Is there a God?

[mockney piers]

And the argument goes full circle. If it takes little explanation then by all means at least attempt some.

I too have great interest in the subject, have studied the history and development of many religions. I can't however see how interest and knowledge equates to faith I really can't.

Much as I love the whole spaghetti monster thing I don't believe in it. Is it a sort of negative or antifaith I have in the spaghetti monster? Do I have another one for the blue sky faerie, one for the invisible pink unicorn. I'm not entirely convinced Jordan exists to be honest...I could go on.

If you are interested yet don't feel faithless it sounds to me like you're undecided but open to it. I'd suggest you're agnostic wih a penchant for a spiritual nature ratherthan an atheist as such. I'd say I'm agnostic, who by default of my position is effectively an atheist.

My Opus Dei mate says the catholic term for me is a 'practical atheist'. Ie not a denier (I've already said that's an arrogant and pointless stance) but someone who's comfortable not needing a god and who's life is not impacted by dogma.

[KatoTheCat]

you dont even have faith in your own ability to believe.

believing in religion is NOT wrong, or false, or even down to lack of knowledge.

"Not believing in a made up/nothing to support it/ is not a faith" now this is just pathetic, as every single person has the right to unique belief, and i think every single person should have respect for it.

to ridicule peoples beliefs so blatantly, is shameful, and i really hope you are just over-reacting as this is an online forum, and if you were face to face with someone of strong BELIEFS one way or another, you would not act the same.

i call myself an atheist, which may also be know as a non-believer, but i do not HAVE PROOF, or even CONSIDER myself to have proof. i only BELIEVE i am correct in my assumptions that there is no god.

it is simply only a matter of respect, and if you see faith in such a light, please call yourself "faithless" not atheist, it won't fit you at all

[mockney piers]

Belief is a faith based position. Atheism is a rational position.

It's not that I believe there is no god, that's incorrect. I don't care whther there is one or not. I have no belief in any god.

In that sense I can't see the difference between faithless and atheism, they're identical aren't they, plus I'm not getting why there is some inference that faithless is somehow pejorative.

[KatoTheCat]

atheism IS the belief that there is no god.

if you dont care enough to decide.

then that im pretty sure, would not be considered atheist

[macroban]

Ouch, Sean, that was complicated. It reminded me of C.J.Date discussing the impact of null values on truth tables.

Essentially I think you were getting down to what constitutes a proof. Not an easy question (don't ask me).

It is worth pointing out that both science and logic are based on mathematics, and that the whole of mathematics rests on the fragility of a few asserted axioms that cannot be proved.

[Damian]

Jeremy (sorry for the delay in replying),

my point is that LOGICALLY a person's choice of a 'good' life is AS JUSTIFIED as the choice of a 'bad' life IF there is nothing after we die, and if, to boot, the whole of humankind dies one day.

With most things that we do in life, the basic question is: is it good for me IN THE LONG RUN?

This is how we judge lots of actions and decisions made or to be made by ourselves and others (e.g. our children): Why should I look after my body? Because it's good for you in the long run. Why shouldn't I get high daily on drugs? Because it's bad for you in the long run. Why should I spend an hour after boring hour learning German? Because it's good for you in the long run.

So if in the long run I and everyone I know or could possibly know turn into nothing, what purpose has everything in the long run? I might as well cheat on my girlfriend, steal money and even kill people if this is what gives me kicks, because it doesn't matter anything IN THE LONG RUN anyway. If someone uses this this argument and you can't reply that there are some bad consequences of bad actions in the long run, what's more - that there are NO consequences of ANY actions (!) in the long run , there's nothing you can reply to persuade him apart form some EMOTIONAL, not LOGICAL, persuading.

The fact that most people choose to behave most of the time in a (more or less) 'good' way does not prove anything, but admittedly is interesting and worth investigating. And perhaps suggests that deep down all - or nearly all - of us BELIEVE that, in the long run, there is something else than matter that disintegrates?

[Damian]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> There is no God

>

> Our purpose in life is, like all living organisms,

> to ensure the continuation of our particular life

> form.

>

> We are here on this planet by chance.

>

> We are (usually) thinking and intelligent beings.

>

> We should, as individuals, as families, as

> communities, as states and as a world, maximise

> the good we do and minimise the harm we do - not

> in response to some ancient rule book handed down

> to a chap with a beard but because it makes sense.

(The same reply goes to Jeremy's post of July 31, 04:19PM)

Fine, you may think there is nothing after we die.

But then the point is that LOGICALLY a person's choice of a 'good' life is AS JUSTIFIED as the choice of a 'bad' life IF there is nothing after we die, and if, to boot, the whole of humankind dies one day.

