People who believe in god are broken

[tar]

But, I have noticed that many religions go to great lengths to describe not only a God but the road to him/her/it.

 

As if we are not already in the scheme. Another rider on the God belief, seems to be this promise of an afterlife, if you believe and obey.

 

I think I will go along with Inow, in the thought that this kind of thinking is "broken". Not that it is not an attempt to answer the tough questions, but that in many cases it depreciates the value in this life, the one we all are concurrently living. Since there is no evidence of these various fantasies of 48 virgins, or being reincarnated, or reaching Nirvana, by becoming as unhuman as possible, or burning in hell, or playing a harp in heaven, there seems to be strong reason to find God, however you want to take the idea of a greater reality, present now, for us to know, and share, while we have this opportunity as sentient beings.

 

If life is a gift from god, we should appreciate it.

If we earned life on our own, we should appreciate it.

 

Either way, it does seem broken to think you are something other than a human, when there is nothing else a human can be.

 

Anyone not human, reading this, is excused from the tautalogy, you wouldn't know what I meant.

 

So, I will change my stance. People who believe in a made up God are indeed broken. Only people that find God every day, in reality, are sound.

Edited April 28, 2012 by tar

[rigney]

But, I have noticed that many religions go to great lengths to describe not only a God but the road to him/her/it.

 

As if we are not already in the scheme. Another rider on the God belief, seems to be this promise of an afterlife, if you believe and obey.

 

I think I will go along with Inow, in the thought that this kind of thinking is "broken". Not that it is not an attempt to answer the tough questions, but that in many cases it depreciates the value in this life, the one we all are concurrently living. Since there is no evidence of these various fantasies of 48 virgins, or being reincarnated, or reaching Nirvana, by becoming as unhuman as possible, or burning in hell, or playing a harp in heaven, there seems to be strong reason to find God, however you want to take the idea of a greater reality, present now, for us to know, and share, while we have this opportunity as sentient beings.

 

If life is a gift from god, we should appreciate it.

If we earned life on our own, we should appreciate it.

 

Either way, it does seem broken to think you are something other than a human, when there is nothing else a human can be.

 

Anyone not human, reading this, is excused from the tautalogy, you wouldn't know what I meant.

 

So, I will change my stance. People who believe in a made up God are indeed broken. Only people that find God every day, in reality, are sound.

 

To assume an ideology that places you in the middle of an arguement is not the best place to be. I know this for a fact since i spend most of my time in that position. If you truely believe in a supreme GOD or any deity, don't be afraid to espouse such a belief. At times I wish to have found something other than my own unorthodox convictions to believe in. If God exists, so be it. Otherwise, lay me down gently so that I may spend an eternity thinking about it. Edited April 28, 2012 by rigney

[Kranis]

This should not be a discussion on "science forums". Think about it, its a never ending cycle, and its pointless to discuss it here, if people want to be part of a religion that is their choice, you should not start to judge them right away

and tell them they are lesser beings because of it. Believing in something like "God" should not be frowned upon, its not a bad thing. It can make life better, and do not look at the believers as closed minded, because believing in something after death is pretty open minded to me, and believing that we just live and die and fade away from existence, is very closed minded. Basically religion is bad because of all the corrupted people, and the "fake" religious people who are basically judging others of sins, when everyone "sins". I personally do not like religion, but i have no problem in people just believing in "God" or believing in "higher beings" or beings of a higher conscious then us. It is better for people to follow the "good person" rules of religion instead of humans being idiots and causing wars over territory that should be shared. After all we are only human, animals.

[tar]

Rigney,

 

God, as is described in the major religions, I believe we will find to be a reflection of the universe, in our selves, that some have mistakenly taken as being an actual person or entity, when in reality, it comes from our imagination. In the same way that we can imagine unseen other real people. That we can converse with others mentally is true. We have an image of every person we know. Their looks, and likes and dislikes, background, ideas, hopes and wishes. We can construct the same, if we wish, to embody good, or to embody evil, but as Inow puts it, it is an imaginary friend (or enemy). No more than that.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited April 29, 2012 by tar

[ydoaPs]

