and shites out of his ears. I can say he is irrational. That is an extreme case. But people like Pat Robertson who thinks that he can cure lumbago, and redirect hurricanes, and that the Earth is only 60 centuries old is clearly irrational in my opinion. I it further. I think that people who see little green men from Mars are irrational. I think that people who think that God talks to them are irrational. I think that an educated person who has seen fossil evidence, isotope dating, sea-floor spreading rates to corroborate isotope dating but still rejects Evolution is irrational.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, he said that only rational conclusion is that God doesn't exist. That doesn't imply believers are irrational; it only implies that they hold an irrational belief.

But doesn't it imply that a person who holds one or more irrational beliefs is to some extent less than fully rational?

Fiach

southernhybrid

Nice work, Secular Future and Fiach! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Not only is there no scientific evidence for mind/body dualism, one only needs to spend time around Alzheimer's victims for a little while and it becomes obvious that the mind and body are interdependent.

Of course if you believe in demons, I guess anything is plausible.

Family Man

Fiach --
I obviously agree with most everything you said, but I can't quite agree here. I really doubt that anyone goes through life without a few irrational beliefs. The big difference in my mind is that I can recognize when my beliefs are irrational, so I don't let them adversely affect the way I perceive the world. A lot of theists, in my opinion, don't or can't recognize that that belief is irrational. But that doesn't imply that they aren't rational as a whole, which the original author was trying to imply.

Great job, btw. Your responses were quite illuminating.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Allen Roy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SecularFuture:
<strong>I have always wanted to, and I still want to, believe in a God. I have embraced all of the spiritual advice given to me by priests and religious friends. I have tried prayer, meditation, and I have spent many hours studying the prophets, including Jesus. Religion, unfortunately, has only given me more questions than answers, and these questions are suppose to be ignored through something called ?faith."</strong>

I guess my question would be, How would one know if they found the God of the Bible or didnt find him? What are the criteria? Do we apply our own criteria to the Bible? Or, do we look to see if the Bible has any criteria?

Allen