The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Adams Bolero View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 07 2009
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 679

Posted: December 06 2009 at 08:36

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

The reason why many Atheists don't believe in (any) God is that there is no evidence that it exists. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, if evidence should exist. I can refer you to the other thread about Evolution vs. Creationism - one of the pieces of evidence that support the existence of God should be evidence that the world was created like it was described in the Bible. But when we look at the actual evidence (fossils, DNA etc) it suggests that it happened completely differently, and everything suggests a development that was not guided in any way (there was no designer).

Nice use of words Mike, but your opinion that God doesn't exist is at the most an intelligent guess, an act of faith as it's an act of faith to say he exists.

Mt Progfreak wrote:

This is why I say that I'm certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the kind of God that we're talking about when we use the word "Theism" doesn't exist. There may exist supernatural beings outside or beyond this universe, but even then two things would be clear:

1. They wouldn't interfere with life on earth, so their existence would be totally irrelevant to our personal lifes.
2. It still would not explain existence in general, and that question ("why do we exist") will probably never be answered. Even if you try to answer it through your (illogical) Christian God, you would next have to explain who created God, and why.

Beyond your reasonable doubt Mike.

We don't have to explain anything, we believe by an act of faith beyond the need of evidence, even if many of us feel we have personal evidence of God's existence.

You say the Christian god is illogical, according to my logic, is harder to explain the existence of humans as a series of random events exclusively.

Iván

There's no such thing as "your logic" vs. "my logic", "your reasonable doubt", "my reasonable doubt". The fossils and DNA are there, for everyone to see and verify. It doesn't require an act of faith, evidence is the same for you and me. It's objective evidence which supports the theory of evolution and contradicts the theory of creationism and intelligent design, and thereby contradicts Christian belief.

People have a tendency to look for evidence that supports their current belief, and to ignore evidence that contradicts it ... kind of like this fallacy:

If from X follows something I don't like -> X must be false.
IF from X follows something I like -> X must be true.

It's the same with evolution for Christians ... if they really think about it, the see that it contradicts their belief. That's why so many of them dismiss it - not because they are convinced that it's false, but because its implications make them uncomfortable.

Do you realise that the intelligent design and creationism movement is a modern American invention and does not represent Christian thinking on evolution?

Evolution is accepted by most mainstream Christian denominations. You caricature all Christians to be part of the intelligent Design movement; you said ’it’s the same with evolution for Christians’ when you should have said ‘It’s the same with evolution for the intelligent design movement in America’.

Your central claim that evolution contradicts Christianity is rejected by the majority of Christians and by Christian intellects like St Augustine who said 1500 years ago that the book of Genesis does not have to be taken literally and that those who use it for science risk having Christianity discredited.

The modern theory of Creationism and Intelligent Design represent only fundamental conservatives in American and not the majority of Christians so please stop using Evolution as a means to discredit Christianity as a whole.

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 06 2009 at 09:25

^ Certainly there is a difference between the different types of Christianity - and my intention was certainly not to "caricature" Christians. But even then I still maintain that evolution is not really compatible with the very idea of Creation. Yesterday I had a look at the pages of the Vatican (Iván linked to them), and they said that although the Catholic church for example adopts the general idea of evolution, it still insists on the story of Adam and Eve, and that humans differ from animals in that they have a soul, which is "added" to the body by God. This, like I said, contradicts the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 06 2009 at 09:41

Dean wrote:

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

There's no such thing as "your logic" vs. "my logic", "your reasonable doubt"

Yes there are different perceptions of logic, what is logical for you may not be logical for me. Some peope say it's logic to believe there' is no life on another planets because we should have seen them, others (like me) believe that existing so many galaxies and for that reason billions of billions of planets, it's logical to believe we are the only ones.

....

Iván

i don't see the logic in the high-lighted phrase, could you explain that further?

Yes Dean , I for got a word NOT

others (like me) believe that existing so many galaxies and for that reason billions of billions of planets, it's logical to believe we are NOT the only ones.

Lapsus calami

Iván

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: December 06 2009 at 09:44

^ that's what I thought, but I didn't want to jump to conclusions or put words in your mouth.

What?

ExittheLemming View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420

Posted: December 06 2009 at 09:55

Dean wrote:

Negoba wrote:

I personally think humans have a need for spirituality, and that it will "evolve" for lack of a better word "adapt to the environment" being more accurate. Religion that denies the existence of science that we use every day will fizzle out...it's metaphors are no longer useful.

However, there are needs and questions that I believe science cannot answer, not because it's flawed, but because it is designed to do only certain things. I believe spiritual (or even religious) ideas will continue to flourish as that is IMO part of the human condition.

