New pope

[Dudecore]

To tackle this, you must accept that religion is just a tool, made by people for people. As silly as it sounds, try to separate religion from God. Then you realise that at certain points of history of mankind, the tool evolved and changed to better suit the times, if you will. But in any case, the tool is not able to fit all users. That is why you are asked to shut down parts of your brain to use the tool. There are many people who cannot comprehend stuff anyway, for them the religion is also a blessing.

Religion as a tool provides us with ultimate law and ultimate force to enforce this law. It helps tremendously with running societies. It also gives a lot of people hope and happiness.

Scientific evidence is this: for every bad deed of the Church, there are thousands upon thousands of good deeds. All in all, its a great and very helpful organisation, and so are most of religions.

I don't see superstition and ritual as nessiscary tools to enforce cooperation and valuing "being alive" more then "being dead". There is a pretty large distinction between the two that needn't be draw. While true it is a cooping mechanism for some, that is partially the reason we shouldn't be perpetuating it anymore. When it comes between admiration for the sciences, or admiration for the divine: it would almost certainly be 3 to 1 in favor of divine.

While it does feed people around the world, it also does things to harm people in the name of god. Legions of people have be executed under its pretense, and even more are psychologically damaged from it. Science and the arts have all been stifled. More resources have been used to fight abortion then genocide.

Essentially you'd rather see too much power in the hands of one organization instead of the other. Picking winners and losers. The problem is the power. When the church had it, they used it and god to control everything. Now it's in the hands of the government, they use it and weapons to control everything.

[Keyeto]

Also, in regards to the Big Bang Theory statement, I say this: It's a theory. It's not a law; it is just a theory that is generally accepted among scientist/people who believe in science. I'm sure the reason it isn't a law is that no, we cannot prove it with certainty or replicate it. It is a theory for those reasons, people THINK it happened, but cannot prove it without any doubt. Perhaps religion is a theory in that sense. Kind of an interesting perspective.

[Dudecore]

Wow is there a lot going on here. First I would like to say also how great this community is. There are no derogatory comments or condescending going on. I believe at this point there are two
equally deserving threads going in here. One about science and one about faith or belief.

I will talk about the science one first. I see no contradiction between science and faith as many scientists throughout history and indeed many today are faithfull Christians. But there are contradictions within secular science today. I believe all contradictions within Christianity are perceived contradictions and not real ones and I would be happy to discuss these.

Let me pose two to those of you who are atheists and cling to science to answer all. The base premise of science is that in order for something to be valid it must be observable and repeatable. That said what do you do with the Big Bang theory? Not observable nor repeatable. And how about the idea that something came from nothing. Never once has it been observed that something came from nothing let alone repeatadly.

The Big Bang theory is the best explanation science has for the creation of the universe. It is not a "theory" that means conjecture or hypothesis, it's actually repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. It also is not called "the absolute answer to everything", it is ongoing research that is interesting, and IMO, vastly more then a celestial god figure.

Atheists as we've been called dont "cling" to science, but it is certainly more tangible then a book that may/may not have been authored by the divine inspiration of god. Science just represents the things we know about the natural world, and our greatest efforts to understand it. As remarked previously, even if the Big Bang isn't true - it doesn't bring science one step closer to proving the existence of god. The existence of the god of abraham is about as likely the existence of the thousands of other dead gods people no longer see fit to worship.

[Birdbrain]

I think the answer to your question keyeto would be found in the same answer as to what would God do with all the good people that had never heard of Gods son or God and still lived a good life. Can someone say what happened/will happen to them? Will God hate those people just because they never heard of him and thus never believed? Do they not get into heaven just because they lived a good life and yet never heard it existed?

Also, I think in revelations it says God wants to bring heaven to earth. But I could be wrong

[Kareason]

Wow is there a lot going on here. First I would like to say also how great this community is. There are no derogatory comments or condescending going on. I believe at this point there are two
equally deserving threads going in here. One about science and one about faith or belief.

I will talk about the science one first. I see no contradiction between science and faith as many scientists throughout history and indeed many today are faithfull Christians. But there are contradictions within secular science today. I believe all contradictions within Christianity are perceived contradictions and not real ones and I would be happy to discuss these.

Let me pose two to those of you who are atheists and cling to science to answer all. The base premise of science is that in order for something to be valid it must be observable and repeatable. That said what do you do with the Big Bang theory? Not observable nor repeatable. And how about the idea that something came from nothing. Never once has it been observed that something came from nothing let alone repeatadly.

I am not an Astrophysicist (I am a Medical Microbiologist) so I can not really speak directly about the Big Bang beyond the point that "observation and repeatability" would have to be viewed in the small scale or simulation.

