What actually do JREF religious believers believe?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes it does, and an important one too. You see, Rose can ask you a hard question, and when you can't answer, it's a palpable hit, but in return all she has to say is that God did it, and ignorance and completeness become magically one. God wraps the great mysteries of the universe in pretty paper and ties them with a bow. You never have to open them.

What question do you think she can ask that I can't answer?

Because I'm an atheist, not an agnostic. I think people who ask if gods exist ask the wrong question. The question to ask is, what best explains god beliefs? And the answer is, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, gods are human generated fiction.

The evidence supports my conclusions. Rose has no evidence at all.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, there are plenty of questions that nobody can answer thoroughly, because we don't know

E.g. (and bear with me, I'm using a silly one), where did the Big Bang energy come from? Well, we don't actually have the foggiest. The universe was opaque for some hundreds of thousands of years at first, so we can't really 'look' at anything before that point. It's a bit of a black box. We can hypothesize a big amount of energy starting in one point, and check the predictions against what actually came the other side of those strange aeons, which is ok to answer how did that energy turn into matter. But we don't actually see anything else to make further theories about its origins.

E.g., how did life start on Earth? Well, sure, we know that nucleotides and aminoacids form naturally in that kind of environment, and we can have some ideas like RNA world for something that is simple enough so it can arise by sheer chance there. But how did it go from there? At what point did that short self-replicating RNA strand turn into something that uses DNA, RNA and proteins to do the same? How did the cell wall happen? There are serious gaps in our knowledge there, because strands of RNA don't turn into fossils.

Now there is no reason to assume magic for either, but that's far from being the same as having an answer to the question.

So, yes, the believers can ask that kinda stuff and act as if that proves their god, and it only takes ignoring that they have no supportable answer either. And often what they give isn't even an answer at all, or is to a whole other question.

 

[kerikiwi]

God doesn't give children cancer. Life and death are a part of the physical side of our universe. We just have to deal with the good and bad as best we can.

Then 'god' is a meaningless nonsense.

 

[AdMan]

Hi RoseMontague,

How do you explain the fact that when the brain is physically damaged, through injury or disease such as Alzheimer's--we observe the intellect--the "person"--apparently damaged as well? Where is the soul in all this? Shouldn't that have remained whole?

Yes, I believe this is correct.

Going back to this question - if a soul's manifestation in this earth is a personality--what we think of as a person--why would that personality be deteriorated by physical damage to the brain?

If a soul is incorporeal, why would its manifestation--a personality--be affected as the brain--a physical structure--is damaged?

Does the soul of a person with Alzheimer's also have Alzheimer's? If not, where is that soul when the person is alive but very sick? Is that soul suddenly cured of the disease as the body dies?

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, there are plenty of questions that nobody can answer thoroughly, because we don't know

E.g. (and bear with me, I'm using a silly one), where did the Big Bang energy come from? Well, we don't actually have the foggiest. The universe was opaque for some hundreds of thousands of years at first, so we can't really 'look' at anything before that point. It's a bit of a black box. We can hypothesize a big amount of energy starting in one point, and check the predictions against what actually came the other side of those strange aeons, which is ok to answer how did that energy turn into matter. But we don't actually see anything else to make further theories about its origins.

E.g., how did life start on Earth? Well, sure, we know that nucleotides and aminoacids form naturally in that kind of environment, and we can have some ideas like RNA world for something that is simple enough so it can arise by sheer chance there. But how did it go from there? At what point did that short self-replicating RNA strand turn into something that uses DNA, RNA and proteins to do the same? How did the cell wall happen? There are serious gaps in our knowledge there, because strands of RNA don't turn into fossils.

Now there is no reason to assume magic for either, but that's far from being the same as having an answer to the question.

So, yes, the believers can ask that kinda stuff and act as if that proves their god, and it only takes ignoring that they have no supportable answer either. And often what they give isn't even an answer at all, or is to a whole other question.

Just a terrific post Hans and no, I have no supportable answers either. Both rely on the theory that something happened, either by what you refer to as magic or by science. My opinion is God created a universe that contains both. Man has shown a lot of interest in finding answers to the science part of the equation. Still something is missing or perhaps it has just yet to have been found. Both science and religion could use a bit of cross-training, in my opinion.

 

[RoseMontague]

How does saying god did it answer that question?

I'm not saying I know, but adding a god layer doesn't add a thing.

Before there was the physical side of the universe, it would seem logical to me there would have to be something else that was not physical. My opinion is that time itself may be a part of creation, a linear measure, and some presence may exist outside of it's boundaries.

 

[RoseMontague]

Going back to this question - if a soul's manifestation in this earth is a personality--what we think of as a person--why would that personality be deteriorated by physical damage to the brain?

If a soul is incorporeal, why would its manifestation--a personality--be affected as the brain--a physical structure--is damaged?

Does the soul of a person with Alzheimer's also have Alzheimer's? If not, where is that soul when the person is alive but very sick? Is that soul suddenly cured of the disease as the body dies?

Perhaps a person that becomes less self aware becomes more aware of their spiritual nature, the soul having a greater influence on their awareness. It is something I can't answer. I believe that a cure for Alzheimer's is approaching, there have been some recent advances that seem promising. Maybe if someone is cured of a sever case of this could possibly answer the question of what was going on in their mind during this time. The closest thing we have is those that have technically died and been brought back to life. Some of these stories point to an awareness of the spiritual side of the universe, there is a lot of debate however as to the causes of this witness.

 

[RoseMontague]

Then 'god' is a meaningless nonsense.

When I see Her, I will be sure and tell Her you said so.

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, I'm not trying to take that away from you (for a change) but I find that the basic concept of a soul is usually so undefined and vague, that different people -- or even the same people at different times -- believe mutually incompatible things. In fact, if you take the intersection of all the main beliefs about a soul, the core of that basic concept if you will, you'll get a big fat nothing.

The basic concept of a soul, historically has the only common ground of being some derivative of "breath". In fact, in most contemporary languages, it's still derived from "breath". It's a dying person's last breath. He exhaled something, and now he's not alive any more. What went out? Where did it go?

Of course, nowadays you undoubtedly know that asking where did someone's breath go is like asking where did the ticking go when the clock stopped. So I assume that's not your basic concept of a soul.

So, really, what is your basic concept of a soul? What does it do? Does it have any material properties? (Because that's another thing where different people's ideas differ. Some thought it actually has weight, while others thought it can be caught in transit by birds like whippoorwills.) Does it need sustenance?`(The ancient Egyptians thought: yes.) Can it feel hunger? (Ditto.) Can it die after you're already dead? (Ditto.) Does it depend on anything someone else does? (Ditto.) Do you have just one soul, or several kinds of souls? (Ditto.) Etc.

How would you describe it, in your own words?

It's not enough to have a name for a concept. One must also know what it means, basically.

Hans, your other post was truly fantastic. Let's call it an I-Soul, release 4.5

 

[RoseMontague]

If we make enough souls and send them to the nether regions maybe we could fill them up so they couldn't take any more souls then all of us would have to live forever.

(Soul train, we're shipping them on the soul train.)

Do Zombies have souls?

 

[jhunter1163]

Perhaps a person that becomes less self aware becomes more aware of their spiritual nature, the soul having a greater influence on their awareness. It is something I can't answer. I believe that a cure for Alzheimer's is approaching, there have been some recent advances that seem promising. Maybe if someone is cured of a sever case of this could possibly answer the question of what was going on in their mind during this time. The closest thing we have is those that have technically died and been brought back to life. Some of these stories point to an awareness of the spiritual side of the universe, there is a lot of debate however as to the causes of this witness.

I hope you're right about Alzheimer's, as my wife has been diagnosed with early dementia and, at her relatively young age (59) her prognosis is not favorable.

I saw a cartoon once that pretty well summed up my views on this question; it was captioned "A scientist's annual moment of wild abandon" and showed him running through the lab yelling "The universe is too orderly to just be a big accident!"

 

[RoseMontague]

I hope you're right about Alzheimer's, as my wife has been diagnosed with early dementia and, at her relatively young age (59) her prognosis is not favorable.

I saw a cartoon once that pretty well summed up my views on this question; it was captioned "A scientist's annual moment of wild abandon" and showed him running through the lab yelling "The universe is too orderly to just be a big accident!"

I am truly sorry to hear this, my thoughts and prayers will include your wife and family. Here is a link that gives some of the more recent advances...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/alzheimer's/

 

[HansMustermann]

Just a terrific post Hans and no, I have no supportable answers either. Both rely on the theory that something happened, either by what you refer to as magic or by science. My opinion is God created a universe that contains both. Man has shown a lot of interest in finding answers to the science part of the equation. Still something is missing or perhaps it has just yet to have been found. Both science and religion could use a bit of cross-training, in my opinion.

Well, but the problem some of us have is that even assuming something missing there, it's not at all obvious how do you get to God from there. In fact, to specifically the Christian God.

I mean, let's say SOMETHING provided the energy there. It's a bit of a stretch to get from there to even that it was something with an intelligence, or that it was its intent to create a universe.

I mean, the current understanding is that the universe started as a gravitational singularity, i.e., the centre of a black hole. (Technically we could still be in a black hole.) Which, as far as we know, could always have been there until some instability made it explode. Or maybe there is no such thing as "before", as both space and time as we know them didn't exist yet before the bang.

But let's say there's something that could provide the extra oomph to make the black hole go kablooie. Does it have to have intelligence or intent? Well, not really. For all we know, it could be a natural phenomenon. Stars go kablooie all the time without someone blowing them up. Why can't a singularity do the same?

But ok, let's say it was something with intelligence, just for argument sake. Did it intend to create a universe. We don't really know, and it's far from the only possibility. For all we know, the universe could be a side-effect for something else, created or not.

Let's say it has both intelligence and intent... does it care about you personally? We're talking a being which provided enough energy for 9 SEXTILLION stars in the observable universe. That is 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Kinda makes one feel insignificant, innit? Does such a being actually have the interest and time to micro-manage something human-sized, or is the experiment really at universe scale?

To give you a sense of proportions, last Christmas I had a lot of food, and, well, some eventually went bad. You can pretty much imagine the bacteria in my pot of soup thinking I must care about each of them individually, because I created that pot of soup for them to live in. But in truth, not only I didn't create it for them, nor care about an individual bacterium, nor will make miracles for it, but they're something I can't even see. And actually they're something unwanted, not something I want to care deeply about. I wanted some soup, not the bacteria.

That's not even hyperbole, but actually a mild analogy. The size and scope difference between you and the universe is actually even more tremendous than between a bacterium and my pot of soup.

Etc.

So, yes, there are some missing steps. All the above and then some are extra missing steps you need to solve before you can go, "therefore God." God-did-it actually needs a bit more than the science version does.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then 'god' is a meaningless nonsense.

You could put it ^ this way when it comes to answering creation questions.

Obviously myths play some important role in human cultural evolution. That doesn't mean humans can't live without god myths. Quite the contrary, it's my opinion god beliefs are destined to be replaced by the more successful scientific process. It might take another thousand years, give or take, but as we get better at observing the evidence, it will get harder and harder to believe in god myths.

 

[RoseMontague]

Well, but the problem some of us have is that even assuming something missing there, it's not at all obvious how do you get to God from there. In fact, to specifically the Christian God.

I mean, let's say SOMETHING provided the energy there. It's a bit of a stretch to get from there to even that it was something with an intelligence, or that it was its intent to create a universe.

I mean, the current understanding is that the universe started as a gravitational singularity, i.e., the centre of a black hole. (Technically we could still be in a black hole.) Which, as far as we know, could always have been there until some instability made it explode. Or maybe there is no such thing as "before", as both space and time as we know them didn't exist yet before the bang.

But let's say there's something that could provide the extra oomph to make the black hole go kablooie. Does it have to have intelligence or intent? Well, not really. For all we know, it could be a natural phenomenon. Stars go kablooie all the time without someone blowing them up. Why can't a singularity do the same?

But ok, let's say it was something with intelligence, just for argument sake. Did it intend to create a universe. We don't really know, and it's far from the only possibility. For all we know, the universe could be a side-effect for something else, created or not.

Let's say it has both intelligence and intent... does it care about you personally? We're talking a being which provided enough energy for 9 SEXTILLION stars in the observable universe. That is 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Kinda makes one feel insignificant, innit? Does such a being actually have the interest and time to micro-manage something human-sized, or is the experiment really at universe scale?

To give you a sense of proportions, last Christmas I had a lot of food, and, well, some eventually went bad. You can pretty much imagine the bacteria in my pot of soup thinking I must care about each of them individually, because I created that pot of soup for them to live in. But in truth, not only I didn't create it for them, nor care about an individual bacterium, nor will make miracles for it, but they're something I can't even see. And actually they're something unwanted, not something I want to care deeply about. I wanted some soup, not the bacteria.

That's not even hyperbole, but actually a mild analogy. The size and scope difference between you and the universe is actually even more tremendous than between a bacterium and my pot of soup.

Etc.

So, yes, there are some missing steps. All the above and then some are extra missing steps you need to solve before you can go, "therefore God." God-did-it actually needs a bit more than the science version does.

I didn't take the OP as talking about the Christian God. The topic was what do JREF religious believers believe . Religious covers a lot of territory. However, I enjoyed reading the bible and there are concepts in there that I think are sound. I feel the same way about some of the other religions and I love some of the rituals involved in practicing one's religion. I think it is a great way to focus on our spiritual side regardless of what the practical aspects of a religion are. My current beliefs would probably be described as a form of Neopaganism although I still adhere to the one God theory (with different aspects).

As I posted earlier I believe God spoke. The Word was the beginning for the universe. I believe in respect for our creator through forms of worship, ritual, and prayer. I believe in miracles.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Before there was the physical side of the universe, it would seem logical to me there would have to be something else that was not physical. My opinion is that time itself may be a part of creation, a linear measure, and some presence may exist outside of it's boundaries.

What does adding sentience to your mystery do? No evidence supports a sentient being hypothesis. Couple that with the fact there are thousands of god myths we know are not true, and not a single god myth that there is any evidence for and the "logical" conclusion is, gods are mythical human creations and the Universe's creation had nothing to do with souls or sentient beings.

 

[tsig]

I didn't take the OP as talking about the Christian God. The topic was what do JREF religious believers believe . Religious covers a lot of territory. However, I enjoyed reading the bible and there are concepts in there that I think are sound. I feel the same way about some of the other religions and I love some of the rituals involved in practicing one's religion. I think it is a great way to focus on our spiritual side regardless of what the practical aspects of a religion are. My current beliefs would probably be described as a form of Neopaganism although I still adhere to the one God theory (with different aspects).

As I posted earlier I believe God spoke. The Word was the beginning for the universe. I believe in respect for our creator through forms of worship, ritual, and prayer. I believe in miracles.

Our respect and worship of god can only have meaning to god if we're some what on the same plane of existence so you seem view god as a human just bigger and better.

 

[RoseMontague]

What does adding sentience to your mystery do? No evidence supports a sentient being hypothesis. Couple that with the fact there are thousands of god myths we know are not true, and not a single god myth that there is any evidence for and the "logical" conclusion is, gods are mythical human creations and the Universe's creation had nothing to do with souls or sentient beings.

There were many scientific theories adopted as working models that were later shown to be lacking or incorrect. That did not mean they were without value or had some basic element of truth behind them. For me as well as many other believers, we sense something spiritual in the universe . Our attempts to explain these things are most likely flawed. But they still have value and usefulness, imo.

 

[RoseMontague]

Our respect and worship of god can only have meaning to god if we're some what on the same plane of existence so you seem view god as a human just bigger and better.

Not a chance in heaven. I view the soul as being of God, so only by our spiritual nature do we have such a connection.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There were many scientific theories adopted as working models that were later shown to be lacking or incorrect. That did not mean they were without value or had some basic element of truth behind them. For me as well as many other believers, we sense something spiritual in the universe . Our attempts to explain these things are most likely flawed. But they still have value and usefulness, imo.

Ah, nice try. But the difference is, along with failed scientific hypotheses were many many many successful ones.

Not a single god myth has ever turned out to be true.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, all gods are human generated fiction.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion, the scientific process reveals the closest approximation of the real Universe.

The fact science is successful while god belief methods (prayer and ritual) are not, is very hard to ignore with open eyes. You said you believe in miracles. That suggests you believe in things that haven't been shown to actually occur.