Why do people disbelieve in God??

[Semjase]

 

You can't say for sure that it's unnatural until you have a 100% complete understanding of nature. If you concede this point, you must alter what you just said.

"you find something [that doesn't fit with our current understanding of nature], then you look for a creator it's the next logical step."

This is actually close to what scientists do, but scientists don't assume the "creator" must be intelligent.

 

 

 

 

I agree with your correction, but if something here that doesn't fit our current understanding of nature and has an intelligent purpose like

anything man-made then you have to look for an intelligence behind it's creation.

[Moontanman]

 

I agree with your correction, but if something here that doesn't fit our current understanding of nature and has an intelligent purpose like

anything man-made then you have to look for an intelligence behind it's creation.

 

Semjase, the key word here is "if" if such a thing were found then yes an intelligent creator would have to be looked for. If we found a arrow head on Mars then yes we would want to look for it's creator. This would not be reason to assume a God as the creator...

 

if science cannot explain something then god is not the default position, I have said this many times but I will repeat it here. At one time lightning was completely mysterious, no doubt it was a supernatural phenomena, everyone agreed it was the wrath of god, positive proof of god or at least a supernatural being of some sort...

 

Now we know about how lightning is formed and how to stop it from hitting our property, just because something is not understood doesn't mean goddidit....

Edited January 3, 2013 by Moontanman

[MonDie]

 

I agree with your correction, but if something here that doesn't fit our current understanding of nature and has an intelligent purpose like

anything man-made then you have to look for an intelligence behind it's creation.

 

The concept of a "means to an end" is relevant to the concept of natural selection. The organisms we see today are here because of their ancestors' tendencies to survive and reproduce. They survived and reproduced because they had certain adaptations. Survival and reproduction can be thought of as ends, and adaptations can be thought of as means to those ends.

 

A means is something that is useful for the production of some end. More simply put, a means can cause a certain result. For example, an axe can cause chopping under the right circumstances. Because we can cause chopping more easily with an axe, we say that the axe is useful for chopping. From an objective perspective, we would say that a person is more likely to chop things if they have an axe, just as a bacteria is more like to swim if it has a flagellum.

 

We often refer to an end as "the purpose" although purpose is always culturally defined or subjective. For example, we say a mouse trap's purpose is killing mice because that particular use is common knowledge. If someone told us a mouse trap's purpose is clipping ties, we would probably disagree because we have been taught that the proper purpose is killing mice. When we eliminate this notion of purpose, we realize that the mouse trap can be useful as a means to many ends. The mouse trap could be used to kill mice, kill birds, torture people, make irritating noises, etc. The notion of purpose is more or less a formality, not a fact regarding the nature of a thing.

 

Nature selection has no subjective notion of purpose because it is not intelligent. Nonetheless, natural selection favors the perpetuation of things that bring about certain ends, and we may come to label these ends as purposes.

 

---

 

I'm trying to remember the point this dumb mess of branches was supposed to illustrate.

 

The image is from http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2307.htm

John Lienhard got the image from "R. W. Hegner, Practical Zoology, 1917"

[menageriemanor]

rameesha, I'm not being mean, but from your first post, it reads to me, that even professing an open mind to god or no god, then which religion to choose, it seems you are coming from a conviction there will be a god.

 

It also appears you have a background of limiting women's intellectual ability and equality. The purpose of MAN is to research and whatever it was, you wrote? This is while women are breeding and washing dirty underwear?

 

If you seriously want to challenge your belief, you are going to have to leave behind a lot of what you appear to not be able to discard, from your background, and challenge your basic beliefs, which are going to twist whatever you are told, to give you the answer you WANT, rather than what is left.

 

Even on a non intellectual level, if you know there are 20 religions, who can't agree on anything except THEY are the only correct, only authoritative religious source, the only one with god's ear, as a cynic, I'd come to the conclusion they were all dodgy. If they also acted aggressively to anyone challenging a rule/proscribed action, with threat, violence, or anger, I'd run a mile. If they know they are right, there will be no reason to try to shut you down, and the answers will make sense from a science based education. You can't answer a science question with a reply that it is so because it is to man's service, unless you are discussing domesticated breeds and manmade metal alloys, etc. Most things just occur, and man, (with that ever present, "What's in it for me?"), learns how to exploit it, occasionally, symbiotically, but also to the detriment and even destruction.of the very thing he's found of value.

 

So much of Intelligent Design is based on a limited understanding of evolution. It is also based on a belief that everything on this planet is somehow always to do with serving the human race. If that is your starting point, you will never comprehend, never see science fact, without a distorting lense.

 

I once met a Born again Christian, who actually told me he never tried to understand evolution. It was far easier to get all explanations from the Bible. "Science,"he told me, "is far too hard and boring to study."

