[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]OR I can.. you know. actually read abotu it and study it on my own. Drastic I know but soem people actually do things like that. Well then why do you say stuff at the quantum level just magically appears out of nothing. It is not what quatum physics is about. Quantum physics is used because objects in the micro level do not follow the same laws as physics that we commonly know. This is true with electrons as you cannot predict where they are at any point in time. However this does not mean that they magically appear and disappear. Infact if any particle was to magically appear or dissapear it would violate the most basic law of physics. E=MC^2 which states that matter can only be created out of energy and energy out of matter. And if this law is violated then physics would be turned on its shoulders.They are called vacuum fluctuations and, as has been pointed out on these forusm before, they seemingly appear from nothingness. E-MC^2 does not state that matter can only come form matter. It's an equation, nothing more. What you're talkign about is the theory of relativity which does not work on the quantum level. The quantum level is "not stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine"'. There is a reason why the Big Bang theory falls apart when it gets down to the quantum level and there is a reason why physicists are actively looking for a Theory of Everthing. Because Quantum mechanics and Relativity do not mesh.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"] I think you should actually take a class in physics before you talk about quantum mechanics. SpartanNapoleon
So Atheists, What's Your Rationale In Your Belief Of No God?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="ProudLarry"][QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"]
If you're refering too: [QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Quantum physics often has particles seemingly appearing out of nothing through quantum fluctuations
SpartanNapoleon
Note that he uses the word "seemingly". BumFluff, I'm sure can speak for himself, but it doesn't sound like he is claiming what you say he is.
But he used that as a response to how can matter be created out of nothing. In other words God needed to create matter.What on Earth are you talking about? I'm an atheist. I never ocne claimed God created matter.If design implicates creation. Then the design must have needed a creator. There is plenty of evidence of God,your own existence and how you were created and how the universe and earthis in perfect equilibrium with creation. If you see a 2009 Honda Civic down the street do you assume that the Honda Civic created itself? Now the common question asked by atheists then "Shouldn't God have a beginning or have been created?" Well, If god had been created then an infinite cycle of Gods would have been implemented to sustain that belief which is completely illogical. Also God has no beginning or end, God is not subject to the laws of creation (well depending on what religion you follow most of the time its true though) if God had a beginning this would not make him a god rather a creation soGod CANNOT HAVE A BEGINNING NOR END.
Now atheists to give a generalized negative view of the universe is really ungrateful. To answer your questions about "Why does this happen? Why do bad things happen? Why do natural disasters occur?" Well, I suggest you explore the many religions of humanity. I particularly suggest the abrahamic religion since they provide the most complete evidence for their beliefs.
Exactly how does everythign in the universe implicate a creator? Explain to me how things couldn't have adapted.If design implicates creation. Then the design must have needed a creator. There is plenty of evidence of God,your own existence and how you were created and how the universe and earthis in perfect equilibrium with creation. If you see a 2009 Honda Civic down the street do you assume that the Honda Civic created itself? Now the common question asked by atheists then "Shouldn't God have a beginning or have been created?" Well, If god had been created then an infinite cycle of Gods would have been implemented to sustain that belief which is completely illogical. Also God has no beginning or end, God is not subject to the laws of creation (well depending on what religion you follow most of the time its true though) if God had a beginning this would not make him a god rather a creation soGod CANNOT HAVE A BEGINNING NOR END.
Now atheists to give a generalized negative view of the universe is really ungrateful. To answer your questions about "Why does this happen? Why do bad things happen? Why do natural disasters occur?" Well, I suggest you explore the many religions of humanity. I particularly suggest the abrahamic religion since they provide the most complete evidence for their beliefs.
ShadowtheDark
Dude that is exactly how you do probabilities. How much X in Y. If you want to make a claim like you need to back it up not just state something because I said so. Like so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory Since consciousness can be defined as a subset of matter then you can find the probability by the total mass of consciousness divided by total matter. Anything else does not matter for probability. And I have no idea why you even bring evolution up as it has nothing to do with this. Please do research before just blindly going against an opposing view.Conciousness arose as a result of evolution. You have been arguign against evolution this entire time. The only bit of probability you canh achieve by takign all the matter in the universe and deviding it by the amount of concious matter in the universe is how likely, if you choose an individual piece of matter in the universe, if that indivudla piece will be a part of consiouness or not. You can not immediatly come to the conslusion that some supreme being exists due to the probability which is exactly what you've been arguing.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]No. You are misinterpretting what I'm stating completely. As stated, one does not take the amount of X in Y to find the probability that X can exist in Y without a helping hand when other forces are at work including such things as evolution. That is exactly what you are doing.
