People who believe in god are broken

[DrDNA]

What kind of responses do you think you would have received 60 years ago (and if they had PCs) if the question was.....

"Do you think people who believe that the universe had a beginning and it is expanding are broken?"

 

Was there any solid evidence at the time to support the theory that the universe is static? No. It just made the equations balance. If that ain't faith, I don't know what is. Faith in a cosmological factor.

 

Hebrews and Christians knew it had a beginning and the scientific community thought we were nuts.

 

This is why the question is broken. Any scientist worth his salt knows that he doesn't know hardly anything. All this assumption of a particular group of people being broken and others not broken is bigoted and arrogant.

 

It is bigoted and arrogant to ask that "are people that live in trailer parks broken" also.

The average income levels of people that live in trailer parks are lower than those that live in gated communities.

The trailers are more dangerous in storms. yet they still choose to live there.

But are the people that live there broken?

Are they relatively more broken compared to people that live in gated communities?

 

I think this is treading on dangerous ground.

Edited May 1, 2012 by DrDNA

[questionposter]

doG,

 

You missed the point I am driving at.

 

Check out the 99 names for Allah, and tell me only a broken person would believe in any of them.

 

http://muttaqun.com/99names.html

 

And don't misunderstand me. I witnessed the Twin Towers burning, and I am the great Satan in the eyes of many of the believers in Mohammed's Koran. They are my enemy, and I have every reason to tear the book apart, both literally and in valid arguments. Mohammed had no right to usurp the power of people's belief, and equate belief in Allah, with belief in Mohammed, and his commandments. Its down right idiocy, the whole 48 virgin or burn in hell thing, if you do or don't believe in Allah's messenger. Believers and Disbievers, as if we ALL don't believe in these 99 ideals. What I don't believe in is the things Mohammed made up, in Allah's name(s).

 

But the misuse of people's belief in these things is not my point.

 

What I am after, is an understanding of why these 99 things are so powerful, when embodied in Mohammed, as to have a quarter of the population of the planet, reciting his words 3 times a day, and living for the day they will take a pilgramage to Mecca, to circle the stone with other believers, and strive in many ways for the day, that all the world is for Allah.

 

This is proof of God. Beyond any reasonable doubt. But not to be found so much in the sky, but in the hearts and minds of men.

 

I know Inow is looking to understand this usurption that religion does. And I am with him, in the knowledge that the answer lies in how we are put together. Not by any "designer" that can be befriended or wronged, but by evolution, the survival of the organisms that were best arranged to do so. So the answers "have to be" explainable. All the evidence is in the folds of our brains, and the stars in the sky.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I thought I already explained this: religion does not impair mental ability, there is absolutely no scientific research to support that it does (ironically). Being very religious is more about an emotional connection than anything, and plenty of people have emotions.

Edited May 1, 2012 by questionposter

[Iggy]

What kind of responses do you think you would have received 60 years ago (and if they had PCs) if the question was.....

"Do you think people who believe that the universe had a beginning and it is expanding are broken?"

In January 1931 Einstein told the New York Times, "New observations by Hubble and Humanson... concerning the red-shift of light in distant nebulae make probable the assumption that the general structure of the Universe is not static"

 

100 years ago it was possible to conceive of methods to prove a static universe wrong. It is a testable hypothesis. Was it possible for someone living 100 or 200 years ago to conceive of a way to prove the existence of God wrong?

 

Broken might be the wrong word, but something seems off about believing something is correct regardless of the truth. That is to say, no matter what we might learn tomorrow we will still believe God exists.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Iggy

[iNow]

I think this is treading on dangerous ground.

I agree. You should probably avoid suggesting the contributors to this thread are bigoted and arrogant. That's just not necessary, and your contributions have been highly emotive and personal throughout. I'd appreciate it if you could stop that, please.

[questionposter]

I challenge anyone who thinks religious people are broken to be completely logical in every action and consciously make every decision for even 24 hours.

[DrDNA]

I agree. You should probably avoid suggesting the contributors to this thread are bigoted and arrogant. That's just not necessary, and your contributions have been highly emotive and personal throughout. I'd appreciate it if you could stop that, please.

 

I didn't suggest the contributors are. Just the question. Quit taking everything so personal. It makes you smell guilty.

[doG]

doG,

 

....This is proof of God. Beyond any reasonable doubt. But not to be found so much in the sky, but in the hearts and minds of men.

No, it's proof that portion of the world's population cannot think for themselves. They blindly believe what they have been told to believe with no evidence to support those hand me down beliefs. I have no doubt these people believe in God but that is not proof of god. There is no proof of any god(s). Most of men in that population have been taught to believe there are 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven. Do you consider that proof there are 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven?

