Pit Religious Demographics

[ChrisL68]

It was never anything about the Church failing me. It was just when I got old enough to realize that the fables and myths in the bible are just like the fables and myths in every other religion that man has ever invented was when I came to the conclusion that the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes here.

 

[seventwofour]

I grew up as Christian, but no longer identify as such. However, I recognize how much my view of ethics was formed by that upbringing and I'm still real high on the teachings of Jesus and how the world would be if those ideas were applied. I'm attracted to deeply spiritual people and cannot move beyond the cosmological argument (though the other thread shows it's probably just due to my ignorance or willingness to try). I could really get into a Christianity stripped of its supernatural elements.

 

[61raddeac]

What led your rapid transformation from agnostic to atheist?

Actually now that I think about it, a lot of that time I considered myself agnostic I was probably atheist. It was just not being comfortable with the word. My wife still isn't comfortable with it. She calls both us agnostic. It's kind of funny because I call both of us atheist.

 

[Pope Bendadick]

God, or something like it is winning 59 to 32!

Suck it athiests!

PS: You're going to hell! Not Purgatory, HELL! Like Hitler.

 

[RevDeac06]

myths in the bible

The issue is that the thinking (and orthodox) Christian embraces them as myths and not literal/historic stories. But when the fundamentalists and literalists got hold of the Bible, they lost the deeper sense of meaning and made science/reason and faith enemies.

 

[sailordeac]

The issue is that the thinking (and orthodox) Christian embraces them as myths and not literal/historic stories. But when the fundamentalists and literalists got hold of the Bible, they lost the deeper sense of meaning and made science/reason and faith enemies.

With apologies to St. Thomas, but science/reason and the faith in God don't always agree (Hume would be proud). In fact, if they did, then there would be little need for faith.

 

[RevDeac06]

With apologies to St. Thomas, but science/reason and the faith in God don't always agree (Hume would be proud). In fact, if they did, then there would be little need for faith.

And Kierkegaard would say they aren't supposed to agree. But yes, I agree, you can't prove God/faith anymore than you can disprove it. But I don't see rational faith as being opposed to science, and I'm not just talking about a god of the gaps reasoning. There is a mystery to faith/God, and if science's goal is to explain every mystery, then they might be at odds. But I don't see that as science's role, or even something that's possible.

 

[sailordeac]

And Kierkegaard was right. In a world that is entirely irrational and capricious, paradoxically the only rational thing to do is take the leap of faith and believe in God. Thought provoking fellow with a delicious taste for irony, that Kierkegaard.

And greatly to oversimplify things: those who believe that the world can ultimately be explained by reason and science find the idea of God to be a superfluous nuisance, mainly useful for keeping the great mass of ignorant and superstitious unwashed awed and respectful, or at least busy at the country club. Those who don't believe that the world can ultimately be explained by reason and science will either have to ignore the problem altogether or go with Kierkegaard.

 

[PhilliesDeacs]

Actually now that I think about it, a lot of that time I considered myself agnostic I was probably atheist. It was just not being comfortable with the word. My wife still isn't comfortable with it. She calls both us agnostic. It's kind of funny because I call both of us atheist.

Given our country's origins in puritanical theology, it took a very long time for the so-called stigma to be lifted from the idea of atheism. It still exists for certain, just as all stigmas do, but its not as strong nor as prevalent as it once was.

That said, I think we'll have a gay President much sooner than an atheist one.

 

[RevDeac06]

Those who don't believe that the world can ultimately be explained by reason and science will either have to ignore the problem altogether or go with Kierkegaard.

Okay, so here's what I don't get, maybe one of you can help me understand it.

How is a belief that science can explain everything really that different from a belief in God? It's faith in science vs. faith in God. The idea that science can explain everything isn't provable by science, because not everything can be explained by science at this point in history. In the same way, God cannot be proven. But to believe that science one day will explain it all is rational, but God isn't? Plus, doesn't science have built in mysteries and unexplainable ideas- such as an ever expanding and infinite universe. To understand that concept is to put limits on the limitless, which is a mystery. How is that different from a belief in a deity?