BumFluff122
Anyway it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong about the chances of conscious matter forming per kilogramme; if he got his number from a division of all known conscious matter by all known matter (and as you yourself have stated, that's a very poor and impecise method for inferring chances), then it does not at all necessitate the existence of an intelligent creator.
While the chances of conscious matter forming on, say, a kilogramme of mass is incredibly low, the universe has enough mass for such a diceroll to eventually "click" on formation of conscious matter anyway: the universe has been claimed to mass between 1x10^50 and 1x10^60 kilogrammes.
The point is is that we do not know how concious matter forms. Therefor making approximations or figuring out percentages on how much concious matter exists in the universe and then coming to the conlusion that a superior being must have created it due to these percentages is complete rubbish.Anyway it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong about the chances of conscious matter forming per kilogramme; if he got his number from a division of all known conscious matter by all known matter (and as you yourself have stated, that's a very poor and impecise method for inferring chances), then it does not at all necessitate the existence of an intelligent creator.
While the chances of conscious matter forming on, say, a kilogramme of mass is incredibly low, the universe has enough mass for such a diceroll to eventually "click" on formation of conscious matter anyway: the universe has been claimed to mass between 1x10^50 and 1x10^60 kilogrammes.
Barbariser
The point is is that we do not know how concious matter forms. Therefor making approximations or figuring out percentages on how much concious matter exists in the universe and then coming to the conlusion that a superior being must have created it due to these percentages is complete rubbish.[QUOTE="Barbariser"]
Anyway it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong about the chances of conscious matter forming per kilogramme; if he got his number from a division of all known conscious matter by all known matter (and as you yourself have stated, that's a very poor and impecise method for inferring chances), then it does not at all necessitate the existence of an intelligent creator.
While the chances of conscious matter forming on, say, a kilogramme of mass is incredibly low, the universe has enough mass for such a diceroll to eventually "click" on formation of conscious matter anyway: the universe has been claimed to mass between 1x10^50 and 1x10^60 kilogrammes.
BumFluff122
I wasn't contesting that. What I was saying is that even assuming his method of inference is scientificially sound (which it is not), the mass of the universe pretty much negates the miniscule "chance" that he used to suggest that life cannot form on its own. Either way, it doesn't necessitate the presence of an intelligent creator as he was trying to posit.
(I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just saying that even if you're wrong on the methodology argument (which you're not), he's lost on the overall point: that the existence of life necessitates the presence of an intelligent designer. Either way, he loses.)
I know and I agree with what you're saying. I'm just tryign to show him that his theory is complete rubbish and in no way does it point towards and all powerful creator.I wasn't contesting that. What I was saying is that even assuming his method of inference is scientificially sound (which it is not), the mass of the universe pretty much negates the miniscule "chance" that he used to suggest that life cannot form on its own. Either way, it doesn't necessitate the presence of an intelligent creator as he was trying to posit.
(I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just saying that even if you're wrong on the methodology argument (which you're not), he's lost on the overall point: that the existence of life necessitates the presence of an intelligent designer. Either way, he loses.)
Barbariser
Once again, you can't discredit one theory (of a divine being) without having any basis on which to discredit it. In terms of physics, you have nothing to stand on when it comes to arguing about the origin of the universe, because physics cannot explain it any better than the Pope telling you God did it. Hence why this is such a stupid argument, and the people arguing against religion are too. When there is no proof of anything, all you've got is belief, or rather, your belief vs my belief.F1_2004Why believe something you cant be sure about?
I dont have any "belief" about the origin of the universe. Secondly arguing against religion is not stupid cuz religion causes alot of harm in the world....visible human suffering in the name of an invisible god whose existence is extremely doubtful is as bad as it gets...
