Evidence for God from Science

bigTop wrote:

narnia4 wrote:I always do think that its not worth it... these people aren't open and no amount of evidence is going to change their minds, it takes God to really change their hearts.

And your mind is open because you only believe in ONE system?

Throughout my life, it's seemed that atheists are the ones with the opened minds. The majority of religious people will say you're going to burn in hell if you don't believe what they believe.. That sounds like a closed mind to me..

I don't know what Christians you are talking about, but an open mind means you're willing to consider that you are wrong. I see very few atheists who are willing to do that - that is, admit that there could be a God.
On the other hand, there are many people like that from other religions too. Saying that you will burn in Hell if you don't believe... Well, within the scope of the religion I see what they are talking about, but I suppose you weren't talking about the validity of Christianity anyways in that case.

The "Open-minded word". The problem with saying "I'm open-minded" is that it means the person isn't. Everyone is close-minded. No one sits about with all viewpoints ever conceived floating in their minds, contemplating all. But if they did, they'd lose part of their humanity. As humans, we have reason and can dismiss some ideas in favor of others, building our belief systems.

But what sounds truly more open-minded? Someone who believes in God as an explanation for the world or someone who believes God doesn't exist? Examine this for just a minute. On the one hand, you have someone who has evidence in the form of revelation and experience; something only a believer could have. On the other hand, you have a lack of revelation and experience, which most people would not count as evidence, but lack of any evidence. Who is more open-minded? The one with evidence in their favor that takes it and uses it to believe something, or the one who has no evidence but chooses to staunchly and unquestioningly choose not to believe?

Suppose there was a box sitting before two people. Neither one really has any clue as to what is under the box, but neither one really cares either. Life is fine without knowing what's inside the box. One of the people, getting tired of life as it has always been, lifts the box to discover a pile of money underneath. He tells the other about it, trying to convince him, but the other will have nothing to do with it. "I have not seen it, and I am not interested in seeing it. It is a delusion to believe there is anything of value in that box." The believer tries to convince over and over, having seen it and then believed it, but the skeptic, having not seen nor believed, is just as stubborn. The biggest difference between the box and God is that God is so far better than a pile of money that our entire lifetimes could be well served by trying to convince people of what we've seen.

I've met people who might be considered 'open-minded' on both sides of the debate. The term generally just refers to people willing to listen before speaking. However, it would not be so hard a thing to imagine that, as an atheist yourself, you have been exposed to the best of one side of the debate and the worst of the other. That may throw you into a bit of a bias, I would think, as it could anyone listening to just favorable views of their own beliefs. But no one is truly open-minded. That has to be a reality people accept before getting into a debate. Everyone is guided in part by emotion: think of someone willing to save their family if a terrorist they have caught is allowed to blow up a building. Everyone is guided by fear: fear of death and pain make normally sane people do insane things. Even people guided by reason alone (and such people do not exist) could never actually contemplate enough viewpoints to actually be considered 'open-minded'.

On the topic of hell, before you condemn Christianity as exclusive without cause or reason, please examine actual Christian belief on hell, humanity's purpose, and God's reason for Creation in the first place. I've never encountered a more consistent worldview. Based on what you've said, you have never encountered such a worldview at all, but ghosts of a pseudo-Christianity presented by people who want nothing to do with it.

A lot of atheists are dumb and close minded as there are a lot of religious fanatics. of course no atheist is gonna admit that in general but that is true. Some reasoning is pure nonsense in its superlative degrees and most of the atheists I have seen make more noise than talk sensibly.

bigTop wrote:

narnia4 wrote:I always do think that its not worth it... these people aren't open and no amount of evidence is going to change their minds, it takes God to really change their hearts.

And your mind is open because you only believe in ONE system?

Throughout my life, it's seemed that atheists are the ones with the opened minds. The majority of religious people will say you're going to burn in hell if you don't believe what they believe.. That sounds like a closed mind to me..

How do you know I'm not open-minded? I for one AM open to reasonable dialogue and discussion, that's what I'm talking about looking for. And in looking for those sort of conversations, I have found that in most cases, open reasonable dialogues are very hard to have with atheists. If atheism isn't a religion (and for the purposes of law it actually HAS been considered a religious preference), atheists sure do act like it is with their clinging to it. Not even talking about conversion, I'm talking about getting someone to have an actual discussion with you instead of just attacks.

And if I'm not open, does that mean atheists are? I feel like I have examined the evidence and chosen to believe ONE system. By the way you say that, it sounds like you're suggesting its somehow more reasonable to believe in multiple systems? Believe it or not, belief in hell is not a warm and fuzzy feeling for most people, so I don't see the correlation between belief in hell and being close-minded. Unless you go for some sort of postmodern ideal where all ideas are equally true and valid (except for the Christian ones that the atheist gets to reject out of turn), which is just ridiculous whichever way you slice it.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

dorkmaster wrote:Proinsias, I exxagerated a little, but not much. Recently there have been several cases where high school valedictorians were not allowed to talk about God in their graduation speeches because some atheist student or parent complained that went against their rights. Today, I read about how the veterans affairs board( I think, I mostly skimmed the article) are now prohibiting pastors from mentioning God or Jesus in their funeral services. It's getting really bad over here.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It makes me laugh. If it is unconstitutional for a high school valedictorian to talk about God, that means: the high school valedictorian is congress, and by talking about God they are making a law, ratifying it, implementing it, and using it to establish a religion.

Politically correct hell-spawn garbage logic at its finest.

How do you know which religion should be taught in school? Which God shall they pray to? Will there be time for meditation?
I don't think it is OK to prevent that kind of thing at a school speech like graduation. I think they should be able to mention God but only in relation to themselves, not in relation to others because that... would make some people feel rather out of the loop. But if they want to thank God for their personal success... I don't understand why anyone would stop that...However it should be noted that children/teens do NOT have the same about of free speech in school as out of school. This is why you are not allowed to go around calling people names just because your religion (not just Christianity) says you should.

But funeral services? I do have to say that is really sad... I don't think there is an issue here.