As for life from non-life (abiogenesis or biopoiesis), I would recommend to you the Miller-Urey experiment. In a nutshell, the experiment consisted of taking non-living organic (carbon-based) elements, placing them in conditions that resembled proto-Earth atmosphere/conditions, and watched them begin to produce amino acids (this took decades). The majority of those amino acids produced are the same ones that are required for life as we know it.  Amino acids make up the very core of DNA and are required for such basic functions as hormone production or the breakdown of sugars/starches in our diets. I grant that non-living organic chemicals/elements to amino acids is still a large jump from complex life, however the fact that amino acids work together as well as individually in all life today is well known. The next step to be reproduced would be having these amino acids actually work to form a singular functioning life form.

[Dudecore]

Christians are atheists to other gods anyway. Christians don't believe in the Muslim's god - Allah. The Qu'ran has its own list of punishments for none believers, none of which say "Christians believe in the same god". You're also atheist to the existence of Hindu gods as well. According to all of these holy books, someone is wrong - and very much so.

Edit: Also if god is inscrutable, and still sees it fit to judge the actions and morality of human people, why would the inscrutable god have such a detailed and specific law? And if he is so inscrutable, why isn't his law inscrutable as well?

[Bookmeister]

Wow is there a lot going on here. First I would like to say also how great this community is. There are no derogatory comments or condescending going on. I believe at this point there are two
equally deserving threads going in here. One about science and one about faith or belief.

I will talk about the science one first. I see no contradiction between science and faith as many scientists throughout history and indeed many today are faithfull Christians. But there are contradictions within secular science today. I believe all contradictions within Christianity are perceived contradictions and not real ones and I would be happy to discuss these.

Let me pose two to those of you who are atheists and cling to science to answer all. The base premise of science is that in order for something to be valid it must be observable and repeatable. That said what do you do with the Big Bang theory? Not observable nor repeatable. And how about the idea that something came from nothing. Never once has it been observed that something came from nothing let alone repeatadly.

I am not an Astrophysicist (I am a Medical Microbiologist) so I can not really speak directly about the Big Bang beyond the point that "observation and repeatability" would have to be viewed in the small scale or simulation.

As for life from non-life (abiogenesis or biopoiesis), I would recommend to you the Miller-Urey experiment. In a nutshell, the experiment consisted of taking non-living organic (carbon-based) elements, placing them in conditions that resembled proto-Earth atmosphere/conditions, and watched them begin to produce amino acids (this took decades). The majority of those amino acids produced are the same ones that are required for life as we know it.  Amino acids make up the very core of DNA and are required for such basic functions as hormone production or the breakdown of sugars/starches in our diets. I grant that non-living organic chemicals/elements to amino acids is still a large jump from complex life, however the fact that amino acids work together as well as individually in all life today is well known. The next step to be reproduced would be having these amino acids actually work to form a singular functioning life form.

I am unaware of the experiment of which you speak and I do not believe life came from non-life but that is not at issue here. I said the is no observable or repeatable instance of something coming from nothing. If we can agree non-life substances came before life substances then I am speaking of non-life substances have never appeared from nothing.

[Piotr]

Essentially you'd rather see too much power in the hands of one organization instead of the other. Picking winners and losers.

Precisely, I'm a very practical person.

The problem is the power. When the church had it, they used it and god to control everything. Now it's in the hands of the government, they use it and weapons to control everything.

No, power is not a problem, the problem is when it is used to do evil things. To break iMtG Law. As for the Church, it overwhelmingly used power to do good. While you can find some silly commentary to law in the Bible, their ultimate law is Golden Rule and Ten Amendments. Very good law.

[NyghtHawk]

This still seems a bit odd to me though. Say I live a good life. I don't murder, I don't steal, and am overall a good person. The only thing is, due to lack of solid proof, I am unable to blindly follow this omnipotent being (the word blindly is not meant to offend, I have no problem with those who do believe in God). That means I don't get into Heaven, and a rapist can simply because he accepted Jesus? That just doesn't seem like a very Just way of doing things. I thought one of the main points if the bible was to instill a moral code in people, that they might live a good, moral life, in addition to believing in god. But not believing completely outweighs the moral life aspect?

My reasoning is this:

Say I'm god. Two people are before me, waiting to get into heaven.

The first is a murderer who believed I exist.
The second lived a good life, and was the best person he could be. He did not believe in me, or my son. I understand why he didn't believe (omniscience), and it makes sense.

The first man gets into paradise over the second, simply for believing? Or am I misunderstanding?

Edit: Wow, there were several posts that happened while I was typing this up. This was intended for what NyghtHawk had said. But is still a question I have in general.

The rapist is forgiven if he realized his wrong and truly was sorry for it and asked God for forgiveness.

Just being good does not equate to being forgiven. No person is blameless. No matter how much good you do, it does not cover the bad (your sins). Sin separates you from God. God is holy and sin goes against that. Jesus died on the cross to take all sins away if you put your faith and trust in Him, letting you be blameless before God.

I cant claim to have all the answers, I am not God. We have limited knowledge and perception. We are created and dont have the capability to understand everything God does or is.