[QUOTE="Zensword"]Taking my argument out of the scientific logic but have you ever really asked the question and looked for an answer. I did and the answer I got restored my faith. I think you should really ask yourself that question and reflect on an answer. Questions like the purpose of life, consciousness, suffering and our role in the world. Reflect on those questions and maybe you might find different answers.I used to be a Catholic from birth but recentlyI lost my faith completely after stopping going to church for many years. The reason : the world has so much sufferrings but where is God ? St. John wrote in one of his letters that : God IS LOVE but why doesnt he care about his creatures who suffer so much ? (wars, sickness, natural disasters...)Why the God of love created animals that kill and eat one another ? The enormous amount of sufferrings and evils are clearly incompatible with the doctrine of a loving God so I became an atheist. But myfamily are still Catholics, and I dont want to '"onvert" them to become atheists like me since I dont want to get into arguments with them, and I think that the belief in Christian God is a kind of psychological crutch to them so I dont want to destroy their "crutch".
SpartanNapoleon
Thanks for your advice. Yes, i've been reflecting about the purpose of mylife, our roles in the world ... I think that my purpose of life is to attain liberation of all delusion, aversion and attachment ("the three poisons" in Buddhism) and help others attain the same goal. In other words, I'm trying to be happy and help poeple to be happy as much as I can. And IMO, while each person's purpose is differrent but the general purpose is the same: be happy and help others to be happy. As for God, I still dont find any reason to answers the question many people and I hvae been struggling:"Why is there so much sufferrings and evils?" If I can find a good answer, maybe I'd become a Catholic again.
However, although I no longer believe in God (at least in a personal God ) but Istill wonder what cause the universe and human beings came into being ?
Intuitively, I sense that all this elegant universe cannot came out of nothing. But I cant explain why God (if he exists) allows so much evils and sufferrings without intervention ? he must be a cruel Creator. *Sigh* I'm having a dillemma.
Just remember that 'The Universe comin g out of nothing' has nothing to do with sceince or the Big Bang Theory or anything like that. It is a common misconception.Thanks for your advice. Yes, i've been reflecting about the purpose of mylife, our roles in the world ... I think that my purpose of life is to attain liberation of all delusion, aversion and attachment ("the three poisons" in Buddhism) and help others attain the same goal. In other words, I'm trying to be happy and help poeple to be happy as much as I can. And IMO, while each person's purpose is differrent but the general purpose is the same: be happy and help others to be happy. As for God, I still dont find any reason to answers the question many people and I hvae been struggling:"Why is there so much sufferrings and evils?" If I can find a good answer, maybe I'd become a Catholic again.
However, although I no longer believe in God (at least in a personal God ) but Istill wonder what cause the universe and human beings came into being ?
Intuitively, I sense that all this elegant universe cannot came out of nothing. But I cant explain why God (if he exists) allows so much evils and sufferrings without intervention ? he must be a cruel Creator. *Sigh* I'm having a dillemma.
Zensword
Once again, you can't discredit one theory (of a divine being) without having any basis on which to discredit it. In terms of physics, you have nothing to stand on when it comes to arguing about the origin of the universe, because physics cannot explain it any better than the Pope telling you God did it. Hence why this is such a stupid argument, and the people arguing against religion are too. When there is no proof of anything, all you've got is belief, or rather, your belief vs my belief.F1_2004
Luckily it's not our job to discredit a theory that so easily discredits itself. When you prove "it" exists, we'll try and disprove it.
That's why they call it "faith", though.
It's all about scientific advanement. When they blamed God X for Event X, we eventually found out the real reason behind Event X, and God X was dismissed as make-believe. Just gotta give it time, but in the mean time we're searching for the answers and not just saying a magical being did everything for ease of mind. If you want to believe that a magical being created everything and life has a greater purpose because of it, fine, but you still should never stop questiuoning EVERYTHING. When you stop questioning everything, you end your pursuit of knowledge, and I believe "God" would want us to question everything.
Taking my argument out of the scientific logic but have you ever really asked the question and looked for an answer. I did and the answer I got restored my faith. I think you should really ask yourself that question and reflect on an answer. Questions like the purpose of life, consciousness, suffering and our role in the world. Reflect on those questions and maybe you might find different answers.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"][QUOTE="Zensword"]
I used to be a Catholic from birth but recentlyI lost my faith completely after stopping going to church for many years. The reason : the world has so much sufferrings but where is God ? St. John wrote in one of his letters that : God IS LOVE but why doesnt he care about his creatures who suffer so much ? (wars, sickness, natural disasters...)Why the God of love created animals that kill and eat one another ? The enormous amount of sufferrings and evils are clearly incompatible with the doctrine of a loving God so I became an atheist. But myfamily are still Catholics, and I dont want to '"onvert" them to become atheists like me since I dont want to get into arguments with them, and I think that the belief in Christian God is a kind of psychological crutch to them so I dont want to destroy their "crutch".
