- Drew B
- New York, NY
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why don't people believe in God?
if it were even the slightest possible chance that there is a hell and its a place of everlasting torment and hate wouldnt you want to make sure there isnt one by checking every possible source of information and proof that God does not exist or does?
And why do most people who ask themselves this question and go search for answers come back a christian?
yeah the whole idea can be denied with logical reasoning but you got to look at where this idea came from and how much we can trust this information. When you search for those facts they cant be denied and once you experience what God does in your life you will know its real. If you dont believe in it you should have proof andt the strongest possible evidence of everything that cant be denied.
I want to look at what you guys think and why you guys don't. Please dont attack other peoples ideas and thought and be open with every ounce of reasoning you can come up with.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Easy:
1. Which god(s)?
2. Which hell or punishment might have the slightest possibility to exist?
3. Where did you get the idea that most people examining the idea come back as Christian? I seriously doubt it.
You comment already assumes one god and one god only, but there's plenty of gods, even in Christianity there are plenty of versions of "God." So, if you truly want to understand why people don't believe in "God" you should actually start with why people don't believe in gods. If you ask the latter, it will become easier for you to understand why not. There are plenty of gods not to believe. Plenty of possible punishments for not believing. If we then look at your version of Pascal's wager, then there are plenty of "truth claims" to investigate, because most of these gods demand exclusivity, thus nobody can play it safe. You would be also at risk of eternal torment because you chose the wrong god (if there's any).
Of course there are many more reasons not to believe. Most god(s) are irrational, contradictory to both reality and their own doctrines. Most just fill-in for things we still have no answers for. It is very easy to learn and understand how these superstitions arise across cultures, and thus no reason to think that any gods believed today are any different, or any more real, than those gods nobody believes any more but were believed by older cultures. We can even trace the evolution of the descriptions and ways of believing those gods believed today. The more the reason to think they are imaginary. Again, just as imaginary as any other.
I refuse to answer any questions about "God" without first explaining that it is nothing personal: atheists don't believe in any gods. It is not just yours, and that yours looks exactly as any other.
There you have it.
Carlin Covey
You said: "yeah the whole idea can be denied with logical reasoning but you got to look at where this idea came from and how much we can trust this information. "
If I am interpreting your sentence correctly, "whole idea" and "this idea" appear to refer to the existence of God. In an earlier posting in this conversation Kyle McCall gave a nice explanation of where the idea of God came from.
Your phrase "... how much we can trust this information." appears to refer to the claim that God exists. I think the answer is, we can't trust it very much. All theist scriptures, including the Christian Bible, claim the existence of one or more gods. But should we accept the existence of Vishnu because he is discussed in the Rigveda?
You said "When you search for those facts they cant be denied and once you experience what God does in your life you will know its real."
I'm not sure what facts you are alluding to, so of course I can't deny them. But if you would state some facts I would be happy to consider them on their merits.
I'm having trouble understanding the following sentence:
"If you dont believe in it you should have proof andt the strongest possible evidence of everything that cant be denied."
You appear to be saying that the burden of proof is on the people who don't believe in the existence of God. Of course that is backward. The burden of proof is always on the person who makes a claim. You seem to be making the claim that there is a god, and furthermore it is the Christian God. I don't claim that there is no God, I simply think that the probability is so low that it is not worth considering. Of course if Zeus or Yahweh or Vishnu were to show up on the PBS Newshour I might reassess the probabilities.
Carlin Covey
You said "And why do most people who ask themselves this question [Does God exist?] and go search for answers come back a christian?"
It is not apparent to me that most people who ask whether God exists choose to adopt Christianity. Do you have any facts you can offer to back up this assertion? (Note that Christians are not in the majority in the world.)
Carlin Covey
You said " if it were even the slightest possible chance that there is a hell and its a place of everlasting torment and hate wouldnt you want to make sure there isnt one by checking every possible source of information and proof that God does not exist or does? "
So the possibility that hell exists should motivate people to check every possible source of information concerning the existence of God? That information would of course include the scriptures of every religion, past and present, as well as the writings of philosophers, theologians, and scientists. Naturally you cannot prove the nonexistence of hell or God, but I suppose it would be possible for Zeus to appear on the PBS Newshour one day, prove his divine existence to everyone's satisfaction by performing supernatural feats, and then offer tours of Hades. Has the possibility of this happening motivated you to study everything you can find relating to Zeus and Hades?
The human mind deals with the uncertainties of the world by assessing "probabilities", not just "possibilities". There is a possibility that due to Brownian motion all the air molecules will accumulate in one corner of the room, but the probability of that is so small that I don't worry about that possibility. And I think the probability is about the same that 3000 or so years ago some Bronze Age tribe in the Middle East got the straight scoop from a deity named Yahweh.
Kyle McCall
Tyrone Huckstepp
It is our free will to believe what we want, religion just seems to be a bit of a scape goat. I won't murder, rape, steal or hurt. I will love and be kind because that is what god told me to do. It seems to be excuses to do things, a reason to be moral. I respect that you have the attitude to take responsibility for your own life, we don't need a reason to help others, be kind and love one another. We look at ourselves as so separated from everything and everyone, but all humans have more in common and are more alike than another thing on this word, we are all just searching for the same thing, to find a life full of happiness, love, and free of pain, we just go about searching in different ways. Believe in your self and others, I like the point that life on earth should be more than a gateway to the after life, which seems to be a major point in most religions.
