what is wrong with believing in intelligent design if you don't hold anyone accountable to your morals but yourself?

Huh? Do you mean this "Intelligent Design" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design)?

If so, there are plenty of reasons why it's wrong to believe in Intelligent Design, but I don't see what any of them have to do with morality...

ID is a bad attempt at explaining the diversity of life we see today, not a moral/ethical proposal.

Maybe the OP could expound on his/her thoughts...

i just don't see the problem in believing in a God, just as long as it is a personal endeavor. atheists talk about intelligent design like its absolutely retarded, some religious people push their shit on you and its wrong, but so do these athiests.

intelligent design is an extremely vague term, not everyone who believes in a higher power thinks god farted humanity.

Maybe the OP could expound on his/her thoughts...

I'm betting you're regretting that about now... :D

i just don't see the problem in believing in a God, just as long as it is a personal endeavor. atheists talk about intelligent design like its absolutely retarded, some religious people push their shit on you and its wrong, but so do these athiests.

intelligent design is an extremely vague term, not everyone who believes in a higher power thinks god farted humanity.

There's no problem in "keeping God to yourself", but on the other hand, there's really no point either. If you want to vacuum your house twice a day, go ahead and do it, but "It's a personal endeavor, leave me alone" is not sufficient enough (at least not by itself) a reason to do such a thing. If you're going to believe in God then there's harm reduction (;)) for you if you do it on an individual level, but just because you can do it by yourself doesn't mean you should. You got that?

i just don't see the problem in believing in a God, just as long as it is a personal endeavor. atheists talk about intelligent design like its absolutely retarded, some religious people push their shit on you and its wrong, but so do these athiests.

intelligent design is an extremely vague term, not everyone who believes in a higher power thinks god farted humanity.

1. Belief in god does not equal "intelligent design". "Intelligent design" is that claim that an intelligent designer designed all or some organisms.

You can believe in a god and not believe he personally designed anything. For example, you can be like many Catholics who believe their god made/let the Big Bang occur and then let natural laws take their course.

2. Many atheists have little problem with people who keep their beliefs to themselves. It's the fact that many theists don't do that that pisses them off. Theists want religious icons in the courthouses, want religious laws, religious symbols, religious topics taught in school, they berate atheists (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-change_atheist_bd06apr06,1,4016432.story) and imply that they are not citizens, etc.

3. I would say that there are still reasons why a belief in god is still a problem.

To use a analogy, imagine someone that believes 2+2= 9. How can he really keep that to himself? It seems like that belief of his will utimately affect some of his actions when he interacts with other people. Even if he had absolutely no contact with the outside world, the fact that he exists and still holds that belief is philosophically troubling.

Same thing here.

[B]
...god made/let the Big Bang occur and then let natural laws take their course.


He would also have to create those laws. He would have to create what we conceive as "chaos" and "order" and he would have to create evolution, and space and time. The matter created would be subject to those laws. Of course He could have created another being to take care of those trivial little things but that creature is still subservient to to the reality created by Him for that creature to exist within.

3. I would say that there are still reasons why a belief in god is still a problem.

To use a analogy, imagine someone that believes 2+2= 9. How can he really keep that to himself? It seems like that belief of his will utimately affect some of his actions when he interacts with other people. Even if he had absolutely no contact with the outside world, the fact that he exists and still holds that belief is philosophically troubling.

To use another analogy. Imagine a world where everyone was deaf, save a few handful. Those few would have a hard time explaining and making the rest believe that they have another sense besides the ones everyone is used to. I am not saying certain people can "hear" the creator more than others or that 2+2=9 but simply that we are limited in our perceptions. A bat would have a hard time explaining to humans that there is an audible sound range beyond what we can hear.

Other than that, I don't think our creator changes the laws of this reality, never has, and has no reason to. Following the laws of THIS reality, man cannot be resurrected or walk on water. There are no such things as miracles, we barely become more knowledgeable about this reality and that is what science is.

He would also have to create those laws. He would have to create what we conceive as "chaos" and "order" and he would have to create evolution, and space and time. The matter created would be subject to those laws. Of course He could have created another being to take care of those trivial little things but that creature is still subservient to to the reality created by Him for that creature to exist within.

Yet free will is precisely what many theists believe in. So they undoubtedly still believe there are things done that God didn't plan out directly. They can believe evolution is produced organism that their god didn't sit down to plan.

Whether this belief stands up to scrutiny or not is another matter. I'm an atheist; I believe it doesn't. The main point is that "belief in god" does not equal "Intelligent Design", when the OP was apparently using them interchangeably.



