Do you believe in a supernatural creator, God or gods of any sort?

[Cattleman]

This discussion, while interesting, has obviously convinced neither side of the other's position. You cannot prove the existence of God, nor can you disprove it. Those who rely on writings, be they the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormom or other religious text have first to prove the validity of the text. As I stated in a previous post, I am automatically suspicious of 'revealed truth.' For this reason, I consider myself an agnostic, and for that reason, did not vote in the poll.

And a sincere "thank you" to all who have posted, whatever your position.

[Robert Tulip]

Those who rely on writings, be they the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormom or other religious text have first to prove the validity of the text.

"The validity of the text" has been shown to be completely unreliable for literal reading. Any sensible talk about God has to start from a position of acceptance of scientific knowledge.

Scientific proof is about the balance of probability on the basis of assumptions or axioms.

The assumption that the universe is real and consistent is supported by all observation. It indicates that implausible claims about God are false - such as claims in the Bible that God walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening, stopped the sun in the sky to allow Israelis to commit genocide, turned a small quantity of food into enough for 5000 men plus women and children and twelve baskets of crumbs. These stories were never intended as literal explanations of historical observation, but rather evolved as symbolic explanations for spiritual teachings, using the method of allegory or parable.

If these stories are allegory, and noting the heavy hint from Jesus that everything in the New Testament is allegory (Luke 8:10, Matthew 13:34), then we should consider all the descriptions of God as an intentional entity to be allegories too.

Logic involves the acceptance of the most parsimonious and elegant explanation that is consistent with evidence. Unfortunately for supernaturalists, their fantasies are not consistent with any evidence except the common predeliction of humans to believe comforting stories regardless of their truth.

The myth of God is just a comforting story and a way of making moral teachings more convincing. The idea of God has a lot of moral value as a way of saying our lives are part of a coherent whole that has discernable purpose and meaning, but it has no value when treated literally as putting religion in conflict with scientific knowledge.

[Kevin]

Scientific proof is about the balance of probability on the basis of assumptions or axioms.

I have a bone to pick with you, Mr Tulip. You condense the equation to the supernatural on side and science on the other. To be more acurate, most often you condense it to this; every so often you'll mention something about logic. Not good enough! It seems too Mickey Mouse for you. It's when religion goes against reason that it errs. The same for science when it's struggles against reason. ~ Reason regularly takes a beating from these two. I say that it shouldn't, and that's a reasonable outlook. ~

The myth of God is just a comforting story and a way of making moral teachings more convincing. The idea of God has a lot of moral value as a way of saying our lives are part of a coherent whole that has discernable purpose and meaning,

Really? A lot of [positive] moral value? I think it's had the opposite effect, but that's a matter of perspective.

[Robert Tulip]

Scientific proof is about the balance of probability on the basis of assumptions or axioms.

I have a bone to pick with you, Mr Tulip. You condense the equation to the supernatural on [one] side and science on the other. To be more accurate, most often you condense it to this; every so often you'll mention something about logic. Not good enough! It seems too Mickey Mouse for you. It's when religion goes against reason that it errs. The same for science when it's struggles against reason. ~ Reason regularly takes a beating from these two. I say that it shouldn't, and that's a reasonable outlook. ~

Thank you Kevin, always pleased to gnaw at the skeletons (so to speak) in case they still have any meat. Yes, I do take the view that logic is divine. When either science or religion abandon logic, they slip into evil. And of course, if I am guilty of such slippage from logical standards myself, I welcome correction.

A key part of logic is the accuracy of its premises, for example that the universe exists and is available to know. Treating such premises as axioms of correct thought can enable construction of systematic understanding of complex ideas like God.

Belief in the supernatural is obsolete, but it is well worth looking at supernatural ideas to see if they encode some genuine worthwhile natural observation. For example Jesus is code for the sun.

The myth of God is just a comforting story and a way of making moral teachings more convincing. The idea of God has a lot of moral value as a way of saying our lives are part of a coherent whole that has discernable purpose and meaning,

Really? A lot of [positive] moral value? I think it's had the opposite effect, but that's a matter of perspective.

Now Kevin, you conclude your quotation with a comma. For ease of reader's reference, the excised text after the comma is "but it [ie the idea of God] has no value when treated literally as putting religion in conflict with scientific knowledge."

Religion has potential positive moral value, as its writings contain some sublime ethical teachings. But usually these teachings are conveyed within a farcical pack of fiction presented as fact, leading adherents to be guilty of Voltaire's central accusation against faith, that believing absurdities permits atrocities. Once we allow the absurd (ie the supernatural) to infect our brains like a zombie virus, we lose all moral compass.

So the idea of God has to be reviewed to make it compatible with observation. Claims that lack any evidence or are scientifically impossible often, imho, involve a degeneration from an original allegorical teaching. But sometimes the source is itself degenerate, where the founders themselves were ignorant charlatans like in Mormonism and Islam and Scientology, praised be their names.

[johnson1010]

I always appreciate RT's stance on this, even though i am personaly against it.

I am confident he's right about there being valuable moral lessons in the bible, even if all you can get out of it is:

"Stoning people to death for working on the sabbath is immoral. I will NEVER do what this book has just told me to do!"

That is a valuable moral lesson, and there is still much else to be gleaned just from this one part of the whole, including positive messages of action, like love your neighbor.

My problem, and why i don't participate with RT in advocating the bible or any religious book as a good source of moral allegory is the excessive baggage associated with them. People are just too touchy about these books, and too quick to latch onto any concession you give that might let them twist it around to mean "Absolute revealed TRUTH."

As a result i have to say that yes, there are definitely valuable moral stories in the bible. Just as there are in all fiction stories, making the bible no more powerful a tool than the Harry Potter series. And there is where we depart the shared path RT.

Keep em coming!

[johnson1010]

Cattleman,

I wanted to direct you to Dan Barker and "Losing faith in faith."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Barker

You said that you were agnostic, and i believe that is true. So am I, though i call myself an atheist.

Barker breaks is down like this:

Gnostic Atheist : There definitely is no god, and nothing could convince me otherwise.
Agnostic Atheist : There is not enough evidence to convince me there is a god.
Agnostic Theist : There is not enough evidence, but i believe there is a god.
Gnostic Theist : There definitely is a god, and nothing could convince me otherwise.

So in this breakdown, Agnostic and Gnostic have to do with evidence, and atheist and theist have to do with the boolean (god / no god).

So, I am agnostic, but also atheist. If when asked the question, "is there a god" and you doubt that there is... you are atheist. But that doesn't mean you could never be convinced otherwise if good evidence became available to the contrary.

[Penelope]

Agnostic Theist : There is not enough evidence, but i believe there is a god.

There is no evidence to show that there is a god as depicted in the Old Testament.....with which we are only too familiar.

There is so much evidence to show that there is more to life than meets the eye.


Neanderthals were not the thuggish creatures of popular myth but were imbued with a deep-seated sense of compassion, research has suggested.

A team from the University of York examined archaeological evidence for the way emotions emerged in our ancestors and developed in modern humans.

In Europe between 500,000 and 40,000 years ago, early humans such as Homo heidelbergensis and Neanderthals developed a commitment to the welfare of others, They hunted together and cared for the injured and infirm, according to the findings.

Remains examined by the researchers revealed how a child with a congenital brain abnormality was not abandoned but.....

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/b ... 753635.ece

[ant]

Johnson,

You are agnostic but also atheist?
Right

Nothing like definition overload to define something to ridiculous purportions to avoid comitment.

I don't buy into this type of wishy-washy, namby-pamby applesauce.
It's ridiculous fence sitting.

[ant]

"Speaking of an infinite entity who has a conscious purpose is ridiculous"

This statement is the epitome of anthropocentric hubris.
For starters you have (and everyone else) an infantile understanding of conciousness in all its forms.
You are like a fish in a bowl.

Secondly, your perception of time is just as poor as your perception of conciousness.
Infinity? Please tell me you are not claiming expertise in this area as well

Gentlemen, gentlemen, we are a relatively young species in a very old universe.
To make such definitive statements is clownish and oh so laughable.

[Chris OConnor]

Ant, you simply don't understand the post that defined the associated terms. I too am an agnostic atheist (as are most scientists) and there isn't anything wishy-washy or namby-pamby applesauce about it. Science-minded people understand that we cannot know for a fact many things, including whether or not a deity exists, so we acknowledge our lack of knowledge and label ourselves as agnostics or as being "without knowledge."

But, based on my lack of knowledge about the existence of a deity, I reject the belief. I understand these terms may be new to you but instead of mocking us why not Google the terms and educate yourself?