RRC Archives

I really wish people would stop resurrecting this stupid thread.

Shamis wrote:

Clevis Hitch wrote:really though, Caribe, I am interested in what you do believe in. If you wrote a super long post that didn't tell me a bunch of God hating or Christian bashing. What you actually believed. I think it would make for a very interesting read.

Pretty sure he doesn't 'believe' in anything, but he likes to be nice to the sheeple.

you talking about UK fans, sport climbers, superbowl watchers, or what group of sheeple?

There are nearly 195 posts in this thread. I wonder what percentage are in support of an existing God versus no God? I don't want to take the time to figure out, but was thinking probably less than a third are in support of God's existence.
However, the majority of those against the existence of God are brief little blanket statements and beliefs that the majority of you non believers hang your belief (which I think is the correct term) that there is no God. (There are some that are longer and less hate filled).
I have a huge document that spans nearly 6000 yrs that I base my belief, and I base it not in irrational emotional response like Dan Barker makes out that Christians do.

I am in Clevis's boat here. Add validity to your belief by putting it in words. I would like to see a response that is a sound document that resembles something like an academic argument paper.
I am not trying to incite a reaction here and I hope this doesn't seem angry or negative. I just want to get a clear picture of non-believer's beliefs.

There's plenty of other books claiming to have the answer, some quite a bit older than the Bible (since that is what seems to impress you most about it). Get real, though--6000 years?? Even the oldest version is about 1800 years old, tops, written by a bunch of clueless pre-Enlightenment dudes and has little relationship to the actual geological or biological history of this planet. Useful as myth or parable with some great stories in there for sure, but people who take it as fact frighten me, to be honest. There are thousands of books written on biogeography that eloquently and factually explain the last several hundred million years of life on earth, why do you discount those, given their vast scope, out of curiosity? I certainly don't deny anyone the right to believe whatever they choose, but I will never be able to understand it from a rational point of view, that's for sure. Cultural experience exerts a powerful influence on people, and that's that I guess.

Seriously though, given the plurality of "belief systems," what made you pick this particularly one? Cultural norms, upbringing, the convenience of it, the message of Jesus, the fun rituals, habit, or what?

As for myself, I don't really function in terms of "belief" as much, I prefer knowledge as a paradigm. What one can know versus what one can choose to believe. I don't need an elaborate set of stories and myths to explain away the natural world. If there is something we don't understand, well that's that--we're still just too stupid. Oh well. No need to evoke a deity to fill the gaps, that just seems kind of desperate in the end.

So I guess you would label that a scientific approach to life (and career for that matter), and a skeptical one at that--even 90% of the science out there is highly dubious and not much less ridiculous than any random religious doctrine. But at least it is based on observable phenomena that can be measured, analyzed, and repeated by independent observers anywhere in the world, of any religion or cultural inclination. And no one has to promise any pearly gates or 72 virgins to get you motivated for such an inquiry--the hope is just to improve mankind in a tangible way: cure diseases, improve energy, clean water, create food, reduce suffering, or just throw some light on all the darkess out there. Not the kind of stuff people generally use as fodder to start a war, in other words. Now, if it just weren't for that whole atomic bomb problem...

Anyway, no ones going to change their mind from an internet forum and I certainly don't aim to change yours. It's interesting the different paths the human brain can take during early development, that's for sure. I stopped thinking about religion around age 11 or 12, and haven't thought about it much since; other people spend their entire lives focused on it, on one book really. Others can barely read one book for more than a couple weeks without wanting to get on to the next one.

whatahutch wrote:There are nearly 195 posts in this thread. I wonder what percentage are in support of an existing God versus no God?

I am mortal. No excuses. This statement may sound like a no-brainer, but most people believe that they wil continue to think long after their brain rots.

My function is tied to the physical. When the physical ceases to function, I cease to function. The universe will return to a very natural state... one not so different from the current state, one without me.

I was on the mountain parkway the other day taking in the beauty of the scenery. I thought about the complexity of our physical world. In my mind's eye I ooked at the earth from outer space. There are blues and browns and whites; it is a pretty little ball. In my mind's eye I fly above my car and see the forest and each tree. I pick a tree and go under the bark to look at the grubs living with and in some cases against the tree. I pick a grub and looked at its complex inner organs. This creature has its own parasites! Furthermore some of them are allied with it and some are pitted against it.

I pick a living cell in the grub and look at its organelles. I think of the 400,000 or so chemical reactions that support this little creature's life function. Most of them also support my life function, humbling. This gross little guy is one of my cousins!

Instead of saying I am too complex and too beautifu to be totally defined by the many, but finite components/parameters of the physical world, I accept the fact that I am, very humbling...

Once I accept this fact most religions I know are unacceptable to me.

They are all incompatible with this point of view. To accept most of the doctrines of the world's religions you have to start by believing that you are above the physical. All experiments indicate that all we are is physical.

need more . . . ? Most of these arguments boil down to the following.
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7514227/

Aww, so cute... the brown one's even named "Arthur"!!

Is the one named Arthur an illegal immigrant?

Joey Kinder and Britney Spears love-child...

whatahutch wrote:However, the majority of those against the existence of God are brief little blanket statements and beliefs that the majority of you non believers hang your belief (which I think is the correct term) that there is no God.

You either decide what you are willing to assume is true based on facts, or not. Belief implies that you have taken something to be true regardless of the factual evidence. Lack of belief simply means that you do not think there is enough evidence to support the claim. The two categories are VERY different. There are scenarios where lack of belief could be considered a belief, but that would be something obviously ridiculous like saying, "I don't believe in horses", or "I don't believe in evolution". Those are conscious acts of non-belief that actually deny the factual evidence available and err on the non-belief side with little to no evidence to support the claim.

whatahutch wrote:I have a huge document that spans nearly 6000 yrs that I base my belief, and I base it not in irrational emotional response like Dan Barker makes out that Christians do.

Is it rational to assume that a 6000 year old document could be even remotely accurate? How many times was it translated or transcribed by hand? How many people had the opportunity to change it to suit their agenda? How many things in it contradict everything we've been able to observe in modern history? How do you reconcile the contradictions within the text itself? How is it any more viable than the mythologies of other cultures?

For me, my lack of belief in a god stems from: The inconsistencies in the bible, the huge disconnect between the bible and the reality I can observe, the number of different incompatible religions in our history that all appear to be engineered by humans, the problem of evil, the paradox of an omniscient god that can still grant free will, the weakness of the argument for a creator that always existed vs a world that always existed, the evolutionary artifacts seen in nature that directly counter any arguments for some kind of grand design, and the lack of any evidence for non-physical elements in our world, such as ghosts, miracles, souls etc.