|
I'm not understanding this "On Faith" section of the Post. It appears that you have 4 guest writers who all have the same opinion about "faith", which is that they all have it.
Can we non-believers, atheists, and agnostics have at least ONE person representing the other side? Or is that too much to ask?
I consider myself a good person, and I certainly don't agree with point 1 of your list. Religion is an impediment to true human morality. Without religious bigots we wouldn't have an anti-gay movement.
Joe, I won't speak for Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn, nevertheless, I'll take a shot at answering your question as to why there are no non-believers, atheists and agnostics on the "On Faith" panel (please note there are many more than four on the panel, even if only four have responded to their question so far). The answer to your question is contained in the question: Quinn and Meacham have put together an "On Faith" panel, NOT an "On Lack of Faith" panel. All readers are welcome to post answers to the questions - non-believers, atheists and agnostics.
Just my guess.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
I believe that atheism is on the rise because traditional/mainstream monotheist religions have both failed to respond adequately to contemporary life and scientific knowledge and then force people through peer pressure, evangelization, or the sword to accept only one God who is omni-everything. Most atheist arguements center around disproving or scoffing at the idea of the personal, omnipotent, omnibeneficient God.
When you only have one acceptable concept of the divine, it is easy to find ways to dismiss it.
Angela: "When you only have one acceptable concept of the divine, it is easy to find ways to dismiss it."
OK, that's a fair enough point.
But a frustrating part about arguing against belief in God is the way any theistic believer can just re-define what God is when the old definition is no longer tenable.
Long ago most sensible people stopped believing that God intervened to help Joshua achieve military victories. Then we learned how humans could come into existence by biology. Then it stopped being tenable to think God condems members of other religions to hell and saves the members of ours.
So what is God? At the very least, to be considered "God" an entity must: 1) sometimes act outside scientific laws; and 2) act to moral purpose.
Is there any reason to think scientific laws have ever been suspended for moral reasons? If not, God at least doesn't DO anything.
does anyone else notice the similarity between this question and the common ground question?
i dont really think atheism is enjoying any more of a vogue now than it has in history- if we are to believe meachems figures that 95% of americans believe in god- wouldnt that rather be the opposite of being in vogue? in the 50s certainly it was in "vogue" ( i actually dislike that word) im not even an atheist but it seems to demean atheism to a fad or a passing fancy-
im sensing a very limited mindset and scope from the same questions being asked-
these kinds of questions seem to create antipathy between opposing camps rather than open up tolerant dialogue that we can all learn and frow from.
i hope im wrong but i foresee alot of intolerance brewing.
Two theories as to why atheism is becoming more popular:
The Sam Harris theory, which says that people are realizing that dogmatism may doom the entire human race to annihilation.
The Tonio theory, which says that people are fed up with dogmas telling them what to believe.
A great point of discussion for atheists and believers is whether there is a Singularity/God that does or does not know the Future.
As per Father Edward Schillebeeck, the famous, contemporary theologian in his book Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)
"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" . "Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."
Each of us arrive on planet earth with a wide-open consciousness. We have encountered a dramatic educational transition over the past 40 years. Before, it involved personal character development; and God was everywhere. Today we are intellectually programmed for compliance with the world of 'buying and selling'! Guided to idolize money! Faith, hope and charity is not the way to live successfully in the world we are creating!
The common ground of atheists and believers could exist in finding agreement on personal worth;--- one thing all celebrities have in common is they separated from an acquired social mind; to follow personal convictions; and so introduced truths and talent into our world. Another is the existence of an inherent social conscience; that common welfare matters; that we need continue to find physical principles necessary to ease suffering.
This conflict between believers and atheists can only be resolved by truth! It can't be denied that guidance to awareness of common ideals realized only deep in personal thought was brought forth by all the major religions; is contrary to the overall predator-prey animal inter-relationship; and the most significant advice of Christian teaching is to not be controlled by your body, but your heart!
Atheism is not enjoying vogue, it may be your view. Main reason of atheism being failure of agencies implementing religion to provide clear,scientific, and understandable model and definition of God/Religion. Purpose and use of Religion.
Atheism and agnosticism, which are often indistinguishable in practice, have been common for a very long time. What is on the rise is that people admit it or realize it. This is a good thing. The dialog? Believers and Non-believers can talk about almost anything except the nature of the godhead, and agree on a host of moral issues because these are universal and not dependent in anyway on religious sensibilities.
Moreover, theisms in which the godhead is very non-anthropomorphic, especially those that tend towards pan-theism, are also indistinguishable in practice from agnosticism and weak atheism.
Finally, religion can be used as a harmful system of childhood indoctrination, for example it can be used to teach bigotry and hate. It is by no means unique in that. Far from it. But contrary to what some might think, it is not immune from that.
What atheists and agnostics have a right to expect is that our views be afforded the same respect as those who believe in their various gods (or goddeses). That manifestly does not occur in the US today, and the composition of today's panel bears that out.
I take offense with the use of the word vogue. As Victoria mentioned it would appear that that is meant as in fashion or a fad.
I have been an atheist since I was 16. I am now 50. There are many reasons for not *coming out* and many of them are obvious. Not the least of which is of course Sterotyping & Prejudice.
To this day there are less people that know I am atheist than fingers on my one hand. To the few that do some have been ok with it and others I have had to deal with aggressive religious prostelization that caused the breakdown of freindship.
I honestly have on occasion mentioned it to a stranger or two. I received the look of horror. As if I just admitted I murdered someone. And then I get the feeling they think its a contagious disease. And they have to run like hell. It becomes tiresome, so I work on a if *they don't ask, I don't tell policy.*
I think people like Harris, Dennett and Dawkins however radical some may perceive them to be do a great service in bringing atheism into the forefront. In time hopefully people will become more tolerant and accepting. Atheists will be able to speak out more and others will see that we are not much different from themselves.
We work, pay taxes, obey laws, respect our fellow man (possibly more so), we have morals, ethics and integrity. We love and respect life (we are not miserable angry people).
I have to say from these threads in much of this website, I have the sad feeling that productive conversation is very difficult to not at all, when speaking about religion or the lack of by both sides.
For the most part the Christians quote the bible and the atheists say prove it. And then it just gets worse with name calling. I keep hanging around here, hoping to see more productive conversation but my patience is wearing thin.
I think this is a good website. If for nothing else, all of us can get a better idea on the amount of people that feel and believe the way they do.
Saying atheism is "In Vogue" is suggesting that it is some kind of fad. It is not. I believe more and more people are becoming atheists because people are becoming more aware of science and the origins of religion. The violent aspects of one of the world's largest religions was shown to the world on 9/11/01 and afterwards. I think that this lead many people to question how a "benevolent" force such as religion would not only allow this, but condone it.
With a healthy dollop of reason, people have learned that the Bible is nothing more than an ancient fictional text. It is a set of mythology no different than those of the Norse, the Romans, or the Greeks.
To suggest atheists are distracted from God due to materialism is to not give atheists enough credit. Most atheists have become that way after using logic and reason. Theists have only one way to come to their conclusion that god exists: emotion. Emotion has nothing to do with finding the truth. Want proof of that? Try to convince yourself that it is 120 degrees F outside. You just have to FEEL that it is. Now step outside. What temperature is it? If you're living in the United States, chances are it's below 50 right now.
Atheism is not a "fad" or a "trend" or "in vogue". If people are becoming atheists because it's stylish than I think they have the wrong idea. But I don't think many atheists are rebelling or trying to fit into a mold. I think that they are reasonable, logical people who see that a modern people do not require supernaturalism and superstition.
One of your columnists suggested that atheists need a "positive" title. Why? Atheists have no need for positive titles because we don't believe in anything. I guess the closest positive title we could come up with would be Humanism.
If you want more information on atheism, I suggest you read The God Delusion. Search your mind, and then you may realize that your soul doesn't exist.
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."- Richard Dawkins
"Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?"
A vogue? What does that mean? Atheism is finally becoming a main issue because there are finally some rather mainstream spokespeople for the point of view (I of course speak of Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris). Led by these men, many of us have become much more outspoken about how we feel. I have been lucky myself, and found a significant number of people where I work who have thoughts along similar lines, but for whom religious practice is a way to remain bonded with thier families. I know quite a few people who get married at church because of their parents or grandparents.
If you take the atheist trinity, if you will, and couple that with the latest information age technology, you'll will begin to understand the reason behind the 'vogue' of Atheism. (A president who people think is an idiot and who claims conversations with the allmighty help out a little too).
The second part to your inquiry is, Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues? Of course their can. It happens all the time. As long as the issues discussed have nothing to do with whatever points of interest that believer holds are. I've had decent conversations about abortion with Catholics. The problems aride when a person of faith covers a topic for which they've discerned their position based on what their pastor/preacher has told them. Then they claim that it's in the Bible.
This is a problem for two main reasons. 1> It is painfully obvious that you haven't read your bible if you can't even come up with a faint hint of where it was you read that. And even more importantly 2> Why is the bible recognized as a reference? I don't want to discuss it here, as there are plenty of forums where one can look at the evidence which brings the bible into question as a source (see 'Biblical Errancy'). The conversation stops when the believer pulls his 'trump' card and slaps it on the table.
If you're going to engage in a conversation with anyone, the basis of that conversation is that you believe each other and your sources. When someone pulls out a questionable reference in a scientific conversation, they get called on it. That's where many crossfaith conversations go awry. So in answer to the question, conversation is possible until the believer falls back on their trump card. Then the non-believe has to convince the believer that their 'book' is incorrect (which it is). And they come up to a brick wall.
There are certain burdens upon a conversation. Before one talks, one should have a point to make, and evidence to back it up. If you don't have solid evidence, you need to expect to get called out for it.
I see no vogue for atheism right now. What I see is a process in which educated, cultured people increasingly become uncomfortable with religious doctrines taught by the churches. They may not choose to leave these churches -- the mainline churches are full of people who do not believe much of what is taught there -- nor do they call themselves agnostics or atheists. But little by little religion will be found only among the uneducated, the unsuccessful, and the downtrodden. They need religion. When Karl Marx said it was the opium of the people he meant that it was needed by them to survive their difficult lives.
As previously stated on this website by myself - it is better to be an atheist and believe something, even if in my opinion it is a negation, that to be an agnostic and not know what you believe.
My life experience has introduced me to many people who say they are atheists and are loving, compassionite people and exemplify what is considered to be a spiritual lifestyle. In other words they walk the walk and when in the aura of someone like this what does it matter what they say when their deeds demonstrate the good fight?
It is easy to understand why people choose to be non believers when there have been and are now so many crimes against humanity being committed by human beings who say they represent God.
The main thing for me is my desire for people to be free to believe whatever they choose. There is no one right way to believe in God. As all people in all places are individual and unique, all people relate to what can be called a Higher Power in their own individual way.
If someone says that theirs is the only way, you should run from that person as you would a person wishing to do you bodily harm.
Opinion polls don't shown any trend towards atheism, sad to say. There has been more discussion of atheism of late only because of the recent publication of good books by Harris, Dennett and Dawkins.