With most things that we do in life, the basic question is: is it good for me IN THE LONG RUN?

This is how we judge lots of actions and decisions made or to be made by ourselves and others (e.g. our children): Why should I look after my body? Because it's good for you in the long run. Why shouldn't I get high daily on drugs? Because it's bad for you in the long run. Why should I spend an hour after boring hour learning German? Because it's good for you in the long run.

So if in the long run I and everyone I know or could possibly know turn into nothing, what purpose has everything in the long run? I might as well cheat on my girlfriend, steal money and even kill people if this is what gives me kicks, because it doesn't matter anything IN THE LONG RUN anyway. If someone uses this this argument and you can't reply that there are some bad consequences of bad actions in the long run, what's more - that there are NO consequences of ANY actions (!) in the long run , there's nothing you can reply to persuade him apart form some EMOTIONAL, not LOGICAL, persuading.

>

[Damian]

(Sorry - I seem to have repeated myself. But what the hell! My point is so good, that I could say it again!)

[sonofnun]

Yes Admin, he's even knocked mark of his dias.

[mockney piers]

Finally someone gets there.

No god no design. No design no absolutes. No absolutes no morality, no good no bad, no punishment no reward.

Just because something seems scary, just because soemthing may feel inconceivable, doesn't mean that an alternative logically must exist, just emotionally seem preferable.

I believe society creates morals because it's cohesive and it's logical. Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. I live by that as much as possible but I don't believe it's a universal absolute resulting in some weird points system of purgatory or eternal punishment or reward. God, we can't even decide what is good and bad, is a soldier a hero or a murderer?

Society makes it's moral code according to what is useful. Even the church has come up with plenty of elaborate rules why thou shalt not kill, and even thou shalt not steal aren't absolute rules.

When the religious law makers start bandying about caveats howcan you believe the rest of it?

[mockney piers]

what a load of pretentious nonsense.

Lets go back to Bobby McFerrin I say!!!

[Tony.London Suburbs]

God determines who walks into your life...It's up to you who you let walk away, who you let stay, and who you refuse to let go.

May God bless all of you and your life be full of Peace, Prosperity, Love and Abundance.

Amen

[Huguenot]

Damian, I don't believe your 'long run' argument holds any water.

If there's nothing post-mortem, then the argument is to do what's best for your estimated four-score years life span (not nothing constructive at all).

Unfortunately you'll discover that all your 'negatives' - e.g. cheating, stealing, murdering - don't work in the four score period either.

Your well-being in the short term is intrinsically linked to the well-being of those around you on both micro and macro scales.

Ignoring this context results in a drastic loss of quality in your 'current' life, and in disrupting the future of those younger than you, you'll make them seek to limit your influence in ways that might not meet your short term goals for self-indulgence.

It's not called enlightened self-interest for nothing. You have to think it through.... ;-)

[SeanMacGabhann]

"Ouch, Sean, that was complicated. It reminded me of C.J.Date discussing the impact of null values on truth tables.

Essentially I think you were getting down to what constitutes a proof. Not an easy question (don't ask me). "

Well, I'm not looking for proof. I'm not looking for anything. I just want some parity between this idea of God and the absence of any evidence (not proof) at all, and anything else that anyone who fancies it decides to propogate

Scientology for example - no proof there either is there? But we know it's nuts right? I just want to know why one is acceptable to say and the other is offensive or blasphemous (to the tune of a 20 grand fine)

[Jeremy]

Damian Wrote:

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

> LOGICALLY a person's choice of a

> 'good' life is AS JUSTIFIED as the choice of a

> 'bad' life IF there is nothing after we die

Only if your justification comes in the form of eternal reward/punishment. In practise there are other more logical/explicable justifications for leading a "good" life... the way your parents raise you, conforming to accepted social behaviour, legal/penal systems... and probably most importantly the desire for friendship/companionship/love. Live a life surrounded by friends or enemies - which would you prefer?

I would also say again that the supposed moral framework provided in the bible (and I dare say in other religious texts) is highly suspect. Surely even most Christians do not believe that adulterers should be stoned to death. Should I be execued for doubting God's existence? Was God right to kill every living human and animal (except for lucky old Noah + family) through anger and jealousy? Any rational person would of course say no to all these things. As soon as you start picking and choosing which parts of the "moral code" to adhere to, the whole argument becomes invalid.

Morality is not prescribed in ancient text. It is formed through experience and empathy, social norms, etc.

