How scientists really feel about God

You never met my mechanic. :-)

firstly, belief in God is a personal decision and people who call others stupid because of their belief are bordering on hate speech.

Nope. If someone believed that Billy Joel's grandpa created the universe by farting especially loudly, would it be hate speech to call the person stupid? I doubt it.

Further, it'd be great if belief in God were seen as ust a personal decision by believers. However, believers have tried to impose their beliefs on others through legislation (if we're lucky). So, in persuading people to see belief in God as a personal decision, convince your fellow believers first.

Wouldn't it then logically follow that any religious person who calls science stupid would also be considered "bording on hate speech"?

Perhaps extremists on both sides are guilty of intollerance and not being able to see beyond their back yard and what has been handed down to them?

One big difference, whereas scientific pronouncements are based on evidence, religious dogma is based soley on conjecture. "Believe this because god told me to tell you. and how about some wanting to have it both ways. First they tell us that our minds our too small to understand the workings of god and then they say they speak to god on a personal basis, seems a bit presumptuous and contridictory.

Your premise would be true only if God was limited to our inertial coordinate system. He is not!

According to science nothing can travel faster than the speed of light (186,282 miles per second).

According to the general theory of relativity, nothing material may exceed the speed of light.

God is spirit. Besides, God is everywhere and therefore does not need to travel thither and yon to observe the universe.

could you offer up some kind of evidence as to who and where this big banger is?

could you offer up some kind of evidence as to who and where this big banger is?

The Love Doctor.

Elvis ?

And how do you know this? Did god tell you? Did you read it in a book written by a man. Did another person/man tell you to believe it. All of them a bit too convenient.

What if the people who died were parts of God? What if the bridge and water and all of matter and energy are parts of God? Think about it.

There are several definitions of God (and non-God) in these messages. There will never be a consensus on which one is correct. Write what you think God is (or is not), or pick one that is close and comment on it.

After life, nothing. It would be nice if there were something--I think. Start considering having to hang around for an eternity. A quadrillion years? Eternity hasn't even begun. The sun will have ceased to exist in the first eye blink of eternity. In an eternity, either the universe will collapse, countless times, or it will fade to black. And what will we do with all of this time? Living for ever is very, very scary.

Feynman was cool.

Kudos. And yes, Feynman was quite the character..

Agaain, the burden of proof lies with those who are professing this. Not us. You simply want to say Believe this, yet offer no rational reasons why, except because we say so. Again, way too convenient.

I know that about 90% of scientists do not believe in God.

Erm, how do you know that?

Many scientists reconcile a belief in some sort of god with science, and the vast majority of them do it without letting said beliefs interfere with their work.

The literalistic interpretation of many religious texts, which is actually relatively recent in the history of mono-theist religions, can greatly complicate things that are otherwise simple to the scientific observer. However, a basic belief in a creator can actually simplify problem areas conceptually. It may not give you additional evidence, but it will let you look at existing evidence with more possibilities. What if the basic particles that make up the universe have a collective intelligence and consciousness? Could that qualify as God?

I attended college for 6 years, taking science courses, and worked in research institutions for 34 years, and many of the scientists I worked with, probably about 10% were people of faith.

The literalistic interpretation of many religious texts, which is actually relatively recent in the history of mono-theist religions, can greatly complicate things that are otherwise simple to the scientific observer.

Not just complicate things, but if the scientific observer feels a need to adhere absolutely to such dogma, and if his work has anything to do what his dogma may touch upon, he has no place working ins cience.

What if the basic particles that make up the universe have a collective intelligence and consciousness? Could that qualify as God?

How would you test that? To be snarky, it somewhat reminds me of that "Look Around You" episode about "intelligent calcium."

Exactly, those who claim that ANY substantial number of reputable scientist believe in god are simply misinformed or lying.

What the skeptics fail to understand or are unable to reconcile themselves to is the concept of faith if they cant see it it or test it ,it doesnt exist.