Zensword
"Why is there so much sufferrings and evils?" If I can find a good answer, maybe I'd become a Catholic again.
Without the bad, we would not appreciate the good. "God" just allows us to go through this life with full freedom in order to gain as much from it as possible, the bad in the world purely on us, just like the good.
[QUOTE="Zensword"]
[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"] Taking my argument out of the scientific logic but have you ever really asked the question and looked for an answer. I did and the answer I got restored my faith. I think you should really ask yourself that question and reflect on an answer. Questions like the purpose of life, consciousness, suffering and our role in the world. Reflect on those questions and maybe you might find different answers. deadevil666
"Why is there so much sufferrings and evils?" If I can find a good answer, maybe I'd become a Catholic again.
Without the bad, we would not appreciate the good. "God" just allows us to go through this life with full freedom in order to gain as much from it as possible, the bad in the world purely on us, just like the good.
Why is someone born poor and someone born ugly? Why is someone born dissabled?God could have made pain and unhappiness without being so unfair.
The amount of physical suffering that the human body is capable of through natural diseases is absolutely cruel for anyone to have "designed". Whoever designed it is the most cruel monster in the history of the universe.
God may or may not exist but the christian god almost certainly does not exist or any lovable god for that matter.
Why is someone born poor and someone born ugly? Why is someone born dissabled?
God could have made pain and unhappiness without being so unfair.
The amount of physical suffering that the human body is capable of through natural diseases is absolutely cruel for anyone to have "designed". Whoever designed it is the most cruel monster in the history of the universe.
God may or may not exist but the christian god almost certainly does not exist or any lovable god for that matter.
Gambler_3
According to Buddhism, that's because people have different karma in theirprevious lives: those who havegood karma will be born in a rich family, those who have bad karma will be born in poor family or ugly/disabled ... While this is still purely belief/hypothesis, butit's rather satisfactory.
[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]
Why is someone born poor and someone born ugly? Why is someone born dissabled?
God could have made pain and unhappiness without being so unfair.
The amount of physical suffering that the human body is capable of through natural diseases is absolutely cruel for anyone to have "designed". Whoever designed it is the most cruel monster in the history of the universe.
God may or may not exist but the christian god almost certainly does not exist or any lovable god for that matter.
Zensword
According to Buddhism, that's because people have different karma in theirprevious lives: those who havegood karma will be born in a rich family, those who have bad karma will be born in poor family or ugly/disabled ... While this is still purely belief/hypothesis, butit's rather satisfactory.
No it's not. Since the person remembers nothing about their previous life, they arent really that person anymore. It is like punishing someone for a crime someone else did.It's none of your business.
Let me describe my feelings for religions with a sarcastic example:
DoomZaW
lol @ the last part of that pic.
We're all sinners because Eve at the bad bad fruit. Oh, but it's not about the fruit, it's about following the rules.
**** that. It's an apple.
For me it is about the fear and judgement that is modern religion. That is why I choose to idenfity myself as an atheist.
Dude that is exactly how you do probabilities. How much X in Y. If you want to make a claim like you need to back it up not just state something because I said so. Like so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory Since consciousness can be defined as a subset of matter then you can find the probability by the total mass of consciousness divided by total matter. Anything else does not matter for probability. And I have no idea why you even bring evolution up as it has nothing to do with this. Please do research before just blindly going against an opposing view.Conciousness arose as a result of evolution. You have been arguign against evolution this entire time. The only bit of probability you canh achieve by takign all the matter in the universe and deviding it by the amount of concious matter in the universe is how likely, if you choose an individual piece of matter in the universe, if that indivudla piece will be a part of consiouness or not. You can not immediatly come to the conslusion that some supreme being exists due to the probability which is exactly what you've been arguing. Show any piece of evidence to support your conclusion. Consciousness cannot be proven to exist but you claim you know how it arose? Look up consciousness in wikipedia before trying to make an argument about consciousness. And when did I say anything about the existence of God? It seems to me that you have a mindset that anyone that opposes your view is trying to prove there is a God. I have never said anything about God or there being one. You keep on bringing it up as if you need to prove that the belief in God is irrational.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]No. You are misinterpretting what I'm stating completely. As stated, one does not take the amount of X in Y to find the probability that X can exist in Y without a helping hand when other forces are at work including such things as evolution. That is exactly what you are doing.
