Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)

    No. I don't think i do. My 'faith' is more for when we die. What happens thereafter...
    Tbh you could easily waste your life away by focusing on whether a god hears and/or answers you.
    Fair enough, but the supernatural being raises questions though.


    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    What is 'good' for one person could be 'bad' for another, so many 'prayers' would result in harming someone else etc for a start... So how could a god grant them in the first place?
    Why not pray to get rid of climate change? who does that hurt? It sounds like the Christian fall back of "you just haven't prayed hard enough" or "you prayed for the wrong things". Plenty of religious people pray for things that are "bad" for others.

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Has science done a good job?
    Yes, thus far. Certainly until the big-bang. It has shaped the world we live in. However, it cannot provide us with the answers that so many crave.
    It doesn't claim to, religion does. If people stopped craving answers, the scientific method would stop existing.

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Or did you mean: Do ideologies do a good job?

    No. Far too utopian in viewpoint and often based on fallacies.
    Yes, I meant do you think religion does a good job in answering our questions and solving all our (moral) problems as it claims? I agree with you on your answer.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by chemting;[url="tel:63346641")
    63346641[/url]]That's not really the intention of a lot of people who pray for the victims. They intend their favourite supernatural being will actively stop the next one - well philosophically anyway (or you can have "the only way to counter bad guys with guns is good guys with guns). Anyway, there has to be a supernatural being interfering with natural order for prayer to be effective. Don't get me wrong, I day-dream and wish impossible things top too so I am as guilty as them. (But I admit my life is going to be the way it is!)



    It won't, its against the constitution of United States. Control isn't banning (the 2nd Amendment mentions a well "regulated" militia). Personally I'm for basic controls but not as far as some people are suggesting, I think mental health and other issues have a factor but I digress. Anyway, again the families are not stupid for campaigning as Obama recently issued an executive order on it (granted its a water-downed version of what people wanted but its something).



    Well, to go hard-core... there are some evolutionary explanations for a large part of our behaviour (in fact evolutionary psychology has become a field of its own), there are neurobiological aspects of human morality (neuroethics). I guess the biggest evidence of there being a scientific evidence of "morality" is morality and empathy shown by animals who are not cognitively advanced enough to understand concepts of "heaven", "hell" and "supernatural beings" (and "afterlife" - except cats I presume, they're happy with their 9 lives!). I am no expert in any of these fields, but what I can gather is that is morality and laws are based on a very complex equilibrium that is trying to balance out the rights and welfare of the individual vs the rights and welfare of a society whilst increasing both - hence you have an "evolution of morality".
    I hope you don't take this as me attacking you but I'm interested in your karmic system of "governance". Where will this "being" draw the line? For example, cheating in a test is bad, but is it Karmic hell bad? Furthermore, where does this grand event takes place, morality is not the same as 500 years ago nor it will be the same 500 years later. For example, I am a tad overweight as I like to eat meat... but I can fully accept the fact in 200 years, eating meat could be a disgusting thing to do. Would I go to this Karmic hell? I'm not sure a Karmic system of belief would also stop committing bad deeds, as there are too many grey lines and you can easily bend your morality to do bad things (for example, many murderers, rapists and corrupt exploiters think they are doing good things). I'll give you an example, the Islamic Development Bank or the King of Saudi Arabia are extremely corrupt and I doubt their belief in "god", however they think they are doing good things by giving money and establishing control and order to impoverished people (all whilst exporting a vile form of Islam and ideology in the process). The kingmakers of American politics think they are doing good by establishing order in the system, they think they are helping the American people in the long run even though they are "corrupt". The bureaucratic leaders of the European think they are doing great things by uniting Europe, getting rid of their problems and letting poor people have a decent living (but maybe not go up the social scale), others think it comes at a cost. They are also perceived to "corrupt". Gaddafi thought he was doing amazing things by trying to unite Africa, provide food and welfare for his people, giving people in Libya a social safety net - all whilst inhibiting social mobility and silencing his "critics". Hitler (despite being a Catholic) thought he was doing good things and being patriotic. The Clinton Foundation is a haven for corrupt money (for example Saudi Arabia donated to it) and even alleged money-laundering, but it does good things for poor people and minorities. Parents sometimes beat their kids and do horrible punishment, to "man them up" - this may be a good technique but it might leave the children psychologically damaged (regardless, the parents think its a good thing).
    All these people are morally justified in their endeavours. How would this supreme being judge. Religion was a great trick to manipulate people's behaviour, but organised dogmatic orthodox religion will not work anymore, but a Karmic hell/heaven alternative also doesn't sound useful to me. It is oversimplifying a complex system in my opinion.