We cannot "see" blackholes; what we see is the outer ring of light caused by all the matter burning up just before being pulled down by gravitational forces to the singularity. Science has proven their existence. Your argument belies this fact.

not really science saw the matter burning up so they investigated, what Im saying is we are incapable of finding a physical manifestation of God so we end up having useless debates over his existence the very nature of faith is to believe in something without seeing it that is what I mean by skeptics are unable to reconcile themselves to faith
because they dont have proof that he is there so they wont allow any faith perhaps I should have worded it as faith in God. Im not speaking of the word faith in general I mean as it pertains to God. By the way Im not trying to get angry here I see this as a discussion of beliefs not a fight I sincerely doubt Im gonna change many minds if I do great if not thats fine too its an interesting subject

In what do you actually place your "faith"? Your religious traditions? The Bible as interpreted by others? Or a greater being? Read the Bible in the context intended by the authors without the religious filters. You should also read some of the books by real biblical scholars (not your pastor or priest).

Most people, including scientists, believe in something greater than themselves. It is the religions of men that many people have a hard time having "faith" in. Especially when anyone can track down many of the articles of "faith" believed by most of the Christian sects to human intervention and interpretation over the years. For instance, where did Jesus say that every word in both the Old and New Testament is the unerring word of God? This is the core of most of the current day disagreements with science. However, only the first 5 books of the Old Testament (Pentateuch) had that distinction until several hundred years AFTER Jesus. You should also look up when and how the concept of a Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and Christmas came into being. They were not part of the early Church. BTW, men did the same thing with the Koran to fit their needs at the time.

Is it any wonder that people who use their God-given brain to research their beliefs take exception to the word of organized Christian religions?

yes its true I read the Bible Im busted okay here we go again Its a matter of what we read believe and internalize I personally believe that the Bible is the word of God taking the scientific approach of reason I have to say if I were God Id have a vested interest in making sure that the book explaining me is accurate so I may have a hand in its writing since I believe in Divine intervention this is entirely possible. the problem is there is sooooo much information out there for all sides of the argument given time to research I could show just as many "proofs" and I have read alot about what the liberal revisionists have decided is the truth its kinda like the political divisions in the early Jewish traditions. let me say this I use the bible as a guidebook we Christians get tied up in dogma and often miss the point or spirit of our faith I dont view Christianity as a religion it is a lifestyle to me, a way of living my life to please God which is the point for me I dont believe I have the right to force Christ on anyone because Christ himself didnt do that he simply said believe in me not believe in me or Ill put you to the sword he left it up to the individual how can I do any different also as I recall Christ said celebrate my death not my birth so Easter is my big Christian Holiday bit of a fundamentalist in some ways. usually I find that its mans interpretation of the Bible thats skewered not the Bible itself case in point the Inquisition! anyway I dont remember Jesus saying anything about the new testament he was Jewish by Faith as I understand it but as the son of God not only fulfilled old testament prophecies but also was a continuation or an evolution(couldnt resist that one here) of the faith to allow the gentiles to be included and to allow for forgiveness of sin the new testament is the telling of Christs teachings and through these teachings we get the concept of the Trinity I understand the tales of the meetings to decide what was to be put in the Bible and what wasnt Ive read about that and this is where I have to have faith that God would have intervened as to the divinity of Christ there again are ALOT of versions of that concept and where it comes from and there again I have to have faith and I do, well this has dragged on and on and on I am enjoying it Ive thought thru some things I havent gone through in awhile but Ive got to get some sleep Ill be back tomorrow

E- again you guys are making my point that you want it both ways. First you say mans limited mind is too small to ever know god or that god for some reason has or will not "reveal" himself to man. Then you turn around and say god told me so! Which is it? It's soooo confusing and convoluted. Anticipating your next question of he reveals himself to certain people when he is ready again seems way to convenient and capricious. Why didnt he "reveal" himself to the people of New Orleans? Im sure prayers were going up. I guess he was too busy. Oh, I keep forgetting he acts "in mysterious ways".

What kind of scientist are you? Are you thinking great thoughts like Einstein and his peers, or are you making lab observations to attempt to prove a particular theory?