BumFluff122
Well then why do you say stuff at the quantum level just magically appears out of nothing. It is not what quatum physics is about. Quantum physics is used because objects in the micro level do not follow the same laws as physics that we commonly know. This is true with electrons as you cannot predict where they are at any point in time. However this does not mean that they magically appear and disappear. Infact if any particle was to magically appear or dissapear it would violate the most basic law of physics. E=MC^2 which states that matter can only be created out of energy and energy out of matter. And if this law is violated then physics would be turned on its shoulders.They are called vacuum fluctuations and, as has been pointed out on these forusm before, they seemingly appear from nothingness. E-MC^2 does not state that matter can only come form matter. It's an equation, nothing more. What you're talkign about is the theory of relativity which does not work on the quantum level. The quantum level is "not stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine"'. There is a reason why the Big Bang theory falls apart when it gets down to the quantum level and there is a reason why physicists are actively looking for a Theory of Everthing. Because Quantum mechanics and Relativity do not mesh. Dude you are a hypocrite you say you can't use anything if we do not fully understand it presiselly but then you use theories of a science that is fairly new and has little chance of being tested as more correct than a science that has been fully tested and it has become law? And yes E=MC^2 does state that matter is in the form of energy or matter. If you know equations you can see there is no other variable that would allow for matter to be magically created. This has been tested and is the basis of all energy creation. I think I will hold this proven science at a higher reguard than quantum physics theories that range from magic to timetravel to explain electron's positions.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"][QUOTE="BumFluff122"]OR I can.. you know. actually read abotu it and study it on my own. Drastic I know but soem people actually do things like that.
BumFluff122
But he used that as a response to how can matter be created out of nothing. In other words God needed to create matter.What on Earth are you talking about? I'm an atheist. I never ocne claimed God created matter. Really I guess that is why you are so hard headed and refuse to acknoledge simple logic and give huge weight to anything that goes with your belief and ignore anything that is counter. Atheistic does not mean smart of logical. And I never said that you said that statement. I said you responded to a statement where God needed to create matter. So I think that is why you now claim that matter appears out of nothing so that God would not be needed, instead of simply saying we don't know how matter could come out of nothing.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"][QUOTE="ProudLarry"]
Note that he uses the word "seemingly". BumFluff, I'm sure can speak for himself, but it doesn't sound like he is claiming what you say he is.
BumFluff122
The point is is that we do not know how concious matter forms. Therefor making approximations or figuring out percentages on how much concious matter exists in the universe and then coming to the conlusion that a superior being must have created it due to these percentages is complete rubbish. BS you just stated that you knew that consciousness arose from evolution so don't go back on the lies that you just stated because they work for certain arguments. You have no credibility when you do that.[QUOTE="Barbariser"]
Anyway it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong about the chances of conscious matter forming per kilogramme; if he got his number from a division of all known conscious matter by all known matter (and as you yourself have stated, that's a very poor and impecise method for inferring chances), then it does not at all necessitate the existence of an intelligent creator.
While the chances of conscious matter forming on, say, a kilogramme of mass is incredibly low, the universe has enough mass for such a diceroll to eventually "click" on formation of conscious matter anyway: the universe has been claimed to mass between 1x10^50 and 1x10^60 kilogrammes.
BumFluff122
But he used that as a response to how can matter be created out of nothing. In other words God needed to create matter.What on Earth are you talking about? I'm an atheist. I never ocne claimed God created matter. I never said that you did I said you where responding to someone that said that.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"][QUOTE="ProudLarry"]
Note that he uses the word "seemingly". BumFluff, I'm sure can speak for himself, but it doesn't sound like he is claiming what you say he is.
BumFluff122
The point is is that we do not know how concious matter forms. Therefor making approximations or figuring out percentages on how much concious matter exists in the universe and then coming to the conlusion that a superior being must have created it due to these percentages is complete rubbish.[QUOTE="ShadowtheDark"] It's counter to our observations. How can matter adapt to exist if it does not exist. How are all these rules that we use in physics [QUOTE="Barbariser"]
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]
[QUOTE="Barbariser"]
Anyway it doesn't matter if he's right or wrong about the chances of conscious matter forming per kilogramme; if he got his number from a division of all known conscious matter by all known matter (and as you yourself have stated, that's a very poor and impecise method for inferring chances), then it does not at all necessitate the existence of an intelligent creator.
