sleeper;1791839 wrote:Well, the question you asked, first of all, assumes a god. So I will be nice and assume there is a god(which there never has and never will be evidence of).

I think this hypothetical "God" probably did give you the tools of logic and reason but you were taught, through childhood indoctrination, certain logical loopholes to conveniently circumvent those abilities. Faith is the ultimate cop out.

I can prove this by simply using two words to destroy any religious belief being based on logic and reason: Prove it.

Well, that depends. If you go from the words in the bible, Adam and Eve were kicked out the Garden of Eden because they ate from the one forbidden tree in the place. That tree was the one containing knowledge, and you could say logic and reason are very large facets of knowledge. Therefore, one could easily jump to the conclusion that the Christian god wanted his followers to be ignorant and stupid, but when they obtained things like logic and reason, they no longer had a spot in his paradise.

Of course, churches teach this as proof of mankind's capacity to sin and how we need to show our faith and subservience in order to become worthy to be by his side in heaven again and all that. As opposed to using logic and reason ( you know, that Adam and Eve apparently caused us all to be condemned for) to think about things such as: Why would you want to worship a being whose goal was to keep you blissfully stupid and who is willing to enact a terrible punishment on those who want knowledge because they don't know their place?

Con_Alma;1791843 wrote:I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Then they deserve every ridicule the world can dish out. I have no sympathy for a group of people that want to restrict the rights of others simply because they believe in a pile of shit.

sleeper;1791846 wrote:For me, there is no value in getting mad. My beliefs are based on evidence and logic and not faith and bullshit. If something comes along that goes contrary to my logical, evidence-based viewpoint, I examine the argument, ask for evidence, and consider their point of view. I sometimes change my mind and adapt to the new evidence and continue to research and understand as much as I can about every topic.

Now contrast that to religious belief. You start with no evidence, an indoctrinated belief, and a fiction book. There's nothing to critically evaluate because none of those objects matter so when presented with a countering viewpoint you have nothing to defend yourself. When a kitten is backed into a corner of against a fleet of falcons, it has no choice but to get mad in an attempt to obfuscate the fact it's about to get eaten. I agree there is no value; its simply a normal response. The fact that you do not get mad, simply means you have either deluded yourself to the point of no return or are purposefully obtuse.

I appreciate you trying to clarify your point.

In the scenario you shared I don't see the value in the second paragraph of a person getting mad whether the individual was deluded, obtuse or neither.

sleeper;1791850 wrote:Then they deserve every ridicule the world can dish out. I have no sympathy for a group of people that want to restrict the rights of others simply because they believe in a pile of shit.

I'm not expecting ridicule to cease anytime soon...or ever.

sleeper;1791848 wrote:When tools counteract each other, you will pick what is most convenient. God only exists for believers so this God also allows for the tool of ignorance and faith to override logic and reason.

In trying to understand your original statement on this matter....are you suggesting that faith is or is not one of the gifts from the "hypothetical God" as were reason and logic?

sleeper;1791819 wrote:When you can only rely on faith and not evidence, then you have to turn off any gift god gave you.

The irony is religion is the only thing on the planet most people accept that its okay to not have any evidence to support. Even, vaccines cause autism at least has some evidence even if its been debunked by the process of science. Religion cannot hold a candle in the process of science because its support is based on fear and ignorance, not enlightenment.

This is actually false, it maybe your opinion, but that doesn't make it fact.

Einstein, a self declared agnostic (as in not sure if God is real or not) talked about "God not playing dice with the universe" when he was referencing statistical relativity.

He also said "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

I will say that Einstein was adamant that he did NOT believe in a "personal" God as described in any of the major religions. He just saw how ordered the universe was through his scientific mind and decided some "supreme being" had to have kicked it all into motion (paraphrasing obviously).

What I am getting at is that belief in a supreme being, maybe even a specific supreme being, is not void of evidence/logic/science just because sleeper says so.

Many major scientists of the past and present fully believed in a god of some sort even if not the Judeo-Christian Yahweh.

jmog;1791857 wrote:...
What I am getting at is that belief in a supreme being, maybe even a specific supreme being, is not void of evidence/logic/science just because sleeper says so.

