Perhaps my cynicism is showing through. For the record, I feel I may have been a bit harsh on Jon the Geek. For that I sincerely I apologize to you, Jon, and anyone else I may have annoyed. As I get older I think I can be comfortable admitting when I behave like an ass.
It’s true that I haven’t seen any direct attacks on anyone’s belief here and **Jon ** has openly stated that he can respect one for their beliefs whether he agrees with those beliefs. I can’t fully explain why this thread got me so fired up other than this comment:
which struck me as, “I really wish I knew how people can delude themselves so.” That seemed a bit disrespectful. I concede that my translation is based on my own perceptions as I’ve experienced a few “harmless comments” that turned out to be backhanded remarks.
It’s not that I believe one cannot show interest in the perspectives of others, on the contrary, I think it’s healthy. I’ve just not experienced many people asking to be “witnessed to” for no apparent reason. He says he wants to understand something that seems to be innately incomprehensible to him. The only thing that these posts have demonstrated is that believers believe because they have faith that what convinced them was evidence of God. Without faith, religion/the belief in God is completely lost on Jon and the rest of us atheists, agnostics, whatever.
Besides, what good is a Great Debate if you can’t debate something? :::tongue firmly stuck in cheek:::
I don’t think I am moving it back a step. The primary difference that I see is while you are discussing something that appears to not have a source, I am assuming that something is the source. To me this seems more logical than grasping for an idea such as a sourceless universe. In keeping with reason, shouldn’t you be seaching for a source (whether apart from a god or not)? Sourceless anything is too great a leap for me.
I confess scant knowledge regarding DNA. My first thought is, “who said it is junk”? Secondly, even if it is junk, since when does junk have no place in design. The best designed automobile on the market still emits some kind of junk. Finally, regarding imprecision, lets assume for a minute that you are God, and you are the consumate gentleman; that you allow creatures autonomy within their existance and are gracious enough to accept their denial of your existance and their wish to live as they please. Would that gracious act not allow for and, in fact, ensure copious imprecision? Is it not possible that the willingness of mankind to live in ways not conducive to preservation of good health is greatly responsible for the observed imprecision?
We are doing a lot of hypothesising today. If there is a God, would not science be the system by which he governs the universe? Don’t call it God if you don’t want to, but science itself recognizes the inevitability of a source. You call it the source; I call it God, what’s the difference, every explanation leaves some questions unanswered. Some of us extrapolate a name to fill in those gaps, if for no other reason, simply because there doesn’t seem to be a better alternative.
I don’t look at something amazing and say, “God designed that”. I suspect that you don’t always look at something amazing and say, " the rules of science brought that into being." I look at something amazing and say, “that’s amazing” and the awe that fills my being at anything profoundly beautiful, utterly majestic, or stunningly complex might be simply the firing of sequences in my head or it might be a divine moment. I don’t gain anything by devaluing these rich experiences to the level of mechanical processes. They are mystical or divine…in the end, what is the difference?
When I speak of God, I do not have in mind a bearded, elderly patron sitting on a cloud, twirling his fingers to produce effects in nature. I have in mind the force or knowledge that precedes all; the source that can’t be found empirically. I, and many before me, have chosen to call that God. It is helpful for many to construct a visualization of a man-like being, with human characteristics. This is all, however devotional, purely speculative. For me, the bottom line remains this: something is the original source of everything. No one has been able to give me any rational explanation for what that source is. I find it preposturous to conclude that their simply isn’t a source for some things. My conclusion is that, faulty as it must be, the conception of a primary, preexistant intelligence makes more sense than any other theories of which I am aware.
During the Yule, '84 celebration with my circle in New Orleans, LA, I was struck by some divine force. Right after the high priest had made his invocation to Freyr for the evening, I was suddently struck by a nearly overwhelming feeling of …well, it’s like it was electricity running thru my body. I almost lost consciousness. I did get an immediate erection. I felt like I could do hand-springs around the circle. I don’t know exactly how long it lasted but afterwards, I knew something was there and it had told me so in no uncertain terms.
I was not asking for divine revelation nor had I been fasting or lacking in sleep or other things that could have induced an extreme altered state of consciousness at that time.
It took me a while to figure out exactly what had happened to me that night. It was not immediately understandable 'til after some thought and contemplation.
Now that, my friends, is an intellectual proposition! “Anyone who doesn’t see the world as I see it is stupid.”
I am in awe at the depth of this post, although I must admit, the dizzying intellect behind it might have more impact if he could spell “reasoning” properly.
Actually, you didn’t. This is an old trick, very well documented.
Yes, I am lurking on this board. Not posting b/c the OP doesn’t apply to me. But I did want to mention this one. I hate to see faith grounded in hucksterism.
Seems to me that those who base their faith on their own experience, their observations of the world as it is day to day, on the convictions of their own hearts, or that “still, small voice” – these are the ones who will be strongest in their faiths, be the best witnesses for their God, and do the most good in this world which sorely needs more Mother Teresas and fewer Benny Hinns.
For more on common tent-show tricks, see the film Marjoe (made by a former child evangelist who got sick of the business and decided to expose it before quitting), the book The Faith Healers by Carl Sagan and James Randi, and this article by Dr. Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch (excerpt: I also watched him “lengthen” the leg of a man who limped up to the stage, supposedly because one of his legs was shorter than the other. The audience may have been impressed with this feat, but I was not. Before the show began, I noted that the man was one of Grant’s assistants and walked normally.)
PS: I also saw the leg trick exposed by hidden camera in another venue.
As an atheist I do not deny that Love exists. I doubt many atheists would. I also don’t deny that there seems to be something, call it a spirit, call it whatever you want, that distinguishes living things from non-living things. To me there’s something more than a ‘functioning bioligical system’ about life.
As an atheist I simply find it very very difficult to believe that a) there is a single all powerful sentient creator. b) there is a heaven c) there was born, of a virgin, a man who could perform miracles and was the son of the above named creator d) that there was EVER anyone born who had direct contact with creator.
You make it sound like atheists are unfeeling logical robots.
If there is a God, the relationship between God and Man resembles the relationship between Man and Dog.
An analogy: God is to Man as Man is to Dog.
Man does not have the brainpower to comprehend the gloriousness and abilities of God. Dog cannot comprehend the mentality and machinations of Man. When someone brings home a new variety of treat for his/her dog, to the dog it’s nothing less than a miracle.
Note: I’m not really a believer, but I can accept the possibility of an entity which is beyond my understanding.
