Here's me preaching.

[Darnoc]

I do agree. The only thing I wanted to point out is that when we want really to find a solution we can't start with an absolute assumption, I wanted "to clear the field". We can't find a solution to the problem, when everyone has from the beginning an absolute oppinion (god exists/god doesnt exist) and tries to analyse the probability of other beliefs from his point of view. We can only find a true solution, when everyone assumes that nothing is at the moment true or false and that it is our goal to find this out.

 

Everyone has of course a different oppinion on this matter and won't change his mind, whatever anyone would say. And because we are talking about unprovable things, we won't get anywhere with this discussion, we will end killing each other and throwing around insults in every direction. So to really reach something we have to demolish everything and build our discussion on a equal fundament of neutrality and then try to find out what is really more probable. If anyone has from the beginning his one absolute oppinion, which he can't proof or disaproof, this will lead nowhere. So I wanted to make a mind-experiment: We all assume that our oppinion is possibly not the true one and try to listen to the others and then perhaps see that everyone has found out a part of the truth.

[Akrid]

Ok so lets say we are all cave men, we never thought about where we came from or of the idea of a god. Only we are advancent educated cave men. I look at the topic and then think, should I believe in a supreame being? I know all things are made of energy, and all energy breaks down the same energy, the only other form of existance I know of is a black hole, but that only exist because I can see it, it's supposed to be antimatter that traps' or even destroys energy. What is god I think.. Is he made of energy like everything else? if he is he's not god, he's made of the same thing I am, otherwise he's made of somthing else that I have zero proof to believe in. I have been given no proof by the other cave men, but some are real conviced because others before them believed it and so on. But back then we where superstisious, if somone whistled on a boat they where thrown overboard, and some people where accused of witch craft and burned alive. I don't feel like I should believe anything that comes from the people of the past, their strange unfounded, unproven opinions. I look to the logic and science that has enhanced our recent lives and continues to at a amazing rate. I choose to be a athiest. That is my questioning of my own faith, but I will question others because of the process of elimination, before I can be athiest I must not believe anything else, I must question it to see if I believe it or not. And how am I to grow and see new ideas if nobody questions my believe? and same for them.

[Darnoc]

I want to tell you a story. It's the story of our evolvement and the things we thought about our origins.

 

We have grown out of the old superstitions and traditions, we have evolved, we have learned and can now see more clear what lies ahead and behind. We have analysed and observed the nature around us and found that it is based on rules and laws. We are now coming in a new status. We have found out about what is now and so we look behind us and try to see what lies in the past. This is, where we are now at the moment.

 

Some now looked behind and found out that also in the past everything was ruled by laws. So they tried to find out the reason of existence with these laws and logic. But we also found out something different: The answer can't be found out there, it must be found inside of us. Have we really so much evolved as we think? What are we really? Isn't there still something beast-like inside us? But when we are only animals with a higher intelligence, why then can we reach with our mind much further? So we began to study the human psyche to find an answer there. We found that there are animal instincts in us, but still we couldn't explain the abbilities of our mind. Are we a two-parted being, as some philosophers suggested (this is called "dualism")? Is there a difference between body and spirit or is it just another old superstition? Now of course the question comes to our minds: When there is a difference between our animalic body and our spirit, from where does this spirit originate? Questions began to raise among the so evolved humans: Is it possible that such a complex thing as our mind can develop from nothing? Biologists then pointed out that also some apes have a very high evolved mind. But has an ape ever thought about his origins, about ethics or about what he can achieve? Perhaps the whole problem lies in our ability to speak, some psychologists thought: species with the ability to speak automaticly evolve. But from where comes our ability to understand the language of music? Even people who can't talk because of a handicap understand the universal language of music and every person on this planet, how different all the languages are, understands music. In the end it comes to this: Are we (and with this our mind) only a product of coincedence or are we a product of a genius plan? Is it possible that from nothing more than coincedent, such a complex thing as our mind evolves? Isn't it more probable that we were planed and that there is a reason for our life?

 

Most of all scientists will now shout aloud "NO!" but then I must ask: How did it happen then? Are people who believe in higher powers such as god only superstitious or are they right? I don't know about you, but the idea that I was wanted and that my life is not just an accident gives me hope. Hope that we humans aren't just a higher class of animals who will one day wipe themselves out because they are animals and are because of this bound to their instincts. When you deny this, you're wiping out every hope and reason for living. You could just throw yourself in the next river because it wouldn't matter. Or you could take a gun and shoot everyone, because the life of a human is nothing worth at all. It is a product of coincident, isn't it, so it has no worth, it was no more than an accident in evolution. This philosophy is called existencialism. In fact, I ask myself, why the suicidal rate is rising these days. Perhaps it is because of our hopeless mentality. Even when we can't prove the existence of god, it would be just better for ourselves to believe in some higher power. Then when we do, then there is still hope for something better and perhaps our world will become a better place. I can understand someone who doesn't want to be controlled by a higher power. But at least we need somekind of moral or ethic, or our world will fall into a state of anarchy.

 

Now what should we believe? In a bloodthirsty god who wants human sacrifices? A god who preaches war? No way, we can't use such gods and they are only helping destroy ourselves. Perhaps not even everyone needs to believe. Why not use religion as a tool for controll? A world religion of peace? Everyone except the rulers would believe and so war etc. can be prevented, because "god" forbids it. It sounds mean, but such ideas were suggested by several philosophers and authors. A very similar system did Aldous Huxley suggest ("Brave New World"). A peacefull world, where everyone was happy and content, but also everyone was under the psychological control of the rulers. For this you could very well abuse religion and it would also probably sound very good in the ears of most people.

 

As said in another post, I am a christian. I'm ashamed of what happened in the past and what happened in the name of christianity. There also religion was abused. But when we just could do it the right way... Well, probably it won't be possible, humanity is just to stupid for this (or said in different words: imprisoned in their bodies with their animal instincts). I can't force anyone and won't force anyone to believe, but still I want to state what Christianity should be about: Love. And when everyone on this earth would live by the principes given by Jesus (Love your enemies, love your neighbour as you love yourself) then we wouldn't have the problems we have now. In the end it is not a question for the existence of god, it is a question for our way of life. When Gandhi was once asked what he would say, when they found out that Jesus never lived, he answered: "This may be true, but still what is said that Jesus did say about love is true everywhere and anytime" So the more important thing is that we live in the principles of love and kindness, not our believe. Or as the hippies said: "Make love, not war!" Of course they meant it in a differnt sense, but I think our lifestyle should a livestyle of love. Not only sexual love, but also love for every living being on this earth (that includes animals and plants!)

 

@acrid: You shouldn't only question your old believes, you should question also your new believes, in fact, you should question all believes. Only then you can reach a true answer (if this is possible) or at least come closer to it. I go even further: Try to question everything. Then you will come to realize that it is possible to question everything and so nothing can be certain. I'm not a stubborn christian and anti-evolutionists. I always question my momentarily believes. So should you and everyone else on this planet. This way we can prevent that someone gains controll over our lives. A good example for what happens when you stop questioning things is WW2. Let this and also a lot of other examples be a warning to all of us: Question everything what you come across and never believe blindly in something or someone, not even when it sounds logical and reasonable!

[Akrid]

Because we can think to make laws we do, as would any animal with our intellect and comunication abilities, because nobody wants to be killed, robbed or eaten, we say no you can't do that, and sinse we live in groups, we must accept each others wants not to be violated in order to survive, and so it was. By saying Ung! when sombody takes your favorite rock, you just laid down a primitive law, and a moral, don't steal. Animals even have some laws but they don't have comunication like us so they really just trail and error everything, much the same way early man probaly did. If is wasn't simply human nature to make laws (not some divine moral power) then we live in a anarchy because all man would be self sufficent other than mating every now and then and raising young. I beleive if wolf's became intelligent they would make their own laws, or base them on our's , and then probaly adopt religions and morals like should a wolf and a human be allowed to get married etc.

