If you hate religion and don't believe in God, why?

[Sneaksuit]

(Badly translated iron-age books don't count, because the chain of custody has been broken innumerable times, rendering them invalid as evidence)

That accounts for the bible, but there is plenty of "scripture" that is in its original form. Regardless, looking for evidence of a creator should not be limited to literature.

But it goes further than that. Claims that border on (or are fully based upon) insanity cannot be disproven because of their underlying insanity. For example, let's make the assumption that I believe that there is an invisible pink flying unicorn beside me that created all of reality, but has decided to remain invisible, intangible and utterly undetectable so as to not interfere with our free will. Disprove that, and you have become the first person in history who can successfully disprove god.

This assumption presumes that "god" is only as real as an invisible pink flying unicorn.

Problem is, due to my "belief" in this pink unicorn (an insanity that involves a suspension of critical thinking), such a belief can never be effectively combated because you cannot disprove the unprovable.

And this assumption presumes that critical thinking can disprove "god".

And this is, at its core, the fundamental difference between reality and fantasy.

You are presuming that because we cannot disprove "god"(from lack of critical thinking), "god" is a fantasy.

Reality can ALWAYS be measured, examined or recorded in some way fashion or means.

Only by the instruments scientists have, only measured with respect to the observer/instrument, and only with respect to its position in space-time.

As such, even if we do not yet have the technology to do so, we can certainly devise experiments that could (once we reach the appropriate technological sophistication) examine and test the things we are looking at. Science is the tool with which we examine reality, because through Science we can examine different things and determine if they are real or not.

Again, science can only measure what its instruments are capable of. Reality is far more than that. For example, science cannot measure your feelings right now, does that mean they aren't real?

We can test them, and more importantly, we can create tests for disproof -- we can test to see if our original assumptions were correct to begin with. Without this ability to test for proof (and more importantly, the ability to test for disproof), the item being considered simply cannot exist within the framework of reality.

You have a lot of "faith" in a field that is limited to material instruments invented by humans. Zensiert, humans are limited to human mental capacity. Do you trust human intellect to tell you what is real, considering it has failed our entire history?

Fantasy requires taking things on faith.

I have a fantasy you probably don't want to hear, but I don't have any faith in it ever happening.

[fluffy]

I think an important concept to hang on to here is "beyond human understanding". Trying to define, as in prove or disprove, something that cannot be measured in quantifiable terms is a fruitless venture. Many have trouble with the idea of a conscious intelligence of a "higher form", the benevolent dictator of traditional belief, and I count myself among them, but in essence this definition of God is flawed in that it attempts to define a truly supernatural concept in natural terms. If we are dealing with something that is unmeasurable by current technology then the only honest answer for the time being has to be "I don't know".

[cliffy1]

Science can only measure physical reality. Beyond that, there is no measurement to be taken. Every day, quantum physics closes the gap between science and mysticism, how thought and belief can influence the outcome of quantum mechanics.

I think the major problem we are dealing with here is a matter of language. We cannot find a definitive definition of god because it is different for each individual. Each religion tries to homogenize a view of god among it's followers, but that is impossible because each person's experience of life colours their perception in a unique way because no two people experience life the same way. Among those who believe in a god, there are millions of different views. There are also millions of ways to perceive a higher power that does not require a personalized or anthropomorphic god.

I think what humans have been doing all along is trying to create a symbol for the underlying creative force that holds reality as we know it together. Perhaps what we have been looking for is something as simple as the unifying string theory. Saying god does not do anything than to try to put a face on the invisible, intangible and the unknowable. It is nothing more than a primitive attempt to understand something that is impossible to understand. I think that religion is man's way of trying to reconcile the insanity of his own existence, an existence that is devoid, in our culture, of a connection to the source of all life on this planet - the Earth itself.

[zensiert]

Science can only measure physical reality. Beyond that, there is no measurement to be taken.

So far, so good. There is no measurement which can be taken, because you cannot measure fantasy, only reality.

Every day, quantum physics closes the gap between science and mysticism, how thought and belief can influence the outcome of quantum mechanics.