[immortal]

Well talking of evidence...

 

At times Teresa’s agonies and ecstasies were so violent that reports were that her room shook and the other nuns were frightened.

 

The phenomenon of the subtle magnification of the aura of a saint and their dead bodies existing without decomposing for many days has parallels in many traditions.

 

All traditions indicate that empirical reality is like a dream, there is an amazing common consensus among different traditions who claim to explain that almost 15 days would have passed away in the empirical world while they are in experience of a divine realm for just few minutes. Time might be relative to the state of the mind.

 

These all are reality based claims, in fact they are empirical claims, which can be observed, the scientific community ignores such reports for some others it is enough evidence to investigate such experiences. Even evolutionary biology is not an exact science, many of the phenomena cannot be repeatable and we deduce and accept it to be true.

 

Yes, religious beliefs and magical ideation are a sign of psychotic behaviors, they should have a mental defect because they are trying to produce cracks in empirical reality, cracks which forces us to doubt the very foundation of science and scientific realism.

 

 

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?doi=10.1159/000108125

- Meditation leads to pyschopathology.

 

 

 

Theists may be wrong, there might be other explanations for those phenomena, you might call them broken while I call them creative and intellectually open.

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262601914939

- Are creativity and schizotypy products of a right hemisphere bias?

 

 

The conversion of Saul of Tarsus to Christianity after Jesus revealed himself to him is an another indirect evidence unless there is an alternative explanation as to why he converted at the time when Jewish Christians were prosecuted.

 

 

Shankara of advaita left his home in search of God when he was 8 years old and an another theory says Jesus might have left his home when he was 13.

 

Seeing this, it seems grown up adults look very immature and silly when they attack religion and faith. We need to learn a lot from children.

 

We can criticize theistic claims without calling them childish and broken or mentally defective. If you can't see this simple thing then there is something wrong with you, you're mixing institutional religion which is more associated with politics with personal religion and attacking FAITH by putting all of them in the same bandwagon. To have faith in God is to doubt the existence of God.

[seriously disabled]

There is no doubt in my mind that many great things could have been possible if there really was a God but this is simply not the case in the cruel world we live in.

 

For starters, if God really existed he could have created a better world for everyone, a world where there are no starving, sick, disabled or homeless people for starters. A world where everyone's dreams and wishes could become true.

 

For example God could have healed many diseases and disabilities and make the climate better like making it rain much more so the people starving in Africa could have increased their agricultural yields and be able to feed their entire population with food surpluses.

 

And with that being said, I just fail to see the evidence for the existence of any loving and good-hearted God.

Edited May 1, 2012 by seriously disabled

[iNow]

No, it's proof that portion of the world's population cannot think for themselves. They blindly believe what they have been told to believe with no evidence to support those hand me down beliefs. I have no doubt these people believe in God but that is not proof of god. There is no proof of any god(s). Most of men in that population have been taught to believe there are 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven. Do you consider that proof there are 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven?

I agree with you, but the central disagreement here seems to be that TAR is conflating two very distinct ideas.

One - Proof for god(s).

Two - Proof that the god concept is real in the minds of some people (essentially, proof of belief, not proof of a deity).

 

He's basically saying that the easter bunny is real because it exists as a concept we can discuss here, because people know roughly what you mean when you mention it, and he is just replacing the term "easter bunny" with "god(s)."

[Villain]

It seems everyone understands the concept of a creator, so in order to investigate the possibility that we were created we must assume that said creator would make themselves known to us, enter theology. Since there is no proof that we were not created it is not broken to believe in finding the creator. And let me point out that even science operates off of assumptions. For those that might insist that there is no evidence to suggest that we were created, go and ask your parents how you were conceived.

 

If the creator created everything known to man how would anything specific suggest that a creator exists (John Cuthber et al)? This is why I say that to someone who believes (and it is a belief because there is no evidence that the assumption of no creation is correct) that a god does not exist, there will never be evidence of a god.

[Ophiolite]

It seems everyone understands the concept of a creator, so in order to investigate the possibility that we were created we must assume that said creator would make themselves known to us, enter theology.

I don't understand why you think this is a valid and required assumption. Would you explain and justify? Even if a creator exists why would you automatically assume he was interested in you? If I am creating a turned table leg I have no interest in the wood shavings, except as a potential fire hazard.

 

Since there is no proof that we were not created it is not broken to believe in finding the creator.

There is a difference between looking for a creator and claiming to have found one without replicable, external evidence. I don't think anyone has claimed that to look for a creator is broken - if they have then they are mistaken.

