[jdjtcagle]

Maybe not literally but there are personal / philosophical reasons to believing in a supreme being since nothing will ever be 100% proven or completely answered. The choice to have faith must be rationally founded and that's all too often what we don't see in these types of threads.

I've never had a problem with people who believe there must be a God to explain why the universe exists, but when you start claiming that there must be a God to explain how, then I've got a problem.

My problem with that line of thinking is that it's anti-logic, anti-rational thought and anti-science. "Let's not bother with research into evolution or the big bang. We already know God did it, why do we need to look into those things."

Rick Warren merely shows his ignorance here. It doesn't require more faith to be an atheist. It doesn't require any faith at all. That's the entire point of being an atheist. It does, however, require more brainpower than he comes equipped with though. Because if you don't have a sufficient level of understanding to see how things like evolution or the big bang would work it becomes much simpler to believe in some magical being who did it all in the blink of an eye.

I agree and very elegantly put... way better than I could have said.
Your also correct when you say it takes no faith to be an atheist, if I implied that it took "any" it wasn't on purpose. 

[Flipside]

Thing is, until recently, science wasn't certain what, precisely, made a plain fly, but you didn't find people saying that, because we carried on building planes that work, God must have been carrying them, if so, he dropped a few, and guided some into some buildings...

Science isn't believing that something is immutable fact on the basis of what we 'think' is true, it really shouldn't even be in contention with Religion, science never really had a problem with the existence of Religion until it started stumbling onto Religion's 'turf' (Creationism, Evolution etc), in fact, Religion is perfectly happy to make use of science such as Television, Printing, Audio technology etc when it suits them, as long as it doesn't tread on their toes.

[NGTM-1R]

According to surveys a few years ago about half of all americans don't accept the theory of evolution,

Your survey is broken. The people who will even bother responding to it are the people who will answer affirmatively, just for starters.

The choice to have faith must be rationally founded and that's all too often what we don't see in these types of threads.

That's also not possible. Faith is belief in the absence of proof. Such a decision cannot, by definition, be rational.

Hitlers was just plain nuts. Didnt have much time or belief in religion. He simply used religion as a weapon to spread his own ideas, or get the masses on his side.

While I tend to favor the theory that Hitler became what he became because he was, more or less, crazy (David Khan explained it best in his analysis of Hitler's actions as ultimate consumer of German intelligence in Hitler's Spies: Hitler's strength derived from his inflexible will that enthralled all around him, and that in turn derived from an underlying neurotic anxiety. Hitler was so effective because he was ultimately crazy, but it broke down eventually when he stopped altering the world to suit him by not pursuing Sea Lion and instead launching Barbarossa; and after that it got worse.), this ignores the fact that the people who actually carried out the Final Solution were almost to a man perfectly sane. To say nothing of the actual Wehrmacht being populated exclusively by men who at least began the war sane.

[Sushi]

I'd love to have a debate with this asshole about how the human perception of beauty in the environment is more of a result of thousands of years of the human mind attempting to make sense of and find meaning in the world around it (you know, like religion), and not the result of some higher being taking time out of his busy day to make a rock on a mountain look pretty for a part of his creation he knew was going to **** up.

This reminds me of a favorite quote:

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 alright, 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.

Of course, it's really more about the fallacy of believing humanity to be invulnerable, but I've always like it.

That's also not possible. Faith is belief in the absence of proof. Such a decision cannot, by definition, be rational.

I have to disagree somewhat here. I agree (Basically) with your definition of faith, but I think that faith can be based on evidence that doesn't offer absolute proof. And if we're totally honest, a lot of science does as well. Is it irrational to believe something because there is a lot of evidence, even if there is no proof? For example, I believe that P != NP, even though there is no absolute proof that this is the case: just a lot of evidence. We don't have proof of anthropogenic global warming, but more than enough evidence that we need to at least take the possibility very seriously. Likewise with spiritual things: you may never have absolute "proof" in this life, but I strongly believe that if someone honestly seeks to know God, God will give them enough evidence to sustain their faith, which will gradually get stronger and stronger as more evidence is collected. I don't think this kind of faith is irrational at all.

[Ghostavo]

For example, I believe that P != NP, even though there is no absolute proof that this is the case: just a lot of evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

From the linked article:

The main argument in favor of P ≠ NP is the total lack of fundamental progress in the area of exhaustive search. This is, in my opinion, a very weak argument. The space of algorithms is very large and we are only at the beginning of its exploration. [. . .] The resolution of Fermat's Last Theorem also shows that very simply [sic] questions may be settled only by very deep theories.
—Moshe Y. Vardi, Rice University

[Scotty]

  Are you trying to disagree with him?  I can't be sure since that's about exactly what I thought he said.

[Ghostavo]

He's saying there is lots of evidence for P != NP. I'm saying that's not true.

Hunches are not evidence.

[Locutus of Borg]

Seems like this guy is trying to be the next Ted Haggard

In April of 2007, Warren told Newsweek that he "never met an atheist who wasn't angry" and that "far more people have been killed through atheists than through all the religious wars put together."

"Thousands died in the Inquisition; millions died under Mao, and under Stalin and Pol Pot," Warren said in 2007. "There is a home for atheists in the world today—it's called North Korea. I don't know any atheists who want to go there. I'd much rather live under Tony Blair, or even George Bush."

EDIT: added the rest of the article. Seemed rather short.

Crap, my quoting skills failed me.

YIPES

But oh great pastor, did we not rid the world of the infidels during the Crusades? What about World War II?

[Sushi]

He's saying there is lots of evidence for P != NP. I'm saying that's not true.

Hunches are not evidence.

Meh, in retrospect perhaps that wasn't the best example to choose. The point I was trying to make is simply that people can make rational decisions on less than absolute proof, and that this applies to spiritual and philosophical problems as well as scientific and mathematical ones.

[General Battuta]

Right. There is no absolute proof in science; theories are the highest level of knowledge. Disconfirmation is possible, but confirmation is impossible.

Thus, the scientific worldview involves perpetual openness to possibility, shaped by a perpetual awareness of probability.

[Mongoose]

I've never had a problem with people who believe there must be a God to explain why the universe exists, but when you start claiming that there must be a God to explain how, then I've got a problem.

My problem with that line of thinking is that it's anti-logic, anti-rational thought and anti-science. "Let's not bother with research into evolution or the big bang. We already know God did it, why do we need to look into those things."

I wanted to highlight this point, since I think it's one very worth repeating.  Many of the great scientific minds of the past were religious to some extent (or at least deist), and I think that many of them viewed their discoveries as a way of furthering their own faith.  I can't remember who exactly, but I know I've seen quotes to the effect of treating scientific study as a means of "knowing the mind of the Creator," of seeing just how God's creation functioned at some fundamental level and seeing that as a means of glorifying God in turn.  It's an incredibly sad that we've now come to a point where you see the prominent voices in modern Christianity essentially advocating a head-in-the-sand anti-intellectualism approach, avoiding new discoveries because of their potential implications.  Maybe zombie Galileo needs to come back and kick some ass...

(Hee, banner ad.  "Is there a God?  Click to find six reasons that God exists!" )

[IceFire]

You know it doesn't really matter too much... religion.... non-religion.  What I liked about that article was that the thing that matters is pluralism and the idea, albeit maybe a difficult one for some to deal with, is that we have to try and learn to get along with people despite belief (or non belief).  There are some limits to that plurality but people need to learn how to get along and how to solve problems.  It really doesn't matter who you are.

[Ford Prefect]

True, but they still believe in spirits and souls and other things like that. I think what this guy was referring to was people who don't follow any of that stuff......

No, they don't. Buddhism rejects the notion of an essential, unchanging self, (as well as an essential, unchanging anything), and the soul runs in direct opposition to this. Most people really don't realize how little the essential Buddhist teachings actually claim to reveal about unobservable phenomena.

[karajorma]

Likewise with spiritual things: you may never have absolute "proof" in this life, but I strongly believe that if someone honestly seeks to know God, God will give them enough evidence to sustain their faith, which will gradually get stronger and stronger as more evidence is collected. I don't think this kind of faith is irrational at all.

I tend to believe that this kind of search is simply someone cherry-picking favourable outcomes as proof and if you had the same data but a different goal you'd be able to show evidence for that one too (For instance, there is a God but he no longer cares, or there is no God only the Devil). You can claim it's rational but it's shows a very poor experimental procedure.

But when all is said and done if that's what you want to believe my argument with you would be largely philosophical.

It's an incredibly sad that we've now come to a point where you see the prominent voices in modern Christianity essentially advocating a head-in-the-sand anti-intellectualism approach, avoiding new discoveries because of their potential implications.

Very sad. And it's the main reason why people must continue to challenge the Rick Warrens of this world and show how hidebound their thinking really is. If they wanted to sit and stew in their own stupidity that would be fine. The problem is that they want everyone else to join them.

[Locutus of Borg]

Kara, can I quote you on that elsewhere?

[Kosh]

True, but they still believe in spirits and souls and other things like that. I think what this guy was referring to was people who don't follow any of that stuff......

No, they don't. Buddhism rejects the notion of an essential, unchanging self, (as well as an essential, unchanging anything), and the soul runs in direct opposition to this. Most people really don't realize how little the essential Buddhist teachings actually claim to reveal about unobservable phenomena.

Good point, although reincarnation is a central theme.

Your survey is broken. The people who will even bother responding to it are the people who will answer affirmatively, just for starters.

IIRC it was a Gallop poll, so it wasn't my survey. "survey" was the wrong choice of words.  Even if it is off by plus or minus 10 percent, that is still a significant portion of people in America who genuinely believe it.

[Ford Prefect]

Good point, although reincarnation is a central theme.

Rebirth is a central theme. The Buddhist notion of rebirth is more abstract than the intact transfer of identity found in, say, Hinduism. It is a conception of death as the disintegration of one's skhandas, and their simultaneous integration into a new series of processes, which are interdependently related to the old ones.

[Nuke]

thats not atheism thats communism. marx was a paranoid bastard. he thought everything religions did was to control people. just cause your paranoid doesnt mean their not out to get you.

Could you perhaps point to the place in the Manifesto or Das Kapital where Marx advocates a system of leader-worship of the kind seen the USSR, PRC, or DPRK?

i htink thats more of an asian thing. besides i never said anything about leader worship, however i do recall from political science 101 that marx did include a statement of religious institutions being instruments of control (im not a big intellectualist prick so i wont spend 15 minutes looking up a quote proper). leader worship comes entirely from the leader's ego. lets face it, any one of the great tyrants of history would make great cult leaders, if they didnt already have huge amounts of power.

[Kosh]

The USSR was not an asian country.

While Marx had a point about religious institutions, the problem with communist countries was that the communist institution itself effectively replaced religious institutions as a means of control.

[Scotty]

The USSR was not an asian country.

*Looks at a map*
 

I do agree with your assessment of communism and its methods of control.  What better way to control people than to control their faith?  However, when looking at this, one has to consider that communism wasn't really conceived for the farmer's benefit, or his understanding, or anything like that.  IIRC, Marx thought that communism would only be successful in an industrialized society, working on finding confirmation on that.