But then I would have no choice as to which religion I follow. I was an atheist before as I've probably already said and that was by choice and now I'm Catholic again by choice. I pondered the question of God/ no god for months and months without leaning one way or the other and I'm now quite sure He exists. Had I been born out there I wouldn't have been allowed to question my beliefs and so would be a complete idiot and would be ignoring you rather than debating with you.

you missed the point about the countries i didnt mean those specifically more any country that isnt catholic,why cant you believe that there is a higher being without suscribing to one of the organised religions?

Organised has nothing to do with it. I do my own thing regardless of whether anyone else does it too. If I was the exact same as I am now but Christianity wasn't organised well then I wouldn't mind I would just think about it long and hard and still come to the conclusion that God exists.

but why god in the conventional sense?i mean you believe in god, but why cant there be more than one, or that god is just a higher being than us e.g mother earth(as an example)

As everyone knows the gods in all polytheistic faiths are powerful but not perfect, they posses human weaknesses like greed and the need to betray(according to the Ancient Egyptians both of these led seth to murder osiris after inviting him 'round for dinner) so basically the gods would just fight among each other and destroy each other until there's just one left, much better to just believe in one god that will always be there and is perfect.
=============================================
Also, I apply the balance of power to the sentient and supernatural beings in the universe. We know for certain there are many far from perfect beings known as humans and so to acquire a balance it was necessary for one all perfect being to exist.
=============================================
But you've already posted you don't agree with the second point.

@Saorif

This is about your post that Human beings must have a purpose for existence. I find this to be incredibly untrue. Why must man have a predestined reason to live? Doesnt this in some way impede on the idea of free will? I think people can apply a purpose to their life, one which on some level drives them, but it is entirely a product of themselves. No supernatural force applied it to them. There is no reason that man must have a purpose to their life. You also state that our purpose must be more than survival and procreation, but I think it's interesting how many behaviors can be explained through those two goals. I do not consider these to be the only reason people do things, but certainly play a large part.

Also, the idea of perfection is entirely subjective, and in your argument you claim that this imperfection is what necessitates the existence of a god. But if there was no man, as in fact even the bible states there was a period of time without man (I am using the bible since I am assuming you follow Judeo-Christian tradition). So what imperfection is found in the animals that required the existence of a god? This seems to make your argument say that since man exists then so does a god, but if man is no longer part of the equation what happens to the god? This reasoning also suggests that gods are dependent on man for their existence, and thus can be assumed to be creations of man.

no i didnt i do believe there is something higher than us i just dont know what,and im curious to why people have to give it at name and suscribe to set religous laws that have no basis in fact rather than there own moral compass.

Christianity does preach heaven/hell God/Devil though. How is that 'perfect'? Christianity is built on polytheistic ideas. In particular that Zoroastrian everlasting battle between good and evil.

Isn't it more logical to believe that the 'perfect' being is a system rather than an individual entity? A system within which the neccessary balances are automatically created by their very existence? IMO the balance to the existence of one being is not the existence of more beings - it doesn't make sense. Existence isn't like forces.

Do you seriously believe that a perfect being exists purely because imperfect beings exist though? How and why do you believe that? It doesn't make sense and you keep falling back on it.

A very valid point Voila. Well if there were no men but many animals there's still many imperfect beings so the situation is exactly the same.

Trying to use logic to prove faith is useless because, well, faith is illogical. It's also fruitless to try and prove the existence of God, because God must exist beyond what can be scientifically proven. I mean, you'll never crash into Heaven no matter how long you travel in a spaceship.

Sent from: Invictus (55 ) Sent: 04:59 PM
Trying to use logic to prove faith is useless because, well, faith is illogical. It's also fruitless to try and prove the existence of God, because God must exist beyond what can be scientifically proven. I mean, you'll never crash into Heaven no matter how long you travel in a spaceship.
=============================================
Well I guess you're right but if I didn't try logic and just simply believed that would make me a fundamentalist and that is a man I don't want to be.

Zarathustra - Thank you for such a well written and thought out response. I don't claim to know for sure what the ultimate reality of the Universe is, but modern science seems to imply that it's certainly quite different than we as Humans can directly experience or observe. I suppose really it's mysticism that I'm most interested in, and it's ability to let people think and feel in a different manner, that seems to (emphasis on seems I suppose) allow them to get into a frame of mind that allows them to come close to experiencing things the way that modern science seems to say things work. This may simply be a coincidence, but it's very interesting to me.

Really what it comes down to for me is that there is clearly more to the universe than we experience every day, and it seems to me that there may be a number of ways of coming to a personal understanding/feeling of that.

I may be completely wrong about all of it, but I do feel that there is more to the universe than our everyday experiences, though I'm not going to try to put a name on it, or claim that I can explain it or understand it fully.

@Sean

"I generally agree with dr Oct, there are many paths to enlightenment. for some people that requires old books and fiery thunderbolts, others meditation and for others science and humanist rationality.

the one thing that really annoys me is when people assume their way to be the ONLY way."

Exactly.

