God

[Nightingale]

God is something you have to take on faith...

there is no hard evidence. That's why its faith instead of fact. We won't know who's right and who's wrong until its too late to tell anyone.

Its one of those things...there's no evidence truly for it...but there's no evidence truly against it...its just a gut feeling that you have to go with. You're either right or wrong, but there's no way to prove it, and whether you believe or not, it does no harm as long as you show reasonable respect for the views of others, and for the world around you.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Mike Clarke
Johnathan,
I never called either the pope or the dalai lama "Greedy Bastards". These are your words not mine.
I don't believe I'm wrong at all about the antics of the church in hiding sex offenders.
You beleive I'm wrong, but that's not the same thing as me being wrong is it.
Granted I hold differing views to you, but how you can say for sure that you are right and I am wrong in my beliefs on such things as this is unclear to me.
My appology to you and others came as a result of the way I entered the post and tried to shove my views down yours and others throats.
Please don't fall back into that self ritious smuckness that seems to be the hall mark of so many reliegious folk.
If you have some hard evidence that god exists, lets see it.

With respect,
Mike.

Mike,

You are right. Those were my words.

I am not saying you are wrong on your belief. But I don't think you are correct on what you said about the Pope and the Dalai Lama. Neither one lives a luxurious life style. Neither one preaches hatred nor bigotry.

The Pope lives in a museum, not a city of obscene wealth. Should they melt down all the gold and silver from all those historical artifacts or auction them, with other art works, off to the highest bidders? Should all the public museums auction off their collections and use the proceed to fund social projects?

The Dalai Lama does not jet around the world to enjoy a lavish life style.

As for the church protecting the sex offenders problem, the bishops overseaing those priests obviously in effect, swept the problems under the rug. There is no directive from the Vatican to cover things up nor to protect the pedophiles. I am not sure the Vatican was even informed.

Regarding to your view as to whether God exists or not, there is no way that millions and millions of decent people are to be condemned simply because they are not catholics or not christians. Else, what kind of God would that be? I don't think He is that petty as to condemn those who do not worship Him. So, who are we to judge another person's belief?

One can say someone is wrong on secular, factual issues. When it comes to faith, God loves all of us. Who are we to judge another person? Of course, you have nuts who think it is their duty to God, to judge and condemn others. In my view it is a case of label vs substance. There are christians who are in name only. There are non christians who live an honest, and decent life.

Nightingale made a very good post.

Originally posted by nightingale8472
God is something you have to take on faith...

there is no hard evidence. That's why its faith instead of fact. We won't know who's right and who's wrong until its too late to tell anyone.

Its one of those things...there's no evidence truly for it...but there's no evidence truly against it...its just a gut feeling that you have to go with. You're either right or wrong, but there's no way to prove it, and whether you believe or not, it does no harm as long as you show reasonable respect for the views of others, and for the world around you.

 

[Cruentus]

Nightengale: Well said!

Mike Clarke : I hear what you are saying. It depends on what you mean about hard evidence, though. What does hard evidence mean, really? Do we need mathematical proofs? Scientific? Or do we need to see with our own eyes? In person, or are photographes O.K.?

You see, I don't know what the answer is. I think that "proof" is going to be different for each individual. It kind of goes back to some of the old Buddhist philosophies regarding the senses, but I believe that "proof" is subject to a persons own senses.

Some people, for instance, need to literally see to believe. Since I realize that vision is a very limited sense in that you are relying on light to bounce off of the pixels of an object back into your eye, then you are relying on refraction and your brain to make sense out of it all. Then when one realizes that if you are looking into the sky at a star that is 22 light years away; this means that it has taken 22 years for that light to reach your eyes. You are looking at an object as it looked 22 years ago. This means that if that star blew up right before your eyes, you would be literally seeing an event that actually happend 22 years in the PAST. There's something to think about. Plus, there obviously are those out there who aren't able to see with their eyes, yet they can still percieve reality.