    Again, Karma may not be any better.




    A destruction of the entire society and our civilisation system is not in the interest of every individual in the world - therefore, even by your "people will just be selfish", we will be refrained (or make illegal) to do actions that will lead of to such outcomes.




    Yes but I have a basis for my claim, if we plot a graph of "scientific achievements/knowledge" vs time, you would find that it is increasing (exponentially). I could say that I am merely following the trend, whilst also being aware of the trend *may* not continue. This trend will not continue if we see a complete destruction of the secular world, then I will admit that it won't. Could you draw a graph of "evidence of god" vs time? I don't think it is equal to say that imo.



    I agree with you on the whole, but to play with semantics here - it depends a lot of your definition of "aggressive". Although, I will be the first to admit that some atheists are just outright dicks (including myself sometimes unfortunately, although I try not to be ).


    Thank you Your Karmic idea is also a food for thought (sorry if I seemed aggressive)

    If there is a 'higher being' then it can't intervene. The gunmen think they are right so it can't rank one person over another.
    Anyway, i don't think 'it' intervenes in daily life.

    I agree with you on Obama being in favour of trying to change things but with the Republicans holding power in the other houses then he is effectively powerless...

    Thanks for your answer re 'morality', a good one i think...
    I still think without the fear of a higher 'judgement' then that innate predisposition to do 'good' could be easily overrun.

    No, you aren't 'attacking' me haha.

    A fair critique.
    I think it would come down to whether you harmed others. If so, what were your intensions... Were they malicious? What was the result.

    If there is a supreme being, surely it would be intelligent enough to discern the honesty of the person.

    I don't envisage some gate which either opens or sends you elsewhere... I just hope there is some kind of reward, leveling of the playing field.

    In the form of another life or a good time elsewhere (heaven idea). Idk. Nobody does.

    I agree there is ambiguity with this 'karma' idea. I concede it may well be optimistic thinking but it's certainly what i hope.

    If i get into the police post uni, i could join the firearms say and have to kill someone. I'm not fearful of that.
    Ultimately, i'll do the best job i can. Protect people, make myself as happy as possible, make as many people as possible happy and then i'll see what happens when i die. I'm not scared.

    I'm on the fence and i'll believe what i want to, since i think the rational arguments are at loggerheads and that is holding a hope of somethimg post death.

    Again, fair point.
    I accept that. Evolution has destroyed most mainstream religions, certainly they can no longer be taken literally.

    However, imo, the root cause is a huge problem. It's an issue i don't think we will ever properly understand and one which pushes me towards a creator, certainly makes me 50/50 anyway.

    Science is very black and white, which is great. However, i think there is definitely some grey with this issue.
    Many people report spiritual experiences, prayers being answered and such like.
    Is that real evidence? No. Does it make the picture less clear? Imo, despite not experiencing any 'spiritual' experiences, it does.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by chemting;[url="tel:63346971")
    63346971[/url]]Fair enough, but the supernatural being raises questions though.




    Why not pray to get rid of climate change? who does that hurt? It sounds like the Christian fall back of "you just haven't prayed hard enough" or "you prayed for the wrong things". Plenty of religious people pray for things that are "bad" for others.



    It doesn't claim to, religion does. If people stopped craving answers, the scientific method would stop existing.



    Yes, I meant do you think religion does a good job in answering our questions and solving all our (moral) problems as it claims? I agree with you on your answer.
    I just don't think it works like that re praying for climate change to 'go away'.

    First of all, it is (at least to some degree) our fault. Man made. Why would a god fix it all so we can carry on as before and slowly but surely create the same problem.....?

    Secondly, i just don't envisage a 'Christian' god looking down on us able to intervene at any moment.
    I think, if one does exist, it is far more removed and is influential when we die.
    An awful lot of people claim to get their prayers answered by a god so who am i to say otherwise... But i don't think you can just pray and it'll all be ok. It isn't like in 'Bruce Almighty'! Haha.

    There will never be a lack of enthusiasm for answers. However, i can't see the problem of infinite regress ever being solved. To me, a god makes more 'sense' in this respect... And yes, i accept that is not based on anything but irrational belief and 'gut'. What created God etc would be the retort but i just see 'it' as more likely to be 'infinite' than the other option.

    Does religion answer all the questions?
    Absolutely not.
    Does it answer moral questions? Well kind of. I think the basic tenents of religion, the moral teachings etc are good. Religion has been abused by some and used to sanction the killing of many but is that religion's fault? I'm not sure it totally is...

    It doesn't 'solve' all our moral problems but i do think it provides decent guidance on some issues.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    I disagree. We were created by something. There was an initial cause.
    You keep saying this, but have not a shred of evidence for it, it's just an unsupported assertion.

    So if there was no big-bang, evolutionary argument put forward then it would be logical to believe in a higher power of some description.
    I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here. The Big Bang theory and that of Evolution are extant theories, what's the point in hinging an argument on the hypothetical situation that they didn't exist? And even if they didn't saying "God did it" would not be a logical argument because as I've already explained, that's just the God of the Gaps fallacy.

    Ok, fair enough. The idea of a 'singularity' is the hypothesis of some scientists, not everyone in the scientific community.
    I'm pretty sure the Big Bang theory is entirely dependent on there being a singularity of some kind, whether physical or mathematical and I'm not aware of any scientist who disputes this.

    Well the question becomes 'what caused the big bang?',
    We don't know yet, but science will probably have an answer one day. I reiterate, not knowing does not justify slotting in the answer "it must have been God!".

    'what was before it?'.
    As I mentioned already, time originated with the expansion so it seems nonsensical to ask what came before.

    It is possible that a supreme being set the initial conditions for the big bang to occur.
    Yes, it is possible, just as it's possible that a gigantic, all-powerful rabbit set the initial conditions for the Big Bang. The point is, without evidence these are just guesses and on the part of most religionists, wishful thinking.

    Another theory....
    No, it's not another theory, at least not in the scientific sense.

    'There is no inherent reason' for a singularity to have a cause...
    Something cannot come from nothing.
    It's mind boggling to suggest that it arose from nothing.
    And who here has said it arose from nothing?!

    Btw, in your opinion, what did God create the universe from?

    It is nothing to do with 'wants' or 'desires' with regard to the cause of a 'singularity'. It seems nonsensical to suggest that it 'just was' so to speak..
    No it isn't, you've said this but provided no logical reasoning behind it. If God can just have existed forever then there is no reason the universe/matter/energy couldn't have done the same.

    I thank you for your articulate response.
    However, what you have said is pure conjecture. It has not been proven or is even remotely close to being so.
    It requires faith to believe that (if we assume a singularity even existed)
    Most of what I have said isn't conjecture at all, the Big Bang theory being incredibly well supported by evidence. Science does not require faith because there is evidence which can be observed, tested and verified.

    I don't understand what you mean by 'how do you know there has to be an answer?'. I understand the sentence but not the meaning. How can there not be a cause? It's preposterous (imo) to think there was not a cause.
    You said there's an answer to the infinite regress problem, well how do you know? There not being an answer does not mean there wasn't a cause. But the major point you seem to be missing in all of this is that there being a cause does not necessarily mean it was God. The cause could have been unthinking forces with no sentience, intelligence or powers whatsoever.

    Furthermore, if there was a cause (which i cannot accept there not being) then the possibility of there being a higher power is most certainly there.
    Refer back to the giant rabbit example to see that there are literally an infinite number of possible creatures, beings and causes that someone could invent to explain the universe.

    The scientific community are not united (as you have covered re hypotesis vs theory) on what happened pre big bang. The science is also highly abstract and unproven. It requires a good deal of faith to believe.
    It requires no faith to believe because as far as I'm aware there isn't, as of yet, any theory that explains what happened before, if such a thing can be said. And once again, not knowing does not make "God did it" a logical option.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    I just don't think it works like that re praying for climate change to 'go away'.

    First of all, it is (at least to some degree) our fault. Man made. Why would a god fix it all so we can carry on as before and slowly but surely create the same problem.....?

    Secondly, i just don't envisage a 'Christian' god looking down on us able to intervene at any moment.
    I think, if one does exist, it is far more removed and is influential when we die.
    An awful lot of people claim to get their prayers answered by a god so who am i to say otherwise... But i don't think you can just pray and it'll all be ok. It isn't like in 'Bruce Almighty'! Haha.

    There will never be a lack of enthusiasm for answers. However, i can't see the problem of infinite regress ever being solved. To me, a god makes more 'sense' in this respect... And yes, i accept that is not based on anything but irrational belief and 'gut'. What created God etc would be the retort but i just see 'it' as more likely to be 'infinite' than the other option.

    Does religion answer all the questions?
    Absolutely not.
    Does it answer moral questions? Well kind of. I think the basic tenents of religion, the moral teachings etc are good. Religion has been abused by some and used to sanction the killing of many but is that religion's fault? I'm not sure it totally is...

    It doesn't 'solve' all our moral problems but i do think it provides decent guidance on some issues.
    Well why doesn't prayer work like that? This response just seems an attempt to reconcile the fact that people's prayers for these things don't get answers and thus largely destroys the notion that it's actually a thing. It's amusing how the only prayers that ever seem to be answered are things that could have happened naturally anyway.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown;[url="tel:63353207")
    63353207[/url]]You keep saying this, but have not a shred of evidence for it, it's just an unsupported assertion.



    I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here. The Big Bang theory and that of Evolution are extant theories, what's the point in hinging an argument on the hypothetical situation that they didn't exist? And even if they didn't saying "God did it" would not be a logical argument because as I've already explained, that's just the God of the Gaps fallacy.



    I'm pretty sure the Big Bang theory is entirely dependent on there being a singularity of some kind, whether physical or mathematical and I'm not aware of any scientist who disputes this.



    We don't know yet, but science will probably have an answer one day. I reiterate, not knowing does not justify slotting in the answer "it must have been God!".



    As I mentioned already, time originated with the expansion so it seems nonsensical to ask what came before.



    Yes, it is possible, just as it's possible that a gigantic, all-powerful rabbit set the initial conditions for the Big Bang. The point is, without evidence these are just guesses and on the part of most religionists, wishful thinking.



    No, it's not another theory, at least not in the scientific sense.



    And who here has said it arose from nothing?!

    Btw, in your opinion, what did God create the universe from?



    No it isn't, you've said this but provided no logical reasoning behind it. If God can just have existed forever then there is no reason the universe/matter/energy couldn't have done the same.



    Most of what I have said isn't conjecture at all, the Big Bang theory being incredibly well supported by evidence. Science does not require faith because there is evidence which can be observed, tested and verified.



    You said there's an answer to the infinite regress problem, well how do you know? There not being an answer does not mean there wasn't a cause. But the major point you seem to be missing in all of this is that there being a cause does not necessarily mean it was God. The cause could have been unthinking forces with no sentience, intelligence or powers whatsoever.



    Refer back to the giant rabbit example to see that there are literally an infinite number of possible creatures, beings and causes that someone could invent to explain the universe.



    It requires no faith to believe because as far as I'm aware there isn't, as of yet, any theory that explains what happened before, if such a thing can be said. And once again, not knowing does not make "God did it" a logical option.
    Apologies for my quoting btw. My phone cannot deal with the separate quote thing... (Or i'm too much of an idiot, perhaps a combination of the two tbh)







    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown;[url="tel:63353251")
    63353251[/url]]Well why doesn't prayer work like that? This response just seems an attempt to reconcile the fact that people's prayers for these things don't get answers and thus largely destroys the notion that it's actually a thing. It's amusing how the only prayers that ever seem to be answered are things that could have happened naturally anyway.
    So there was no cause? We just occured (well to the big bang stage or whatever we feel was the 'start'...
    That is just ridiculous. How can there not be a cause!?!
    Everything we know, our knowledge comes from what we can observe, see, witness etc. We came from sperm and an egg, Before that our parents were born and so on. All the way back to evolution from other animals, then back to the big bang. Something cannot come from nothing.

    So the 'evidence' is everything else we know to be true.

    Mate, look at the context of why i used the hypothetical scenario of there not being evolution/big bang.

    You said even without it, there would STILL be no reason to assume that there was a god. HENCE, why i replied to that hypothetical scenario with why i believed it WOULD give credence to believing there was a god.
    We were created thus if there was no other theory it would be likely that an overwhelming majority would believe in a god/higher power.

    I've accepted 'god of the gaps' is a fair critique (to some degree) but that doesn't mean there isn't one since we can't solve what caused us.

    You claimed the idea of a 'singularity' was a hypothesis and not a theory. Again, read back. I am not commenting really on that, i am simply reacting to your correction and now you have seemingly went back on yourself with this re-correction.... My point still stands. Something must have caused the singularity. If the singularity is a stable state then what changed it? What made it unstable? Etc

    I understand that and you make a valid point. However, i think what is 'likely', what 'seems right' is down to the individual. Either, we don't know, there will be scientific explanation for our beginning and that is it. Black and white. Or, the person leans towards believing that a higher power is more likely to have been responsible.

    But something must have gone bang for there to have been a bang. It can't come from nothing. Thus, the question is not nonsensical.

    Can't disagree with that. Again, you utterly refute any notion of that being possible (to 99%), whereas other people believe/hope it is much more likely. It is a simple difference in opinion imo, people should be free to judge that for themselves.

    Ok, not 'another theory'. Careless word choice. I'll substitute in, 'another option'.

    'Who here has said it arose from nothing!' - well, you repeatedly have said a singularity etc does not need to have a cause. If it has no cause then it can't have come from anything ie nothing.

    As i'm sure you are aware, i simply do not know what (if there is a god) god created the universe from. However, if a higher power exists then it would be beyond our comprehension. Theists would say it is above everything, it can just create.
    Of course this sounds rather ridicuous but ultimately whatever the truth is, it must be infinite. The problem of 'infinite regress' will be answered. Either some entity, explained by science which was infinite and changed/evolved etc or an infinite higher being. Highly intelligent and created the conditions for the universe to take place. Both options seem abstract but such is life i suppose...

    True, again just a difference in weighting of likelihood between options. Perhaps they view the idea that matter/energy/universe can be infinite as acceptable to them or perhaps they deem that less likely/believable than a higher power being infinite.

    Most of what we have been chatting about is pre big-bang or the question of what there anything pre-big bang.
    That is wholly conjecture. What i'm saying about a possible god is also nothing but conjecture based on gut or likelihood etc. It cannot be proven nor tested. Hasn't yet anyway....

    'There not being an answer does not mean there wasn't a cause'.... Sorry, what?

    If you say there is no answer to infinite regress then how can there be a cause?

    For me, there must be a cause. Everything else can be traced back... However that cause must be more significant. It must be infinite due to the nature of the question being asked. This thing/being/object/giganticRabbit, started everything and will have existed for ever really.

    If you answer the question of infinite regress then you have a cause.

    I'm not missing that point bro. It's an 'Atheist Q&A' so as an agnostic i will be pushing a 'theist' point of view. I'm well aware of the god of the gaps point and it is a fair one. I am however trying to convey why i think a higher power is a distinct possibility and how this question is less clear cut than you would like to portray. Bias, as much as you are at pains to express you follow the 'science' and therefore proven fact, does firmly come into this.

    You were being facetious about a Gigantic Rabbit but ultimately you just do not accept (at all) that a higher power is involved. Fair enough mate. I am simply stating that people could easily be of a different opinion.

    Accepting 'we don't know' is probably the best option. Surely that would make someone agnostic though...? (I'm being facetious here before you take the bait too hard)

    If you don't know then surely someone just goes with 'gut', hope mixed with likelihood.....
    In someone else's opinion, the existence of 'god' may be far more likely than how you view it.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown;[url="tel:63353251")
    63353251[/url]]Well why doesn't prayer work like that? This response just seems an attempt to reconcile the fact that people's prayers for these things don't get answers and thus largely destroys the notion that it's actually a thing. It's amusing how the only prayers that ever seem to be answered are things that could have happened naturally anyway.
    Never replied to this. My mistake....

    Why does a god have to be like in the Bible?
    Why does it have to be this all singing and dancing power which constantly watches us all at the same time and answers everything?

    Can't it be more abstract? Less extroverted?
    An omni-present feature which is perhaps influencial upon death. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it created it all but has no influence. Nobody can say for sure, however, just because it doesn't answer prayers for everyone, everytime, does not mean it doesn't exist.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    An omni-present feature which is perhaps influencial upon death. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it created it all but has no influence.
    Dunno about anyone else, but this seems to perfectly describe physics, chemistry and biology to me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    physics, chemistry and biology have proved that there is no God
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by frankieboy;[url="tel:63365039")
    63365039[/url]]Dunno about anyone else, but this seems to perfectly describe physics, chemistry and biology to me.
    As i've said, this is possible too. Either it was a scientific creation or we were created by a higher being.

    A simple difference of opinion/weighing of likelihoods etc.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by makehomework)
    physics, chemistry and biology have proved that there is no God
    Careful. You'll invite the stock religious comeback of "Ah but God exists outside of science" etc. etc.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    If there is a 'higher being' then it can't intervene. The gunmen think they are right so it can't rank one person over another.
    Evidence that fear of a higher being doesn't necessarily stop "bad deeds".

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Anyway, i don't think 'it' intervenes in daily life.
    Sure, so the power of "it" is only limited to after death? or "afterlife", if you will

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    I agree with you on Obama being in favour of trying to change things but with the Republicans holding power in the other houses then he is effectively powerless...

    An executive order here and there does not hurt, consider 90% of American people are in favour of universal national checks (http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...-want-mandato/)

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Thanks for your answer re 'morality', a good one i think...I still think without the fear of a higher 'judgement' then that innate predisposition to do 'good' could be easily overrun.
    I'm glad you think so . Well my opinion is that humans are built to learn, adapt and survive (not just as an individual but as a society too). Would you not think that "learned" morality - or "through experience" if you will - is better than "morality through fear"? We could analogise between a controlled fascistic super-state (e.g. Soviet Union or Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) vs a relatively free state (e.g. Norway), one is where you are "forced" to be good, other you "learn" to be good, which one has a better sense of morality? I know this could be a poor analogy, but I hope you get the gist.


    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    I think it would come down to whether you harmed others. If so, what were your intensions... Were they malicious? What was the result.
    The point I was trying to make is that "intentions" can sometimes be grey areas. A karma system may not be any better at increasing morality as you mention.


    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    I don't envisage some gate which either opens or sends you elsewhere... I just hope there is some kind of reward, leveling of the playing field.
    I would love to believe all the nice things about an afterlife, reward, supernatural, all-powerful/merciful being - but I don't think I can get myself to

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    In the form of another life or a good time elsewhere (heaven idea). Idk. Nobody does.
    Ain't that the truth!

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    I agree there is ambiguity with this 'karma' idea. I concede it may well be optimistic thinking but it's certainly what i hope.
    Well I'm not going to say my ideas are much more clear and concise, they aren't. I haven't really presented a clear replacement for "religion" though. However, I think there is a hint of "one step forward, two steps back" in a Karma system - in my opinion. This is what I believe now, but yours is certainly food for thought.

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    If i get into the police post uni, i could join the firearms say and have to kill someone. I'm not fearful of that.
    Ultimately, i'll do the best job i can. Protect people, make myself as happy as possible, make as many people as possible happy
    Well that is very noble . Good luck with that. What are you studying right now may I ask? and are you enjoying it?

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    and then i'll see what happens when i die. I'm not scared.
    Erm, once I tried to commit suicide on the rationale of just to see what will happen when I die ... but that's a long story, and I was (am) a weird person. It is very interesting to think about the possibilities. My biggest opinion is that, we just "become" another person... i.e. we go unconscious and "wake up" as a baby in a different person, but I wouldn't try to defend or assert this anywhere.

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    I'm on the fence and i'll believe what i want to, since i think the rational arguments are at loggerheads and that is holding a hope of somethimg post death.

    Again, fair point.
    I accept that. Evolution has destroyed most mainstream religions, certainly they can no longer be taken literally.
    Ironically, the existence of religion is one of the biggest "evidence" of the theory of evolution. Religion was vital for people to survive in civilizations 2 millienia ago. The Roman Catholic adopted Christian orthodoxy and propered. Various Islamic Empires (most prominently, the 900 year old Ottoman Empire) adopted Islamic orthodoxy and expanded greatly. One way this could be explained is by Maslow’shierarchy of needs, it gives you a rank of what people will need to survive. It starts with the bottom, and works its way to the top. The base (physiological) has been covered through billions of years of evolution. Then, at the cavemen/hunter-gatherer times (early civilisation), it was mostly safety and some physiological needs (and they had religion too!). Now modern (I say modern in a very loose sense of the world), people had a safety problem, but also a love/esteem problem. Collectivist mass-organised religion was required to meet those particularl needs, otherwise society would have collapsed. You get the idea.

