Why is hard for people to let go a belief in a god?

[BiblicalAtheist]

Animals have no I.

You disagree, too?

Animals have moralistic behaviors, but they haven't the mind to wonder why.

 

[zombie]

Humans created the concept and there is no evidence for your God and making claims of what your God desires while saying this God is unknown is contradictory.

To my arguments as presented here it makes no difference if god exists or not it make no difference if there is no evidence for him or not, the god concept does exist and has various effects on humans that other concepts do not have. You don't seem to understand that.

The evolutionary process doesn't claim that all reality begin with evolution. If anything can be twisted, they how can you makes claims of validity for your religious doctrine when it hasn't even attempted to prove anything? Eugenics was created by a people that made extra ordinary claims concerning survival of the fittest with little fact supporting those claims. The fittest doesn't have to mean the strongest, it just means the best adapted to a situation. We really don't have a number on the total deaths caused by religion throughout the history, so saying eugenics was far worse is very subjective. Modern Medicine is a result of evolutionary biology. Evolution isn't a concept, it's a description of a process. The theory doesn't assert anything as fact without proof and questions it's own evidence. Just because some idiots took a piece of the evidence and ran with it, doesn't make it invalid. Still there is evidence.

The people who came up with eugenics/socail darwinism thought they had lots of facts and plenty of evidence for the inferiority of certain people they took the teachings of darwin and twisted in just like jim jones took the bible and twisted it in both cases the effect was the same. Modern medicine did not come out of evolutionary biology it came out of ancient medicine which came out of religion science it self came out of religion.

Religion isn't needed for human to be humans and do human things. It's just used as a flag to convince others to join your cause even if like Jim Jones, that isn't your real intent. Still it is dangerous because it confuses genuine intent with a layer of smooth talking rhetoric. This occurs in other facets of life, but that doesn't do much to support religious validity. The native people of North America died because of foreign disease and for the most part it wasn't intentional or to do with a lack of religion. It was a natural catastrophe or pandemic. It is religion that created tribal splits for the most part for instance, Sunnis vs Shiites with them all being Arab. Organisms survived just fine under their own mechanisms and evolutionary pressures didn't apply the same way for each organism with the same requirements.

There exist a difference between religion and theism, You can make an argument that religion has many bad characteristics and i may agree with you on some. The native people of north america died and lost their freedom because outsiders pushed them out. northern europeans are inviting outsiders who are openly hostile to europeans current atheist leaning culture, there are already no-go areas for white people in places like france and the U.K


foreigners KILLED the native americans by disease and war and it was intentional settlers gave natives small pox infected blankets, genocide by definition is no natural catastrophe. Most arabs are not shiites and most shiites are persians or other ethnic groups not arab. Religion has been nothing if not good to the arabs. religion is an expression of humanity at it's brightest or darkest but the night is short. There is more good than bad in religion.

What study are you referring to about non-believers vs believers? It sounds like a very slanted study and i imagine religions ostracizing non-believers would play a part. Still doesn't do much to support religion as a valid cause. I couldn't see how civil law is inferior when you just said church doesn't have law enforcement powers. Regardless of the initiation of war, civil conversation is still the end result if you plan to settle conflict unless you are talking total annihilation. Not talking post ww1 is what created the environment for ww2. Hitler used religious like rhetoric to convince others of a divine plan and Americans felt themselves better than Indians because they were considered godless savages. Still, the results are Indians getting money with Casinos and having their own land. Better results than African Americans got. My overall point is to not follow doctrines blindly and consider evidence but there always has to be moral considerations which still doesn't require religion. Still, if religion was so effective, we wouldn't be dealing with these very human conditions currently. If anything religion has rode those war into popularity.

