[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Harry Potter and God

[No Limberger]

>md wrote:
>I could of course argue that Atheist are simply people who are still
>searching for the truth and only await the proper moment to embrace
>God to >realize that they are wrong and that they are only skeptical
>because they have not yet seen the way.

No.Limberger responds:
As a species, humans are highly inquisitive.  Our minds seek to
understand as much as possible.  Our ancient ancestors could
not explain life, death, their existence, why some people get
sick and some don't, etc.  Their minds then created the notion
of deities: some ruling over life, some over death, some over hunting
(since hunting was essential for survival), some over farming
and agriculture (as that became another important source of
food), etc.  As beliefs in various deities evolved, the notion of
a single all-powerful deity that controls everything also emerged.
One of the first manifestations of this was "the Aten" as believed
by the Egyptian pharaoh Amenhotep IV, who renamed himself
Ankenaten; but upon his death, the original polytheistic Egptian
religion was restored.  Monotheism also came into existence
in Judaism and in Zoroastrianism, both of which contributed to
Christian beliefs, along with ideas taken from polytheistic Pagan
religions.

Were religions enough to satiate human curiosity and the
desire for self-knowledge, as well as the world & universe
around us?  No.  As people began to emerge into the
Renaissance in Europe, they began to rediscover things
that had once been known and come up with entirely new
ways to understand the natural world, such as Isaac Newton,
whose three laws of motion continue to be just as valid
today when discussing speeds well below the speed of
light and the exclusion of atomic and subatomic particles.
After Galileo Galilee was imprisoned by the Roman Catholic
Church for daring to publish that the sun, and not the earth,
is the center of the solar system, Johannes Kepler was
able to calculate planetary motion after abandoning the
notion that the planets were required to orbit the sun in
"celestial spheres" whose dimensions would be defined
by perfect solids: an idea that was propagated by belief
in a perfect supernatural deity that would clearly not
create something imperfect.  When Charles Darwin
began to examine various species of life on remote
islands, he didn't do so with the intent of showing that
creationism as defined by the bible is invalid; evolution
was simply the logical conclusion formed from scientific
research.  Genetics has further proven evolution, which
then connects to cosmology and particle physics: all
life is based upon organic compounds comprised of
carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen.  At the time
of the Big Bang, the only known elements to exist at
that time were the two simplest: hydrogen and helium
with many a trace amount of lithium.  Where, then,
did all of the heavier elements come from?  From
the hearts of stars where these elements are fused
through atomic reactions, and in the violent & explosive
deaths of stars.  Is there any evidence, therefore,
that life is the product of some unknown, untestable,
and unprovable action of one (or more) supernatural
being(s)?  Or, is life the natural consequence when
all of the right materials and conditions are present for
it to begin on its own?  Given that there is absolutely
no scientific evidence whatsoever for the existence of
any supernatural beings, and, even if any do exist
(perhaps as life consisting of pure energy), there is
equally no evidence that any such beings would have
any regard for any organic life, let alone have the ability
to "create" organic life.  Thus, to believe that they do,
if they exist in the first place, is simply a presumption.

Now, as to specific religions, who's to say that one
is better than another, or that a particular sect within
one religion is better than other sects within the same
religion?  Unlike science, no religion or religious sect
can demonstrate the validity of its beliefs, yet followers
of particular religions or particular religious sects may
view themselves as being superior over others.  In
other words, it is based purely upon personal bias
and unsubstantiated concepts.  When religion attempts
to impose its views into scientific, medical or civil
issues, again, it is based purely upon bias and
unsubstantiated concepts.  Unfortunately, those with
strong personal religious convictions are often so
convinced that anyone who disagrees with them is
wrong or "evil", that compromise is rarely attainable.


-- 
"Why don't you dance with me, I'm not no limburger!"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]