There certainly can be productive conversation between believers and atheists, but the believers have to be willing to talk and reason together. Look at three of the first four commentators. They spend most of their posts insulting atheists. It makes reasoned debate difficult.
But then, such believers don't want reasoned debate. They want the atheists to go away and stop causing them doubt. They are terrified that the atheists could be right. Talk would reduce that fear, but talking about religion is "impolite," unless you are clubbing someone over the head with your religion.
Any chance at all of having a panel that isn't composed entirely of theists to discuss the big question of atheism vs. theism?
The atheist has to have the attributes of God to know there is no God. He would have to be all knowing or else the possibility of God's existence still exists outside his finite knowledge. He would have to be everywhere present because God could possibly exist outside his limited access to space and time. God does not believe in Atheists and man makes a sorry God.
Veritos
Atheism is in vogue because man loves sin more than God. (Romans 1:18-32)
Veritos
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
I'm commenting on the question of yesterday. Do I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Yes. Read the Book of John, Chapter 3, Verse 16. I believe that the Bible was inspired by God and organized by people. As far as talking with an atheist or agnostic, I don't have to look too far, all I need to do is go to an AA meeting.
I'm commenting on the question of yesterday. Do I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Yes. Read the Book of John, Chapter 3, Verse 16. I believe that the Bible was inspired by God and organized by people. As far as talking with an atheist or agnostic, I don't have to look too far, all I need to do is go to an AA meeting.
"The atheist has to have the attributes of God to know there is no God. He would have to be all knowing or else the possibility of God's existence still exists outside his finite knowledge. He would have to be everywhere present because God could possibly exist outside his limited access to space and time. God does not believe in Atheists and man makes a sorry God."
One could apply this logic to literally anything. One cannot disprove the existence of invisibile pink unicorns, Superman or Santa Claus.
But we know, don't we, in the same sense that we know George W Bush is President of the United States, that the above entities are fictions.
Please explain the difference between belief in God than Santa Claus, in the sense of being more likely to be true.
"Why Is Atheism Enjoying A Certain Vogue?
Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?"
Response:
I don't think "vogue" is accurate; perhaps "on the rise," is more to the point.
The reasons are:
We are better educated.
Science is more easily available to greater numbers of educated people.
Religions offer no real indications of the emerging (global) future; in fact, they only create more violence and cultural fragmentation.
The Bush Administration's abuse of "faith based politics" to advance a radical right wing agenda, which has created a global distaster and meanaces the Constitution.
We are a secular democracy and we all know that.
Finally, we don't need to be "atheist" to hold any of these views. If there is no God, there can be no "atheist". The burden of proof is always on the believer, regardless of the theory.
Atheism is NOT a scientifically valid position, it is just another religion, whose members BELIEVE there is no God, while they cannot PROVE that there is none.
Agnosticism is the only Rational, Scientific and Honest position, where one admits that WE DO NOT KNOW whether a Real God or Gods exist
(as for the FAKE gods, they all exist, HUMANS CREATED EVERY ONE OF THEM!)
"The burden of proof is always on the believer, regardless of the theory."
An Atheist is just as clueless and naive a believer as a Moslem, Hinduist, or Any garden variewty PAGAN.
The burden of proof is on the ATHEIST to prove his BELIEF that there is no God or Gods.
The WAY AROUND that is to be an AGNOSTIC.
It is the ONLY Honest, Scientific Position.
FEW, if any, people know the difference, BTW, between an atheist and an agnostic.
Why is atheism enjoying a certain vogue? Can there be a productive conversation between atheists and believers, and if so, over what kind of issues?
Probably the easiest answer to the first question is because of the continually recurring conflicts between not only religions but between religions and those that depart from them.
A second answer, and a deeper one, to the first question is the problem of faith versus proof. It seems that although man is as hypothetical as ever--and will always be a creature uncertain as to how he is to act--he is getting better at probabilizing and is less tolerant of clearly error-ridden or baseless courses of action.
An even deeper issue is that atheism is a quite violent reaction to religion and must be distinguished from agnosticism. Agnosticism simply declares there is no proof yet for God as religions have communicated the concept to us. We live in a mystery, to be sure, but this is a far different thing from saying there is a God and if we behave correctly we will go to heaven, etc.
But atheism directly insists there is no God--is violently opposed to this concept.--And my personal belief is that the concept of evil has much to do with it. There is simply no explanation for evil in the religious sense which convinces atheists. In fact we really have no explanation for evil at all (which is one reason why I am suspicious of all people, whether they are religious or not, no matter how sensible they sound).
In short, atheists are just as irrational as religious people because they say there is no God and yet like religious people they have no proof for what they say...But then again they do have proof in a sense, because they constantly point out the problem of evil, how unsatisfactory the explanations of it have been.
If there is a single issue religious people and atheists must discuss, it is the problem of evil. And it would be useless if this discussion is begun by assuming good and evil are already known.
Needless to say, from considering the last paragraph above, a discussion between atheists and believers will not be easy at all. On one side, that of the believers, there is a clearly articulated good which if followed leads to the graces of God. On the other side, the atheist side, the problem is more intellectual and centers on how to trust God when if he is the almighty creator he must be the originator of...evil.
Of course religions deny that God created evil, but their explanations are grotesquely insufficient, totally unconvincing.
Take the celebrated dilemma of God either being all powerful and therefore the originator of evil, or not the originator of evil and therefore not all powerful (for if he was all powerful he would have squashed the origin of evil opposed to him. But then again if he were to have done so that would make him the originator of evil again). In Christianity a sleight of hand is employed to get out of the dilemma by locating evil with man. There is original sin and man has fallen. And of course all throughout Christianity there has been an oscillation between locating evil with God or satan or man or...You get the point. The problem of evil, its origin, how it has literally forced itself into being perhaps the prime interpretation of our world due to our failure to come to grips with it.
A prime interpretation of the world out of our failure to answer it. An all consuming problem we cannot answer which is our world. And we constantly throw out explanations for this problem, and they clash, and we think we have answered it, but evil goes on...
I just try to be hopeful. When I reflect on the problem of God being all powerful and therefore the creator of evil (despite his goodness) or not all powerful as an attempt to preserve his goodness and to locate evil apart from him, I simply state that God indeed is all powerful and that he created evil.
And I get out of the problem of God being evil by saying that perhaps before we were born God told us what we would be getting into with life and that we accepted life, the endurance of God's evil, as something of a test of ourselves before God. A test for what reason I have no idea...
But life does seem to be something of a test as if we knew what we would be getting into before we were born and simply forgot about it as an essential part of the test. This way God is not evil and in fact we are not really evil either--and there is no satan apart from God.
God originated evil and is all powerful and we accepted the onslaught of life for some reason, as a test of some sort. This is something of what I mean about reflecting in a way which might reconcile atheists and religious people.
I am not saying this is the answer or even professing what is on my mind every day...
I occupy my mind with a lot of things. Just trying to be helpful...
But working on the problem of evil is like any problem really: After all the reasoning is done, you accept the most logical answer even if it too is fantastic...
May we have a conversation between religious people and atheists and...God.
Doug,
You are missing the point. One must have the attributes of God to say there is know God.
On what basis are you trying to reason with me on Doug?
Veritos
Atheism is in vogue because live by your own understanding of the rules is society's message today.
We have lost our love for God and increased our love for ourselves. The Bible warns against this type of thinking. It's easier to create a god of our own design to live as Christ did.
As for productive communication between atheists and Christians? This can happen, but only with humility on both sides. Most Christians are very judgemental. They tend to forget the teaching of do unto others....
peace
The reason for atheism being in vogue is that for the first time in history most of the western world has so much wealth with few restrictions in behavior. We have become so arrogant and feel intitled to whatever we desire. People have become a object for our own desires and whims. We don't want to answer for our sexual and material desires. We say "who are you to tell me I'm wrong" and "there isn't any God" so that we don't have to justify our sins.
We have become the blind leading the blind in this society and say ""enlightened people don't need a crutch like God". I say to them, the Emperor has no clothes!
Atheism is in vogue because we're all being paid by Newsweek to keep the pot bubbling and sell magazines. Was I supposed to say that out loud?
While the following is not directly pertinent to the current issue of atheism, I offer it as a example of Christian thought. It is an excerpt from the August 2006 Declaration of the Roman Catholic Church, 'Dominus Iesus:
The Lord [Jesus Christ] is
the goal of human history,
the focal point of the desires of history and civilization,
the centre of mankind,
the joy of all hearts,
and the fulfilment of all aspirations.
It is he whom the Father raised from the dead, exalted and placed at his right hand, constituting him judge of the living and the dead. It is precisely this uniqueness of Christ which gives him an absolute and universal significance whereby, while belonging to history, he remains history's centre and goal: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end'.
Veritos : You are missing the point. One must have the attributes of God to say there is know (sic?) God.
What does it mean to say "X does not exist"?
Let's take an example we would probably agree about: Vampires do not exist. There are no un-dead carcases of humans that come alive, drink blood, turn into bats, and show no reflection in mirrors.
Now, how dogmatic am I to make such an assertion?
Admittedly, there is a CHANCE vampires exist. It is a minutely small number, but it is not zero. Still, I think we agree that the trivially small likelihood that vampires exist does not refute the statement that vampires do not exist. Vampires might exist in the sense of being a concept in our minds, but that's not existence in the sense we're using the term here.
Does God exist? I admit that it is not impossible that God exists, and will listen to any actual evidence that there is such an entity. But the cosmos shows no signs of being any different than it would be if God did not exist. You might claim to know God, the way you have some familiarity with Count Dracula, but that's not existence.
There isn't a "new" popularity of Atheism....closet Atheists are more willing to say it openly! When I was an Atheist back in the early 70's, I spoke up and was constantly baraged with Christians trying to force feed Jesus to me. I grew up in bible belt in Florida and it was very Baptist and fundamentalist. The truth is that many Atheists don't want to speak out because they will be a target of evangelists...and they don't give up. Nobody wants to deal with the endless proselytizing.
I now believe in God, but I got to that conclusion through my own personal experiences and my own analysis and knowlege. Theologians should trust that Atheists are seeking real truth, and not the blind faith that evangelists want to force feed us. When they do find God, their belief will be stronger than those who just swallowed the theology force fed to them through peer pressure or herd mentality.
The real evil in the world is when people don't question the theology they are being fed. Whether it is Bin Laden or Pat Robertson or the Vatican, or the Communists, or The Spanish Inquisition or The Christian Campaigns against Muslims, etc.; those people did not question their religious leaders nor did they question their own beliefs, and this is what has led to the atrocities of history.
Blind faith is just that....BLIND. True faith is that which can be questioned, and verified through the LOVE that God puts in our spirit. Any person who is truly in touch with the LOVE and who is truly willing to question their beliefs and their religious leaders would NEVER commit the horrors of religious warfare or the horrors of religious punishment, or even the sin of religious intolerance.
Cody Claxton
Gnostic
Atheism is not in vogue. Atheists are just speaking up more because our terror levels are elevated by the presence of religion in the political sphere.