To use another analogy. Imagine a world where everyone was deaf, save a few handful. Those few would have a hard time explaining and making the rest believe that they have another sense besides the ones everyone is used to. I am not saying certain people can "hear" the creator more than others or that 2+2=9 but simply that we are limited in our perceptions. A bat would have a hard time explaining to humans that there is an audible sound range beyond what we can hear.

1. The correct analogy would be a world where some people claimed they weren't deaf, provided no meaningful evidence to prove so, yet expected everyone to believe them. Assuming non-deafness (to use your analogy) is true from the get go, does not make a valid analogy.

2. I don't see what this has to do with what I said. I was saying I would still find it philosophically undesirable for another person to believe in god, even if he could guarantee that person would keep it to himself. You might disagree. Great. I'm just expressing my point of view.

I'll go ahead and share my opinion, OP: Whatever works for you, works for you. Anyone who tells you to give up what works for you can go fuck themselves. I have my faith, but I don't try to convert people to it. If it gets brought up, and they start berating me for it, they too can go fuck themselves.

I've held that opinion through my childhood, my teens, and until now. I've held that opinion through agnosticism, atheism, taoism, and Christ.

Repent or be damned...yeah, wonderful way to show love. ;)
Believing in God is fucking retarded...yeah, wonderful way to show the superiority of skeptic life ;)
I don't know shit, and you sure as fuck don't either...wonderful way to show honest ignorance!
Just flow...yeah, like I know they're not flowing anyways?

Point is, I don't like having shit pushed on me...opinion, product, etc. I try not to push it on others...but, I am human, so I fall short every now and then.

And seriously, thank you for asking that question.

Peace.

i just don't see the problem in believing in a God, just as long as it is a personal endeavor. atheists talk about intelligent design like its absolutely retarded, some religious people push their shit on you and its wrong, but so do these athiests.

intelligent design is an extremely vague term, not everyone who believes in a higher power thinks god farted humanity.


The problem is that ID supporters also want to waste people's time by having it taught beside evolution in SCIENCE classes. Therefore, we have movements such as Pastafarianism. Fun times indeed.

The problem is that ID supporters also want to waste people's time by having it taught beside evolution in SCIENCE classes. Therefore, we have movements such as Pastafarianism. Fun times indeed.

I don't want ID taught in science classes. I want genetics, biology, geology, abiogenesis, etc. taught in science class. ID is, simply, that God created these things...that's a matter of faith, and that's a parent's choice to make as to whether it's taught or not. If you live in the USA, like I do, our gov ain't supposed to partner with nor prevent religion. The schools are part of government, and thus aren't supposed to push religious ideals.

That's how this ID supporter sees it, though.

i thought i made it clear that i'm not talking about creationism....

2+2=4... though some asshole can think 2+2=9, he would be wrong, and if he sat down and put 9 apples on a table, then put 2 in separate areas, added(pushed them together), and viewed the fact the the group in which he created by adding 2 + 2, he can see that it does not match the 9 pile.

you cannot do this with god. you don't know. there is no test that proves there is not god and thus if you completely deny the existence of god, though i cannot prove it either.

there are differences in personality and thus people view the real reality (what is actually there no matter who is perceiving it) differently. you say goodbye, i say hello.

Repent or be damned...yeah, wonderful way to show love. ;)
Believing in God is fucking retarded...yeah, wonderful way to show the superiority of skeptic life ;)
I don't know shit, and you sure as fuck don't either...wonderful way to show honest ignorance!
Just flow...yeah, like I know they're not flowing anyways?


yes, exactly yes. we are humans we are imperfect, we cannot comprehend a god. those who claim to do are fooled. those who claim it does not exist are even more fooled. but, sometimes i wish i was fooled into believe i wasn't foolish, but i know i am.

there is a large middle ground in this thought that people tend not to venture into. of course there could be a god. because i believe in a god i believe everything, everything, everything, is a fractal expression of god. i do not see how anyone can be considered of lesser intelligence or philosophical aptitude to believe in a higher intelligent power.

I'm an atheist; I believe it doesn't. The main point is that "belief in god" does not equal "Intelligent Design".

what? how? how can something exist in gods universe without the influence of god? though you dont beleive in it, don't say what others do.

Because, again, Intelligent Design means that an intelligent designer (i.e. though most of the time this is a god, it technically doesn't have to be) designed some or all of the organisms we see.

That is not the same as belief in god, not only because one can believe something else beside a god designed these organisms, but also because it goes beyond mere belief in the existence of a god to making the claim that he specifically spent time designing one or more organisms.

Please, read the link I provided and learn the definition of intelligent design.

i
there are differences in personality and thus people view the real reality (what is actually there no matter who is perceiving it) differently. you say goodbye, i say hello.

Which is a very good reason why saying belief in god "is a personal endeavor" isn't really true because it affects their worldview, their personality, their philosophy, etc. all of which can have an influence on how they interact with other people.

Also the 2+2 = 9 point was to show just that: how a belief (i.e. 2+2=9) can affect how someone else interacts with the world. Whether that belief can be proven wrong and not the existence of god is irrelevant to that point I was making.

i just don't see the problem in believing in a God, just as long as it is a personal endeavor. atheists talk about intelligent design like its absolutely retarded, some religious people push their shit on you and its wrong, but so do these athiests.

intelligent design is an extremely vague term, not everyone who believes in a higher power thinks god farted humanity.

This is not a humanist V. spiritualist matter its a human problem. A mist all the fighting and the bickering, the two sides forget its just a belief they hold. Both are agnostic by nature, just one is more so heavier than the other. Both JUST BELIEVE, THEY DONT KNOW.

The atheist is going to try disprove God scientifically and logically while the religious person will try and prove God with scripture and what not, until both sides can sit down at the same table and eat together they will both be bickering. We are arguing over beliefs and a belief to disbelieve, wheres the progress. Truth be told you are going be arguing and arguing over the situation with nothing to come out from it.

The whole argument is a Red Herring! So there you have it I logically disproved the need to argue over this matter, if there is one thing i would like to see on this forum is people to agree that they are arguing over a red herring, thus being red herrings are fallacies the argument is gone with the wind the minute you start arguing over it. Thus, logic cant (dis)prove God because, the minute you begin arguing it becomes irrelevant. I AM TELLING BOTH SIDES THIS! Understand and agree on this and have others understand and agree on this if you want to make progress!

But just for fun, lets assume we proved the existence of some intelligent designer of the universe what do you suppose would be the next question asked? I only ask this because, I think half the arguers would just say my view is correct! While the other side will experience a degree of "shellshock" and will be initially be to disoriented and confused to answer this question.

But just for fun, lets assume we proved the existence of some intelligent designer of the universe what do you suppose would be the next question asked? I only ask this because, I think half the arguers would just say my view is correct! While the other side will experience a degree of "shellshock" and will be initially be to disoriented and confused to answer this question.

May I see your ID? :D

Seriously :)

who's arguing? discussion of the possibility of god doesn't make anything irrelevant.

im not trying to prove or disprove god, im just asking how does believing in a god show a lesser intelligence if logic cannot be applied to god because logic is relative. to hold knowledge of constants such of laws of physics or equations is logic, it is information that is observable. because no one can truly know whether god exists from a scientific standpoint, no side can truly be logical, and you can openly choose. that is why we have freedom of religion.

who's arguing? discussion of the possibility of god doesn't make anything irrelevant.

im not trying to prove or disprove god, im just asking how does believing in a god show a lesser intelligence if logic cannot be applied to god because logic is relative. to hold knowledge of constants such of laws of physics or equations is logic, it is information that is observable. because no one can truly know whether god exists from a scientific standpoint, no side can truly be logical, and you can openly choose. that is why we have freedom of religion.

But what is your reason behind that choice? If nobody can truly comprehend God why must we choose one way or the other? The only logical position seems to be to avoid the question altogether. Otherwise you're simply making conjectures based on... well, wishful thinking.

im just asking how does believing in a god show a lesser intelligence if logic cannot be applied to god because logic is relative. to hold knowledge of constants such of laws of physics or equations is logic, it is information that is observable. because no one can truly know whether god exists from a scientific standpoint, no side can truly be logical, and you can openly choose. that is why we have freedom of religion.

Greeks had a word for God: Logos. Look it up in a good dictionary and you will see that Logos, whilst not directly translatable to English, has a meaning of 'word or reason'. Look up Logic, and you will see that its root in the original Greek was logikos: concerning speech or reasoning! Sounds like the Greeks believed God was logical?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was Logos/Word/Reason/Logic, and the Logos/Word/Reason/Logic was with God and the Logos/Word/Reason/Logic was God."

In the beginning was speech or reasoning, and speech or reasoning was with God, and speech/reasoning was God.

In the beginning was Reason, and Reasoning was with God and Reason was God. All things were made by Reason.

Sounds 'reasonable':D that logic could be used to understand god?

Does this also depend on one's definition of God? Remember God is refered to as 'Logos' in the Gospel of John, which by the way bears a remarkable resemblance with a passage from the Indian/Hindu Vedas. Once more dictionary: Logos:1. Philosophy - reason, regarded as the controlling principle of the universe. In the beginning was Reason/Logos, and Reason/Logic was 'the controlling principle of the universe'/God.

On topic, if one equates God as the controlling principle of the universe as sees that as being the power of reasoning (equating to intelligence?) what is the problem with positing intelligence behind the designs we see in nature. Surely the design of a platypus beggars evolution for an explanation?