Thank you
Malarie Howard
I've struggled with this concept ever since my first philosophy class two years ago. Even though I've grown up in a Christian home for 19 years, this concept rang true to me and it has constantly rocked the religious foundation I've been brought up on. I've come to believe that most religions want to tell "lost souls" that this particular religion has ALL the answers to all of life's puzzling questions. No one, I believe, has all the answers. Really strong Christians will say that the Bible has all the answers and though I believe that universal truths can be found in the Bible, I also believe that they are putting way too much time into a book and may wind up making things up about God that aren't really true based on human understanding, thus forgetting that God transcends human knowledge.
I personally do believe in one God. In my mind, It's impossible for there not to be some sort of divine creator. I believe that he reveals his truth to anyone and everyone, and because he has made us all individuals, we see him how we are meant to see him. This is why religion bothers me...it takes away the intimate relationship we as individuals are supposed to have with him through searching, meditating, and loving the people around us.
When a religious group claims to have all the answers, I feel like they start making things up or twisting meanings of religious passages to fit their standards. It is hard for me to trust any religious authority these days. I do however, trust in God - not to be my scape goat, not to be my ticket to Heaven, but to be there ALWAYS when people let me down, when no one comes to my rescue, when there's no one to talk to, no one to discipline me, no one to guide me. I believe this not cuz someone told me to, but because this is the truth I have experienced in MY life.
Thanks :)
Tyrone Huckstepp
This concept seems quite obvious, even to someone like me who is not a religious person and hasn't really ever believed in the power of the god referred to by Christians. It doesn't add up that people who have faith in god have not pondered this concept. I am to believe that Christians look up to god as an almighty spirit, and wouldn't consider them to be anywhere near his almightiness, so why do they think they can comprehend it with their limited little human minds?
I believe that religion can be a good thing to guide people in the right moral direction, and tell them it’s going to be alright when they ‘miss the mark’; the world is filled with a lot of delusions. The harm occurs when people take too much trust in a religion and start to believe it as an absolute and defend it as if it were part of them, especially when those people are lost souls, and have a limited view of the whole picture and are defending something they themselves don't understand.
That is a really beautiful way of looking at it, that you will see god in your own individual way, it make sense as well. I agree about religion taking the intimacy out of it, that is one of my own dislikes about religion, as it seems like if you are part of a certain religion, it takes away your right to think freely, and you have to follow a collective of other peoples beliefs and ideas; and they are all just ideas, because as you said that you believe “no one has all the answers”. If there was a single absolute truth, you would think that we wouldn't still be here having this conversation.
Thanks T.
Malarie Howard
Carlin Covey
Tyrone Huckstepp
How can anyone say a belief is right or wrong, how can you really know? Science is great for finding out truths about things, but this only related to physical things. What about the truth when it comes to soul, spirit, god, and consciousness? The only solid proof we have is through direct experience, but how do we know the person who had the experienced isn’t just making up stories or that the experience its self inst just an illusion or delusion? If you don't eat for long enough, take certain drugs, have certain mental illnesses your sense of reality will be different. How do we know that the higher spirits that speak to people aren’t really the same voice a supposably crazy person hears in their head? But instead of the voice telling them insane out of these world ‘hellish’ things, the voice tells them insane out of these world ‘heavenly’ things.
There are experts out there who can debate just about anything and the only side which sounds more compelling and true to you, is the side that you already lean towards, or have been conditioned to believe.
My view is to read heaps, be open to everything, and try and understand as best you can. You do not have to agree or believe in something to understand it. In saying that don't believe anything 100% ether, question it of it doesn't sound right.
Thanks T.
Tyrone Huckstepp
Why do you need one? You are made from the same stuff as everything else in the universe, for all we know we are god, and i don’t mean god as in the guy who sits in the clouds and judges you for whom you are. I use the word god in the sense that god is everything and nothing; god is everywhere and nowhere, if you can try for a second to grasp that idea. If we are god or a part of him then wouldn’t it be a good idea to stop living a life controlled by factors and beliefs (some of which seem totally contradictory? Being gay is a sin and wrong. Why would i want to go to a heaven and spend eternity around people who are so ignorant and judgmental) and start loving life and living free.
Relate these ideas (that you are god and god is everything) to some of the quotes in the bible; it starts to make sense on a deeper level.
The kingdom of God is within you: speaks for its self
Except ye become as little children, ye will not enter the
Kingdom of Heaven: until you can become like a child, who does not judge, is able to feel the way they feel and not afraid to show their emotions, and can live free and find life beautiful and interesting, you will not be free within your self
God is with you in all that you do: you are god, so there for you are with yourself
I will give you peace and quietness: look inside yourself (meditate) and you will find peace and quietness.
Tyrone Huckstepp
I think one of the main reasons why people don’t believe in god is that it just doesn’t seem logical, it just doesn’t make sense. How did god create everything in 6 days, where is heaven, how did Jesus walk on water and turn water into wine, let alone die and come back to life? These ideas are not easily believable, i have heard many answers to the questions stated, and i have to give credit, because almost all the answers have been creative and interesting. But it takes conditioning or (as well as) a lot of faith to follow these ideas, especially when you have science to explain a lot of phenomena, and back it up with evidence.