Please give us a source for your assertion about scientists believing in God. I would agree with those numbers applied to scientists believing in a particular religion, but religion is not God. My personal experience with scientists disagrees with your numbers.

Are you thinking great thoughts like Einstein and his peers, or are you making lab observations to attempt to prove a particular theory?

The two are hardly mutually exclusive.

Many of the great "thoughts" scientists were also experimental scientists.

I can agree there.. you cant say the religious are drunk as god isnt disprovible.
Drunk is thinking thins fall up.
with that said there is no good reason ocams "rule" withstanding to not be a deist.

I have a conscience and I am not an animal but a loving human being on earth to do great things.

I feel sorry for those who do not/are not on their own but require some external force to provide it for them. Doesn't say much for their person-hood or character - especially when they feel that...

it would be ok for me to rape, murder or anything else I want.

I read statistics several months ago that showed more violence comes from church goers than non-church goers. The data summary from interviews showed that both sets had similar violent emotions (anger, rage, etc.), but that the church goers had more conflict with their violent emotions and were always repressing them. Non-church goers generally resolved or otherwise reconciled their violent emotions better. Both sets believed in a higher being of some sort and directly or indirectly followed the teachings of Jesus (forgiving, non-judging, turn the other cheek, multiply the gifts you have, etc.).

@Jon

I thought 11-4=7...But 6 is probably juuust fine for the world in which you inhabit. And we see three, or what we would perceive as three, can you SEE time? Now, you can see time is passing.. Time is the fourth dimension. It's the flow of TIME that allows such absurd statements like the ones you made to exist. And string theory is crap..ca-rap. String theory is the religion of science. Studying string theory is like studying a bad religion. A theory that can't be proven, only postulated. No evidence to directly observe. The dimensions of the sizes spoken of are unheard of. No use in any of the modern sciences. Unless you count metaphysics. Now this may seem contradictory to my statements about God around the forum...but string theory has no deep historical roots, like the search for God or spiritual peace. Great things weren't accomplished (or ruined) because of String Theory. I know...just go with it. It seems like some math major or something was in a jam for a senior thesis and found a few dusty old books and equations...pish-posh. I would start with kinematics, and the stuff leading up to it, and work up to string theory, if you feel so compelled. ALSO, I just can't believe that you actually said "Besides if there is no God and we are just animals it would be ok for me to rape, murder or anything else I want." It seems odd, but to me it appears that you are saying you are a rapist, murderer, etc. The only thing holding you back is fear of God and retribution? You have no ethics and morals that aren't borrowed? I will hold back my insults, but I imagine you don't need any insults, holding those kinds of views. It's disgusting...Sick and twisted man. You showed your weakness, and if any of the Christians I knew were anything like that, I just don't know....That's something else, seek counseling. Next point, last time I checked animals don't RAPE AND MURDER OTHER BEINGS. Some humans may just have a tendency to be evil, to be controlling, manipulative, and seek power. Maybe all, but humans can enlighten themselves to a higher principle and ethical standard. Animals survive, hunt, play. Thanks to your statement, I now am that much closer to thinking that animals are much smarter than any man. "Amen"

I am not saying I would ever do those things. I feel guilty if I kill a bug because it might have not have been much of a life but it was its life. I just don't see how with out God how there could be morality. If we are mere animals then the law of survival of the fitness and/or anarchy would be the only moral compass. People rape and murder because they believe there is no God to hold them accountable for their crimes. Actually to me the most offensive thing in the world is those that murder in the name of God. Such as the Catholic church, Christian fanatics and Islam fanatics. I reject your opinion that I am a sick and twisted man because I believe that rape and murder is wrong morally and against Gods commandments. But I cant expect those without morality to understand that.
As for String Theory having no directly observation. They are in fact trying to do that very thing with the large Hadron Collider being built near Geneva. They are hoping to actually see atoms disappearing and reappearing as they move through other dimensions.

Jonathan,

You are the one who said that "it would be ok for me to rape, murder or anything else I want".

Which at least implies that the only thing preventing you from doing so is your fear of an external agent. In other words, you are a rapist by default but prevent yourself from such acts. Just like most of us are speeders when driving but many prevent themselves from speeding out of fear of law.

You do realize that morality exists in animals as well as in humans (also animal, by the way)? Morality starts at the biological level and grows out of the need for society (we do better with each other than without). In fact, religion was created by man to teach morality, not the other way around.

Actually....they are most concerned on the Higgs Boson, or the "God Particle." That is the particle which would attribute mass its properties....and really, they are investing stock into string theory? I actually don't believe it. A 17 mile-circumference cyclotron used to waste time...what else is next. String theory is dead, I'm afraid. Only rogue scientists who wish to have no job will embark on that endeavor.

I just don't see how with out God how there could be morality. If we are mere animals then the law of survival of the fitness and/or anarchy would be the only moral compass.

Animals have morals. People lie you simply like to refer to that as "instinct," wallowing in your own superiority complex. Humans are one of the species who kill their own kind for more than simple reproductive rights. Actually, chimps and dolphins are the only other species observed to engage in violent, seemingly causeless mob behavior.

Lions may not believe in God, but that simply rules out one more reason for them to kill each other.

"Survival of the fittest" is not anarchy. If it were, wolves would not have pack behavior, ants would not have colonies, and lions would not have prides. Your points fail spectacularly.

People rape and murder because they believe there is no God to hold them accountable for their crimes. Actually to me the most offensive thing in the world is those that murder in the name of God.

Taken together, these two statements don't make sense. People who murder in the name of God must not believe in God because they murder? Uhhhhh... right.

and really, they are investing stock into string theory? I actually don't believe it.

Oh, snap! If you don't believe it, then it's obviously bunk and a complete waste of time. If only the rest of science could wake up to this infallible litmus test for scientific validity.

String theory is dead, I'm afraid. Only rogue scientists who wish to have no job will embark on that endeavor.

It's dead? Really? Man, I'd love to see your disproving of string theory. The rest of scientific community is similarly interested.

You apparently haven't learned that science operates on more than mere assertion.

Taken together, these two statements don't make sense. People who murder in the name of God must not believe in God because they murder? Uhhhhh... right.

I agree with you there Jack. They cant believe in the true God if they murder. Thanks for all your comments. I read every comment in these forums. Its been fun and informative.

They cant believe in the true God if they murder.

Ah, how convenient for you to judge belief in "true God" based on nothing more "oh, they're bad, and I don't like being associated with them."

Countless Christians have murdered throughout history, sometimes en masse.

Countless Christians have murdered throughout history, sometimes en masse.

Were they following the explicit instructions of Christ? If not, how can they be Christians, regardless of what they call themselves?

If I call myself a policeman and put on a policeman's uniform, does that make me a policeman?

Were they following the explicit instructions of Christ? If not, how can they be Christians, regardless of what they call themselves?

Christians are Christ-following automatons, doing nothing outside of Christ's explicit commands?

Come on, now, MM, you can probably dream up far better bulls---.

One needs to at least aspire to the Christian ideal and repent one's failings to be a Christian.

Murdering one's neighbor is loving thy neighbor as thyself?

Letting poor folks starve and freeze to death while enjoying unconscionable wealth is giving one's second coat to the person who has none?

One needs to at least aspire to the Christian ideal and repent one's failings to be a Christian.

Murdering one's neighbor is loving thy neighbor as thyself?

Hey, as long as you repent your sins and give yourself to Jesus, you're in the clear according to most forms of Christianity.

unconscionable

Hahaha, cute. Conscience having a dollar figure. That's a new one.

Hey, as long as you repent your sins and give yourself to Jesus, you're in the clear according to most forms of Christianity.

Didn't Jesus Himself, though, say something about repenting one's sins and sinning no more? Repentance is not a pass to continue sinning.

Hahaha, cute. Conscience having a dollar figure. That's a new one.

For us to amass more wealth than we could ever reasonably need is unconscionable. That's a tenet of many faiths.

Repentance is not a pass to continue sinning.

Tell that to the people who go to confession.

For us to amass more wealth than we could ever reasonably need is unconscionable. That's a tenet of many faiths.

So anything more than lower-middle class is unconscionable. Interesting. You might want to tell middle-class and upper-middle-class Christians. They apparently didn't get the memo.

Ultimately, Jack, it's between them, their consciences, and God.

While I'm entitled to my opinions about classes and situations, I do my best not to pass judgment on individuals. Rather I try (however poorly) to show empathy and compassion to individuals.

Hey, first of all you left out a dimension. Next I would say that if you needed a supposed higher entity to tell you that rape or murder is wrong then that speak to your character. Are you telling me that if you found out that there was no god you would no longer love your family? If so, what a tenuous love.

That is too simplistic.

I am not an atheist and I do good things because of my own personal convictions not fear. Some need God to keep from doing evil. The SHOUTER appears to be one who fears going to hell and is very vocal.

Some of us wonder in the creation and want to discover it. Scientists do not require a god to prove creation, or good and evil. They just want to discover the creation be it from God or otherwise. I doubt they change beliefs during their discoveries.

Wholeheartedly agree. Science does not change beliefs. Science presents its arguments, and people are free to decide if that is convincing. I think the whole issue of relationship between science and religion is somewhat lopsided. Science is not in conflict with religion. Science has thousands of more important issues to be concerned with. It is like a horse working hard pulling its cargo with a little nasty dog messing and barking underneath.

But Anatoly - this discussion was supposed to be about science and God, not religion (although many Christians cannot seem to distinguish between the two). Do you believe they are one in the same? A religion may include a belief in God, or not, but the existence of God is separate from the belief in what a particular religion preaches about such a God. I think it would be like a scientist confusing the existence of a black hole with a theory about a black hole.

Many of the posts are about how religious people view science. I tried to explain how a typical scientist views religion. The vantage point is important here. For a believer, scientific concepts may be uncomfortable because they may contradict the tenets of religion. For a scientist, the existence of religion is not uncomfortable; it does not pose a problem that needs resolution.

I may be missing something here, but for me God and religion are the same. A belief in some supreme organizing force belongs to the same category as belief in turning water into wine or talking serpent. You are either here or there - there is no rational position in between.

But Anatoly - this discussion was supposed to be about science and God, not religion (although many Christians cannot seem to distinguish between the two).

Nor can many rationalists/atheists/scientists, I'm sad to say.

I may be missing something here, but for me God and religion are the same. A belief in some supreme organizing force belongs to the same category as belief in turning water into wine or talking serpent. You are either here or there - there is no rational position in between.

"Religion" implies some sort of codified beliefs accompanied by institutionalized ritual. That's different from raw belief.

And you are a descendant of Noah, as you lived past the great flood. Thus your family history extends less years than written language.

I am a descendant of Adam and Eve who were created By God in His image

If you can trace your lineage that far back to just two people, I can't imagine how many congenital birth defects you're living with.

UncleMe - does it really matter how the world was created, or is this just an area to sow poor seed and cause distraction? Science has never rejected any evidence from the Bible, but Christians who do not understand how the Bible was written often take it literally rather than symbolically like the parables Jesus used to teach. Isn't the real meat of Christianity the teachings of Jesus? Does anything else matter? Where do the teachings of Jesus and science disagree?

Actually, organized religion has been a thorn in our side for thousands of years. Comments made by charismatic individuals have been written down and expounded upon by countless clueless men and women.

I have to laugh when I see people finding some writings that are thousands of years old and exclaiming to the world it must be true because it was buried in the ground. I hate to think of people thousands of years from now digging up some of our novels and comic books...

However, just because most people have been lied to their entire lives (by both scientists and preachers), does not mean there is no God. However, my definition of God may differ a great deal from your definition. I have investigated many scientific and religious texts and have sifted through them to find the grains of truth.

