People who believe in god are broken

[Arete]

Copperhead - you started out arguing that birds evolved before the rest of the terrestrial vertebrates, as far as I can see, when this position became untenable you said: "I feel I ought to apologize, as I've been having you on the whole time." And swapped to arguing that Genesis actually states that terrestrial vertebrates evolved before birds.

 

This contradicts these sources:

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-ordercreation.html

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

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_god_create_on_the_1st_day_2nd_day_3rd_day_4th_day_5th_day_6th_day_and_7th

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/sevncrea.htm

http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation

[questionposter]

The question is simple: What if Zeus is the REAL god, but we worship the judeo-christian God. That only makes Zeus madder and madder because we worship the wrong god.

Yeah, except what if some other, less hateful god was the real god? It's not just limited to hateful gods. Maybe people are worshiping the wrong god, but if that god doesn't actually care, it wouldn't punish them, which is why different religions would exist in that scenario.

 

You keep dancing AROUND this question, questionposter, but it's very important, especially in light of evidence and its definition -- it really asks what do you use to dismiss some claims as false (like the existence of Zeus) and accept others as true (like the existence of God) when you don't use the methodology of science.

 

How do *you* decide what's true and what isn't, and how do you know for sure that you're right?

 

Lacking a system of judgment about removing bias and measuring evidence in relation to reality, while having quite a number of elaborate stories and myths about different gods, how do YOU judge which God-story is true?

 

Please answer this.

 

I don't know what people were thinking giving me a minus 3 for standing up for religion when I'm in atheist myself, maybe someone can clarify, but anyway...

Based on a previous knowledge of science, at one point we considered the heavens to revolve around the Earth, but it was proven wrong. While maybe the information is out there to provide evidence for me being wrong, I don't see it anywhere, so based on my current knowledge what I said is true, and there is nothing you can do to make that false unless you have actual evidence. As I've said, it's not just random, the religious people I know is pretty diverse, I know everyone from Buddhists to Muslims to Shintos to Native Americans, although Buddhists don't actually have a god they worship. Maybe there's a sect in India that thinks Siddhartha was a god, but that's about it.

Also, wtf? I'm an atheist, I'm not saying any god story is completely true, the closest thing I said was that some stories were inspired by real events and real human emotions, which if you look at the fact that the black sea formed rapidly 12,000 years ago as well as similarities in all/most religions, there seems to be evidence for.

Edited May 10, 2012 by questionposter

[A Tripolation]

Either way, I'll ask again. It strikes me as hypocritical for you to suspend your personal requirement for a well defined cause when you assert this idea of god, but to simulataneously show an unwillingness to do the same for the universe itself.

 

Well-defined cause? For the big bang? Sorry, friend, but the term "cause" with respect to the Big Bang makes no sense at all. I'm sure you know this, so I'm curious as to why you bring it up.

 

For me, injecting an "unknown" entity such as God solves a lot of problems. I admit it's not particularly compelling or convincing to people that are all logic and order, but it is my own sense of aesthetics that leads me to believe this.

 

While maybe the information is out there to provide evidence for me being wrong, I don't see it anywhere, so based on my current knowledge what I said is true, and there is nothing you can do to make that false unless you have actual evidence.

 

Eh?

[questionposter]

Eh?

 

You know the current model of an atom right? Well even if there's evidence to disprove it, we haven't discovered it, so how can we consider it and know that the model is wrong? So scientists simply say it's what we know based on out current observations.

[A Tripolation]

You know the current model of an atom right? Well even if there's evidence to disprove it, we haven't discovered it, so how can we consider it and know that the model is wrong? So scientists simply say it's what we know based on out current observations.

 

So how does this relate to religion?

[questionposter]

So how does this relate to religion?

 

I wasn't talking about religion, it was a statement I made where I had said many religious people feel a calmness or deep sense of connection to god when they pray properly according to their religion, and no one said it was actually wrong, but they said there wasn't evidence to support it, but I only make that statement because I know a large, diverse group of religious people, but at the same time I haven't heard a religions person not describe formal praying like that.