This should not be a discussion on "science forums". Think about it, its a never ending cycle, and its pointless to discuss it here, if people want to be part of a religion that is their choice, you should not start to judge them right away

and tell them they are lesser beings because of it. Believing in something like "God" should not be frowned upon, its not a bad thing. It can make life better, and do not look at the believers as closed minded, because believing in something after death is pretty open minded to me, and believing that we just live and die and fade away from existence, is very closed minded. Basically religion is bad because of all the corrupted people, and the "fake" religious people who are basically judging others of sins, when everyone "sins". I personally do not like religion, but i have no problem in people just believing in "God" or believing in "higher beings" or beings of a higher conscious then us. It is better for people to follow the "good person" rules of religion instead of humans being idiots and causing wars over territory that should be shared. After all we are only human, animals.

 

You keep using that phrase "open minded". I do not think it means what you think it means.

[iNow]

This should not be a discussion on "science forums". Think about it, its a never ending cycle, and its pointless to discuss it here, if people want to be part of a religion that is their choice, you should not start to judge them right away

and tell them they are lesser beings because of it. Believing in something like "God" should not be frowned upon, its not a bad thing. It can make life better, and do not look at the believers as closed minded, because believing in something after death is pretty open minded to me, and believing that we just live and die and fade away from existence, is very closed minded. Basically religion is bad because of all the corrupted people, and the "fake" religious people who are basically judging others of sins, when everyone "sins". I personally do not like religion, but i have no problem in people just believing in "God" or believing in "higher beings" or beings of a higher conscious then us. It is better for people to follow the "good person" rules of religion instead of humans being idiots and causing wars over territory that should be shared. After all we are only human, animals.

You keep using that phrase "open minded". I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[tar]

Why I sit on the fence, is because I think these imaginary people/places/things we dream up to embody various ideals are important to us, and its how we think about the world.

 

For instance, I believe in the scientific method, and science, and often use the phrase, "we know this", depending almost entirely on my image of this "science" thing to have done the studies and experiments, and found the thing out.

 

There may even be some things I figure science has found out, that actual scientists have not yet found out, or that they have found to not be the case. Because I hold an imaginary image of what science is. It does not really exist as a real single entity anywhere. Same with ideas like humanity, or envisioning a "collective consciousness". There is a mix of real stuff, and imaginary stuff in these ideals. So I sit on the fence a bit when it comes to God, because, although it is imaginary, it after all, is an image of something, and many portions of it are indeed actual. Its when the human characteristics, emotions, specific laws, and any other feature that is obviously "man made" comes in to picture, its pretty easy to figure out that these components must have been added by the human, who is explaining the desires and commandments of his/her imaginary friend.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

Maybe this will be more accessible to some who have thought my posts were tl;dr. The topic is, "What's wrong with believing in something that makes you feel better, even there's no good reason to do so?"

 

 

[questionposter]

I think the fact that there's religious scientists should disprove this whole "religious people are broken thing". Even Einstein was religious to a degree. Maybe he didn't believe in god, but he did believe that there was some almost mystical entity responsible for the intricate workings of the universe.

[rigney]

Rigney,

 

God, as is described in the major religions, I believe we will find to be a reflection of the universe, in our selves, that some have mistakenly taken as being an actual person or entity, when in reality, it comes from our imagination. In the same way that we can imagine unseen other real people. That we can converse with others mentally is true. We have an image of every person we know. Their looks, and likes and dislikes, background, ideas, hopes and wishes. We can construct the same, if we wish, to embody good, or to embody evil, but as Inow puts it, it is an imaginary friend (or enemy). No more than that.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Being ignorant in both science and religion makes me an easy target, since I can't take sides with either camp! But tell me in all honesty, is anybody going to beat you over the head because of your convictions, one way or another? Unless you wore glasses and they knew you could read, even in the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia back in the 70s, you didn't have to worry much unless you told someone. And I don't know if those people even had a religion.

What is GOD? Who is GOD? How, as humans have we come to such a distraction as to have a continuous rhubarb among supposedly literate and higher ape species, regardless of how they believe? Damn!!

Edited April 29, 2012 by rigney

[seriously disabled]

God-believers have not yet come up with a reliable resolution to some of the good arguments raised by nonbelievers such as the problem of evil, the argument from poor design and the argument from nonbelief.

