Religion: The views of an agnostic

[oldman]

I have been a Christian all my life. I don’t need proof of whether there is/was a creator. I have a very personal relationship with the Lord.
I see no need to announce to the world my beliefs or how I arrived at them.

 

[CAKCy]

I don't agree with the "no common ground" part. I suspect you both believe in a lot of the morals we abide by, not killing or raping people for example. What you see as your foundations for those beliefs may vary, but the result is the same.

I am no expert on religion but it seems to me if you take God's existence as fact then much of religion does become logical. And science is full of "laws" we accept as fact when they are not provable beyond any doubt except in being consistent with observation. Evolution, thermodynamics, even gravity are examples. I come down on the science side of this, but can understand where religion is coming from.

I agree. When I talked about lack of common ground I referred to the debate on religion. To accept God's existence and the logic after that makes the debate a moot point.

 

[Gardenlover]

Gardenlover said:
So, in your mind, there is no design to the universe?

Nope.

Interesting. Was the device you're using to communicate designed and created? Is that device not part of the universe?

 

[CAKCy]

I have been a Christian all my life. I don’t need proof of whether there is/was a creator. I have a very personal relationship with the Lord.
I see no need to announce to the world my beliefs or how I arrived at them.

You are doing fine, Sir. For as long as you don't interfere with other people's beliefs/lives you have my blessings to continue living the way you have so far.

 

[CAKCy]

Interesting. Was the device you're using to communicate designed and created? Is not that device part of the universe?

Yes, it is. But to cut the long story short.... the universe itself was not designed and created by God.

 

[Gardenlover]

Yes, it is. But to cut the long story short.... the universe itself was not designed and created by God.

I fail to grasp any logic in that viewpoint.

 

[CAKCy]

I fail to grasp any logic in that viewpoint.

Yes you do. But you want to walk me on the straight line back to the design and creation of the universe.

 

[Warrigal]

By observing older generations and reading through history of humanity. What could not be explained or what created fear to humans was automatically called a God or a God's action. Hope was found where none existed.

Ha! Talking about myself .... I don't do so well coping with the unknown, especially with the inevitable end. It would be nice if my logic wasn't so stubborn and allowed me some rest, thinking that I will continue my journey in a better place.

What is so bad about simply easing to be?

I'm with The Bard on this one

“Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come.”​

― William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

and with Frank Herbert

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

• Frank Herbert, Dune

 

[Gardenlover]

Yes you do. But you want to walk me on the straight line back to the design and creation of the universe.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a straight line.

 

[CAKCy]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a straight line.

Make it any shape your want. It would still have a beginning and an end.

 

[CAKCy]

What is so bad about simply easing to be?

I'm with The Bard on this one



and with Frank Herbert

I'd rather not talk about it.
It's not a simple easing to be, to me.
I lost people I loved and when I die I will lose people I love.
That's more pain that I care to think about.

(I know that's the destiny of every living thing but everyone carries their own cross. Let's say I'm not strong enough to carry mine...)

 

[Gardenlover]

Make it any shape your want. It would still have a beginning and an end.

Why is that?

But that might be another topic of discussion - Time.

 

[Warrigal]

And if the beginning and the end happen to be the same point?
If the universe is curved, might not time be circular?
Or some other closed curve?

 

[CAKCy]

Why is that?

But that might be another topic of discussion - Time.

That's my reply to another thread.

The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe remains the same. Though it may be exchanged between the system and the surroundings, it can’t be created or destroyed. Until this is disproven, the narrator of the video is correct: Everything has always existed. What he doesn't say is whether the energy of the beginning (if we assume that energy was all there was) transformed into matter randomly (Big Bang) or by design (God). He also avoids to discuss whether there was anything before the energy existed.

If we try to explain this using plain human logic and working on a straight line we may not reach an answer. If we leave logic behind then we can have options like "God existed before the energy and he was the one who created it" or "We are not moving on a straight line but in circles. There was never a beginning and there won't ever be an end. The universe will transform from energy to matter and then back to energy over and over and over again". The problem with the latter is that science has given a time of the "beginning". I wonder if that is actually the time of the beginning of everything or just the beginning of this circle.

 

[CAKCy]

And if the beginning and the end happen to be the same point?
If the universe if curved, might not time be circular?
Or some other closed curve?

That's my reply to another thread.

The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe remains the same. Though it may be exchanged between the system and the surroundings, it can’t be created or destroyed. Until this is disproven, the narrator of the video is correct: Everything has always existed. What he doesn't say is whether the energy of the beginning (if we assume that energy was all there was) transformed into matter randomly (Big Bang) or by design (God). He also avoids to discuss whether there was anything before the energy existed.

If we try to explain this using plain human logic and working on a straight line we may not reach an answer. If we leave logic behind then we can have options like "God existed before the energy and he was the one who created it" or "We are not moving on a straight line but in circles. There was never a beginning and there won't ever be an end. The universe will transform from energy to matter and then back to energy over and over and over again". The problem with the latter is that science has given a time of the "beginning". I wonder if that is actually the time of the beginning of everything or just the beginning of this circle.

 

[Warrigal]

That's my reply to another thread. The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe remains the same. Doesn't this law (Conservation of Energy) only apply to closed systems? Now that the existence of black holes has been proven, can we still say that the universe is a closed system? Though it may be exchanged between the system and the surroundings, it can’t be created or destroyed. What surroundings? Again the question is whether or not there is anything beyond the known universe. Until this is disproven, the narrator of the video is correct: Everything has always existed. The big bang theory says something different. It proposes that time and space were formed instantaneously from nothing. Sounds to me quite like the creation doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo. This is not the same as saying that the universe has always existed i.e. infinite or eternal What he doesn't say is whether the energy of the beginning (if we assume that energy was all there was) I assume nothing. What is the current thinking of cosmologists? transformed into matter randomly (Big Bang) or by design (God). He also avoids to discuss whether there was anything before the energy existed. There is nothing random about the Big Bang. If anything existed before that it was the laws and constants of physics. These are the blueprints of this universe. If even one of the constants happened to be just a little bit different, the universe would not be what it is today. You say you are a scientist. May I ask which field of science?

 

[fuzzybuddy]

First, I couldn't care less about what others believe, as long as they do not impose their beliefs on others. For the sake of argument, those who believe in deities ought to be able to show some empirical proof that those deities exist. And the fact that some believe in deities is not proof that deities exist.
As an atheist, there is something that never seems to be addressed-and that is multiple deities. Most of the believer comments, in this forum, seem to reflect a Judeo/Christian concept of a god. But that is not the only god on the block. There are thousands of deities. I've often wondered how you explain the thousands of gods worshiped through out history, and the multitude of gods worshiped today. For the moment, one says, "This is the one true God.", it means all the other deities are false, and don't exist. And how does one prove the your deity is the one true deity?

 

[Irwin]

That's kind of a double-edged sword. While Hitchens solved the problem of the assertion "God exists" by dismissing it (since it's without proof) the atheist will find a trouble proving their assertion "God does not exist" which can similarly be dismissed.

Though it's a play of words or semantics it's important to follow the sequence of events. If a believer makes an assertion first, that assertion can be dismissed as per Hitchens. But if an atheist makes the assertion first he/she will find him/herself in deep waters.

It is a lot safer to assert that "We don't have enough evidence to prove God's existence" since this can be proven scientifically and cannot be dismissed.

Makes sense?

Actually, there is no evidence that God exists, but there is a sh*tload of evidence that he doesn't exist. Just look at all the disasters and evil going on in the world today. If there was a "god," would yada-yada (gender neutral pronoun) allow all that to happen?

 

[CAKCy]

@Warrigal

Doesn't this law (Conservation of Energy) only apply to closed systems?

It also applies to open systems with the understanding that energy can be exchanged between the system and its surroundings. The net amount of energy remains the same (considering the change of energy into matter).

Now that the existence of black holes has been proven, can we still say that the universe is a closed system?

We don't have to. The amount of energy even if it's transformed into matter with the absorption by the black holes still remains the same.

Again the question is whether or not there is anything beyond the known universe.

Unknown. Though hypotheses are there.

The big bang theory says something different. It proposes that time and space were formed instantaneously from nothing. Sounds to me quite like the creation doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo. This is not the same as saying that the universe has always existed i.e. infinite or eternal

The Big Bang hypothesis says that there was a big explosion of energy of unknown source that created the universe and started its expansion.

I assume nothing. What is the current thinking of cosmologists?

There is nothing random about the Big Bang. If anything existed before that it was the laws and constants of physics. These are the blueprints of this universe. If even one of the constants happened to be just a little bit different, the universe would not be what it is today.

Agreed. The laws and constants of physics part of which is still unknown to us. The term "Blueprints of this universe" implies that the design was already in place. This is your opinion.

You say you are a scientist. May I ask which field of science?

I've studied Civil Engineering and Computer Science.

For reference:
The Universe and Beyond (utah.edu)

 

[CAKCy]

Actually, there is no evidence that God exists, but there is a sh*tload of evidence that he doesn't exist. Just look at all the disasters and evil going on in the world today. If there was a "god," would yada-yada (gender neutral pronoun) allow all that to happen?

The disasters and the evil going on in the world today are part of "God's Plan" or "God's Will". That's their reply. It is not a proof that God does not exist.

 

[CAKCy]

First, I couldn't care less about what others believe, as long as they do not impose their beliefs on others.

Thank you for your input!

I applaud your stance. It is very similar (if not identical) to mine. I'm also after those who use Religion as the means to have personal gains or to control the masses.

 

[Dancing_Queen]

I'm gonna disagree with your definition of Atheism. I don't agree that Atheism is one who can prove there is no god. As you probably know, the word Atheist is from the Greek word atheos, meaning "without god(s)". Atheos does not mean "having proof of no god(s)".

Atheists do not believe that a deity (or deities) exist. To be called an Atheist, you aren't required to prove the non-existence of a deity, just as a Believer is not required to prove its existence in order to be called a Believer.

A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.

I believe there are two types of Atheists -- those who believe that god doesn't exist and those who don't believe that god exists. The first is stronger than the second. It's like saying, "I believe there's no life on other planets," vs. " I don't believe there's life on other planets."

At any rate there are some Atheists of the first type who won't give you the time of day in discussion of the belief; absolutely nothing is going to seep in that might change their minds; for them it's an absolute fact. This falls under your definition of atheism as a religion. There are many Atheists of the first type who have open minds about it. I'm of the first type, but am not dogmatic about it. If you can prove to me god exists, I'll change my belief. And I know it's a belief, not a fact.

 

[Dancing_Queen]

I'm gonna disagree with your definition of Atheism. I don't agree that Atheism is one who can prove there is no god. As you probably know, the word Atheist is from the Greek word atheos, meaning "without god(s)". Atheos does not mean "having proof of no god(s)".

Atheists do not believe that a deity (or deities) exist. To be called an Atheist, you aren't required to prove the non-existence of a deity, just as a Believer is not required to prove its existence in order to be called a Believer.

A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.

Having studied cultural anthropology and a goodly number of those tribes while they still existed as independent groups, I can tell you that they all had moral codes. We may not have agreed with some of their precepts, but they all had them.

 

[Dancing_Queen]

I'm also an atheist. While I agree with Murrmurr that literally atheism does not mean "proof' of non-existence of a deity". It does seem to imply that there is some justification for not believing in a deity. If many , around you, believe in a deity, you do have to have a reason not to believe.
And a pet opinion is that man has an innate "moral" code. You don't have to read it in a book how to feel when someone steals from you, disrespects you, or does harm to you. And conversely, you know instinctively that doing those activities are not welcome. The concept of "mine' and "yours" is a common animal trait.

I say this to people:

"If I suddenly developed a belief in god, I wouldn't go around raping and pillaging.

"If you suddenly lost your belief in god, that means you'll go around raping and pillaging since you'll also have lost your moral code. Correct?"

 

[Dancing_Queen]

I wasn't exposed to any religion growing up. I came from a non-religious Jewish family that celebrated Christmas and lit a menorah on Hanukkah, but there no prayers or anything like that. They were just secular holidays to us.

My relatives were more traditional Jews. My cousins all had bar mitzvah rituals (I didn't have any female cousins). I visited them a few times and it was somewhat alluring in that it seemed like a stabilizing practice that brought the family together. They were a close knit family, and still are. The three brothers are successful and with families of their own. One's a doctor, one's a lawyer, and one's in finance.

I never went had a bar mitzvah ceremony, for which I've always kind of resented my parents, but they didn't have the resources I guess. I don't remember there even being a synagogue in the little town where I grew up, but I'm sure there were some in the bigger cities nearby. It was New York, after all.

My first real exposure to religion was watching the demonic possession horror movies during the '70s, which scared the hell out of me. Until my late 30s, I couldn't go into a church without getting freaked out. I'd get this weird feeling that people were going to get possessed and start doing weird stuff.

I occasionally look at various theories about how Jesus became the messiah. One theory is that the Romans created the story of a passive, peace-loving Jesus to subdue and control the Jews, who were the Roman's toughest opponent. Many books have been written promoting that theory including Caesar's Messiah, by Joseph Atwill. It's interesting and plausible. I watched the documentary. Reading the book is too much of a commitment for me since it doesn't matter that much to me.

You'd probably like the book "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright. Paul was a fantastic marketer; any present-day company would do all in its power to hire him.