 

If that is an example of the people who are giving you your interpretation of science, your prism of educated judgement is bound to lead you in ever decreasing circles, back to the religion you left as your base.

[MonDie]

This is a video I saw several months ago. It's what first got me comparing biological evolution to the evolution of human inventions.

 

Edited January 5, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Bill Angel]

Here is a section from a video in which a physicist explains why there is no life after death. I "tubechopped" this section (1minute 50 seconds in length) from a longer presentation devoted to explaining the importance of the discovery of the Higgs boson.

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/835975

Edited January 11, 2013 by Bill Angel

[seriously disabled]

People disbelieve in God because there is no evidence that any God actually exists, except in the imagination of delusional men.

 

Everything that I have seen and experienced so far indicates that human life really does not mean much in a universe that is completely indifferent to humanity and its doings.

Edited January 21, 2013 by seriously disabled

[zapatos]

People disbelieve in God because there is no evidence that any God actually exists, except in the imagination of delusional men.

 

Everything that I have seen and experienced so far indicates that human life really does not mean much in a universe that is completely indifferent to humanity and its doings.

Since evidence seems to be so important to you, can you provide the evidence that theists are delusional?

[John Cuthber]

Since evidence seems to be so important to you, can you provide the evidence that theists are delusional?

Yes, they believe in a God in spite of the lack of evidence for one.

If, rather than God, they claimed the the tooth fairy was real would you think that behaviour was delusional?

[zapatos]

Yes, they believe in a God in spite of the lack of evidence for one.

If, rather than God, they claimed the the tooth fairy was real would you think that behaviour was delusional?

If I understand correctly, a delusion is a belief despite evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence to the contrary?

[Moontanman]

If I understand correctly, a delusion is a belief despite evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence to the contrary?

 

 

Well none of the writings attributed to or inspired by any god reveled anything of substance beyond what the people who wrote them knew. The Holy Books to me are evidence to the contrary...

[zapatos]

 

 

Well none of the writings attributed to or inspired by any god reveled anything of substance beyond what the people who wrote them knew. The Holy Books to me are evidence to the contrary...

If I write a scientific paper on dark energy, and the paper is thoroughly debunked, is that evidence that dark energy does not exist?

[SamBridge]

Instead of arguing about the existence of god, why not just say that it doesn't matter if god exists because the universe will continue to work how it works? That's what Buddhists do.

[Moontanman]

If I write a scientific paper on dark energy, and the paper is thoroughly debunked, is that evidence that dark energy does not exist?

 

 

That is not a valid comparison, if a God wrote a paper on dark energy you would expect, and rightly so, that it be absolutely correct in every detail. if someone asserted that god wrote that paper and then you found evidence to the contrary it would put the divine source of that information into serious dispute...

[zapatos]

Instead of arguing about the existence of god, why not just say that it doesn't matter if god exists because the universe will continue to work how it works? That's what Buddhists do.

For myself, I like to argue about it because I have the desire to feel confident that my opinion is well founded. But if others wish to not examine it, I think that is completely acceptable approach, for the reason you mention.

 

 

 

That is not a valid comparison, if a God wrote a paper on dark energy you would expect, and rightly so, that it be absolutely correct in every detail. if someone asserted that god wrote that paper and then you found evidence to the contrary it would put the divine source of that information into serious dispute...

Correct. It would put the divine source of that information into serious dispute. That is, it would tell you it was probably not divinely inspired. How do you reach the conclusion then that God doesn't exist, rather than the writer's of it were gullible, or liars, or had an ulterior motive?

[Moontanman]

The assertion of god has never led to any new information, god never knows more than you do. I am an empirical rationalist, to believe something is true I need evidence of it.

 

I think it's demonstrably true that religion exists but the existence of the god they worship remains a question that has yet to be answered...

Correct. It would put the divine source of that information into serious dispute. That is, it would tell you it was probably not divinely inspired. How do you reach the conclusion then that God doesn't exist, rather than the writer's of it were gullible, or liars, or had an ulterior motive?

 

Yes but there are no writings attributed to god that pass the reality test, if there was a god you would expect at least some of them to be verifiable...

 

For those of you who do not understand why this is so significant i suggest watching this series of videos, it is time well spent...

 

[iNow]

If I understand correctly, a delusion is a belief despite evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence to the contrary?

 

I think you're making a generally valid point here (as you usually do), but IMO it suffers from two basic faults. One, it hinges upon a very specific and somewhat constrained definition of the term "delusion" instead of on the broader concept and generally accepted parlance. Two, as John has suggested we might replace the word god with the easter bunny, unicorns, or the tooth fairy. When viewed in this context... and using your approach... we could not call those latter beliefs delusional, either. There is no "evidence to the contrary" of their existence, so where does that leave us?.. Despite the lack of "evidence to the contrary" of the nonexistence of Poseidon, we'd generally agree that people who accept their existence as a valid and likely proposition are almost certainly delusional (or at least holding a plainly ridiculous belief or position).