The same arguement can be made for all of the senses. I feel that the senses are very limited in that matter. When you break it down, all of these things; our senses, time, space, matter...all these things are limitless in one sense, yet we are limited by them to a certain degree. For us, these things are also very subjective.

Sorry to get off on the tangent, but I think you see what I mean. Some people need to see to believe; but for me, that doesn't fly. Just because I hear a noise in the night, or see an obscure light in the sky, that doesn't mean that I saw or heard God, an angel, an alien, a ghost, or the CIA. The arguement goes both ways, however. Just because I can't percieve anything in my office right now as I write this, that doesn't mean that there isn't someone or something watching me right now.

O.K....that's eerie to think about. I think that those damn ninjas and underware gnomes are hidding in my office again. Damnit! They're trying to steal my underpants again :ninja: Just because I can't see them, that doesn't mean they're not there!

Returning to the discussion, how about scientific proof? Some people need that to believe anything. Well there is scientific proof leaning towards an idea of a God, such as the "last burst of life" theory and the Big bang theory. I am not a scientest, but I do know that the theories pointing towards a "God" exist probably more-so then the theories that point away from a God existing. Science does not provide imperical evidance for or against God either way. Science, however, falls short in a similar manner that our senses do. This is because we can only prove with science with what we can physically test with the scientific method. We must be able to percieve it with our senses, or our instruments in order to experiment, or test. Since there is so much still that we are unable to test, science falls short, at least to me, on the matter.

How about mathematical proofs. Well mathematics isn't designed to prove or disprove God, but you can go beyond your senses to prove something in mathematics. The fact is, there are many mathematical concepts that point to an idea of "God," at least more so then not. For instance, our senses can physically percieve numbers taken to the 3rd power. In Geometry, (or physically speaking), your 1-dimension (the power of one) is your point, your 2-dimensional (the 2nd power or "squared") objects exist on a plane, and your 3-diminsional (3rd power or "cubed") can exist in space, according to our perceptions. Einstien already theorized that the 4th deminsion (power of 4) is actually time, caused by the droping of a 3 dimensional object (like a planet) on a 2 demensional plane (how he percieved "outer-space"). So we can only geometrically percieve up to the power of 4, yet we can take a number long past the power of 4; infinitly if we wish. So, mathematically and geometrically speaking, this idea in mathematics "proves" that there are other "dimensions" that exist outside of our own, of which we cannot percieve.

A little less star-trek sounding would be chaos theory. Chaos theory in a nutshell is best given by an example: a butterfly flutters it's wings while at the same time there is a strong gust of wind, which a causes a chain reaction of cause and effect in the universe that eventually causes a rain storm later that afternoon. Chaos theory is basically the mathematical explaination of the cause-effect relationship of everything, which can be proven mathematically. This mathematical theory points to an interconnectedness of all things, which is a subject that many religions have been talking about without the mathematical proofs to back these theories for ages.

I won't continue with the math example, but I'm sure you can see my point. Besides, Arnisador is the mathematician on this forum, not me!

How about logic, which is both mathematical in nature, but is also conceptual. For me logic is my "proof". Logic is the reason why I don't really think that there are underwear gnomes and ninjas in my office, but that I do beieve that a God is watching everything I do. I can logically reason out one, and logically refute the other. There are many logical proofs out there pointing towards God existing. It would appear to me (although I could be mistaken) that there are more logical proofs pointing towards a God concept then not. In my first post on this forum, I provided everyone with one. Although that is my personal example, that is also an example of a classic logical proof that many religious scholars have used for centuries. And, There are many more out there. The funny thing about logical proofs regarding the "God concept" is that to date many of these logical proofs pointing towards the conclusion that there is a God have not been logically proven wrong. With logic, something can always be disproven if there are "holes" in the proof, but that has yet to happend with many of these proofs. I cannot say the same, however, for the logical proofs "disproving" God. They exist, but to me, they have to many holes, with logical ways of disproving the theories. Not to say that these proofs aren't out there, but I have yet to see one proof against God that couldn't be successfully refuted by logic. This is what has made me have my "faith" to this day.

Now, a person can believe what they want to, of course, and I will respect those beliefs. In terms of proof, however, that would depend on what you mean by proof. No matter what, though, what you are really saying is that you need it to be proven to YOU. This is fine, of course, but understand that the proofs leading to the conclusion that "there is a God" do indeed exist. It is my opinion, however, that if simply someone refuses to logically listen to these proofs, and determined to not believe in a God concept no matter what proof there is, then no one will change that persons mind. That doesn't mean that they will be right, however.

These is just my take on things, though. I of course respect what you say in that it hasn't been "proven" for you yet. I also respect what you are saying to Johnathan Napalm. I tried to tell him earlier that by telling someone "you're wrong," even if (just for arguements sake) they outright are, is not the way to go about it. First of all "wrong" is really subjective, just like our senses and our realities. That doesn't mean that "wrong" doesn't exist, it just means that because no human being is perfect with an answer to everything, that "wrong" is usually a matter of an opinion that needs to be agreed or disagreed upon. Secondly, by telling someone they are "wrong" outright, you just piss them off, either because they know they are and they feel stupid, or because they don't feel that they are and they think that your stupid. Either way, it's not a good way to have a discussion. I told him this nicely, however, yet he hasn't listened to me or agreed with me yet. There isn't much else I can do on the matter.

Well, I am not out to tell you that "your wrong" even if my perception/opinions contrast yours.

I got a little deep here, but I tried to keep it simple. Hopefully I made some sense to everyone.

Have a good day!
:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

You finished your post before I finished mine! Oh well, you clarified yourself a bit in terms of the "wrong" thing, which makes me think that you might be seeing what I'm saying. I hope you don't take offense to my comments in the last post, and I'm sure Mike appreciates the clarification.

The thumbs up was for your "Pope living in a museum" example. That is a very good way of explaining the situation, I think.

Peace...
:asian:

 

[Master of Blades]

Hey cool........this has been the longest NON-HEATED thread on Martial Talk that I've ever been bothered to read

Thanks everybody :cheers:

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm afraid that none of the logical arguments cited prove--or even strongly point to--the existence of God. Nor are logical arguments able to.

Let's take the "interconnectedness of all things," argument as an example. Things in the physical universe are interconnected because they're parts of relatively closed systems. The basic rules which "connect," them are fairly well known (gravity, for example; air pressure), and the fact that the effects of change of one aspect of a large, relatively-closed system are impossible to fully predict is well known. Where's God in all this?

It is much easier to logically suggest that there's no God--Occam's Razor--is it more likely that there's a Big Guy up there who watches every spaarrow fall and Has a Plan, or that the God business is something we thought up because the universe is big, meaning is hard to find, and we're scared of the dark? See Freud, "The Future of an Illusion," for more...

Anybody out there change their mind because of the last paragraph? I should hope not. Logic, reason, evidence, simply don't apply to proving that there's a God. It is--as several posters have noted--a matter of faith. It's another way of knowledge, folks.

The interesting question, to me, is why it is that some religious folks need the tools of science and reason to justify their faith...

Thanks; interesting discussion.

 

[Cruentus]

You wrote:

“Let's take the "interconnectedness of all things," argument as an example. Things in the physical universe are interconnected because they're parts of relatively closed systems. The basic rules which "connect," them are fairly well known (gravity, for example; air pressure), and the fact that the effects of change of one aspect of a large, relatively-closed system are impossible to fully predict is well known. Where's God in all this?”

That depends on your outlook. Ask yourself why are we in a closed system? And why does this system of Chaos seem to adhere to any sort of “rules.” To me it is very logical to deduce that there must be something outside of this “closed system” making the rules. If there were nothing out there making the rules, then the rules wouldn’t exist. This very logically and comfortably leads one to a “God concept.” This is indeed the simplest solution (ahem “occam’s razor”).

You also wrote:

“It is much easier to logically suggest that there's no God--Occam's Razor--is it more likely that there's a Big Guy up there who watches every spaarrow fall and Has a Plan, or that the God business is something we thought up because the universe is big, meaning is hard to find, and we're scared of the dark? See Freud, "The Future of an Illusion," for more...”

To you it may seem “logical” to suggest that there is no God. In reality, however, I would say that your logic falls short, in a sense that it fails to explain the “whys.” Why the rules? Why have a purpose? Why are we alive? The “God” solution, when you look at it this light, is in fact the simplest one (ahem..Occams Razor) when trying to explain these whys. The atheism theorist’s and certain scientists who have attempted to explain these “whys” without a God concept have gotten very complex in their solutions indeed, which violates Occam’s Razor.

For the record, I am only using the “Occam’s Razor” argument to show you how it could be used in my proposed solution. I don’t actually adhere to Occam’s Razor fully, nor do I use it often in a discussion. For those of you who don’t know Occams Razor was a theory from a 15th century William Ockham (Occam is latinized) that is commonly known to mean “The simplest solution is most often correct.” This is actually a misconception from what he actually wrote which was: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate". This translates to: "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". For more on Occam’s Razor you can refer to W.M. Thornburg’s “The Myth of Occam’s Razor” (1918). Besides all of that, Occam’s razor doesn’t say that the simplest solution is ALWAYS correct, as most people assume. The Razor, when you look at it, doesn't tell us anything about the truth or otherwise of a hypothesis, but rather it tells us which one to test first. The simpler the hypothesis, the easier it is to shoot down if it is incorrect. That is why I don’t use Occam’s Razor very often.

A note also on Freud: Although he had done a lot for contemporary psychology, I would say that his arguments regarding “God” are about as unadvanced as your uneducated, unresearched, non-believer. Please don’t take that comment the wrong way either; I’m not assuming that all “non-believers” are “unresearched or uneducated,” but I am saying that Freud’s opinions regarding the matter are only that advanced. He does nothing to propose an adequate solution as to any of the “why’s” afore mentioned. I find it especially odd, actually, that he doesn’t make any achievements within his own practice regarding the matter. He doesn’t really solve the problem of “why” the human psyche would be afraid of the dark (or the vast universe) and where that fear comes from. If you fail to explain that, then you can’t adequately refute the God concept as being a fabrication based off of these fears. He probably just ended the discovery process on that theory for the same reason that our contemporaries do it; he just figured he was right no matter what anyone else said, so why expand on it or take into account a different viewpoint. Some people are just to smart for their own good, I think.

You wrote:

“Anybody out there change their mind because of the last paragraph? I should hope not. Logic, reason, evidence, simply don't apply to proving that there's a God. It is--as several posters have noted--a matter of faith. It's another way of knowledge, folks.”

I agree it is a matter of faith. Yet, I think that any truth, or “fact” for that matter, is also a matter of faith. You can think of facts and theories (not just scientific and religious ones, but ordinary everyday ones) as being on a scale of certainty. Up at the top end we have facts like "things fall down". Down at the bottom we have "the Earth is flat". In the middle we have "I will die of heart disease". Some theories are nearer the top than others, but none of them ever actually reach it. Skepticism is usually directed at claims that contradict facts and theories that are very near the top of the scale. I would say that the “God concept” is towards the top. Whether you decide to believe in the proofs, is a matter of faith. That doesn’t mean that your faith has to lack logic; this is the misconception.

Now, did anyone change their minds reading anything I have written so far? Some maybe, others maybe not. That really isn’t the point for me. No one likes to be “sold” or “convinced” of anything. Our society is way to egotistical for that. To be “convinced” of something, especially when it comes to the subject of religion, means to have to admit that your previous notion was wrong. Well, God forbid anyone do that. My purpose, really in all my posts, isn’t exactly to “convince” in a way that “proves you wrong and me right.” My only motive is to offer alternative solutions in hopes that people will do their own research, and find the truth for themselves. It’s not about anything egotistical for me, such as I must PROVE something, or CONVERT someone, or CHANGE someone’s mind. Only you can change your own mind, no matter how much sense, or non-sense, I make.

One thing that I think that you would be hard pressed to convince anyone after reading some of my (as well as others) posts is that religion lacks logic, or “common sense”. There are countless examples against that. Just because you choose a different path, that doesn’t exactly mean that other people who don’t believe what you believe are illogical. To say that religion, or religious faith has NOTHING to do with logic, is to imply exactly that.

Oh, and one last thing. Although I think that my post should have answered your question already….you asked why religious folks need science and reason to justify their faith. Well, for the same reason the non-religious need reason to justify their lack of faith. We are all on the same journey, and we are all looking for answers. Religious as well as non. My solution would be probably the simplest: we need to reason out our own answers because that’s the way God made us.

Well the one thing I would agree with you on....
This is an interesting discussion indeed.

Cheers!:cheers:
:asian:

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by PAUL ..... I hope you don't take offense to my comments in the last post....

Not an issue.

 

[Mike Clarke]

Paul,
I hear what you're saying and thank you for the time it took to explain your ideas, no wonder you're in P.R., you can put a good [or bad] spin on anything. No disrespect here, just an observation on your posts. Proof is indeed subjective and I agree with you that, like so many other things, it all depends on what a person is prepared to accept as proof.

Johnathan,
I think I said in my first post [or second] that I saw a big difference in religion and faith. I have no problems with people holding on to a sense of faith in a god, but I don't have the same views regarding the reasons for the existance of the worlds various religions.

I don't accept your reasoning that the pope lives in a museum, it's a palace with it's own army. Infact it is an independent state with it's own laws. What value is art and wealth to those facing death from starvation? And "YES" they should sell it off and feed the people. Who are thay saving it for? you can't go in and see it, nor can the faithful from around the world who contribute to it's upkeep.

"Thou shalt have no false gods before me." Who said that?
I've always thought it was Abraham's god, the one so many have faith in today. I don't think he was being very politicaly correct when he said that.
But we seem to have moved on from those days, and now we can tolerate other gods, can't we?
What seems to be more of an issue for many, is religious tolerance, and that is in extreemly short supply around the world today, just as it has always been.

Faith, I can see some value in. Religion, well that's a whole new collection plate.

Again, with respect to all.
Mike.

 

[Cruentus]

I hear what you're saying and thank you for the time it took to explain your ideas, no wonder you're in P.R., you can put a good [or bad] spin on anything. No disrespect here, just an observation on your posts.

:lol: I've been told that on more then one occasion. No offense taken at all. I have to change my profile, though. I am with a global financial firm currently as an analyst. I made the career switch at the end of October. Currently, I am being prepared to do some consulting work that is to par with professional analysts for certian key industries and affluent individuals.

That's even funnier.....people actually pay me for my opinions!:rofl:

 

[Nightingale]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson


The interesting question, to me, is why it is that some religious folks need the tools of science and reason to justify their faith...

Thanks; interesting discussion.

I think people ought to reexamine their faith when it completely flies in the face of scientific fact, however.

Its the things that we can't prove one way or another (is there a god, what happens when we die) that should be addressed by religion.

How our world works is the realm of science...

Why it works is the realm of faith.

 

[arnisador]

The problem lies in getting everyone to agree on the definitions ("What is God?") and assumptions, not on the logic per se.

 

[Cruentus]

The problem lies in getting everyone to agree on the definitions ("What is God?") and assumptions, not on the logic per se.