The word God seems to be massively misinterpreted and limited, god has been made out as an Anthropomorphic being, god has been given a sex, an image, likes and dislikes, a location, and an ego. People have made their god part of their identity, just like they have made what they do for work, how much money they earn and what kind of possessions they have, a part of themselves, Its is all part of their ego. If you say you don't believe in their god they get offended, if you where ever to talk badly of their God, watch out!!! I’m sorry, but didn't God create the universe? I’m pretty sure he doesn't need your defence.
You may accept this idea or not, but if you are getting angry well look again at your own reaction, as it only proves the point. Try asking a Christian what is different between his God and the Muslim God; they are both call then God don't they? Their goals are exactly the same aren’t they? The end goal for all religion or belief is the same, if it be heaven, Jannah or enlightenment. They all end in eternal peace free of pain and suffering, but how they get there is different.
Why do we need to believe in a god, or a higher being? Are humans that weak that we need to hold on to a belief of eternal being and happiness just so we can get through this life of suffering we have to endure on earth?
Jim Moonan 30+
Niek Pelzer
Also a reason for me to not believe in god is that the normal American believes for like 95 % in god but the top of their scientist just for 7% and in the UK even less, 3%. Intelligence correlates positives with less dogmatich believe in god.
For people who still in doubt, read the book from Richard dawkins god's delusion. He describes so many reasons why the existence of god is not very likely.
Cheers,
Niek
Bill Davis
To open your mind to really consider people of faith in your "heterogeneous" world, I offer: 1] I spend my spare time helping the homeless, mentally ill, birth defective children, foster children & folks pursuing a worldview where love rules. I do this because I love God. How do you make this world better with your activities of choice? 2] Science brings this world technological & material progress. However, without spiritual wisdom, relying on our own strength, not a Higher Authority, we are in danger of being destroyed by this progress even as we benefit from it in so many ways, Would you depend upon the wisdom and power of those in charge of the technology and wealth to prevent tragedy in the use of it? This is such an overwhelming problem, some people of faith turn to God, the ultimate authority, to harness the good brought by technology and material progress for the safety of all. There are circumstances which are beyond us mortals to understand and deal with. You won't find that God is trustworthy to handle such unless you have personally tried it as I, and many people of faith, have.
Thank you for considering what I have said. I look forward to further dialogue with you on this subject
Bill Davis
Jenny Tsai
Katrina Musick
Now, my opinion for the Christian religion, and most religions for that matter that follow this plot, is a bad one. I think that any religion that is based on the childish thought that you should be rewarded or punished for doing things disgusts me. It's your parents when you're little. Supposedly God when you die. Why can't we just live together in harmony, accept each others ideas as being right for them even if they aren't for me or you and share ideas and grow off of each others ideas? Why does one religion have to be right, when it seems they all started from the same point and words and stories got messed up along the way. You can't even say the same word 30 times when playing "Telephone" in class, so why would the same story and names and everything be the same after years of being passed on verbally, which most stories and names and thoughts were for a long time.
Anyone noticed how Abrahamic religjons believe in the same god but may have different readings because they were tought by different people, so they came up with different names for gods? And yet they hate each other so much. Muslims even fight amonst themselves over who should have taken over after the prophet (I can't spell his name right so I won't butcher it) died. His family, or his pupils? Let's fight bloody battles over it!
Personally, I find it time for humans to evolve past stories and base morals off of what each other feels is right and do unto others as you would like done to you, after all that's the main point most religions try to make. Let's just do the right thing because it's good and we care about each other, not because if we don't we'll go to hell. That's silly. I think
Katrina Musick
Now, my opinion for the Christian religion, and most religions for that matter that follow this plot, is a bad one. I think that any religion that is based on the childish thought that you should be rewarded or punished for doing things disgusts me. It's your parents when you're little. Supposedly God when you die. Why can't we just live together in harmony, accept each others ideas as being right for them even if they aren't for me or you and share ideas and grow off of each others ideas? Why does one religion have to be right, when it seems they all started from the same point and words and stories got messed up along the way. You can't even say the same word 30 times when playing "Telephone" in class, so why would the same story and names and everything be the same after years of being passed on verbally, which most stories and names and thoughts were for a long time.
Anyone noticed how Abrahamic religjons believe in the same god but may have different readings because they were tought by different people, so they came up with different names for gods? And yet they hate each other so much. Muslims even fight amonst themselves over who should have taken over after the prophet (I can't spell his name right so I won't butcher it) died. His family, or his pupils? Let's fight bloody battles over it!
Personally, I find it time for humans to evolve past stories and base morals off of what each other feels is right and do unto others as you would like done to you, after all that's the main point most religions try to make. Let's just do the right thing because it's good and we care about each other, not because if we don't we'll go to hell. That's silly. I think
J Ali
we believe that after the prophets death he had 12 known infallible successors (first of them being Ali Bin Abi Talib) who were appointed by God but they were usurped of that right.......we never killed anyone.....they killed us....Islam is peace.....we don't kill anyone for nothing....the Shia sect- the followers of Ali- has been oppressed for more than 1400 years....Islam is freedom.....Islam is standing up against tyranny and dictatorship......Just like our 3rd Imam- the grandson of the Holy Prophet- stood up against tyrants and he and his whole family and companions were slaughtered.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husayn_ibn_Ali
You believe that God is in everything.....you believe......what is your proof...??
Muslims base everything they say on philosophical proof which supports the Quran.....the Quran is there as a reminder........it does not go against logic.......they deny everything else based on proof also......
everything I believe on God is because of philosophical proof......not because the Quran says so......I follow the Quran because it is the truth....not because I was born into a Muslim family.....
Rie Ohta
I don't prescribe to any religion because
a) I was raised in an atheistic household and community. Everyone I knew was an atheist or agnostic, I never had to question it.
b) I believe religious institutions were created by people, and people are flawed, and so I cannot take threats of eternal hellfire seriously.
c) I have done a lot of work in the LGBTQ community, and have seen first-hand the suffering that some religious institutions have brought upon my brothers and sisters. That is not to say that religion and queerness are necessarily incompatible, but I have seen a few to many broken families and abominable discrimination to forget it easily.
Dain Brammage
Matthieu Miossec 100+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
why other not participate?
Sean Kennedy
1. Lack of verifiable evidence
A super majority of advancements are due to sustained scientific research. While Mr. Ahmadi has been kind enough to provided his beliefs in this discussion, from my perspective they are assertions based on his anecdotal experience. I respect his experience as a fellow human, but I require a high standard of evidence (scientific) for beleif. I echo Christophe Cop's point regarding the "god-experience." Someone telling me they "felt" god is not enough proof.
2. Temporal, cultural, political and demographic patterns:
Predicting religious beleif is extremely easy. Provided a profile (age, country of birth and/or residence, education level, parent's religion, etc.) we could make rather accurate predictions of what religion (if any) they believe in. One example is that living in northern Africa makes a person more likely to be Muslim while living in southern Africa makes them more likely to be Christian. Another is that few people believe in the Greek Pantheon today, but they had a heck of a following when the Greek empire was under Athenian rule in the 5th and 4th century BC. Dominant modern religions are widespread because their cultures are powerful, not because their deities are real.
Religion moves like language does: by migration, subjugation, and assimilation. European conquerors from Spain took South America by deadly force and early American settlers moved west across Indian territory. Conquered South American natives quickly pick up Spanish and Catholicism. African slaves replaced their tribal culture with English and Christianity. As the structure society changes, so does religion. If your parents speak English; what do you speak?
I encourage everyone to investigate secular humanism as a means for rational & moral coexistence!
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
thread was too long.
"Could you pick out 1 proof out of the Koran (preferably the one that you think is the best) for its validity? We can then discuss about it (maybe in another topic?) and see if it holds and under what assumptions."
Please continue here:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/3789/proving_koran.html
"in-existing things"
non-material things is better.
"but I just don't accept anything for which no evidence is found; and I refute claims that are proven to be wrong."
Do not you consider so much religion and billions of people believing in God and history of religion as evidence?
At least do not neglect Koran.
"Soul: the one claiming a soul exists needs to prove it's existence"
the "Intend" can not be explained by material body.
"Dreams: no evidence suggests dreams are other than brain-reactions. "
For example seeing future in sleep. almost people have had such experience. Material can not go to future. Déjà vu is a evidence with no explain in science.
"None of them seem to me more than mythological stories"
Indeed you have not read Koran well.
"I don't consider them valuable from a scientific point of view. "
I am sure you do not know Koran.
"If you can give me one passage of the Koran that explains how to measure a god, we can discuss that as well"
I do not now Koran have such passage. But Koran invites to know God by think ing to nature and by wisdom.
"So either way: Koran is either in conflict with science (at least partly)"
I disagree even one word. I hope you can prove one case.
Dear J Ali,
I ask you pick a proof of God and write it here simple.
I love to know more about Islamic philosophy but it has many complicated terms.
I think People on ted want ready text and are not interested to study books.
Mathieu Guerin
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
but they do not know religion.
what religion says is this:
1- some humans (some references say 7 generation) existed before Adam and Eve and all extincted (with no detail).
2- near 7000 years ago two human Adam and Eve came to earth by God. and they had no sin. it was decision of God.
3- all humans after Adam and Eve age children of those two.
4- during history some famous prophet sent by God to humans like Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (peace upon them)
revolution says:
1- species adapt to environment in long time. (natural selection) (accepted by science)
2- all species have common ancestor (hypothesis with no evidence)
3-a specie can transform to other specie (hypothesis with no evidence)
4- the transform from one specie to other species is done by a random process (hypothesis with no evidence) (please note not about one species. this is about one specie to another. and natural selection is changes in one specie)
5- no idea about how first life started.
now please say where is the conflict?
evolution is a useful tool for knowing nature and life.
even if all hypothesis of evolution theory become true still there is no conflict with religion and God because religion only speaks about current generation of human that backs to Adam and Eve near 7000 yars ago. and this has no conflict with existing humans before them.
I think elocution is like other parts of science and there is no need to believe or disbelieve it. to you believe in chemistry?
science is about knowing how nature works.
religion is about what is out of nature and why we are here and where we go after death.
Indeed religion and CERTAIN knowledge should have no conflict.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
You can try and dispute what I've just said, but I must warn you, as a bioinformatician, this is one of my areas of expertise.
Now is there a conflict? I don't see one per se, except in the case where certain passages of the old testament are taken to literally. This includes, I'm sorry to say, the passage about Adam and Eve. Your 1st point is fine I guess. Your 2nd and 3rd point are problematic for the following reasons: Homo Sapiens are dated to have originated 200 000 years ago and not 7 000. Homo Sapiens is the species of human we belong to by the way. Also, it is absolutely impossible for a whole species to originate from two people as this would lead to all sorts of genetic diseases because of inbreeding. There's a reason why it's ill-advised to breed with close kin. That is why kings and queens of Europe were often plagued with all sorts of illnesses (they all would marry their cousins).
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
agree. for example a cow with 2 head of 5 leg. but they quickly disappear in next generations and can not be considered "other specie".
"Your 4th point is utter rubbish. The transformation of one species to another happens through the same process of natural selection "
evidence? it is near 300 years of evolution research. have you heard a dog transform to a wolf or did a fossil found 50% wolf and 50% dog? or a fossil 50% human 50% ape?
evidence?
"Homo Sapiens are dated to have originated 200 000 years ago and not 7 000. "
I only said the opinion of religion. there is no conflict. because possibly some similar humans existed before Adam and Eve. religion says God sent Adam and Eve to earth near 7000 years ago. this not mean no human existed before Adam.
"Also, it is absolutely impossible for a whole species to originate from two people as this would lead to all sorts of genetic diseases because of inbreeding. "
there is lots of text about life of Adam and Eve. at least as long as one book.
some religious references say God created a woman for son of Adam to not marriage with his sister. this saying is recorded in old religious books. marriage of sister and brother is banned in religion and Adam was the first prophet. earth is never empty of representative of God. if only two human exist on earth Indeed one of them is representative of God.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
There is no such evidence because that's not what evolution says, arrrrg Jesus Christ I'm going to tear my eyes out!!!! Why would a dog transform into a wolf? Evolution isn't just a random dipping of a species into another. Species are borne out from an ancestral species through events of speciation where the two separated populations go on to become modern animals. No ancestor of a modern animal lives today. A lot of transitional phases and intermediaries can be found in the fossil record. As for human and apes, humans are part of the great ape family. What I think you mean is chimpanzee. That's not how evolution works. Let me illustrate it for you:
What you seem to think:
-------------- chimp ----------- humans
What evolution says:
common ancestor: Not a friggin chimp___________ chimp
|________________________________________humans
But if you want some more archaic form of man, you make look at Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Erectus...right down to the Australopithecii which are considered to be our ancestors and yet are not classified as humans.
I'll concede your next point.
Also it doesn't matter if you give Adam a wife. If the population all have Adam and Eve as some very close kin, deleterious mutations will flourish and humans will collapse in a few generations. Diversity is important for survival of a species.
Ok so you can somehow try and fit your religious views with evolution. It's much better in my view than being a Creationist so I respect that. I do hope you get the difference between being descended from a chimp and sharing a common ancestor. Peace...for now.
Watch this, it's short: http://youtu.be/wh0F4FBLJRE
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
sorry, please explain this.
"Why would a dog transform into a wolf?"
I mean any evidence that show one species transformed to other species. if all species have one common ancestor so the species should transform to other specie. is there any evidence in this change? for example a fossil in middle stage between two specie. or any observed case in past 300 years of evolution research.
'No ancestor of a modern animal lives today. "
but fossils exist and a fossil between human and non-human ancestors of human should be found.
"A lot of transitional phases and intermediaries can be found in the fossil record."
is there any fossil proving such transitional phase between human and any non-human ancestor existed?
"Australopithecii which are considered to be our ancestors and yet are not classified as humans."
i mean any evidence (like fossil) at transitional phase. you say they are not human.
I mean a fossil between for example Australopithecii and human.
"Also it doesn't matter if you give Adam a wife.'
I not give its in Koran.
'If the population all have Adam and Eve as some very close kin, deleterious mutations will flourish and humans will collapse in a few generations.'
why?
"Diversity is important for survival of a species."
what you mean by Diversity? and is necessary for survival? if yes why?
can different ethnics considered Diversity?
"Ok so you can somehow try and fit your religious views with evolution."
to be honest I am not fitting. Koran and sayings of prophet are from 1400 years ago. how I can change Koran to fit something? can you show any evidence from Koran showing other thing than what I said?
this is what Koran says. Koran speaks about people after Adam and never said before them no human existed.
also Koran says all thing are created by God but Adam and Eve came to earth near 7000 years ago. evolution can be method of God for creation.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
I am reading link http://www.talkorigins.org/
its very interesting and useful. but only sometimes it is biased specially about Koran. they do not know Koran and disprove it by few false claims.
I had studies about Evolution before mostly from wikipedia.
but this is link is very good for evolution.
yes knowledge about evolution was little and now I know more.
so I should change my comment:
what religion says is this:
1- some humans (some references say 7 generation) existed before Adam and Eve and extincted (with no detail).
2- near 7000 years ago two special human (wisdom/free will/representative of God in earth/having prophet) Adam and Eve created by God. and they had no sin. it was decision of God.
3- humans after Adam and Eve are children of Adam.
4- during history some famous prophet sent by God to humans like Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (peace upon them)
5- all species are created from water then some walk on belly, some walk on two leg and some walk on four leg.
revolution says:
1- species adapt to environment in long time. (natural selection) (accepted by science)
2- all species have common ancestor (still hypothesis but high probable but can have exceptions like Adam and Jesus (PBUH))
3-a specie can transform to other specie (accepted)
4- the transform from one specie to other species is done by a random process (natural selection )
5- no idea about how first life started.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Australopithecii come right before the Homo genus (Homo). If you're looking for evidence of beings that are not quite Men yet, then the Australopithecii are what you're looking for (why would we call them men if they're not completely human?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils go fish.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
some times no. sorry some times I am busy.
thanks for your link. I had been seen it before. but my knowledge about evolution was little.
I was considering Evolution as a theory with low certainty but I could understand it has developed and has high certainty.
I should admit you converted me to evolutionist by teaching me evolution.
evolution have developed very fast in past decades.
prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said:
"who taught me a word made me servant."
Peter Maynard
As someone said recently, almost anywhere else in the world except the bible belt in USA if someone said they did not believe in evolution they would be regarded as deluded idiots.
The odd thing is that if you are so inclined to be religious - evolution does not even conflict with a liberal belief in god. What it conflicts with is a literal simple minded childish belief in the bible.
But so many people prefer to fall back on what they think is a literal belief in the bible - not understanding that sophisticated religious adherents elsewhere do not regard it literally.
And in fact if they stopped to think about it neither do they. I'll bet that 100% of people who regard themselves as christian fundamentalists pick and choose which tracts to take literally - they just choose not the think about the others. How can one literallly believe such an error ridden book. Its logically impossible
Here is one list of biblical contradictions..............................
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm
and another of errors
http://atheism.about.com/od/biblecontradictionserror/tp/Scientific-Historical-Errors-Mistakes-Bible.htm
I do not believe that this will change the mind of one "God -botherer" (as we call them in Australia ). Instead they will rationalise this away too.
As I have said elsewhere in this thread, never try to pursuade asomeone with religious mania by logic. It does not work because logic is not what they believe nor is it what drives them.
Blind belief in the face of logic is what buys them brownie points for a place in heaven and throwing logic at them only locks them more and more strongly into their own illogic. None of this proves or disproves the existence of god - although i myself am distinctly on he agnostic side. But there are millions of liberal religious people in the world who accept religious books only as man made documents that seeks some kind of divinity.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
people prefer to believe God.
but in fact there is no conflict between God and evolution.
people have two big mistake:
1- people do not know true God and true creation
2- people do not know true evolution
if people learn both well then people believe both.
the main problem is religious leaders like church wanting control people and want keep their power even if by feeding false beliefs to people.
I believe both in evolution and God and do not see any conflict between them.
J Ali
These arguments are so pointless........because it is so clear God exists......but he is not a body.....or anything like we know.......There is absolutely nothing like him.... He is the Lord of the heavens and the earth.........as I said, If you study philosophy really well.....you will understand that God must exist.....it is a necessity.....He is the necessary being...
look into yourselves......know who you are....know what you can reach......realize your reality.......you are in need of God....you are in need of an eternal....
The more we argue, the more you will doubt....because argument is on something which should be argued.....God is not arguable.......
You will one day know this better than any philosopher or thinker knew in this world......just wait for death......it is coming for you..
''Their messengers said: Can there be doubt concerning Allah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth? He calleth you that He may forgive you your sins and reprieve you unto an appointed term. They said: Ye are but mortals like us, who would fain turn us away from what our fathers used to worship. Then bring some clear warrant.''
14:10
''And the stupor of death cometh in truth: This is that which thou wast wont to shun.''
leave these worldly pleasures....for they will end.....you will leave this life with nothing in your hands......who will then help you? what will you do? think of death a lot...think of after death....You need The One...
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
but all of them are your beliefs.
its clear for you. but not for people.
people do not consider it anything but claims and myths.
please show one clear philosophical proof in simple language?
J Ali
As you say, people are not looking for the truth.....
''And they say: "There is nothing but our life of this world, we die and we live and nothing destroys us except Ad-Dahr (time). And they have no knowledge of it: they only conjecture.''
45:24
''Or say they: There is madness in him? Nay, but he brought them the truth, but most of them are averse to the truth.''
23:70
Ronald Kimani
Hence the perfect exit clause- Man cannot understand God- which works especially well for those blessed with something called blind faith. There's a reason why is called "blind", and you know, i heard it said somewhere that if a blind man leads another blind man, the two are undoubtedly headed for a pit. And there are fellows who, even when you throw them a rope to pull them out of the pit, would prefer to stay down there, lest they be eaten by a lion out here.. but i deviate.
It's just as possible not to believe in God. After all, the fellow who prolaimed that "God Is Dead" wasn't struck down by a bolt, so perhaps he wasn't that mad after all. The question remains, why don't people allow others the right to believe or not to believe in God? Why do I have to force you to believe in "MY God"? I certainly won't take it kindly if you tried to cram your version of God down my protesting throat, so perhaps my being mindful of my brother/sister requires that I also allow them the right to face their own God, what ever or who ever they choose him/her/it/they to be, when that time comes, if, indeed, it ever will. Live, and let live.
Oh, I have another observation: If this conversation was a measure of our tolerance levels of other's opinions, I wonder how we'd all have scored?
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
human is free at least in beliefs. because no one can see real beliefs in your mind.
but a rational human hears all voices and them follows the best.
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/39:18
if some one is blind so should use his ears well to find the way of becoming seeing.
you do your start and rest is by God:
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/2:257
Peter Maynard
As if we are going to convince those who are patently suffering from religious mania that god does not exist (we cannot even get most of them to admit that evolution is real despite all of the supporting evidence). And to an enlightened mind this concept does not necessarily even contradict the existence of a god -the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. And yet they are too rigidly locked into a pattern of thought that prevents them from countenancing the idea.) Instead we are supposed to believe that the world was created with all species intact in 4004 BC on the afternoon of August 4th (or some such tosh) based on Bishop Usher of Ireland counting backwards and using all of the "begats" in the bible. OK I might be able to believe this - but only after losing about 75 IQ points.
Or as if they are suddenly going to get all of us to have the equivalent of a fontal lobotomy and start believing that everything in the bible is the literal truth - i.e. literal truth that trumps all of science's discoveries over the past 2000 years....
It aint gunna happen!
Logic does not work with them as they are speaking an entirely different language based on a set of entirely different assumptions about the world. Every time we present compelling evidence the response is "You prove it" (As if that is not what one just did!)
Honestly its like trying to discuss the works of Proust or Paul Dirac with a cat!
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
really he said it?!
"Or as if they are suddenly going to get all of us to have the equivalent of a fontal lobotomy and start believing that everything in the bible is the literal truth "
which version of Bible you mean and which is the same Bible God sent to Jesus (PBUH)?
"Honestly its like trying to discuss the works of Proust or Paul Dirac with a cat! "
agree.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
can I know your idea about this book?
can this make people believe God?
http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/
its from Imam Sadiq (PBUH)
Christophe Cop 500+
Neither did the pagan he described...
I stopped reading somewhere in chapter 2... Too much ad hominem towards non-believers doesn't make it fun to read... (I deduce the author is heavily biased).
Furthermore, I claim evolutionary theory has both more elegance in it's simplicity as more predictability.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
2+2=4 is old also.
can you show at least one rational error in that book?
please know that I love you and as a friend or at least a human I recommend you read it more. it is not a usual book. also note that it is for 1722 and please consider the scientific facts of 1722 and compare them to sayings of this book. this book is sent from God. and is not from ay human although said trough a human. but it is not at the level of Koran.
"(I deduce the author is heavily biased)"
biased does not mean being false. are not yourself biased about religion?
simple is not always the truth. although evolution is a useful theory but not all its internal parts are necessarily truth. specially random species and transform of a specie into another specie. but some parts like natural selection are clearly truth. any case of transform from one specie to other is found yet? for example during 300 years of revolution research does a dog transformed to fox?
Christophe Cop 500+
I'll show you one rational error.
second paragraph chapter 1, after teeth and beard:
"Can you imagine the manner in which man, through these different stages, is led and perfected, can take place without a Designer and a Creator?"
My answer would be: yes I can.
It follows with:
"Do you think if the menstrual flow had not been diverted to it while an embryo in the womb, would it not have been dried up just like the plants deprived of water?"
Now that is not the only alternative, and seduces the listener that the answer should be 'no'.
The logical error is that a refutation of the argument of a creator implies that all other descriptions are to be refuted as well.... Which is clearly a logical error.
(he then makes the same mistake a dozen of times in the following paragraphs)
I'll do one more:
"If abiogenesis (spontaneous creation without specific design) can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of error ad perplexity, since these two are opposed to abiogenesis."
Here the error of ambiguity is made.
The generation does not need to be purposeful as a final purpose, but in order to survive, it can be considered as purposefull...
of course creation is opposed to abiogenesis, but balanced results are not...
I hope you see that these are clearly errors, and the list can go on and on...
I will not resume reading it... unless you read "freedom evolves" from Daniel Dennet first, deal?
Concerning the fox: I don't know about your question specifically (I thought dogs are more related to wolves though), but when they tried to breed tame foxes, they started to look more and more like dogs (short explanation: the morphological genes are close to the tame-genes)
Tip for next time: try to limit your questions to 1
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
I could not find rational error in your answer. its your answer with no rational argument.
"Now that is not the only alternative, "
what is other alternate?
please note: "if the menstrual flow had not been diverted to it ".
there is only two option: flow diverts or not diverts.
"The logical error is that a refutation of the argument of a creator implies that all other descriptions are to be refuted as well"
I do not understand what is other description. there is only two option for nature/universe/existance:
1- with creator
2- without creator
"The generation does not need to be purposeful as a final purpose, but in order to survive, it can be considered as purposefull... "
agree. but it said and definitely balanced creation. if it was only purposeful generation OK.