Some will choose to believe in science, others will believe in God, and yet others (and I'd say the correct ones) would believe in both. But any of those options is belief, as we are finite and don't know it all.

 

[ChrisL68]

I don't believe science will ever "explain it all". I think it will continuously explain more and more.

I just have very little faith in the "conventional wisdom" of man. It is pretty much always proven wrong.

And with the size of the universe and the fact that we weren't even here until billions of years after it formed and that we inhabit such a miniscule portion of it, does it seem likely to you that a creator, if he existed, would have a personal relationship with us? Seems very ego-driven to me, like all of man's religious beliefs have been.

 

[avalon]

To me, the difference is faith. Atheism requires faith that I don't have, same as Deism.

^^
I like this post.

 

[PhilliesDeacs]

Okay, so here's what I don't get, maybe one of you can help me understand it.

How is a belief that science can explain everything really that different from a belief in God? It's faith in science vs. faith in God. The idea that science can explain everything isn't provable by science, because not everything can be explained by science at this point in history. In the same way, God cannot be proven. But to believe that science one day will explain it all is rational, but God isn't? Plus, doesn't science have built in mysteries and unexplainable ideas- such as an ever expanding and infinite universe. To understand that concept is to put limits on the limitless, which is a mystery. How is that different from a belief in a deity?

Some will choose to believe in science, others will believe in God, and yet others (and I'd say the correct ones) would believe in both. But any of those options is belief, as we are finite and don't know it all.

A few points, from my perspective:

- Science has proven many, many questions that plagued mankind for ages. To put it another way, science has a better track record on being correct and solving various mysteries of existence.
- I also think there's a difference between "unexplainable" and "uncomprehendable" (not a word, but go with me). Most astrophysicists would probably say that the origins of the universe can in fact be explained, but the boundaries of human consciousness simply cannot comprehend the explanation. There really isn't a basis for that kind of non-linear comprehension for nearly everyone the planet.

Again, just my perspective. You or others may disagree and consider "unexplainable" and "uncomprehendable" to be one in the same.

 

[TWDeac]

Okay, so here's what I don't get, maybe one of you can help me understand it.

How is a belief that science can explain everything really that different from a belief in God? It's faith in science vs. faith in God. The idea that science can explain everything isn't provable by science, because not everything can be explained by science at this point in history. In the same way, God cannot be proven. But to believe that science one day will explain it all is rational, but God isn't? Plus, doesn't science have built in mysteries and unexplainable ideas- such as an ever expanding and infinite universe. To understand that concept is to put limits on the limitless, which is a mystery. How is that different from a belief in a deity?

Some will choose to believe in science, others will believe in God, and yet others (and I'd say the correct ones) would believe in both. But any of those options is belief, as we are finite and don't know it all.

I firmly believe we will have an almost unimaginable(by today's standards) understanding of the universe and it's workings in several hundred years. Provided we don't blow ourselves up, or anything.

The Kardashev scale is something that makes you really think about our signifigance at this point in time.

In 1964, Kardashev defined three levels of civilizations, based on the order of magnitude of the amount of power available to them:

Type I: "Technological level close to the level presently (here referring to 1964) attained on earth, with energy consumption at ≈4×1019 erg/sec[2] (4 × 1012 watts.) Guillermo A. Lemarchand stated this as "A level near contemporary terrestrial civilization with an energy capability equivalent to the solar insolation on Earth, between 1016 and 10 17 watts."


Type II: "A civilization capable of harnessing the energy radiated by its own star (for example, the stage of successful construction of a Dyson sphere), with energy consumption at ≈4×1033 erg/sec. Lemarchand stated this as "A civilization capable of utilizing and channeling the entire radiation output of its star. The energy utilization would then be comparable to the luminosity of our Sun, about 4 × 1026 watts."