I agree - that need for spirituality is a natural consequence of what we are (sentient ... for the want of a better word, though I think that is another word that is misused). Science can not replace that need, though it can drive the adaption to changing knowledge and understanding, however there will always be resistance to change - that is both understandable and expected.

Given that I don't countenance an eternal spirit (or anything eternal for that matter) Couldn't the need for spirituality really be just a psychological need to make our existence more satisfying or our mortality more palatable ?. Funny thing is, would the bicameral minds of our ancestors have derived greater succour from science alone than we sentients do ?.

Tom Verlaine put it best:

O Foolish heart crazy thing, you hear any old tune and you sing, you sing.

and

I want a nice little boat made out of ocean

Mission accomplished, I got some poetry into this thread Big smile

Lastly, it seems quite clear to me from history that the types of questions raised in this thread are only encountered when the basic struggle for survival, shelter, clothing, food etc have been largely overcome by humans i.e. in 1st world democracies - so is the requirement for consolatory 'meaning' extant in 2nd and 3rd world environments to the same extent ? (I'm trying to avoid the conclusion I am a spoiled brat inconsolable at being handed the wrong brand of intangible candy here)

Sorry for rambling

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: December 06 2009 at 10:02

ExittheLemming wrote:

Dean wrote:

Negoba wrote:

I'll buy that (since it fits in with my post-theist view

)

Edited by Dean - December 06 2009 at 10:02

What?

omri

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 1250

Posted: December 06 2009 at 11:10

Wow, very interesting debate.

I think some of you mix the old and new testimony and as far as I know they are not the same. In the old testimony (the one I know much better for obvious reasons) there is no dichotomy between body and soal (and the hebrew word is pronounced "NEFESH") and when you die you are dead and in the end of time where all people will re-live, the flesh and soal will both ressoruct (actually I am not sure this ressoruction is written in the bible, I think it is a later belief but I should check that).

If I remember right the split of flesh and soal is a christian idea (later addopted also by many jews) that in a way came from Hinduism (the idea that next time you will born in a differnt phase according to how you did in this period).

Still, belief is what one decides to feel with no proof (and Ivan is right, there's no proof that god exists and certainly no proof that god do not exist) and each decision is O.K. Believers are in no way better or worse than non believers (unless they start killing others who thinks different but as I said here few days ago people do such things because that's how they are and religion is only an excuse).

omri

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 06 2009 at 11:10

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

[

You're talking about speculation in the absence of evidence. We can neither visit those planets to confirm our speculations, nor can we observe any traces that would indirectly confirm or contradict those speculations.

It's different with evolution ... we have plenty of evidence, both present and past, to help us decide whether the theory of evolution is true.

Please, don't place words, I'm not talking about evolution, we accept evolution, you are the ones that don't accept the existence of God because you can neither confirm or contradict the existence of God.

In this case before lack of evidence, we must use our logic, my logic says that there's an immortal soul in man that differences us from all animals, your logic says there's no soul or God.

Mr Progfreak wrote:

]
The word "reasonable" is the key here ... I don't believe in the jury system, because I don't believe that jury members can be as impartial as the have to be. Either there is enough evidence to convict someone (in which case you don't need a jury) or there isn't (in which case there should not be a conviction). Like this week in Italy (the Knox case) ... if the whole case is just based on circumstantial evidence (which some media claimed to be - I haven't been there myself, obviously), there should not have been a trial to begin with.

Well, Mike according to most systems, you could reach a conviction with several circumstantial evidences, for example if you :

Capture the accused running from the crime scene
You know that the accused is enemy of the victim
The accused has threatened the victim
The accused had no reason to be in the crime scene
The accused had an affaire with the wife's victim (who wasn't the crime scene).
The accuse is violent

None of them is a smoking gun, all are circumstantial, but the addition of all is enough to convict the accused....But to the logic of some jurors (Or some judges in the case of Judge trial) that may be not enough.

Is it reasonable to believe the accused killed his enemy or to believe he was casually there? That depends on the jury or a judge in a system like ours.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

The passage "under God's guidance" is the problem. Again, the evidence strongly suggests that there was no "guidance" involved other than natural selection. What the church has done is (or to be precise: the "liberal", modern churches) that they abandoned the Bible.

What evidence? The evidence only points towards facts that can be proved, the existemnce of a force that guided the evolution can't be proved or disproved...Still the scientists don't know for sure what caused the Big Bang.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

(It's not a lecture by Dawkins, and it's not about biology. The speaker is Dan Dennett, a philosopher, and the subject is the situation that clergymen of today find themselves in. I really found it very interesting, and I would be interested in your opinion)

Sorry Mike, I don't have time to watch 58 minutes of video, and a Phillosopher's OPINION is usually denied by other phillosophere, not precisely a smoking gun either.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

There's a lot of research in the field of neuroscience, and all that points towards a purely materialistic explanation of our brain functions (including empathy and spirituality, which are normally attributed to the concept of "souls"). In essence, this means that all the aspects that make us human, that are only found in humans, are very likely to have evolved from our animal ancestors, just like the other features of our bodies.