And don't worry Kestas, when sean and I talk about Spirituality, we're not necessarily talking about religion per se, so much as a personal way of experiencing things and thinking. (at least I assume sean would agree with me) For some people they can get "spiritual" fulfillment from science, reason and/or philosophy, others might need another kind of focus to reach that feeling, whether it's ritual, meditation, stories, art, music or whatever. Personally I can appreciate the beauty and spiritual feelings that ritual, or stories, or whatever aspect of a religion you want to look at can bring without necessarily literally believing in the doctrines of the theology they are connected to.

@Invictus - Well then, it seems I'm going to continue to await logical evidence and never find it. As far as I care if the flying spaghetti monster or god wants me to know who he is and that he does exist I'm still going to be right here living my life. Notably living it with its meaning defined by me rather than manufactured principles.

Towards the general discussion before I go to bed though; I'm still the agnostic existentialist. I adopted a more hard-line atheism - which I do strongly sympathize with - for the purposes of the discussion but it changes little. I still believe that if anything its much more reasonable to assume that we exist due to a series of random events which follow natural laws than that we were created. This also leads me to lean towards there not being a god as I see this as much more likely. As always there is always more to be learned and I'm open to learning it, but I doubt anything changing any time soon.

@Sioraf

What exactly is your working definition of "Imperfect"? Because, at least in the Christian sense imperfection is a result of sin, and no animal has sinned in christian tradition. Therefore, under your argument if there is no man there is no god. That makes god dependent on Man. I'm just trying to get you to see that the argument you made to support the existence of god does not work.

"we exist due to a series of random events which follow natural laws than that we were created" couldnt we still exist due to what you said and there still be a higher being?

@Sioraf - Can you explain a bit more how imperfect beings necessitate a perfect being? I'm a little unclear on the logic there. I'm not bashing your belief God, or anything, that's your personal business and right, regardless of the reason.

But you've used this argument several times that the fact that humans are imperfect leading to the necessary belief that there is a perfect being, but I don't see how it logically follows. Can you explain in a bit more detail? I'm honestly curious how you arrive at the conclusion from the premise.

Oy, sorry about the phrasing on that last part. Let me try again:

But you've used the argument several times that the fact that humans are imperfect leads logically to a belief that there is a perfect being, but I don't see how it logically follows. Can you explain in a bit more detail? I'm honestly curious how you arrive at the conclusion from the premise.

Sioraf, I don't have a real disagreement with your belief that there must be a supernatural intelligence or being, or something beyond our world. And neither is it problematic to say there is no rational basis for your beliefs, because that is true.

What is a problem (logically) is when you say you came to the logical idea of Gods existence.

Your 'humans are imperfect' argument has a myriad of inconcsistencies that have really been touched on.

But even more problematic is the notion that because God exists, somehow a monotheitstic religion must be the true way of thinking, because only a single entity can be perfect.

You're a Catholic you say?

Well I would challenge the assumption firstly that the Christian God is 'perfect'. In the Bible, God is depcted as failing to predict things, failing to realize the consequences of his actions, being petty, throwing temper tantrums when man is acting up (and flooding stuff), and being really jealous That sounds a whole lot like the behaviour of the Greek Gods if you ask me.
And on a more basic level, the problem with your perfection argument is this. If the world is inherently imperfect, well, God can't be intrinsically linked and all powerful in this world. That would by extension taint God with imperfection. On the other hand, if God is distinct and intangibly linked with the world, well then we can't really come to any conclusions about wht is really like.
Following that thought, most of the Bible and all the Jesus Christ stuff and all the parables are complete rubbish on the truthiness-scale.

Archonix actually dealt with alot of this so I won't really go on as much of it would be repitition. But I hope you see the counter-arguments to specificaly Christian theology.



At Invictus: problems arise when the forces of Religion claim faith and God are supported by logic and Science. Then he battle is over home turf :P

haha, six comments popped up while I was typing. Oh forums...

@trim101 - Truly the last statement before bed :P

I believe its possible but unlikely. The 'higher being' I'm envisioning also not being the Judeo-Christian god, probably transcending human understanding and definitely not 'perfect'.

If you are considering a supreme being that lit the spark that started the fire maybe.

If you consider the supreme being within the fabric of the universe its a metaphysical argument which would be applied to our understanding. I've always found ideas along these lines appealing but ultimately unlikely.

If you consider a single or even a series of entities that simply transcend our understanding. I simply don't know. I believe it more likely that our existence is by complete chance but my official stance is that I don't know.

Heh, and @Friendly Sword - I've picked up a habit when writing long posts to cut, refresh the page, paste and then to update any information thats repetetive or needs more explaining. It sometimes is helpful :P

Friendly is there really a point to a non believer reading a religious text? I don't think so because subconsciously at least he will have a bias thereby making the action useless. What you've said about the Bible is the same thing every other atheist says so no, the counter-arguments are groupthink and nothing more.

Sioraf, I think you are completely misundetstanding a basic point and your argumentation is cicular.

The point of critically analyxing a piece of text is to do so without a bias. Reading the Bible without already assuming everything is literal and true is bias, it's the antithesis to bias.

What IS biased is reading the Bible with a certain pre-ordained view in mind beforehand. Therefore reading the Bible with the assumption that everything in it is true is reading it with a bias.

Everyone's basic point is that it is less strenuous and more logical to have your base-point as alck of knowlege and work up from there. NOT to just assume things and then try to connect the dots.

Tying in with that
Your arguement that Every Athiest criticizes the Bible therefore they are not freethinking is ludicrous. What if everyone comes to similar conclusions? As long as they can demonstrate how they indepedant worked out the thought process it is not group-think.

If you claim to a third grade class that 2+2=5 would you call it groupthink if they ALL said you were wrong and explained why?

And finally why do you think I'm an atheist? :P

What IS biased is reading the Bible with a certain pre-ordained view in mind beforehand. Therefore reading the Bible with the assumption that everything in it is true is reading it with a bias.

Everyone's basic point is that it is less strenuous and more logical to have your base-point as alck of knowlege and work up from there. NOT to just assume things and then try to connect the dots.
=============================================
But, I've never done any of that!
=============================================
Your arguement that Every Athiest criticizes the Bible therefore they are not freethinking is ludicrous
=============================================
I thought atheists and freethinkers were similar but not quite the same.
=============================================
What if everyone comes to similar conclusions? As long as they can demonstrate how they indepedant worked out the thought process it is not group-think.

=============================================
But the atheist dosen't demonstrate how he comes to his conclusion a different way from the atheist sitting next to him, the atheist across the road or the atheist on the other side of the world.
=============================================
If you claim to a third grade class that 2+2=5 would you call it groupthink if they ALL said you were wrong and explained why?
=============================================
I think you'll agree that's a very bad example. Everybody knows that 2+2=4. Obviously I wouldn't call it groupthink if they all came up with the answer BUT individually. If one boy says "Yeah it's four" and within a minute all 25 students agree it's 4 well that is fundamentalism and groupthink. However, if all the students check the answer using logic and come to answer independantly well that's perfectly fine.
=============================================
And finally why do you think I'm an atheist?
=============================================
I've never debated with an agnostic before. Sorry about that.

Sioraf this is what you said:

"Friendly is there really a point to a non believer reading a religious text? I don't think so because subconsciously at least he will have a bias thereby making the action useless"

Tell me if I'm wrong, but the implication is that unless you believe in God and aren't biased by your disbelief, you are not qualified to undesrtand and debate religious scripture. Perhaps I misinterpreted?

Secondly, about your groupthink: you say
"But the atheist dosen't demonstrate how he comes to his conclusion a different way from the atheist sitting next to him"

I really fail to see that is the case. I have personally come to some (albeit limited) conclusions about philosophy and religion in general, and the thought process was all my own. Every counter-argument has been different in its content.

So when you say
"If one boy says "Yeah it's four" and within a minute all 25 students agree it's 4 well that is fundamentalism and groupthink. However, if all the students check the answer using logic and come to answer independantly well that's perfectly fine."

I totally agree. But I see no reason why 'all' Atheists should be tainted by the accusation of groupthink simply because theycome up with similar argument. My point with the kids was, people can independantly come up with similar arguementation and in fact they should.

lol, I could also question your assumption that "everybody knows that 2+2=4" as well if you want :P.



Oh, and you have debated with Agonstics before, trust me. Just because seven or eight different people disagree with you doesn't mean that they are all the same, or that they agree with eachother.


Oh the wonders of a pluralistic society...

Perhaps I misinterpreted?
=============================================
That's right. All I said was that atheism leads an individual to have a bias against sacred texts I never said having a religion makes someone a person better suited or qualified.
=============================================
lol, I could also question your assumption that "everybody knows that 2+2=4" as well if you want :P.
=============================================
Who dosen't know 2+2=4? The 1/4 of English schoolboys who don't believe in Winston Churchill? :Q :R :S :T etc.
=============================================
totally agree. But I see no reason why 'all' Atheists should be tainted by the accusation of groupthink simply because theycome up with similar argument.
=============================================
Posting from experience they get their argument the same way.
=============================================
Oh, and you have debated with Agonstics before, trust me. Just because seven or eight different people disagree with you doesn't mean that they are all the same, or that they agree with eachother.


Oh the wonders of a pluralistic society...
=============================================
You're accusing me of bigotry? I already posted "I'm not a bigot, I hate EVERYONE". As for secularism, well tht's a whole other thread isn't it?

Heh, there's more lines in this thread than in a system of fortifications!

isnt a better example of groupthink people who all derive their entire argument (which is exactly the same) from ONE book?

@Sioraf
Perhaps it was missed in all of the posts that happened around it, but any chance I could get you to explain a bit more your thinking in saying that the fact that humans are imperfect leads to the conclusion that there must be a perfect being?

I see that you start with the premise A) Humans are imperfect, and reach conclusion Z) There must be a perfect being. I'm not clear on the steps in between that lead to that conclusion, because honestly... I just don't see it. (don't feel limited by the A and Z, just thought I'd use A to represent the starting premise and Z to represent the final conclusion).