I agree......somewhat. I think that the disagreements generally do occur by getting people to AGREE with definitions, assumptions, and also what constitutes "proof" and "truth" and what doesn't. These are the things that I feel are a matter of "faith" if you will. Once these are decided upon, however, logic is what comes into play. When "argueing" I try to stay within the realm of the agreed upon definitions and assumptions with who I am talking to, and use logic within those boundries. Sometimes definitions, then, need clarification. However, although this is not always successful, I find that it is easier to use logic within the realms and understandings of who I am talking with to get that person to see my points.

The whole "logic" point is something I have stressed in this discussion because people who have choosen a religion are constantly being blamed for being "illogical" in there beliefs. We are told that our beliefs contradict science, and basic "common sense." Then when someone like myself comes along and uses "common sense" and proves that logic is important when choosing to follow a religion, and also that there are scientific "facts" that could possibly point towards the idea of God, then we are blamed for having a lack of faith, or for not playing by the unsaid rules ("why is it that some religious folk need the tools of science and reason to justify their faith...").
So, really, if someone is determained to not see things from a different perspective (not that they have to agree) then it is a lose-lose situation for the advocate for religion.

I try to see things from the other persons perspective before I respond to anything. The hope is that I will then be able to better understand them (and their definitions, assumptions, and perceptions) to help me better understand myself. Then, if I do not agree, I can use logical reasoning to explain why.

:asian:
PAUL

P.S. I am one long-winded dude. Yea, come on....don't act like y'all weren't thinking the same thing!

 

[qizmoduis]

PAUL,

Regarding logic, please review the following link:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

I would like to see a logical argument that supports your position on the existence of the christian deity, but I have yet to encounter one. First-Cause, Argument from Bible, God of the Gaps, Argument from Design, Fine-tuning, Population, Consequences, etc. are not valid and have been refuted beyond any resuscitation attempts. If you can come up with something that actually makes sense, I'd love to hear it (or see it, in this case). Don't forget: your argument should not only be valid, it must also rest on supported premises. So far, you have only claimed to use logic and common sense. You haven't actually presented anything along those lines in support of your position. And importantly, don't attempt to shift the burden of proof. It isn't up to me to prove that God doesn't exist.

You said:

>P.S. I am one long-winded dude. Yea, come on....don't act like >y'all weren't thinking the same thing!

Never crossed my mind for an instant


:rofl:

 

[Cruentus]

1. Thus far, I think that I have used logic to support my views. I can see how or why someone like yourself, or others here don't agree with those views. However, I am really having trouble seeing how you can say that I haven't used logic to support my position. Seriously, I can't see it. :idunno:

2. Of course my arguement should be valid. Can you please clarify exactly what you mean, however, by "it must rest on supported premises,"? I just feel I need more clarification.

3. Thanks for the link! I would be happy to look it over and see what I come up with. This may take some extensive review, however, so I hope you don't mind if it takes me til next week or so to respond.

:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

O.K....that was quicker then I thought. I did review the web site. I'll say also, for the record, that your one of the few "athiests" who reason out your athiesm. Most athiests through my experience say that is what they are, but really they do "worship" something (whether it be themselves, science, or what have you) which doesn't make them a genuine athiest. You, my friend, are the genuine article.

I did like the "logical falicies" portion. That was pretty cool.

I can see what you are saying, to an extent, but I still don't agree with what you are saying, or the "primise" of the athiest "logic."

In a nutshell, the logic that I think is often used, which is faulty, is the idea that "Because other solutions exist, then the 'God' solution must be wrong." I feel that this is what is implied through the athiest way of thought. This logical falicy is "argumentum ad ignorantiam," which is in fact included in the website.

Many Christians make the same mistake by doing what you asked me not to do, which is shift the burden off proof; "God exists because it hasn't been proven otherwise." Although I think that this is an important point, this alone doesn't "prove" Gods existance. That falicy goes both ways, however; "God doesn't exist because it hasn't been proven that he does," is also a falicy.

So, this puts us around in a circle. I never said that I can prove the existance of God with logic. I would be famous if I could do that. I did say that I felt that the evidence used with logic (which I feel I have put together in a few examples), however, points more-so to the existance of God, then not. This is "proof" enough for me. I also did say that logic hasn't been able to refute God's existance. I'm not shifting the burden of proof, I'm just stating the fact. That fact is not my only basis for believing in God, however. (for if that was my ONLY basis, then yes, it would be a falicy).

In terms of premise...we are again on the subject of "truth." If you can't get me to believe in the premise that satalite photo's of the earth, coupled with scientific evidance, is not fabricated, then you'll never prove to me that the world is round. You see...? We can argue premise all day long, yet get no where.

The Athiest website does much to refute the idea's of religion, but does it do anything to explain, or offer an alternative solution to the "whys" that started religion in the first place? Not anything logical or convincing from what I've seen. Anyone can find a way to refute anything, but that doesn't make that person correct, especially if they can't offer a "better" or "more logical" solution.

So...Once again, I feel I have already given a logical reason, in my very first post percisely, as to why I think that the "God concept" is the way to go. If you want to try to refute any of my arguements, fine. But let's do it point-for-point instead of vaguely pointing me towards some web-site that supports your views and saying "See....you don't use logic because this website supports what I am saying (and happends to have a cool list of some logical falicies)." That would be "argumentum ad populum."

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

Mike Clarke:

I don't accept your reasoning that the pope lives in a museum, it's a palace with it's own army. Infact it is an independent state with it's own laws. What value is art and wealth to those facing death from starvation? And "YES" they should sell it off and feed the people. Who are thay saving it for? you can't go in and see it, nor can the faithful from around the world who contribute to it's upkeep.

Umm...actually, you can; the Vatican recieves serveral hundred thousand tourists every year. The proceeds from those tourists visiting those works of art go toward the treatment of AIDS victims in Africa and Asia, as well as famine relief. The Cistine Chapel was particularly interesting- I never realized that Michaelangelo had such a vindictive sense of humor.
Your arguement "they should sell (all the artwork) off and use the money to feed the poor" has several flaws to it, not the least of which is the sheer economic reasoning (it makes far more sense to charge admission to the museums at the Vatican than to sell of the artwork for a one-time sum; it's simple long-term investment policy). There is also the fact that most of these works of art are gifts to the Church from the faithfull, and as such the Church has an obligation to keep those gifts for future generations of the faithfull. It is not much different than a family heirloom- an object that is handed down from generation to generation.

RMcRobertson:

See Freud, "The Future of an Illusion," for more...

*snort* Please. As Carl Jung pointed out, Freud's reasons for rejecting the existence of God had little to do with logic, and everything to do with justifying his own deviant desires.

 

[Cruentus]

Ooooooo! I wasn't even going to go there, but you picked up my slack!

I liked both the financial arguement ragarding the Vatican, as well as the Carl Jung reference.

 

[Cruentus]

A disclaimer for myself....

One thing I learned new from that website was the differance between "weak" athieism and "strong" athiesm. I always thought of true athiests to be "strong" athiests (For those of you not familiar, I am refering to the link to an athiest website that Quizmodus gave us on a previous post which defines these terms). Very interesting. You learn something new every day!

 

[arnisador]

(As with most statistics, I made that number up.)

It seems to me the difference between an atheist and a theist is whether they are an atheist with respect to 3000 religions or only 2999!

Given the extremely high correlations between one's religion and the religion of one's parents/birthplace, the argument that it's a logical decision fails in the large.

That isn't bad. Science, including logic, is one way of knowing, faith is another. This is the non-overlapping magisteria model.

I've known scientists who were deeply religious yet still did good science. They approached science on its terms and religion on its terms; they largely treated science as a "game" with its own rules. Its conclusions meant little more to them than the outcome of a chess game.

These are different approaches to knowing the world. I really think logic is of little value in religion. If you use the tools of science you disprove religion (by Occam's razor if nothing else); if you use religion you disprove science. Fundamentally, though, which tool you choose is a personal choice and cannot be made logically.