 

Clearly if God was real then he could have created better humans which are more resistant to disease, disability, injuries and have better morality. This is what the argument from poor design actually says.

 

And I have to agree with atheists on the point that if God was real and wanted everyone to know that he exists and is real then he would have come down from the sky and made it very clear to everyone that he is real and that all the other deities are fake.

 

But this does not happen because there are still agnostics and atheists, which should not be the case if God is real therefore logical deduction tells me that very likely God does not exist.

Edited April 29, 2012 by seriously disabled

[tar]

rigney,

 

I would have to join you in the ignorant camp.

 

I am not prepared to join either the science camp, or the religious camp.

 

I am skeptical of both camps because of my affection for components of each camp that the other camp berides.

 

And I am always looking for ways to make peace between them, probably because I have already had this discussion with myself. many times, and continually.

 

Maybe because I love and repect my Dad, who is rational and non-religious, and loved and respected my Mom, who was a bit quirky and very religious. Both intelligent, both teachers, Psychology and Mathematics respectively.

 

They divorced when I was 18. Couldn't see eye to eye on too many things. Couldn't provide the other with what they needed.

 

So, I guess I am looking for the way to be rational, quirky, religious and non-religious, all at the same time.

 

And I think we can do without Gods as long as we don't throw out the ideals they represent.

Because to do without ideals, would leave life...empty of ideals. And that would be a "broken" way of being.

 

And I don't think the only place to come up with a valid Ideal, is in the lab or in the cave. I think its quite appropriate, to make them up, as we go. And to hold on to the ideals that other people come up with, that work for you.

 

Regards, TAR2

[doG]

...and do not look at the believers as closed minded, because believing in something after death is pretty open minded to me, and believing that we just live and die and fade away from existence, is very closed minded...

No. Believing in possibilities is open minded. Believing as s 'fact' that there is something after death is not only close minded but it also indicates a flaw in one's ability to reason rationally. Open minded people do not draw unsupported conclusions.

[John Cuthber]

I think the fact that there's religious scientists should disprove this whole "religious people are broken thing".

That doesn't make sense.

We know that there are plenty of great people in any number of fields who are "broken" in some way. For example it's believed that Churchill was depressive.

 

Just because someone is a great physicist doesn't mean that they are a great theologist.

[tar]

Inow,

 

If there is intuitive morality, then the people that came up with God had it, the people that they taught the "Godly" rules to, had it, and the people that currently believe in the proposed God have it as well.

 

So whatever morality anybody has, has to be a combination of "natural" morality, and "derived" morality, and "learned" morality, and "enforced" morality.

 

And chances are, that logical derivation never was, and never should be, the sole source of moral law.

And chances are, that evolved neurolgy and the human organism itself, never was, and never should be, the sole source of moral law.

And chances are, that "learned" morality already has all sources of morality built in, so it cannot be the sole source either.

And "enforced" morality is society's way of making agreed upon morality stick, so the moral code was already understood, whether intuited or learned.

 

There seems to be this "society" thing to consider as important as both cause and effect of morality. That we each have an understanding of this Authority to which we must submit our moral dilemmas for resolution. That we can do this, without actually requiring an actual conversation with anybody, but in most cases just have a conversation with that unseen other that embodies our own, and society's values, says to me, that we all have this facility to "imagine" society as a person, who would like or dislike our decisions.

 

We never go to every home and consult with every man woman and child, to find out what society wants or needs. We make our decisions based on a quite "made up" and variously incomplete and incorrect image of aforementioned society, we hold in our heads.

We all do that, how could we do it "otherwise". No one, in light of this, should consider their image, the actual thing. No matter how perfectly they think they have modeled reality. Not a scientist. Not a priest. Not a genius nor a fool.

 

To consider people that believe in God broken, you would have to consider yourself fixed. There is probably delusion enough to go around.

 

Regards, TAR2

[John Cuthber]

Inow,

 

If there is intuitive morality, then the people that came up with God had it, the people that they taught the "Godly" rules to, had it, and the people that currently believe in the proposed God have it as well.

 

So whatever morality anybody has, has to be a combination of "natural" morality, and "derived" morality, and "learned" morality, and "enforced" morality.

 

And chances are, that logical derivation never was, and never should be, the sole source of moral law.

And chances are, that evolved neurolgy and the human organism itself, never was, and never should be, the sole source of moral law.

And chances are, that "learned" morality already has all sources of morality built in, so it cannot be the sole source either.

And "enforced" morality is society's way of making agreed upon morality stick, so the moral code was already understood, whether intuited or learned.

 

There seems to be this "society" thing to consider as important as both cause and effect of morality. That we each have an understanding of this Authority to which we must submit our moral dilemmas for resolution. That we can do this, without actually requiring an actual conversation with anybody, but in most cases just have a conversation with that unseen other that embodies our own, and society's values, says to me, that we all have this facility to "imagine" society as a person, who would like or dislike our decisions.

 

We never go to every home and consult with every man woman and child, to find out what society wants or needs. We make our decisions based on a quite "made up" and variously incomplete and incorrect image of aforementioned society, we hold in our heads.

We all do that, how could we do it "otherwise". No one, in light of this, should consider their image, the actual thing. No matter how perfectly they think they have modeled reality. Not a scientist. Not a priest. Not a genius nor a fool.

 

To consider people that believe in God broken, you would have to consider yourself fixed. There is probably delusion enough to go around.

 

Regards, TAR2

Oh look!

A bunch of inevinced assertions used in support of an argument.

 

"And chances are, that logical derivation never was, and never should be, the sole source of moral law.

And chances are, that evolved neurolgy and the human organism itself, never was, and never should be, the sole source of moral law.

And chances are, that "learned" morality already has all sources of morality built in, so it cannot be the sole source either."

 

It is sufficient, in most cases to consider (as your parents probably said) "What would happen if everyone did that?".

If the outcome is bad, then the action is immoral.

Most 5 year olds can just about manage this. I hardly think it needs a God to explain it to us.

 

In any event, the "the chances are" without actually showing that the odds are calculable and as given, is a dressed up argument from incredulity.

It is, in effect asserting " I can't see how it is not the case that...".

[Villain]

@ iNow

 

At best your conclusion can be: there is no scientific evidence for or against the possibility of a god and therefore we don't know. Don't make the mistake of making a positive assertion because there is a lack of evidence otherwise. History has provided numerous examples of the mistake of such an assertion, the world being flat is one of them. The concept of a god, exists and has a reality, perhaps not the reality that you are suggesting that it should but that is your reality and things exist outside of your reality. There is no positive evidence that a god doesn't exist but there is plenty of texts that suggest a god does exist, perhaps the default should be that god does exist then?

 

You also keep confusing religion and politics, something that I have pointed out numerous times, in fact it seems the entire motivation (here I go assigning motivation again) seems a political one. As a scientist I would think that you would not make such an elementary (get it) mistake.

 

@seriously disabled

Clearly if God was real then he could have created better humans which are more resistant to disease, disability, injuries and have better morality. This is what the argument from poor design actually says.

 

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that because we find ourselves in the reality we live it proves that God doesn't exist? How would a perfect reality look?

 

And I have to agree with atheists on the point that if God was real and wanted everyone to know that he exists and is real then he would have come down from the sky and made it very clear to everyone that he is real and that all the other deities are fake.

 

 

Like Jesus, or are you suggesting a different way?

 

Edited for quote clarity.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Villain

[rigney]

rigney,

 

I would have to join you in the ignorant camp.

 

I am not prepared to join either the science camp, or the religious camp.

 

I am skeptical of both camps because of my affection for components of each camp that the other camp berides.

 

And I am always looking for ways to make peace between them, probably because I have already had this discussion with myself. many times, and continually.

 

Maybe because I love and repect my Dad, who is rational and non-religious, and loved and respected my Mom, who was a bit quirky and very religious. Both intelligent, both teachers, Psychology and Mathematics respectively.

 

They divorced when I was 18. Couldn't see eye to eye on too many things. Couldn't provide the other with what they needed.

 

So, I guess I am looking for the way to be rational, quirky, religious and non-religious, all at the same time.

 

And I think we can do without Gods as long as we don't throw out the ideals they represent.

Because to do without ideals, would leave life...empty of ideals. And that would be a "broken" way of being.

