Why do you believe(or not believe)?

Post Reply New Topic

Oh. Ok. Physics is the study of causes and effects according to certain mathematical laws applied to the Standard Model. If we create a Feynman diagram of the beginning of the universe, we can conclude that the whatever caused the universe 1) created it out of nothing, 2) created time, 3) began the ordering of fundamental particles according to symmetrical laws. Thank you, that was much easier than using philosophy.

Philosophy is out of its depth when describing reality. Philosophy may be good for describing the everyday reality experienced by humans at the sizes, speeds and time scales we are familiar with but it is useless beyond that very narrow realm of experience. Philosophy can't describe reality at the quantum scale, it can't describe the reality of wave particle duality or quantum tunnelling. The only language that reality can be described in is mathematics. Granted this is a great disappointment from a human perspective. It doesn't feel very satisfying that English language cannot describe the nature of reality. Wave equations and similar advanced mathematics just aren't easily understood by most people, nor are they intrinsically pleasing to the intellect.

Sooner or later I expect physicists to discover the mathematics that will unify the quantum scales and the large relativistic scales and will show that both quantum physics and relativity are both special cases or subsets of a larger grander mathematics. I equally expect that the causality of the universe will simply appear as a consequence of the mathematics and no external cause or god will be required. Philosophers will find this deeply unsatisfying but nonetheless the mathematics will ultimately be the only language that reality can be expressed in, not words. Words and philosophy is already out of its depth trying to describe the reality of things like wave particle duality, quantum entanglement and time dilation let alone the nature and "cause" of the universe.

So mammals came about because of a viral infection.That figures,such hairy,smelly,destructive creatures.

that ironically have been compared to viruses :/

Absolutely zero progress has been made in the quest to prove there is a God (Hitchens is right; that which is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, so there is no need to prove anything on the part of the atheist). If somebody enjoys trying to prove or disprove such a thing, the more power to them. But expecting to accomplish anything has proved to be a fool's errand. Consequently, the best argument in favor of religion is a utilitarian approach.

If there is no God, then religion is still an eminently useful fiction. Atheists love to prate on about all the people killed in wars over religion, and there have been far too many. But those numbers pale in comparison to those killed by the secular movements of fascism and communism in just the 20C--a number that stands at 120 MILLION. And those are all in peacetime.

The reason? When liberal humanitarians would gently chide the communists over their atrocities, the communists would scornfully dismiss what they called "bourgeois sentimentality", which was their name for Christianity and the societies based upon it as a moral system. Without some kind of common, outward moral system, who is to say that mass murder is wrong? In other words, Christianity provides a set of immutable moral standards even if they are not always followed; at least the standards are still there, and provide clear basis for moral condemnation.

I would also argue that as a cultural and moral basis, Christianity has a time-tested track record of providing a cultural locus that allows for the creation of good societies. For example, while there always has been, and always will be, wealth inequality, today the disparity is obscene. Christian morality encourages noblesse oblige with the Biblical injunction that to whom much is given, much is expected in return. With today's reigning liberal moral orthodoxy, who is to say there is anything wrong with the impoverishment of increasing numbers of people? After all, our Politically Correct liberal religion's morals are whatever suits the ruling class best.

Bottom line: Even if it's not true, religion, and Christianity in particular, allows for the formation of more just, livable societies. And that is of immense benefit to all of us.

Last edited by Thelibrarian on 17 Nov 2013, 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

God esnt exit enough said!

As if proposing an extremely unlikely complicated God provides a satisfying answer for the question.

On the contrary, it makes much more sense that the universe was triggered by some force lacking a mind but with a random function of triggering infinite universes into existence than some conscious entity with some super powerful mind that has just always existed and that did nothing for a period of "divine time" before, all of a sudden, deciding to trigger this particular universe (and not something better) into existence.



Yet you assert the following:

God does not require a cause, but anything else must.

What utter rubbish. Christian morals are anything but just a lot of the time. I refuse to live by such filthy standards.

