jump to last post 1-37 of 37 discussions (232 posts)

Is Religion Rational or Impulsive?

  1. marinealways24 profile image61
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    A person that has an open belief that joins a religious belief, is this a rational action or an impulsive action?

    It seems a rational action would be to keep an open belief not limiting oneself to a group belief where they are told what to believe. It seems impulsive for the fact that it's a belief joined out of comfort and security along with faith that contradicts the rational.

    1. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      When I first saw the thread title I thought that I already knew what I was going to say  BUT   I'd have to generally agree with your comment.  Beliefs in God are not the same as a religion.  Like saying that a Mustang GT is a Ford ... Therefore a Ford has to be a Mustang GT.
        Some people worship God and some people worship their religion.   
        Wish I could stay and watch this unfold but..  my OX is in the ditch. Gotta go ...  have a great day...

      1. marinealways24 profile image61
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, but how can God be rational rather than impulsive when there is nothing or no one that can rationally define God?

        You have a Great Day. big_smile

        1. profile image0
          SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          God defines Himself. The problem is that many, (most), define God in their own minds and don't listen to His Voice.

          1. profile image61
            (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Or, more precisely, the problem is with those who hear voices.

            1. tantrum profile image60
              tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              hmm

          2. marinealways24 profile image61
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Is pretending to hear voices from something you can't see rational or impulsive?

            1. Cagsil profile image59
              Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Impulsive made to appear rational. smile

              1. marinealways24 profile image61
                marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Perfect.

            2. profile image61
              (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Depends, could be just a mental condition.

              It might be rational for someone to claim they hear voices if they wish to use it to support their belief system or use their belief system as an excuse for their mental condition. This way, they could appear sane... sort of. They appear "special" in that they have communications with their gods and often claim others who can't hear those same voices are not worthy or are denying their gods.

              As far as impulsive is concerned, we've often observed the lengths some will go when they act upon those voices. It can be frightening.

            3. profile image0
              SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Pretending is for children. Irrational are those who believe there is a God but that God cannot speak to men.

          3. Hokey profile image61
            Hokeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Sounds like schizophrenia to me. You take your meds?

            1. profile image0
              SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              This is one of the biggest problems with discussion forums like this one. No one wants to really have a serious discussion. They simply want to insult, use sarcasm or dramatics to make someone else laugh.

              Why is everyone so afraid to have a real discussion?

              1. Hokey profile image61
                Hokeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                There can not be a real discussion with you. Whenever someone asks you something or hits you with a good point you refer back to your man made so called inspired word of God as if it is the only truth. To you if it's in your book then it is truth so there is no discussion with you. You think you have the only one true religion and that if you don't follow Jesus then you are damned. How can we possibly have a serious discussion with you?

              2. Cagsil profile image59
                Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Because, the "GOD" concept, as you so nicely put isn't really of any value and when people like you bring into a discussion, you mock everyone in the discussion. Usually, it's the faithful who bring up the "GOD" concept as though it's a real person and you talk about it as though it's made of something or substance, when the truth of the matter is you know it's not substance and doesn't actually exist.

                There is no reason for the insults, but when you mock those that don't believe, your actions are an insult, which you don't realize. This goes for every single 'faithful' practice.

                If you want to talk about the proper use of 'faith', then we can have a real discussion, but if you want to irrationally justify using your faith in something not of this world, then you actions only harm others. smile

                Just a thought. smile

        2. Daddy Paul profile image63
          Daddy Paulposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          "when there is nothing or no one that can rationally define God? "
          This is an invalid assumption. If one follows the Christian or Islam faith one understands that God is far more powerful to us than an ant is with respect to us.  For an ant to describe a human to another ant would be at best illogical.

          1. getitrite profile image81
            getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



            But at least the other ants can see that there ARE human beings, because...well, humans are material beings.  Your god is imaginary.  Bad analogy, try again.

            1. Daddy Paul profile image63
              Daddy Paulposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              "Your god is imaginary"
              What would make you so sure of that?

              1. Pandoras Box profile image82
                Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                What makes you so sure he isn't?

                1. Daddy Paul profile image63
                  Daddy Paulposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  That is an easy one. I am an engineer and have been for many years. I understand the laws of physics very well. I am also a trained observer due to my profession. After having my fortune told quite accurately and having gone through a painful exorcism after being an engineer for many years I can assure you that there is something more powerful than us. I believe that power to be what most people refer to as God.

                  1. skyfire profile image70
                    skyfireposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    My question is something is controlling us then who is controlling that controller ? If there is no controller for our controller then that is our pure assumption, and if there is controller to our controller then this is chain *ad infinitum*

                  2. getitrite profile image81
                    getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



                    You did answer the question very easily, but some of us are not as sure, or as inclined as you are to believe things purely from conjecture.  Being an Engineer does not exempt you from delusion.

                  3. Pandoras Box profile image82
                    Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    So your answer is that a) you're an engineer, b) you've had your fortune told, and c) you've had your demons exorcised.

                    Ah, okay. I admit it was a dumb question, and I should have realized it would get an answer such as this.

                  4. profile image61
                    (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Then, you should clearly understand why the supernatural realm can't exist as it violates most physical laws, yes?

              2. getitrite profile image81
                getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



                Because I can't detect "God" with scientific investigations or with my five senses, nor can you.  Just like you and I can't detect the Flying Spaghetti Monster with our senses or scientific investigation.

          2. profile image61
            (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            And, to use this analogy as an argument isn't illogical?

    2. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Marine,

      You want the answer to your question, simply look at WHY people go into religion in the first place? It's impulsive. smile

    3. Randy Godwin profile image93
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What is meant by rational?  Having an open mind and being logical are two separate things.  Besides, I would think most inherit their religions.

      1. Cagsil profile image59
        Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Good point. smile big_smile

      2. marinealways24 profile image61
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I think logical can still be open minded. When it is irrational, I think it is claiming an imagination as absolute. When it is logical, I think it's still having an open mind to think about things that contradict logic while not believing them absolute.

    4. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Is Religion rational or impulsive..??? .. 
      In order to answer that question I am inclined to ask
        Is breathing....rational or impussive

    5. profile image0
      Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      impulsive.
      the need to belong sometimes outweighs the need to not belong.
      it works in reverse.
      those who once belonged go rogue -some to bitterness some to joy.

      1. Pandoras Box profile image82
        Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh I don't think that's the only reason people join religions. I'm sure it is for many, but not all.

        1. profile image0
          Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          indeed Pandora. I was just following, as close as possible, to the opening statement.  {smile}

          1. Pandoras Box profile image82
            Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Oh shoot, oftentimes by the time I get this far back in a thread I forget what the OP was all about anyway. lol

    6. goldenpath profile image80
      goldenpathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Can be both depending on the person.  Some induct themselves into a faith out of fear or just wanting a place to call home.  These are entirely wrong reasons to subscribe to a faith.  Some enter a faith on the coat tails of other people's faith.  This can be fine as it is the beginnings of hope.  Ideally, though, one enters a faith because their own questions have been answered and that small voice within bears witness that it is the correct action for them at that time.

      1. profile image61
        (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The vast majority are indoctrinated into their parents belief system and have never made a choice to believe.

        1. goldenpath profile image80
          goldenpathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          True for many and I understand that.  I've noticed that many faiths are built upon tradition.  Whether one believes in it or not is beside the point.  "My family is ______ and will always be ______ and that's final."  I've seen this mindset a lot.  Ultimately, though, when one becomes old enough to be accountable for their own actions and thoughts they do always have the option to seek out their own answers - even if it means losing their own families.  I've seen this as well.  If someone truly finds the answers they seek it then becomes a matter of what they are willing to sacrifice in order to hold on to those answers.  Many times it's the family that does not approve and will ostricize them from the family unit.  It's sad to see but is really a matter of desire for personal truth, whatever that may be.

          1. profile image61
            (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Some actually come to their senses and understand that the religion they've been indoctrinated into is merely the myths and superstitions of an age long gone, and age of ignorance and violence, an age where myths and superstitions were all the rage.