Type III: "A civilization in possession of energy on the scale of its own galaxy, with energy consumption at≈4×1044 erg/sec." Lemarchand stated this as "A civilization with access to the power comparable to the luminosity of the entire Milky Way galaxy, about 4 × 1037 Watts."

We aren't even close to the first type. Imagine what a type III civilization must know?

WMAP information shows that the Universe could potentially be infinite, but as our horizon is only 14 billion years, we cannot confirm this. If the universe were infinite and there were no time barriers, the entire sky would look like the sun.

 

[TownieDeac]

And Kierkegaard would say they aren't supposed to agree. But yes, I agree, you can't prove God/faith anymore than you can disprove it. But I don't see rational faith as being opposed to science, and I'm not just talking about a god of the gaps reasoning. There is a mystery to faith/God, and if science's goal is to explain every mystery, then they might be at odds. But I don't see that as science's role, or even something that's possible.

Good post.

 

[RevDeac06]

So one argument that I've heard is that the universe is so finely tuned for us to exist. This isn't the watchmaker argument, but rather that if there is a Creator, and this Creator chose to create via rules and with order, that the universe would have to be as big as it is (and the way it is) for life to exist. And it's not so some narcissistic deity can have something to appease its divine and eternal boredom. Then the argument turns Christian (or at least Abrahamic)- but rather, if God is love, then relationship is needed, hence creation. Others (and this is overtly Christian) would say that if God is Triune, then Creation is a product of the over pouring of that divine love, which paradoxically cannot be contained within the Godhead.

 

[TWDeac]

So one argument that I've heard is that the universe is so finely tuned for us to exist. This isn't the watchmaker argument, but rather that if there is a Creator, and this Creator chose to create via rules and with order, that the universe would have to be as big as it is (and the way it is) for life to exist. And it's not so some narcissistic deity can have something to appease its divine and eternal boredom. Then the argument turns Christian (or at least Abrahamic)- but rather, if God is love, then relationship is needed, hence creation. Others (and this is overtly Christian) would say that if God is Triune, then Creation is a product of the over pouring of that divine love, which paradoxically cannot be contained within the Godhead.

The fine-tuning argument is a decidedly anthropocentric one. What about the poor intelligent creatures on Alpha Centauri who can barely function because they are deathly allergic to Hydrogen? If they believe in god, is the universe still fine-tuned?

 

[nosaJ]

My lady is my religion

 

[RevDeac06]

What about the poor intelligent creatures on Alpha Centauri who can barely function because they are deathly allergic to Hydrogen? If they believe in god, is the universe still fine-tuned?

If we're just going to make stuff up, it's tough to have a reasonable debate. I'm not trying to discredit you, but that's a rather big "what-if" assumption.

 

[dartsndeacs]

To me the reason I don't believe in religion is it just seems too convenient. What are humans biggest fears? Death and the unknown. Well here we have a nice easy answer to both of those, oh and will you help donate to the cause?

When I get an email from a girl trapped in zimbabwe asking for $50 to get home I know its a scam, but if I get hit up for $50 from my church I feel bad about turning it down because it was something I was taught when I was 2 to believe in. The reason I personally am a bit resentful or come off angry at the subject is simply how much of a struggle it is to think of yourself as potentially a bad person because of you not believing something you were taught made you a good person at a very young age.

The main thing that I have a problem with is the concept of heaven and hell. Everyone is taught, at a very young age that hell is this evil eternal place of suffering that non-believers end up in. An Eternal damnation. For everything that we know about the parent/child relationship, I can't imagine any parent thinking their child could do anything bad enough that you would punish them with eternal damnation. And our relationship with God is supposed to be the epitome of the parent child relationship.

That just doesn't jive with me.

If God is real, not only is he going against everything I believe in as far as punishment of your children, with all this evidence he gives us not to believe, he's essentially putting a piece of cake in front of a 2 year old, telling them not to eat it, then locking them in the closet for the rest of their lives if he does.