 

And let me point out that even science operates off of assumptions.

Anf the methodology of science requires that every assumption be tested deeply, vigorously and repeatedly. The only untested assumption is the one that the universe is explicable and even that is ultimately tested by the confirmation of the success of the scientific method.

 

If the creator created everything known to man how would anything specific suggest that a creator exists

How would it not?

[Villain]

1. I don't understand why you think this is a valid and required assumption. Would you explain and justify? Even if a creator exists why would you automatically assume he was interested in you? If I am creating a turned table leg I have no interest in the wood shavings, except as a potential fire hazard.

 

 

2. There is a difference between looking for a creator and claiming to have found one without replicable, external evidence. I don't think anyone has claimed that to look for a creator is broken - if they have then they are mistaken.

 

 

3. Anf the methodology of science requires that every assumption be tested deeply, vigorously and repeatedly. The only untested assumption is the one that the universe is explicable and even that is ultimately tested by the confirmation of the success of the scientific method.

 

4. How would it not?

 

1. In order to investigate ......we must assume. If the creator was not willing or able to be found then we would never find them.

 

2. I don't understand what you mean by replicable.

 

3. What is your point, are or are they not assumptions?

 

4. This is meant in reference to something else ie. a tree would be as much evidence of a creator as a planet would. Science as we know it, would not find anything that would serve as evidence for or against the creator.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Villain

[iNow]

There are a few nice gems in this short article. Worth the read if you've been following the thread. I've shared a few very brief snippets to whet your appetite.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/science-and-spirituality_1_b_1466600.html

 

I tried to make it clear that we put our trust, not faith but trust, in science because it works. If it didn't work, we wouldn't do it.

 

<...>

 

But what is science anyway? And here's a point few people realize. It really isn't anything different from what we do in everyday life. We all learn about the world by observing it and we all make up models to describe what we experience. The only difference is that science carries out that program more systematically by following certain rules we call the scientific method.

 

Thousands of years of human experience have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that observation, with our senses or instruments, is our most reliable source of knowledge about the world. Come up with a better source and scientists will be happy to use it. Divine revelation, however, is for sure a total failure.

 

<...>

 

But gradually science separated from religion, and from philosophy for that matter, to the point where today the three are clearly distinct. Those scientists who are believers have compartmentalized their brains into separate science and religion modules. They leave their critical thinking skills at the door when they go to church in Sunday, and leave their religion at home when they go back to work Monday morning. God never enters their equations.

 

Finally let me elaborate further on the New Atheist position of confronting religion rather than trying to get along and accommodate religious belief. The new atheists think religion is unnecessarily being given a free ride, with people avoiding criticizing it. Why should people of faith be treated with such deference? Why are clergypersons consulted on moral issues? How can believing in something without evidence provide any insight into anything?

 

This position is severely criticized not only by theists but by many atheists as well. After all, opponents of New Atheism say, religion provides people with comfort, does good works, and, besides, it is not going to go away. Furthermore, what right do you have to tell people what to believe?

 

Well, of course we have no right to tell people what to believe. But we do have a right to speak out against religion when it tries to tell other people what they can do or think, as with the recent attempts to suppress birth control and the ongoing battle against abortion, same-sex marriage, and stem-cell research.

 

Or when it's used to justify hijacking planes and flying them into buildings... or to justify genital mutilation... or to let sick kids with easily treatable illness die.. or, ad infinitum.

[John Cuthber]

Isn't the bible's stories supposedly evidence for god because some of what's in there is suppose to be what god said/did?

I don't know what it's "supposed " to be. I guess that depends on who is making suppositions.

Another question is which bible do you mean? so I wouldn't overemphasise its importance to Christianity it if I were you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Biblical_canons

[DrDNA]

I forgot to mention this earlier.

 

In drug studies, the placebo effect for example, commonly approaching 20% in some studies (and even up to 35% in others! ), is measurable and observable.

The effect is often greater that the actual drug or treatment itself.

 

The placebo effect proves that faith heals.

As Jesus stated, the faith of a mustard seed.....

 

Belief in God involves faith.

 

So, is the placebo effect, and therefore faith, broken also?

[Iggy]

It seems everyone understands the concept of a creator, so in order to investigate the possibility that we were created we must assume that said creator would make themselves known to us, enter theology.

 

[...]

 

If the creator created everything known to man how would anything specific suggest that a creator exists (John Cuthber et al)?

If you created a simulated reality on a computer with artificially intelligent programs occupying it and you wanted to make yourself known to the simulated world how would you go about it?

 

Are you saying that there is nothing you could do? You want to make yourself known to your creations, but the fact that the simulation exists is the only way you can think to do that?