            Others don't, and will continue to propagate and indoctrinate their children into those cults.

            Families? Who cares about their families when a mythical god is more important?

            1. goldenpath profile image80
              goldenpathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Well, again as we remain calm, collected and on solid ground it is still a matter of personal desire.  I respect that you do not believe in deity.  However, others do.  To them, God is not mythical as it is for you.  My response before was in trying to explain the thoughts and intents of some of those who do believe in some form of Higher Authority. 

              It's the same with atheism or certain belief systems that do not subscribe to deity.  Since I don't share those beliefs, if I wanted to know something about those systems I would ask someone who does acknowledge such systems. I, personally, would not presume to explain the thinking of someone who's base is different from mine.  To do so inhibits the understanding of others.

              1. profile image61
                (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The thoughts and intents have already been clouded by the indoctrination process they underwent as children. They have been told to believe in a "Higher Authority" through the use of fear and hatred. No actual choice to believe was ever made on their part. Their god is as mythical as the next god, and the next, and the next, and...

              2. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                How incredibly open minded of you to admit that you just choose to believe and it does not actually exist.

                Well done. Impressive. But - now you have absolutely no authority and we all agree your invisible super being (higher authority) does not actually exist.

                Oh dear. Now your opinion is just yours and - well - let's be honest - not very well considered. Do you understand why no one is interested now?

                Aww - still - never mind - you will be a GOD in the next life. lol

                1. goldenpath profile image80
                  goldenpathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I understand your discord, however, it is obvious that you are interested.  The mature and adult thing to do if one is not interested is to just ignore it altogether.  So, since it has been exhibited many times that you and others are interested - what can I answer for you?

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Sweetie pie - yours is an evangelical religion. There are ignorant, uneducated children with an answer to a question they do not understand leaving soon-to-be trash under my windshield and in my letter box even here in the south of France.

                    Sweetie pie - if you stop pushing your ridiculous, hate filled passive/aggresive beliefs - I stop making fun of you.

                    Understand?

                  2. Pandoras Box profile image82
                    Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Uh-oh there ya go right there, just a few posts later, presuming to understand the thinking of someone who's base is different than your's. yikes

              3. Pandoras Box profile image82
                Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                That's not true. I have seen you presume to explain the thinking of people who disagree with you several times.

    7. Valerie F profile image60
      Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sometimes religion is rational. Sometimes it is impulsive. It varies depending entirely on the motives of each person who chooses (or rejects) a religion.

  2. kess profile image60
    kessposted 7 years ago

    God is the in the midst of all religious thoughts.
    Even those who dogmatically states He is not. 

    The question of rationality is irrelevant.

    The one who believes or believes not, both would consider their belief as rational rather than impulsive.

    The real question is,

    "what is the deception ?"

    1. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You state this like "GOD" really exists, yet you're using your own subjective view to claim it as real.

      Only a ignorant person would thinkt hat rationale is irrelevant.

      That's simply because they've never really be told the right way to form a belief in the first place. Had they been told, then they wouldn't be in the position where nothing else anything everyone else says, which is in disagreement with their belief to be irrelevant.

      What you posted. It's deceptive, misleading and subjective conjecture on your part.

      But, you do have a right to make your opinion known, just like I have a right to tell you that you are wrong, simply because your view is skewed, as I've told you before. smile

      Have a great day! big_smile

      1. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        As we all do every day. Indeed the reasoning that leads us to believe "I" exist is entirely subjective. Indeed that's part of the attraction of such reasoning for rationalists such as Descartes. Such reasoning doesn't require empirical data, and is therefore not reliant on the senses which are unreliable. Are suggesting there is something wrong with this person's particular example of reasoning, or are you suggesting there is something wrong with rationalism per se?



        "Right" according to who, according to what? What's the "right" way to form a belief? Are you certain that you form beliefs the "right" way all of the time?


        No more so than stating a deity doesn't exist as if it is a proven fact which has been done in this very thread. You object to "deceptive, misleading and subjective conjecture" but don't apply that objection consistently. Strong atheism represents subjective conjecture in the same way that theism does. Either you object to subjective conjecture or you don't. Objecting to it on the one hand, yet accepting it on the other is inconsistent to say the least.

  3. TheGlassSpider profile image80
    TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago

    I simply do not understand this silly idea that "God has no rational definition."

    A great deal of people on this planet reject the silly, IRRATIONAL idea that a random explosion resulted in an intricate universe. Thinkers FAR more intelligent than I have LOGICAL (as in the Philosophical study of logic) arguments pointing out that there must be an Intelligent Designer.

    The definition of God: The entity that created the universe; the thing which can move without having to be moved. Primum Mobile. The first cause. Him Whom Nature Hath Not Formed.

    Now, if we begin with the assumption that the universe was created (rather than science's ASSUMPTION, and I assure you, it IS an assumption), there is a perfectly rational definition. You don't have to believe me though. Study the history of philosophy and you will find the above-stated rational definition of God in more than one place--Thomas Aquinas' work is only one of them. Check out Descartes: He set out to prove that God DIDN'T exist, only to find that HE COULDN'T.

    Just because you don't agree/believe doesn't mean that there isn't a definition for it. There are much more intelligent arguments against the existence of God.

    1. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for pointing out that your entire statement was based on a more ridiculous assumption than that which you "CLAIM" science makes assumptions. roll

      It's obvious, you didn't learn much from your philosophy teachings.

      And, again, you point out the fact that some moron tried to prove "GOD" doesn't exist and found out that they couldn't prove "GOD" doesn't exist, therefore IT must exist.

      With you kicking and screaming, B.S. from early century garbage, you only promote the "GOD" concept, like most theologians. It's useless.

      The fact that you ignore is that the "GOD" concept comes as an explanation for life, when in fact, there is no god.

      Please take note- Reality exists and the "GOD" concept doesn't live within our objective reality. Therefore IT doesn't exist.

      Many people make the foolish mistake in thinking that "GOD" exists in reality. The simple truth is that the "GOD" concept was created for a time when society was growing/expanding faster than most realized, and because of Plato and some others, moronic view that "mankind is evil at the core, and must be made to answer to a higher power", is precisely why religion and the pathetic "GOD" concept exists in the first place.

      It was a form of control, so as to help society grow. Had you done more research than just philosophy, then you would have known this and you sad attempt at proving "GOD" exists, wouldn't have been wasted on your previous post. smile

      1. TheGlassSpider profile image80
        TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Cags, it is obvious that you have not learned much of anything at all from whatever it is you've studied. You write and write and most of what comes out is nonsensical fluff. You contradict yourself within your OWN posts, insult people's intelligence as though your "thinking" is somehow superior (when I have seen nothing to show that it is anything more than average), and then finish off with a smiley face as though that makes what you've said somehow more polite? Get out of your own head for long enough to see what's going on in the world around you, and maybe you'll make more sense.

        Q: I am SO glad you don't believe me; that just reassures me that I'm on the right the track. Whether you like it or not science also begins with assumptions which cannot be proven. You or ANYONE ELSE cannot prove how the universe began. As such we are left with two branches or ways to think: EITHER the universe was created OR it wasn't. As I said, if you start with the first branch, then that leads to the rational definition of God..if you don't, then you go down the other slippery slope.

        At least I'm intelligent enough to realize and admit that neither position can be "carved in stone" so to speak. I'm simply speaking to the idiotic idea that we cannot have a rational definition of God. There are MUCH MORE INTELLIGENT WAYS TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF GOD rather than by making the silly statement that there is no rational definition for the word.

        1. marinealways24 profile image61
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Spider, Why do I say there is no rational definition of God? Because the person that defends God never fails to make irrational defenses in trying to define God.

        2. profile image61
          (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          So, like most other theists, you defer to a magical kingdom when the answers to the universe have not been placed in your lap on a silver platter. Well done.



          A non-starter is still a non-starter, which is your so-called first branch.



