Just Askin' -God and Stuff....

Great Debates
1

Why is it, that with all of our Science and Technology and Doctoral degrees and dissertations… that MOST folks in the world choose to believe in God?

The God of Judah. The God called Christ. The Prophet of God called Muhhamed(sp?)…whatever.

Haven’t we come far enough to discount all of these ‘religions’?

Far enough to convince people that all molecules are the same?

Far enough to agree that every molecule of ‘energy’ is the same as every other single molecule of energy?

Far enough to admit that the snail, the slug, the lady bug, the flea, the ameoba, the fly, the rhesus monkey, the parasites who occupy every niche available to them in or on our bodies are only fellow ‘riders’ in this life?

Far enough to KNOW that the biodynamics making available to us the skills necessary to write words on this screen are only an advanced form of knowledge given by billions of years of selection?

For Gods - Buddahs - Muhhameds-Christs-Maddeline Murray O’Hare’s …sake!

I, am ready to admit. To concede. That every cell in my body and in every cell of every ancestor who came to provide my body, is no different than the cells on the maple tree in my yard who have the same ancestral background.

We are all just energy. Going back to …and giving again…our energy.

Without any concept of God or an overriding Authority on moral issues…I would say that self-interest is the only salient point which matters.

In which case…all bets are off.

If I think the matter is worth getting ‘bloody’ for… and my ‘bloody’ partners think it is as well…who are YOU to stop me?

When we ALL agree that ANY viewpoint must be as valid as other viewpoint (without much legislation to agree upon) …then we are all hostages to every point of view.

Think about it.

All of those ‘lovers of God’…the world had better be ready to thank those who submit their own desires to a higher ‘court.’

If EVERYONE thought their own desires and needs to be the same as or above eveyone else’s…yikes…the world would not be fit to live in.

Hate the concept of God all you want.

It is only the folks who feel a calling higher than what they owe to YOU that keeps you safe.

If you want a world where only the strongest, fitest, survive…how would YOU fare?

2

OBVIOUSLY, far better you. You god-fearing troll.

3

I don’t know that this post will stay here very long, but I’ll reply to you for the sake of an answer.

For a short background - I hold a Ph.D. and have been schooled in the sciences to which you make reference. Furthermore, I am the son of a person who questions religion constantly.

Here’s my answer - and I can certainly only speak for myself as faith is a personal thing.

Taking your assumptions, as I certainly have myself, I believe that when you do get down to the very building blocks - it’s just a little too perfect and structured a system to have been the result of a simple combining of energy.

Take it for what it’s worth - organized religion has certainly been responsible for some hard to take events, but what organized religion had done does not, in my mind at least, refute the existance of a creator.

The building blocks are all a little too perfect in my mind. Do not look at what men and women do and think that since it happens that a God cannot be present.

You suggest that religion is something that people fall back upon for personal (you suggest selfish) reasoning. I would suggest that not believing could be seen in the same manner - it’s taking personal responsibilty off of choices as one is not judged.

Again - personal opinion. Take it for what it is worth.

That’s my answer - and it is mine. I certainly do not claim to speak for another.

4

I wouldn’t like that very much. But I also happen to believe/hope that a “safe” world is possible without religion. I also like to believe that it is possible WITH religion.

People do manage to get by and treat each other decently, even without religion. There already is a “higher court”, and that is the law.

Religion also sometimes leads to intolerance and fighting. Crusades? Holy wars? Those people who feel a higher calling might also very well endanger me.

In either case, judging by our history of wars and bloodshed, it would seem that I am simply naive to believe that a nice, friendly world, with or without religion, is at all possible.

5

Welcome to the SDMB, Laurie. The GQ forum is for questions with factual answers. This is more of a debate, so I’ll move this thread to GD.

Accusations of trolling are inappropriate here. See FAQ - guidelines for posting at the SDMB

bibliophage
moderator GQ

6

Ummm…this was 20 minutes ago. Did we forget to click something?

7

Here’s a perfect example of why we atheists have a bad name. With friends like you…

8

Spiritually speaking, I couldn’t agree more! On a scientific basis, I don’t have enough knowledge to know. BTW, I have grown old but I still have, in my computer room, a large chunk of a maple tree that I used to climb as a child.

I believe that the basic desires and needs of all human beings are the same. If we could acknowledge that with respponsibility and compassion, the world would celebrate every day.

I have great respect for the scientific method. It is my belief that someday scientific investigation will support the concept that we are One with everything. Until that day comes, I don’t have any trouble accepting both a reputable scientific view and my religious faith.

9

We were composing an e-mail on another subject of interest to us and we sort of forgot what we were doing in our other window.

10

“People do manage to get by and treat each other decently, even without religion. There already is a “higher court”, and that is the law.”

The law is interpreted through human minds and eyes and prejudices, though. The Creator is not human, and so does not labor under those fetters; She can be absolutely fair.

11

Am I the only one who finds it funny that the OP is claiming that people should know enough science to do away with God, yet thinks that the cells in the maple tree are the same as hers and that all molecules are the same.

Good times.

12

Has anybody noticed that really dimwitted posts by both atheists and the most narrow-minded of the religious come from people with very low post totals?

13

I don’t know that I would use the word “dimwitted.” It is certainly true that this place tends to either inform people or chase them away, leaving only those with low post counts to submit the glaringly ignorant posts.

14

Nope, but that may be because you tend to notice them more, and since you will not likely know them, you’d tend to not be open to debate them or talk to them as much as you would a member that you’ve known for a while. Not only that, but just being here a little while, relatively speaking, you have a fairly low post count yourslef.

But what does OP stand for? Opening paragraph? Original post?

And survival of the fittest isn’t really survival of the fittest, it’s survival of those who can mass produce while passing on the strengths that allow them to stay at the top of the food chain. You may be strong, but if you can’t pass that strenght on to your children, you will die, and so will they. How many kids do you have?

15

In response to the OP:

I spent my formative years as a Roman Catholic, and immediately after Confirmation quit myself of that religion because I could not accept the heavy-handedness of the dogma. I do not have a Ph.D or a Lit.D yet, and the only reason I enjoy the physical sciences is to make things blow up (chemistry) or to stay up all night (astronomy). I do in part agree with Phydeaux in that I feel that the tiniest building blocks of everything show an ingenuity beyond mere chance. I do not, however, take this to imply that the implicit Creationist ideas are way our world works. And Svt4him, even if you DO pass your strength on to your children, you will die. Life is a cycle and death is part of it. And I don’t have any kids yet, and I may never have kids… does that mean I’ll die faster or slower than one who does?

PS: OP means, in my experience, Opening Post… though I could be wrong.

16

3000+ is not a low post total.

17

I seriously doubt that you were the object of that comment. (Although, I will have to point out that anything below 9,000 posts is a low post count.)

18

All I was trying to point out was that if there was no overriding authority, then everyone’s ideas necessarily have the same merit.

This is not to say that the majority, or those with the most power or the most influence or the most money, or any combination thereof, don’t usually have the ‘say.’

What about that is superior to what anyone claims for the ‘rules’ of their god?

I am a simple person, and have been called ‘dimwitted’, but I’d rather ‘rules’ applied to everyone equally at all times than have them selectively nuanced according to one’s class.

The Ten Comandments might even be a good place to start.

However, if we are all only pieces of matter, though exquisetly and uniquely combined, why make any pretense about rules at all?

19

So now we’re judging people based on their post counts? And if were to post 50,000 dimwitted messages, would I then be considered a genius? :slight_smile:

And dwalin, I’m not saying that a Creator, if there was one, could not pass judgement more fairly than human laws could. I’m saying that laws, imperfect as they may be, do help create order, and perhaps they would be able to even without religious beliefs.

Besides, religion is not perfect, either. It is interpreted through human minds and eyes, much as laws are, and sometimes that interpretation leads to bad things.

20

Not really. Dogface noted a correlation between low post counts and his perception of the number of “dimwitted” post(er)s. If even 50% of low count posters were, in fact, “dimwitted,” (an impossibly high number), it would remain true that 50% were not, so the number of posts would not determine the brightness of one’s wit.

It is true that people who post truly “dumb” texts tend to get driven off this site, so the odds that a “dimwitted” poster will survive to have a high post count are rather low. (That is not to claim that we have no high post count members who demonstrate a lack of intelligence with a certain horrible regularity.)

Judging intelligence by post count is simply not valid.
(But I can still call all you people “newbies.”)