 

My point is that evidence for nonexistence of a being is not something we can generally secure. Despite this, the working definition of delusional still seems to apply when people believe in Xenu, and in much the same way when people believe in "god(s)."

[Moontanman]

What definition of delusional are you using iNow?

[iNow]

Therein lies the rub. Per zapatos' point, delusion is probably not the best term here, but that's exactly how it's used among the majority of our populace.

Edited January 21, 2013 by iNow

[Moontanman]

If someone is raised by adults who say that unicorns are real but invisible and that they watch over you all the time and that questioning them is wrong and after you die a unicorn will arrive to carry you to never never land. Everyone you love and respect believes this and asserts it as real from an early age you would believe it, would that make you delusional? or simply misinformed?

[John Cuthber]

If someone is raised by adults who say that unicorns are real but invisible and that they watch over you all the time and that questioning them is wrong and after you die a unicorn will arrive to carry you to never never land. Everyone you love and respect believes this and asserts it as real from an early age you would believe it, would that make you delusional? or simply misinformed?

It would make you the victim of child abuse, but that's another story.

 

If I understand correctly, a delusion is a belief despite evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence to the contrary?

The evidence is in the scriptures. They are claimed to be divinely inspired by a perfect God, yet they contradict themselves.

 

There'a re also the "Can God set Himself a task..." issues that show that the scriptures are logically impossible.

 

To believe in something that contradicts itself isn't going to win prizes for rational thought.

[zapatos]

 

I think you're making a generally valid point here (as you usually do), but IMO it suffers from two basic faults. One, it hinges upon a very specific and somewhat constrained definition of the term "delusion" instead of on the broader concept and generally accepted parlance. Two, as John has suggested we might replace the word god with the easter bunny, unicorns, or the tooth fairy. When viewed in this context... and using your approach... we could not call those latter beliefs delusional, either. There is no "evidence to the contrary" of their existence, so where does that leave us?.. Despite the lack of "evidence to the contrary" of the nonexistence of Poseidon, we'd generally agree that people who accept their existence as a valid and likely proposition are almost certainly delusional (or at least holding a plainly ridiculous belief or position).

 

My point is that evidence for nonexistence of a being is not something we can generally secure. Despite this, the working definition of delusional still seems to apply when people believe in Xenu, and in much the same way when people believe in "god(s)."

I'm happy to look at it from the perspective of a more general use of the term delusional. Even under more common use, in order to consider someone delusional it would at least require them to have examined the foundations of their belief and evidence to the contrary, with a mind sufficiently well trained in theology, science, and critical thought. I imagine a significant portion of the theist population does not have the ability to do that examination, and a significant portion of those who do have the ability, have not bothered to do so. Therefore calling a theist delusional is an extreme generalization.

 

Regarding comparisons of God to the tooth fairy and the like, I don't feel that is a good comparison. No one of any maturity claims the tooth fairy is real. There are no historical documents, schools, artifacts, ancient texts, or other (however tenuous) evidence supporting the existence of the tooth fairy. I feel a better comparison would be to that of the Loch Ness Monster, or Bigfoot. Not much better, I know, but at least there are adults seriously examining the situation.

[John Cuthber]

"Even under more common use, in order to consider someone delusional it would at least require them to have examined the foundations of their belief and evidence to the contrary, with a mind sufficiently well trained in theology, science, and critical thought."

 

OK, two thousand years ago few people would have met those criteria, yet I'm sure that the locals spotted the "nutters" then.

[zapatos]

The evidence is in the scriptures. They are claimed to be divinely inspired by a perfect God, yet they contradict themselves.

 

There'a re also the "Can God set Himself a task..." issues that show that the scriptures are logically impossible.

 

To believe in something that contradicts itself isn't going to win prizes for rational thought.

So the scriptures are false. That is a lack of evidence of god, not evidence that god does not exist.

If I'm unable to address the question of 'how God can set Himself a task...', how does that make me delusional? Admitting there is a paradox would seem to make me seem more sane.

 

OK, two thousand years ago few people would have met those criteria, yet I'm sure that the locals spotted the "nutters" then.

I imagine 2000 years ago, the 'nutters' were those who did not believe in God.

[Moontanman]

It would make you the victim of child abuse, but that's another story.

 

Doesn't that suggest that virtually all children are being abused?

 

The evidence is in the scriptures. They are claimed to be divinely inspired by a perfect God, yet they contradict themselves.

There'a re also the "Can God set Himself a task..." issues that show that the scriptures are logically impossible.

 

To believe in something that contradicts itself isn't going to win prizes for rational thought.

 

 

This is at the crux of the issue i think...

Edited January 21, 2013 by Moontanman