"Why is it important for non-believers to prove there is no God?"

Discussion in 'Your Religion & Spiritual Corner' started by Aladdin, Jun 16, 2008.

ATTN: Our forums have moved here! You can still read these forums but if you'd like to participate, mosey on over to the new location.

  1. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

  2. Aladdin

    Aladdin Guest

    thank you old timer for your answer - merci

    thank you trish - no segregation is never the answer

    and all you replied
     
  3. Aladdin

    Aladdin Guest

    deleted; it's way too confusing - i've been free of vertigo for almost twelve hours and don't need visual confusion so i've simplified my last questions

    so a person who believes should keep their mouth shut and not pray openly of God because it infringes on the rights of the non-believers? so the non believer doesn't want to 'hear' it than the christians shouldn't say it?

    if the answer is yes - than what about the rights of the christian - to use the rights and guarantees under the american constitution - the rights declared by our fore - fathers of freedom or speech and religion?

    or should christians only speak about God in church or church gatherings? should they be restricted to their rights to speak openly but rather in 'appropiate' places where non believers are not?'

    i hope that isn't worded too raw or crude but i'm trying to focus and concentrate on the summary question for the article
     
  4. Aladdin

    Aladdin Guest

    merci
     
  5. Aladdin

    Aladdin Guest

    but rather isn't is about respect and tolerance: the right for each person to believe in their own beliefs without prosecution from another. believers should have the right to openly pray in a gathering and if that happens they should keep the prayer on what it's intended for not tu turn the prayer into a preaching opportunity or 'show'...benny hinn crusade type ordeal...not to over step their boundries but within their rights to openly pray and worship respect the rights of others - a simple God bless this event, can surfice (sp) not a twenty minute prayer...

    so - in close this should be the rights of everyone and tolerance and acceptance and not to over - react? or take advantage of the situation?

    ciao

    i'm vertigo free and its sunny outside - i'll check back monday
     
  6. Mnme

    Mnme Guest

    Perhaps all that is needed is a broader view of 'self'. As I see it, a sense of 'self' is not just about me, but rather understanding the qualities that we all have in common: a sense of 'selves'. When we have this, we know that everyone has their own story/battle/joy and that everyone is just trying to do their best given what they have. This understanding is our connection to others.

    Naturally we won't all have the same beliefs/life circumstances, so our actions will differ. But our intentions can be surprisingly similar. People who aren't religious have stated on this thread that they are doing their bit to help others. They are demonstrating a shared sense of 'selves' (not just a more egotistical 'self'). There's a big difference in my view.

    Whether we talk of God, Mother Nature, shared energy, sense of family/community, or helping humanity, what we are really talking about is a quality that doesn't demand respect, but rather we want to give it. I see that quality in people on this forum all the time regardless of their beliefs. 'We' don't like to hear of others suffering. Now that quality, wherever it comes from, is something to celebrate!

    Good luck with your piece Aladdin.

    Lee.
     
  7. bhavv

    bhavv New Member

    I have a problem with killings in the Name of God, hate organisations in the name of God (Westboro baptist Chuch), and also Religion attacking and proving a detriment to modern Science; Evolution, Genetic Engineering, and Stem Cell research are all huge areas of Scientific research that are being greatly held back and misinterperated by a lot of religious people that only try to create hatred towards Science, and to the scientists that have spent most of their lives studying and researching scientific theory in order to improve our understanding, and condition of life.

    I was raised by religious parents, relatives and society (Hindus), but were always skeptical about a religion based on myths and monsters and always thought of it as the same thing as Greek and Egyptian mythology. I recieved a Bible in my flat room when at university, and decided to have a read. I also went to a few sessions of the Christian Society when I recieved invites from friends, and while I applaud and enjoy most of the teachings of god, I was still skeptical about god himself and the teachings of the Bible. Modern Christians like the ones at the society I went to are taught not to believe in the Bible as the literal word of God as it contradicts itself and definately has a lot of errors, particulary withing the Genesis about the formation of the Earth, but I myself through research found errors in its teachings of god, which are particularly obvious in the sections on Adam and Eve:

    It is apparant here, and in many other sections that the writers of the Bible have made many errors when descibing God himself. I couldnt bear to read past the Genesis as it contradicted everything that I believed in based on proven scientific fact.