[KatoTheCat]

look, all you people are trying to do, is compell otherstoward your own belief. the idea of belief is unique to an individual and, although religion cannot be proven it should be accepted.

yet some of you think in terms of "i havent seen an alien, so they do NOT exist" well, who says otherwise? and if you try and find out you get a legal fight spanning years to extradite you to the US, who in this case know more than anyone, and cover up what should or should not be seen as "good evidence".

back to god, i havent seen him lately, have you? no, because A, you don't believe. B because if there was a god, he would turn your whole world around, just by his existence, and C because you of course, KNOW BEST. through long and hard judgement, based on the facts...

the problem with judging gods existence, is that... THERE ARE NO FACTS.

[SeanMacGabhann]

so you are saying that Scientologists might be correct kato?

[HAL9000]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Surely even most Christians do not believe that adulterers should be stoned to death

The New Testament has Jesus himself nullifiying this one: Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Actually, according to St. Paul, none of the Old Testament's moral codes or laws apply to Christians - he abrogated Mosaic Law in favour of simple Belief as the route to Salvation.

However, according to the Talmud, gentiles are obliged to obey the Seven Noahide Laws, which most Orthodox rabbis interpret to include about 1/3 of the Rambam's 613 mitzvot.

[Jeremy]

HAL9000 - that's a good point, but why accept the New Testament over and above the Old Testament? You are still picking and choosing which bits of a religious text to accept. The answer is probably that we accept the bits which fit our existing morals.

[mockney piers]

Kato I honestly don't know what you're trying to argue.

I don't think anyone is trying to compel anyone to anything. Sean's pointing g out tha. There is no evidence and that religions shouldn't have a say on legal matters. I'm trying to saythe debate is effectively pointless (which is I think where you are, but you still sound ike you're disagreeing somehow) and jeremy's pointing out that religions are inconsistent, sometimes within their own framework.

I don't think there's anything specifically evangelical about any of the above though.

[HAL9000]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> HAL9000 - that's a good point, but why accept the

> New Testament over and above the Old Testament?

> You are still picking and choosing which bits of a

> religious text to accept. The answer is probably

> that we accept the bits which fit our existing

> morals.

That is where Christianity differs from the other Judaeo-religions: it contains no moral or legal code. That is probably why the Roman Empire collapsed shortly after Constantine elevated Christianity to an official religion - it was completely unworkable.

After the ensuing Dark Ages, a new interpretation of Christianity appeared - the version we have now - with an inconsistent and contradictory moral code bolted on. Morality was never part of the original religion.

[KatoTheCat]

all imj trying to say is... taht seans manner of arguing AGAINST all religion is utterly disrespectful.

i am open to new ideas, and a religion is dictated by belief.

atheism is such a religion. i know little and (to be honest have never had a real interest) in scientology so sean maybe you can tell me a little more about it?

[mockney piers]

'That is where Christianity differs from the other Judaeo-religions: it contains no moral or legal code. That is probably why the Roman Empire collapsed shortly after Constantine elevated Christianity to an official religion - it was completely unworkable.'

really? By shortly you mean a century and a half in the west and nine centuries later in the east? I know Rome worked on pretty big time scales, but ...

The west collapsed because it went bankrupt after losing north Africa to the vandals and having too many commitments fighting barbarians and Huns on every front.

Moral frameworks had nothing to with it. They lasted fine as slave mongering brutes for a very long time and some nominal Christianity did little to affect that.

[mockney piers]

Aaaaagh, stop saying atheism is a religion. It's not!!!!

It can juuuuust about be termed that figuratively when perhaps referring to some athists zeal, but atheism is not the belief in a supernatural being or adherence to an organisation dedicated to the worship thereof.

You're muddying the 'debate' by insisting it is.

[Timster]

I've just seen this and I hope I'm not repeating stuff but it made me quite angry. What on earth is disrespectful about Sean arguing against all religions?? (If that is what he is doing). If I was a Tory and a Labour supporter argued against all Tories and their policies I would not regard that as disrespectful. It's what happens in a free society where free speech and debate should be encouraged. Religious views should not have any special status.

And atheism is not a religion - it is precisely the opposite. I don't believe in God in just the same way I don't believe in Father Christmas or goblins. It is the absence of a belief. The reason, I suspect, so many (though not all) people of a religious persuasion have trouble grasping this is because they don't realise that to a non-believer the concept of a divine being that hears your prayers is no more or less beleivable than Father Christmas.

In short, the reason so many atheists become so intolerant of religion is because its practitioners are constantly asking for special status and immunity from being questioned or, indeed, ridiculed which cannot be justified just because their views are derived from a religious text. I am happy for people to practise whatever religion they like as long as it does not affect me and I am allowed to demonstrate a healthy disrespect for it.

Apologies if I've repeated other stuff or misrepresented anyone. You should never discuss religion or politics! (At least that's what a racist (and co-incidentally hardcore happy clappy christian) colleague said to me once....)