Religulous

[wakka]

To say there is definitely no God is a complete statement that requires complete knowledge, which you don't have - no one does. You would have to intimately know every square inch of the universe before you can declare there is no God. However, to say that there is a God only requires a little knowledge - the bumble bee, the human eye, love etc. In my opinion.

It was all going so well till that last bit.

[kernow]

What I don't get is theres so many gods, not everyone can be right. Did trilobytes believe in a god? its funny how religion has only 'existed' as long as humans have. Its just a human belief system or structure for healthy living. In my opinion.

[ETC]

Er... I don't mean to generalise, but they're not just a teensy bit on the nerdy side? <runs>



True- we're not all geeks. Now excuse me while I return to my 10-hour session on Fallout. In my home-made raider armour costume.

Man.. wish I had a home-made raider armour costume

[Brats]

No, I believe their fabric is fully intact and no different from yours or mine. They just use their freewill for bad.

You're saying everyone has the fabric for good within them and yet some people choose to ignore that core fabric and act against it to be evil. Where there is personal gain, that might make sense, but it makes no sense when the act has no personal gain.

When Charles Manson murdered Sharon Tate, he gained nothing from it. In fact, he ended up in prison for the rest of his life because of his actions. Why would he fight the natural fabric to NOT murder someone? That argument doesn't hold up.

Because God created everything. He made the rules. Your opinion or mine doesn't matter. Without God, the moral standard is set by man and his track record is poor. I would rather place responsibility for my moral judgments on what the world perceives to be a fictional God than in the hands of man.

God's track record is awful. I know many Christians skip over the Old Testament, but if you believe the Bible, then you must accept that His actions did happen. The New testament might re-write some of the lessons, but it doesn't doesn't re-write history (if you believe it happened).

Anyway, the question was why can't there be morality without God. Your answer that there is a God isn't an answer. If you believe in God, you can't say whether the lack of one would make a difference. You say man's standards are poor, but your judging those standards in a world with God. Maybe without God man would be better?

To say there is definitely no God is a complete statement that requires complete knowledge, which you don't have - no one does. You would have to intimately know every square inch of the universe before you can declare there is no God. However, to say that there is a God only requires a little knowledge - the bumble bee, the human eye, love etc. In my opinion.

That's not an argument. The existence of the bumble bee, the human eye and love prove that something amazing and very complex is at work, but it doesn't prove the existence of a creator at all. Years ago people used to believe that Lightning proved the existence of God.

[endo]

I'm not looking to try and change anyone's beliefs- frankly, as long as you're a peaceful person I'm not bothered what you believe- but yes, the whole 'we each have a common God-created fabric but evil people do evil things because of free will' thing just doesn't ring true with me. Surely a creator who is perfect (which is how god is portrayed, unless I'm mistaken) wouldn't create anything less than perfect, otherwise that would render that creator imperfect, no? Giving every human a common divine fabric but then giving them all a manual override in the form of free will would appear to be poor design to me.

[Howiee]

Despite being raised as a Catholic, and going to church EVERY week while I was growing up until the age of about 16/17, I do not believe in god. I know that the church believes man was supposedly given free will by god, but if this god is so powerful, why is all the suffering in the world, especially in the last 100 years or so, allowed to continue? Surely if we are all god's children as the church believes, then by now he/she/it must have thought things were getting way out of hand?!

I had a remarkably similar upbringing. It's odd how two people can draw such different conclusions after reflecting on the same thing. I do agree that things are getting out of hand but isn't evolution supposed to better us?

So many lives have been lost through out the ages and for many centuries, religion was the main cause of war and is still very much so.

That's a fair point. Some of the greatest herecies have come straight from the bible - scripture isolated and taken out of context can become dangerous in the hands of the wrong person. But I firmly believe that that is the work of man, not God. Think about what's wrong with today's society - alcohol, abortion, prostitution, gambling, human trafficking - their places of operation are not run by Christians. Professed Christians can do bad things but it's infrequent enough to be newsworthy.

I can't imagine how horrendous losing your brother and niece was. A guy in my church lost a 4-year old in a road accident. I don't know why these things happen. I don't know why God hasn't pulled the plug on us already (only God knows when that'll happen - Matthew 24:36). I do know, however, that Jesus suffered more than anyone on earth and so He understands completely. That's why He's worthy of trust.

You're saying everyone has the fabric for good within them and yet some people choose to ignore that core fabric and act against it to be evil. Where there is personal gain, that might make sense, but it makes no sense when the act has no personal gain.

Here's what CS Lewis said: "Firstly, human beings all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot get rid of it. Secondly, they do not in fact behave that way. They know the law of nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."

In order words, we know we should be good but we just aren't. I believe it's that simple. It only takes one good person to do even the tiniest bid of bad to confirm his theory.

Anyway, the question was why can't there be morality without God. Your answer that there is a God isn't an answer. If you believe in God, you can't say whether the lack of one would make a difference. You say man's standards are poor, but your judging those standards in a world with God. Maybe without God man would be better?

If you believe that there is good in the world then there must be a moral law to say what is bad. If there is a moral law, then there must be a law giver. But because you have dismissed the idea of a law giver then there can be no good or evil - only opinion. If there is no God, then there can be no objective good or bad moral values. People who do evil things - and I include those who kill in the name of God - are men who go by their own values. And no, the world is not a world with a God. The removal of prayer from schools in America (of all places!) and the political correcting of Christmas in the UK are two of many, many examples of the continued secularisation of society.

That's not an argument. The existence of the bumble bee, the human eye and love prove that something amazing and very complex is at work, but it doesn't prove the existence of a creator at all. Years ago people used to believe that Lightning proved the existence of God.

If you choose not to look at these scientific anomalies as evidence for the existence of God, then what? Nothing produces everything? Non-life produces life? Chaos produces information? Too many coincidences for my liking.

[Brats]

Here's what CS Lewis said: "Firstly, human beings all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot get rid of it. Secondly, they do not in fact behave that way. They know the law of nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."

In order words, we know we should be good but we just aren't. I believe it's that simple. It only takes one good person to do even the tiniest bid of bad to confirm his theory.

You haven't answered my question though. If everyone is innately good, why would someone do evil when there is nothing to gain from it?

If you believe that there is good in the world then there must be a moral law to say what is bad. If there is a moral law, then there must be a law giver.

No there doesn't. You're doing the typical thing that everything must prove there being a God. Evolution works in the mind as well as the physical body. I believe these morals have been created by evolution because these morals (if obeyed) mean our species will survive longer. There doesn't have to be a law giver for morals to exist.

If you choose not to look at these scientific anomalies as evidence for the existence of God, then what? Nothing produces everything? Non-life produces life? Chaos produces information? Too many coincidences for my liking.

Coincidencies they may be, but that still makes it a possibility. Therefore the existence of these anomalies does not outright prove there is a God, as you imply. There is another theory, even if you chose to not accept it.

We know for a fact that there are thousands of galaxies with billions of stars in the universe. Even if we are the only life in the universe, the law of probability is actually in our favour considering the vast number of oppurtunities for it to happen.

And as I said, lightning was once an anomaly used to 'prove' the existence of God that has now been solved. Now religion looks to increasingly smaller and less significant 'anomalies' to 'prove' its case. How many other anomalies that will be solved in the future will there be before this is no longer an argument?

[funkydan]

I do know, however, that Jesus suffered more than anyone on earth and so He understands completely. That's why He's worthy of trust.

He was crucified just like thousands of other people at that time, and he supposedly came back afterwards, so how exactly did he suffer more than say Elizabeth Fritzl, who was imprisoned by her own father for 24 years, was raped hundreds of times, had seven incestuous children with that bastard of a father - tell me that? Or the jews in the holocaust in WW2 - are you saying that he suffered more than them? Seriously mate, some of the stuff you come out with is unbelievable!

I do agree that things are getting out of hand but isn't evolution supposed to better us?

Oh my goodness, a devout christian who believes in evolution, oh dear me, what will they think of next!

You're completely blinkered, and seem completely incapable of seeing anyone else's point of view, so as D. Bannatyne would say: "I'm out!"

[merf]

this thread exactly mirrors almost every scene in the film its about though

its one of my fave scenes where Maher is talking to the guy from jews for jesus in his gift shop (!!) and the bloke says he doesn't believe in father xmas :-

'of course you don't, one man delivering presents to children all over the world in one evening, that's ridiculous, one guy listening to everybody mumbling at the end of their bed every evening, that's believable'

[endo]

BTW, the bumblebee isn't a scientific anomaly- the notion that it should be technically impossible for them to fly is a myth.
I don't see how love is a scientific anomaly either. Love is an emotion caused by chemical changes in the brain in response to chemical and other signals from someone else. Feeling love helps reinforce the pair bond thus improving the chances of passing your DNA on.
As for the eye, I'm not sure that's an anomaly either. I suspect here you're getting at irreducible complexity, but to be honest I haven't read enough about the development of the eye in that respect, so I don't know what the score is.

This approach of jumping on progressively less signficant 'anomalies' to prove the existence of god is the 'god of the gaps' argument- not exactly convincing.

[Howiee]

You haven't answered my question though. If everyone is innately good, why would someone do evil when there is nothing to gain from it?

That's the point - there doesn't have to be a reason. We're not innately good. We're bad. Something that is completely good cannot do bad, surely? Maybe I wasn't clear, but I believe that God has given us a conscience to know what good is. We can do good but choose not to. That's what CS Lewis was saying. Can someone do evil without gain? I don't know. All the examples I can think of seem to have some sort of personal gain or cause - Stalin, Pol Pot, terrorists, pedophiles, thieves, liars. Your example, Charles Manson, maybe he got off on the thrill of murder. Maybe he wanted notoriety. Who knows?

No there doesn't. You're doing the typical thing that everything must prove there being a God. Evolution works in the mind as well as the physical body. I believe these morals have been created by evolution because these morals (if obeyed) mean our species will survive longer. There doesn't have to be a law giver for morals to exist.

I think you may have missed my point. There cannot be good without bad, so there needs to be a judge of that. Without one, morals are down to us (either by evolution or otherwise). That's fine, but Hitler wanted to make his species live longer by killing Jews. Nazi Germany had no moral obligation to that - who is to say what is right or wrong? Also, why would we not obey our own evolved morals? If my body evolved, as you believe, I'm going to obey it when my bladder tells me to take a leak. The mind is just another evolved body part, is it not?*

He was crucified just like thousands of other people at that time, and he supposedly came back afterwards, so how exactly did he suffer more than say Elizabeth Fritzl, who was imprisoned by her own father for 24 years, was raped hundreds of times, had seven incestuous children with that bastard of a father - tell me that? Or the jews in the holocaust in WW2 - are you saying that he suffered more than them? Seriously mate, some of the stuff you come out with is unbelievable!

Yes frankly, I am saying that, although that is not to take away from the suffering of the poor people you mentioned. What I said about Jesus, I don't expect you believe it or even care. The understanding of how and why Jesus suffered is not something that can be won in an argument. It comes through study and a relationship with Him.

Oh my goodness, a devout christian who believes in evolution, oh dear me, what will they think of next!

That was a rhetorical question. Perhaps if you hadn't allowed your anger to define the way you read my post (or treat me as a fellow NTSC-er), you would've realised that.

You're completely blinkered, and seem completely incapable of seeing anyone else's point of view, so as D. Bannatyne would say: "I'm out!"

Why is everyone so angry? I'm only expressing my beliefs like everyone else. I thought gamers were the tolerant type.

So far two peeps have declared "I'm out" as if something I've said has been so infuriating and offensive that anything they say in response might get them kicked off the site. And I'm supposed to be the fundamentalist!

I may not agree with you, but I'm not going to shout you down or claim that what you say is "unbelievable". I haven't always been a Christian - I've had every thought, concern and fear that you've had and continue to do so. I'm not some sheltered, middle class idealist whose idea of suffering is running out of tea bags during Songs of Praise.

*NOTE TO FUNKYDAN. This is also a rhetorical question.

[Paulos G]

Just watched this:

The Atheists.

Summary:

Compass talks to atheists of different stripes.Eminent philosopher John Gray; science writer and editor of Skeptic magazine Michael Shermer; historian and writer Inga Clendinnen and Australia?s best known atheist Phillip Adams, all explore the philosophical and practical consequences of being an atheist.

How does their atheism shape their attitudes to science and the big questions of our time such as war and global warming? Is conflict between atheists and believers inevitable and necessary? Or, is this debate generating more heat than light?

Worth watching I reckon.