    Then my University held a debate on Evolution vs Creationism. There was a creationist from Australia whose name I cant remember that came to several universities to debate against scientists on this topic. Myself and everyone else studying a Science related degree found him to be a complete joke, and nothing less then a plonker that is personally offended and / or threatened by advances modern science. His whole debate was based on trying to disprove Evolution, as he felt that Evolution itself is doing nothing other then trying to disprove god, and wouldnt take into consideration a single piece of evidence supporting Evolution such as Geological dating of rocks and skiulls (He said that the date of origins are no more then guesses and speculations, same as Evolution only being a Theory with no proof, like talk about your own Bible instead you clown!).

    This is where I gave up on God entirely and became Athiest. Science for me has accompished and done far more then any god can ever possibly have done, and I also believe 100% that life's origins are based in Science, not in god.

    There are some videos on youtube here to describe exactly how I feel about the issue:

    The first one is far more serious then the others I am going to link to, if you have even the slightest disbelief in Scientific Theory and Practice, you NEED to watch this video to gain a simple, basic understanding of how scientific theories work:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k

    Much more information on the above videos here:

    http://www.evolutionvscreationism.info/Evolution%20vs.%20Creationism/The%20Scientists.html

    These two are funny stand up comedies against religion and contain foul language, so you have been warned, but they give a great insight in a comical way for why a lot of people dont believe in God:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwJQIdQ7CXU
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wx_4o04NMA

    To Athiests, god is nothing more then a mythology. People that dont believe in Gods do not require other myths or false claims to believe in like you are suggesting. We have freed our minds from the illusion that society creates about God, and we are very happy, and our minds are freed by doing so. I have no problem with you or your belief in god, but at the same time, you should never place a judgement on people that do not believe in god just because you believe in him. No two minds think alike, just because you are happy believing in god and praying, it doesnt mean that other people need an alternative to god to be happy themselves.
     
  8. Mnme

    Mnme Guest

    My first answer would be: If someone did not believe in God and they liked to debate, then it is natural they may view it as a topic worthy of debate. Importantly, they don't perceive it at the level of a believer. One interprets intellectually (fodder for debate) whereas the other from the soul (no debate).

    My second answer would be: Yes, but there is a time and place for everything (for both groups).

    Lee
     
  9. bhavv

    bhavv New Member

    Another couple of videos here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9goLXFJzSik&feature=related

    Funny XD
     
  10. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Then perhaps you can help me to understand how our existence can be attributed to science when science clings to the axiom that matter, and therefore energy, can neither be created, nor destroyed. How, using science, and being consistent with the laws of thermodynamics, can you explain the original kernal of energy that became all that is seen and all that is yet to be seen. I'm very interested to learn from you, bhavy.

    Hank
     
  11. Terri-Lee

    Terri-Lee New Member

    Hey pardonme, you have offered alot of food for thought here. I had to read your post a couple of times then ponder on it for a day before responding. And I must say I am feeling inclined to respond as you have offered up some interesting insights.

    First, let me say that I don't think that people should have to substantiate their beliefs based on good deeds or otherwise. We may however, be called upon to substantiate our actions from time to time. I think that "good" is a relative term. What I think is good may be appalling to others.... and the fact that they think differently, doesn't make one or the other a "better" person. Of course, if I am to be honest, I cannot say I am completely open to anyone, under any circumstance - which means I am not completely without judgement.

    If I understand you right, you are saying that everyone is capable of "good", and that we can find compassion, intelligence, wisdom and acts of selflessness in anyone, regardless of their situation. I think you are right. I have seen where people in the worst of circumstances are kinder and more thoughtful than many self-proclaimed missionaries or human rights activists. I don't imagine that I meet your criteria for "something to boast about" - but I do like the challenge. However I'm pretty sure that boasting about one's actions is pretty self-indulgent. On the other hand, being self aware, is important in one's personal journey ... don't you think?

    Unfortunately, I still cannot agree, that being a "true" egalitarian necessarily leads to unquestionable belief in god - merely in the belief in humanity.

    Hope I haven't misconstrued what you said overmuch, pardonme. If so, I apologize. On the other hand, I like that you made me think.
     
  12. Terri-Lee

    Terri-Lee New Member

    Interesting that my answer led you to these conclusions Hank. In fact, I am a very positive and optimistic person. Mix that with some hardy realism and voila - there I am. Don't know if you've read the Margaret Mead quote in my profile ... about a few dedicated people being able to change the world. I believe that. It's my hope and my optimism. So my belief is not in a "higher power", but in others. But before change can be created, we have to see what needs changing...and unfortunately, it aint always pretty. And yes, when I see the horror that we are capable of, sometimes my optimism and hope are greatly challenged. But hope always prevails. And almost always because of the capacity I see in others.

