Further to The God Survey: evidence

[UnquietDad]

Twiglett is conducting a God Survey here .

soph28 asked
"Just curious how many YES's have firm evidence for believing and how many NO's do?"

This is a thread for exploring that question.

It is clearly impossible to prove the non-ness of anything, whether that thing be the Christian God, Apollo, Ra or the Great Spaghetti Monster. Therefore one should not be expected to do so, but rather to examine the evidence and see if it is compelling. It's what you do with everything else.

You're at liberty to believe, for example, there's no such thing as gravity, or oxygen, or the Moon, but I can offer you compelling evidence to the contrary, to which there is little or flimsy counter-evidence. At the end of the debate you can carry on believing it doesn't exist, but the peer-reviewed, testable and detectable evidence is clearly there. And if, one day, compelling evidence is given that Newton's theories are wrong, this will be published, examined, scrutinised and weighed up - and eventually, if has the consensus of the scientific community, the new theory will be adopted. It's what happened with that Phlogiston , for example.

As soon as you start debating, of course, you end up having to define yourself in terms laid down by the other side. This is partly why Prof. Dawkins doesn't do it, much to the chagrin of creationists... Imagine having to debate with people who regularly asserted that the Earth was flat, or that the Moon was made of green cheese. You'd maybe do it once. And then they'd keep coming back again, and again, and again, demanding a platform with you. It enhances their spurious credentials to have a debate with a leading scientist, and does not add a jot to yours - in fact, it cheapens your reputation.

Well, since you ask, one theory is that all human societies have worshipped a god or Gods. So 8 out of ten rosary owners can't be wrong. No, sorry, there may be something innate need for God in human beings. Which may mean there is a God... or again, might not.

blimey UD a bit deep for such a late hour!

But agree.

edam - that inherently means that man creates god then?

I tend to follow the Occam's razor school of thought.

Good point, edam, but not always the same god or gods.

Another way of looking at it: 99 out of 100 gods invented by the human race have disappeared. People stopped believing in them. There's no evidence to suggest that the 100th god is any different.

You are correct to point out that a "need" for something in human nature does not mean it actually exists.

Although, it also depends on any one person's definition of "God" doesnt it?

You could see it that way, or could argue that it is proof that god/s exist. I'm probably not giving fair play to the 'God exists' interpretation, though, as an agnostic!

Unquiet, have you been reading Terry Pratchett, by any chance?

It can't be taken as proof, edam, sorry. That isn't "proof" in the sense in which any scientist would accept it.

I have, a long time ago - not recently. Why, is he on to this now?

I find it bizarre that people who believe in aliens, ghosts and the like can be ridiculed but believing in a God is generally deemed to be quite 'normal'

I didn't say it was, I suggested that some people might be able to argue from that starting point towards a 'God exists' conclusion. Don't have the energy or memory to fill in the gaps myself.

Your post about gods having disappeared reminded me of TP's book Small Gods, which is about that very phenomenon.

Or Thetans, Jools! Scientology would make me larf a lot, if it wasn't taken so seriously.

If God did not exist (which he doesn't) it would be necessary to invent him (which people have done).

Jools - isnt that more within the remit of Christianity-based religions though?

Lots of other religions encompass spirits and ghosts, and scientology definitely embraces aliens.....

I agree though - its definitely a throw-back from AD through medieval and on to Victorian history where Christianity was the ONLY religion?

I think one thing on which Christians and non-Christians can agree is that Christianity is still a young and growing religion. It's only a couple of millennia old. The Universe is billions of years old, so that's nothing.

It hasn't peaked yet. It will probably gain many more believers before it does so.

It may last twenty thousand years, but it will decline and dwindle, because all religions have historically done so. There is nothing special about this one. Nothing. Something else will come along to take its place - or maybe we will have a few millenia without the yoke of religion for a change.

The same is probably true of Islam.

It troubles me greatly how many really rabid christians there are in America these days.

You constantly hear "that's what god can do" when someone wins an award or a sports event. A recent example is Zach Johnson who won the US masters golf this year and said it was all god's work.