I know I didn't exactly do a BSc in Physics, but even *I* am educated enough in that stuff (by reading physics literature written for the average Joe) to know that thought and belief have no place in any arena of Science, including Quantum Mechanics. Seriously -- a quantum waveform may collapse into either one of two outcomes due to an observer, but that has nothing to do with thought or belief. In Physics, "observer" simply means a recording intelligence of any kind, including a simple binary computer.

I think the major problem we are dealing with here is a matter of language. We cannot find a definitive definition of god because it is different for each individual. Each religion tries to homogenize a view of god among it's followers, but that is impossible because each person's experience of life colours their perception in a unique way because no two people experience life the same way. Among those who believe in a god, there are millions of different views. There are also millions of ways to perceive a higher power that does not require a personalized or anthropomorphic god.

I see this as another argument as to how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. As in, an utterly useless and futile attempt without concrete measurements (Science, again!) of the fundamental parts involved in the premise. Or, in other words, a lot of mystical hand-waving and appeals to suspend critical thought.

I think what humans have been doing all along is trying to create a symbol for the underlying creative force that holds reality as we know it together. Perhaps what we have been looking for is something as simple as the unifying string theory. Saying god does not do anything than to try to put a face on the invisible, intangible and the unknowable. It is nothing more than a primitive attempt to understand something that is impossible to understand. I think that religion is man's way of trying to reconcile the insanity of his own existence, an existence that is devoid, in our culture, of a connection to the source of all life on this planet - the Earth itself.

Holds... reality... together???? Wow. What have you been smoking, and can I have some? That's gotta be some pretty strong stuff...

Reality needs nothing to hold itself together. It comes back to the old thought experiment: if a tree falls in the forest, and there is no-one around to see it fall, does it make a sound? Science can unequivocally say YES. It does. The nature, pattern and type of sound it makes may be a result of statistical probabilities that produce slightly different outputs with every identical fall, but suffice it to say, it DOES make a sound when it falls, no matter who or what is in attendance. Ergo, reality does not need the hubris of humanity to validate its own existence. Reality exists because it does, it needs no reason or purpose.

We exist in a universe which is (apparently) hospitable to us simply because it is hospitable. Any attempt to attach purpose or intent to this existence is a logical fallacy called observer bias -- we don't see ourselves existing in an inhospitable universe because such a universe would never have allowed us to exist in the first place. In fact, there is much evidence to exist that our current universe is actually rather inhospitable -- that by changing a few fundamental constants, it could have been made much more hospitable to life as we know it.

We are simply an infinitesimal part of the universal reality; a tiny insignificant spec of biological matter on a tiny planet circling a below-average star in a rather mediocre and undersized galaxy that exists with trillions of other galaxies in the wider universe. We *are* both insignificant (due to our limited existence within the Universe) as well as fundamentally unique (due to that same limited existence).

In fact, there is a term to describe the need to feel that the Universe is made just for us, and that it has a purpose or guiding hand behind its creation: Puddle Thinking. Puddle thinking is a satirical illustration of the "life is fine-tuned to the Universe" argument above coined by Douglas Adams to satirize the Fine-tuned Universe argument for supernatural creationism. As quoted in Richard Dawkins' eulogy for Douglas Adams:

... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the Sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

[Nom_de_Plume]

good talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson (this guy rocks by the way) universe is inhospitable
http://www.maniacworld.com/universe-wants-to-kill-us.html
If off topic slightly from the original topic but relevant to the preceding post

[fluffy]

There is no measurement which can be taken, because you cannot measure fantasy, only reality.

Yet "science" itself is the first to admit that its understanding of the universe is severely limited at present, thus the things we can say with absolute surety are equally limited. Consider human consciousness, something we all know to exist but something that science has yet to explain.

[steven lloyd]

Consider human consciousness, something we all know to exist but something that science has yet to explain.

Consider an experiment conducted at MIT many years ago (I heard about it while studying economics at SFU more than thirty years ago so no link – sorry) where a supercomputer was programmed to generate random binary numbers at great speed. This allowed for measurement of statistical significance, and as statistically expected over the course of any pre-determined space of time the computer would generate binary numbers at an occurrence of 50/50 – ie. 50% zero and 50% one.

