Runa216 said:
|
NYANKS said:
Trying to prove God's existence with logic through philosophical principles or any other way is just an endless battle of semantics and finding the flaw in the logic. The point is faith.
|
This is exactly the problem. Having faith is irrational, because at it's very core it's believing in something regardless of (or occasionally despite of) the evidence presented, or lack thereof. It's the act of willful ignorance. Proof would negate faith, therefore proving god exists would neutralize his purpose. (according to some philosophers)
And as a man of science, and as a man of logic, I honestly think the world would be better this way. Without religious meddling we wouldn't have people questioning evolution for all the wrong reasons, we wouldn't have people teaching intelligent design in school, we would have cracked the mystery potential of stem cells by now, and we wouldn't have had the dark ages where the church stifled knowledge and science in order to retain power over the people. Yes, religion has its place, religion has done far more good than bad, but keep that shit out of science class. One of the points I was making was to showcase how true that statement is. I wanted people to offer proof/evidence of a God, and once that was done (if anyone gave compelling evidence), I was going to ask to have them prove that their religion or version of God was more right than the neighbouring theology. Furthermore, assuming we got that far, I was going to demand they offer substantial proof that their interpretation of their holy text was correct and uncorrupted.
I know damn well you can't PROVE god exists, no better than you can prove he doesn't (I don't claim to know the answers), but the best and most intelligent thing we can do is follow the evidence, and a book written over a millenia ago is NOT adequate evidence when arguing or debating things like the inception of the human race or even the universe. doubly so when everyone has their own interpretation of whatever holy text they follow. Hell, I was in public school in the early 90's, and if we had textbooks written in the 70's or 80's, they were considered outdated and replaced, yet we have people (powerful people) in media and politics basing their entire campaigns on a book written in a time when we still thought mercury was a miracle cure. THIS IS DANGEROUS. I really don't need to point out the swath of examples throughout history to tell you that fanatical people following archaic belief systems can do a LOT of damage, do I?
The point, and the one major thing that upsets me so greatly about all this is that all my ranting and raving is falling on deaf ears. those who agree with me will probably nod their heads in agreement while condemning me for my rather abrupt and frankly aggressive presentation of my opinions, but those who disagree feel a socially pressured need to rebel against my stance, since religion is such a deeply engraved social phenomenon. It doesn't matter if I'm right or not, it doesn't matter if I'm angry and loud or reserved and rational, many people worldwide have already made up their minds and my loudmouthed outbursts, regardless of their validity, will only further strengthen their faith, since I'm giving them a clear target.
I'm not asking for much. All I want is a world where the religious can pray and hope for an afterlife in peace, and the scientists can continue to seek unbiased truth without meddling from the church. when that day comes, and we can all live happily ever after, I promise I will never, ever bring up religion again. Sadly, we don't live in that world. AS long as we have terrorists blowing up buildings and meddling churches interfering with science, I will be right there, front row and center to fight for atheism.
Or, if someone can prove that God is real and that he is as the holy text says, I will recind all my comments and join whatever cult is the right one. Until that day, I am Atheist, I am proud, and I am not afraid to ask questions.
|
I've been watching this thread for awhile and the one thing I have taken from it is that you want finite answers in a universe that appears to be infinite. You seem to think those with faith are ignorant and willfully so. You appear to believe it's your duty to force your enlightenment unto believers and convert them. You've gotten a lot of polite responses from people who disagree with your views and from my point of view you have been a little hostile and condescending to those who've explained their religious views. I'm sure you intend only to discuss, but at some point you just need to accept that no matter how many times you make your point it's still only a point of view. You might as well tell someone that their favorite sandwich sucks. It won't stop them from enjoying the sandwich, but if you keep telling them their sandwich sucks, they'll probably start looking for someone else to eat with.
I get that you see religion as a barrier to scientific advancement. But, religion isn't the only concern that puts moral pressure on scientific research. For example believers and non-believers alike tend to feel squeamish about harvesting fetuses for stem cells while at the same time have nothing against adult stem cell research. The idea of creating human life just to destroy it is something the bothers people of all creeds especially when that life is a viable baby. That's not religion, that's human nature.
As for Muslim extremist terrorism, really? As if violence and genocide are solely the realm of religious zealots? Extremists come in all manner of twisted ideology and are not exclusively limited to twisted holy text. Religion may get used to manipulate, but that doesn't mean religion is by its nature manipulative. A religious person volunteering at a soup kitchen isn't being manipulated into doing good any more than an atheist volunteering at the same soup kitchen is.
As for science, the way you talk about it is like it's a religion to you. You want religion to stay out of your science like our founding fathers wanted government to stay out of their religion. I'm not saying your concern is invalid, I just find it interesting how atheism has grown into something that resembles religion. There's even atheist organizations with their own literature and meetings that get the word out on atheism much like organized religion has its own books, meetings, and gets the word out on God.
I've known many atheists, I'm related to a few, and I'm friends with some. I've observed a trait that the atheists I've known share that differs from the religious people I know.
Here it is, are you ready?
Atheists look to science for facts. Theists look to god for truth.
I know, it doesn't seem that different, but it is. Truth and fact are sometimes the same thing and other times they have nothing to do with each other. Another way to put it is this: Theists only expect science to explain "how" things work while they look to God fill in the "why". Atheists are less concerned with "why". For atheists, "how" tells the whole story.
When I look up at the Milky Way Galaxy on a clear moonless night I see both God and science. To me it looks random, but it feels structured and patterned. It's both beautiful and incomprehensibly big. I feel equal parts awe and curiosity. I wonder how it all works and why it is the way it is. To me "why" is both connected and separate from "how". The current theory of the Big Bang is a logical mathematical model for how the universe as we know it may have began. It may not be complete, but since it's the best we have I run with it. But at the same time I don't see why the Big Bang couldn't be the result of God willing time and space into existence. I just don't see why science and God have to be mutually exclusive. The Big Bang Theory could be the way God "Let there be light". Evolution, to me, looks to be the way God created the fish in the sea. The dust God used to create Adam is more than likely a metaphor for atoms/molecules. Sure there are evangelicals who read the bible as literally as a dictionary, and they probably view me as unreligious as you, by their definition. But in my opinion it's a book written to dumb down extremely complex concepts and ideas so primitive people could understand it. That doesn't make it invalid, it just means that "seven days" probably doesn't literally mean days and like I said above "dust" sounds a lot like atoms and "let there be light" sounds a lot like the big bang. Anyone that says the bible has all the answers doesn't understand the bible, but the same can be said of those who claim science holds all the answers. If 100% is the amount of things there is to know in the universe I'd say we probably now .001% and we humanity will probably never reach 1% comprehension. Heck, I'd say we probably only understand about 1 or 2% of what's going on in and around Earth. Every time we break open the tiniest part of an atom we find even smaller stuff. Of course those percentages are not based on any real world data, so please don't focus on the numbers.
Anyway, I don't really understand why you feel the need to stand up to religion. With all the problems in the world, is religion really such a plague that you feel the need to take action against it? I'd be willing to bet that you get annoyed by missionaries knocking on your door spreading the word. But your spreading your word. You posted a thread with the title "Prove that God exists", but you know that God can't be proven or disproven. You will never be satisfied with any explanation that anyone gives in favor of God and therefore the topic could never progress past the "that's not proof" stage and was destined from the beginning to either be futile or devolve into a flame war.