Do you mean logic/reason and faith don't necessarily have to contradict each other?? Huh. Who knew?

Con_Alma;1791855 wrote:In trying to understand your original statement on this matter....are you suggesting that faith is or is not one of the gifts from the "hypothetical God" as were reason and logic?

Were you raised with religion?

sleeper;1791839 wrote:Well, the question you asked, first of all, assumes a god. So I will be nice and assume there is a god(which there never has and never will be evidence of).

I think this hypothetical "God" probably did give you the tools of logic and reason but you were taught, through childhood indoctrination, certain logical loopholes to conveniently circumvent those abilities. Faith is the ultimate cop out.

I can prove this by simply using two words to destroy any religious belief being based on logic and reason: Prove it.

Please explain, using science and logic, why there is no beginning of time.

Please explain, using science and logic, eternity, no end in time.



God bless.

Con_Alma;1791858 wrote:Do you mean logic/reason and faith don't necessarily have to contradict each other?? Huh. Who knew?

what a revelation

QuakerOats;1791861 wrote:Please explain, using science and logic, why there is no beginning of time.

Please explain, using science and logic, eternity, no end in time.



God bless.

You know the belief in god is just a cop out for things you can't explain, right?

Raw Dawgin' it;1791859 wrote:Were you raised with religion?

No.

Why do you ask?

Con_Alma;1791864 wrote:No.

Why do you ask?

Because most people who believe in god are brought up that way and it's the only reason they believe, because it was ingrained in them.

Raw Dawgin' it;1791865 wrote:Because most people who believe in god are brought up that way and it's the only reason they believe, because it was ingrained in them.

I appreciate you not assuming that was the case and choosing to ask.

Heretic;1791849 wrote:Well, that depends. If you go from the words in the bible, Adam and Eve were kicked out the Garden of Eden because they ate from the one forbidden tree in the place. That tree was the one containing knowledge, and you could say logic and reason are very large facets of knowledge. Therefore, one could easily jump to the conclusion that the Christian god wanted his followers to be ignorant and stupid, but when they obtained things like logic and reason, they no longer had a spot in his paradise.

Of course, churches teach this as proof of mankind's capacity to sin and how we need to show our faith and subservience in order to become worthy to be by his side in heaven again and all that. As opposed to using logic and reason ( you know, that Adam and Eve apparently caused us all to be condemned for) to think about things such as: Why would you want to worship a being whose goal was to keep you blissfully stupid and who is willing to enact a terrible punishment on those who want knowledge because they don't know their place?

Come on, you're trying too hard. If you're going to paraphrase the Bible at least make some attempt at getting it right. The forbidden fruit was from the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:9, 17)." Until that fruit was eaten, Adam and Eve had never experienced evil or had knowledge what it was. After eating, I guess you could say that all hell broke loose, which would be a true statement. Knowledge, logic, reasoning, thinking, etc. was present before eating the fruit but knowledge of evil wasn't. To paraphrase your last sentence:

Why wouldn't you want to worship a being whose goal was to keep you protected from evil and who is willing to enact a terrible punishment on those who want to harm you because they don't know the God of creation?

Like you, I've completely changed the meaning of what was written to fit my agenda...it's really not hard to do.

Raw Dawgin' it;1791863 wrote:You know the belief in god is just a cop out for things you can't explain, right?

In your's, and a lot of people's opinions, yes. That doesn't make this a fact.

There are things that science can not only "not explain" but that they accept as fact even though mathematically/statistically they are impossible.

Abiogenesis is the study of how the first life began, not evolution from that simple life to complex life. Science has shown over and over again that it is statistically impossible to take non-life (I am not using inorganic because that is the wrong chemistry term) molecules and turn them into a single celled organism, ESPECIALLY with how complex we now know a single cell really is between DNA/RNA, all the functioning parts, etc.

It is SO statistically impossible that the "primordial soup" belief/model is starting to fade away from the scientific belief system. Now theories like hydrothermal vents, transpermiation (alien plantation), etc are the current theories.

If the primordial soup, hydrothermal vents, etc are realistic, then at some point we would have been able to create a cell from protein chains by recreating these conditions that we 'know' from the ancient Earth.

jmog;1791857 wrote:This is actually false, it maybe your opinion, but that doesn't make it fact.

Einstein, a self declared agnostic (as in not sure if God is real or not) talked about "God not playing dice with the universe" when he was referencing statistical relativity.

He also said "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

I will say that Einstein was adamant that he did NOT believe in a "personal" God as described in any of the major religions. He just saw how ordered the universe was through his scientific mind and decided some "supreme being" had to have kicked it all into motion (paraphrasing obviously).

What I am getting at is that belief in a supreme being, maybe even a specific supreme being, is not void of evidence/logic/science just because sleeper says so.

Many major scientists of the past and present fully believed in a god of some sort even if not the Judeo-Christian Yahweh.

Tell me more what that has to do with religion?

A belief in someone unknown power is not the same as a belief in a verifiable god such as one that most religions subscribe to. Attributing things that cannot be explained to a "supreme being" has nothing to do with people who think Jesus Christ died and rose again on EARTH, and that the Pope doesn't think people with AIDS in Africa should use condoms.

The irony of course, is Einstein would most certainly agree that with more knowledge, this "supreme being" would get less and less powerful as we figure out how to attribute those things to reality. It's entirely different but its convenient for you to twist that into some idea that science & religion mix. Laughable.

Raw Dawgin' it;1791863 wrote:You know the belief in god is just a cop out for things you can't explain, right?

I did not know that; I feel much wiser now.

Con_Alma;1791855 wrote:In trying to understand your original statement on this matter....are you suggesting that faith is or is not one of the gifts from the "hypothetical God" as were reason and logic?

"When tools counteract each other, you will pick what is most convenient. God only exists for believers so this God also allows for the tool of ignorance and faith to override logic and reason."

See above. I clearly stated that both are gifts and that they can override each other when convenient.

Also, 51% of current scientists believe in either a personal God (read Judeo-Christian) or at least a supreme being/higher power.

Far less than the general public of 95%, but still a majority.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Still think that science and a belief in a supreme being doesn't coincide? Facts don't back up those opinions.

QuakerOats;1791861 wrote:Please explain, using science and logic, why there is no beginning of time.

Please explain, using science and logic, eternity, no end in time.



God bless.

These are unknown and not explainable events in the real world. So the answer is, we don't know currently! That doesn't mean we will never know but we certainly do not know at this point and that's okay.

However, contrast that to your beliefs, one that you dedicate your entire life too, that has a story with zero evidence and zero reality associated with it. I don't expect you to see the difference but if you are honest and have a brain larger than that or a turkey, you can easily see it.

Where I've always had question is with the countless God's worshiped throughout human history, let alone today, and the amount of bloodshed in the name of those Gods why not at some point just reveal yourself and say "Hi guys it's me God you've been getting this all wrong" If there is a God and he/she/it has allowed humans to just murder the F out of each other for centuries in their name...not sure I want to worship that guy. Kind of a dick move.

hilliardfan;1791869 wrote:
Like you, I've completely changed the meaning of what was written to fit my agenda...it's really not hard to do.

Well this is common in religion. It's all made up anyway so feel free interpret it as you wish!

jmog;1791877 wrote:Also, 51% of current scientists believe in either a personal God (read Judeo-Christian) or at least a supreme being/higher power.

Far less than the general public of 95%, but still a majority.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Still think that science and a belief in a supreme being doesn't coincide? Facts don't back up those opinions.

Fear and indoctrination are powerful entities in human thought. Also, the latter "supreme being" is at least defensible because you acknowledge that its used to explain the unknown.

They still don't coincide. No believer is honestly weighing each religious belief to the evidence that supports that belief because if they did, they would be atheists. Religion depends on willful ignorance and logical loopholes like faith to survive.

rocketalum;1791879 wrote:Where I've always had question is with the countless God's worshiped throughout human history, let alone today, and the amount of bloodshed in the name of those Gods why not at some point just reveal yourself and say "Hi guys it's me God you've been getting this all wrong" If there is a God and he/she/it has allowed humans to just murder the F out of each other for centuries in their name...not sure I want to worship that guy. Kind of a dick move.

A fantastic question. Remember, your god created Hitler and allows babies to be raped. He could stop it, but chooses not to.

This is who you people worship. I'll pass.