The Pope's Health

[Nebu]

On topic: I"m sorry to see the Pope in a state of failing health.  The guy seems to have a genuine passion for what he does and acts with what he believes are the best of intentions.  I must admit, he has lived about 5 years longer than I would have ever predicted.

For the rest: You can't have a rational and objective discussion about the existence of God because there is always a point where faith gets inserted.  You believe or you don't.  It's an individual decision based on a multitude of personal factors.

On a side note: I've never had an atheist bang on my door trying to convince me to believe what they do.  For that, they have my respect.

[Paelos]

Yes I started this about the Pope. Not to prove the existence of God. If you don't believe in God at all you fall into such a small minority of the world population that frankly you might want really want to consider the possibilities that you are pretty out there. I have a hard enough time trying to reason with people about Jesus when they believe in an all powerful God to begin with.

If you don't even take that small step of faith to say there is something larger out there than random chance in your existence, you're a lost cause in any religious debate.

As far as the Pope goes, he's a great man, and probably the most popular Pope I'll see in my lifetime. I'll be sad when he goes because he is the "rock star" of the church right now, and he's done great things to further human development in his time here.

[stray]

On a side note: I've never had an atheist bang on my door trying to convince me to believe what they do.  For that, they have my respect.

Well, it's not exactly banging on my door, but I can think of plenty of situations that I've been in or observed where someone has talked about faith, even in an offhand way, and out pops the atheist trying to spark a debate...As if the very mention of religion calls for a challenge.

I suppose it could be attributed to them living their lives being persecuted for so long, that they mistake taking an "active" role as being on the "defense".

Heck, take the Internet for example. Just Google "promote free thought" and you'll find plenty of examples for yourself.

[Llava]

Woah woah woah, I wasn't trying to disprove anything.

I just wanted to express the other side of things, to give Jeff Kelly a bit of perspective on how someone could look at all the coincidences of the universe and still be able to say "That doesn't prove that God exists."

I don't bring up my (lack of) faith to other people, but I find that people do ask every now and then and often the assumption on their part (assuming they do believe) is that I've been somehow short-sighted and didn't really consider just how impressively our universe works.  I often find that I have to explain that I am aware of the astronomical chances that the universe would end up exactly as it is, but that it had to end up SOMEHOW, etc etc, 20-sided dice, blah blah.

Jeff just said that, looking at the universe, you pretty much have to believe in God.  I just wanted to explain why you can look at that, take all the evidence into account, and still be unconvinced.

As I said at the end of my post- it really comes down to a personal hunch.  I don't think God exists, so I live my life accordingly.  But I also recognize that, no matter what argument a non-believer can come up with, it's all moot.  God, by definition, would be beyond logic, beyond metaphor, and so far beyond our comprehension that any discussion on our part is really just philosophical masturbation.  That's why the "could he make a rock so big that he couldn't lift it?" argument is just plain stupid.  Just because you don't understand how God could do two different things without contradicting itself doesn't mean God couldn't do it.  It isn't bound by our rules.  It isn't bound by its own rules.

The most compelling argument you can make against a higher power is that it would be so far removed from our view of reality, so far outside our comprehension, that to worship and contemplate it are wastes of time.  But you can't disprove its existence, no matter what.  Not without becoming omniscient yourself.  Good luck on that one.

[Abagadro]

If you don't even take that small step of faith to say there is something larger out there than random chance in your existence, you're a lost cause in any religious debate.

I'm sorry, but this is a really stupid statement.   There is a difference between belief and knowledge. I don't believe in any higher power, but have studied religions extensively (to the point of having an undergraduate degree) and have a large base of knowledge. If you only want to have "debates" with those who a) agree with you or b) can be converted, then I say YOU are the lost cause.  

Just because you think people are "out there" who don't believe in invisible men in the sky doesn't mean we aren't  quite capable of discussing the matter.


(Notice in the last paragraph above I gave about as much credence to your beliefs as you do to mine. Does that advance the discussion? No.)

[Murgos]

If you don't believe in God at all you fall into such a small minority of the world population that frankly you might want really want to consider the possibilities that you are pretty out there.

You may want to look at a map of the world sometime.

If you would like to restate that to "If you don't believe in spirituality at all..." I might lend you some credence, but as it is you're talking out your ass.

Most of the world doesn't actually accept that there is one true God.  Not by population or even by land mass inhabited.

I've lived in a couple of those countries and you know what?  They are a lot more accepting of alternate points of view than that little sentence above shows.

[SirBruce]

Yes I started this about the Pope. Not to prove the existence of God. If you don't believe in God at all you fall into such a small minority of the world population that frankly you might want really want to consider the possibilities that you are pretty out there.