Although that relates to the debate because some people somehow don't think that psychological elements are involved in religion, that peopel are "just broken" and believe in non-sense for no reason. I guess they can try and say I"m wrong, but I'll also say many people would prefer it if their loved ones were living in some kind of better after life too, which is another reason why people may turn to religion. There's also how people's environments can shape them, which is pretty common knowledge in the psychology world, so if you grow up exposed to strong religions institutions, there is a higher chance of you being religious when your older. Now though, there isn't just mono-theistic religions trying to dominate that environment, there's many more points of view now that can spread a lot faster, which is why there's an increasing percentage of non-religious or agnostic people.

Edited May 10, 2012 by questionposter

[Iggy]

I don't know what people were thinking giving me a minus 3 for standing up for religion when I'm in atheist myself, maybe someone can clarify, but anyway...

I would guess either your points are belligerently nonsense, or people think standing up for religion is, in itself, worth throwing a negative vote behind. There are other possibilities.

 

and no one said it [religion] was actually wrong

I will say, and I think I've heard this in the thread before, that religion is both morally and intellectually wrong.

 

I wasn't talking about religion, it was a statement I made where I had said many religious people feel a calmness or deep sense of connection to god when they pray properly according to their religion

Many people who shoot heroin feel a calmness and deep sense of connection. This is *by no means* an indicator of the morality of the thing or the intellectual honesty of a proposition.

 

some people somehow don't think that psychological elements are involved in religion, that peopel are "just broken" and believe in non-sense for no reason.

Nobody said "just broken". People with psychologically-based reasons for doing things can be broken. Schizophrenics are broken and everyone is quite willing to accept "that psychological elements are involved".

 

Every point you make seems to fall apart with even the mildest inspection.

 

It is as if you expect people to answer the original post by saying "the psychological reasons for religion and believing in God are x,y,z"... as if that should answer the original post as far as whether or not they are broken.

 

I guess they can try and say I"m wrong, but I'll also say many people would prefer it if their loved ones were living in some kind of better after life too

And, again, wanting your dead loved ones to enjoy an after life has nothing, at all, to do with the morality or truthfulness of religion or God. It also has nothing to do with just how broken religious people are. Wanting something does say anything about how broken you are for believing or wanting it.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Iggy

[Moontanman]

Ok, this discussion has degenerated into horse feathers again... Time to cowboy up, this has gone so far off topic i can't remember why half the stuff being asserted is being asserted.

 

Copperhead, Genesis is not an accurate description of evolution or the origin of the universe if you ascribe to the evidence we have seen so far. Trying to twist things so they fit will not help any ones arguments and if you don't think science has any evidence i would ask you why that part of science is so wrong while the rest of it works so well.

 

Questionposter, I believe you have talked to many religious people but as i said some place way far back in this thread "the number of people who believe in something has no bearing on it's veracity" I would like to add that how good it makes you feel has no bearing on it's veracity either. I've been in churches where people spoke in tongues, passed out, rolled around on the floor like they were having an epileptic fit but it still doesn't make them correct.

 

The whole first cause argument is weak, I see no reason to use it unless your faith is so weak it's all you have to support your belief to you. Radioactive atoms spontaneously emit particles with no cause, you cannot say when they will decay or what makes them decay. An atom with a half life of 1000 years could last a billion years, it's unlikely, but you can't say when it will decay. I see no reason the universe cannot be a similar process where something spontaneously happens, no cause is necessary. But postulating a cause opens a whole new can of worms, like what caused the cause and so on. saying that god is somehow above needing a cause is not supportable by anything but fantasy.

 

I am honest enough to say i don't know if there is a deity of any kind, I see no real evidence of a god, but religion is real, there can be no doubt, there are probably 50 churches within 20 miles of me, to me religion seems like the perfect ponzi scheme, you don't know if your right until it's too late to know if you are right...

 

I think the broken part of this comes in when you consider that religion allows assertions that in any other part of your life the questions would be overwhelming. No one I know would believe anything not having to do with religion so easily, so overwhelmingly, with such absolute surety. I just happen to be unable to be so unquestioning about something so important. That is where the idea of broken comes in, why does religion get a pass on such outrageously unsupported claims?

 

A Tripolation good to see a reasonable theist check in...