He is just and merciful. A person lives a (mostly) moral life but reject Jesus and what he has done. He warned that person of the consequence. Why then do they deserve something (heaven) that they rejected when they rejected Jesus and what He said in the first place? God showed His mercy by giving that person the opportunity. If they reject it, why should they be shown mercy after the fact?

[Dudecore]

I am unaware of the experiment of which you speak and I do not believe life came from non-life but that is not at issue here. I said the is no observable or repeatable instance of something coming from nothing. If we can agree non-life substances came before life substances then I am speaking of non-life substances have never appeared from nothing.

That is a loaded proposition that you're using. By those narrow parameters nothing can exist, and yet here we are. Again, while none of that proves gods existence and only attempts to throw pie in the face of science because it cannot prove what cannot be proven - It cannot answer the ultimate question.

God doesn't answer the question either. Unfortunately he couldn't have come from nothing, and whoever made him couldn't have come from nothing either. Perhaps there is no answer. I don't know.

[NyghtHawk]

Christians are atheists to other gods anyway. Christians don't believe in the Muslim's god - Allah. The Qu'ran has its own list of punishments for none believers, none of which say "Christians believe in the same god". You're also atheist to the existence of Hindu gods as well. According to all of these holy books, someone is wrong - and very much so.

Edit: Also if god is inscrutable, and still sees it fit to judge the actions and morality of human people, why would the inscrutable god have such a detailed and specific law? And if he is so inscrutable, why isn't his law inscrutable as well?

Atheism is belief in no God(s). Lets not get silly here and try to say something that isnt. If you believe in any God you are not atheist, no matter the religion. You cant change the definition to suit.

[Dudecore]

@   NyghtHawk
Then what do you call your non-belief in Shiva?

[NyghtHawk]

I am unaware of the experiment of which you speak and I do not believe life came from non-life but that is not at issue here. I said the is no observable or repeatable instance of something coming from nothing. If we can agree non-life substances came before life substances then I am speaking of non-life substances have never appeared from nothing.

That is a loaded proposition that you're using. By those narrow parameters nothing can exist, and yet here we are. Again, while none of that proves gods existence and only attempts to throw pie in the face of science because it cannot prove what cannot be proven - It cannot answer the ultimate question.

God doesn't answer the question either. Unfortunately he couldn't have come from nothing, and whoever made him couldn't have come from nothing either. Perhaps there is no answer. I don't know.

So people disregard the existence of God because they said it cant be proven scientifically, yet if something is science cant be proven, no problem....

Now if we assume for a minute:
If God is infinite, how could we (assuming the existence of God is true) who are finite, ever understand that or its implications? If we are created by intelligent design, how do we understand something we were not given the ability to understand? We cant understand something being infinite because we and everything around us is not.

[NyghtHawk]

@   NyghtHawk
Then what do you call your non-belief in Shiva?

Not atheism. Come on dude. I think youre a smart guy, so if the definition of Atheism is the belief in NO god/deity, that how can you or I change that definition. I do believe in God (irrelevant to other religions), which means I cant by the definition of atheism be atheist....

[Dudecore]

I am unaware of the experiment of which you speak and I do not believe life came from non-life but that is not at issue here. I said the is no observable or repeatable instance of something coming from nothing. If we can agree non-life substances came before life substances then I am speaking of non-life substances have never appeared from nothing.

That is a loaded proposition that you're using. By those narrow parameters nothing can exist, and yet here we are. Again, while none of that proves gods existence and only attempts to throw pie in the face of science because it cannot prove what cannot be proven - It cannot answer the ultimate question.

God doesn't answer the question either. Unfortunately he couldn't have come from nothing, and whoever made him couldn't have come from nothing either. Perhaps there is no answer. I don't know.

So people disregard the existence of God because they said it cant be proven scientifically, yet if something is science cant be proven, no problem....

Yeah everyone, throw out every single thing we know about science, because a magic player can't answer the meaning of life on a message board. Just preposterous and insulting. I am not "disregarding" the existence of god any more then I'm disregarding the existence of a 6,000 pound elephant in the truck of my car that disappears whenever I look to see if he is there. I can't disprove that scientifically either.

Now if we assume for a minute:

Don't like where we are going...

If God is infinite, how could we (assuming the existence of God is true) who are finite, ever understand that or its implications? If we are created by intelligent design, how do we understand something we were not given the ability to understand? We cant understand something being infinite because we and everything around us is not.

How does being designed intelligently even prove the god you worshipped was even the creator? What explanation of life does evolution not sufficiently answer? What is it about religion that makes people so certain about the one thing absolutely no one has any right to be certain about?

I addressed the problem of god being inscrutable before. He cannot work in mysterious ways and also have authored the bible. They are incompatible ideas. Either he wants us to live our lives as described by the bible, or he does not. If he worked in mysterious ways he would not have written down what he wanted.