According to the 1999 Enclyclopedia Brittanica Book of the Year, There were over 900 million "Non-Religious and Atheists" which includes everything from those indifferent about religion to people who are actively atheist.  Now, you could argue that a good portion of thos still believe in a God, but certainly not all 900 million.  And this was at a time when the total population was still under 6 billion, so it's probably close to a full billion now.  1996's The Universal Almanac figured there were about 805 million "Nonreligious" types and about 210 million "Atheist".  So you're probably talking anywhere from 3 - 10% of the total population not believing in a God, depending on how you actually define that.

Now consider this: the vast majority of the people in the world probably believe that it's easier to send a rocket into the Sun than to shoot it out of the the solar system.  That doesn't make it true.

If you don't even take that small step of faith to say there is something larger out there than random chance in your existence, you're a lost cause in any religious debate.

This has nothing to do with whether or not there is "something larger" out there.  Rather, it's about the idea that you know what that "something larger" is, that it is personified it in human terms, that it should -- indeed must -- be worshipped and obeyed, and oh by the way, you've got the exclusive handbook on how to do just that.

But in any case, non-belief doesn't disqualify someone from religion debate any more than a non-Christian is disqualified from any Christian-specific debate.

Bruce

[Margalis]

Without making this religious at all, I would make the broader point that at certain points in history, the vast majority of the population believed something that was totally false. It happens over and over again. The fact is, most people who comprise the vast majority of anything are not experts or even thoughtful - whether or not you agree or disagree with them is irrelevant to any debate.

The majority of Americans believe that the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Iraqi. I disagree with them - and I'm right. So the majority of a group of people can get basic facts wrong, to say nothing of positions that require analysis.
---

When you look at the moon low in the sky it looks bigger. At one point in history 99% of the people on earth probably thought the moon actually grew as it got closer to the horizon - and they seemingly even had evidence to support them. They were wrong. Just like they were wrong about the world being flat, the stars being holes in the fabric of the sky, the earth being the center of the universe, and etc ad nauseam.

"Most people don't agree with you, therefore you are screwy" is not a rational argument at all. The vast majority does not have a monopoly on the truth.

[Samwise]

I can only refer to the things that I have been taught and swearing and using god's name in jest is considered to be sinning and you would have to confess those things.

Taking the Lord's name in vain is considered sinful by most Judeo-Christian faiths, yes, since it's mentioned in one of the Ten Commandments.

However, CmdrSlack never once used God's name in his post.  The only word he used that could be considered "swearing" was "fuck".  If it is your understanding that Catholics believe that "fuck" is God's name, and that taking it in vain is sinful, then I stand by all previous statements.  Especially the stfu n00b part.   

[Llava]

And last I heard, "God" wasn't God's name.  I think it started with a J.  Or a Y, depending on who you ask.

[stray]

J and Y represent the same consonant in Hebrew. As with W and V. Plus, in ancient Hebrew, there are no vowels, so no one really knows how to spell it or pronounce it, let alone take it in vain (Which was the very reason why it's lost to us. Post-Maccabean Rabbi's and Priests thought it best to keep the correct pronounciation hidden amongst themselves in order that people wouldn't even be tempted to use it in vain. But because of that secrecy, it is now lost to us).

Modern day constructions of the tetragrammaton (YHVH -- the name of God) are either pronounced as Yahveh (or Yahweh) and Jehovah (this one's especially not likely, as it bears no resemblance to anything else in Hebrew).

[Llava]

Modern day constructions of the tetragrammaton (YHVH -- the name of God) are either pronounced as Yahveh (or Yahweh) and Jehovah (this one's especially not likely, as it bears no resemblance to anything else in Hebrew).

HEATHEN! I STRIKE THEE DOWN!

PS- Yeah, I was being a smartass.  I saw Pi too. And with that smug, know-it-all sentence I just wrote, I've just opened for myself a chance to use one of those smileys than turns me from an arrogant, obnoxious prick to a good chum who's just givng you a hard time! Behold:  :-D  Feel your anger melt away.

[Abagadro]

Jehovah (this one's especially not likely, as it bears no resemblance to anything else in Hebrew).

The derivation of Jehovah is interesting.  Ancient written Hebrew didn't include the vowels, so Yahweh was indeed written YHWH. Later scholars went in and filled in a lot of the vowels, mostly through annotationsin the margins.  Except the forbiden use of the tetragrammaton was still in place so instead of putting in the vowels for Yahweh, they put in the vowels for the word that was often substituted for it, 'adonay, which means Lord. Even later, when it was translated into greek, the translators mistakenly took the vowels from adonay and put them with the consonants of YHWH, which gave the Yahowah which later became Jehovah.