 

And I don't think the only place to come up with a valid Ideal, is in the lab or in the cave. I think its quite appropriate, to make them up, as we go. And to hold on to the ideals that other people come up with, that work for you.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Tar, I grew up in a home where I can't remember ever hearing God mentioned; unless it was my Dad spitting out an oath from time to time. He, Dad was born in 1898 and Mom, 1900. They spatted on occassion, drank on weekend when Dad didn't have to work, but they stayed together for over 50 years until Mom passed away in 1974. Was it love? I can't say. But they always seemed to have an affectionate way toward each other. Neither had a formal education, but both were well grounded individuals. They did stress a few things though that I have tried to pass on to my own children. Be honest and supportive of your family and friends. And If you find a shoe box or purse full of money, make sure the "donor" gets their recepticle back; anon! Other than that, don't make an outright effort to lie, cheat, steal; or take wooden nickels from anyone. Edited April 29, 2012 by rigney

[Villain]

It is sufficient, in most cases to consider (as your parents probably said) "What would happen if everyone did that?".

If the outcome is bad, then the action is immoral.

Most 5 year olds can just about manage this. I hardly think it needs a God to explain it to us.

 

What do you mean by 'bad'?

[iNow]

To consider people that believe in God broken, you would have to consider yourself fixed.

This is not true.

 

---

 

At best your conclusion can be: there is no scientific evidence for or against the possibility of a god and therefore we don't know.

That's fair... In which case, those who claim to know god exists are (by definition) broken, since the BEST they can do (by your own admission) is to put forth that they don't know. They are making a conclusion that they cannot possibly make. They are justifying that conclusion in the absence of any evidence whatsoever. They are basing their entire position on the non-explanation of faith. If faith could be equally used to justify belief in something ludicrous like Mothra or Poseidon, then it brings zero value and fails in any meaningful way whatsoever to justify the belief in some other god like allah or yahweh or zeus.

 

Is this not self-evident? Must one have already realized and accepted the folly of faith to appreciate the simple truth of this point?

 

 

The concept of a god, exists and has a reality, perhaps not the reality that you are suggesting that it should but that is your reality and things exist outside of your reality.

I don't disagree with you that the "concept of" god(s) exists. That was never a point of contention. The issue here is how so many people go far beyond that... They make the positive assertion that an ACTUAL god exists. Well... Okay, then prove it. That's on you. That's your onus.

 

As I've already clarified more than once in this very thread, and multiple times in others... I do NOT make the claim that god(s) do/does not exist. My position is that there is zero compelling reasons to assume one does. There is zero agreed upon consensus of definition. There is zero evidence of this deity. There are zero arguments in support of it that are not quickly shown to be false, full of logical fallacies, or based on faith alone.

 

For the same reason I do not think the tooth fairy is real, I do not think god(s) are/is real. I'm not here telling you, "There is no tooth fairy." I'm here telling you that there's no good reason... no compelling evidence... no logical, rational, reasonable support to assume one does. Same with god(s).

 

There is no positive evidence that a god doesn't exist but there is plenty of texts that suggest a god does exist, perhaps the default should be that god does exist then?

No. There are also plenty of texts that suggest Vishnu exists, yet you're not arguing for belief in THAT god. Why the hypocrisy? Why the double standard? You may as well be arguing that Harry Potter exists as more than a fictional character... After all, by your own logic and by your own argument, there are "plenty of texts that suggest Harry Potter exists." Since when has a book of fiction served as adequate evidence of the existence of a being... let alone a being as extraordinary as the god you claim? The evidence is not extraordinary, and does not scale with the claim.

 

You also keep confusing religion and politics, something that I have pointed out numerous times, in fact it seems the entire motivation (here I go assigning motivation again) seems a political one. As a scientist I would think that you would not make such an elementary (get it) mistake.

First, I'd ask you how this point is relevant to the central thesis. From where I'm standing, it's not. It's merely a distraction from the cnoversation.

 

Second, how about (once you've clearly articulated how these comments are at all relevant) you support them and explain more precisely (using quotes preferably) how you think I've been doing any such thing.

 

Third, I see you're here now (yet again) claiming to know the motivations of some other person. You really really really need to try to break that habit. As it stands, my motivations are not relevant to my argument. Also, you have zero way of knowing them. At best, you can speculate about them, and it's better left out of the discussion.