I notice you offer no evidence for your indictment of Christianity. So, I would be well within my rights to dismiss with no evidence that which is presented with no evidence. Instead, I will ask you to support your position. As far as Christian morals being "anything but just a lot of the time", what do you mean? And how do you figure Christian standards are "filthy"? I'm giving you a chance to explain yourself, which is more than some atheists feel is necessary and proper.

most people habitually accommodate the beliefs taught to them by their parents or care-givers. It is not exactly hot burning belief, but most people take the line of least resistance.

Every now and again a young person will abandon the religion of his parents as an act of youthful rebellion but more often then not they return to their accustomed beliefs later on in life.

ruveyn

Yeah, I will support my position by stating that you have no evidence for your claim.

But let me clarify my position regardless.

Christianity enables prejudice against certain minority groups (homosexuals and transsexuals are an example).

Up until recently, Christianity did not discourage slavery. Thanks to secular and egalitarian influence, most Christians no longer enable it.

Christianity is against birth control and abortion, making things very difficult for many people out there.

Christianity encourages judging people negatively for very superficial/shallow reasons.

Christianity encourages blackmailing of people (especially young children) through imaginary condemnation and judgement.

The fact that Christians behave like other human beings in terms of moral deficiencies. They kill, steal, rape, vandalize, just like any other. They, in no f*cking way, are going to make society better and more livable by abiding by Christian "morals".

We are doing fine as we are now. Still a lot more improvements to be made, but definitely better than any Christian society out there. No prejudice against homosexuals. No law forbidding birth control. And no encouraging slavery.

See point #2 above. a) The force would not be a "thing" or "event" (because outside of spacetime) but something unlimited by materiality. b) Therefore it would require no cause. It would just "be."

Except for whether or not this "force" has consciousness or not, we seem to be in agreement.

Thank you for a well thought out response. I appreciate this utilitarian approach to explaining the effect of religion on society.

But it doesn't answer my question. My question is: what do *I* get in exchange for *my* faith? This isn't a philosophical question.

Yeah, I will support my position by stating that you have no evidence for your claim.

Sir, I cited the slaughter of 120 million innocent people and obscene income disparities as evidence for my claim. I'm not sure what to make out of somebody so callous as to consider these things so inconsequential as not even being worthy of your consideration.

But let me clarify my position regardless.

Christianity enables prejudice against certain minority groups (homosexuals and transsexuals are an example).

Yes, Christianity, along with ever other major religion, discourages homosexual activity. Twenty years ago I lived in Houston's homosexual district. I saw young kids dying of AIDS. Had these kids followed Christianity's injunctions against sodomy, they would have lived. It's yet one more example of the moral callousness of atheism that was the point of my original post.

Up until recently, Christianity did not discourage slavery. Thanks to secular and egalitarian influence, most Christians no longer enable it.

Nor did Christianity encourage slavery. I hope you are not naive enough to believe that Christianity ever held the power to mandate or forbid slavery. Instead, what Christianity attempted to do was to make an institution that existed as humane as possible by mandating certain standards for the treatment of slaves.

Thanks to secular influence, communism at one time enslaved several billion people. And it was far less humane than what transpired in the South.

And since every non-liberal society has practiced bonded labor of some kind, by implication you are saying that all non-liberal societies are evil. Your position is enough to make even the most ignorant, narrow-minded Jehovah's witness--who thinks everybody else is going to hell--look tolerant by comparison.

Christianity is against birth control and abortion, making things very difficult for many people out there.

It is ignorance to say that all Christianity forbids birth control. Catholics do, though most of the Protestant and Evangelical denominations do not. I do agree though that any Christianity worthy of the name forbids abortion, and in the strongest possible terms. Christianity does not share your callous indifference toward innocent human life. And there is no more innocent group than the unborn.

Christianity encourages judging people negatively for very superficial/shallow reasons.

Such as?

Christianity encourages blackmailing of people (especially young children) through imaginary condemnation and judgement.

Political Correctness, which is liberalism sacralized, doesn't condemn and judge? How about those it demonizes as "racist", "sexist", "homophobic", "speciesist", etc. etc. etc.?