 

Or, are you saying that religion is the best God could do to make himself known -- revealing himself to a few members of an illiterate population cut off from the wider world in the form of a burning bush?

 

If God is powerful enough to create the universe and wants to make himself known then of course he could. Those two assumptions don't match up at all with reality.

 

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

 

 

I forgot to mention this earlier.

 

In drug studies, the placebo effect for example, commonly approaching 20% in some studies (and even up to 35% in others! ), is measurable and observable.

The effect is often greater that the actual drug or treatment itself.

 

The placebo effect proves that faith heals.

As Jesus stated, the faith of a mustard seed.....

 

Belief in God involves faith.

 

So, is the placebo effect, and therefore faith, broken also?

If I wanted to lie to a Judge in a court of law I might try to rationalize it to myself by saying,

 

In drug studies, the placebo effect for example, commonly approaching 20% in some studies (and even up to 35% in others! ), is

measurable and observable.

The effect is often greater that the actual drug or treatment itself.

 

The placebo effect proves that lying to patients heals them.

Like Exodus 1 shows with Shiphrah and Puah... lying can be ok.

 

Perjury in a court of law involves lying.

 

So, is the placebo effect, and therefore lying, really wrong?

 

Such a convoluted argument could be used to support almost anything. It's a rationalization. When I was very young, and religious, I felt guilty if I ever tried to see through my own arguments for God. I didn't realize how flimsy my own thoughts on the subject were until I allowed myself to question them. I bet that if you ever critically examined your own religious beliefs you would see how tenuous they are.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Iggy

[tar]

I agree with you, but the central disagreement here seems to be that TAR is conflating two very distinct ideas.

One - Proof for god(s).

Two - Proof that the god concept is real in the minds of some people (essentially, proof of belief, not proof of a deity).

 

He's basically saying that the easter bunny is real because it exists as a concept we can discuss here, because people know roughly what you mean when you mention it, and he is just replacing the term "easter bunny" with "god(s)."

 

Inow,

 

That is a pretty good discription of what I am doing. However I would cringe a little at the "conflating" which insinuates I am doing something inappropriate. I would prefer some term like "drawing a parallel". Believe it or not, I do know the difference between the idea of an Easter Bunny and the idea of God. It is the talking points of Atheists that make the conflation and always compare the belief in God to the belief in unicorns, and invisible gremlins and the like.

 

There is a BIG difference between the size and nature of the concepts embodied in a God, and the concepts embodied in the Easter Bunny.

 

The Easter Bunny symbolizes the gift of joy, that Jesus gave us, by dying for our sins, maybe, or maybe just a bit of magic, combined with some tasty sweet goodies.

 

God symbolizes "everything" good we know.

 

I have talked with religious people during my life, and argued my points with them, and understood the "ideas" they were expressing. They for the most part, were concerned with the same world I was, and how we should think about it, and each other. The disagreements usually were when they talked of things that were evidently (to me) not likey to work in reality. Like, how can you remember your former life, if your brain was not there to record it? And what, about that "other" body/brain/heart group, makes it you, and not him/her? Or if you go to heaven, but your eyes are in your dead body in a dark coffin, along with the rest of your senses and brain, that would do any noticing or remembering, how could you be experiecing anything at all? Hell, and fire and boiling oil, neither, would have much effect on you without nerves to feel the heat, and without any flesh to burn away. And also the meditators, and the "unity" folk, and the "lose yourself to the silence" folk, and any number of other approaches that tended to negate the importance of the actual living body/heart/brain group, in being the only you, you have. They made no "sense" to me. And still don't. I am an Atheist. I no longer believe there is a consciousness (other than mine and my family's) that is going to keep my soul, while I sleep, and take it, when I die. Not literally. Not with any cause and effect type actual, transformation, that would somehow work, in some knowable fashion.

 

No, I am pretty sure the Easter Bunny magic, and the God magic...are both constructs of the human mind. But they are constructs with reasons, and with explainations. And when understood in this fashion, they become "real" again, but on another level. On a level where I can "conflate" the beliefs of a scientist, with the beliefs of Mohammed, because they are "inspired" by the same reality. The beliefs differ, but the subject is still "me" and the object is still "the universe", and in neither case, is the subject, in actuality "other than" the object. To suggest that you as a scientist can look at the universe, as an "outsider", is just as imaginary as a religious person thinking he/she belongs to the universe, is actual.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 2, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

Believe it or not, I do know the difference between the idea of an Easter Bunny and the idea of God. It is the talking points of Atheists that make the conflation and always compare the belief in God to the belief in unicorns, and invisible gremlins and the like.

In what relevant ways (in terms of proof, or evidence, or actual existence) do you propose they are different? I very much welcome a response to this that doesn't resort to "how important it is to the person" or "how many people believe," as truth is dictated by neither popularity nor warm fuzzies.

 

 

I am pretty sure the Easter Bunny magic, and the God magic...are both constructs of the human mind. But they are constructs with reasons, and with explainations. And when understood in this fashion, they become "real" again, but on another level.

The issue, TAR, is that nobody here is arguing against the fact that the "idea of god" exists. You're framing your argument against a position not a single person has taken.

 

Nobody is contemplating whether or not someone might be broken because they "believe there exists the concept of god." The contemplation is that someone might be broken because they "believe in god," because they believe god is much more than just a "thought experiment," or a "concept to be discussed." No. They believe god itself is real... that god is more than just a potential prospect of some sort, but is instead very much a real thing... and that's why your points are tangential to the point of being irrelevant and ultimately moot.

 

The easter bunny is an example to make this point more accessible. We would not care whether or not someone accepts the existence of the "concept" of an easter bunny. We would care, however, if they accepted the existence of the easter bunny itself. Now, perform a Find for "easter bunny" and Replace All with "god(s)."

[questionposter]

Just to make sure, can anyone actually draw a logical and sequential correlation between "believing in god" and "being broken"?

 

"Person x believes in god therefore person x is broken"? Doesn't seem to make sense, or if it does, there's a LOT of middle pieces missing.

Edited May 2, 2012 by questionposter

[iNow]

Just to make sure, can anyone actually draw a logical and sequential correlation between "believing in god" and "being broken"?

How are you defining "broken?"

[DrDNA]

If I wanted to lie to a Judge in a court of law I might try to rationalize it to myself by saying,

 

In drug studies, the placebo effect for example, commonly approaching 20% in some studies (and even up to 35% in others! ), is

measurable and observable.

The effect is often greater that the actual drug or treatment itself.

 

The placebo effect proves that lying to patients heals them.

Like Exodus 1 shows with Shiphrah and Puah... lying can be ok.

 

Perjury in a court of law involves lying.

 

So, is the placebo effect, and therefore lying, really wrong?

Your argument doesn't hold water.

In a double blind study, even the experimenter doesn't know. So there is no lying involved.

ONLY faith and faith alone.

 

Such a convoluted argument could be used to support almost anything. It's a rationalization. When I was very young, and religious, I felt guilty if I ever tried to see through my own arguments for God. I didn't realize how flimsy my own thoughts on the subject were until I allowed myself to question them. I bet that if you ever critically examined your own religious beliefs you would see how tenuous they are.

Well. I'm old and they are not tenuous.

I'm sorry that you lost your beliefs.

Edited May 2, 2012 by DrDNA

[doG]

I forgot to mention this earlier.

 

In drug studies, the placebo effect for example, commonly approaching 20% in some studies (and even up to 35% in others! ), is measurable and observable.

The effect is often greater that the actual drug or treatment itself.

 

The placebo effect proves that faith heals.

As Jesus stated, the faith of a mustard seed.....

 

Belief in God involves faith.

 

So, is the placebo effect, and therefore faith, broken also?

First of all, your positive assertion has no supporting links.

 

Here's a non-supporting link for you though,

 

The placebo effect is the measurable, observable, or felt improvement in health or behavior not attributable to a medication or invasive treatment that has been administered. The placebo effect is not mind over matter; it is not mind-body medicine. 'The placebo effect' has become a catchall term for a positive change in health not attributable to medication or treatment. As is explained below, the change can be due to many things, such as regression to the mean, spontaneous improvement, reduction of stress, misdiagnosis in the first place, subject expectancy, classical conditioning, etc...

 

You might also consider...

 

The definition for insanity, according to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, is "something utterly foolish or unreasonable". And the definition of faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

 

To elaborate, it can be concluded that believing in something without scientific proof is not logically reasonable. As a result, faith is not logically reasonable. Therefore, having faith is a sign of insanity...

 

I would certainly assert that anytime faith overrides the natural will to survive it could be legitimately labeled as a mental disorder.

[zapatos]

I would certainly assert that anytime faith overrides the natural will to survive it could be legitimately labeled as a mental disorder.

Is this a personal opinion or do you have anything to support this assertion?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Theists may be wrong, there might be other explanations for those phenomena, you might call them broken while I call them creative and intellectually open.

 

.

 

Are you saying that it's "creative and intellectually open" to look at that great variety of phenomena and, to all of them, say there's just 1 answer and the answer is "God did it"?

If so you seem to be using a rather unorthodox definition.