[Peregrine]

So now that we have created a fundament for the discussion, I will try to bring together criterias why a belief is better than another and then we can compare different beliefs and so find the best belief. Feel free to add or change criterias.

 

1. A belief is better than another when he respects the life of everyone

2. A belief is better when he doesn't create classes (everyone is equal)

3. A belief is better when he doesn't include hostile actions and wars

4. A belief is better when he gives a meaning to our lifes

 

Wrong. There is one simple criteria for determining which belief is the best:

 

1. A belief is better than another when it is correct and the other is not.

 

End of discussion. If the truth is that we are all minions of an evil god who expects us to be completely evil, then that is the best belief. The truth does not care what we think of it. If you want to blind yourself to the truth in favor of the most pleasant story, that's your right... just don't expect your arguments to be taken seriously.

 

When you deny this, you're wiping out every hope and reason for living. You could just throw yourself in the next river because it wouldn't matter. Or you could take a gun and shoot everyone, because the life of a human is nothing worth at all.

 

Wrong. I have no problem finding meaning in my life even though I'm an absolute atheist. If you're depressed and have such a low opinion of yourself that you need a pleasant story to make you feel better, fine. But don't assume that it applies to everyone. Your feelings are irrelevant, whatever the truth may be... it is the truth whether it makes you feel good or not.

 

As for your first point... it makes no sense. All you have stated is that we have evolved much farther than any other organism. Now how exactly is this proof of a higher power?

 

As said in another post, I am a christian. I'm ashamed of what happened in the past and what happened in the name of christianity. There also religion was abused. But when we just could do it the right way... Well, probably it won't be possible, humanity is just to stupid for this (or said in different words: imprisoned in their bodies with their animal instincts). I can't force anyone and won't force anyone to believe, but still I want to state what Christianity should be about: Love. And when everyone on this earth would live by the principes given by Jesus (Love your enemies, love your neighbour as you love yourself) then we wouldn't have the problems we have now. In the end it is not a question for the existence of god, it is a question for our way of life. When Gandhi was once asked what he would say, when they found out that Jesus never lived, he answered: "This may be true, but still what is said that Jesus did say about love is true everywhere and anytime" So the more important thing is that we live in the principles of love and kindness, not our believe. Or as the hippies said: "Make love, not war!" Of course they meant it in a differnt sense, but I think our lifestyle should a livestyle of love. Not only sexual love, but also love for every living being on this earth (that includes animals and plants!)

 

Ok, fine... love and all that is a good thing. I concede that Christianity has incorporated some concepts that are good for our society. But why can't they come from simple human emotion/thought? Why do you need religion to have love? Why can't we just believe in "Love your enemies, love your neighbour as you love yourself"? Why do we have to tie those concepts to a belief in god?

[Malchik]

In response to your very last sentence Peregrine, of course we don't have to. You don't, I don't and many others don't. But as I have posted before Atheism is a belief, a crede of its own. And an Atheist can proselytise just as much as the fundamentalists do. Be a bit careful you don't end up sounding as if that's your intention.

[ohGr]

to be honest, i find the whole concept of a religion hard to believe, i find it hard to believe that this planet was created by some carpenter, when it was really created by science, comets constantly hitting this planet, giving it oxygen and water and so on, as for what apes came from, i dont know, all i know is that the evolution of apes to humans is easily believiable, because there is actual evidence, for the bible, and many other religions, i dont see a single peice of evidence, how can we gaurantee the bible was real, for all we know it was a book called the bible about a perfect world in the making, but there is not a single bit of evidence.

sorry to tread on any toes but thats just how i see it, my perspective on the whole religion aspect to peoples lives.

[Darnoc]

Well, what is easier to believe? Is it easier to believe in something so complex as evolution or is it easier to believe in such a simple thing as creation? Perhaps when we evolve further, we must make up more complex beliefs to satisfy ourselves... In the end, does it matter, what you do believe? When the only believe which is good is the true belief, then how do you find this true belief? What is truth?

 

The difference between the religious and the scientific belief is that the scientists base their belief on what they can see today. They found rules and laws in our today world and concluded through induction that these laws must have been correct in the past and that everything was like it is today. In the 18th century for the first time the question was raised, if induction is really logical. How can you be sure that something what is true now is true in some other time or in another place when you weren't or aren't there? Is it logical to assume that when you see something regular this must be the case everywhere else? The problem is, we can't describe the process of induction in terms of logic, so the minds of the 18th century concluded that induction is not logical and so everything gained by induction is only an assumption and therefore not necessarely true. The "induction-problem" is now one of the basis of logic. In logics induction is not accepted as a way to truth, but can be a help. So, how can anyone belief that something is true, when it is based on something uncertain?

 

Then what is true? If we leave out some of the parts of cogition-theory (that we can't find the truth at all, because everything is based on assumption) and we assume that our world as it is today in this exact moment is an existing place and that our senses don't trick us and that we do exist, then everything is true, what we can recognize with our senses in this exact moment in this specific place. Everything in the past or in the future or in another place that we can't observe directly is uncertain. So our belief must base on something we can observe directly with our own senses. Of course then it is no longer really a belief, it is closer to reality.

 

Everything we can observe with our own senses is true. So every human we can observe is existing and so also their observations. Everything scientist found out from observing what is happening is therefore true. But anything concerning something which they couldn't observe (everything concerning past, future and other places in which there were no humans) is therefore uncertain and not necessarily true. When I find a fossil, this fossil is true. Even when I give this fossil a name and say that it was a reptile, this is still true (because I know the criterias of a reptile, then reptiles exist today). But when I say that this reptile was the ancestor of the first bird, then it is uncertain (because I never observed how a reptile evolved into a bird). So we can't base our belief on evolution or creation or any religion, belief or ideology concerning something which we can't observe. We must therefore search for something else, which we can believe, because it is observable.

 

The problem is: What is with a place or a time, where no person was? Did this time or does this place exist? Of this we can't be certain, because we can't observe it. René Descartes was the first who suggested that there must be something observing everything and this must be, what we call "god". When there is something observing every place and every time we can be certain that everything is existing, when this is not the case, we can't be certain of everything. Of course soon the critics came and some said that this is not necessarily true. We only assume god, because we can't observe him. But when there is no god, we can't be sure, if there is anything existing. So, we have a dilemma: We can't observe god, so therefore he is uncertain. But when he doesn't exist, everything else is uncertain.

 

We assumed that our world as we observe it is true. So we can belief in what observe with our senses and therefore everything that another person observed is true. What is then with all these unexplainable phenomenas some people observe? Because everything is true what someone does observe, also these phenomenas must be true and we can't deny them. So when someone has a vision, this vision must be true. You can't just say something is not true because you can't explain it. Something is true, when it was observed by someone, not because you can explain it. So, all the unexplainable phenomenas existing, which most people don't want to accept as true, must be true, when they were really observed and those people didn't lie. A good example comes from a book by C. S. Lewis. Someone said that he was in another world. This person was known to be very honest all the time and was certainly not crazy. So, this person must have said the truth, even when we can't explain the phenomena.

 

But now have the problem: How do we know that someone did really observe something and that this person didn't just make it up? Well, there we can't be really certain. But then again we can't be sure of anything only one person saw. But why do we believe some scientist found somewhere, even when we don't know him, but when someone we know says, he has had a vision, we laugh at him? Isn't this illogical? I think, we should think different: True is not, what is more explainable or what sounds more reasonable, true is, what was observed by someone. So when someone I know that he is reliable, tells always the truth and doesn't take drugs comes and tells me, he has had a vision of god, I believe him. But when some unknown scientists writes an article in a magazine about a discovery he has made, I don't necessarily believe him, because I don't know him and I don't know how reliable he is.

 

Now I have been personally in the position that someone came to me and said he had a vision. And because I knew this person very well and knew that this person wouldn't lie to me, I believed him. And this is why I believe in god: Because I know persons who have seen unexplainable things and have seen and felt them myself. And I don't take drugs and I'm no psychopath! Of course, you probably didn't observe such things that is why you can't believe them. And this is the also the greater problem: We need something that everyone can observe without any problem, not something that only few can observe. And that is why everyone must find his own believe and make his own observations, because nobody else can do this for him. When someone did observe that evolution is happening, then he will believe in evolution. When someone has had experiences with meditation, he will become perhaps a hindu. When someone has had a vision of god, he will perhaps become a christian.

 

Problem is that not everyone has made such experiences and so they don't know what to believe. This concerns most of the people living on earth and they do believe what is common to believe in their society. And this is why there are so many different believes on our earth. Either we have made experiences which led us to believe something or we have grown up with a believe without experiencing anything or we were persuaded to believe something, because it sounded good. The only group which can find the truth is the first one, because their believe is based on their own experiences. So to find the truth we must find a way to experience truth. When we find the belief in which we can truly experience this, then we have found the truth. I myself believe in Jesus, because I experienced and observed some things, like how humans can change. A guru will say that he believes in hinduism, because he has experienced his believe in meditation. A muslim will say that he believes in Allah, because Allah gives him strength to fight and die for his will.

 

But when they have all experienced and observed, what is then true? Perhaps everyone has a part of the truth and we will find the real truth, when we put together all the truths existing. I don't have the whole truth nor anyone else. But I have a part of the truth and when we could all put aside our differences, find the truth we possess and put together all the parts of the real truth, then we will find it someday. But not today and probably not in some hundred years. It is a long process, because a lot of people are fighting this and they say that they possess the whole truth. No one has the whole and absolute truth! We only have a little bit of the truth and it should be our goal to find it. That is also why I wanted to bring together the criterias for the best believe, then in our best things lies most times a bit of truth. Christians have love and respect for live, muslims have the strength and the will, hindus and buddists have the inner knowledge of themselves, scientists and philosophers have their exact methods and logic. These are all things which are part of the truth and a way to find it. But we must combine forces and not fight eachother to find it.

[Akrid]

Well, what is easier to believe? Is it easier to believe in something so complex as evolution or is it easier to believe in such a simple thing as creation? Perhaps when we evolve further, we must make up more complex beliefs to satisfy ourselves... In the end, does it matter, what you do believe? When the only believe which is good is the true belief, then how do you find this true belief? What is truth?

 

Evolution is far eaiser to beleive! It makes sense, it's explains the diffrent life forms and the way their adapted to their enviroment even though they where not always around. As for beliveing Relgion! Ok talking donky's, snakes turninginto stalves (good idea for mod) and at the end little criket men attacking everyone and touturing man kind? Not to mention the bible is hypocritical, The lord talks about loving thy enemy's and order's his followers to burn city's to the ground, to leave no-one alive not even children, I thought god liked children?

[Darnoc]

@acrid: When something makes sense it is not necessarily true. Something is only true, when you can observe it directly. With this in mind, both evolution and christianity are about the same probable because you can't observe any of it with your senses. Both are interpretations of what can be observed and any interpretation is uncertain, how reasonable it may sound. True is not what is more reasonable, true is what is more observable. In both cases, it is not possible to observe anything. In the case of Evolution because evolution assumes a long period of time, so human beings will be never able to observe it. In the case of christianity (and every other religion) because it talks about supernaturals which are above our senses and so therefore not observable.