It really pains me that someone who has spent most of his life hitting balls on a practice fairway honing his swing will give the credit for his victory to his imaginary friend rather than his own hard work!

Similarly, god apparently told george bush to invade iraq. Clearly his god hates muslims!

It is very obvious to anyone with half a mind that god is simply a human construct to cope with the fact that 'shit happens'.
But nothing will cheerfully make a human do evil than the belief that their god will honour them in heaven for the deed. Muslims go around blowing other muslims up because they are 'the wrong type of muslim', and believe that they will get access to 72 virgins in heaven for their martydom. This, it turns out, was a mistranslation of '72 white raisins'! (seriously)

Religion causes so much hate, pain and suffereing. Agnostics are just as bad as religious nutters because they tacitly accept the behaviour 'just in case' their is a god.

Balance of proof for No = peer reviewed science, fossil record, how primitive people explained natural phenomena, logic

Balance of proof for Yes = god put the fossils there because he er wanted to confuse people? because it was written in various books a long time ago by primitive people with far less knowledge of the world.

It astounds me how anyone with any intelligence can think the second case is more probable that the first.

Something I found interesting: when we started our religion degree 2 years ago, I was the only non-believer. Now, there is only one Christian. And he's a slightly odd gay fundamentalist ( a mix that challenges many things).

Now, a lot of that is because we have leaned just how much individual religions filch from each other- the Creation Story for example is very similar in Brahmanism (Hinduism), Zoroastrianism and Christianity.

What it can't address is the fundamental existence of a God, only the tales that Humnanity ahs atatched to this God notion.
That is why, despite being very about organised religion, I put myself down as maybe. (I consider myself a follower of the ways of Christ, his philosophy, but struggle with the Church and the metaphysical aspects of it)

I used to beeive fervently- my own experience has taught me that things ten to be alright if you have the faith to be strong and good, and I ascribed this to a God who watched his flocks. Then came Tsunami day. I cant and couldn't equate that with any beneficient God, and my belief in Him died. Also linked to this is that quote about @if you don't believe in an all merciful all loving god then you're eternally damned'. I mean . Some of the kindest people on this planet are atheist. What sort of God would damn them for a lack of spiritual faith? And do I want a God like that?

So then I looked at humanism, which in many ways I like. Bt everybody was so critical: its apaprently arrogant to take responsibility for all the good things in the world (my take on this is that if you (as Humasn) take responsibility for all the good then you get the bad too, andits far more amture to be able to take responsibility for all you do- good or bad- that to blame it on some devil or god character).

I still feel there's more to life, however. And it has so developed that I believe in the (original, dhammapada) Buddhist notion of karma, although again I find reincarnation a challneging idea.

So the conclusion I have s=come to is that is doen't matter whether you are Sikh / Hindu / jain/ Zoroastrian etc etc etc, if you lead a good life and try to be kind then any God who is also kind will see that and recognise you as one of His poeple. If however you claima religion and fail to abide by it, as so amny epople do, that claim will get you nowhere.

So- live yur life to be as fullof love as possible and it doesn't amtter to whom you ascribe the origin of that love or motivation. Do it for the sake of love and you will live happy in the knowledge that you have done your best. maybe there's a reward maybe not after death- but thats not the point, it should be done for the sake of love now.

Sorry waffled

' Muslims go around blowing other muslims up because they are 'the wrong type of muslim', '

tahts ahrdly limited to Islam is it?
What about sectarianism in Ireland?

Islam teaches love like the rest, its people who twist that. The Qur'an was created prior to the Shi'a Sunni divide, and the Hadiths have been repeatedly shown to have been forged and added to, so thats not religion, its humanity.

Godless infidels the lot of ya.

As infidel is defined as unvelieving in a particular religion, surely everybody is an Infidel (unless they believe anything, of which I know one such but surely not many LOL) to someone else?

Sorry Peachy,

I didnt mean to single Islam out as barbaric. Almost all religions are barbaric. Christianity was perhaps the worst (the crusades). I was just making a point that religion is used as an excuse for doing bad things.

Oh I agree with that point, though TBH I think that says more about people that religion.