Civil law is inferior because it can only be imposed from the outside it has no inner component religious law has an inner / outer component, thus making it a better way to reform a person or stop them from getting to the mindset that would allow them to hurt others to begin with. Religious people are happier but it has nothing to do with god, It's being in the religion and surrounding themselves with people who believe as they do that makes them happy.
http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/religion-happiness-social-bonds.htm

Hitler presented scientific racism in a religious manner to attain his goals, he twisted both science and religion and that was his genius. civil conversation has never ended any war i know of, only total annihilation, attrition or the fear of attrition and bankruptcy ends wars. even when the natives converted they were still treated as savages because of the scientific reasoning behind white power centuries later this same reasoning lead to hitler. I know of no religion that ask you to follow doctrine with out thinking all 3 big religions place high value on wisdom. people choose to not obey his tenet of the doctrine but that is not the fault of the doctrine

Remember i said in the beginning when it came to dealing, people were broke in the 70's and 80's much more so than now. It was also a practice of tribal warfare. What it is now doesn't compare. I'm sure Jamaica could have done other things besides selling drugs and don't tell me people didn't get greedy there too.

In jamaica especially in the 80's and early 90's the low level dealers lived in areas that WERE so violent and so poor that there really is no other way for them but crime. To make it worse in jamaica there is area discrimination They won't hire you based on your address.

 

[ohhhla]

Animals have no I.

You disagree, too?

Animals have moralistic behaviors, but they haven't the mind to wonder why.

I love it when you talk ether to me.

Oh, and co-signed.

 

[alissowack]

If the theory is not "complete", then why is there such an advancing of it? If the science community is in the business of getting things right, then it should have either waited to present it after all the facts are in, or gave a "wave of the hand" explanation for it. Now, it is incorporated into how everyone perceives the way the world came to be. Finding after of years of searching that the theory is not right would really upset things.

My position is that there people who believe in God who are not trying to provide some miraculous revelation or trying to live in some fantasy world in their head. There are people who believe in God who are trying to make sense of who we are, what are we doing (or what we are suppose to do), and where we are going by actually looking at the world around them and it is not particularly fair (though I can see why) that some people think that everyone's perception of a deity is the same. It has nothing to do with offering "God" as a scientific explanation. A philosophical argument does allow for unbiased inquiry, but it is treated as if it is.

Because, the theory is based on facts and it's advanced because more facts are being found that aids in supporting that theory. It's not complete because all of the facts haven't been found even though they've been investigated and tested using formulas and simulations. The Big Bang has actually been reproduced and shown to create new elements from old so this goes to say that something can come from something that may always exist in a certain state. The theory has progressed further than the conclusion that God did it without offering any tangible proof or an equation after all of these centuries.

Still most of what is there supports the theory but people aren't satisfied because there are missing components the same way that this are missing links in the evolution theory. Regardless, using data that supports the theory has led to even more data that supports the theory such as the big bang. Why not teach the methods that got us there and show the overall concept that embodies those methods? In school, you are thought to investigate further which is why we have new scientist adding to discoveries every decade.

It doesn't matter if people perceive God differently. People perceive everything differently. That is the point of science requiring evidence that can be perceived the same by anyone who cares to test that theory in which it can be actually applied. The overall issue with one offering God as a scientific explanation is that people claim to follow the laws of this God (I'm confused how they attributed it to a God) and they feel society should follow too. Well, you would have to give me more to go on if you expect to influence my way of life with your claims. I'm sure others ponder God without including these laws, but they still aren't offering any calculations of competing theories.

But the theory shouldn't have been advanced to the public because it doesn't have the "necessary" facts. It seems more like when the theory is presented, it is only in the interest of what it has. I'm not saying that the scientific community is not aware of the missing elements, but they are less likely to give the pros...and cons...of the theory. It's always...well, look at what we got. 99.999% of the pie is not the whole pie and yet the theory is treated as such by the public. It has become so much a part of cultural norms that the name lends itself to an "off the subject" tv comedy. Maybe the scientific community is acting in faith that they will find that important 0.001% one day. And how do you really know the scientific community is working feverishly to find that very important part? For all we know, they are sitting around wondering how long can this go on before the truth is finally revealed that the theory doesn't really support the origins of the universe. It may not be about funds, but there is a lot money invested in this research and it wouldn't be in the best interest of those profiting from it to admit it. And the things is...they don't have to lie about it. They can just find new ways to present something old.

It does matter how people perceive a deity in respect to how they treat everything. You've already made the assumption that people who believe in a deity are trying to force fit God into science...and it is true that people do that. But, what about everybody else? If you are really the type to investigate things, you will see it is not the case. You will find people who are religious who dispute something in science for the sake of science and you will have to determine which is which.