The fact that Christians behave like other human beings in terms of moral deficiencies. They kill, steal, rape, vandalize, just like any other. They, in no f*cking way, are going to make society better and more livable by abiding by Christian "morals".

It sounds as if what you are arguing is that since the moral rules aren't always followed, that they should be abolished? I would remind that you that moral and legal injunctions against rape aren't always followed either. Should rape laws be abolished?

We are doing fine as we are now. Still a lot more improvements to be made, but definitely better than any Christian society out there. No prejudice against homosexuals. No law forbidding birth control. And no encouraging slavery.

No, what PC has done is to institutionalize "prejudice" against the majority. Back when we had a Christian society, there was no need to lock our doors; now we need a police state to make people behave. Back when we had a Christian society, the rich were part of society; now rich liberals like Bill Gates and George Soros ensconce themselves behind walls to avoid having anything to do with regular people; they most certainly are not their brothers' keepers. Again, I find your moral callousness against obscene income inequality, which means more people are working harder for less, not only to be stunning, but represents everything I abhor about atheism.

Last edited by Thelibrarian on 18 Nov 2013, 11:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

How about living in a society that treats us all better? A society where the wealthiest and most capable have a moral obligation toward those lacking the same social and genetic advantages?

Expecting average citizens to compete economically against sharks like Bill Gates and George Soros is no different than expecting us to compete against a champion boxer in the fight ring. Christianity ensures a more just, fair society for average citizens. Christianity encourages noblesse oblige, which is something liberal narcissism finds abhorrent.

Sorry, but thats simply so much wish thinking.

If people avoided homosexuality, they wouldnt get AIDS? The AIDS virus is not interested in your sexuality or gender, it is only interested in being an illness, spreaded by fluid exchange. The only reason, why it spreaded in the beginning more among homosexuals, is because until then, homosexuals had out of biological background no reason to use conceiving methods, when having sex with each other.

And no christianity itself as written by Jesus, does not encourage slavery. But tons of so called christian people did.

And how do you want to call a racist, homophobe, ...? Is calling someone that steals from you, a thief, condemning an judging? You yourself create a pamphlete, saying how much it was better if people cared for each other and tried to built a better society. So does that only go for people that are "liberal" in your opinion, while people that try to spread and raise hate, aggression and violance among an society, shall be supported us, only because of their hate and violation towards their neighbors being declared as "typical conservative"? People dont dislike "racists, homophobes, sexists, ..." out of fun, but because of racists, homophobes and sexists attacking other innocent citizens and neighbors of mine without any reason. Or simply because of them being a**holes. If someone attacked my 85 year old neighbor verbally for being an 85 year old woman, and out of no other reason, he is an a**hole and I would feel the need to defend her, and to tell this person to leave our neighborhood, if he feels out of fun unable to live peacefully with 85 year old women as neighbors. Am I not allowed to have the same feelings towards other similar people, attacking others for no reasons? What is unreasonable about me telling to dislike someone, that thinks he has the right to verbally attack and cause hate and violance, out of fun towards people? I am as well a "people". If we let such people do on, the next victim of his fun can be as well me. So I think its quite reasonable, and nothing more then selfe defense, to tell people that the broad majority of people, will not accept people getting attacked in any form, out of fun and without any reason.

What a nonsene. Around here people are secular and very moderate christian, and the majority of people does not need to close their doors. The need to close your door is not based on your religion, but upon your society. Cause a society with an huge difference between poor and rich, where more then 50% need basic support, where public schools offers no useful education that give kids the ability ot get a job, and you will need to close your door.

What a whole nonsense. There always has been rich a**holes, and rich social people. And its simply depending on them being a**holes or social people. Not on their religion. Social critic and denial, is no invention of 20iest century.

So you feel disturbed by something, that I agree with you. But how is that linked with atheism? I know religious and atheistic people agreeing on that topic, just as I know religious and atheistic disagreeing on that topic?

So what is your last sentence about? About people with moral callousness against obscene income inequality, or about atheists? The both topics you mixed are not linked to each other.