"I will not resume reading it... unless you read "freedom evolves" from Daniel Dennet first, deal?"
OK agree. I try read it ASAP.
"Concerning the fox:"
fox was only an example. I mean 300 years of research with recording and observation can be considered long time and at least one case of random transfer of one specie to another specie should be observed during 300 years.
although two different specie can be very similar still they are two different specie.
"Tip for next time: try to limit your questions to 1 "
OK and appreciate.
Christophe Cop 500+
assumptions:
A
if A then B
exercise 1:
A.
logical conclusion: B
exercise 2:
not A
logical conclusion: B or not B
=> disproving A does not make B untrue...
in this example, it is more:
A, B, C, D, E, F
and the author suggest there are only 2 possible relations between those statements. if you cannot see there are more possible ways to connect different claims, you can indeed not see that by discarding one of the claims does not discard all the claims.
J Ali
if you base your arguments on the reading of the translation......then your arguments are correct.......but if you read the arabic version........which is the original, and is quite different...... then your arguments are not in place........
the guy probably put the Arabic in google language or something...lol...it is unclear and vague and does not even match the Arabic.......
again I'm sorry about that.......I always get angry when I see poor translations.......S.R, did you translate that? :P just joking......
Don't forget to read my comments after your comment :
''You're answers are clever, but you keep asking questions and more info...........''
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
"in this example, it is more:
A, B, C, D, E, F"
the text is about if the nature has creator and designer or not.
so there is only two option.
I can not Imagine any other possible option.
is it possible nature has 50% creator and 50% without creator?
please explain what you mean by more than two option about designer and creator.
Dear J Ali,
some sayings of Imam Ali (PBUH) is available here in English:
http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/
you can show your philosophical arguments about God if you want to reference to Imam Ali (PBUH)
Christophe Cop 500+
=> There are a lot of reasons why and how a woman bears a child without needing a god.
I was not saying part was created and part was not.
I tried to make clear that the argument to accept a god was not good, as 'not created' does not imply the drying up of the menstrual flow.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
there is only two option:
there is a designer.
there is no designer.
the second option can have many reasons but all should have no designer for example random.
how billions of atoms and electrons can make such designed body.
please look to nature at atom and electron level and how they shaped nature. it is impossible without design and control and law.
it is enough only electrons change their directions around nuclear and go out of atom. then no nature.
I do not understand how there is no designer.
Peter Maynard
It was the Council incidentally which decided - by vote - that Jesus was "of the substance of god." Something that the early church never held (to early christians, Jesus was a teacher and a messiah but not a god.)
Apart from my own rational belief in science and evidence rather than religion and faith, its hard to treat religion (certainly christian religion and dogma) as being in the least bit credible in anything it says when one reads its history in detail. Of the way in which jesus the historical figure was changed by human processes (often using the most brutal force) into jesus the god figure. When you add to that the brutal and quite evil treatment of women, jews and others, by a religion that professes to be about love, one has to regard it with the deepest possible scepticism.
But sadly its not limited to christianity. Other religions have the same failings. Most notably a predeliction to threats and violence against those who believe differently.
BTW if you think the "inquisition" no longer exists, think again. It only changed its name. The present pope was Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly known as the "Sacred Congregaton of the Holy Office," ......the historical Inquisition. (quoted from wikipedia entry on the pope.) its methods may be less vrulent but its aims aren't.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
can you show some proof?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
Peter Maynard
With an ounce of irony I might add. And what about the violence offered by nations with a christian heritage against your co-religionists (I am sure you would at least agree with that!)
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
are you sure?
why our universe has laws of physics?
http://www.ted.com/conversations/2142/why_our_universe_has_laws_of_p.html
also please read:
http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/
about birkah (covering face) please note Islam says when a woman should make herself beautiful for his husband but when go to public she should cover her body unless face and hands from stranger people. but birkah is not necessary in Islam but some women prefer to wear it.
"With an ounce of irony I might add."
sorry what means this?
'I am sure you would at least agree with that!"
agree with what?
Jim Moonan 30+
Peter Maynard
The other religions DEMAND belief on pain of eternal damnation or with the offering of reward in some other life. As I understand it, judaism does not. It basically says. ....To be a good person you should behave in a certain way.
The focus is on making this world a better place, not on seeking reward or avoiding punishment in some other life. In fact I think the official position in judaism is more along the lines that we cannot know what happens after death so its best not to inquire too deeply about it. Instead one must focus on being a better human being in this life as thats all we know for sure and all we can control.
Pretty intelligent really! It does not demand or require belief, it only asks for good behaviour. its about practice, not belief. (Neurologist Oliver Sacks said as much of his parents - that judaism is not big on belief and his parents were practicing jews, not believing jews). Much more acceptable and sensible!
I cannot possibly see how any religion can say "believe this and you will be rewarded - otherwise you will be punished" and retain its moral authority. You cannot compel belief - only a pretense of belief. And this is the problem I have with the notion of a god. If I understand this about human nature then I think its a pretty safe bet that an all-knowing god would. So I must be agnostic.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
do not you consider any risk for afterlife and God?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager