Prayers and praying.......

[BarryBreensBandage]

Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.

Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.

Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.

From the time when man was shuffling around a cave scratching his hairy arse, he has believed in a higher power, be it the sun, moon, thunder. What if it was scientifically proven that man performs and survives better by believing in a greater power, even if it turns out that that power doesn't exist?

Ok, what if? Assuming you're correct and such a delusional state is advantageous, what does that mean? That we should go on fooling ourselves? We should protect the population from the danger and suppress the spread of certain aspects of scientific knowledge?

Its called Survival of the Fittest and that is not religion or philosophy.

Yes, I think we're all aware of what you were talking about. My question was based on your premise being true, that such a belief offered a survival advantage. Assuming that, what do YOU think we should do about it. (You asked "what if..."?)

I asked "What if", and I wouldn't really have posted the question if I was only interested in my answer.
And fair dues, you gave your answer, albeit in the form of questions.

Yes, my answer was pretty clearly implicit in my questions. There is no way I would advocate encouraging people into falsely believing in gods because it apparently offered some selective advantage in an evolutionary sense.

So, in parallel with this, there is no way that you would advocate not smoking to the younger generation, even though smoking has been clinically proven to massively reduce the chance of survival?

[ONeill]

It comes back to the concept of faith. There are those who reject the idea of faith because it isn't concrete - you cannot point to an earlier example to show that it exists or most likely exists. However, to do that is wrongly dismissive. I'm a non-believer (at present) but I acknowledge the legitimacy of faith as I do scientific evidence.

Tomorrow I might stop the car at a garage and attempt to purchase milk. I have no idea if the shop has milk to sell. However, I'm using personal experience as close to reasoning as it can be. Those who believe in God may use the First Cause theory or the evidence of morality in the human race as their reasoning. Both scenarios put faith in personal decision making.

To dismiss the existence of God means you reject the notion or concept of faith as a human characteristic.

[J70]

Hardy, surely you make judgements every day based on non-evidenced reasoning. For example, you would expect your son to report a murder he witnessed on your street to either you or authorities. Yet, you have no evidence to confirm he would act in that way. You have faith in his judgement based on your general experience of his personality. You have no actual proof. Therefore, is it not reasonable for someone to believe in the existence of God in the same way - they have made a decision to believe in something without evidence. Maybe they've had a feeling of enlightenment at certain times which you have not experienced.

Surely the concept of faith/belief can only exist without evidence. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow can never be I know that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is incorrect. I believe there is no God can never be I know there is no God. You have a belief there is no God (I assume) without any form of evidence too.

Presumably your belief that your son would (or would not) report a murder he witnessed would be based on your knowledge of his personality, which you've built up through substantial interaction and observation. Similarly, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is based on a long record of observations that the sun does indeed rise every day and the reason why it will is perfectly explained by science. However, one's belief in the existence of a god has no basis whatsoever in empirical evidence. There is simply no reason, beyond superstition and a historical, cultural need (arising out of ignorance - not much of an excuse anymore) for an explanation, why the concept of a god or gods even exists.

From the time when man was shuffling around a cave scratching his hairy arse, he has believed in a higher power, be it the sun, moon, thunder. What if it was scientifically proven that man performs and survives better by believing in a greater power, even if it turns out that that power doesn't exist?

Ok, what if? Assuming you're correct and such a delusional state is advantageous, what does that mean? That we should go on fooling ourselves? We should protect the population from the danger and suppress the spread of certain aspects of scientific knowledge?

Its called Survival of the Fittest and that is not religion or philosophy.

Yes, I think we're all aware of what you were talking about. My question was based on your premise being true, that such a belief offered a survival advantage. Assuming that, what do YOU think we should do about it. (You asked "what if..."?)

I asked "What if", and I wouldn't really have posted the question if I was only interested in my answer.
And fair dues, you gave your answer, albeit in the form of questions.

Yes, my answer was pretty clearly implicit in my questions. There is no way I would advocate encouraging people into falsely believing in gods because it apparently offered some selective advantage in an evolutionary sense.

So, in parallel with this, there is no way that you would advocate not smoking to the younger generation, even though smoking has been clinically proven to massively reduce the chance of survival?

Let's keep the discussion sensible...

[J70]

It comes back to the concept of faith. There are those who reject the idea of faith because it isn't concrete - you cannot point to an earlier example to show that it exists or most likely exists. However, to do that is wrongly dismissive. I'm a non-believer (at present) but I acknowledge the legitimacy of faith as I do scientific evidence.

Tomorrow I might stop the car at a garage and attempt to purchase milk. I have no idea if the shop has milk to sell. However, I'm using personal experience as close to reasoning as it can be. Those who believe in God may use the First Cause theory or the evidence of morality in the human race as their reasoning. Both scenarios put faith in personal decision making.

To dismiss the existence of God means you reject the notion or concept of faith as a human characteristic.

Faith is obviously a human characteristic. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. So are lying and murder. There are many human characteristics. Not all of them are good things.

[The Iceman]

I've no doubt whatsoever that you feel and believe with all sincerity that you've a relationship with an alleged entity called Jesus. Doesn't make Jesus any more real though. The same goes for any number of religions, gods, prophets or L. Ron Hubbards.

It is well documented that Jesus existed - that has never been in question. What is questioned is whether or not He is the Son of God.
Thats for another thread. I encourage you to take some time to find out for yourself. That doesn't mean reading Wikipedia......

[ONeill]

It comes back to the concept of faith. There are those who reject the idea of faith because it isn't concrete - you cannot point to an earlier example to show that it exists or most likely exists. However, to do that is wrongly dismissive. I'm a non-believer (at present) but I acknowledge the legitimacy of faith as I do scientific evidence.

Tomorrow I might stop the car at a garage and attempt to purchase milk. I have no idea if the shop has milk to sell. However, I'm using personal experience as close to reasoning as it can be. Those who believe in God may use the First Cause theory or the evidence of morality in the human race as their reasoning. Both scenarios put faith in personal decision making.

To dismiss the existence of God means you reject the notion or concept of faith as a human characteristic.

Faith is obviously a human characteristic. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. So are lying and murder. There are many human characteristics. Not all of them are good things.

Lying and murder are actions. Faith is something without material, and often logical, evidence. For me, it is allowed to hold the same weight as physics.

[J70]

I've no doubt whatsoever that you feel and believe with all sincerity that you've a relationship with an alleged entity called Jesus. Doesn't make Jesus any more real though. The same goes for any number of religions, gods, prophets or L. Ron Hubbards.

It is well documented that Jesus existed - that has never been in question. What is questioned is whether or not He is the Son of God.
Thats for another thread. I encourage you to take some time to find out for yourself. That doesn't mean reading Wikipedia......

Is the wikipedia comment an attempted putdown? I don't recall ever presenting it as a source.

A historical figure called Jesus may or may not have existed, but as you say, the key question is whether he is who religious people claim he is. Same as Muhammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard or whoever else you might be inclined by your particular beliefs to make spectacular claims about. And that is the sense in which I commented on his "realness". It is the supposed supernatural Jesus you're talking about after all...

[BarryBreensBandage]

It comes back to the concept of faith. There are those who reject the idea of faith because it isn't concrete - you cannot point to an earlier example to show that it exists or most likely exists. However, to do that is wrongly dismissive. I'm a non-believer (at present) but I acknowledge the legitimacy of faith as I do scientific evidence.

Tomorrow I might stop the car at a garage and attempt to purchase milk. I have no idea if the shop has milk to sell. However, I'm using personal experience as close to reasoning as it can be. Those who believe in God may use the First Cause theory or the evidence of morality in the human race as their reasoning. Both scenarios put faith in personal decision making.

To dismiss the existence of God means you reject the notion or concept of faith as a human characteristic.

Faith is obviously a human characteristic. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. So are lying and murder. There are many human characteristics. Not all of them are good things.

Lying and murder are actions. Faith is something without material, and often logical, evidence. For me, it is allowed to hold the same weight as physics.

Great Post

[J70]

It comes back to the concept of faith. There are those who reject the idea of faith because it isn't concrete - you cannot point to an earlier example to show that it exists or most likely exists. However, to do that is wrongly dismissive. I'm a non-believer (at present) but I acknowledge the legitimacy of faith as I do scientific evidence.

Tomorrow I might stop the car at a garage and attempt to purchase milk. I have no idea if the shop has milk to sell. However, I'm using personal experience as close to reasoning as it can be. Those who believe in God may use the First Cause theory or the evidence of morality in the human race as their reasoning. Both scenarios put faith in personal decision making.

To dismiss the existence of God means you reject the notion or concept of faith as a human characteristic.

Faith is obviously a human characteristic. I don't think anyone has ever claimed otherwise. So are lying and murder. There are many human characteristics. Not all of them are good things.

Lying and murder are actions. Faith is something without material, and often logical, evidence. For me, it is allowed to hold the same weight as physics.

That's pretty dismissive of the scientific field of physics. But each to their own.

[theskull1]

Lying and murder are actions. Faith is something without material, and often logical, evidence. For me, it is allowed to hold the same weight as physics.

Youre sure taking the mick ONeill?

It takes years of "actions" by faith leaders to develop the notion of faith in the young population. Their actions help construct the mental framework to get people to "believe". And lets not forget the material gains made by those who have promoted faith.

[Hardy]

Lying and murder are actions. Faith is something without material, and often logical, evidence. For me, it is allowed to hold the same weight as physics.

Just in from the pub to see the discussion has progressed. For now, all I'll trust myself to say is you cannot be serious - in the context that what (I think) we're talking about is the quest for a reliable model of reality. In what way is faith in God a better model than faith in Russel's teapot?

Goodnight.

[stephenite]

Goodnight.

Nighty night night. Hope you said your prayers and brushed your teeth-God doesn't give out new teeth for free.

[The Iceman]

Is the wikipedia comment an attempted putdown? I don't recall ever presenting it as a source.
A historical figure called Jesus may or may not have existed, but as you say, the key question is whether he is who religious people claim he is. Same as Muhammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard or whoever else you might be inclined by your particular beliefs to make spectacular claims about. And that is the sense in which I commented on his "realness". It is the supposed supernatural Jesus you're talking about after all...

If Jesus did exist what did he gain from as you put it "claiming to be the Son of God"? or was he just crazy?

[theskull1]

Lets not forget Iceman that the jesus stories were written by people who didn't even meet the man and relied of hand me down stories translated from maybe once or twice on the way over 60 or more years after his death. How can stories like that mean anything to anybody and be taken as gospel (pardon the pun)?. Every hand me down story gets embelished.

[The Iceman]

Lets not forget Iceman that the jesus stories were written by people who didn't even meet the man and relied of hand me down stories translated from maybe once or twice on the way over 60 or more years after his death. How can stories like that mean anything to anybody and be taken as gospel (pardon the pun)?. Every hand me down story gets embelished.

Skull you might need to check that out first. Matthew?
Mark also scribed his Gospel on behalf of Peter, maybe you've heard of him? Peter makes reference to Mark is one of his letters.
Luke was a Doctor and co-worker with St.Paul.
John was one of the 12 apostles.

This is what I am talking about folks. Skull can come on here and make bold claims without even fully understanding or doing some research.