"As below so above", an ancient Hermetic principle from Egypt agrees with the Taoist thought of extrapolating from the known to the unknown. My mind uses reason and logic to see that the creative intelligence within evolves designs and then tests that design. Considered in the impersonal tense as do the Taoists the creative force is divine but one refrains from ascribing it a personality. Buddha taught the path to Brahma, sometimes wrongly interpreted as the Hindu God Brahmin, however Brahma is the term for the creative force.

ID as a concept, divorced from the personality's that always seem to be applied too the divine, seems a useful tool in attempting to understand the universe.

Here's a theory: there can't be 'nothing'(as in an absolute 'nothing') so there is something. The something is one thing thus this oneness must be everywhere, omnipresent, infinite. To be infinite the ''one'' must be separated into apparent opposites, positive and negative values, the basic forces of the universe - pushing/pulling. The interaction between the infinite positive and negative values is seen as electricity’s that form chaotic patterns similar to human neurology resulting in a "Self Aware Universe"(Amil Goswami). There is a respectable, logical, scientific effort on the part of those like Goswami, Dr Emoto, and Seth Lloyd, amongst many, to understand the universe as a conscious entity.

Seth Lloyd is the creator of quantum computers and in his book "Programming The Universe" he asserts that the universe works like a vast quantum computer. He emphasise the similarity whilst making the point - this does not prove the universe is in fact a giant quantum computer, just that it looks very much like it is! There is a lot of debate regarding the attempts to create artificial intelligence in computing, however there seems to be agreement on the vast amount of computing power required to produce and sustain it. Not much of a jump from there to positing the universe as an infinitely powerful quantum computer exhibiting intelligence in the designs such as the human brain which could quite reasonably be thought of as resulting from a reflection of the universal mind as a means of manifesting on the physical plane?

Could ID be a good thing if kept free of the stereotypes applied to the attachment of the highly subjective understandings of 'God'?

Cheers:)

There is nothing wrong with believing. Only doing [certain things].

But what is your reason behind that choice? If nobody can truly comprehend God why must we choose one way or the other? The only logical position seems to be to avoid the question altogether. Otherwise you're simply making conjectures based on... well, wishful thinking.

When it comes to believing and worshipping a god there does not necessarily have to be a reason, for some there are:

Perhaps you were liberal and free as a teenager but you grew tired of this "liberal lifestyle" and you sought to have discipline for your life most teachings of self-control and what not are founded in religious and spiritual paths.

Perhaps you had a "highly conservative lifestyle" growing up and you felt like you couldn't live life so instead of leading a religious life you took up a spiritual life which is more loose than a religious one.

Sometimes like I said there can be no reason and you do it because, their is just a connection theres no tangible reason, the reason is intangible...

When it comes to believing and worshipping a god there does not necessarily have to be a reason, for some there are:

Perhaps you were liberal and free as a teenager but you grew tired of this "liberal lifestyle" and you sought to have discipline for your life most teachings of self-control and what not are founded in religious and spiritual paths.

Perhaps you had a "highly conservative lifestyle" growing up and you felt like you couldn't live life so instead of leading a religious life you took up a spiritual life which is more loose than a religious one.

Sometimes like I said there can be no reason and you do it because, their is just a connection theres no tangible reason, the reason is intangible...

So you're going to use religion as a way to better yourself? I suppose I do that to some extent as well, but in the back of my mind I know that any positive feelings that I get out of spirituality (not much more than meditation, really) are ultimately void since I'd be fooling myself into believing in a God by using it like that.

"Because there's no reason" is just about the worst reason I've ever heard; there's no reason not to (dis)believe in God anyway, so I suppose we'll all simply abandon logic just for the fuck of it (which is really what you're saying).

Could you specify what you mean by this "connection"? I think I know, but I'd rather not get into it for fear of wasting time in case I'm wrong.

So you're going to use religion as a way to better yourself? I suppose I do that to some extent as well, but in the back of my mind I know that any positive feelings that I get out of spirituality (not much more than meditation, really) are ultimately void since I'd be fooling myself into believing in a God by using it like that.

"Because there's no reason" is just about the worst reason I've ever heard; there's no reason not to (dis)believe in God anyway, so I suppose we'll all simply abandon logic just for the fuck of it (which is really what you're saying).

Could you specify what you mean by this "connection"? I think I know, but I'd rather not get into it for fear of wasting time in case I'm wrong.


well religion doesnt work for you then. if you cannot convince yourself into beleiving you were never convinced into beleiving in god, you should'nt believe in god, that simple.

do what you do and allow others to do the same, but if what you do is making others not do what they do, then your wrong.