 

Fourth, how about instead of directing your comments at me you instead focus on the content of the discussion... the merit of the points... and the consistency of the logic?

 

 

I don't understand your point.

From this point in your post forward you've been quoting someone elses words. This was not immediately clear since you didn't attribute the quotes. Either way, I'll let them answer for themselves.

[questionposter]

That doesn't make sense.

We know that there are plenty of great people in any number of fields who are "broken" in some way. For example it's believed that Churchill was depressive.

 

Just because someone is a great physicist doesn't mean that they are a great theologist.

 

That's completely beside the point, the fact that there are very intelligent and successful people who completely acknowledge science but are also religious should dispel that rumor.

[rigney]

iNow

 

tar, on 29 April 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

 

To consider people that believe in God broken, you would have to consider yourself fixed.

 

iNow: This is not true.

 

rigney: How can you possibly answer Tars question with such an empty assertion as: This is not true? Could you explain?

[iNow]

That's completely beside the point, the fact that there are very intelligent and successful people who completely acknowledge science but are also religious should dispel that rumor.

I'm not sure why you think that's at all a useful argument in this discussion.

 

Just because someone is successful in one domain like science, but simultaneously holds religious belief... or belief in some deity... doesn't mean their belief in that deity represents non-broken mental processes. What it implies is that they are willing to compartmentalize their approach to the universe, and that they separate reality based beliefs and faith based beliefs as distinct in their mind, yet treat both as equally true. What it means is that they are inconsistent with their logic, their rigor, and their approach to accepting things as true or valid. What it means is that they are hypocritical, showing a double standard, and likely exemplifying some degree of cognitive dissonance. It seems plain that this is a broken approach to anyone who values consistency, accuracy, and integrity.

 

If you truly think that the existence of religious scientists negates the points I (and others) have put forth in this thread, then I suspect you really haven't grasped or completely comprehended those points. I am glad to continue trying to clarify them, though.

 

---

 

EDIT:

iNow

 

tar, on 29 April 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

 

To consider people that believe in God broken, you would have to consider yourself fixed.

 

iNow: This is not true.

 

rigney: How can you possibly answer Tars question with such an empty assertion as: This is not true? Could you explain?

Sure thing. He said that you have to consider yourself fixed to believe that some else who believes in god(s) is broken. That's not true. I can concede that I, too, am broken in various ways and STILL be accurate in my comment that someone else is broken for believing in god(s), or for using flawed logic and fallacious arguments, or for accepting any proposition as true based on faith alone.

Edited April 29, 2012 by iNow

[doG]

There is no positive evidence that a god doesn't exist but there is plenty of texts that suggest a god does exist, perhaps the default should be that god does exist then?

Story books written by men millennia ago are fairy tales and there is no reason that any of them should be considered even a minimal measure of evidence to support any belief in the existence of a deity. Those that think otherwise are devoid of skepticism. The default position should be to question everything until there is sufficient evidence to 'know' the truth, i.e. reality. Hand me down beliefs rooted in unsupported conclusions founded in the daydreams of our ancestors is evidence of one's inability to reason rationally. That is a flaw!

[immortal]

I'm not sure why you think that's at all a useful argument in this discussion.

 

Just because someone is successful in one domain like science, but simultaneously holds religious belief... or belief in some deity... doesn't mean their belief in that deity represents non-broken mental processes. What it implies is that they are willing to compartmentalize their approach to the universe, and that they separate reality based beliefs and faith based beliefs as distinct in their mind, yet treat both as equally true. What it means is that they are inconsistent with their logic, their rigor, and their approach to accepting things as true or valid. What it means is that they are hypocritical, showing a double standard, and likely exemplifying some degree of cognitive dissonance. It seems plain that this is a broken approach to anyone who values consistency, accuracy, and integrity.

 

How is a reasonable argument for disagreeing with a point of view is an act of double standards, religious scientists don't assert that God exists, they just think that its more likely that he exists while non-theists think its very unlikely that he exists and search for him with the same rigor and with the same consistent approach which they adopt to test any other hypothesis.

 

http://www.peterrussell.com/pete.php

 

I don't accept everything which he says and don't blindly believe in him without questioning his ideas but I don't have to go to such an extreme and call him broken when he explains why he become a theist from an atheist.