You are a very interesting person. you talk about evidence when you want to deny the existence of God,. you talk about evidence of evidence of evolution, but when it's the turn of talking about the spiritual component of man, you talk about "Points towards" or "Very likely", in other words when you believe it will help your case, you ask for evidence, but when you find no evidence, some conditional suppositions are enough...Again, very comfortable.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

You can object, but there's no question that the concept of evolution by natural selection is not compatible with the concept of "souls", no matter which concessions a church may make (like "ok, we can't deny our relation to apes and other animals anymore, so let's meet them half the way").

In first place, the Church doesn't make concesions, already Pius XII talked about evolution, ehen most of the religious peope denied it, but this doesn't mean anything to you. The Vatican has one of the largest onbservatoies where the evidences of the Big Bng are being studied, in the same word the Vatican has researchers studying the evolution, becaues they know evolution is absolutely compatible with the existence of God.

Again you are very special:

If a Church denies the evolution...WRONG,
If another Church believes in Intelligent design...WRONG AGAIN,
If the Catholic Church accepts the evolution...WRONG FOR THE THIRD TIME BECAUSE IT'S THE CHURCH.

Please Mike, you accept the ideas and theories depending in who is the author.

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Science is dismantling religion, piece by piece. I simply don't feel the need to "sugar-coat" this ... you can try to ignore it, but you can't simply dismiss the arguments. To say we are forbidden to apply scientific principles to questions that used to be reserved for philosophers or theologists is offensive to me, and - in time - I think that most people will come around to accept the plausible alternative, as opposed to the dogmatic, ridiculous (because it contradicts reality) position.

Dismantling?

Religion is stronger than ever, when I was a child, people was ashamed of saying they were religious, now young people aroound the world are not only accepting religion, but proudly takling radical positions (Which I find unacceptable).

Science may prove the evolution, but will never prove or deny the existence of the spíritrual component.

There's an anecdote, I don't remember if it was Michelangello or Raffael, made a portrait, but he was not satisfied with the shoes of the character, he called a shoemaker to give an advice. He told the artistr which was the mistake and he repaired it.

After this, the shoemaker told the artist that the nose was also terribly painted...THe artist replied "shoemaker limit youradvice to your shoes".

In other words, let science explain the physical evolution, let the Church explain the spiritual component.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 06 2009 at 11:59

omri

Forum Senior Member

Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Israel
Status: Offline
Points: 1250

Posted: December 06 2009 at 11:13

Ivan,

Why do you think animals have no soal ?

I see no problem with animals have soals and I don't see how should it affect yours (or anyone's) religion.

omri

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 06 2009 at 11:30

Let's leave it at that, Iván ... we've both presented our opinions. Smile

Iván wrote:

Maybe just this much: Your main criticism of my position seems to be that I am biased when it comes to evidence. I don't think so at all. Let me try to sum up my position:

I think that evolution by natural selection is what happened on this planet. I accept it as fact, just as I accept gravity as fact. Having said that, I also think that evolution by natural selection explains what you call "immortal soul" more elegantly than any Christian belief system can. And *no*, the Vatican does not accept the theory of evolution by natural selection, they explicitly exclude the creation of humans (Adam & Eve) and the immortal soul. My doubt of religion (with Christian belief just as an example) is further confirmed by the numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible, which various liberal movements of Christianity are trying to fix, which is futile to begin with since it contradicts the initial concept of their religion, being that the Bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of God. In other words: I couldn't accept the concept of an infallible God who's inerrant word has, in fact, erred.

If you want further, in depth explanations, I will really have to point to the excellent presentations by people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Andy Thomson, Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss ... and many, many more scientists who are much more versed on their special fields than I could ever be.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 06 2009 at 11:54

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 06 2009 at 11:32

omri wrote:

Ivan,

Why do you think animals have no soul ?

I see no problem with animals have souls and I don't see how should it affect yours (or anyone's) religion.

Because the church says so. Wink

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 06 2009 at 11:47

omri wrote:

Ivan,

Why do you think animals have no soal ?

I see no problem with animals have soals and I don't see how should it affect yours (or anyone's) religion.

I don't know.

According to Saint Augustine no, but according to Aristotle yes. The Greeks term means breath, in reference to the motion spirit common to men and animals

In Summa Theologicae Saint Thomas talks about certain form of soul in animals.