[questionposter]

I would guess either your points are belligerently nonsense, or people think standing up for religion is, in itself, worth throwing a negative vote behind. There are other possibilities.

Well I personally know religious people and they aren't that bad, so I don't see why it is such a bad thing to stand up for beliefs considering everyone can believe what they want.

 

 

I will say, and I think I've heard this in the thread before, that religion is both morally and intellectually wrong.

There's no such thing as right or wrong morals, all system of that type of judgement are relative. It's like saying it's 3 O'Clock in the universe.

Not only that, but just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't have logical correlations based off of axioms. Do you think the imaginary number "i" is an observable number? Do you think when you graph how something falls off a building that it is actually infinitely accelerating into the ground?

 

Regardless of if god exists or not, it is a logical statement that "If god can do anything, god can fit every species on a boat".

 

 

Many people who shoot heroin feel a calmness and deep sense of connection. This is *by no means* an indicator of the morality of the thing or the intellectual honesty of a proposition.

I never said it supported the notion of god's existence, I said that was what religious people often feel.

 

 

Nobody said "just broken". People with psychologically-based reasons for doing things can be broken. Schizophrenics are broken and everyone is quite willing to accept "that psychological elements are involved".

Ok, I know this doesn't sound the best considering the other things I said, but I actually know a Schizophrenic and he isn't that bad.

 

Every point you make seems to fall apart with even the mildest inspection.

You haven't actually provided any logical correlation for any of your statements.

 

It is as if you expect people to answer the original post by saying "the psychological reasons for religion and believing in God are x,y,z"... as if that should answer the original post as far as whether or not they are broken.

It's to show that the things that can make an atheist and atheist are the things that can make a religious person religious. Surely someone as intelligent as you make yourself out to be wouldn't actually think believing in something makes your DNA different.

 

 

And, again, wanting your dead loved ones to enjoy an after life has nothing, at all, to do with the morality or truthfulness of religion or God.

Where are you getting this notion that I'm saying I believe god exists? I've said multiple times I'm atheist even, but regardless of my personal beliefs, the people that say religion are, are not necessarily the thing they say. Many religious people don't believe in the exact type of original god, but more of a logical god. Why? Because Newton believed in a logical god, and many people think he was a great person, MLK Jr. was a mono-theist but only advocated peace and equality, and he had tons of support, so it is logical to say if they support him, they share similar beliefs to him.

 

It also has nothing to do with just how broken religious people are. Wanting something does say anything about how broken you are for believing or wanting it.

I'm not supporting the notion that religious people are broken, I'm showing how they AREN'T broken for beveling in it because it's a normal human experience to want to believe that a loved one isn't dead after they have died.

Edited May 11, 2012 by questionposter

[Moontanman]

Well I personally know religious people and they aren't that bad, so I don't see why it is such a bad thing to stand up for beliefs considering everyone can believe what they want.

 

 

 

There's no such thing as right or wrong morals, all system of that type of judgement are relative. It's like saying it's 3 O'Clock in the universe.

Not only that, but just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't have logical correlations based off of axioms. Do you think the imaginary number "i" is an observable number? Do you think when you graph how something falls off a building that it is actually infinitely accelerating into the ground?

 

 

 

I never said it supported the notion of god's existence, I said that was what religious people often feel.

 

 

 

Ok, I know this doesn't sound the best considering the other things I said, but I actually know a Schizophrenic and he isn't that bad.

 

 

You haven't actually provided any logical correlation for any of your statements.

 

 

It's to show that the things that can make an atheist and atheist are the things that can make a religious person religious. Surely someone as intelligent as you make yourself out to be wouldn't actually think believing in something makes your DNA different.

 

 

 

Where are you getting this notion that I'm saying I believe god exists? I've said multiple times I'm atheist even.

 

 

I'm not supporting the notion that religious people are broken, I'm showing how they AREN'T broken for beveling in it because it's a normal human experience.

 

And you wonder why you got all those negative points?

[questionposter]

And you wonder why you got all those negative points?

 

I don't actually get that many, but for the ones I do get, I really do, considering I technically share the same belief as you that people should be able to believe in whatever they want without being interrogated about their beliefs as long as they aren't going around and killing people for it, which most religious people don't actually do, just some extremists. But for all those people, there's probably atheists who would do the same simply because they don't think they are going to actually be ultimately punished for doing so and think they can evade the police indefinitely.

Your personal views on religion shouldn't matter in deciding if someone is broken for believing in them. Both religious people and non-religious people consist of humans, and humans are humans, therefore both sides must have the same conditions that make a human a human. This means atheists, Buddhists, agnostics, Christians, etc, are ultimately not better than each other, they are all simply human, and being any of those things is simply human, the proof of which is the fact that humans believe in those things.

Edited May 11, 2012 by questionposter

[Phi for All]

I don't actually get that many, but for the ones I do get, I really do, considering I technically share the same belief as you that people should be able to believe in whatever they want without being interrogated about their beliefs as long as they aren't going around and killing people for it, which most religious people don't actually do, just some extremists. But for all those people, there's probably atheists who would do the same simply because they don't think they are going to actually be ultimately punished for doing so and think they can evade the police indefinitely.

Your personal views on religion shouldn't matter in deciding if someone is broken for believing in them. Both religious people and non-religious people consist of humans, and humans are humans, therefore both sides must have the same conditions that make a human a human. This means atheists, Buddhists, agnostics, Christians, etc, are ultimately not better than each other, they are all simply human, and being any of those things is simply human, the proof of which is the fact that humans believe in those things.

I was wondering when you were going to use that "Steevey" account to give yourself rep points. I'm sure you realize having a sockpuppet account is against the rules you agreed to when you joined, in addition to being a pretty pathetic and counterproductive way to boost your reputation.

[Iggy]

Well I personally know religious people and they aren't that bad

I know some neo-nazis that aren't that bad. What does that say about Neo-Nazism? What does your point say about religion? I'm at a loss.

 

so I don't see why it is such a bad thing to stand up for beliefs considering everyone can believe what they want.

What is wrong with standing up for beliefs? What do you think I'd find wrong with it? What, sir, are you talking about?

 

There's no such thing as right or wrong morals

This clearly begs the question: Is raping a child right or wrong. You would answer, apparently, that there is no such thing as right or wrong morals. Are we rocks? Are we indifferent to moral injustice? Good luck to you if that is your real position, but I am not.

 

It's like saying it's 3 O'Clock in the universe.

Again, on the slightest inspection your statement falls completely apart. Saying "do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself" is not the same as saying "it's 3 o'clock in the universe" because a person is not a universe. Human morals describe right or wrong actions to humans. Your statement describes local human time to the universe.

 

Not only that, but just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't have logical correlations based off of axioms.

Actually, if your first axiom is that God doesn't exist then he really can't have logical correlations. For example, "just because God doesn't exist it doesn't mean that too much sunlight will give him a sunburn". I'm sorry, but God not existing does indeed mean the logical correlation (too much sunlight gives God a sunburn) is false.

 

Do you think the imaginary number "i" is an observable number?

White noise. The consequences of imaginary numbers are verifiable and falsifiable. Not so with God.

 

I might as well be asking you if God is an ingredient in sugar cookies as if that proved he didn't exist. I don't ask questions like that because I realize how frivolous they are.

 

Where are you getting this notion that I'm saying I believe god exists?

I never held that up as an assertion of yours.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Iggy

[Moontanman]

I don't actually get that many, but for the ones I do get, I really do, considering I technically share the same belief as you that people should be able to believe in whatever they want without being interrogated about their beliefs as long as they aren't going around and killing people for it, which most religious people don't actually do, just some extremists. But for all those people, there's probably atheists who would do the same simply because they don't think they are going to actually be ultimately punished for doing so and think they can evade the police indefinitely.

 

As i have said before, you are welcome to your own beliefs but not your own reality. I doubt there are many sane people, theist or atheist, who don't go around raping and pillaging just because they fear hell fire, not to mention that a great many theists don't believe in hell fire as well. No one is interrogating you for your beliefs, you joined this conversation voluntarily, and who you defend or who's side you are on isn't the issue.