    As to us creating ourselves ... well, I don't give it too much thought beyond the biological realities. I only know that the concept of "god" doesn't work for me. I didn't exist, then I did and finally I will cease to exist in the future...so better make the best of the time I have and leave something worth leaving for those who stay on or come after me.

    Really, isn't it about the right of people to pray or worship to the god or goddess they choose - or not - as they see fit. So if we open public gatherings/institutions (i.e. school, sports events, etc.) with a Christian prayer, isn't that imposing something on those who would rather not. I wonder what the response would be if muslim prayer, or hindu prayer or wiccan prayer were openers for such events?

    On the other hand, if I am invited to your home and I accept, and your practice is to pray before a meal, then I should bow my head respectfully and be silent while you pray. The same would go if I were invited to a Hindu wedding or a church picnic.

    I guess I am agreeing with the concept of common sense ... but I may just differ a tad in the application of such.
     
  13. pardonme

    pardonme Guest

  14. cowcollector

    cowcollector Don't hug a tree, hug a cow!!

    could that also be thought of as compassion?
     
  15. bhavv

    bhavv New Member

    It is impossible for one person to understand the A-Z of everything dealing with the formation of life, and there are also plenty of unknown and undiscovered things within the science of evolution.

    As much as science cannot yet explain everything about the formation of life, religion cannot explain even one thing on the matter, unless you really want to believe that the Earth was created in 7 days, is only several thousands of years old, is flat, and has no gravity.

    Everything that the Bible states about how life forms has been disproven by solid, reliable scientific evidence. We just do not know everything yet, but if we did know everything, then science would be a dead subject.

    Also, I dont believe that energy or the universe were ever created. The biggest flaw in human intelligence is having to believe that everything was created. We dont know for sure if the universe was actually created or if it has always been eternally pressent. Also, stars create plenty of energy from hydrogen fusion. I believe that everything started from simple hydrogen, which slowly forms everything else.
     
  16. Wobbles

    Wobbles Storm (April 15, 1992 - November 17, 2006)

    Since I am a scientist (retired), I’d like to make a few comments on the science of the origins of life on the earth. In brief form, our solar system was formed from the remnants of the explosion of first generation star systems. The explosions of these first generation star systems created the heavy elements that exist in our solar system. The physics of this is very well understood.

    Due to gravitational attraction the dust began to clump and form planets while a massive hydrogen cloud sun slowly collapsed. The energy released in this slow collapse of the hydrogen cloud heated the gas up. Eventually, the gas was hot enough and dense enough that the first nuclear reactions could occur. These reactions began to create deuterium. When enough deuterium was made, the primary nuclear reactions of our sun began. In short, a star was born. Once again the physics of this is very well understood.

    Once the earth was formed and cooled down from it tumultuous beginning, it became possible for the hydrocarbons of life to be created. For example, an electric current through a mixture of simple hydrocarbons can form more complex hydrocarbons. The complex hydrocarbons continued to react with the environment to form even more complex structures. This led to the formation of living organisms.

    Once life started, biology tells us that evolution guided the process. This continues today.

    Regarding the creation of matter, the laws of physics do not forbid this as some have suggested. I have often created and destroyed matter myself. It is easy to do if you have the right equipment. (I did pure research in high-energy physics for 10 years.)

    Regarding the explanation of how the universe came into being, physics considers this to be an active area of research. There are tough issues that need to be explained, but much progress has been made. For example, this fall, the new collider in Switzerland will turn on and most physicists believe that it will find something called the Higg’s particle. When this is done, then physicists will be able to explain how matter acquires mass.

    The current thinking in physics is that the universe that we live in has more than the 4 dimensions (3 spatial and 1 temporal) that are commonly supposed. What happened before the big bang is also under active research. Some physicists speculatively suggest that our universe is only one of the infinite number in existence. As wild as this sound, it solves some of the pressing physics problems.