          I wouldn't say you have much intelligence at all. You appear to be as indoctrinated a fool as any other believers.



          Funny how you admit there are ways to deny the existence of god but you haven't made a case to support the existence of god, but you start your arguments from that perspective, which is false, a non-starter. I won't mention how idiotic it is, either.

    2. profile image61
      (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't believe you. Of course, there would be a rational definition for a god if the universe were in fact created. But, it is the first assumption that has no grounds for being made other than pure speculation while also introducing and injecting complex factors such as other realms of existence that violate the very physical laws that allow us to exist.

      A rational definition for this type of assumption doesn't even make it as a starter.

    3. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Nonsense.

      There is no god. There is no rational explanation or definition that does not - as you have done - rely on the impossibility of disproving a negative. Nothing you have said is rational and you obviously have never read Descartes, because reading him was my first glimpse that god does not exist. Still - probably best to pretend Descartes had little choice but say what he said. wink

      Even your definition here is meaningless nonsense in an attempt to defend a wholly irrational belief that there MUST be something.

      Sorry - your invisible super being does not exist, and the only "rational" reason to believe in it - is because it makes you feel better to do so.

      1. TheGlassSpider profile image80
        TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        How does it make me feel better to believe that there's a God who created the universe rather than a random explosion? I have listed no attributes to said God NOR have I given any personal opinion in this thread about that entity. Merely offered an understandable definition for the word since there seem to be some people here who either can't or won't read/believe a dictionary.

        For all you know I believe in a God who doesn't give a s*** about His creation. The fact that there's a definition for the word "God" doesn't mean anything other than that. You're reading WAY too much into my post and giving your typical knee-jerk reaction rather than actually thinking about what was said.

      2. Daddy Paul profile image63
        Daddy Paulposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "There is no god. There is no rational explanation or definition that does not"
        I am very sorry to hear you feel that way. I shall pray for your soul.-

        1. Cagsil profile image59
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Don't waste your energy. Spend your time figuring out other more important things. smile

          1. Daddy Paul profile image63
            Daddy Paulposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            "Don't waste your energy. Spend your time figuring out other more important things"
            You seem to be rather controlling. I shall spend my time and energy as I choose.

            1. Cagsil profile image59
              Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I'm sure you can waste your energy as you see fit. It is just a shame you see my words as controlling. It goes to show you are already controlled by something else, for which, you cannot understand or see for what it is truly.

              Thank you for your time.

              1. Daddy Paul profile image63
                Daddy Paulposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Yes I am controlled by something more powerful than you or I. I call him God. I’m very happy not understanding everything. Many people watch TV all day and use a remote controller. They have no clue as to how it really works they simply know if they hit the button the channel goes up or down. Others understand how to program a remote. Still others understand how the modulated light is transmitted to the TV. Still others understand how the key functions are converted to modulated light. Funny thing all mentioned can all watch TV.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Yup - most people take the easy route, that is for sure.

                  Religions, governments and corporations rely on it. wink

        2. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I really don't care what you do, although I do find it entertaining that you would waste you time hoping that I start thinking the same garbage as you. Good luck with that......

          I pity you. It is sad that your life is so empty you waste so much time praying that people will believe in your invisible friend. sad

          Still - as long as it makes you feel good. Although - judging from the amount of religionists I speak to with personal problems it doesn't seem to help. wink

      3. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Conjecture.

        The existence of a deity appears correct to some and has not been disproved. The non-existence of a deity appears correct to others and has not been disproved. Therefore any argument that asserts the existence or non existence of a deity is, by definition, conjecture.

        Currently it is an "Undecidable conjecture", which means either position can be taken as an axiom. Theists (obviously) have taken the existence of a deity as an axiom. Likewise atheists and anti-theists, non existence.

        1. profile image61
          (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Don, while I think the point you're making is legitimate, would you consider each side of the argument having equal weighting, a 50/50 split on logic, reason, rationale? Would you also consider adding statistical possibilities and probabilities of existence and non-existence into both sides of the argument?

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Really? I beg to differ. Evolution proves the biblical god does not exist. If you accept evolution - then you must change the word of god to suit, which means the biblical god does not and can not exist.

            Now - if you are using the word "god" to mean some other god - please define this new god you have conjured up.

            You define it - I will disprove it. wink

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Proves no such thing. Darwinism and theism are not mutually exclusive. Evolutionary theory is a description of what is currently known about the state and history of living organisms. No more, no less. The scientific method is not capable of addressing the issue of the existence (or not) of a deity. In suggesting otherwise you are pushing scientific method beyond its scope and are in fact discrediting that method.

              The facts and theory of evolution can have positive implications or negative implications with regards to the issue depending on you point of view, but it can prove neither.

              Science can neither affirm nor deny the existence of a deity by any of the legitimate methods known collectively as the scientific method. And "the laws of nature" don't necessitate an atheist or theist world-view. People can interpret them as doing so, but interpretation is not proof.

              1. profile image61
                (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Exactly. But, since religion claims that all life was created in its current form, man included, doesn't that wrap it up as far as evolution is concerned? Nothing actually evolved accord to religious doctrine, it was all created.

                Doesn't then the evidence of evolution in turn demonstrate we were in fact not created, that we had to have simple beginnings that would eventually lead us back to an abiogenesis of life?

                This may not prove or disprove a gods existence, one that has been argued to have "sparked" that initial life, but it does disprove religious doctrine in accordance with many of the gods purported to exist today.

                1. Jerami profile image78
                  Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Does the bible actually say that God created everything exactly the way they are today???...  NO

                  Nothing actually evolved according to religion?? You say it says...  The bible doesn't say that.

                    There are so many diffrent religions out there that you  or I or anyone else can find almost anything that we want to that somebody says ... that we can prove is not right..
                     Same thing can be said about things that diffrent people says about you and I.
                      By your system of analogy ... You and I must not exist.

          2. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            The fact that science has no way of proving or disproving the existence of a deity does not mean theism and atheism are purely a matter of individual opinion. The lack of scientific method does not reduce us to epistemological chaos, which seems to be the assumption here. The issue is one of undetermination of theory by evidence.

            We don't have to abandon rationality. It's a matter of reasoned argument based on the criteria we use to judge. The difference between theists and atheist is the criteria.

            An atheist is no more epistemologically entitled to apply the criteria he does to the question, than a theist is in applying the criteria he does. That's an assumption made on the basis of the success of scientific method in relation to certain types of knowledge.

            But if scientific method can't address the issue, then we must either abandon the issue as unanswerable; sit back and say that all answers are equally valid; or move to a different criteria. None of these options are an abandonment of reason.

            As for statistical probabilities. They aren't helpful. The most we can say from such work is that something is probable or improbable, nothing else. However the argument that something's existence is improbable, therefore it does not exist is logically invalid.

            Indeed according to current accepted scientific theory, at the time just after the big bang the likelihood of intelligent life (or even matter) developing in the universe was extremely low. So if the argument of improbability is anything to go by, then we must conclude that we ourselves can't exist.

            1. profile image61
              (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It has been stated by many believers here they can hear, see and speak to their gods. They have experiences for which they claim divine intervention. These are phenomena that would require the supernatural to interact with our physical world, hence we would have a measurable effect. Experiments could be conducted and results reviewed.

              But, just like the eather theory had collapsed when the experiment showed null results, so should the theory of the supernatural and the claims of believers.




              That's not what occurred with the eather theory. It did not have equal validity once the experiment showed null results. It disappeared entirely in favor of another theory. That's where we should be headed with religion based on the your post, abandon the issue and move on to a different criteria. There are other alternatives with consistent observable results.

              The issue then becomes a situation where the believer refuses to view any other alternatives and only clings to a null hypothesis. Stalemate. Meanwhile, the other theories are gaining momentum as more evidence accumulates while the null hypothesis continues to show null results.

              But, the believer continues to cling to the null hypothesis.



              I'll give you that one. When the universe was nothing but a sea of radiation, who knew then that you and I'd be pleasantly discussing it today? A infinitesimally small probability, I'm sure.  wink

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You're making some assumptions here. Even assuming those assumptions are correct, the leap of logic you are making is too great.

                Let's assume, as you have, that all theists are using "hear, see and speak" in the common sense of the terms, all of the time. In truth I don't believe that's the case, but let's assume it is.

                Let's also assume, as you have, that it's possible to prove via objective, verifiable, observable, empirical data that someone is not experiencing something. I don't believe this is possible - although we can observe activity in the brain, we cannot directly observe what someone "hears" or "sees", which is why experience is subjective - but let's take both these assumptions as true.

                Even assuming both these to be true, the leap from "X did not experience a deity" to "therefore a deity does not exist" cannot be logically supported. The conclusion does not necessarily follow the premise. The argument is logically invalid. It does not constitute proof a deity does not exist.

                To see this, switch it around. Let's assume it has been proven that X was indeed "seeing" or "hearing" something unexplained. Would you accept this as proof a deity exists? I hope not; It proves only that on certain instances observed for the purpose of the experimentation, X experienced something unexplained. It says no more and no less than that.

                How we interpret such results depends, but beware confirmation bias.

                Part 2:


                You are suggesting that a deity has no utility function as an explanatory hypothesis, i.e. has no use as a way of explaining the way the world is. In doing so you are implying that existence of a deity may be ignored as improbable and irrelevant  and therefore discarded.   

                However the causality attributed to a deity in some theistic beliefs can be reconciled with the notion of "natural laws". In other words, as I said in a different post, the laws of nature do not necessitate an atheist world view. The fact that the relationships between those laws can be investigated and described through the process of scientific method does not eliminate the existence of a deity. Indeed it is entirely consistent with the type of causality attributed to a deity in some theistic beliefs, e.g. christianity.

                You are talking about applying the process of scientific method to all knowledge. Theists (and agnostics, as well as some atheists) simply say that some beliefs and insights are outside the scope of scientific method, so other means are required to examine and investigate them.

                So theists address the question with a completely different set of criteria than non-theists. Therein lies the problem. The "proof" and "evidence" which form such a huge and important part of our collective approach to knowledge (understandably given the success of that approach) has very little (if any) importance with regard to theistic belief. That's not to say theists have abandoned reason. Not at all. Theology represents theistic reasoning. It is not a lack of reasoning. The reasoning is there and can be followed, but just starts from a different frame of reference.

                So essentially what you are doing is applying your own reasoning, based on your frames of reference, to that of reasoning based on a different frame of reference. In short you are comparing chalk and cheese. The result of applying the criteria of "proof" or "evidence" to a theistic world view leads you to conclude that said world view is deficient. But all it actually shows is that the world view is deficient according to the criteria you are applying to it. That set of criteria is not the only set of criteria, and indeed not necessarily the most successful, depending on how you define "successful". Having an accurate description of "natural laws" is one way of defining "successful", but not the only way.

                Epistemologically speaking atheists are no more justified in their world view than theists are in theirs. Both make sense according to their own criteria. That can be difficult to swallow for both theists and non theists, but that does not stop it being the case.

                1. profile image61
                  (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  In all the answers I've been given by theists, they have confirmed they do hear, see and speak to their gods according to the definitions of 'hearing, seeing and speaking.' If they were referring to some other form of communication, then they most likely would have said so.



                  Why wouldn't you believe it's possible? You can check out the Neuroscience Journal or visit the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium site for the latest findings if you don't believe they can monitor the brains activities.



                  I would agree with you, but that conclusion had not come to pass. The conclusion was that the hypothesis continued to produce null results. I also mentioned this does not indicate some deity does not exist. It merely demonstrates that the hypothesis has not produced results and that other theories had consistent results. Abandon the null hypothesis and proceed working with that which produces results.

                  If some day the hypothesis actually begins to produce results, we can return to it and see if it fits well with the other theories.



                  I couldn't agree with you more. Why then do believers jump to the conclusion that it is proof a deity exists?



                  Part Deux



                  Actually, the inclusion of a deity in explaining the way the world is only serves to add more complexity to already simple answers.



                  While I would agree with that, there is the problem of such theistic beliefs, e.g. christianity, that bring into the argument the concept of other realms of existence, which clearly violate many of our known physical laws. These realms are not consistent with our laws and serve only to topple the theist argument.



                  Fair enough. The problem I have with that though is the fact that whatever system or method is employed by the theist to gather their knowledge is completely unknown to me. My observations are that theists gather all their knowledge from their scriptures. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. If there is some method to it, could someone please explain what it is and how it works?



                  The reasoning applied is shared by many others, it is a method used to understand the world around us, and it works well at doing just that. If you're able to explain what exactly the "frame of reference" theists are using, I would gladly apply a relativistic observation and formula so that we are comparing chalk to chalk and cheese to cheese.

                  1. Don W profile image83
                    Don Wposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't believe all Christians use the term "hear" or "see" god in a literal sense. In fact I know at least one or more that don't, which refutes that assumption.

                    While I believe brain activity can be observed, we cannot directly observe what someone perceives. I cannot see or hear something exactly as you are seeing or hearing it, or independently experience something exactly as you are experiencing it. Experience is still subjective. Regardless, both assumptions were accepted as true to evaluate the argument so any disagreement on the truth of them, though interesting, is moot.



                    I see your reasoning, which is based on the assumption that the process of scientific method can produce a result in relation to this question but as yet has been unable to. That assumption can't be made here.

                    Why? Because of the nature of science, and how a deity is defined in certain religions. Such definitions preclude the possibility of objective, verifiable observation, i.e. scientific evidence. So the question of a deity can't be addressed either now or in the future without either changing the definitions of a deity in certain religions, or changing the scope of science.   

                    So we are in a position where we are saying we can't investigate or explore the question of a deity by applying the process of scientific method, because of the very nature of science.

                    We can't say the same of religion. Clearly religion does investigate and explore the question of a deity. What you are saying is that it doesn't prove the existence of a deity. But proving is not the business of religion. Religion has an entirely different criteria in terms of its approach to knowledge. Supporting evidence is part of the criteria of "success" within scientific method. However it is not a significant criteria within the religious approach to knowledge, specifically knowledge relating to that of whichever deity is in question. Simply put: in religion supporting evidence is not an important part of the criteria used for determining truth in relation to god; or at least not evidence in the scientific sense of the term.

                    So in terms of a deity as defined by some religions, science is out. Even in terms of the mechanisms by which apparent divine interaction takes place with the natural world.

                    So it's at this point that we either reject the question as an irrelevance; accept that we can't scientifically validate any answers to the question (as we have no way of doing so) therefore all answers are equally valid or invalid; or investigate the question using a different approach to knowledge (an unscientific approach).

                    This is the choice faced by every reasonable person. But we rarely consciously make that choice. Instead the choice is made through various socio-political, cultural, historical, psychological factors. The important point is that epistemologically speaking, none of these approaches are more justified than another. Choosing from any one of them is as reasonable as choosing any other.

                    While the subject of theists frame of reference, approach to knowledge etc. is something I find interesting, I think I must cut this post here and either comment another time, or indeed write a hub on the subject instead.

    4. getitrite profile image81
      getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



      We don't need to study Philosophy.  We only need mere common sense to ascertain that the belief in a god is irrational.

    5. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Not being able to disprove something doesn't make it true. In the same way not being able to prove something doesn't make it false.
      It simply means it can't be proven either way. Nothing more, nothing less.

  4. Cagsil profile image59
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    You're too funny. lol lol

  5. skyfire profile image70
    skyfireposted 7 years ago

    Religion was never started on rational base. But then some people just love to stay in some imaginary world playing with unicorn, sky-daddy and souls. I've no right to break this illusion till it affects me personally.

    1. Cagsil profile image59
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well, I guess then you have the right to come out and voice your opposition to the "GOD" concept, because the influence it has on the world is what is purposely making your life harder. smile

      1. skyfire profile image70
        skyfireposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If it was that easy, then i could have educated people from peaceful-religion who attacked my city last week. Some religions are beyond any way of education, compromise and tolerance. Let them destroy things we can't help it, as it just backfires us.

  6. kess profile image60
    kessposted 7 years ago

    Hello Spider,

    In this world there are sons of God and servants of God.

    I find that the servants are guite happy to remain servants, despite the fact that they can be Sons.

    It is evident by their obvious passion.

    1. TheGlassSpider profile image80
      TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hey there Kess,

      *waves* Yeah...I ought to know better than to get involved in these conversations. LOL

      How are you?

  7. skyfire profile image70
    skyfireposted 7 years ago

    For creator even humans are close to ant. Picking up a favorite ant from lot is as illogical as calling some human favorite of creator or creator loving his creations.

  8. Pandoras Box profile image82
    Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago

    I think I'd call belief in a religion irrationally compulsive.

    Naw, seriously, I guess it can be rational up to a point. When I was trying to figure it out and asking a bunch of questions, someone said to me that a great deal of men far wiser than he and I had already addressed all those questions.

    To him, it seemed perfectly rational to rest his faith in their intelligence. Call me overly egotistic, to me it didn't.

    But you know, alot of people are alot more modest than I.

    If 76% of the people are doing it, and it's been done for almost 2000 years, some people would guess it's the right thing to do. That might seem rational.

    I think maybe for those people who never really look at it for themselves, it could all pass as rational. It's the people who start studying it who become irrational. People who really have to swallow so much bull dooky to get where they are and still believe.

    1. marinealways24 profile image61
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think believing because the majority believes or believing because it has been believed so long is very rational. I think this is believing on impulse to be part of a group when you don't want to think of the answers independently.

      1. Pandoras Box profile image82
        Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Oh I agree personally, but it is I think kind of high expectations to expect average people to be capable of working it all out. I think most religious believers are just trying to do what they think is the right and good thing to do.

      2. profile image0
        SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Salvation  is a personal experience. My salvation has nothing to do with anyone else's salvation. I did not come to Jesus by way of others. I came by way of Jesus Himself.

        Because there are others who believe in Jesus as I do does not make it a social gathering, nor does it mean that I am following because others are. I do it because I choose to.

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I would suggest you do it for exactly the same reason as other religionists. A belief in the "word" lol

          1. profile image0
            SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You can suggest whatever you want. Makes no difference at all to me and doesn't bother me at all either.

  9. TheGlassSpider profile image80
    TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago

    Not sure how this turned into a question about control...but humans (whether random or designed) have a free will. I am not "controlled" by anything other than myself.

    The existence of a God does not negate the existence of free will.

    1. getitrite profile image81
      getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



      If God is omniscient and already knows the outcome, it negates free will.

      1. profile image0
        SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I know that if I gave my son a hammer when he was small that there would be a lot of damge done. Doesn't mean he didn't know better nor negate his freewill to do so.

        1. getitrite profile image81
          getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



          AGAIN, if God already knows the outcome, there is no free will!
          If God does not know the outcome, then he is not omniscient, and is, by definition, NOT GOD!!

          1. profile image0
            SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Tell me why you keep posting your crap from your evil god?

            1. getitrite profile image81
              getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



              This is the most nonsensical response I have ever seen you post.  My statement is very logical, yet you respond with this stupidity!  Do you even understand reality?  You seem to be lacking in the basic understanding of reading and comprehesion.  And you know nothing about the art of argument.  This insane belief you have in your insane god has caused your brain to short-circuit.  This is PURE nonsense and childish jeering, and is in no way connected to my statement.  Get some help!

          2. TheGlassSpider profile image80
            TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You ever read a "choose your own adventure" novel? Because this is a universe run by certain laws then there are only a finite number of options from which to choose. God is aware of all the possible choices--none of which can ultimately go against God's ultimate destiny for the universe--but within which humans have a number of choices that it is possible for them to make--thus free will within a defined paradigm.

            Not that it matters to most of you folks anyway.

            1. getitrite profile image81
              getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



              But there is only one choice that will ultimately be made, and that choice is predetermined by an omniscient god, right?

              1. TheGlassSpider profile image80
                TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                No, my dear, you've got it backwards--the one choice has already been made (i.e., to give the gift of life). You, and everyone else, are already living in free will as a result of that choice, and anything else comes as the natural result of whatever choices you make.

                1. getitrite profile image81
                  getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



                  BACKWARDS??!!

                  1. TheGlassSpider profile image80
                    TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah B-A-C-K-W-A-R-D-S; as in you're putting at the end what you should be putting at the beginning...which of the letters in that word offends you so? You're sitting here nagging at SirDent about having conversation that doesn't end in nonsense and that's the best you can do?

                    God already made the decision to give the gift of life...everything else, including your free will comes as the result of that choice, which has already been made. The ultimate destiny of the universe is to be filled with life.

                    I'm not sure why so many people, believers included, cannot get hold of this idea. It is simplicity itself.

                    BTW, if you were assuming that I believe that God levels some sort of eternal punishment or something at the "end time" you'll have to talk to someone else about that. I don't believe in the kind of stupid god who would create things then torture them for eternity or anything dumb like that. Even when we face our Creator, it will be our own personal choices that determine whether we live or die.

                    And with that...I must be off to run some errands. I'll be back later. smile

          3. tantrum profile image60
            tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Just so !
            End of the discussion big_smile

            1. earnestshub profile image87
              earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I wish it were the end of these ridiculous religious forums!
              No sane person goes around trying to convince one and all that there are fairies in the sky that tell them how WE should live our lives! lol

              1. profile image0
                SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                And yet you are here speaking out against all of us insane people. I wonder if you treat handicapped people the same way?

                This is what I see. I am called delusional, a schitso, a psychotic, ignorant, and stupid, probably more that I forgot. And you ridicule me just the same as if I was retarded, insane, have to use crutches to walk etc. . . 

                I wonder how many of you actually bully people like that. If you really thought I was any or all of those that I wrote above, you would leave me alone, but yet you don't.

                Just for the record, I have never mentioned fairies before this comment.

                1. earnestshub profile image87
                  earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I treat all people the same, regardless of their condition. You abuse me with your god, I respond in kind. smile

                2. thisisoli profile image55
                  thisisoliposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  People who are retarded, use crutches, etc, don't have a choice. Religion is an irrational choice, which is why it attracts ridicule.

                  1. skyfire profile image70
                    skyfireposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Ditto.

                    Evolution has enough evidence that it is without creator,anyone disprove this ? now claiming those evidence are wrong is more childish and shows lack of knowledge . Have to agree with you oli, religion is choice of deluded extremists and  those who claim god exist should present evidence first but all i can expect from wanna-be god exist believers is personal attack.

                3. profile image61
                  (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  The handicapped didn't choose to be handicapped. Big difference.

          4. profile image0
            Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            knowing the outcome does not change the rules of a game, nor alter the course of that outcome. Foresight is different from manipulation. I can know that my kid will bang his toe if he does a,b,c; doesn't mean he doesn't have the Free Will to do it.

            Knowing all outcome is having full understanding, not being a puppet master.

            1. getitrite profile image81
              getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                 But, you see, God knows exactly what's going to happen. there can be no alteration in the course, because the course is set.  It will progress exactly the way God knows it is. 
                 
              So what kind of free will does that give us? Because the outcome is predicated on us making EVERY choice along the way that would be conducive to said outcome.  It has to be exact.

              You have backed yourself into a conundrum.

              1. kess profile image60
                kessposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                The truth is God will get his way, no matter what, and the believer or the lack thereof will also get his way no matter what,
                be it for better for worst.

                Perfect scenario, knock your self out, it all good which ever way it goes.

                I have chosen the path of wisdom.

                1. getitrite profile image81
                  getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



                  WISDOM??!!! You have chosen the path of fear and delusion.  Why can't you come up with a better reply than this nonsense?  This is a debate, not a place for delusional absurd rantings.  This is what happens when supporters of lies are backed into corners.

                  1. Pandoras Box profile image82
                    Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeh she never makes sense. Just rambles on meaninglessly about how mystically enlightened she is. I usually skip her posts entirely.

              2. profile image0
                Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, no i haven't.
                You are assuming He controls that particular course, in that you must go left even if you wanted to go right -manipulation.
                however, knowing ALL directions, all events within, all outcomes;
                able to judge, reason, apply, remove, see and prepare ALL possible outcomes -this is omnipotence -all places at all times in all things.

              3. profile image0
                Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                In addition, free will is the ability for one to choose all possible options, explore them and decide the best course.

                parent-child relationships work this exact way.
                are you violating their free will by giving them choices, options?
                on the contrary, you are giving them unlimited opportunity to choose.

                1. getitrite profile image81
                  getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



                  Your response is neither persuasive nor rational.  You need to really expand your mind beyond the human concept.  You are stuck in your on head, and haven't the depth to grasp the concept of omniscience.  You are still describing a human "god"

                  1. profile image0
                    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    and?
                    my response was/is spot on to your claim regarding and free will. no surprising the automatic deflect by stamping a label of 'human god' into the rebuttal. Obviously you have some desire to consider such or you would not engage such discussion. Same as 'Q'.

                    Glad to be an enabler for your need to know.

                    Cheers.

          5. Valerie F profile image60
            Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            There is a difference between knowing the outcome and determining the outcome.

            1. getitrite profile image81
              getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



              Oh yeah, that's right, he only determines the outcome when we pray, right?  What was I thinking?

              Silly silly silly silly god!!!

    2. skyfire profile image70
      skyfireposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      If you're designed then no matter what decisions you made with free-will are among set of results that was under design of designer. So your free-will is assumption to any intellect higher than you who created you. So it is not free-will.

  10. aware profile image70
    awareposted 7 years ago

    non believers want what believers want . more so even . they need it their starving for it . they demand it .  its proof.  two peas in a pod i say

  11. profile image0
    SirDentposted 7 years ago

    You all can go ahead and have your fun. Maybe one day you will be serious about something. I am going offsite for a while now.

  12. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

    No it's impulsive, there I was having group sex with wild women and gay men. I was doing drugs showing everyone my pornography collection while pulling on agave juice. I heard a noise out side and I saw it was my neighbors wife so I went out and told her she needed to come in all the while telling her husband wouldn't mind. Then, BAM! I jumped up and yelled," It's time for Church!" I threw on my sunday dud's and never looked back!

    Ps- I got a sin proof guarantee for a modest 10% of my increase!

    1. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      OK! That's it! I have to like you now!  This is just too good. We are now friends.     big_smile

      1. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Cool!big_smile

  13. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    The moment I hear voices from a "god", it will be off to the doctor for me! smile

    1. Hokey profile image61
      Hokeyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      (WHISPERING) Earnest, Earnest, Come to the father

      (Earnest)  Shut up DAD! Go to sleep!!!!!


          lol   lol

    2. Valerie F profile image60
      Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And suppose the doctor finds nothing wrong, you get a second opinion, and that doctor also finds nothing wrong?

  14. profile image0
    barryliamposted 7 years ago

    Amen

  15. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    everything in life is as much good as it can be bad.
      Even religion. There is as much good to say about it is there is bad,  Live has a great balance.

  16. prettydarkhorse profile image64
    prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago

    Religion is needed by society to put order into it, its a human calling to search for HIM

    1. Pandoras Box profile image82
      Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No it's not. Religion is needed by the powerful to control the masses.

    2. profile image61
      (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Could be the reason why prisons are full of Christians.

      1. Valerie F profile image60
        Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The reasons why prisons are full of Christians is because atheists offer nothing along the line of prison ministry.

        1. profile image61
          (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Really? And, here all along I thought it was because they were hypocrites saying one thing and doing another. Silly me.

  17. Alota profile image60
    Alotaposted 7 years ago

    it is neither rational nor impulsive, its like good sex, some get it some dont...simple

    1. Pandoras Box profile image82
      Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Good sex with an imaginary lover? Yeah, christian girls are weird.

  18. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    Don, it is and always will be conjecture.

    Especially those who at one point -by their own free will/no gun to the head- chose to believe and may have been involved with some sort of religion based on those beliefs.

    It is both head shaking and laughable, yet undeniable.
    The limited logic/sensation of man will always contain conflict.

  19. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    I think that "IF"  the theory of evolution  were  "absolutely" true.
      This would NOT prove that there is no God. It would prove that  some of the "concepts" that were "interpreted" as having been written is the bible are false.
       
      To say that a proof of evolution proves that there is no God is like saying that because a   "belief"   as to how something began is incorrect there must not have been a beginning. 
     
      I "know" that many people's INTERPRETATIONS of end time prophesy are incorrect. And many peoples belief as to how it all began is incorrect.
      Does this prove that none of this is real ??
      We must then be nothing but a figment of the imagination of SOMETHING that is real.
       And if that is true we can then do anything that this something allows us to do within IT'S imagination

    1. skyfire profile image70
      skyfireposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Abiogenesis talks about origin of life and not evolution. So evolution facts points to the evolution of species without any creator. So this is where bible and other religious books were wrong. "Origin of species without creator" and "evolution of species without creator" both are different things.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What ever we call them ? They can not prove how the origin of life  came into being,or before that. It does prove that MANY previous concepts of this is false. One can not totally disprove another. 
           Evidence is what it is. Everyone wants to jump to false conclusions based upon our own precepts as to what these things prove or doesn't prove.
           
           I have to go finish a paint job today so will see yA LATER.

        1. skyfire profile image70
          skyfireposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          They do prove that previous fairy tales were wrong. They do prove that noah's ark is just metaphor, zeus as myth. etc etc.

          Gap of knowledge doesn't mean deluded assumptions as right. Only false conclusion that we do is "assume god exist and he talks with us and asks us to follow this or that", right ? If we assume" god doesn't exists, is there any psychological/physical harm?". If you become skeptical you'll see there is flaw in being theist, atheist, agnostic,More flaws are in the order they're written here.

  20. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    I got untangled from indoctrination once I looked at the probability factor. The chances of evolution based on what we know?
    as opposed to the probability that an invisible human like (psychotic) entity made us? Religion is bunk! No one can agree who or what their god is, does, or controls. Obviously bunk.
    Not one single peice of evidence since the beginning of time for the existence of any of the hundreds of gods. All the stories are based on previous people, stories and fables, it's all bunk I tells ya!! lol

  21. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    that said, especially Earnest & Q, then all your rhetoric regarding said god/religion is also "bunk"/ "wrapped up". Simply put: you are confessing/professing against a thing you apparently think/assume/believe/are certain/know does not exist.
    Ambiguity is a nicely gift wrapped package as well.

    Your 'fables/myths' are no different than those you argue against.
    Call it logic, evolution, intelligent design, hypothesis, science, even die-sky-fairy-die!

    It's all the same.

    George Carlin: "It's all BS folks and its bad for ya".

    to quote myself: "Ambiguous perception in choice avoid, rather than purity of purpose."

    Show us purity in your purpose apart from the rhetoric, please.

  22. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    Don W, i have never read a more thorough, rational and logical response anywhere in these threads. My hat to you.


    With regard to your reply:

    either method of logical application, by said view or either, dismisses both, i think. Why? Because it is not necessary to consider a question nor its opponent, an answer. Both are point A/B infinite. Relationary parallels within human logic (assumed or indentified), consciousness aka the Need To Know.

    Cheers.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Your causality loop is functionally inadequate, causing logical fallacies to appear as sub-miniscule quantum particles in the datastream  - often mistaken for proficiency, when in fact the recognition mode is transgressing using assumptive reasoning creating pseudo or fabricanted ken. Surely you must see the issue with this and accept the obvious conclusion that the "need to know" is in fact a palliative catholicon serving only to increase  the rhetorician's pomposity?

      Tally ho.

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        rhetoric involves argument, of which both apply solely to logic.
        remove logic and you remove those parameters within it.
        (ex: do not add 1 and 1). Assumption can only occur within the assumed, yes?

        true any "recognition" is transgressive (what I consider sin or consciousness). So long as one remains within the finite loop - quantified, calculated or presumed - is still subject to the parallel.

        the notion then: escape the "Need to Know Factory".

        ho tally!

  23. profile image0
    StormRyderposted 7 years ago

    Is this rational? http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z145/WendyLynn14/funny/Jesus.pnglol lol lol

    1. Pandoras Box profile image82
      Pandoras Boxposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Oh my goodness. Someone alert the press.

      Too funny.

  24. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    I agree to a point with this, Q. Because the general populous of theist do in fact base all their knowledge from 'scripture'. Most but not all. Still, the use of literature to apply knowledge or seek knowledge is done by all people. There are few who provide evidence beyond the literature.

    99.9% of theists solely use literature to secure their belief, which actually contradicts the basis and totality of that belief.

    It is that 0.1% that uses a different method. That method cannot be fully explained by reason/logic alone -in part perhaps, it totality, no.

  25. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    getitrite,

    The ability to design and understand every possible scenario/outcome is what makes it so awesome. We cannot conclude -in full use of our own knowledge- a single shred of energy that begins even a single thought. Perhaps when (or if) any human does, then they might have ground to dismiss the Creators existence. Until then, there is either cynicism or faith.

    1. getitrite profile image81
      getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



      True, we are finite beings trying to comprehend the properties of eternity.

      Faith and cynicism are equal?

  26. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    That is a fair hypothesis, Q. Even such a consideration is awesome. The ability to design such a 'system', its framework, method, data, expression -especially with regard to imagery- would be nothing short of phenomenal.

    This sums up precisely why i personally believe in the Creator.
    This is where {i am guessing here} you, me and many others agree this thing called religion is a stumbling block towards that consideration.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Selectively quoting opposing opinions in an attempt to give the impression that something was said when it was not? .

      Oh - yes - People who believe in a creator do that a lot. wink

      Well done sweetie pie - it is this sort of behavior that persuaded me you are wrong.

    2. profile image61
      (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Children will do the same thing, that is believe everything that pops into their imaginations to be real, then they grow up.

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        really?
        That is not a substantial claim, Q.
        Exactly how do they 'grow up' apart from the body maturing to a certain height, weight or their brain filled with information by other brains. The notion is flawed.

        children have, imo, such a better understanding of things than most of the adult world. Theirs is one of simplicity, unity, joy, rest and pure imagination v. the robotic intellect of their adult counterparts -who, ironically, stress to their children to be free of such limitations and 'just enjoy life'.

        1. profile image61
          (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No they don't, that's why they go to school and learn things.

          Of course, that's not to say I haven't met some 10-12 year old kids that could dance intellectual circles around most believers here.

          1. profile image0
            Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            school? education? induced programming? assimilation? social division and classification? slavery? hmmm.

            precisely how are these beneficial to humanity.
            After five thousand + years of 'education' humans still are as dull as rocks. The notion is still flawed. sorry.

            1. profile image61
              (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              No, many like yourself never actually bothered to get an education, that's why they are "dull as rocks" smile

              1. profile image0
                Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                wow, a shift from conversation to personal attack?
                how fitting. If one can support their stance, attack the other.
                sounds quite religious to me, Q. It is becoming evident now why you and so many others spend so much time in the religious forums.

                BTW, there was a man some years ago -extremely intelligent, according to other humans- who was able to divide a perfect atomic unit. Upon re-unification, this atomic unit explodes. That item is called a hydrogen bomb. That item now keeps 90% of ALL humanity in the grip of fear. He was a scientist/atheist/intellectual.

                religion is still fear/slavery no matter what label you slap on it.
                so is all religion irrational?
                in the words of Mrs. Palin, you Betcha!

                1. profile image61
                  (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Fair enough, I'll reword my response.

                  No, many never actually bothered to get an education, that's why they are "dull as rocks"

                  1. profile image0
                    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    even still, the most noted learned person has relatively 'no clue', which they admit on occasion, behind closed doors. But education is just another guise of slavery. Millions of people w/ MBA, PhD, etc are considered in a different 'social' class. Everyone else seemingly beneath them or unequal. The lack there of, posts blue collar joe, drinkin` beer and watchin` porn. Again, social division.

                    ultimately it is still slavery. Especially since a person between the ages of 0-17 has NO CHOICE in what they are taught. And if they do not learn, according to that doctrines rules, are not permitted to advance into 'other' social elements/classifications/grades, etc.

          2. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I'll bet that they can dance intelectual circles around non believers as well.

            1. profile image0
              Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              touché Jerami ! lol.

            2. profile image61
              (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              The point Jerami, which you have completely missed, is the fact that those kids can use critical thinking skills, the same thing non-believers use, hence their intellectual dancing is on par with each other.

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I ask on a diffrent thread.. 
                What is your definition of Christianity? 
                Does everyone that believes in Jesus fall under one single catigory?

  27. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    The ability to take those beliefs and trash them simply by making a minute change to brain chemistry is even more amazing! smile

    1. profile image0
      Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      no doubt, Earnest, no doubt.

  28. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    just for sheep in giggles, Q and any other willing logician, attempt to consider: purity.

    what it is.
    where it comes from.
    how it apply under the present 'methods'.
    what are the results.

    if the present methods cannot be used, what method should be...

  29. marinealways24 profile image61
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    If there is/was a God, it's not very logical that the Gods creation would have the awareness to find the Gods flaws. Are we smarter than the God's many believe in?

  30. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    good point.
    flaw suggests an absence of total knowledge/understanding.
    it is precisely logic that mankind has subjected themselves and others to such considerations.
    I thoroughly agree: this thing called: awareness/consciousness is the root of the problem. So the fault is on the creation, not the Creator.

    1. It is not necessary to consider a question nor its opponent, answer. point A/B are infinite polarities, relationary parallels of the Need To Know. Both do no thing with respect to the creation, Creator and most certainly, purity.

    2. Purity is beyond awareness or consciousness.

    1. marinealways24 profile image61
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks. When a baby or innocent child dies from SIDS or some other unknown reason for their death, I consider this a flaw. I think this would fall into the creators fault rather than the creation. I also consider it flaws that we are not perfect. We have the intelligence and awareness to design medicines and surgery to treat our imperfections. It would seem logical that if there was a creator, we wouldn't need doctors or medicines. If we had the choice of how our children were to be born, would we choose healthy and flawless or sick and full of errors telling them it's their fault? I think the suggestion of a creator is also the suggestion that we are smarter than a creator, or we are just an experiment.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        When a woman is carrying a child she is made aware that smoking cigarets and or Crack Cocaine, drinking alchol, etc., are harmful to her child.  If she does it anyway ??? and that child survives, reaches adulthood and has children, the birth defects of their child is the fault of the creator??? I think NOT.
            After dozens of dozens of generations that people do this to themselves can we place the blame on the creator for having made a defective creation?
            What have mankind been doing to ourselves for thousands of years?  And it is still Gods fault cause he gave us the choice to do this to ourselves or not. Not his fault.

            I have heard you say that We should accept the responceability for our own actions. That is also true for the human race as a whole.

        1. marinealways24 profile image61
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, if we were perfect, we wouldn't need stimulation from drugs to survive and be happy/content, we would be stimulated like all other animals simply for being alive. How many other animals do you see smoking crack? Not a very smart design. If there was a God, he's not a very intelligent designer when the design can fix his mistakes. If you say there is a God, it would be his fault for giving his creation awareness to be smarter than he is. Afterall, if God created all, God created crack. Does God smoke crack?

      2. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        human adaptation doesn't justify the issue.

        the 'defects' of man are his own doing.
        there is nothing to suggest any single human being cannot be 100% flawless in body, mind or spirit. Each choice by every and all humans effects every and all other humans -be it ten thousand years ago or 10,000 years to come.

        if anyone actually understood the Adamic Principles of Tanakh, the view point would change considerably.

        pointing fingers at apes or poppy plants or a Creator is just that, pointing fingers. did the ape ask a man to sex it and give him AIDS? did the poppy plant say take my parts and made for yourself a power to get 'high'. did the liquid say make from me petroleum and burn it in machines so you can ease your legs and pretend to fly? etc etc etc.

        human reason/logic has never been more futile than it is today.
        to accept imperfection is to become that imperfection.
        to accept the opposite is to become that opposite.

        1. marinealways24 profile image61
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol This same irrational reasoning is the reason some families let their children die, keeping them from medicine in their irrational belief that prayer will heal their child over modern science and medicine.

  31. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    What does prayer have to do with health?
    Realize the need for 'prayer' is only because the acceptance of the limitation (flaw). Even in 'prayer' humans are attempting to reason their way, as with medical 'pratice' /experimentation. Science -as religion- has destroyed more life than it has presumably 'saved'.

    One trying to save humans through 'prayer' one trying to save humans through prescriptions. I see no difference between them. Both mystics, both useless.

    1. marinealways24 profile image61
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think anyone can make the claim that science has destroyed more life than saved with good evidence. Science helps understand what makes us live longer and more efficient. Prayer and medical practice is not the same, medicine is tangible and prayer is not.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Science has destroyed more life than it has saved; unless we use selective memory.

        1. marinealways24 profile image61
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          What facts do you use to support this? Religion?

          1. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Lets not change the subject yet.  We were discussing if science has killed more than it has saved.
              The opposit is true. Science has killed 1000's times the number that it has saved.
               Beginning with metalergy;  creation of swords, gunbarrels etc.    some good things such as plows,eating unincils,tin roofs etc.
               Chemistry and physics created gunpowder, Atomic bombs...
               and tooth paste, make up, and asprin, etc..
             
               Don't get me wrong.. science is a good thing
               Everything is a good thing, when we use our selective focus of attention and choose to see it that way.
               Unfortunately the opposit is also true. 

               Mankind sees everything the way we want to precieve them.

            1. marinealways24 profile image61
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              It's not science that has created the weapons, it is greed that created them. If there was no greed for money and power, I think science would go toward saving lives rather than killing them.

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                IF..IF.IF.. So you admitt and I agree that greed is the driving factor  behind scientific advancement. Or it would be   going forward saveing more lives than killing them.

                   You see ...  Greed is everywhere ... Not just in religion as some would have us to believe.  Greed must be the origional sin that has infilterated everything and "most" but not everyone,
                   Now we have found something that we should all be able to agree upon.
                   Can we hold focus on this?

                1. profile image0
                  Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  greed, the original sin? perhaps. the woman was greedy and ate the fruit, then the man did too. Good point Jerami.

  32. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    Hmm. That is not entirely true. To say it helps us understand 'what' makes us live longer or more efficient is not sustainable proof of its value.

    Perhaps after the experiment is complete, 'evidence' can support some claim of tangibility. The rest is intangible/theory/accepted/disputed. It doesn't completely explain what, how or why we live longer, the body heals itself, etc.

    1. marinealways24 profile image61
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The body does not always heal itself. This is why medicines and machines sometimes keep people alive. Have you heard of an artificial heart? This is science, the tangible. I would like to see prayer replace a tangible heart that keeps someone alive.

  33. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    as the body 'ages' its ability to regenerate is what causes it not to heal. This is mostly due in part to one's environment, food intake and mental state and very little to do with science or religion.


    science, as religion, exploits those assumed flaws by inventing mechanisms, else all medicine -on every level would be free of charge. As would religious buildings and collection boxes be empty.

    1. marinealways24 profile image61
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Why would medicine in life be free of charge when nothing else in life is free? It takes money to fund the research to invent the medicines and technologies. Scientists and doctors didn't spend so much money and time on college to work for free. They worked for what they have, why should someone not have to pay for the results of what they had to pay for? Aging is a great imperfection, medicine and pain killers work wonders for giving people pain free lives due to the bad design.

  34. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    Q, i am assuming you define that as a substantial rebuttal? Hmmm.
    seems the likes of the 'elite' intellect never seem to transcend nor offer clarity in defining/explaining their position, yet are quick to judge, mock, point fingers, dispute.

    What it shows me is this: for all the years spent learning and all the titles attached to one's name fore or aft, are moot.


    And yes, I am emphatically stating the obvious: children are forced into this 'education'.
    90% of it is useless, because it is biased!

    Just because a person can memorize information, be given a series of selected questions, answer those questions correctly (according to the aforementioned) deems this person intelligent and therefore worthy to move up in the ranks of the other brains? A slave society if I ever saw one. At least the theologians offer choice, free will option, the other does not.

    And precisely what do they learn about the world around them?

    -Everyone is out to get them, especially those religious nuts.
    -Unless you're smart, you are not a success.
    -At some point someone is going to push the button and we're all dead anyway, so just enjoy it while it lasts.
    -Work, make tons of these little pieces of paper called money - a lot of `em. Save them up, so you can buy stuff that will ultimately kill you or the brain cells you have.
    -Work even harder and you might, just might, be 'privileged' to join a select group of individuals -who agree they don't know it all- but will try to convince you otherwise, while mocking those they consider to be 'less educated'.

    Slavery, division, social reordering, inhumane treatment of others, Aryan ideology perhaps?

    1. kess profile image60
      kessposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      For a while I thought I was the only one who can see this...

      1. profile image61
        (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No, there are plenty who see it that way. That's part of the problem.

    2. profile image61
      (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, reality, the world around us is biased that way.



      Those who do not apply themselves and use their brains to think would make that assertion and would convince themselves of such.





      The lack of effort of those who wish to justify their incompetence and laziness does not preclude their diligence towards conspiracy theories and paranoia.

  35. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    Hi Kess. No, many of us do see it.
    A close friend has a double phD in history from Berkley told me this would eventually be the ultimate downfall of humans.

    I agree.
    Knowledge is fleeting.
    Which began my work some time back,regarding the "Need To Know Factory" v. Spirit.

    { am working on the novel as I type here: Ad`Iam, the one whom angels served}

  36. profile image0
    Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago

    How can you determine whom is lazy, incompetent, diligent?
    As for theories and paranoia, science is loaded with just that,
    so is the political arena and practically every other organization.

    If this is how you regard other humans, then indeed it proves my point. Simply people regurgitating and pointing fingers.

    Defy The Need To Know. Because that IS the problem.
    the solution far exceeds even the slightest shred of intelligence, theistic or otherwise.

    "Free Your Mind".

    1. profile image61
      (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      They determine themselves, quite openly and adequately, I might add. big_smile

      1. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Do you have any friends? People friends?

        1. profile image0
          Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol

        2. profile image61
          (Q)posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Just like any other Christians?  big_smile

      2. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        And would say that these lazy people that you talk about here deserves to eat any more than those hungry children that you are always talking about?

    2. getitrite profile image81
      getitriteposted 7 years ago in reply to this



      How does one defy the need to know?  Isn't that like defying consciousness?

      1. profile image0
        Twenty One Daysposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        precisely.
        to defy consciousness implies purity.
        non-need, necessity, duality, parallel of q & a.

  37. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Well lets talk rationality in a general way shall we?

    An invisible fairy makes everything. Everything.
    None of it works, so he makes a bad guy to take the rap for it, claims he is another fairy, but he "fell" in the meantime the first fairy is everywhere, knows everything, controls life on earth and off it and the whole thing is a bun fight.

    So then he sends his only non fairy kid to earth and kills him so we can live, even though we were already alive, and then we have to suck up to him through his son who has been dead for 2000 years but isn't.

    Sure nothing irrational about that!

 
working