 

 

Your personal views on religion shouldn't matter in deciding if someone is broken for believing in them. Both religious people and non-religious people consist of humans, and humans are humans, therefore both sides must have the same conditions that make a human a human. This means atheists, Buddhists, agnostics, Christians, etc, are ultimately not better than each other, they are all simply human, and being any of those things is simply human, the proof of which is the fact that humans believe in those things.

 

 

I don't think anyone has asserted that one group is better than another, the question has to do with reasoning ability. I would not dehumanize anyone for believing even though those who believe often assert that anyone who doesn't believe the way they do is less valuable than those who do believe the same way. this can be between different groups of Christians as easily as it is between Jews and Christians or monotheists and polytheists.

 

Questionposer, you seem to be taking this to heart more than is justified, if it is that personal for you i suggest you stop responding to this thread...

[iNow]

Well-defined cause? For the big bang? Sorry, friend, but the term "cause" with respect to the Big Bang makes no sense at all. I'm sure you know this, so I'm curious as to why you bring it up.

It's easy to do in a thread like this that bumps and bounces all around, especially when we're playing whack-a-mole with painfully ridiculous claims and distractions like those that have been coming from Copperhead... but I do think you may have lost the plot on this exchange here, mate.

 

You and I ultimately agree. Copperhead basically said he accepted god as a valid explanation for cause of the universe, and yet he rejected BBT. I paraphrase, but he argued that BBT wasn't well defined or well supported, and that's why he couldn't accept it as valid. I essentially asked him, "If you cannot accept something that is ill defined and poorly supported, then FFS man... why in the world do you find the god proposition to be satisfying? It's a double standard."

 

The point is that he wants tight definition and solid support for BBT, but then in the very next breath suspends this requirement when it comes to his personally preferred flavor of god.

 

I wasn't at all saying the BB has a well-defined cause, though. Of course I know better.

 

---

Although that relates to the debate because some people somehow don't think that psychological elements are involved in religion, that peopel are "just broken" and believe in non-sense for no reason.

Who do you think believes that? Nobody has even come close to arguing such a thing. You're not getting negative reputation points because people think you're a theist. You're getting negative reputation points because your posts so often make very little sense and argue stuff that nobody is talking about. Like the above, for example.

 

BTW - You should look into Theta and Alpha waves since you're so interested in the relaxation effect of meditation and prayer.

Edited May 11, 2012 by iNow

[A Tripolation]

The point is that he wants tight definition and solid support for BBT, but then in the very next breath suspends this requirement when it comes to his personally preferred flavor of god.

 

I see. I read through three pages of thread, but apparently I didn't read close enough. My apologies.

[iNow]

I see. I read through three pages of thread, but apparently I didn't read close enough. My apologies.

No worries, at all. That was the point of my opening statement... "It's easy to do, no worries."

FYI - I made a few minor updates/tweaks after you hit reply.

[tar]

Perhaps I am misreading Copperhead...heck, perhaps I am misreading everybody...but I "see" valid arguments which wind up conflicting from both pro and con voters.

 

But there seems to me to be some constants, as in no matter what we are agreeing or disagreeing about, we do indeed have very similar DNA to each other and should not be ashamed to associate ourselves with each other, based on that fact alone.

 

And, giving the fact that a random group of people taken 200, 2000, or 20,000 years ago would ALSO have, in their context, this same similar DNA, it would not be surprising if they, as we, find some very strong reasons to both associate with each other, and argue over very "minor" superficial, or fabricated differences. (Skin color, place of birth, favorite team, religion of choice, or whether the chicken came before the egg, or the egg before the chicken, or who has rights to water at the stream, and to pick the blueberries)

 

In this context, this awareness of both our condition and our history, I would like to forward the argument, that we, here on this thread are not the first and only to consider this question. And our connection to, and reliance on the "greater" reality, was not lost to those of us that worshipped the Earth 10,000 years ago, or those of us here today that marvel at the particles thrown off in a super high energy collider incident.

 

Using this argument, I would float the hypothesis, that some of what we have accomplished as "the human race" is based on workable answers that we have already formulated together, to work out our differences, BECAUSE of our commoness. And a recognition of this commoness is not incorrect, or illogical, or broken. Not even a little broken. It is absolutely real and genuine, consistant and evident.