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    However, imo, the root cause is a huge problem. It's an issue i don't think we will ever properly understand and one which pushes me towards a creator, certainly makes me 50/50 anyway.
    "What a man can be, he must be." Abraham Maslow

    (Original post by Unistudent77)
    Science is very black and white, which is great. However, i think there is definitely some grey with this issue.
    Many people report spiritual experiences, prayers being answered and such like.
    Is that real evidence? No. Does it make the picture less clear? Imo, despite not experiencing any 'spiritual' experiences, it does.
    I made a post about why scientific empiricism and "testimonies"/spiritual experience cannot be compared earlier in this thread... It may not be a strong argument, but I think it is something. It is post 432
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1#post63193211
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    Careful. You'll invite the stock religious comeback of "Ah but God exists outside of science" etc. etc.
    But then this god has to clearly interfere and micromanage everything in the world, and will also give directions of what is natural and what is not (for e.g. regarding homosexuality) and then proceed to judge us for it. Some religions claim that all science is miraculously written in a book a a millennium ago but this god exist outside of science

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUz-hTns-1o
    "Who said the west has the right science, we have our own Islamic Science", someone said this to Pervez Hoodbhoy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As someone who is intrigued by the complexity of the scientific world but also firmly believes in the existence of a Supreme being, I have always intertwined science and religion. Surely things would start to make a lot more sense when God and science come together, no?
    Take the word 'universe' for example; literally meaning, 'one spoken phrase'. If we relate this to the Bible (God's Word), to bring the universe into existence he spoke, "let there be light" - and there was light. To introduce science, let's look at the Big Bang Theory. Nature doesn't jump. Darwin said this himself. Therefore it would make sense, taking biblical terms into account, that this sudden explosion of light was created by a greater power? Who's to say?
    I love so many aspects of the two, but drawing them together makes everything so much more interesting!
    Feel free to share your thoughts btw, I'm open.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magoo18)
    . Nature doesn't jump.
    You have obviously never come across an earthquake, a volcano, a meteor strike, an avalanche or lightning.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You have obviously never come across an earthquake, a volcano, a meteor strike, an avalanche or lightning.
    Well take earthquakes and volcanoes, they don't just happen at an instant for the sake of it... There's a huge build up of pressure that could have been accumulating for a long period of time. It takes time in itself for the plates beneath the Earth's surface to move. And on that, at 2.5cm per year - 25km in a million years, it's not exactly sudden. You know?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magoo18)
    Well take earthquakes and volcanoes, they don't just happen at an instant for the sake of it... There's a huge build up of pressure that could have been accumulating for a long period of time. It takes time in itself for the plates beneath the Earth's surface to move. And on that, at 2.5cm per year - 25km in a million years, it's not exactly sudden. You know?
    Lightning?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why do atheists disrespect other people's beliefs but almost always most of them want to be respected for theirs without question. I'm just saying in general that's how atheists come across as and slightly arrogant too.. But it's not to say all are like this. Just curious. By the way when I say disrespect I mean when they keep on strongly expressing that everyone who follows or believes a religion they think they are under some sort of brainwash and is following mindlessly. And even in this thread I found it inconsiderate to call a persons beliefs a disalussionment and that all should 'awake' from some sort of blindness. I think the world would be a boring place if we all believed the same thing to be honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Lightning?
    In one respect I would agree with you, in that there is a sudden release of electrostatic discharge. However, for this to occur, there must be an accumulation of electric charges - which takes time. Most storm clouds form within an hour, again, not exactly sudden.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wafaas)
    Why do atheists disrespect other people's beliefs but almost always most of them want to be respected for theirs without question. I'm just saying in general that's how atheists come across as and slightly arrogant too.. But it's not to say all are like this. Just curious. By the way when I say disrespect I mean when they keep on strongly expressing that everyone who follows or believes a religion they think they are under some sort of brainwash and is following mindlessly. And even in this thread I found it inconsiderate to call a persons beliefs a disalussionment and that all should 'awake' from some sort of blindness. I think the world would be a boring place if we all believed the same thing to be honest.
    Anger, disappointment, and frustration. As an atheist those are my guesses. Can't speak for anyone else though.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.