First of all, the creation in the Bible does not have the actual physical creation of the Earth - merely the spiritual, planning or rather a general blueprint (Genesis 2:4-5: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, (5) And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew"). Also the word "Create" should have been translated "Organized" (e=mc2), as everyone knows that matter cannot be created or destroyed. In other words, "In the beginning, the gods organized the heavens and the earths." In other words, we have always existed in one form or another - we are eternal.

Second, I believe that humans were first before all other plants, animals and other organized matter. DNA was invented by one of our fellow intelligences that allowed the organizaton of physical bodies. Playing with DNA has been quite a fun ride for billions of years...

As one planet is prepared, another takes its place and people are born into mortality to learn from a system that is so ingenius in its simplicity and pattern. Deluding yourselves to believe in Macro-Evolution (I do believe in micro-evolution) is rather sad. We are not animals - we only organized them to be used with prudence. Every stage of life on this planet was closely monitored over a course of millions of years. First the one-celled organisms. When it was ready, the gods introduced multi-celled organisms and on and on until dinosaurs were placed upon this world. Yes, species adapt but they do not change into completely different things.

Adam and Eve were literal beings. They were born just like you and I. However, they were born to beings that were immortal (no blood). Therefore, a change was necessary in order to make them mortal (advanced biology) and so it was done. But the DNA was so perfect, that it took over a thousand years for the genes to become weakened to a state where men and women only lived less than a hundred years. In the meantime, the gods introduced changes to certain people's DNA in order to maintain a good mixture of variety in the world.

In my mind, science and God are intertwined - if organized religion attempts to smear science, then God is not behind it. Logic and order prevail for God. I strongly believe in the theory of chaos. To see such order around us in such magnitude decries a multitude of beings that have advanced far beyond our frail minds.

I am saddened that there is a debate over this at all. For me, everything denotes a God. Atheism has no place here for you cannot disprove the order you enjoy every day.

Second, I believe that humans were first before all other plants, animals and other organized matter.

What did we eat?

As for your other ramblings, there's frankly way too many facets of crap in it, as a specific counter to everything you said would require essentially a complete scientific education from scratch, but to make one general points, micro-evolution and macro-evolution are one and the same.

For me, everything denotes a God. Atheism has no place here for you cannot disprove the order you enjoy every day.

To ascribe the unknown to some sentience, to justify your ignorance through wild flights of fancy, is folly in the highest order, usually reserved for religious fundamentalists.

We didn't need to eat - we didn't have a heart or blood. We were powered by light.

Of course my theory requires a complete scientific education from scratch - remember I said that we have been lied to our entire lives by scientists and clergy alike. My theory makes a lot more sense than anything else that is being taught.

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not one and the same - this statement elucidates your ignorance. You can adapt to your surroundings, but this does not make you a new species.

Folly in the highest order? To believe that some explosion could cause life to appear in such a high degree of order is the highest folly. If you see organization in life (garden, house, etc), there is an organizer. Thus, the organization of the universe denotes an organizer - the truth is so apparent that it surprises me when people such as you try to deny it.

My theory makes a lot more sense than anything else that is being taught. Referencing the Newsvine Crackpot Index-- items 2, 5, 11, 21, and 36, for a total of 77 points.

We didn't need to eat - we didn't have a heart or blood. We were powered by light.

*facepalm*

That really is quite sad.

My theory makes a lot more sense than anything else that is being taught.

Kinda like Scientology.

Nice but quaint. All that you profess to know as truth came not from observable data but from what someone has told you. Simple as that. I will not discount your believe but there are those of us who can not simply suspend reason on a whim, or because another man supposedly speaking for a greater being tells us to.

As you believe that man man came from Adam and Eve then god must support incest as their descendants would have had to engage in.

prove deism wrong.
just as yes occama sayus a god isnt needed since to say what caused the universe you envoke a god but are left with what caused god therefore there is no need to envoke a god. But occama is just a rule that is often broken..
due to my upbringing in the deep south I have always been in a struggle with beliefs and my love of science. I have painted myself into the deist corner. ANd since you call me foolish, I demand you prove it.
BTW deists pretty much belvie that god exists outside of causality and doesn't interear in the natural progression of the universe.. meaning we can quit worry about him after the big bang and all the prayers in the world wont change nuttin, even morals are a genetic invention and that god is far to complex for the human to reason.

I will say even if you say the universe is all there is, the universe still could be called god, I guess the problem in disproving god is he isnt well defined. STill I ask you destroy my deist faith.
Looking forward to your reply.

@Unforgiven

No. I thought the point was about science and God, not science and religion. Religion, largely, is appalling. I too, like Joules here, had ubringings from the deep south. Family from Waycross, Ga, and stuff like that. And I was raised, I guess in a way, to be religious. I started to go to church with some friends later in life, but I see no reason for it. I sat there and couldn't wait for it to end. Maybe it's because I saw all the faults and contradictions. So, no religion. But God, I believe in. Not as a way to escape my faults, or to give me false hope. God exists, to me, in an entirely different way. I'm not saying he has nothing to do with our lives, but there is no point in arguing that point. It CAN'T be done. Science isn't here for that. I believe in God, and am a scientist. It's that simple, really. Wishful thinking...of what. We have freewill, things happen, some things don't. I believe in God. Not just because I don't have all the answers, but I just believe. I will mention that there is an incredible amount of phenomena that happen and are just too many to be coincidental, for my sake, but I'm not here arguing that point either. It may be coincidence, I think not. For some, it is, and I can't tell people to believe or not to believe. But my belief in God in no way takes away from the ethical manner in which I conduct my scientific studies. If there is or is not a God, I would still feel the same way about the world, morality, science, anything. God, or spirituality, is another part of my life.

Ok. You believe in god. What's the point? You don't explain what you mean by "god." Is it the god of the Christian bible, or simply "the creator?" Does this god demand anything of you, and, if so, how do you know what it is?

Bravo...

see what your are saying is atheists don't have convictaions.. now what about people that don't embrass your god? do they have convictions?
or what about satanists, who belive in the anti christian god.. do they have convictions?
yeah I get it, your repeating what we hear in many attacks on the atheists and it is an attack.
AS you are saying those who don't belvie what you do are lacking in morals and convictions.

I apologize if I come off as a personal attack. Really I just don't understand. I guess it would be the same for me as even the word atheist conjures up visions of me and my wife and children are nothing more than animals with no more rights to live than any other animal or bug from their view of life. Satanists have false convictions based on evil and are even more dangerous to the world. I must fear you and them to protect my children from physical harm. Where as you have nothing to fear from me except love.

I guess it would be the same for me as even the word atheist conjures up visions of me and my wife and children are nothing more than animals with no more rights to live than any other animal or bug from their view of life.

Erm... I don't see how you can justify that you have fundamentally more "rights to live" than, say, a llama. WIthin the protection of society, we're certainly generally more capable of surviving, but who is dictating these "rights to live"?

I must fear you and them to protect my children from physical harm.

Atheists are disproportionately rare in US prisons. Think about that.

Where as you have nothing to fear from me except love.

Interesting, so no Christian ever hurt anyone? News to me.

INteresting, so no Christian ever hurts people? News to me.

That's what we call "tough love". ;)

Jack Huang
Erm... I don't see how you can justify that you have fundamentally more "rights to live" than, say, a llama.

Because my 3 year old daughter is a human being and a llama is just a llama. But I thank you for confirming my fears.

I think they are trying to say that if your daughter runs in front of a speeding car and a llama runs in front of a car they will both likely be killed. We may have much more grief for your daughter because she is a human being with all the potential that entails, but "value of life" and "right to life" are not the same thing.

Because my 3 year old daughter is a human being and a llama is just a llama. But I thank you for confirming my fears.

So you're using the "just because, nyeh" argument. Duly noted. Forgive me for looking for substance.

Because my 3 year old daughter is a human being and a llama is just a llama. But I thank you for confirming my fears.

In the eyes of the universe, what makes your 3 year old daughter more important than the llama? Why does she have more of a right to life than any other living being?

Now don't get me wrong and don't interpret this as a confirmation of your fears. I value your daughter's life more than a llama's but that is a human value. I would suppose that a llama values it's daughters life more than yours.

Because my 3 year old daughter is a llama and a human is just a human.

-- mamma llama

-- mamma llama

llama llama duck.

Following factors separate us from other animals
1. A highly developed brain
2. Reasoning ability
3. Usage of complicated language
4. Straight body
5. Introspection
6. Our thumb finger, which helps us to hold things
7. Humans can think about their thoughts

Based on this I would say it is impossible for a llama to value its daughters life more than I value my daughters life.

Following factors separate us from other animals
...

And only humans value these factors.

Based on this I would say it is impossible for a llama to value its daughters life more than I value my daughters life.

I did not say that a llama values its offspring more than you value yours. I said that a llama values its offspring more than it (the llama) values yours. Just as you value your offspring more than you value the offspring of a llama.

I contend that I could value the loss of the llamas offspring more than the llamas mother could.

1. A highly developed brain

What's the line between "highly developed" and "kinda developed"?
Dolphins, chimpanzees, and orangutans use tools and have extremely complex social interactions.

2. Reasoning ability

Define this, please.

3. Usage of complicated language

It's thought that dolphins and other whales use a highly complex language.

4. Straight body

Ever heard of snakes?

5. Introspection

Koko, the gorilla has demonstrated understanding of abstract concepts, self-awareness, and thoughts about facets of her own persona.

6. Our thumb finger, which helps us to hold things

Seriously? Chimps have thumbs

7. Humans can think about their thoughts

Explain, please.

I contend that I could value the loss of the llamas offspring more than the llamas mother could.

And I'd value the loss of your child far less than the loss of mine. Does that make you no longer human?

Because man gave the earth to Satan and made him king through the knowledge of good and evil. It is Satan who causes those 5 million children to die and 8 million serious birth defects. We do have free will it is free will to turn against God that got us into this mess. God will return and reclaim the throne if Earth that we so recklessly kicked him from and we will suffer no more. Everything man makes is ugly and everything God makes is beautiful. Satan only makes death, misery and lies. Worship who you will.

Johnathan, please, think, don't repeat dogma, think.

The basic premise does not work.

If your god exists, then he created Satan. Right? Being all knowledgeable and all powerful your god knew everything Satan would do before he was created and has always been able to stop him at any time. Right?

Epicurus [341–270 B.C.] A Greek philosopher said;
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

"Evil" is just the product of limited vision. Beyond limited vision, it's all good and it's all God.

Even in the Bible, God says that all "evil" springs from Him.

I was simply trying to help answer his questions to the best of my ability as it really seems he needs some answers. Perhaps someone with more knowledge than me can answer. Sorry I was unable to help.

Epicurus [341–270 B.C.] A Greek philosopher said;
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

God is able but not willing to prevent evil as we need both good and evil in our lives in order for us to show that we can disregard the evil and follow the good. He is omnipotent - not malevolent. In the next life, you will fully understand why all the pain and suffering in this world means nothing compared to the eternity of joy and beauty awaiting most of us. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. It is only through suffering and pain that we can truly appreciate the good things in life.

This is apparent as a father - raise a child and give it everything he/she wants and the child will appreciate nothing.

I for one totally understand why I am here and it gives me a great sense of peace.

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, tiggergreen, especially:

In the next life, you will fully understand why all the pain and suffering in this world means nothing compared to the eternity of joy and beauty awaiting most of us.

This, though comes across as arrogant. Is there no sense of mystery to you regarding life?

I for one totally understand why I am here and it gives me a great sense of peace.

exactly and as I was going to tell you. They will say all this suffering in the world is due to the fall of man. So that inocent child dying from cancer is doing so becuase of Adam. But i ask you this. If all are subject to misery because of "the fall" why would there ever be a miracle of say, healing. And then ask yourself why would this child be spared and not another?

And they will answer because god acts in mysterious ways. How convenient!!!