 

Regardless of how many personalities we assign to this greater reality. From 0 to 20,000,000,000 or even if we assign personality to every quark in the multiverse. there remains at least three, that are absolutely evident. Me, you, and the third person singular.

 

Are we on this planet the only consciousness extant in the universe? Do we have any valid reasons to find that we have something in common with the universe itself? We sure have found it big enough, and old enough to dwarf our individual lives, and even the human race's total history.

 

In any case we can have these questions. Any of us can have these questions, and I don't think its wrong to float "interim" answers. Whether sourced by a Mayan Priest, or Moses, or Hawkins, or Inow or Copperhead, any answer is not likely to be the final one. But the fact that we continually have known this "hard to put your finger on" other, personally, and as groups, tells me it is anything but broken, to believe in it.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 11, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

Okay. Now can you explain how several distinct personalities with divine power can produce a single, smoothly operating system, such as the earth's water cycle? Wouldn't each divine personality influence the cycle in its own prefered way, causing something akin to chaos?

 

In a pantheon of gods, we will have one god for fire, another one for earth and so on for water and space etc. If gods exist they control every aspect of our reality it doesn't only have to be a water cycle. There will be a supreme Godhead or the God of the Gods who commands the whole pantheon and every aspect of reality. So there is no reason why a polytheistic god cannot be a better explanation for the smooth functioning of the world than a monotheistic god anymore.

[Villain]

I think the broken part of this comes in when you consider that religion allows assertions that in any other part of your life the questions would be overwhelming. No one I know would believe anything not having to do with religion so easily, so overwhelmingly, with such absolute surety. I just happen to be unable to be so unquestioning about something so important. That is where the idea of broken comes in, why does religion get a pass on such outrageously unsupported claims?

 

 

 

I guess there are two obvious answers: 1. Religious people are in deed broken or 2. There is a God that exists and has given people an ability to know them without the need for constant empirical evidence.

 

In a pantheon of gods, we will have one god for fire, another one for earth and so on for water and space etc. If gods exist they control every aspect of our reality it doesn't only have to be a water cycle. There will be a supreme Godhead or the God of the Gods who commands the whole pantheon and every aspect of reality. So there is no reason why a polytheistic god cannot be a better explanation for the smooth functioning of the world than a monotheistic god anymore.

 

So....there are a number of gods who work under a single god or godhead, is my understanding correct and how is this not ultimately monotheism?

[immortal]

So....there are a number of gods who work under a single god or godhead, is my understanding correct and how is this not ultimately monotheism?

 

In polytheistic religions you can worship the supreme godhead as a whole or you can worship them individually like you can worship the god of fire etc but I don't think a Jew or a Muslim has such kind of liberty.

[mooeypoo]

In other words, you're asking "How do you know that yours is the right God?" Not an unreasonable question. There are, after all literally thousands of religons in the world---what are the chances that the one I follow is the right one?

That being said, IMO you can narrow it down a bit.

 

I subscribe to the Socratian school of thought about Polytheism--- if there is such a thing as a Deity, than there is probably only one Deity. It would seem unlikely that multiple personalities could produce our smoothly fuctioning natural world, as each one would probably try to influence nature to its own preferences, and that would probably not result in the smooth, unsupported cycles we see in our world--- such as animal lifecycles, the water cycle, and even evolution. (Zeus belongs to a Polytheistic Pantheon, so that knocks him out of the running.)

 

We've already eliminated probably some 90% of the world's religons. Next, which of the remainder coincides with contemporary Scientific knowledge? For me, that left the Abrahamic religons, for if one is of the opinion(as I am) that the sections of the Torah, Bible, and Qur'an dealing with origins of the world are largely symbolic parable (as are many other sections), then the Abrahamic Creation Story coincides with Evolutionary Theory quite nicely. So That leaves three religons; which these is the "right" one? That can only be determined by a comprehensive comparison of Doctrine---which falls more into the realm of Theology than any scientific method of elimination.

 

 

I disagree with half the logic you're using, but regardless, I think the main issue here is your premise. You *start* with the assumption that there IS a god, when there is no evidence to suggest this at all. Then, you "eliminate" arbitrarily according to your own logic. That is, if you speak to a wiccan, they not only will disagree with your logic, they'll likely offer an equally compelling reason why you should take THEIR angle. I know, I used to believe in it, and this above would not even begin to convince me, not by a long shot.

 

On top of that, your claim that the abrahamic religions "coincide" with scientific knowledge is a stretch at best, and depends on an interpretation of the biblical text. If you read it literally, it goes *against* science, with claims that make little sense in terms of biology, evolution and physics. From the creation of light *after* stars (completely against physics) to the idea that rabbits are carnivors. It doesn't fit.

 

You may, of course, interpret the bible differently, and then make sure the biblical account fits science, but that is a manipulation of the text. You can't say that the text fits science, you can say that your BELIEF makes the INTERPRETATION of the text fit science.

 

Finally, that too is irrelevant. I can show you how Stargate SG-1 fits science very nicely, as well as quite large parts of Star Trek, not to mention Battlestar Galactica. Does it mean we came from a hybrid of alien and cyborgs? Does it even count as a remotely plausible logical case?

 

You need to first establish that God's existence is plausible, then that this PARTICULAR god is plausible, then that this god requires some sort of worship, etc. You can't start with the conclusion and fit everything in. Not only is that not good science, it's not critical thinking.

 

I actually think the idea that there are multiple gods is much more plausible than having a single one. It can explain the problem of evil, it can explain problems with subjective and social-dependent morality, as well as different mythos for different cultures. As far as I'm concerned, Xena's world seems a lot more plausible to me than Abraham's single all-loving-till-he-kills-everyone-he-is-angry-at God.

 

There's zero evidence for either story, and I don't quite see how either premise is required, so I remain an agnostic atheist. If I had to choose, though, and the world was a false dichotomy (as you seem to present it fro your initial quote above, ignoring the possibility there are *other* options than the ones you presented, eh? then Xena's world seems more plausible to me than the offered alternative. It has the same amount (if not more) of "evidence", written ancient texts, and ancient believers. If those are the criteria, I can't see how you can dismiss it off hand.

 

 

 

~mooey

 

I guess there are two obvious answers: 1. Religious people are in deed broken or 2. There is a God that exists and has given people an ability to know them without the need for constant empirical evidence.

False dichotomy, anyone?

 

There are quite a number of other options, Villain. To name a few, there's a possibility that there is a god but he/she isn't what we think it is, or that there's no god but evolution made us lean towards the spiritual (which makes us want to believe regardless of fact, and also makes religious folk not "broken") and.. well, quite a number of other possibilities.

 

I would stay away from "either or" in these cases.

 

That said, I would be careful of your final sentence. You are saying "without the need for constant empirical evidence", you know what? I'll settle for a ONE TIME empirical evidence that stands to scrutiny, I don't need this issue to keep being reaffirmed if the evidence it has are strong enough.

 

Then again, if god actually real, evidence would just naturally "fall" to our laps, as happens constantly with things like General Relativity and gravity. We're not constantly trying to prove these theories, not anymore, they're fairly well established, but everywhere we look, we find evidence, because they are real events and reality "can't avoid it". It is the way things work.

 

I consider it a problem that there are no continuous "incidental" evidence for God's existence, I really do, that makes me wonder if he exists at all, and I think it should make everyone wonder that, especially in light of the fact that there are no evidence at all without have "continuous" ones.

[tar]

Mooey,

 

I like your most recent take, and would like to "fall in" with it.

 

It is not a final answer we can come to.

 

It is the continuous one that has any import at all.

 

Any evidence that is not continual and re-apparent, is not likely to "pop up" again, out of nowhere.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

This video may shed some light on the aspect of broken in regards to faith.

 

[A Tripolation]

Copperhead: Our God is not scientific in the slightest. Stop acting like He is.

 

Mooey: Amazing post, as usual.

 

To iNow's OP: I do not think people who believe in god(s) are broken. I do not consider myself broken, nor do I consider anyone else I know that is religious to be broken. To say they are is an assertion not backed up by much of anything, though I am not certain if you were making that assertion.

 

Moontanman: I know you do not seek to insult, but why must there be a reason for "belief?" Why can't it simply be? Why must we analyze it and extrapolate based on what we think believers must feel? I do not understand, my friend.