god is a genesis of stupidity

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Comments

[joshthevegan.livejournal.com]

There is no higher being until it is proven there is one. One cannot prove the unknown, nor is it on those of us that disbelieve. The burden of proof is on those that claim that Magic Man Of My Particular Choosing exists.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I would rather live under your rule than the one that Scalia et al. are carving for us, but I don't think logic is on this side. Some things we just don't know, regardless of where we would like to place the burden of proof.

For my part, even if there were a God, and even if that God were Jesus, I think it would still be fitting if our Constitution left it to us whether to believe and abide in God, since I think even Christianity posits free will, insisting that it is our choice to believe and adhere or not.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I don't think logic is on this side.

You'd be wrong in that. That's what makes science so wonderful. Using logic and the tools at our disposal to better understand the world around us. And unlike dogma, adjusting theories when a better one comes along.

Some things we just don't know

And I'm comfortable dwelling in uncertainty. I don't claim that God can't exist, merely there is no evidence to support the existence or need for a supernatural being of any sort.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I don't think logic is on this side

I'm going to differ. Logic would dictate that the onus for evidence lies upon the assertion. That which can be asserted without evidence can likewise be dismissed without evidence. Unless you want to conflate imagination with reality.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Okay, I ask you, "Is there a higher being, a God?"

What assertion do you make? Can you prove it?

Whether you assert positively or negatively, I don't think anyone can prove it.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

We prove lots of stuff, but the majority we don't. We can do useful things with our collection of knowledge.

What is even more exciting is we CAN justify a theory for how the universe was created without a God. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYg2JfRa0TA)

Whereas the theists still have no more to offer the story than poetry they have offered for eons.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Okay, I ask you, "Is there a higher being, a God?"

It is an unanswerable question. It is like asking "What can you see just beyond the range of your vision?" Er, uh. . . .

Evidence of God is by definition literally supernatural, that is, above the natural world. We could no more detect such evidence than we could speculate on its existence.

I prefer living in the natural world. There's plenty of cool stuff to entertain me here.

Whether you assert positively or negatively, I don't think anyone can prove it.

Exactly! So why bother entertaining the question at all?

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

why bother entertaining the question at all?

Because not everyone is a PolitiCartooner. Some people believe different things, and we have to work out an accommodation that allows all of us to live together on reasonably satisfactory terms.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Why?

I am not asking out of spite or a rhetorical need.

Accommodation in my mind is simply respecting that people have different beliefs, to which they are entitled. Should someone be inclined toward the god thing, good on 'em. Should someone be inclined to the godless thing, good on 'em.

Both you invite to drinks. One you invite to a really, really raucous night of drinking.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Some people believe different things, and we have to work out an accommodation that allows all of us to live together on reasonably satisfactory terms.

That is a fallacy a lot of people believe, yes.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

And what is the non-fallacy answer? Intolerance?

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

The non-fallacy answer is that there is nothing compelling you to work out an accommodation with other people other than personal preference, regardless of what that preference is informed from. We don't HAVE to do anything. You can be tolerant, intolerant, or any level inbetween. It's entirely up to you. But there is no "have to" involved in it.

Once you recognize that, you can understand why others don't feel they have to work out an accommodation. Once you eliminate "have to" as a compelling premise, other's actions become understandable. There's no guideline, no force, no law of nature or physics that requires it.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Is there a higher being, a God?

Only in our heads. We have no external evidence to posit a creator. If we did, it begs the question who/what created the creator?

Many questioned if a god initiated the big bang, but now we have quantum theories that demonstrate entire universes will spring from "nothing", without a creator intervening.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

In other words, you cannot prove it. We have a more scientific theory, using quantum dynamics and everything, and it is very utilitarian, but there is no conclusive proof. I think our fundamentalists are lost in fairy tales, but sectarians are not really knocked out of the fight on the basic fundamental question of God's existence. Moreover, they could argue for some utilitarian grounds as well, saying that our basic moral understanding came from the old faith traditions, particularly the idea of equality, and that faith has given people a vision and aspiration to build civilization, whereas not in our more godless time we are falling into a sort of nihilism.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I'd argue we owe every bit as much to Greek Philosophers, the Code of Hammurabi and other sources as we do faith traditions.

Slavery wasn't ended by religion and the fight for human equality has been resisted at every turn by religious conservatives.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Good, rich debates can be had on just about all the particular points being touched on; libraries can be buried with the debates. I'm just taking stock of an argument that I still find creditable, in which the Christian idea of each of us being accountable to God, with each soul being a key battleground between Good and Evil, may be our most solid foundation for a thoroughgoing notion of equality.

True the leaders on the earth, even Christian, have not held to the standard, even sanctioning slavery, but this is true for the Greek philosophers as well, and probably Hammurabi too.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Then why do you ascribe it reverence beyond human? Surely there is no earthly accountability other than what we've made for ourselves. Also, I could hold a god accountable for a thing or two, but alas, its a childish wish.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

...our basic moral understanding came from the old faith traditions...

It's a pretty pick-and-choose version of the 'old faith traditions' that variously condone racism and violence and slavery.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

it is very utilitarian, but there is no conclusive proof.

Science has done more to reveal how little we truly understand about our universe than has religion. Religion ascribes false answers for feels. Science endeavors to weed out the falsehoods and open the casket.

Our eyes see a tiny percentage of the visible spectrum of energy. Its like only using two keys on an 88 key piano. Science revealed this and made better eyes (Xray, gamma, etc.)

our basic moral understanding came from the old faith traditions

Rape (http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm), child sacrifice (http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Child-sacrifice), the old time religion.

Its more than proof, its which approach is useful. If prayer worked, I'd do it more.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think science is better than religion too, and even science cannot disprove the existence of God, which has been and continues to be my only point. It's an elementary point, and it does not mean that we must have state religion or be religious ourselves.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I agree we cannot disprove a negative assertion.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

It doesn't matter that we don't know that there is no magic beard guy. We can go about our lives and live them as if there were no MBG simply because to even acknowledge the possibility is silly without at least some evidence.

As to the Constitution, you might want to read the book Moral Minority, a book exploring exactly how "Christian" the founders and Constitution authors really were. Short answer: They weren't. The Constitution was a document that allows people to abandon religious tradition in the new secular realm they were crafting, something completely new and untried in an age when rulers were generally tied to the will of god for the right to keep ruling.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I am aware that we were fortunate that our founders were more under the heady sway of the enlightenment than medievalism, but they did not exactly ban faith, either. And if you were an atheist back then, you might find it circumscribing living in one of the states.

How would you answer this:

http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/4323515.html?thread=97897147#t97897147

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

since I think even Christianity posits free will, insisting that it is our choice to believe and adhere or not.

That's only true for SOME sects of Christianity.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

There was no higgs boson before it was proven there was one? Or did it come into existence when it was hypothesised? Or perhaps it's always existed and has been outside the possible realm of human knowledge.

I agree there's absolutely no reason to believe in a supernatural being. But I think believing the opposite is just that, a belief. If you want to be scientific and remain internally consistent you have to admit that the god question falls outside the realm of possible knowledge and is therefore an irrelevant conversation.

It's up to the religious to provide us with a falsifiable experiment to prove god, this much is true. However, to claim you have knowledge of a lack of god is unscientific.