While the chances of conscious matter forming on, say, a kilogramme of mass is incredibly low, the universe has enough mass for such a diceroll to eventually "click" on formation of conscious matter anyway: the universe has been claimed to mass between 1x10^50 and 1x10^60 kilogrammes.
BumFluff122
I wasn't contesting that. What I was saying is that even assuming his method of inference is scientificially sound (which it is not), the mass of the universe pretty much negates the miniscule "chance" that he used to suggest that life cannot form on its own. Either way, it doesn't necessitate the presence of an intelligent creator as he was trying to posit.
(I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just saying that even if you're wrong on the methodology argument (which you're not), he's lost on the overall point: that the existence of life necessitates the presence of an intelligent designer. Either way, he loses.)
First of all I have never even stated anything about God so I don't see why you keep bringing it up. My formula was about the probability of a person being conscious. Look up the definition about consciousness before even trying to argue this logic. And then go back to the very firsts statements that I made and tell me where my logic is wrong. Don't just say well his argument is counter to my beliefs so then its wrong.EVERYBODY STOP FIGHTING I CAN'T TAKE THIS :cry:
I know and I agree with what you're saying. I'm just tryign to show him that his theory is complete rubbish and in no way does it point towards and all powerful creator. Again I never said anything about a creator. I don't know if you just imagine words when you are reading.[QUOTE="Barbariser"]
I wasn't contesting that. What I was saying is that even assuming his method of inference is scientificially sound (which it is not), the mass of the universe pretty much negates the miniscule "chance" that he used to suggest that life cannot form on its own. Either way, it doesn't necessitate the presence of an intelligent creator as he was trying to posit.
(I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just saying that even if you're wrong on the methodology argument (which you're not), he's lost on the overall point: that the existence of life necessitates the presence of an intelligent designer. Either way, he loses.)
BumFluff122
Once again, you can't discredit one theory (of a divine being) without having any basis on which to discredit it. In terms of physics, you have nothing to stand on when it comes to arguing about the origin of the universe, because physics cannot explain it any better than the Pope telling you God did it. Hence why this is such a stupid argument, and the people arguing against religion are too. When there is no proof of anything, all you've got is belief, or rather, your belief vs my belief.F1_2004I have to agree with this. Its beliefs vs beliefs. But no one seems to get it.
Why believe something you cant be sure about?[QUOTE="F1_2004"]Once again, you can't discredit one theory (of a divine being) without having any basis on which to discredit it. In terms of physics, you have nothing to stand on when it comes to arguing about the origin of the universe, because physics cannot explain it any better than the Pope telling you God did it. Hence why this is such a stupid argument, and the people arguing against religion are too. When there is no proof of anything, all you've got is belief, or rather, your belief vs my belief.Gambler_3
I dont have any "belief" about the origin of the universe. Secondly arguing against religion is not stupid cuz religion causes alot of harm in the world....visible human suffering in the name of an invisible god whose existence is extremely doubtful is as bad as it gets...
So humanitarian aid, education, moral laws are harmful to the world. The only thing you can say its harmful is wars but even religious wars have other factors attributed to them like all wars money, power territory. You talk about religion but then you have no idea of it.Taking my argument out of the scientific logic but have you ever really asked the question and looked for an answer. I did and the answer I got restored my faith. I think you should really ask yourself that question and reflect on an answer. Questions like the purpose of life, consciousness, suffering and our role in the world. Reflect on those questions and maybe you might find different answers.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"][QUOTE="Zensword"]
I used to be a Catholic from birth but recentlyI lost my faith completely after stopping going to church for many years. The reason : the world has so much sufferrings but where is God ? St. John wrote in one of his letters that : God IS LOVE but why doesnt he care about his creatures who suffer so much ? (wars, sickness, natural disasters...)Why the God of love created animals that kill and eat one another ? The enormous amount of sufferrings and evils are clearly incompatible with the doctrine of a loving God so I became an atheist. But myfamily are still Catholics, and I dont want to '"onvert" them to become atheists like me since I dont want to get into arguments with them, and I think that the belief in Christian God is a kind of psychological crutch to them so I dont want to destroy their "crutch".