In 1990 Pope John Paul II admited the existence of a soul in animals, but not created in the image of God as the human soul.

I'm Catholic, but open to other opinions, some Budhists (Tibetan specifically) admit that the soul of animals and men are the same, as a fact according to them a human may reincarnate in an animal..

I respect opinions wherever hey come, I'm Catholic, but accept the importance of all other religions, as I said on another thread, when in Jerusalem I prayed in a Catholic Church, a Mosque and a Sinagogue to the God oof Abraham.

When I said "unlike humans", i did because as a Catholic I have to respect what the Pope said, about the human and animal souls being of a different nature...But still have my doubts.

Iván

EDIT:

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

omri wrote:

Ivan,

Why do you think animals have no soul ?

I see no problem with animals have souls and I don't see how should it affect yours (or anyone's) religion.

Because the church says so. Wink

Read your reply with the smiley after I finished this one. ,please read this post, you will notice your prejudices and lack of knowledge in this issues.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 06 2009 at 12:02

stonebeard View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057

Posted: December 06 2009 at 11:54

Negoba wrote:

That is, until humans evolve past the need for spirituality.

In fact, I think community is more important, and a sense of belonging in something is more important to most religious people than belief in what cannot be seen.

My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 06 2009 at 12:01

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Mike wrote:

Because the church says so. Wink

Read your reply with the smiley after I finished this one. ,please read this post, you will notice your prejudices and lack of knowledge in this issues.

The popes say a lot of things if the day is long (A saying in Germany). A couple of days ago the current pope said that condoms cause AIDS.

Let me quote a page that you used on the previous page (http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp).

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 06 2009 at 12:02

stonebeard View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057

Posted: December 06 2009 at 12:03

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

In other words, let science explain the physical evolution, let the Church explain the spiritual component.

Iván

1) Not convinced there is a spirit, let alone a spiritual element to evolution.

2) I have no reason to suppose any religion, book, denomination, or anything besides science can adequately explain a spiritual element, were it to exist. And if one were, we have no way of knowing whether the explanation is true or not. There's no way of testing, there's no reason to believe. Besides faith. Which is not really a good reason.

In general, I think your previous assertions of different "kinds" of logic for faith and not-faith are iffy.

Edited by stonebeard - December 06 2009 at 12:09

My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 06 2009 at 12:05

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

The popes say a lot of things if the day is long (A saying in Germany). A couple of days ago the current pope said that condoms cause AIDS.

What a Pope says as a scientist or his opinions, are fallible to us, we believe in what he says "Ex Cathedra" as infallible.

As a human he may fail and never talked about condoms "Ex Catherda" or in an enciclical document, so it's only an opinion.

BTW: Your quote proves my previous post "If a Pope said it, has to be wrong", you judge opinions for who proclaims them.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - December 06 2009 at 12:09

Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195

Posted: December 06 2009 at 12:08

^ so aren't you cherry-picking statements by the church ... only accepting them if they fit your point of view?

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557

Posted: December 06 2009 at 12:18

Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ so aren't you cherry-picking statements by the church ... only accepting them if they fit your point of view?

No, only accepting those proclaimed "Ex Cathedra" as infalluible, as our doctrine says.

"We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the Successor of Peter when he speaks ex cathedra as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, an infallibility which the whole Episcopate also enjoys when it exercises with him the supreme magisterium" (Vol. 2, p.392).

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/papal.htm

As an example, if the Pope Ratzinger says Germany is going to win the next World Cup, it's only an opinion and absolutely fallible.

In the same way, issues of health as AIDS are not a matter of faith in the excercize of his supreme magisterium, so only opinions.

Simple and with no contradictions.

Iván

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210

Posted: December 06 2009 at 12:40

I completely accept that my assertion that humans have innate spiritual needs is just that, an idea. It's a shared idea, and the idea may be pointing at a truth that has a better was to describe it.

Community is a need to be certain, and I agree many people belong to churches for primarily that reason.

It may be that what I call the spiritual need is just a desire for a more palatable existence.

But when I come to understand spiritual truths, I get the same sense of Truth I get when I learn scientific ones.

Totally subjective.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

stonebeard View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057

Posted: December 06 2009 at 12:44

Negoba wrote:

It may be that what I call the spiritual need is just a desire for a more palatable existence.

But when I come to understand spiritual truths, I get the same sense of Truth I get when I learn scientific ones.

Totally subjective.

Can you give examples? (Do you meditate, etc.?)

My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!

Poll Question: What are you?
Poll Choice	Votes	Poll Statistics
Theist	26	[30.59%]
Agnostic/Deist	13	[15.29%]
Atheist	46	[54.12%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted