People who believe in god are broken

[immortal]

People who believe that they can understand God through logic and reason are broken, religion is not irrational, its non-rational, I can go to any extent and say that someone who believes that God used Big Bang and evolution to create this universe and the diversity of life on earth is broken.

 

http://www.netplaces.com/kabbalah/kabbalah-and-philosophy/the-rational-irrational-and-nonrational.htm

 

 

 

God doesn't contradict logic, he harmonizes logic, he is beyond reason and if someone doesn't want to believe in that I have no problem with that and its quite normal that those who do not understand religion to say that all religious people are broken.

[Phi for All]

There is equally as little proof that everything was created via any other method, and what speculation there is about existence coming into being is a belief in itself, scientists believe is happened like so in some cases, and people with religion believe it happened like so in others.

 

 

Neither parties are crazy nor wrong, just no-one has any hard proof yet, just beliefs , but have faith and we may find out one day.

Science doesn't look for proof. Science is a tool for gaining reliable evidence. Evidence supports theories and theories are explanations, not guesses.

 

No of-course you can be religious and believe what we know about the universe so far.

 

 

Just the part about how it all came to be, as in the case of Christianity, Christians believe god made everything. You can't believe that and be open to other theory's can you.

Christianity only claims God created the universe, but doesn't say how. The Bible certainly couldn't have explained the Big Bang or Evolution to its first readers. Why couldn't God have used cosmic expansion and Evolution to develop the universe we see?

 

Because if your religion says God made all existence and you believe that and accept that as truth like a Christian does, how do you believe there was another cause for all existence coming into being? You can't as you already have your answer that you believe to be fact.

The only thing that would make this true is if the Bible is inerrant, and this is obviously not true. There are many errors in it. So it must be that the Bible is subject to interpretation, and if that's true, then it can be interpreted that God could have used mechanisms that science recognizes as supported explanations. This seems more... unbroken.

[DrDNA]

Who me? I'm not sure what you are saying. My premise was that most religions are founded on a certain human inadequacy or state of brokenness. God, for these people, is the enlightened or perfect--non broken--being whom all should strive to be like, and should ask for protection from.

 

What is the perfectly good stereo? What is proof of a bad system? What words are you putting in whose mouth? Why are you talking like a stoned teenager? Are you high? :/

 

I don't believe that attitude was necessary. I was agreeing with you!

 

You either get it or you don't. Maybe it's a generational thing-- with all these new fangled ipods and stuff.

 

I'm not even going to try and explain it.

 

Think about it and let me know what you come up with -if youlike-Warning_ drugs are Not required nor suggested but thinking outside "the box is required.

 

So, I Lied. I will try- Hint: Book ~ Stereo.Pen~Speaker

Edited April 13, 2012 by DrDNA

[Villain]

Our choice on whether or not to believe in God cannot be decided by science because science is a descriptive tool and God is not pre-described in terms that science would meet. Science is either always a proof of God, in the aspect that He made everything that science describes, or never a proof of God in the aspect that He never made anything because He doesn't exist. Trying to use science to 'find' the God described above might be considered broken, although probably not any more broken than the next person.

[DrDNA]

Trying to use science to 'find' the God described above might be considered broken, although probably not any more broken than the next person.

 

Science maY or may not be a good way to "find" God. I don't know. Every one needs to find their own path. However,I am 100% convinced that it is an excellent way to better understand him and to study his wonders.

 

It can be a very high form of praise.

Edited April 13, 2012 by DrDNA

[tar]

Inow,

 

Perhaps we can approach this question from an objective view point, by asking the opposite question. Are people that don't believe in God...broken?

 

There seems to be a certainty that people who do not believe in God have, that they have the "correct" approach to the universe. That it is all rather simple math, and the universe is explainable, measureable and understandable, from the smallest quark to the largest string of galaxies, from the moment time and space, matter and energy came into existence...to the "ultimate fate" of said simple non-thinking matter. Anything that looks like its on purpose, is really accidental, chance combinations of random activity. The universe can not be conscious, because there is no formula for consciousness. And they say this, and think this, while they themselves are made of nothing but universe material, as if they have come from somewhere else, a spirit, a ghost, that inhabits some dumb chemical mass, that they have dominion over, and know better than.

 

Sounds to me like such a person is lying to themselves, removing themselves from the actual fray. Sounds cold and heartless, analytical and superior. These people must be broken. They do not understand that they are completely 100% of the universe, and not one particle of them is of their own creation. The universe made them, and they are just witnessing it. They imagine they hold the whole thing in their tiny heads. They must be broken.

 

Regards, TAR2

[ewmon]

People who believe in god are broken. Agree? Disagree? Discuss.

I'm not sure what "broken" means, maybe crippled (and need a crutch), or wrong/incomplete.

 

I found two TED videos by Brené Brown recently about shame and vulnerability. In addition to realizing how very funny she is, I realized that she had restated the Christian faith in scientific terms. Everyone's imperfect, and the shame of our imperfections can cripple us from the inside out, and the fear of vulnerability can likewise paralyze us. Look at the fear of public speaking (a type of vulnerability), and whether it's apocryphal or not that most people are more afraid of public speaking than dying, I'd guess they're pretty closely ranked. According to Brown, shame highly correlates with addiction, depression, violence, aggression, bullying, suicide, and eating disorders.

 

Some people want to believe that the Son of God came down among us and paid the price for all our sins (like a scapegoat or a whipping boy), so we don't need to feel the shame of our shortcomings anymore (ie, receive God's forgiveness), and that we are to embrace the vulnerability of loving one another (ie, do God's will). Or, to quote Brené Brown quoting Teddy Roosevelt, to be the man in the arena daring greatly.

 

I can't call that "broken". Daring greatly ... I can't call that being broken.

[Xittenn]

@DrDNA I'm sorry I'm not someone who does well at reading between the lines. I will try to look at your posts again and understand what might be to everyone else very obvious!

 

** I don't do iPods either, it's usually best not to prejudge me and to direct comments at me in the most English way possible; thanks!

Edited April 13, 2012 by Xittenn

[Ophiolite]

@DrDNA I'm sorry I'm not someone who does well at reading between the lines. I will try to look at your posts again and understand what might be to everyone else very obvious!

Activate your Luddite detection equipment and the meaning may become clearer.

[immortal]

Inow,

 

Perhaps we can approach this question from an objective view point, by asking the opposite question. Are people that don't believe in God...broken?

 

There seems to be a certainty that people who do not believe in God have, that they have the "correct" approach to the universe. That it is all rather simple math, and the universe is explainable, measureable and understandable, from the smallest quark to the largest string of galaxies, from the moment time and space, matter and energy came into existence...to the "ultimate fate" of said simple non-thinking matter. Anything that looks like its on purpose, is really accidental, chance combinations of random activity. The universe can not be conscious, because there is no formula for consciousness. And they say this, and think this, while they themselves are made of nothing but universe material, as if they have come from somewhere else, a spirit, a ghost, that inhabits some dumb chemical mass, that they have dominion over, and know better than.

 

Sounds to me like such a person is lying to themselves, removing themselves from the actual fray. Sounds cold and heartless, analytical and superior. These people must be broken. They do not understand that they are completely 100% of the universe, and not one particle of them is of their own creation. The universe made them, and they are just witnessing it. They imagine they hold the whole thing in their tiny heads. They must be broken.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Scientific realism is an assumption, tar, its a belief, there are subjective idealists who do not believe in God, quantum physicist Bernard Espagnat is convinced that "what we call reality is only a state of mind" then even he must be broken for believing in subjective idealism when the implications indicate that scientific realism might be false. Its as much reasonable to believe in subjective idealism as it is to believe in scientific realism. Who is lying? who is broken?

[Villain]

Scientific realism is an assumption, tar, its a belief, there are subjective idealists who do not believe in God, quantum physicist Bernard Espagnat is convinced that "what we call reality is only a state of mind" then even he must be broken for believing in subjective idealism when the implications indicate that scientific realism might be false. Its as much reasonable to believe in subjective idealism as it is to believe in scientific realism. Who is lying? who is broken?

 

I think you might have missed the point of the post, from what I read he was questioning whether anyone has the right to pass judgement seeing as we never chose to be here and didn't make ourselves, but yet all claim that we seem to know the truth.

[iNow]

There seems to be a certainty that people who do not believe in God have, that they have the "correct" approach to the universe. That it is all rather simple math, and the universe is explainable, measureable and understandable, from the smallest quark to the largest string of galaxies, from the moment time and space, matter and energy came into existence...to the "ultimate fate" of said simple non-thinking matter. Anything that looks like its on purpose, is really accidental, chance combinations of random activity. The universe can not be conscious, because there is no formula for consciousness. And they say this, and think this, while they themselves are made of nothing but universe material, as if they have come from somewhere else, a spirit, a ghost, that inhabits some dumb chemical mass, that they have dominion over, and know better than.

 

Sounds to me like such a person is lying to themselves, removing themselves from the actual fray. Sounds cold and heartless, analytical and superior. These people must be broken. They do not understand that they are completely 100% of the universe, and not one particle of them is of their own creation. The universe made them, and they are just witnessing it. They imagine they hold the whole thing in their tiny heads. They must be broken.

You seem to assume that a lack of belief in god(s) is equivalent to approaching the universe as if we have a full understanding of it within our grasp... As if we have somehow mastered the infinite depths of nance and wonder that spread across the entire cosmos. Why? This strikes me as a terrible strawman and horribly false equivalence.

[immortal]

I think you might have missed the point of the post, from what I read he was questioning whether anyone has the right to pass judgement seeing as we never chose to be here and didn't make ourselves, but yet all claim that we seem to know the truth.

 

From what I know about Tar and from that post he seem to have already passed a negative judgement on subjective idealists.

[Moontanman]

The truly sad thing about this is that most of these fundamentalist theists, and yes I know we have theists here who do not subscribe to this extreme view, but the thing is that they get their science from people who's job it is to defame any science they can, who lie and misrepresent science. There is a huge amount of money involved in this and if the marks see they are being told lies it falls apart so they are fed just what the purveyors of this stuff want them to hear and advise them that anyone who tells them different is lying and wants to deceive them.

 

They come here and assume we have never bothered to read the "good news" so they go about educating us in not only what religion says but what science says as well. They cannot allow themselves to look at anything that disagrees with their world view and assume science is telling lies at best and a conspiracy from the devil at worst not to mention the assumption that none of us knows anything about their favorite religions perspective and the books that give them the no kidding absolute truth.

 

I have taken the time to investigate religion and always found it wanting but I am always open to new evidence but if they are not going to bother to even look at what science really says why should I bother to take them seriously?

 

I think they honestly fear bothering to look beyond what their lying religious leaders tell them because the actual evidence terrifies them... or because the lies are easier to wrap their minds around because the real evidence is difficult to understand. They then make grandiose claims about how we just can't quite wrap our minds around what they are saying or that is so complex that we cannot grasp it, horse feathers...

 

it's simpleton crap that allows you to give the appearance of knowledge with out actually doing any real effort to understand anything, god did it i believe and that settles it... so sad...

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

I have been arguing with Jehova Witnesses since I was 18. I have also "studied" religions here and there, by reading the texts they go by. So I am not adverse to your take. Many religions have "leaders" or priests or mullahs, or wisemen, or "teachers" who in one way or another, claim access to a special knowledge, that the ordinary folk don't have. I have rejected this approach, and have on my own, decided that we each of us humans, have equal access to reality. And we need no special key. We are already "in".

 

So Immortal is right, that I have judged subjective idealism to be false. An individuals special take, a personal god, an "I am right and you are wrong" attitude, based solely on ones personal muses, and private "connection" with the universe, is not very sensible. There are currently about 9 billion examples of "subjective ideal" holders, and probably about the same number of departed humans who exist or existed in a rather similar fashion, to any other human. What is important to me, is that these people, you and me included, have and are witnessing the SAME universe. It is this "same" universe that I allude to, when describing my subjective views of it. It is objectively real, bigger than me and you, and quite a bit longer lasting. But most importantly I am not divorced from it. I am of it, and in it. Same as you. It does not love you more or less than it does me, and I love it no more or less than you. It is automatically mine, completely, and I am automatically it's, completely. You can not do this any better or worse than me. It's already true. Where we have some latitude in messing up, or doing well is how we act toward it, and each other. What rules we go by, and which parts of it we hold close and protect and maintain, and which parts of it, we reject and destroy.

 

Inow,

 

If, over the years, people have personified this supreme being we are all witnessing and created by, and built together ways of protecting each other, and surviving reasonably together, with the proper, workable mix of humbleness and responsibility, and camps are formed, that are called "religions", and the supreme being itself is given a name or names...these people are not broken.

 

Nor do I think you are broken, or unable to witness the size and complexity and "wonderfulness" of the universe.

 

I was turning the question around, to point out, like the George Carlin example, that each of us has a tendency to think we are the only one doing it right, and others, not so much.

 

Seems pretty obvious to me, that none of us can be holding the only key.

 

Sure I set up a strawman. But only to bring to the fore, the incorrectness, of you putting impossible Gods in other people's heads, and then pointing out how stupid and broken they must be, to accept such nonsense. Perhaps you could look for the middle ground, and give an other human the benefit of the doubt. Like they were your brother or sister, and try to figure out what they mean by God, that corresponds to your understanding.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 14, 2012 by tar

[Moontanman]

Pretty much says it all...

 

 

It's science for the win!!!

[BillW]

I think people that believe in religion are more scared than broken because they don't know how the world really works they blindly follow this Pre-existing cult like framework provided by religion. I believe in god but not in the sense that organized religions do. I think that religious people are sad. It seems that many broken people do seem to seek out religion to "fix" their lives.

[rigney]

I think people that believe in religion are more scared than broken because they don't know how the world really works they blindly follow this Pre-existing cult like framework provided by religion. I believe in god but not in the sense that organized religions do. I think that religious people are sad. It seems that many broken people do seem to seek out religion to "fix" their lives.

 

Not being religious, it's difficult for me to not take a non-religious stance on this issue. However, a view of GOD as being nonexistant leaves me a bit shaky. How do we know for a fact that a supreme power does not exist? We don't! Yes, scienctist have proven many theories as to why things exist in the universe as predicted. But even the most remote possibility that a (GOD) exists should scare hell out of us non-believers. And for those of you who believe, believe what you will, but keep your faith until "proven" otherwise. Edited April 20, 2012 by rigney

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Nice video.

 

Struck me though as rather one sided. As if science is responsible for the planets, and evolution. And as if nobody that believed in God ever made any contributions to science.

 

I am not saying that creationism is a better theory than evolution. It is not. It is quite obvious to me that Adam and Eve did not pop onto the planet full blown, 4000 years ago. That makes no sense, and fits neither logic nor fact.

 

But similarly, science has never been the exclusive purvue of atheists. And scientific facts are found all the time by people looking for them. Are you willing to throw away the contributions to science made by any individual that happens to believe in God?

 

A rocket is still a rocket, whether you believe in a supreme being or not.

 

It would not be that difficult to put together a video of "science" being a villian. Burnt babies at Hiroshima, deformed squirrels after a nuclear power plant disaster, polluted rivers, industrial plants spewing black smoke into the air, fetuses being yanked alive from the womb and disected and studied or whatever.

 

Knowledge wins over ignorance, but what is in the "good" pot is not only, or entirely science, and what is in the "bad" pot is not only and exclusively creationism. And creationism should not be the strawman that allows easy attack on believers in God, because it is possible to believe in God without taking the Bible as literal fact.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

Nice video.

 

Struck me though as rather one sided. As if science is responsible for the planets, and evolution. And as if nobody that believed in God ever made any contributions to science.

 

I am not saying that creationism is a better theory than evolution. It is not. It is quite obvious to me that Adam and Eve did not pop onto the planet full blown, 4000 years ago. That makes no sense, and fits neither logic nor fact.

 

But similarly, science has never been the exclusive purvue of atheists. And scientific facts are found all the time by people looking for them. Are you willing to throw away the contributions to science made by any individual that happens to believe in God?

 

A rocket is still a rocket, whether you believe in a supreme being or not.

 

It would not be that difficult to put together a video of "science" being a villian. Burnt babies at Hiroshima, deformed squirrels after a nuclear power plant disaster, polluted rivers, industrial plants spewing black smoke into the air, fetuses being yanked alive from the womb and disected and studied or whatever.

 

Knowledge wins over ignorance, but what is in the "good" pot is not only, or entirely science, and what is in the "bad" pot is not only and exclusively creationism. And creationism should not be the strawman that allows easy attack on believers in God, because it is possible to believe in God without taking the Bible as literal fact.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

 

You misunderstood the premise, all or very nearly all scientists were at one time theists, all early scientists were theists mainly because that was the only option allowed, they were creationists only because it was the only thing they had been taught. Early scientists actually started out expecting to see the bible as a guide to the natural world. it soon became obvious it was not and the deeper they went into finding out the way the world really worked the more obvious it became that the bible was not a guide to the natural world.

 

Even then some of them began to lie to support the bible over reality, but most went on to show that creationism was wrong. Science does not say that there is no god, it does not dictate you cannot believe in god but you cannot do real science with creationism, you cannot use the bible as a source of knowledge about the natural world. God Did It is not how you add to the store of human knowledge...

 

No one says you have to be an atheist to be a scientist or to understand science but Creationism is a lie, it is built on a foundation of lies by people who must lie to support their dishonest world view.

 

Creationists now are not part of science, they are anti science, they lie and deceive in an attempt to support something that is demonstrably not true. Creationism cannot and does not contribute to our world of knowledge, individuals who believe in creationism can discover new things but not with in the context of creationism. Creation Science is an oxymoron....

 

Yes, it's science for the win...

[DrDNA]

 

Yes, it's science for the win...

 

There is no winner or loser in the search for knowledge or truth.

 

I personally don't believe that "creation" has to be what you (and a whole lot of scientists AND Christians) seem to think it is.

You don't have to believe that the earth is 6000 yrs old or that dinosaurs and man walked the earth at the same time to believe that God created the universe.

[questionposter]

Religious people aren't broken, that doesn't even make sense. I know a few religious people who are probably quite a bit smarter than most people on this thread. People become attached to a faith often because it has some connection with a deep impact in their life, and most people will connect things to important events in their life, not just religion. Like if you got almost torn apart by a rare dog because you accidentally intruded, there's a good chance you'll be scared of dogs, even though most are very hospitable and have a bigger bark than a bite anyway.

There's even religious physicists and astronomers.

Edited April 21, 2012 by questionposter

[DrDNA]

Are pseudo-scientists broken?

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Perhaps I misunderstood the premise, but we are trying to decide whether people that believe in God are broken or not.

 

Just trying to keep both sides honest.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Are people that believe in dark matter broken?

 

If not,

were they broken prior believing in dark matter? And now they are fixed?

[Moontanman]

Are pseudo-scientists broken?

 

 

I would answer yes to that, anyone who becomes obsessed with believing something that is demonstrably not true is off his mark i would suggest...

 

Religious people aren't broken, that doesn't even make sense. I know a few religious people who are probably quite a bit smarter than most people on this thread. People become attached to a faith often because it has some connection with a deep impact in their life, and most people will connect things to important events in their life, not just religion. Like if you got almost torn apart by a rare dog because you accidentally intruded, there's a good chance you'll be scared of dogs, even though most are very hospitable and have a bigger bark than a bite anyway.

There's even religious physicists and astronomers.

 

 

I have to agree with you questionposter, the idea that a scientist or anyone who ascribes to the methods and conclusions of science is an atheist is very dishonest and a ruse often used by creationists to discredit anyone who does follow the findings of science in their world view.

 

There is no winner or loser in the search for knowledge or truth.

 

I personally don't believe that "creation" has to be what you (and a whole lot of scientists AND Christians) seem to think it is.

You don't have to believe that the earth is 6000 yrs old or that dinosaurs and man walked the earth at the same time to believe that God created the universe.

 

 

As I have pointed out many times on this forum i am not saying that god did not create the universe. A Creationist is someone who believes the biblical account is absolutely true as opposed to any science that disagrees with it. To suggest that god could not have created the universe is the stance of science is a strawman and is completely dishonest.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Moontanman