Zensword
Thanks for your advice. Yes, i've been reflecting about the purpose of mylife, our roles in the world ... I think that my purpose of life is to attain liberation of all delusion, aversion and attachment ("the three poisons" in Buddhism) and help others attain the same goal. In other words, I'm trying to be happy and help poeple to be happy as much as I can. And IMO, while each person's purpose is differrent but the general purpose is the same: be happy and help others to be happy. As for God, I still dont find any reason to answers the question many people and I hvae been struggling:"Why is there so much sufferrings and evils?" If I can find a good answer, maybe I'd become a Catholic again.
However, although I no longer believe in God (at least in a personal God ) but Istill wonder what cause the universe and human beings came into being ?
Intuitively, I sense that all this elegant universe cannot came out of nothing. But I cant explain why God (if he exists) allows so much evils and sufferrings without intervention ? he must be a cruel Creator. *Sigh* I'm having a dillemma.
My beliefs where the same as your and I came to the same conclusion about our role in life which is to help others. We are the ones that see suffering and that is our role as people to try and make things right. God in my view does not create bad things. Bad things just happen for many reasons. Sometimes a kid gets cancer and dies and we can't help to think why would God allow such things. But again why did you not do more to help that kid. My view is that you cannot blame God for standing by when bad things happen and then giving us free will to make the decisions that affect that person. The reason I believe those things happen is free will. You have the free will to make terrible wars or help dying children. Each has their results and costs. Life is never a win win. In order to help someone you have to loose something. And that shows our true character. But if we never had to deal with anything bad(if everyone is happy how would you know happiness?) if everything was equal then we really would never have any experience or free will and that would be the same as not existing. Those are my thoughts on the subject. I think we came pretty close to having the same beliefs.[QUOTE="deadevil666"]
[QUOTE="Zensword"]
"Why is there so much sufferrings and evils?" If I can find a good answer, maybe I'd become a Catholic again.
Gambler_3
Without the bad, we would not appreciate the good. "God" just allows us to go through this life with full freedom in order to gain as much from it as possible, the bad in the world purely on us, just like the good.
Why is someone born poor and someone born ugly? Why is someone born dissabled?God could have made pain and unhappiness without being so unfair.
The amount of physical suffering that the human body is capable of through natural diseases is absolutely cruel for anyone to have "designed". Whoever designed it is the most cruel monster in the history of the universe.
God may or may not exist but the christian god almost certainly does not exist or any lovable god for that matter.
So when a person is dissable or ugly who makes his life difficult. It's us. When you look at an ugly person and decide not to assositate with him you are the one making his life bad."Rationale" is the key point! What rational person do you know who is willing to just "believe" or simply "put faith" into anything?!
[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]
Why is someone born poor and someone born ugly? Why is someone born dissabled?
God could have made pain and unhappiness without being so unfair.
The amount of physical suffering that the human body is capable of through natural diseases is absolutely cruel for anyone to have "designed". Whoever designed it is the most cruel monster in the history of the universe.
God may or may not exist but the christian god almost certainly does not exist or any lovable god for that matter.
According to Buddhism, that's because people have different karma in theirprevious lives: those who havegood karma will be born in a rich family, those who have bad karma will be born in poor family or ugly/disabled ... While this is still purely belief/hypothesis, butit's rather satisfactory.
That seems like an excuse/justification why nobles rule over peasents..ok guys if you want a logical thinking i'll give u one.
how many people in earth today?
how about last year?
last decade?
people population grows everyday but the cold hard fact is that we are come from one "parent". Adam and Hawa (or Eve you may call it). The thing is we born from our parent but where Adam and Eve born from? I left the answer for you...
If you think they are not the first than you can still backtrack again and the conclusion is still the same, isn't it? If you want to say they just there without God created them then why we were born? Not just... there.
"Rationale" is the key point! What rational person do you know who is willing to just "believe" or simply "put faith" into anything?!
Dank_Dangler
It is difficult to believe in a Creator. How would you know there is a Creator? How do you know we were created? We are way more advanced than 2000 years ago and we don't know for sure how we came to be? God seems like a crutch for people. Christians say God loves them. Sounds like you're lying to yourself because you're dissatisfied with something in your life. Humans naturally seek true happiness and when they can't find it, they make up a story to make themselves feel better.
