Why do so many still have these religious beliefs?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

And despite your protestations about life from non-life and laws from non-laws, somehow a God from no-God draws no such protestations from you; again suggesting you are not willing or able to apply your reasoning without prejudice. This type of thinking is an excuse for belief rather than a genuine reason for belief.

If something can't come from nothing, how did your version of god come into being?

That is because I don't believe in a God from no-God, or that God was created, otherwise there would be an infinite regression.

Floo started a thread on this (Who created the deity?). The question was answered by several posters (including the poster who started the thread!), but deemed an unacceptable one.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

the problem is their misunderstanding of the concept of 'nothing'

Please explain this misunderstanding.

Also, can you summarise what this concept of nothing is?

[torridon]

That is because I don't believe in a God from no-God, or that God was created, otherwise there would be an infinite regression.

So why do you have a problem with law from no-law, or something from no-thing.  If your get-out clause for God is that he was always there why not apply the same principle to law from no-law ?

[floo]

That is because I don't believe in a God from no-God, or that God was created, otherwise there would be an infinite regression.

Floo started a thread on this (Who created the deity?). The question was answered by several posters (including the poster who started the thread!), but deemed an unacceptable one.

Because there is no answer to that question, as there is no evidence any god exists.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Because there is no answer to that question, as there is no evidence any god exists.

Yet you asked

If something can't come from nothing, how did your version of god come into being?

Why are you interested in how a god you claim there is no evidence for came into being?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

So why do you have a problem with law from no-law, or something from no-thing.  If your get-out clause for God is that he was always there why not apply the same principle to law from no-law ?

1. I don't (currently) see any support for e.g. laws always being there, i.e. laws being eternal.

2. Human beings make laws. Behind them is intelligence and purpose. So I see the same applying elsewhere, where laws are discovered.

Are there any natural, non-intelligent processes that have the forethought to create laws?

[ippy]

That is because I don't believe in a God from no-God, or that God was created, otherwise there would be an infinite regression.

Floo started a thread on this (Who created the deity?). The question was answered by several posters (including the poster who started the thread!), but deemed an unacceptable one.

This post of yours Sward conveys to me that you think there is in existence something you call a god; how do you know something like this exists? I would be fascinated to see any of your definitive proof of this gods existence?

Oh yes if you can come up with the verifiable evidence, I'll no longer be what you people call an atheist and no doubt all the other so called atheists that post here on the forum will become believers too.

ippy 

[ProfessorDavey]

2. Human beings make laws.

Not always - there are many fundamental natural and physical laws that have nothing to do with humans in their inception. Sure humans have tried to understand and explain them, but they didn't make them. Gravity being a good example.

Behind them is intelligence and purpose.

Explain to me what 'intelligence and purpose' is behind the law of gravity please.

Are there any natural, non-intelligent processes that have the forethought to create laws?

Yup - see above - your notion that laws must be created by humans and must be driven by intelligence and purpose is deeply human centric and anthropomorphic, despite the fact that physical and natural laws govern the entire universe and have done since its inception yet humans have been around for a mere blink of an eye in one minuscule corner of the universe.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Always, suggests a fixedness of mind, a mind not being open to new understandings.

Did you notice this bit in my post?

Observation apart, discoveries in Physics (e.g. Newton's conservation of xxx laws) contradict that, and it is the contradiction (i.e. a demonstration that it isn't possible) that has made my mind up.

So it is nothing about wanting to believe.

If someone found tomorrow that e.g. Newton's conservation laws do not apply because you can get momentum from no momentum (e.g. after two objects collide, the momentum after impact is increased with no external agents contributing to it), or that the conservation of mechanical energy no longer applies, etc., then there would be grounds for a re-think.

[Gordon]

Did you notice this bit in my post?So it is nothing about wanting to believe.

If someone found tomorrow that e.g. Newton's conservation laws do not apply because you can get momentum from no momentum (e.g. after two objects collide, the momentum after impact is increased with no external agents contributing to it), or that the conservation of mechanical energy no longer applies, etc., then there would be grounds for a re-think.

Science is provisional: but we know this already and there is discipline involved in ascertaining a basis to revise our understandings.

Your point is what exactly?

[Hope]

It's not just the stuff they teach at schools, you'd think with all of the education and all of the readily available information at the touch of a fingertip, religion should be off on its way, but unfortunately the religionists have left us with this continuing legacy of a kind of self replication that entreats so many to fall hook line and sinker for their myths and the rest.

Oddly enough, ippy, one reason why "religion (isn't) off on its way" is that very same 'readily available information at the touch of a fingertip', with a variety of people - from scientists and scholars to artists and everyday people - explaining why faith (as opposed to dry religion) is no less relevant to 21st century humanity as it was to every other generation.  As we know from this board, there are some who 'hear' - or read - and simply mock, dismiss or ridicule what they hear/read; there are some who seriously consider the claims and decide against them and there are some who seriously consider the claims and accept them.  I have no problem with the last two groups.  I have very little respect for the first group.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The last you gov poll I saw was 51% of the UK is now non religious, if they're a few points out it's still a healthy trend and my reference to the daily spread of unionism was referring to spreading it within our institutions in an exactly similar way the religious promote their cause as they do at the moment with government support too, is plainly out of order.

What parents do, legally of course, or say in their own homes is their own buisness.

ippy

I think you'd have to prove that religious people are unhealthy or that religion is some kind of disease Ippy...Yet another amazing claim from a bonkers secularism which doesn't quite realise how bonkers it is.

After all 20th century is replete with secular states which were bad, Stalinist USSR, Pol pot etc. You might reply that doesn't happen in secular societies but then we have to ask why Modern slavery increased in a secular society.

[Gordon]

As we know from this board, there are some who 'hear' - or read - and simply mock, dismiss or ridicule what they hear/read; there are some who seriously consider the claims and decide against them and there are some who seriously consider the claims and accept them.  I have no problem with the last two groups.  I have very little respect for the first group.

Since you're referring to here, so presumably you have names in mind, it would be interesting to know who fits each of your categorisations and on what basis.

Care to share?

[Hope]

Oh yes if you can come up with the verifiable evidence, I'll no longer be what you people call an atheist and no doubt all the other so called atheists that post here on the forum will become believers too.

I doubt it, ippy.  It isn't simply a matter of evidence.  It has to do with belief.  For instance, I believe that science is a very powerful and important part of real life - I just don't believe that it has, or will ever have, all the answers.  After all, pretty well every scientist worth their salt believes that for every answer it provides, it throws up 2 or more questions.

As for the comment 'what you people call an atheist' I doubt anyone has ever called anyone an atheist unless that person has self-defined as one already. 

[Hope]

Since you're referring to here, so presumably you have names in mind, it would be interesting to know who fits each of your categorisations and on what basis.

Care to share?

I'll leave each individual up to decide which category they fit into.  However, one can usually tell who fits where by the tone of their posts.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Science is provisional: but we know this already and there is discipline involved in ascertaining a basis to revise our understandings.

Your point is what exactly?

Did you notice that I was responding to Torridon's point?

[Gordon]

I'll leave each individual up to decide which category they fit into.  However, one can usually tell who fits where by the tone of their posts.

As you run away please close the door.

Perhaps, if you aren't prepared to back up something you raised whilst giving the impression that you've thought it through, it would be better to say nothing at all!

[Gordon]

Did you notice that I was responding to Torridon's point?

So what?

This is a public discussion Forum so you don't get to pick and choose who is allowed to reply to your posts.

[Hope]

As you run away please close the door.

Perhaps, if you aren't prepared to back up something you raised whilst giving the impression that you've thought it through, it would be better to say nothing at all!

Sorry, Gordon, but I (and you) can guarantee that if I name and shame, there will be an outcry from a variety of people who believe that they ought to be in one of the other categories, and you - as mods - might well be inundated by reports about my abusive posting.  I've seen it happen before, and was a mod when there was a fairly similar situation involving a poster who is no longer here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or maybe there are two types of people in this world.  One type can tolerate uncertainty and are happy with 'we don't know, yet'; the other type prefer to have some sort of coherent and fairly fixed worldview at the back of the mind, one that makes reasonable enough sense of our experience. 

I'm probably in the former camp

I think your reductionist naturalism which is not just a world view but a cosmic view precludes you from being in the former group.

[Brownie]

I'll leave each individual up to decide which category they fit into.  However, one can usually tell who fits where by the tone of their posts.

I happen to agree with Hope on this point and he is not running away by not naming anyone. 

I've often noticed an attitude which to me is tangible but I'm sure the people concerned are not aware of it; there are Christian posters who have a defensive and/or confrontational attitude towards non-Christians who are equally unaware.   

Naming names is a very bad idea, no-one does it all the time and we'd get into the to-ing and fro-ing of having to highlight dates, times, topics, post links to specific posts which would be endless - and pointless.
Debate and discussion would be forgotten in the argy bargy.

[Gordon]

I happen to agree with Hope on this point and he is not running away by not naming anyone. 

I didn't expect him too, Brownie, since true to form I anticipated he'd decline the invitation - but I do think he is running away having posted somewhat naively: being more circumspect in future would be my advice to him.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

I think your reductionist naturalism...

In which Vlad casually throws out his standard trope of reductionism without bothering first to establish that there's something to reduce from.

Oh well.

[ippy]

I think you'd have to prove that religious people are unhealthy or that religion is some kind of disease Ippy...Yet another amazing claim from a bonkers secularism which doesn't quite realise how bonkers it is.

After all 20th century is replete with secular states which were bad, Stalinist USSR, Pol pot etc. You might reply that doesn't happen in secular societies but then we have to ask why Modern slavery increased in a secular society.

I have a suspition English isn't your first language Vlad I've noticed this on quite a few of your posts, have another read or try to get someone more conversant with everyday English to explain where I haven't  conveyed an acusation that religious people are unhealthy in any of my posts on this thread and nor have I refered to religion as a disease.

The Pol Pot Starlinest nonsense you have referred to has been debunked so many times I really don'think it's worth the trouble explaining it to you again because it's obvious you are either unable to take it in, or if you do take it in you are totally unable to understand.

Ippy

[Humph Warden Bennett]

The first four words of my previous post had that covered Owl, I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons for taking up these mystic, magical and superstitious beliefs, but I do think very gullible, youngest of children are their main recruiting grounds.

ippy
 

Ippy nee Iplova

That is plain bollards. Those wanting converts aim for alienated young adults not kids.