Does God Exist?

[Dugout DickStone]

For the most part, religion is a crutch for the morally weak.

Weird statement.

Maybe he meant mentally weak.

[michigancat]

2.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events or randomness at the quantum level, but through free will people make choices to direct their path in life.
   A.)  I don't see how an atheist can believe this and have their view on life hold up (help me if I'm wrong). In order for us to have the ability to freely choose (make a choice that is not determined by prior causes) what is right/wrong/good/bad/etc. there has to be something that exists outside of the physical world that influences us.

Our perception of what is right/wrong can be determined by our gene pool - there doesn't have to be an outside force guiding us. It's in the best interest of the species for everyone to understand right/wrong/good/bad. Humans aren't the only animals that make decisions based on what is right or wrong for the species. We like to pretend we are, but we aren't. This seems to be the foundation of your entire premise, and it's wrong.

[ksucrcoop]

2.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events or randomness at the quantum level, but through free will people make choices to direct their path in life.
   A.)  I don't see how an atheist can believe this and have their view on life hold up (help me if I'm wrong). In order for us to have the ability to freely choose (make a choice that is not determined by prior causes) what is right/wrong/good/bad/etc. there has to be something that exists outside of the physical world that influences us.

Our perception of what is right/wrong can be determined by our gene pool - there doesn't have to be an outside force guiding us. It's in the best interest of the species for everyone to understand right/wrong/good/bad. Humans aren't the only animals that make decisions based on what is right or wrong for the species. We like to pretend we are, but we aren't. This seems to be the foundation of your entire premise, and it's wrong.

sorry, bro - it's not what is right or wrong, but if we choose what is right or wrong. actually you're proving my point by stating we don't freely choose what is right or wrong and our "gene pool" implies that our entire make-up is the result of multiple trials and error over time, thus we are not free thinking, just pods byproducts of the evolutionary process.

[bubbles4ksu]

2.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events or randomness at the quantum level, but through free will people make choices to direct their path in life.
   A.)  I don't see how an atheist can believe this and have their view on life hold up (help me if I'm wrong). In order for us to have the ability to freely choose (make a choice that is not determined by prior causes) what is right/wrong/good/bad/etc. there has to be something that exists outside of the physical world that influences us.

Our perception of what is right/wrong can be determined by our gene pool - there doesn't have to be an outside force guiding us. It's in the best interest of the species for everyone to understand right/wrong/good/bad. Humans aren't the only animals that make decisions based on what is right or wrong for the species. We like to pretend we are, but we aren't. This seems to be the foundation of your entire premise, and it's wrong.

sorry, bro - it's not what is right or wrong, but if we choose what is right or wrong. actually you're proving my point by stating we don't freely choose what is right or wrong and our "gene pool" implies that our entire make-up is the result of multiple trials and error over time, thus we are not free thinking, just pods byproducts of the evolutionary process.

there can still be some free will since humans have consciousness and stuff. less than there would be had we not evolved over millions of years, but some.

[puniraptor]

2.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events or randomness at the quantum level, but through free will people make choices to direct their path in life.
   A.)  I don't see how an atheist can believe this and have their view on life hold up (help me if I'm wrong). In order for us to have the ability to freely choose (make a choice that is not determined by prior causes) what is right/wrong/good/bad/etc. there has to be something that exists outside of the physical world that influences us.

Our perception of what is right/wrong can be determined by our gene pool - there doesn't have to be an outside force guiding us. It's in the best interest of the species for everyone to understand right/wrong/good/bad. Humans aren't the only animals that make decisions based on what is right or wrong for the species. We like to pretend we are, but we aren't. This seems to be the foundation of your entire premise, and it's wrong.

sorry, bro - it's not what is right or wrong, but if we choose what is right or wrong. actually you're proving my point by stating we don't freely choose what is right or wrong and our "gene pool" implies that our entire make-up is the result of multiple trials and error over time, thus we are not free thinking, just pods byproducts of the evolutionary process.

there can still be some free will since humans have consciousness and stuff. less than there would be had we not evolved over millions of years, but some.

Nope, you are a random series of chemical reactions. You have as much free will as a baking soda vinegar volcano.

[michigancat]

2.) All things, current and future, are the result of prior events or randomness at the quantum level, but through free will people make choices to direct their path in life.
   A.)  I don't see how an atheist can believe this and have their view on life hold up (help me if I'm wrong). In order for us to have the ability to freely choose (make a choice that is not determined by prior causes) what is right/wrong/good/bad/etc. there has to be something that exists outside of the physical world that influences us.

Our perception of what is right/wrong can be determined by our gene pool - there doesn't have to be an outside force guiding us. It's in the best interest of the species for everyone to understand right/wrong/good/bad. Humans aren't the only animals that make decisions based on what is right or wrong for the species. We like to pretend we are, but we aren't. This seems to be the foundation of your entire premise, and it's wrong.

sorry, bro - it's not what is right or wrong, but if we choose what is right or wrong. actually you're proving my point by stating we don't freely choose what is right or wrong and our "gene pool" implies that our entire make-up is the result of multiple trials and error over time, thus we are not free thinking, just pods byproducts of the evolutionary process.

we can be free thinking pods of the evolutionary process.

our ability to choose our path is an evolutionary advantage.

also your punctuation and grammar makes it very hard to follow you.

[Kat Kid]

Smart people tend to do evolutionarily novel things.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence

[Panjandrum]

I think man invented God when we evolved to a certain state of consciousness and wanted to explain natural phenomenon and mortality.

I think man perpetuated the belief in God because it's easier to control other people through that mechanism.