Christianity seems like a way to gain control of people. I mean, the Pope is drop dead rich. Church officials are drop dead rich. If they were not paid, would they still be such "devout" Christians? Christianity seems like an excuse to make you pay money, a.k.a it's a business.
How do you know Adam and Eve were the first people? Science says that we were probably blue-green algaes or something that evolved into humans. I find it hard to believe that algae have names. How do you the Adam and Eve story is real? Looks like a way to diminish women and give men the power.
The belief that there are 2 places that you end up in when you die seams ridiculous. If you end up in Heaven, you see all your family again. If you end up (or down) in Hell, you are tortured for all eternity! How would you know? How do you know that Heaven isn't just a story to ease the suffering of people afraid of death. How do you know hell is not a story made to scare people into becoming Christians? Hell makes more people become Christians, therefore more people going to church, donating to the church, paying the church al sorts of money.
So I look in the Bible and i read all these stories. Some of them are true, Some of them are true but with false details.
So the virgin Mary huh? Have you ever considered that she cheated on Joseph? Maybe Joseph was too blind to realize it.
ok, I know my writing sucks.
Like i already wrote, let's say Adam and Eve not the first, (but I believe that's not the case), just trackback, and you will see that nothing's change, there will always be there first one right? but how did they born? Now, algae? I haven't hear about any scientist mentioning algae "evolved" into human... Any link? But seriously, let's get it straight. Human =/= animal =/= plants. What makes us differ? It's called our mind, which we use to discuss al these thing. So you wanna say that "the so-called-evolution" can give some beings a mind? Think about it.How do you know Adam and Eve were the first people? Science says that we were probably blue-green algaes or something that evolved into humans. I find it hard to believe that algae have names. How do you the Adam and Eve story is real? Looks like a way to diminish women and give men the power.
TK-Focus
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]Conciousness arose as a result of evolution. You have been arguign against evolution this entire time. The only bit of probability you canh achieve by takign all the matter in the universe and deviding it by the amount of concious matter in the universe is how likely, if you choose an individual piece of matter in the universe, if that indivudla piece will be a part of consiouness or not. You can not immediatly come to the conslusion that some supreme being exists due to the probability which is exactly what you've been arguing. Show any piece of evidence to support your conclusion. Consciousness cannot be proven to exist but you claim you know how it arose? Look up consciousness in wikipedia before trying to make an argument about consciousness. And when did I say anything about the existence of God? It seems to me that you have a mindset that anyone that opposes your view is trying to prove there is a God. I have never said anything about God or there being one. You keep on bringing it up as if you need to prove that the belief in God is irrational.That's what this entire convo is about! Exactly how can the existence of conciousness be shown not to exist considering you and me are currently both conscious right now? Which is the reason why we are having this convo. I also never stated that we need to know everythign about something to be able to use it. And the alternative to soem magically powered beign creating conciousness is abviously that it arose due to evolution. And an astheist, in many definitions, is merely a person that does not believe in a supreme being nothign more. I am what is known as an agnostic atheist in that I don't believe in God but I'm not going to write certain types of Gods completely off.[QUOTE="SpartanNapoleon"] Dude that is exactly how you do probabilities. How much X in Y. If you want to make a claim like you need to back it up not just state something because I said so. Like so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory Since consciousness can be defined as a subset of matter then you can find the probability by the total mass of consciousness divided by total matter. Anything else does not matter for probability. And I have no idea why you even bring evolution up as it has nothing to do with this. Please do research before just blindly going against an opposing view.SpartanNapoleon
Dude you are a hypocrite you say you can't use anything if we do not fully understand it presiselly but then you use theories of a science that is fairly new and has little chance of being tested as more correct than a science that has been fully tested and it has become law? And yes E=MC^2 does state that matter is in the form of energy or matter. If you know equations you can see there is no other variable that would allow for matter to be magically created. This has been tested and is the basis of all energy creation. I think I will hold this proven science at a higher reguard than quantum physics theories that range from magic to timetravel to explain electron's positions.SpartanNapoleonE-MC2 is an equation to change matter to energy and vice versa however you stated that the equation stated that matter and energy could not come into existence and were eternal, which it doesn't. The thing with quantum mechanics is that the theories involved with quantum mechanics meet the observations as do the theories involved with general relativity. If quantum mechanics didn't meet the observations it would be put on the back burner and there would be no need to find a Theor of Everything.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment