View Full Version : God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational?
http://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/God-vs-Atheism.html#.U0Xb4thOV3c
Interesting piece....please keep/add any comments in the tone of the speaker for rebuttal / agreement or query.
Peregrino
04-09-2014, 18:06
http://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/God-vs-Atheism.html#.U0Xb4thOV3c
Interesting piece....please keep/add any comments in the tone of the speaker for rebuttal / agreement or query.
Interesting. This is now YOUR baby. You get to keep it from becoming as devolved as the recent (totally worthless - only reason it hasn't been deleted is because I find most censorship offensive) Creationism vs. Evolution thread.
No kidding.
I enjoy heated articulate opinions on difficult subjects ergo the lead in comments.
If one does not want to comment or partake go elsewhere.
BTW, engaging ones gray matter on difficult subjects, even those that are open ended, are never worthless endeavors.
Trapper John
04-09-2014, 18:19
Great post CSM and it begins with one of my favorite philosopher/theologians, Thomas Aquinas. :lifter
As I tried to argue in the evolution thread (not very well), the more completely we understand the laws of nature, the closer we come to seeing the face of God. IMO atheism is illogical and lacks a deeper understanding of natural law and its true meaning. All that we perceive in Creation is the result of Natural Law (God), this is an undeniable fact and requires no faith, just logic. Atheism, on the other hand, must be based entirely on faith, i.e. lacking any shred of evidence to back that viewpoint.
And one more thing. Being the only species (as far as we know) that can contemplate such things places a great deal of responsibility on our shoulders as "care-takers" to act accordingly. That is the meaning of God's will or the will of Nature.
Atheism places no special responsibility on humans, and I would argue that atheism makes us no more special than a worm.
I know some folks dislike the subject but I find debate about important subjects keeps me from going senile (I think).
I understand the incredulity as it comes to accepting a higher being but I believe believing in nothingness creating our universe to be a much further reach...my opinion.
Regardless, I know there are some very smart folks here that will offer counter point and I respect that.
Trapper John
04-09-2014, 18:31
No kidding.
I enjoy heated articulate opinions on difficult subjects ergo the lead in comments.
If one does not want to comment or partake go elsewhere.
BTW, engaging ones gray matter on difficult subjects, even those that are open ended, are never worthless endeavors.
Couldn't agree more CSM :lifter
Perigrino - See we are in disagreement and the universe is back in order. :p
BTW, do I get any cross-thread points for that one. :D
"...the laws of nature & of nature’s god..."
http://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/jefferson%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Coriginal-rough-draught%E2%80%9D-declaration-independence-0
Beyond that...?
Richard
Peregrino
04-09-2014, 19:07
Couldn't agree more CSM :lifter
Perigrino - See we are in disagreement and the universe is back in order. :p
BTW, do I get any cross-thread points for that one. :D
No. And no.
I'm a deist. Like all of us I've spent far too much time in shitholes with nothing better to do than contemplate my navel and ponder the meaning of life. I've reached the personal conclusion that there has to be something - a cause - that explains the wonder and order of the universe. Thomas Aquinas and I do agree on a few things and that is one of them. Call it God if you will. I also reached the inescapable (to me) conclusion that attempting to "ken" the All was hubris (and I am not a humble person so you can imagine the effort it took to achieve that enlightenment). I now limit my introspections to lesser extravagances - like how do I conduct myself so that I can face the balance at the end of days, answer for my choices, and still live my life so as to exert neutral/good influence in a world that seems to be trending chaotic/evil.
Personally, I think atheism is as much a religion as anything else and find most of their arguments as baseless as they claim religion is. Poor is the man who can believe in nothing greater than himself. MOO - YMMV. And that's OK too.
Trapper John
04-09-2014, 19:19
Uh-oh Poor is the man who can believe in nothing greater than himself. we have just found the 2nd point of convergence of opinion. ;)
craigepo
04-09-2014, 21:39
Totally agree with the piece. I often think of how neat it would have been to be one of the Apostles (except for that whole being martyred thing). Or to at least have a "burning bush" moment like Moses (except my friends would accuse me of picking and eating the wrong kind of spring mushrooms).
I once read the odds of an explosion such as the Big Bang creating life from the blast, with the odds being astronomically against.
One thing I can't get my head around is how to define time, and how "time" would work in various settings, i.e. if I were craigepo the eternal angel, but was looking down on a world that was temporal. I think the time/fossil record/New Earth/Old Earth issue divides a lot of intelligent people's opinions.
Interesting viewpoints from what I briefly researched on Deism. It places a term to the way I have grown in my own belief of a single creator. I haven't spent nearly the amount of time as most of you have in shithole locations, just a single tour in Iraq, and a lot of time spent at more awe inspiring locations such as A.P. Hill, et al. However, during my downtime spent far from family and friends, and taking long walks in the woods with weighted pack, it does allow for a lot of introspection time. My conclusion is that no single religion or lack of belief in a deity/higher power can be correct.
Too many centuries have past where too many men have translated and transcribed the works or understandings of others. Knowing this, and having an understanding of the way politics and religion were in our distant past as humans, I refuse to believe that the actual words or prophecies have not been tampered with. I believe that they've been altered to suit whoever was in power at whatever place in time across the world, for whatever selfish reasons they had in order to obtain absolute rule.
The presence of God (which is my name for my higher power), IMO cannot logically be denied; causality is real. There has to be a beginning and even an end to everything. Atheism stresses that essentially we're all just "here". I believe this to be an ignorant and lazy approach to life, and possibly the reason we're seeing immoral and illogical actions increasing daily. I know wikipedia is not that reliable of a source, but for all intents and purposes, here is a quote pulled from their page:
Arguments for atheism range from the philosophical to social and historical approaches. Rationales for not believing in any supernatural deity include the lack of empirical evidence, the problem of evil, the argument from inconsistent revelations, rejection of concepts which cannot be falsified, and the argument from nonbelief. Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere. Many atheists hold that atheism is a more parsimonious worldview than theism, and therefore the burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism.
Lack of empirical evidence...hmm. Whenever I am asked by an atheist how I can believe in something I cannot see, and that has not been proven, I explain it to them the way it was explained to me. I ask them if they believe in wind, and they will immediately say "of course, that is proven". My simple retort is that "wind is not visible, but you can feel it right?" That's how I feel about the presence of God. I have personally seen and felt drastic and impossible interventions over the course of my life that cannot be written off as mere coincidence.
To have a lack of faith or belief in a higher power, is to have a lack of faith or belief in morality, and it only serves as an excuse to be mediocre or worse, but of course YMMV.
1stindoor
04-10-2014, 10:15
Totally agree with the piece. I often think of how neat it would have been to be one of the Apostles (except for that whole being martyred thing). Or to at least have a "burning bush" moment like Moses (except my friends would accuse me of picking and eating the wrong kind of spring mushrooms)....
I've often said that those that are waiting for the large miraculous events, i.e. the burning bush, often miss the daily miracles that happen around them.
Any belief in any deity other than God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost is irrational.
x SF med
04-10-2014, 12:50
Aquinas, Augustine and Pascal... all have argued it, and the consensus is... belief in God is the most logical outcome. Moot point, and the Paradox of Belief is a very basic premise for the teaching of Formal Argumentative Logic. The Author if the article is derivative and unoriginal.
Sorry if any of the criticism is offensive CSM.
Not offended in any way...if it is unoriginal/derivative is it valid or not so?
"Any belief in any deity other than God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost is irrational."
The light is within all whom try to do the right thing, it is referred to as the Holy Spirit. For the evil the light is dim.
Those in doubt are not condemned by God, for those that know - is dualism in their own right.
I just ask Atheist 's if they ever wonder why the Planets are aligned as they are? And why do they think Astrology has been in use for so long by so many whom were successful in life?, our most recent successful President included (R.R.). It couldn't possibly be a computer program that makes us all different nor expose what areas in our lives we need to work on inside at certain points during our journey up the steps of enlightenment? That's a bit to think on.
Using Logic does help make it plain and true. We are all their children, whether we believe it or not...and is within all living things, some just need time to see it...
http://www.theonion.com/articles/biologists-confirm-god-evolved-from-chimpanzee-dei,35755/
And the debate goes on... :rolleyes:
Richard
GratefulCitizen
04-10-2014, 20:54
Logic is only capable of drawing conclusions when given certain assumptions.
Different assumptions yield different conclusions.
Logic is not capable of refuting assumptions unless those assumptions yield conclusions that can be demonstrated as false.
(Contraposition)
Logic cannot confirm nor refute an "unlimited" assumption of God.
It can only refute alternatives and demonstrate/refute consistency within a given "message".
mark46th
04-10-2014, 20:58
Believing in God helps answer a lot of difficult questions. God wills it, it is.
Logic is only capable of drawing conclusions when given certain assumptions.
Different assumptions yield different conclusions.
Logic is not capable of refuting assumptions unless those assumptions yield conclusions that can be demonstrated as false.
(Contraposition)
Logic cannot confirm nor refute an "unlimited" assumption of God.
It can only refute alternatives and demonstrate/refute consistency within a given "message".
Well spoken.
If you look deeply enough you will find evidence of such things without assumptions.
One can only come to the unlimited assumption of God by looking into themselves and the life cycles around them with an open mind. Thomas was a scientist, sought truth, and by far not so easy of a believer - he also happened to be one of most trusted by Iēsous (Jesus) .
There is nothing wrong with not believing or not having unlimited assumption - to say otherwise is just not so - it will come to you when it is time.
GratefulCitizen
04-10-2014, 21:47
Well spoken.
If you look deeply enough you will find evidence of such things without assumptions.
One can only come to the unlimited assumption of God by looking into themselves and the life cycles around them with an open mind. Thomas was a scientist, sought truth, and by far not so easy of a believer - he also happened to be one of most trusted by Iēsous (Jesus) .
There is nothing wrong with not believing or not having unlimited assumption - to say otherwise is just not so - it will come to you when it is time.
The term "self-evident" comes to mind.
Isaac Newton was no stranger to logic, but he also wrote a great deal about religion.
He had no problem either viewing creation purely through logic (observable natural law) or through faith and religion (supernatural revelation).
Faith and logic are not opposites, nor are they mutually exclusive.
Logic and reason are useful tools in the toolbox of understanding, but they aren't the only tools.
The term "self-evident" comes to mind.
Logic and reason useful tools in the toolbox of understanding, but they aren't the only tools.
Damn you're good :cool: Absolutely
GratefulCitizen
04-10-2014, 22:30
One thing I can't get my head around is how to define time, and how "time" would work in various settings, i.e. if I were craigepo the eternal angel, but was looking down on a world that was temporal. I think the time/fossil record/New Earth/Old Earth issue divides a lot of intelligent people's opinions.
This caught my attention yesterday.
"Time" and "sequence" aren't the same thing.
"Time" only matters as a concept to us because we have a finite amount of it.
If we were immortal, anything that were theoretically possible to do would be done, given the will.
Disregarding "sequence", "when" something happened wouldn't really matter.
Also, "time" and "predictability" aren't the same thing.
Given sufficient information and understanding, the future would be seen as clearly as the present.
Of course, the future would be "sequentially" later than the present.
God is the most complex explanation of creation or anything else. It begs so many questions (who created God, does God reside in a different plane in this universe or a multiverse, etc.) that it becomes a very inelegant solution to the cosmic question.
Team Sergeant
04-11-2014, 07:22
Interesting viewpoints from what I briefly researched on Deism. It places a term to the way I have grown in my own belief of a single creator. I haven't spent nearly the amount of time as most of you have in shithole locations, just a single tour in Iraq, and a lot of time spent at more awe inspiring locations such as A.P. Hill, et al. However, during my downtime spent far from family and friends, and taking long walks in the woods with weighted pack, it does allow for a lot of introspection time. My conclusion is that no single religion or lack of belief in a deity/higher power can be correct.
Too many centuries have past where too many men have translated and transcribed the works or understandings of others. Knowing this, and having an understanding of the way politics and religion were in our distant past as humans, I refuse to believe that the actual words or prophecies have not been tampered with. I believe that they've been altered to suit whoever was in power at whatever place in time across the world, for whatever selfish reasons they had in order to obtain absolute rule.
The presence of God (which is my name for my higher power), IMO cannot logically be denied; causality is real. There has to be a beginning and even an end to everything. Atheism stresses that essentially we're all just "here". I believe this to be an ignorant and lazy approach to life, and possibly the reason we're seeing immoral and illogical actions increasing daily. I know wikipedia is not that reliable of a source, but for all intents and purposes, here is a quote pulled from their page:
Lack of empirical evidence...hmm. Whenever I am asked by an atheist how I can believe in something I cannot see, and that has not been proven, I explain it to them the way it was explained to me. I ask them if they believe in wind, and they will immediately say "of course, that is proven". My simple retort is that "wind is not visible, but you can feel it right?" That's how I feel about the presence of God. I have personally seen and felt drastic and impossible interventions over the course of my life that cannot be written off as mere coincidence.
To have a lack of faith or belief in a higher power, is to have a lack of faith or belief in morality, and it only serves as an excuse to be mediocre or worse, but of course YMMV.
Thank you for that post, I am pleased that I may continue to believe in fairies.
PRB, I don't believe this is the proper place for this sort of discussion......
I believe in a creator, or at the very least a power force. I do get hung up a little on some of the bibles stories in that many of them are written in many various ways before the bible and before Jesus. That part makes me wonder the true origins of many of the stories. (Or perhaps the origin does not matter, but the reason.) They were clearly passed along for a VERY long time.
One example that I think is interesting is some of the Norse mythology and how closely many of the stories and saga tales are very close to the stories of Jesus. Now, I by no means believe Jesus did not exist. What I am saying is that people believed in a higher power and a definition of what that higher power and perfect being should be, long before Jesus came. I wish to know where that idea of humans being obsessed with our beginnings started and for what purpose did human life choose to pursue knowlege in such a manner.
At some point, we plotted it out and said a good person must be this and do that to be honorable and compassionate, ext. There were some very wise minds at some point. There were twists and turns where we decided the very definitions of right and wrong. The other interesting part is that many different cultures at vastly different areas of the world came up with these viewpoints in similar ways before ever making contact with each other. The only difference is who or what they gave that power to.
With atheists I have to wonder about that psychological profile. There always seems to be a hidden story as to why atheists choose that path. I have seen much anger and resentment from atheists that were former Christians, Catholics, Jews, and Mormons. The repeated story seems to be in some part of what they interpret their parents as being religious extremists and in some way that ruined their life, therefore in rebellion and choice, the individual has become atheist. The other version I see is the hipster or college liberal that is atheist simply because it is somehow trendy. A third version is the types that are power hungry. The types of “atheists” that use law to do whatever they can to erase all other religion because they somehow get off on it. A final version is that somehow god wronged them or the world, and therefore there is no god or they must deny god. Nearly all points by their very nature, still revolve around the principles of god, an attack on god, or the denial of god. In any such way it is not completly a denial of god, but a war on god and in its own way a confirmation of god.
I agree with much of the above posted in that if you believe in no power higher than yourself you are hollow. It would seem that atheists under the hierarchy of needs are missing much of the puzzle. You don’t have to be a church dweller to believe in anything. Just letting go of some of yourself to another power seems to be a part of life that is necessary for anyone.
I'd like to see, in scientific terms, a debate about the original vid.
Pretty simple premise that uses scientific known's to support an other than 'natural' start point.
Which is more rational I haven't a clue. Trying to wrap your head around either concept is very difficult. I agree with many of the points made here. I view my belief and my faith in a similar manner to Copernicus.
Paraphrasing his position, as a Christian, if you as an atheist are right, I have nothing to lose in the hereafter or whatever comes after death. However, if I as a Christian am right, as an atheist, you have everything to lose.
GratefulCitizen
04-11-2014, 21:14
I'd like to see, in scientific terms, a debate about the original vid.
Pretty simple premise that uses scientific known's to support an other than 'natural' start point.
A thought experiment.
Natural law:
1. Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
2. Entropy of a closed system tends to increase (disorder increases).
Another way of stating (2) is in terms of "available" energy for useful work.
i.e. : The available energy for useful work tends to decrease.
Assumptions: the universe is a closed system; the universe has finite matter/energy.
Given (1) and (2) and the assumptions, what happens when the clock is run backwards?
(Looking back in time)
According to (2) the available energy for useful work tends to increase as the clock runs backward.
But, according to (1) and the finite universe assumption, there is an upper limit to the amount of possible available energy.
This is a logical limit because there cannot be more "available" energy than there is total energy.
Two consequences of the "backwards clock" thought experiment are:
-a "beginning"
-if the clock is run backwards far enough, available energy=total energy
Another way of describing "available energy=total energy" would be: perfect order.
A beginning.
Perfect order.
Hmmm...
A thought experiment.
Natural law:
1. Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
2. Entropy of a closed system tends to increase (disorder increases).
Another way of stating (2) is in terms of "available" energy for useful work.
i.e. : The available energy for useful work tends to decrease.
Assumptions: the universe is a closed system; the universe has finite matter/energy.
Given (1) and (2) and the assumptions, what happens when the clock is run backwards?
(Looking back in time)
According to (2) the available energy for useful work tends to increase as the clock runs backward.
But, according to (1) and the finite universe assumption, there is an upper limit to the amount of possible available energy.
This is a logical limit because there cannot be more "available" energy than there is total energy.
Two consequences of the "backwards clock" thought experiment are:
-a "beginning"
-if the clock is run backwards far enough, available energy=total energy
Another way of describing "available energy=total energy" would be: perfect order.
A beginning.
Perfect order.
Hmmm...
The Dancing Wu Li Masters is still an informative and useful read
Organizational Dynamics and the Wharton Leadership Program are hosting an event with Captain Jon McBride, who will share his experiences and views focusing on Space Shuttle leadership and team dynamics: team selection, formation, and development
Astronaut McBride, after a wonderful slide presentation, did a Q & A. During that session, Capt. McBride addressed a question relevant to this thread.
The question ask him to address the expansiveness of space, and if he could, describe how he first felt on first seeing the earth from the shuttle window.
He took a moment, stating that the memory still makes his hair stand up on his arms, "even now as I relate this to you", I get "goose bumps", he then continued, describing the wonderment of it all. How the "Vail" of our atmosphere seemed so "thin". He said this lead him to some other thoughts, like that fact there are billions of stars in the milky way, each with its own planetary system. "When I realized that, "I instantly knew two things". One, we are not alone, and two, this was no accident".
Astronaut McBride, after a wonderful slide presentation, did a Q & A. During that session, Capt. McBride addressed a question relevant to this thread.
The question ask him to address the expansiveness of space, and if he could, describe how he first felt on first seeing the earth from the shuttle window.
He took a moment, stating that the memory still makes his hair stand up on his arms, "even now as I relate this to you", I get "goose bumps", he then continued, describing the wonderment of it all. How the "Vail" of our atmosphere seemed so "thin". He said this lead him to some other thoughts, like that fact there are billions of stars in the milky way, each with its own planetary system. "When I realized that, "I instantly knew two things". One, we are not alone, and two, this was no accident".
Hair standing, goose bumps, not alone, and no accident - these are the recurring events for me whenever I hear our National Anthem.
"When I realized that, "I instantly knew two things". One, we are not alone, and two, this was no accident".
That is an ascription commonly stated by those whom have seen and experienced what few have, pretty cool too.
And I thought your hair always looked that way MR2 :D