However, when people were placed in the room next to the computer and the program was run there was a statistically significant outcome that varied from 50/50. It didn’t matter what the people were told but their presence affected the outcome of the experiment. What does this prove? Well, it suggests that consciousness not only exists outside of the body but can also impact events. Without people in the room the computer would consistently generate random binary numbers at a 50/50 occurrence as would be expected with randomness. With people in the room the outcome varied and had a statistically significant occurrence other than randomness.

As stated, some of the researchers suggested this was evidence of consciousness existing outside of the body and influencing an event. Some went further to suggest if consciousness could exist outside of the body then perhaps it could continue to exist without the body (ie. after death). Whatever one wants to conclude from the findings of this experiment it certainly suggests that science is a far way from explaining many things.

[cliffy1]

Holds... reality... together???? Wow. What have you been smoking, and can I have some? That's gotta be some pretty strong stuff...

Why do people need to accuse others of being on drugs because they don't understand the concept presented?
What is the unified string theory about?
Science has it's uses but it is not the end all and be all of all things. It is a very narrow way of perceiving reality no different than religion is. In fact, for many it has become the new religion and you seem to be a disciple.

As Steven Lloyd points out, there have been many experiments conducted that show how human presence can effect outcomes, and others that show beliefs to affect outcomes. The point is, science does not have all the answers and probably never will because its focus is too narrow. In fact, there have been many quantum physicists who hypothesize that there is no physical reality without an observer, the holographic universe. Do you think these quantum physicists are on drugs too?

[katzenjammer]

SL remembered an experiment done 30 years ago which suggested that "thought" can influence a random number generator???.

I have been doing this for years trying to win the lottery----no luck---------yet.

Have you heard of the amazing Randi ? I think he still has a standing offer of $1000000 which he will pay to anyone who can demonstrate thought control over anything. No one has collected.

[cliffy1]

SL remembered an experiment done 30 years ago which suggested that "thought" can influence a random number generator???.

I have been doing this for years trying to win the lottery----no luck---------yet.

Have you heard of the amazing Randi ? I think he still has a standing offer of $1000000 which he will pay to anyone who can demonstrate thought control over anything. No one has collected.

That's amazing!

Isn't he dead yet?

[Mr Danksworth]

I may hate God, but I absolutely loathe the tooth fairy, and don't even get me started on Sasquatch. But what really steams me is newage derpers misappropriating physics(especially the quantum variety) and melding their silly beliefs onto it.

[steven lloyd]

SL remembered an experiment done 30 years ago which suggested that "thought" can influence a random number generator???.I have been doing this for years trying to win the lottery----no luck---------yet.

The researchers suggested the presence of the experiment participants influenced the outcome somehow. As body temperature from another room was a highly unlikely explanation the idea of external consciousness seemed a greater possibility. Got any other ideas (remembering that the experiment was repeated many times with statistically significant results) ? There is no suggestion of conscious “control” over the computer (such as your failed attempts at picking winning lotto numbers), nor were any implications made about God or any other religious or spiritual assumptions. It was what it was. Again, science is a far way away from explaining many things and not all scientists are unaware of that truism.

[Sneaksuit]

Any thoughts on this?

http://www.consciousnessstudies.org/

[Mr Danksworth]

Looks like more quantum quackery to me. Not to mention non-working links, no evidence of what kind of 'doctor' the author is, and atrocious HTML web design from 1994. All indications point to derp.

[katzenjammer]

I know there have been thousands of experiments that have attempted to demonstrate "mind over matter". None have so far showed any positive results that could not be explained by flaws in experimental design. I suspect that's the case in SL's experiment.

I am still waiting for anyone to show me any evidence that "spirit" or "God" exists except as a figment of someones mind.
If god is just another name for this universe then I believe in god but if God is a greater power, a conscious being who can and does influence reality then I do not believe in God because there is zero evidence.
As for hating religion, well I don't but I do think we would all be better off if it just didn't exist. People tend to believe any sort of imaginary nonsense if everyone else around them believes the same. Critical thinking gets suspended.

I have for a long time agreed with Steven about the need for critical thinking so am always ready with my pointy stick when he suspends critical thinking as he does around this subject. Quite simply, believing in God means suspending critical thought. Only some direct, verifiable evidence will make me change my mind about the existence of God. Anything else means that I have suspended critical thinking. And I need all I can get.