    Joe
     
  17. jim1884again

    jim1884again advocating baldness be recognized as a disability

    Glad Joe Wobbles the physicist chimed in with the purely scientific explanation--I am fascinated by that and certainly didn't know we had created conditions in our "nanoscopic" corner of the universe in which the first law of thermodynamics did not apply...cool stuff

    here is what the poet Robinson Jeffers says about the Big Bang

    ...All that exists
    Roars into flame, the tortured fragments rush away from
    each other into all the sky, new universes
    Jewel the black breast of night; and far off the outer nebulae
    like charging spearmen again
    Invade emptiness.
     
  18. pardonme

    pardonme Guest

  19. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Modified for ease of reading, 7:16 am, 6-23-08.

    Thanks very much for the response. A couple of observations back to you. First of all, who said anything about the Bible? You have disproven God in your own mind because what you read in the Bible seems inconsistent with what you understand from science. I would just point out that the original question pertains to God, not religion, not the Bible.

    But secondly, referring to the Bible for a moment, for argument's sake let's assume your objections are valid. Accordingly, you say you can't believe what is written in the Bible because it is inconsistent with known science. Yet you do not acknowledge that science has its own inconsistencies, inconsistencies that are necessary when it tries to explain the universe in one unifying theory. Ah, but that's OK because when science encounters an inconsistency it simply invents a new nano particle, one that cannot be seen, one only theorized, to explain that inconsistency. This is how science gets around its own problems with consistency. You seem OK with that because after all, its science. These guys know what they are doing, right?

    The scientific method of working around the inherent inconsistencies of a unifying theory works just fine until one discovers that all these new nano-particles conflict among each other, which they do. Ah, but that's OK because at the point that all these new nano-particles, particles we can't see, conflict with each other, then all science has to do is create enough alternate universes, within each of which the effects of all of these new nano-particles can each vary with respect to each other to every extent possible, using every combination and permutation, yielding an infinite number of universes to explain every case of scientific inconsistency.

    No, I see what you mean. It's difficult to believe that an all powerful, all-knowing God could have been responsible for all we see before us. That's because we are free to theorize about infinite numbers of universes, one for each scientific inconsistency, universes within which even alternate-universe-versions-of-ourselves can live out every possible life decision and differential movement, along with each of everyone else’s alternate-universe-versions-of-themselves, in each encounter, living each of their possibilities, creating even more and more alternate universes, not only for each of us individually, but also for every factor that interacts with respect to each of us, or our alternate-universe-versions, within any particular universe, creating still more universes for each possible interaction. No, you’re right; that sounds perfectly sensible.

    What I relate is the state of science today. And all of that science started in an attempt to explain one universe in one unifying theory. In order to do so it had to create infinite universes, one for each possible outcome of chance within that first universe. Unfortunately, each of these new alternate universes has its own set of possible outcomes, so that is even more infinite numbers of universes. And then at some point, each of these infinite number of universes, when viewed in total, becomes one omni-uni-universe, a kind of mega-universe comprised of all the other universes. I mean where does all this stop? And you say that science is believable and God is not? I mean, at some juncture the science starts to get a bit preposterous, does it not? And how could such an overall unifying theory be tested? To do so, one would have to access all these infinite numbers of alternate universes.

    And we have not even begun to discuss life itself, the fact that science has no clue how to create it. With respect to life itself, science is yet to make a first baby step. Yet, even with no clue about how to create life, and with all this theoretical complexity, complexity that can never be examined or tested, you are absolutely certain that science holds the key here. Do you realize that your insistence against the existence of God revolves not around what science knows, but what science does not know? You claim that science just hasn’t figured it out yet and that is why you cling to the scientific answers. You have not considered that this universe might be the one alternate universe in which science has attempted to explain the unexplainable. Yes, that is indeed the irony. The scientific explanation for all this includes the paradox that this cannot be explained.

    It should become evident, even to my scientific minded friends that what science is trying to explain is unexplainable, at least going down the road science presently goes down. Perhaps science ought to regroup, drop back down the science tree to a lower branch, and try it again. The branch they are on presently becomes an endless maze.

    My opinion: Science does not have the tools to discover the end of the universe, all its complexities, no more than you or I could find the end of the Internet. Science is wonderful; but in this realm, the answers are hidden. Science cannot access the answers in this realm. If science could access these answers, science would be god. Maybe then you could accept god, being science.

    Perhaps it is that all this cutting edge science is just God, the teacher, giving his students some 'busy work' to do. Keep 'em out of trouble. Idle minds are the devil's workshop.

    Hank
     
  20. Trish

    Trish Guest

Share This Page