I think man still believes in God because we have an inherent desire to know where we've come from and where we're going.  It's very unsettling to believe that this brief existence is all there is and there is no deeper meaning.

That's my boiled down version of it.

[Goldbrick]

Smart people tend to do evolutionarily novel things.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence

Same dude:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/17/satoshi-kanazawa-black-women-less-attractive_n_863327.html

Also here's his article on why liberals are more intelligent than conservatives:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

Note this part:

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.

Notice anything.... self serving... about that definition?

[HeinBallz]

So... I'm confused.  Is free will arguing for a God, or against?

 And a serious question I posed earlier; how do you define god?  A mystic intelligent creator as described in the Bible that created you specifically and knew you personally before you were born? 

  Or a power we cannot comprehend that did nothing more than ignite a Big Bang sending the waves of energy that could only, by sheer statistical reason, create some form of life through the infinite possibilities from the infinite amounts of matter, possibly on the level of spitting in a Petri dish?  And all existence of a soul could be attributed simply to basic laws of conservation of energy... 

[KSUBrian]

Hey!!  What about ancient aliens??

[Stevesie60]

Smart people tend to do evolutionarily novel things.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence

This is fascinating.

[Goldbrick]

Hey!!  What about ancient aliens??

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

Hey!!  What about ancient aliens??

[bubbles4ksu]

Note this part:

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.

Notice anything.... self serving... about that definition?

who are the "genetically unrelated others"?

[KSUBrian]

Note this part:

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.

Notice anything.... self serving... about that definition?

who are the "genetically unrelated others"?

In the minds of the bleeding heart liberals, EVERYBODY!!!

[bubbles4ksu]

Note this part:

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.

Notice anything.... self serving... about that definition?

who are the "genetically unrelated others"?

In the minds of the bleeding heart liberals, EVERYBODY!!!

awfully self serving if you ask me.

[Panjandrum]

So... I'm confused.  Is free will arguing for a God, or against?

 And a serious question I posed earlier; how do you define god?  A mystic intelligent creator as described in the Bible that created you specifically and knew you personally before you were born? 

  Or a power we cannot comprehend that did nothing more than ignite a Big Bang sending the waves of energy that could only, by sheer statistical reason, create some form of life through the infinite possibilities from the infinite amounts of matter, possibly on the level of spitting in a Petri dish?  And all existence of a soul could be attributed simply to basic laws of conservation of energy...

My personal opinion is that people put way too much effort into the philosophy behind it, and I crossed the line into atheism when I tried to figure out why people felt the psychological need to believe in God.

Why would we invent a non-corporeal God?  There's a ton of reasons.  It's metaphysical putty that you can use to fix all kinds of things wrong in your life.  You can use it to fix a marriage.  You can use it to find strength when you need to dig deeper.  You can use it to convince other people to do what you want.  You can use it to get people to give you money.  The list goes on and on.

Anyway, people get all philosophical about it and try to really reason around it, but I think the psychology of "why" is much more damning than the philosophy of "why".

[chum1]

So... I'm confused.  Is free will arguing for a God, or against?

 And a serious question I posed earlier; how do you define god?  A mystic intelligent creator as described in the Bible that created you specifically and knew you personally before you were born? 

  Or a power we cannot comprehend that did nothing more than ignite a Big Bang sending the waves of energy that could only, by sheer statistical reason, create some form of life through the infinite possibilities from the infinite amounts of matter, possibly on the level of spitting in a Petri dish?  And all existence of a soul could be attributed simply to basic laws of conservation of energy...

My personal opinion is that people put way too much effort into the philosophy behind it, and I crossed the line into atheism when I tried to figure out why people felt the psychological need to believe in God.

Why would we invent a non-corporeal God?  There's a ton of reasons.  It's metaphysical putty that you can use to fix all kinds of things wrong in your life.  You can use it to fix a marriage.  You can use it to find strength when you need to dig deeper.  You can use it to convince other people to do what you want.  You can use it to get people to give you money.  The list goes on and on.

Anyway, people get all philosophical about it and try to really reason around it, but I think the psychology of "why" is much more damning than the philosophy of "why".

Why would you invent a reason to answer only one of the two very different questions?  To fix some kind of wrong in your life?

[kim carnes]

Certainly not.

 

[sys]

Smart people tend to do evolutionarily novel things.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/06/quick-study-satoshi-kanazawa-intelligence

Actually, less intelligent people are better at doing most things.

he's talking about coaching.

[felix rex]

For the most part, religion is a crutch for the morally and emotionally weak.

the only people that demand more attention for their beliefs than christians are athiests, imo.

I don't know, I think Moslems and Jews draw more attention to their beliefs than atheists. probably lots of other religions, too.

You know who's surprisingly low key in my experience? Mormons. Also, definitely non-pussies.

[michigancat]

For the most part, religion is a crutch for the morally and emotionally weak.

the only people that demand more attention for their beliefs than christians are athiests, imo.

I don't know, I think Moslems and Jews draw more attention to their beliefs than atheists. probably lots of other religions, too.

You know who's surprisingly low key in my experience? Mormons. Also, definitely non-pussies.

eh, you're around them in kind of a unique situation. In their natural state, they call all their friends "Brother Weber" or "Sister Thompson" which is kind of an in-your-face way of saying "all our friends go to our church".

Also, I once picked up the byu alumni magazine at a family function and read an article about Moslems that went to byu because of the "clean living". kind of a fun little tidbit.

[felix rex]

Name of the Rose

The only truths that are useful are instruments to be thrown away.

[DQ12]

HE DOES EXIST!