First; I need to know, from Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham, the source for the statement, "Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now."
Second; I agree with the posters who say that you use the term "vogue" loosely, if not incorrectly.
Third; If there is a rise in visible or declared atheism, it may be, for fear of what the fundies are trying to do to this country, that more people are coming out agianst them. For example, I don't want someone who believes in the end times, and and that it will be here soon, to be influential in matters of environmental protection.
The biggest religions are not as old as humanity. The way humans view themselves in the universe and what they think about their fate have always been different to different civilizations and generations. Believers and non believers have existed since our existence. People have followed, rejected, agreed, doubted their kings, healers, sorcerers, priests... There will never be an agreement about invisible forces or beings.
DO I BELIEVE IN GOD?
The simple answer is “no”. The reason is that, in this instance, the word “believe” means the acceptance of veracity in the absence of logic or material evidence. Since logic and evidence are the only tools, imperfect as they may be, that I have to interpret the world, I cannot accept a proposed truth without verification through their use. Blind, irrational faith is not an option for me.
On the other hand, not believing in a god does not deny the possibility of his* existence. Here again, I would need to be able to use logic and material evidence to prove that there cannot be a god. As far as I know, no one has been able to make an unassailable case for the non-existence of god either.
However, the current evidence that we have at our disposal strongly suggests that there may not be such a being and, if there is, he* doesn’t appear to have much interest in giving us help, comfort, or direction. We appear to be a rather insignificant feature in time, space, and impact relative to the vast universe that we inhabit. It also seems pretty clear that we are utterly impotent in the face of a world where the vicissitudes of probability and chance have a major impact on our very existence. Our lives can be mutated or snuffed out in an instant, often in circumstances that are senseless, cruel, and even bizarre.
I have little regard for the many man-made religions that are based on the teachings of “inspired” individuals. Some of these individuals may have had some interesting, if not divine, observations that are wise and useful, but I doubt that any of them are specially chosen by god to be his messenger on earth. I suspect that if an omnipotent, omniscient god wanted to talk to us, he could do it in a more direct and efficient manner.
In any case, whatever residual values may have been present in the original messages are invariably corrupted once organizational superstructure are erected around them. The message then becomes a vehicle for the exercise of power, control, and wealth accumulation by the official guardians of the faith. Over the course of human history, these hypocrites have unleashed manifold iniquities upon the world, all in the name of god.
Man does not need to harbor a belief in a god in order to live a good and fruitful life. In fact, acceptance of the fragile and temporal nature of our existence can provide the basis for bonding with our fellow humans. We may not amount to much relative to the universe, but we can have enormous relevance within our human community. The satisfaction of contributing to the easing of pain, suffering, and confusion in the world around us may be the closest we can come to entering the kingdom of heaven**.
Ken Moyle
Nov. 07, 2005
* For the purpose of this essay we will assume that god is a single male. Please substitute
the word she/her, it/ its, or they/their, and capitalize as you deem appropriate.
** substitute nirvana, rebirth, or any other desirable destination
The statement/question: "Why Is Atheism Enjoying A Certain Vogue?
Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?"
The first thing seems to me to be that the group in control of the GOP seems to be planning to take America in a direction that most of us don't want to go, namely some sort of New World (religious?) Order. The second seems to be more of an understanding that at least a lot of the Bible was plain made up and the Bible is used for political purposes.
But one question that should be raised is why is it always only either or; multiple choice seems not to be tolerated. Why are the only choices the God of the Bible and aethism? Why only good or evil? Why only creation in six days or evolution of species by natural selection. I'm sure the list could go on.
Why are we limited to two choices, neither of which is logically correct? There must be a reason. One reason would seem to be that people are making money and controlling other people by the present concepts and they are not about to let it change. Another seems to be that it would "disrespect their ancestors". One of the biggest though seems to be that it is an easy way to control people and get them to do as desired.
I agree with RayRay and others:
I think that the phrasing of the question is most unfortunate. It reminds me of those who use the phrase "choosing the Gay lifestyle."
As a fairly mainstream person though admittedly liberal, I find the uniformity and bias of Mr and Ms. Meacham Quinn etc quite stunning for a widely read and semi-intellectually respectable paper.
Atheists like myself are not motivated by Vogue. We are certainly empowered by leaders like Dawkins and Harris who have the courage to state unpopular positions in public.
At the risk of being accused of being an elite intellectual snob, I will also drop in the fact that most studies show that people of high intelligence and a rational inclination are much less Believing than the general public. The scientists in the US who are members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, for instance, have an atheist/agnostic rate of about 95% (though it is not great for careers to trumpet such beliefs).
So one reason for a seemingly growing number of atheists is probably that the educational level of the country is fairly high, there are a large number of intelligent and articulate people who have a higher probability of being atheists, the excesses of the religious dogmatists have been increasingly egregious, and Dawkins/Harris gave others courage to admit in public their true non - beliefs. Yes, there are tyrannies of the majority.
I agree with RayRay and others:
I think that the phrasing of the question is most unfortunate. It reminds me of those who use the phrase "choosing the Gay lifestyle."
As a fairly mainstream person though admittedly liberal, I find the uniformity and bias of Mr and Ms. Meacham Quinn etc quite stunning for a widely read and semi-intellectually respectable paper.
Atheists like myself are not motivated by Vogue. We are certainly empowered by leaders like Dawkins and Harris who have the courage to state unpopular positions in public.
At the risk of being accused of being an elite intellectual snob, I will also drop in the fact that most studies show that people of high intelligence and a rational inclination are much less Believing than the general public. The scientists in the US who are members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, for instance, have an atheist/agnostic rate of about 95% (though it is not great for careers to trumpet such beliefs).
So one reason for a seemingly growing number of atheists is probably that the educational level of the country is fairly high, there are a large number of intelligent and articulate people who have a higher probability of being atheists, the excesses of the religious dogmatists have been increasingly egregious, and Dawkins/Harris gave others courage to admit in public their true non - beliefs. Yes, there are tyrannies of the majority.
Well, ive learned a bit here. now these are my own musings while i went to the store for cat food.
it is very easy to point out the faults of things. it takes real energy to come up with solutions.
ive thought hard about this over the years as a practicing pacifist to ridiculous and literal extremes. i really try hard to be a compassionate and selfless human which has led to all sorts of abuses from people who dont have those instincts.
it is not realistic to practice total pacifism because i have to love myself as much as my brother-
so i have to protect myself or those i love or are weaker...
it seems that not all humans are good-
it seems that most humans are motivated to be good through reward--
and that most humans are deterred from doing evilby punishment-
it SEEMS okay?? no absolutes hereno need to assume ABSOLUTES just general observations
i have wracked my soul on many occasions to see if its possible to do good for the sake of itslef and compassion and of course it is
and every evil is not deterred by punishment
but overall- it SEEMS so please just suspend arguments about this to get to another point
lets assume this is true- for me--me is writing here
what are the alternatives to living in a civill society?
are all atheists inclined toward good and can be trusted to follow any rules theyd set forth?
this seems a naive presumption
so how would atheists set up a civil society?
also- are there any atheists who have led lives of selfless service to humanity?
any atheist saints?
writing and the realm of ideas doesnt really count
im talking about actions
there are many religious figures and atheists who have proposed alternative ways of thinking that have changed lives well just assume that
but religious folks have also lived lives in direct service to their fellows
any uneducated atheists or must one be from the social strata to be an atheist saint that they can afford higher education?
not doctors or scientists because they received rewards in the forms of accolades of peers and material recompense
but selfless service without visible reward or benefit
one thing about belief is that you are never alone
is an atheists conscience constant like that?
i assume a conscience is a conscience
i assume atheists dont steal
where do they get their codes of ethics or is it an arbitrary personal thing, and if so- its not very dependable because we humans are so undependable
i dont know just some thoughts
i dont really expect an answer
peace
"Lordy, Lordy! as my grandmother used to say, I a, a johnny-come-lately, in this debate. Needless to say no one will read this far down the list of comments to hear from a former student at Moody Bible Institute, a cum laude graduate of Wheaton Colege with a Masters of Divinity from Colgate Rochester and a Ph.D. in American history (mostly history of religion) from Jesuit Marquette University.
I have been born ove and over again in my life from biblical literslism to biblical criticism, from Jesus as the incarnation of God to Jesus as a fuzzily rememberd figure from the past and from the patriarchal, vengeful, mostly absent God of Western religion. My greatest conversion experience was when the burden for caarrying this God around in my heart and mind was lifted off me like a great millstone.
I converted to the greatest religious attitude we can have HUMILITY. I abjure dogmatists of both theism and atheism. Celebrate the mystery of life in great humility. As Emerson said, "Life itself is a miracle."
"Lordy, Lordy! as my grandmother used to say, I am a johnny-come-lately, to this debate. Needless to say no one will read this far down the list of comments to hear from a former student at Moody Bible Institute, a cum laude graduate of Wheaton Colege with a Masters of Divinity from Colgate Rochester and a Ph.D. in American history (mostly history of religion) from Jesuit Marquette University.
I have been born ove and over again in my life from biblical literslism to biblical criticism, from Jesus as the incarnation of God to Jesus as a fuzzily rememberd figure from the past and from the patriarchal, vengeful, mostly absent God of Western religion. My greatest conversion experience was when the burden for caarrying this God around in my heart and mind was lifted off me like a great millstone.
I converted to the greatest religious attitude we can have HUMILITY. I abjure dogmatists of both theism and atheism. Celebrate the mystery of life in great humility. As Emerson said, "Life itself is a miracle."
Atheism is not in style any more than the knowledge of the earth being round rather than flat is in style.
Why is atheism enjoying a certain vogue?
9/11
Hey Atheist, think abt this:
how did one come into being??
who is the creator of the Universe??
can anyone predict one's death??
who is controlling this Universe??
Atheism is one of many ways to view the world.
The actual goal is finding acceptance of self.
I wouldn't say that's it's in vogue as much as the fact that people are searching for spiritual truth in a consumer culture deprived of truth.
Corporations are too busy chasing profits and people are too busy chasing dollars to support spending habits. Its a very empty lifestyle, one which doesn't hold much room for God or outsiders.
I'm not sure it's a vogue, or just the media getting tired of kow-towing to religion. I've been an atheist for 20 years. If there's been an increase it's been in people coming "out of the closet," especially since fundamentalists of muslim & christian faiths are creating mayhem and murdering in the name of their god. Dubya is only marginally better than Osama bin Laden, in my opinion. Listening to a "higher father" rather than his own father, who certainly would have been the go-to guy for anyone else, and then starting an unecessary war is the height of hubris if not plain insanity. Whether civilians die as targets or as "collateral damage," they're dead either way.
As long as believers continue to lie, cheat, and steal in the name of their cause I don't see how there can be a dialogue. If you've seen Newt Gingrich's one-sided special on religion in government, you know that so-called "Christians" on the right can't be trusted.
Atheists aren't the ones who have polarized the dialogue. When religionists come around to a "live and let live" attitude and stop trying to push their fairy tales on the entire country, I'll be listening.
i am attempting to understand--
without alot of clever semantics-
it seems like alot of atheists are reacting to the closemindedness and judgementalism of fundamentalists-
what is the atheist answer? what is superior about atheism?
is intelligence valued over character or ethics?
are there atheist ethicists?
what are their conclusions?
is it all just different personal questions?
are there any famous atheists who became believers?
are there any famous believers who became athesits?
peace on you all
I suspect that one reason it is more possible for people who doubt or deny the existince of at least the god identified with Christianity is that people are more willing to admit there is no answer to the "problem of evil." In times where we see all too clearly the evil that men do, we see all the more clearly that reliance on gods is futile.
As Archibald McLeish put it in his play J.B.,
If god is good he is not god.
If god is god he is not good.
Try the following thought experiment. A serial killer is on the loose, kidnapping teenage girls, carrying them in his white SUV into the woods, where he tortures and kills them. I am a hunter sitting in a blind, with my high-powered rifle and my cell phone. I see someone fitting the description of the suspect drive up in his white SUV. He takes a bound and gagged girl out of his vehicle. I have a perfect line of sight to him, and I can kill him and save the girl with one shot. At least, I can get on my cell phone and call the police. But I do neither. I simply sit and watch until the torture and murder is accomplished. Is my conduct that of a good person? Should I be praised and admired? Or should I be condemned as morally culpable in the girl's death?
As I am to the girl, so is the Christian god to
the holocaust and any other mass murder you can think of. Either this god is somehow incapable of intervening, or simply sits back and watches, uncaring. In either case, such a god is not worth worship and instead invites our contempt.
I'll copy my answer from the 'What was your tipping point ?' over at Internet Infidels:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=189532
A combination of 9/11 and the Bush era mixing of religion and government. Especially evolution denial and gay marriage.
Really, it was kind of like 'You have abused your privilege of not being challenged about having an invisible friend who can do magic. Grow up.'
>>are there atheist ethicists?
what are their conclusions?<<
Absolutely! I suggest reading Michael Shermer's book "The Science of Good and Evil." He makes a compelling case that evolutionary forces created our concept of good & evil.
Richard Dawkins makes a convincing case that morals are socially constructed rather than being based on religion in The God Delusion. He offers similar alternatives in evolution.
Shermer theorizes that human communities greater than 150 in number needed some force other than mere instinct to get along and survive as a group, and religion filled that need.
Of course, there isn't a single "atheist answer" just as there isn't a single answer in any other worldview. Atheism is merely not believing in a deity. What an atheist does believe is up to the individual -- there's no catechism.
so what are their conclusions? past the where did it come from question? ok, fine it came from evolution-
by the way thank you for responding
but i guess where is it heading?
where is it going?
I thought atheists asked the big questions- did they ever come up with any answers?
i hope this doesnt sound rude im not trying to be
thanks again
i have to say honestly- alot of atheists seem pretty angry- not all of course but there seems to be a general tone- maybe anger at fundamentalists but those are just reactions
surely it goes deeper than that?
peace
Well atheism is in "vogue" in the US nowadays as a reaction to fundamentalism, both outside the US (islamic radical terrorism) as inside (the politically influential Christian coalitions).
Moderates can't seem to control the influence of radicals anymore and atheists become more public because of that. As long as moderate religious people controlled their fundamental counterparts, the large (unknown) infidel part of the nation did not need to speak up, but it seems that now atheists have realised that they not only have to speak up for their rights, but also finally educate on the errors of the faithfull, to the mass of the deceived.
I've been an atheist for about twenty years also. I came to pretty much the same conclusions as Richard Dawkins for pretty much the same reasons as he writes about in his book The God Delusion (except he does a more thorough and systematic job of analysing the arguments for and against God than I did).
I'm not an atheist because it's fashionable, although maybe some people are. Of course 9/11 and the current publicity about atheism has given me reason to speak about it. I used to keep my lack of religion to myself and never said anything to believers, but the fact that the US seems to be turning into a Christian mirror of Taliban Afganistan scares the bejesus out of me.
I think there can be a meaningful dialog between atheists and the religious. Atheism is NOT a religion and it is not a substitute for what religion provides. I think both sides have something to learn from each other.
Religion inspires, uplifts and motivates people. I think atheists can learn something from this.
I think atheists can stimulate the religious to think about what they believe and why. Since there are so many mutually contradictory religious beliefs, many religious beliefs must be wrong. Maybe some religious people will change at least some of their incorrect views - surely this must be a good thing?
If your religion is based on reality, then it should stand up to scrutiny. I think religion can only benefit from some honest scrutiny. If your religion is the genuine article, then atheists asking hard questions and asking that you justify your beliefs should only serve to clarify your belief. If your religion is not based on reality, then scrutiny can only free you from mistaken beliefs. Neither of those can be bad.
Atheists have been held down for many centuries by fear of punishment. It is wonderful to see them emerge in the light of day. They should not hold back. They have the right attitude towards the evils of religion. Religious people have nothing going for them but fear.
When you meet a believer stike him down! Stick up for the truth.
Just to start off - yes, I am an atheist, I also subscribe to secular humanism.
You have already had a number of posters comment on the unfortunate use of the word 'vogue', so I won't harp on at you about it.
On the question of whether there can be productive conversations and, if so, regarding what topics ... I would think the answer is perfectly obvious: yes, on anything that includes facts, reason, logical arguments and mutual respect of the self, but doesn't include or require acknowledgement of a supreme being(s).
In case the above response seems a little too pat to any who might read this, I'll pad it out a little...
The difficulty is that many theists presume topics worthy of discussion necessitate the inclusion/consideration of religious doctrine. An example: 'Ethics and Morality'. Be truthful now - if you are a theist, would you be capable of an indepth discussion on 'Ethics and Morality' without bringing your individual faith into it? Would your devout theistic friends be able to? Can you accept that a person who does not share, or indeed rejects completely, your particular belief structure would be capable of the same moral standards that you personally subscribe to (or think you subscribe to)?
What I would argue is, any topic that affects the whole community should be, at all times, discussed from a reasoned, secular perspective. If the individual wants to fit the outcome of that secular discussion into a faith-based perspective, then they can take it back to their temples and pray over it with their fellow sect members - that part of the discussion has nothing to do with me nor society generally and therefore has no relevance in the public debate sphere.
I'm not suggesting people have no right to discuss their belief in public. By all means, talk about your favourite invisible pink unicorn(s) as much as you like. I'm simply saying that it has *absolutely no relevance* to general public debate. And for us (atheists & theists) to be able to hold *productive* conversations together, we need to discuss things that are *relevant*.
In summary, to hold productive conversations we need to find common ground, common topics. Otherwise the conversations would only become sermons and nothing will be achieved.
Some examples of common topics:
An ethical and moral society is in the interests of all.
As is looking after our natural environment.
As is ensuring our children have a full and hearty education to ready them for the rigors of adulthood ... and yes, I think that should include full and open sex ed, not the simple preaching of abstinence. (The image of an ostrich hiding its head in the sand comes to mind on the topic of teaching 'abstinence').
As is trying to put in place the best support systems to empower individuals in self-improvement, or overcoming bad habits/addictions.
None of the above topics require assumption of a supreme being, yet many theists would find it hard to discuss the above without that assumption.
Case in point: consider Veritos' contributions to this topic.
I think my viewpoint is similar to that of Robin, an earlier poster. "For the most part the christians quote the bible and the atheists say 'prove it'. And then it just gets worse with name calling."
The answer, therefore, is to leave 'god(s)' out of it.
Robyn, you don't know anything about AA do you?
To Victoria,
I think you miss the point.
Where is what going?
Whatever it is, does it need to have a destination at all?
There are probably numerous quotations you could find regarding the travel being the point of the exercise, not the destination, but I'll try to reword it generally for you.
What is important in life is not what happens after death, but what you do with your life before death. The meaning and purpose of life is living, its not about dying. Or, at least, that is what life means for me.
If you were asking the question in the broader sense of where humanity is heading, then I give you this quote from John Schaar (I have no idea who he is, but the quote is a good one):
"The future is not a result of choices among alternative paths offered by the present, but a place that is created--created first in the mind and will, created next in activity. The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating. The paths are not to be found, but made, and the activity of making them, changes both the maker and the destination."
If this doesn't satisfy you and you still have a need for a full explanation on where we all came from and where we are all headed, I have one question for you to ponder: what makes you so special (or me for that matter) that you should know and fully comprehend the answer ... if there exists one.
As one walks to the kitchen cabinet, removes a drinking glass and walks towards the kitchen sink, they are acting on a faith (confirmed by prior experience) that water will pour forth once they open the faucet. Some have found, in their experience, that they do not always find water.
David Willis, in his book Theism, Atheism and Trinitarianism yields a very major point to all Atheists. He agrees that their counterpoints to the fundamentals set forth by Theism (just and all-knowing, all-powerful God) prevail.
He argues that Christians should abandon all Theistic positions because, without the Trinity and God descending to atone and suffer and personally experience human suffering even unto death, the Atheists have the point; over against Theism.
Then Willis uses the Dialectic of Hegel and illustrates how Trinitarianism trumps Atheism because of God's descending,suffering and human death - defeat of death!
If there is still a contest going on, Christians should drop the sword labelled Theism and pick-up the Trinitarian two-edged sword.
Kate @ December 29, 2006 8:50 AM
An interesting presentation. But I have a couple of points to raise:
1. What is 'ethical and moral'? For better or worse, religion provides a frame of reference; without it (for some even with it) it amounts to 'what feels good'.
2. You seem to presuppose that only theists resort to 'sermons'. I find it interesting that atheists can be just as vocal about their beliefs; and they can become just as upset when asked to prove their point of view.
Being a theist, I am gratified that yougrnat me the privilege to consider my beliefs outside of the public venue. But I do not yield that the discussion in the public venue has to e done strictly on your terms ("any topic that affects the whole community should be, at all times, discussed from a reasoned, secular perspective"). You see, what I believe and what you believe do affect our points of view, our ethics and morality if you will.
I agree that any discussion must be based on respect for the other. But just as I am uncomfortable with the religious right-wing, I am equally uncomfortable with the absolute secularists. Both fail to respect my prerogatives.
Atheism is NOT a scientifically valid position
it is just another and very stupid religion
whose members BELIEVE there is no God,
while they cannot PROVE that there is none.
Agnosticism is the only
Rational, Scientific and Honest position,
where one admits that WE DO NOT KNOW
whether a Real God or Gods exist
(as for the FAKE gods, they all exist,
HUMANS CREATED EVERY ONE OF THEM!)
December 28, 2006 2:39 PM
:
"The burden of proof is always on the believer, regardless of the theory."
An Atheist is just as clueless and naive a believer
as a Moslem, Hinduist, or Any garden variety PAGAN.
The burden of proof is on the ATHEIST to prove his BELIEF that there is no God or Gods.
The WAY AROUND that is to be an AGNOSTIC.
It is the ONLY Honest, Scientific Position.
FEW, if any, people know the difference, BTW, between an atheist and an agnostic.
To Agnostic,
I know the difference between atheist and agnostic & I consider myself atheist. However I do have respect for the agnostic position as I think I can appreciate why they hold it.
Well, I can appreciate their position in general ... your post, however, was just a load of bile.
"a very stupid religion", well thanks very much for the mutual understanding. "Clueless and naive believer", "an agnostic ... it is the only honest, scientific position". Oh great, now you're naming-calling. I'd like to know how you have been placed in a position whereby your capable and entitled to judge the extent of my honesty. I'd also like to know what kind of scientific experients, to which you allude, you've conducted to prove agnosticism as being "the only honest, scientific position".
I pretty much know the answer already.
You haven't, have you.
BTW (1) "the burden of proof is on the atheist" - actually no. It isn't. The burden of proof lies on the person doing the positive assertion. I could go into a lengthy explanation as to why, but numerous & far better persons than myself have already done that a million times over. So I'll simply ask you to do what you suggest is possible. I'll ask you to prove the non-existance of something for which there is no evidence. Invisible Pink Unicorns, for example. I assume you would deny the existance of Invisible Pink Unicorns, if you don't you'll have lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. Therefore prove to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist.
BTW (2) atheism, is a-theism ... literally it means to be without theism. To deny theism is to be anti-theist - to be against theism.
So it is probably best to describe someone (like myself) who has an absence of belief as being atheist, and someone with a negative belief to be an antitheist, or at least a 'militant' atheist.
BTW (3) we are, all of us, atheists to at least a point. Even agnostics. Examle: a christian is an atheist when it comes to buddhism. Agnostics also count as atheists because there are religions which require the regular profession of belief from their followers. If you do not regular profess your belief in such a religion, that you are not counted as a follower. Therefore you are an atheist with respect to that particular religion.
Welcome to atheism, my friend.
Amy, why are you talking about politics? Neither party is worth a ....! It seems you do have a religion and its called the DNC.
In response to AM, Vienna, VA:
1) "without {religion} {ethics and morals} amounts to 'what feels good'"
AM, I'm sorry to say this, but you've committed one of the most common and simplistic theistic prejudices when it comes to atheists. Speaking as an atheist, it's also one of the most insulting.
I'll try to give a demonstration.
Scenario: I find a purse on the footpath. There is a bit of money in it. Not enough for me to retire, but certainly enough for a bit of night out to make me feel better.
Do I (a) keep the money and bin the purse, or (b) try to return the purse to the owner with all contents intact?
I'm a conscience ridden sucker, so I would return the purse. Hang on ... but I'm an atheist! If I keep the money I can buy some things that would 'make me feel good'. Yet I would still return it, as uppermost in my mind is the concern for the wellbeing of the person who lost the purse. Frankly of the theists I know, I'm not too sure all (or any) of them would do the right thing and try to return it to the owner.
What is my point here? The point is being without religious belief does not necessary make you unethical or immoral. Vice versa, subscribing to a particular religious belief does not automatically equate you to being an ethical or moral person (a second example here - child molester priests - they are unethical, immoral and religious to boot). Two conclusions result: (1) ethical and/or moral behaviour can be achieved in the absence of religious belief; (2) there are other forces influencing behaviour which have greater impact than religion.
Yes, religion can provide "a frame of reference", (though, it must be said - not always in a good way). But, for it to be possible for atheists and theists to hold "productive conversations" you need to be willing to acknowledge that religions are not the *only* available frames of reference. Theists need to be capable of approaching such a conversation without prejudging the person they converse with as being immoral or unethical simply because they do not subscribe to the same belief structure. I find many (but not all, thankfully) theists tend to have trouble on this point.
2) Yes, it is true, when people feel they are being attacked, they can become emotional and overly defensive. Atheists are not immune to this flaw. We're only human. My point would be this, I've regularly had unknown people either approach me in the street or come up to my front door wishing to preach to me about their 'god'. I have never, I repeat *NEVER*, had an atheist do the same ... enough said.
Note: you seem to have made the same error that Agnostic did. The burden of proof lies not on the atheist, but on the believer.
3) Yes, our individual belief structures do affect our opinions, judgement and decisionmaking. The problem is allowing 'belief' to have greater importance in public debate on community issues, than 'fact'. Too commonly people debate public issues from a perspective of belief rather fact and reason. Further, too commonly they argue only for their individual 'beliefs' regardless of whether or not those beliefs might conflict with the rights or beliefs of others. To have a public debate which is swayed by individual 'belief' rather than holistic secular concerns, is to sow the seeds of potential discord in the functioning of the greater community. Therefore it is a necessity that any public debate on issues that affect the entire community be discussed from a secular perspective, rather than a religious one.
There are very good reasons for the separation of church and state.
>>I thought atheists asked the big questions- did they ever come up with any answers?<<
I don't know where you got that impression. A lot of the "big questions" are theistically-based. For example, where do we go after we die? If you don't believe in the concept of an immortal soul you would never ask that question. Who made the world? The laws of physics are "what's" not "who's" so that isn't a question I'd ask either.
One excellent point that Dawkins makes is that believers conveniently ignore the parts of the Bible that don't fit with the morality of their times & communities. For example, in many places the Bible supports slavery. The Bible has been used to buttress conflicting positions on many issues, and history proves that people will do what they feel is best for their society regardless of religion.
As communal animals humans need to cooperate and get along within our own group, and to defend our group from predators and other competing groups. The non-theistic commandments (i.e., not lying, stealing, killing etc) are the kind of thing humans would have come to on their own just for living together. The disincentive would be a smack-down by the victim or the group's leaders. Shermer theorizes that after human groups exceeded the size where immediate punishment and social control were possible, religion became a way of governing larger groups. Hence God as big brother looking over your shoulder and punishing you after death should your misdeeds go unnoticed by your victims.
to Soja John Thaikattil :
i wish you, and the panel, could understand just how insulting your response was. so only those of you who believe in god(s) are worthy to discuss the issue. very convenient.
LIFE LONG ATHEIST
I made a post several hours ago that still has not been posted. I'm not sure why, but to sum it up over again:
The reasons that atheism is becoming talked about increasing are:
1) The end of the Cold War
2) The rise of the Internet
3) The rise of religious fundamentalism in American politics
4) The rise of religious terrorism
From the end of World War II until the early 1990s, there was major institutional and governmental support for religion and propaganda against atheism, as this related to the issue of Communism. It is true that the Communist movement was in favor of atheism, but not all atheists are Communists, and indeed the ideals of the Communist movement were certainly betrayed by its leaders. Many of the leading opponents of Soviet Communism were also atheists, some of them former Marxists. Sidney Hook and Ayn Rand for example.
With the rise of the Internet atheists have finally been able to realize that they are not alone in America, find other people who share their views, and present their views on their own terms, something that has long been denied to us in America due to significant cultural bias and media bias against atheism and criticism of religion in general.
The rise of American fundamentalism in politics, especially since the election of president Bush, has also awakened many moderates and closet atheists who used to think that religon was okay for other people because it didn't impact them. Atheists and even religious moderates now see that religion threatens all of us, even if we are not religious ourselves.
The growth of religious terrorism has also prompted atheists to speak out and realize that religion is a threat to our survival, and as such atheists have begun to mobilize and realize that we have to speak out and can no longer sit on the sidelines and allow these delusions to threaten our survival.
Thank you,
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/
to Sonja John Thaikattil:
pardon me if you are not a member of the onfaith panel and were speaking sarcastically concerning the lack of representation of atheists, etc. my comments were meant to be directed to Quinn and Meachum.
i just came accross this gem from your mission statement:
"As Homer said, "All men need the gods." Even the most ferocious atheists find themselves doing intellectual battle on a field defined by forces of the faithful."
okay, so be it. even the most basic fairness of being heard is denied the atheist it seems, at least in your forum. how very christian of you.
to Quinn and Meachum
don't you see some irony in discussing the moral deficiencies of those of us who 'lack faith' whilst christians and muslims literaly line up to see who can have the honor of committing pre-meditated murder and thus extinguish the spark of divine life that is saddam hussein? you people are really sick.
I think there are many reasons why atheism appears to be getting more media attention. I feel that one reason is internet access and the increase of computer use. More people are able to express themselves and exchange ideas freely. More people have a chance to learn about other atheists, to feel less alone, and to say online what they can't say in the local bar or coffeeshop. More people have access to the books, websites, and blogs about atheism, and more nonbelievers are openly identifying themselves.
In the computer age, there is an increased opportunity for atheists to speak out, and many of them are doing so, online. In some cases, this causes them to become involved in real-world groups for atheists.
Atheists have various reasons for speaking out, but the popularity of the new books, the media attention, and the renewed debates about atheism and theism are inspiring more people to get involved now.
God exists! God is 'good'!
All antipathy to this possibility seems based on the assumption the physical world and humanity is in its original state.
The Bible begins saying otherwise;--essentially that we are now in a 'world gone wrong'. Science explains 'all has deviated from norm';--there is no longer the perfect gas, oak tree or human.
In which case human reality is effected by images of a defective physical environment,--taken and transmitted by a defective body machine.
Progress seems little more than escape from the mentality so formed.
The Bible, I believe in Genesis suggests the only way out of this unfortunate predicament is 'to become like gods'.
Do not all physical principles, or environmental truths arrive from, and are realized only within personal consciousness? Is this not also the case with the human creative potential that develops and introduces technology? And social behavioral principles? Has our direction not been focused on protection from environmental harm?
It could be that within each defective physical mind and body exists a vestigial intact perfect self; the cohesion of which could lead to restoration of a perfect world.
If atheism is becoming 'vogue',--it could be relative to an educational transition;--to loss of a deeper vision.
Atheism takes more faith than belief in a god
'An atheist loves himself and his fellowman instead of a god. An atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. An atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellowman can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellowman rather than to know a god. An atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god nor channel action into prayer nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsibile persons, that the job is here and the time is now.' ~ Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), preamble to Murray v. Curlett, U.S. Supreme Court, April 27, 1961
What a marvelous statement! In our religiously torn and bloodied world, the very future of our species depends on the rejection of all supernatural theisms that serve only to divide humankind and hamper its advancement. As long as people love a god more that his fellowman, atrocities against humankind will continue.
thanks, Jack, hadn't seen that before. most excellent.
as Penn and Teller say on the dustjacket of Dawkins' book: "If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
I think it is important to consider the age of the scriptures. The Old Testament was compiled many millenia ago. The New Testament was compiled just under 2,000 years ago. Our understanding of the world has changed since then.
In those days, we did not know what DNA looked like. We did not know that 99% of our genes are shared with chimpanzees. We did not know that the allele frequencies of populations can change over time.
We know those now.
Hence, the stories in those scriptures are essentially explanations of how the world works, and many have been refuted by scientific progress.
There is no "vogue" of atheism. I think Dr. Dawkins expressed it best when he said that most of us are atheists about the literary gods of Greece and Rome. Some of us just go one God further.
> Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists,
> and if so over what kinds of issues?"
This is an interesting question. Most here are basically saying 'no' because I'm right and you're wrong. Failure to go along with what I know is right will land you in trouble of various sorts.
But I do feel a conversation could be productive if people were interested in having such a conversation. The productive conversation would cover shared values such as valuing truth. Of course, we all define truth differently based on our belief systems, but truth is a common value.
Doug,
We are talking about God's existence. I am simply saying that you have to possess the qualities of God to know emphatically that He does not exist. You vampire illustration proves nothing and ignores the issue.
Again, on what basis are you trying to reason with me??
Veritos
Why are you talking about "God's existence" when this topic is "the new popularity of atheism"?
Kate @ December 29, 2006 11:30 AM
Good afternoon (at least from Virginia).
Thank you for your responses, and please consider mine:
1) On 'ethics & morals' we are in closer agreement that you suspect. Please note that at no point did I state that the non-religious cannot be ethical & moral, or that the religious automatically are. I have found that when it comes to ethics and morals, almost everyone looks for self-interest. When I discuss these with a theist the frame of reference is established by default; however, it differs with the specific atheist I am discussing it with.
2) I too find many of the religious to be obnoxious. They feel free to interrupt me in a public venue as well at home. That said, most of the time when I discuss philosophical issues with an atheist I am presented with the 'how do you know' question. Invariably I get a lecture when I bounce it back. My observation is that whereas many of the religious glory in that their opinion is belief, and refuse the need for a rational presentation, many of the atheists assume they that their point of view is a priori valid and rational (by the way, on a rational basis theism and atheism have an equal footing - they both require belief, in my opinion). I question both of those positions. I also maintain that the burden of proof is on everyone: the one making the assertion as well the one who wants to refute it. Whatever the assertion, even if it is a negative.
3) I have no objection whatsoever to a 'holistic secular view' as long as it does not limit my liberties. Even with a secular view, one must revert back to the 'ethical and moral' dilemma. As for the separation of church and state, I also do not wish the state to establish a religion, as the constitution states. But I do not interpret, nor shall I accept, that it means freedom FROM religion (as many now wish to interpret it to mean), anyone's even the atheist's.
Atheists here are so fanatical, that they miss the point.
Despite their strong wishes to appear rational and scientific, Atheism is NEITHER. It is just another stupid religion, as I stated and they failed to understand why.
Agnosticism, not Atheism, is the only Scientific, Rational position.
Think about it instead of knee-jerk responding, and read my old post for explanations.
"I'll take a shot at answering your question as to why there are no non-believers, atheists and agnostics on the "On Faith" panel (please note there are many more than four on the panel, even if only four have responded to their question so far). The answer to your question is contained in the question: Quinn and Meacham have put together an "On Faith" panel, NOT an "On Lack of Faith" panel."
And yet, the question is about atheists, asking these people to characterize them. That's not unlike having a "On White People" forum and asking "hey, those black folks seem to be cropping up a lot in the news: what do we all think about them?" It's a little bizarre, no?
To respond to one of the comments, I think the atheists have responded in the calmest, most intelligible fashion. The theists are the ones sounding angry with their CAPITALS! and EXCLAMATION POINTS!
The difficulty with dialogue between atheists and believers is this: Most believers are so threatened by the atheists, that they tend to become angrily defensive.
The only people who know if a supreme being exists are the millions who have survived NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCES and described what happened to them while out-of-body and clinically dead.
Since the overwhelming majority of them report identical experiences, one is hard-pressed to challenge their conclusions.
Christianity is the very definition of hypocracy. How many millions need to die for jesus ? Take a long look in a mirror, christianists !!
Steven Dallas,
Why are you so angry?
Veritos,
Why do you hate reality?
Veritos :
__________________________________________
Doug,
We are talking about God's existence. I am simply saying that you have to possess the qualities of God to know emphatically that He does not exist. You vampire illustration proves nothing and ignores the issue.
Again, on what basis are you trying to reason with me??
Veritos
____________________________________________
I am saying that I "know" God does not exist in the same sense I "know" vampires do not exist.
Do you agree that I know the latter? If your position is that I don't really know vampires don't exist because there is an infinitesimally small possibility they do, then OK there's a small possibility that God exists.
But if you accept that I know there are no vampires, why do I need God-like qualities to know there isn't a God?
Veritos :
__________________________________________
Doug,
We are talking about God's existence. I am simply saying that you have to possess the qualities of God to know emphatically that He does not exist. You vampire illustration proves nothing and ignores the issue.
Again, on what basis are you trying to reason with me??
Veritos
____________________________________________
I am saying that I "know" God does not exist in the same sense I "know" vampires do not exist.
Do you agree that I know the latter? If your position is that I don't really know vampires don't exist because there is an infinitesimally small possibility they do, then OK there's a small possibility that God exists.
But if you accept that I know there are no vampires, why do I need God-like qualities to know there isn't a God?
Plunge, your point is well taken. it almost certainly never occurred to the panel to ask an atheist to take part in a discussion of atheism.
i suspect that this onfaith initiative, like many well-intentioned endeavors, was expected to elicit a convergence of mono-theistic bon homme, leading ineveitably toward a group hug of the faithful. sadly, only we atheists are interested in debating today; all the theists are glued to the tv waiting to watch an execution by the state of saddam. shame they don't crucify anymore. ironic, ain't it?
I don't think it's atheism that's in vogue but only the appearance of atheistic principles that hover around religion like flies aroung you know what.
There's great confusion, by design no doubt, brought about by asying anyone who does not accept the Bible, Koran or Book of Mormon as God's word is ipso facto an atheists. Religion thrives on contraversy. That last just as long as the topic has a basis in fact. The argument is never about the base but rather what the base says.
All sacred scriptures are hoaxes. The Bible is the only one proved by the standard for proving literary hoaxes, finding the origional written material used by the hoaxers.
Do the other two, Koran and Book of Mormon stand alone without the Bible? Isn't Allah really the "God of your father" from Exodus, Moses speaking to a being in a burning bush? The Mormons describe themselves as followers of Christ. Is that the same Christ that was crucified? If the Bible is a hoax then all are hoaxes.
The challenge has been made and it will continue to be made. The sacred scriptures are proved by the standard method to be bogus and therefore saying one who denies they are the words of God are atheists is rediculous. Prove your basis before making claims. That's what was done with the proof the Bible is a hoax.
http://www.hoax-buster.org has the story in part. Be prepared to look at pictures for the words are unreadable.
Please, all, study the history of humankind. What we now call "God" was not even possible to for people to conceive 20,000 years ago. As each "age" of humankind has arisen, our fundamental costruct of "God" has changed, with the old construct being seen as backward, untrue. At the same time, the new construct has incorporated and reformulated older constructs, at the same time that the older construct is denied its validity.
Christianity, or more widely the current Judeo-christian construct of "God" is a thoroughly historical phenomenon. And if one believes in the progression of "history" there is not reason to believe that in 1000 years what our society now calls "atheism" or "science" will not become the foundation of a new "faith."
Cheers all.
Someone above said, in essence, "If you're not an atheist, then you must think that you have an invisible friend who can do magic. So where's your proof?" Actually, I agree with this statement. Yet I'm agnostic, because I think I do have evidence of magic: I have two grown sons, who were once were 6-7 lbs. bundles of flesh, and now are caring, thinking, sensitive human beings. How could that have happened "scientifically"? I can't explain it. (And it is true that other dads have had to watch their sons get cancer and die, and I can't explain that either.) So, until an atheist can explain satisfactorily how this could possibly have happened, I guess I'll have to stay agnostic.
Old dad, lemme paint you a verbal picture.
Your wife parted her legs, you took advantage of this situation for your own pleasure, and as a result, a biochemical reaction was triggered which resulted in a combination of yours and your wife's (we hope) DNA, resulting in a pair of naturally formed genetic hybrids which are a fusion of attributes of both yours and your wife's (again, assuming here) genetic heritage. Within your sons are the culmination of traits which have allowed you and your ancestors to survive and grow.
Also within them are "errors" in the combination process which may result in the development of a variant trait from either of their parents. These variations may be harmful, as in the case of genetic blindness or deafness, or a malformed limb, or they may be beneficial, eyes that can see more clearly than others, or ears which are sensitive enough to discern higher frequencies of sound, or fingers long enough to allow greater control over a high right curve ball or allow more advantageous control over the keys of a piano.
Even the most miraculous events in life can be broken down into mundane reactions, both chemical process that fused your DNA with that of your wife is no different fundamentally than the first chemical reactions that combined amino acids into complex structures in the primordial muck on this planet, and even they follow the same rules of elementary reaction that have guided every proton and every electron that has existed since the singularity burst into being through a process we do not fully understand 13.7 billion years ago. The rules are the same, no matter what specific processes they are applied to. How those rules came into being is unknown, but nothing thus far has indicated in any way shape, or form, that there's been a guiding hand manipulating the path of development between the high energy plasma of the first Planck instant after the Big Bang to the birth of your sons.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of atheism on this board. Atheism itself makes no claim. It does not say 'There is no God', but says 'I do not hold a god-belief'. Many so-called agnostics are actually atheists. While they do not deny the possibility of a god, they hold no god-belief.
Although there are atheists, like myself, that take the 'strong atheist' position that there is no God. While we all have to technically be agnostic to the god-idea, in the same way we have to be agnostic to the idea of fairies, goblins, ghosts, and other mythical claims that we easily dismiss, it is intellectually dishonest to hold the god-claim in any higher regard.
KATE- how can i miss the point when i am asking the question? probably you didnt notice the big list of questions on the preceeding page- what is on this page are just afterthoughts-
i thought atheists asked the big questions because that is what they claim.
but there arent any answers here.
theres alot od reaction against people who practice their religion poorly- but even i know enough not to blame science if the scientist is inept-
there also seems to be some assumption that believers dont think deeply- because if they did they would come to the same scattered conclusions as SOME non believers-
again thi is really wrong-
most of my life and now have been spent contemplating my own relationship to humanity and seeking ways to be the most effective human i can-
this is the tone that im missing from this discussion- it all seems so self centered that i am surprised i really imagined there were deeper reasons for non belief than reacting against soemthing.
ok- so now everyone has reacted against bad perpetrators of religion-
what solutions do you have?
what are the alternatives?
and how do you all agree on them?
do you not believe in some unity of purpose for mankind?
i think in oorder to reject something- you have to have a knowledge of it- maybe more than those who blindly accept it-
are you saying that because someone has faith their selfless actions are invalidated somehow?
where are the selfless servers of humanity in atheism?
(please if youre interested these are incomplete questions- go backand read the questions on page 1 at the bottom)
i agree completely- anyone who spends their life sitting in a room praying without getting out and acting is a self indulgence.
so what are you all FOR?
im all ready to respect you if i have any idea i only can find out what youre AGAINST here and that is of no interest to me -we cam all point out flaws-
ps of course it was his wife whats to question she had the babies!
it wasnt necessary to start your response with such a personal image- i think you were disrespectful to the old dad
I would say that after 9/11 many people investigated Islam and saw an eerie similarity in form, content and methodology between Islam and Christianity. Any dialogue between the two faiths - other than of an “I’m OK you’re OK” variety - quickly falls into the Subjectivism and Obscurantism that is the hallmark of faith (read: wishful thinking) driven reasoning.
Seeing this, the more objective among us actually question their own assumptions - as the aware or bright habitually do as a function of leading the examined life.
Hence, we get what the threatened called a “vogue” and the hopeful might call a “neo-enlightenment.” Whose right? Too soon to say really. Maybe those with a “need to know” can tell us with the aid of a crystal ball or angel.
I would venture to say the a mushroom cloud over New York means it’s a vogue. Lets hope its not.
We're all atheists, theists just stop one god short.
THOMAS- as a former christian and practicing muslim i have to respectfully disagree- any religious( or political or anti-faith or anything ) view is personal and subjective of course- i dont know how that prohibits dialogue between the two- most emphatically and simply it doesnt- there is constant dialogue-as far as obsurantist- again only if two idiots are talking do they try to do such a thing.
dialogue demands clarity and honesty- not a lets make each other feel good club.
im not yelling here- i just dont want this question to get lost in the text-
IM THINKING THAT RELIGION HAS ALREADY PROVIDED ANSWERS and solutions to questions non believers have even asked yet.
without casting stones at actions but instead sticking with ideas- are there any answers to civil society?
humanism has no cohesion dont we all have to have a general consensus to agree to the rules governing any society n order for it to function?
and what about the inevitable "lawbreakers"?
(you get alot fo people together youre goingt ocome up with some really insane rules
ROBIN always gives such thoughtful and deep answers-
Why Is Atheism Enjoying A Certain Vogue?
What exactly is "a certain vogue"?
Let's keep this simple. Atheism's popularity has risen to a great degree because even non-believers want to feel like they are not alone in this world.
Why is simplicity so hard to master? I fail often too.
Correction. Atheists are not afraid of the dark, so being alone in the world is not such a terrifying ordeal. We don't need the imaginary friend to protect us.
Atheism, is a thinking person religion. an educated person's whose knowledge, in science, in history, cannot allow them into believing that the world was created in a week, or that an adam and eve could be everyone's parents. The earth is a small spec in universe, which is a smaller dot in the galaxy, and so on.
Second and very importantly, historically all war and destruction has been waged on religious idealogy.
again it seems that atheists put all religion into the christian box-
sir isaac newton was a man of deep faith- and gave us the teory of gravity-
faith does not preclude intelligence-
there is no monopoloy on brains in any of the varied groupings of people-
all war and destruction has been waged on religious ideaology?
mr buchanan- in islam there is no imaginary friend protecting us- there just isnt that concept- and im not afraid of the dark- but i DO hate being enclosed in small spaces.
the dark is where i get my best realizations...
Victoria,
You ask some good questions. I like the fact that you are genuinely interested in understanding other people's views.
"what is the atheist answer? what is superior about atheism?
is intelligence valued over character or ethics?"
Firstly I should point out (again) that atheism is not a religion, a philosophy or a system of ethics. It's just a position of (dis)belief. It's very strange that such a word even exists. We don't need a special label for people who don't believe in Zeus. Many religious people seem to want to label non-believers with a label and write atheism off as an alternative religion. As some clever atheist said, if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Many religious people seem to want to compare atheism to their religion as if it was another religion. It is not. Most religions consist of a set of beliefs, a set of rules about ethics/morality, a set of rituals and customs, and they provide fellowship and social functions. Atheism provides none of those. I think, for that reason, it's a tough sell. People find it empty - because it is. If you are shopping for a new religion, atheism doesn’t look very appealing. It doesn’t look like very good value because you have to think for yourself and make decisions instead of having those decisions made for you.
Atheism says nothing about ethics – this is presumably why there seems to be a common misconception amongst theists (particularly in the US where most people don’t even know an atheist) that atheists are unethical or immoral. I don’t think there is any evidence of this. Most atheists believe it is not rational to accept an arbitrary system of ethics written by someone thousands of years ago even if they claim that it comes from God. We tend to believe that ethics should be justified by their benefits to humanity.
By your questions, you seem to imply that we have a choice about whether to value intelligence or character and ethics, as though you can’t have both. Surely, people should use their intelligence as much as possible when making ethical decisions. To do otherwise would be, well, unethical. Christians (and the few Muslims I know) do this. They reject the parts of the Bible they don’t agree with. I think it is better to do this honestly instead of being hypocritical and saying that the Bible is literally the truth and the word of God while in practice rejecting parts of it. I think the fact that people now know better than the authors of the Bible proves that at least some parts of the Bible are not the literal word of God.
Of course there are many non-theistic systems of ethics. E.g Buddist ethics, Confucianism, Objectivism etc. I personally like Buddhist and Taoist ethics and I agree with most of what is presented on the Church of Reality web site: http://www.churchofreality.org/ which provides all of the useful elements of religion that are missing from atheism.
YES, I TALK TO UNBELIEVERS ALL AROUND ME
EVERY DAY.
they fixed my car, deliver my paper, cut my grass,
fix my A/A, wash my car, etc. etc.
Hi! UNBELIEVERS!
To AM, Vienna, VA.
1) Thankyou for the correction, and, I'm glad to hear of it. Regarding the variable nature of 'Ethics and Morality' when discussed with an atheist. Firstly - I think you'll agree we can also find a significant degree of difference in ethical and moral standards from people who seem to base their standards on religion. But that difference in perspective, whether it be from an atheist or another theist is something to be celebrated and explored. (At least usually. There are exceptions to every rule.)
I find it invigorating to discuss day-to-day incidents with people and in doing so to understand how they might have perceived and considered those incidents. It helps me to form more well-rounded viewpoints. I don't necessarily accept their perspective as true or correct, but comprehending it assists in looking at the incident from perspectives other than the one I default to.
Do most people form their ethical & moral standards around their own self-interest? Yes, I agree. Though I also think self-interest has various levels of consideration within it. For example: self-interest as based purely on consideration of the self, or self-interest based on the understanding of one's self within the broader community. Some other examples: self-interest based on the here and now, compared to self-interest based upon future positioning; self-interest qualified by various levels of acceptance in personal responsibility compared to external blame; self-interest either in defense of the ego's concerns, or despite of those concerns.
I suppose I tend to have a problem with short statements (I'm talking generally, not to your specific suggestion) which suggest atheists are immoral as their behaviour is based purely on self-interest, because I perceive persons making such a statement as referring to self-interest in the sense of: solely self & not considerate of the broader community; the immediate self of the here & now, not of the future; self which has no personal responsibility; the ego. I hope you and others who might read this understand the picture that creates and why offense might be taken at the suggestion.
Perhaps the way forward for me lies not in fighting a suggestion that I form my standards of behaviour on self-interest, but in challenging the person making the suggestion to define more fully what they mean when they refer to 'self-interest' or 'what feels good'. Further, challenging that person to consider they probably do the same regardless of their religious belief.
2) When you say you are discussing 'philosophical' issues - do you really mean 'philosophical' or do you mean 'religious'?
I would hope they question you with 'how do you know?'. I hope we all get challenged in that way. Shame on any atheist (or anyone) that cannot take such a question rationally. Though I'm not quite sure what you are referring to when you say you 'bounce it back'.
There are some that call themselves atheist who deny the existance from a position of belief. I won't disown their atheism. That would be akin to one christian suggesting another is not christian because their behaviour is not that of what the first person considers to be 'christian'. But while there are some atheists who define themselves in belief, I think you will find most define themselves from a position of rationale or reason. The very defintion of athiesm is the *absence* of a god belief. You do atheists a disservice if you suggest that our position necessitates 'belief', as if we were a theist in disguise.
As to your suggestion that some burden of proof lies on the atheist. Try this exercise: Prove the non-existance of Invisible Pink Unicorns. It's impossible. You can't prove the non-existance of something which does not exist in the first place. It's an argumentum ad ignorantiam logical fallacy. The burden of proof lies with the proposition, not in the denial of it.
3) I agree the state should not be able to establish an absence of religion, but I also think the state should not be able to establish the presence of it. An individual should be able to choose to be free of religion. Yet we have 'in god we trust' on our money and 'under god' in our pledge. The state is assuming that god is a given and by adding 'in god we trust' and 'under god' in such national icons the atheist is told "this is a country of god, you much believe in god to be a true citizen".
atheism is not making a comeback it has always been here at least for the 71 years i have been on this earth.
its time we al wake up and stop believing in fairytales jesus/god and all that stuff she just doesnt exist!
and if you insist on believing and that your prayers will be answered by her try it when the next rent or mortgage payment is due.( but be wise and dont get evicted!)
it has always been clear to me that "religion is the problem and NOT the answer"!
have a great 2007
willemkraal@mac.com
To Agnostic,
"Atheists here are so fanatical, that they miss the point."
...yet more name-calling.
"Despite their strong wishes to appear rational and scientific, Atheism is NEITHER. It is just another stupid religion, as I stated and they failed to understand why."
...and yet more name-calling. Yes, you did state that you consider atheism to be a religion, and we failed to understand why. Why did we fail to understand? Because you failed to offer a proof!
"Agnosticism, not Atheism, is the only Scientific, Rational position."
Again, this is only your proposition, you have offered no proof. I have invited you to provide proof, but you have not done so. I take it, then, that your opinion is based on belief, not any scientific or rational argument on your part.
"Think about it instead of knee-jerk responding, and read my old post for explanations."
Oh dear, how remiss of me not to scroll around through the entire site to find all of your previous posts. And how remiss of you not to reference them. But let me now refer to previous posts you have made on this comments board, if you want us to respond to posts you have made on other discussion boards, perhaps you'll remember to link to them in future.
--------------
"Atheism is NOT a scientifically valid position, it is just another religion, whose members BELIEVE there is no God, while they cannot PROVE that there is none."
'You say tomato, I say tomato'. No, atheism is not a religion, it is the absence thereof. And *again* you cannot disprove the existance of something which does not exist. It is an argumentum ad ignorantiam logical fallacy. The burden of proof lies not on the denier, but on the asserter. I've typed it before, I'll type it again, if you think the burden of proof lies with the denier, then prove to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist.
"Agnosticism is the only Rational, Scientific and Honest position, where one admits that WE DO NOT KNOW whether a Real God or Gods exist"
Name-calling. Plus an assertion with no proof.
"(as for the FAKE gods, they all exist, HUMANS CREATED EVERY ONE OF THEM!)"
You admit gods are fake and then say they exist? That humans can imagine the supernatural only shows that humans are creative/imagination, it does not prove their imagined things truly exist.
-----------------
"An Atheist is just as clueless and naive a believer as a Moslem, Hinduist, or Any garden variewty PAGAN."
Again, 'tomato, tomato', whatever. Interesting that you don't refer to christians as being "clueless and naive", yet feel there is nothing wrong in suggesting that Moslems, Hindus and pagans are. I get the feeling that you aren't really a true agnostic...
"The burden of proof is on the ATHEIST to prove his BELIEF that there is no God or Gods. The WAY AROUND that is to be an AGNOSTIC. It is the ONLY Honest, Scientific Position."
This point has already been addressed and dismissed.
"FEW, if any, people know the difference, BTW, between an atheist and an agnostic"
It's quite easy actually. You can find the definitions in most dictionaries.
--------------------------
There is also the whole of your post on dec 29th 9:51am where you just repost all of the above.
Not worth responding to as there is nothing new.
--------------------------
And that's all folks!
Summary:
A lot of name-calling and prejudice.
Some attempts to re-define the word 'atheism'. Plenty of assertions but no proofs offered. Repeated attempts to shift the burden of proof from the ones who make the proposition to the ones who deny it.
Try to do better, please.
To Victoria,
I think Realist has typed up a very good response to your question(s) on atheism. I agree with him/her and so won't do a separate essay on the topic myself ^^. If you still have questions, please feel free to ask again.
well, pretty much, what IS the answer then?
trhanks alot realist for what in my limited opinion on the subject seems an apt description of atheism.
so it seems atheism rejects certain biblical precepts-
what do atheists think about the Qur'an?
again not the actions of crazies who have bad hearts and misapply and misinterpert it for bad reasons( or mostly just ignore it altogether)
actually i would say that most of what are considered muslim extremists are really completely politically motivated-
or under the control and brainwashed by the politically motivated
so far what ive learned is:
*atheists have been treated pretty badly by christians in america
*atheists really hate to be accused
of intellectual laziness ( i guess thats the equivalent of of being an infidel to fundamentalist atheists)
*most are amenable to listening to reason
*people of faith should be more respectful to them and find out why they think what they do
no please feel free- he barely skimmed the surface-
MY QUESTIONS are on page 1 at the bottom and so far no one has even tried to answer them
i really appreciate realists honesty and his effort but the other questions were just an afterthought
the good ones are on page 1
ps i walked away and put the previous post in a half hour later without looking thats why i didnt respond
THANK YOU KAREN YOU ARE ALWAYS SO UNDERSTANDING AND FAIR MINDED PEACE
To Victoria,
What is the question to which you seek an answer?
Atheists think of the Qur'an as we do the Bible. A work created by man. We don't just reject the bible or christianity. We reject all religions which profess belief in a "supreme being", aka god(s).
The best way to think of atheists is purely and simply individuals who live their lives without any form of god belief. That is the only thing that all atheists have in common - lack of god(s) belief. Everything else, be it what to have for lunch or the meaning of life, is what the individual atheist decides to make of it.
When interacting with them be aware that they do not necessarily consider their lack of god belief to be a deficiency. Simply interact with them as you would with any person in the street regardless of religious belief and they will have no problem with you. Nor you with them.
If you wish to conduct a philosophical discussion with them, simply try to keep your patience, don't be afraid to say you need time to think - you don't have to have all the answers at once, and above all else be aware that some things they might say will be antithetical to your own beliefs. Don't take it personally, it's simply the nature of the philosophical differences between your outlook on the world, and theirs.
Victoria said:
"I thought atheists asked the big questions- did they ever come up with any answers?"
You are mistaken. Atheism is just the answer to one important question: "Is there a God?". "No" is the best answer that I can give based on the available evidence.
The evidence seems to indicate that people invent gods to explain things we don't understand, and for other reasons such as to influence other people. We have invented thousands of them and most of us don't believe in most of them for very good reasons.
Science asks a lot of questions and it has provided a lot of answers also. Some of the answers have been surprising. The answers that science has provided have always been closer to reality than those provided by religion. This is not surprising because science is about actually studying the real world and finding out what the real answers are.
Region provides people's opinions dressed up as the opinions of gods. People seem to prefer the opinions of gods because gods have nice simple answers that are appealing to people. Unfortunately the universe is much more wonderful and more interesting than most gods can imagine.
Gods have always been good at providing answerst to questions, and they can provide answers to every question as you suggest. The problem is that many of the answers provided by gods that we have been able to verify, have been wrong. Gods are a very unreliable source of information.
If you are looking for answers to all of your questions. Science is the best option we have, except that scientists admit they don't have all of the answers.
I prefer to be honest about what I do and don't know instead of pretending that God has told me all of the answers.
victoria : these were the questions on page 1 the others were an afterthought-
thanks for taking the time to answer i thought id post them here because i think people were responding to the afterthought which i appreciate
************************************************
Well, ive learned a bit here. now these are my own musings while i went to the store for cat food.
it is very easy to point out the faults of things. it takes real energy to come up with solutions.
ive thought hard about this over the years as a practicing pacifist to ridiculous and literal extremes. i really try hard to be a compassionate and selfless human which has led to all sorts of abuses from people who dont have those instincts.
it is not realistic to practice total pacifism because i have to love myself as much as my brother-
so i have to protect myself or those i love or are weaker...
it seems that not all humans are good-
it seems that most humans are motivated to be good through reward--
and that most humans are deterred from doing evilby punishment-
it SEEMS okay?? no absolutes hereno need to assume ABSOLUTES just general observations
i have wracked my soul on many occasions to see if its possible to do good for the sake of itslef and compassion and of course it is
and every evil is not deterred by punishment
but overall- it SEEMS so please just suspend arguments about this to get to another point
lets assume this is true- for me--me is writing here
what are the alternatives to living in a civill society?
are all atheists inclined toward good and can be trusted to follow any rules theyd set forth?
this seems a naive presumption
so how would atheists set up a civil society?
also- are there any atheists who have led lives of selfless service to humanity?
any atheist saints?
writing and the realm of ideas doesnt really count
im talking about actions
there are many religious figures and atheists who have proposed alternative ways of thinking that have changed lives well just assume that
but religious folks have also lived lives in direct service to their fellows
any uneducated atheists or must one be from the social strata to be an atheist saint that they can afford higher education?
not doctors or scientists because they received rewards in the forms of accolades of peers and material recompense
but selfless service without visible reward or benefit
one thing about belief is that you are never alone
is an atheists conscience constant like that?
i assume a conscience is a conscience
i assume atheists dont steal
where do they get their codes of ethics or is it an arbitrary personal thing, and if so- its not very dependable because we humans are so undependable
i dont know just some thoughts
i dont really expect an answer
peace
December 28, 2006 10:35 PM
For my part I'm an atheist because I'm a realist.
It's as silly to believe in a god as it is to believe in astrology or flying saucers,and the more of us who say this..and keep saying it,the better.
It's the 21st century,thats why atheism is in vogue.
We're not as stupid as our early ancestors who believed all kinds of nonsense.
But we have books and universities and now the net.
Get thee behind me Satan.You too God.
You're just make believe like Santa.
> Atheism, is a thinking person religion. an educated person's whose knowledge, in science, in
> history, cannot allow them into believing that the world was created in a week, or that an adam
> and eve could be everyone's parents. The earth is a small spec in universe, which is a smaller
> dot in the galaxy, and so on.
That does not have anything to do with belief in God except for fundamentalist Christians. If you're going to argue for atheism, you need to include those who take the Bible as containing symbolism and metaphor as well as including other religions such as Hinduism.
> Second and very importantly, historically all war and destruction has been waged on religious
> idealogy.
That is not correct - look at the atheist USSR, China, Cambodia to list modern examples. Belief in God does not cause war and destruction. Egoism, power lust and other base motivations cause evil whether cloaked in religion or atheistic formulations.
To Kate who says that the burden of proof lies on the asserter of a religious belief and not the denier of such as a defense of atheism I fail to understand your reasoning.
I am agnostic and would clearly like to see proof for a great many things, but I cannot disprove a great many things I hear about. I simply live hypothetically and go by what seems most accurate.
I certainly do not feel that if I deny something I am exempt from having to provide proof for my denial.
Solid reasonings should be established no matter the belief or counter belief.
And it seems to me odd that a person should say that solid belief is arrived at by simply saying the asserter of beliefs should provide proof and if no proof then...
What do you believe if no proof is provided for an assertion? Nothing? But no one believes in nothing. Unless being a nihilist.
Even if no proof is provided we go with what sounds reasonable--and the reasonable has never been proved beyond doubt. The entirety of existence is hypothetical in other words.
Or to speak in religious and scientific terms, we have faith countered if by anything, countered only by theory, theory which itself is never conclusive.
The burden of proof is mostly certainly on the denier. We call the denier precisely the scientist. Unless of course you want to define the scientist as the person that demolishes assertions such as religions provide without needing to provide alternatives which...depend on proof.
The concept of proof itself was born of a denial of easy assertions, of taking things on faith.
The denier is the great prover or nothing at all.--And proves himself the great prover by first living in a state of tension, suspension of belief...
Denial without proof is simply the beginning and goes by the common name of suspicion.
I suspect an assertion is wrong, rests on no solid foundation, and now I work to establish a theory which proves it wrong or supercedes it or perhaps even proves it correct...
Your concept of the burden of proof resting on the asserter is a passive stance. As if you assert nothing yourself and feel you arrive at truth by simply demolishing assertions or going along with other, more clearly demonstrated, assertions.
What you fail to see is that those clearly demonstrated assertions as you call them were arrived at by denial feeling it has to provide a world for itself in the absence of feeling it can rest on what it feels is inadequately proven.
The more one feels an assertion needs proof the more one must prove oneself or simply be in a world of denial...
He who would deny must create a world for himself.
To Victoria,
Ok, you posed the questions, I'll try to answer them. Bear in mind while reading this that I am only an individual and cannot speak for all atheists. Many would probably differ from me on some points.
----------
"i hope im wrong but i foresee alot of intolerance brewing."
I think intolerance has been here all along and will likely continue to be here so long as we exist.
Every day of our lives we make individual judgements on whether we consider one option of action or thought to be superior to another. This very process, of judging what is superior, or better, leads to the possibility of considering other persons who choose the alternate option as being inferior, as they made what we perceive to be an inferior choice. That is the base nature of prejudice and intolerance.
Judgement.
-> Prejudice.
-> Intolerance.
I think the process of judgement is unavoidable, it is part of who we are, how we live from moment to moment. However, I think that if we are aware of the potential for the occurance of prejudice and intolerance that may result from judgement, then as individuals we can gain control over them or even prevent their occurance. Self-awareness is the key.
A symptom of how far we have to go in dealing with intolerance is that a good proportion of people will not be able to admit they are capable of prejudice or intolerance. Prejudice and intolerance are seen as 'evil' things that immoral people subscribe to. Until we can admit to the capability for prejudice and intolerance that lies within us all, we will never truly be able to deal with it as a society.
The problem in dealing with intolerance lies in two parts (a) how do we attempt to keep the memes of old prejudices from repeating through with each following generation and thereby becoming ingrained (in the manner that race and gender discrimination became ingrained in previous generations and religious discrimination is still ingrained today), (b) what measures/tools do we have accessible to today's generations so the damage to our society caused by intolerance/discrimination can be proactively contained?
For my own part I consider secularism to be a necessity in dealing with the problem of intolerance. Also necessary are the teaching of logic and its fallacies, teaching scientific method and teaching our children how to think of their place in the community with respect to others, not just themselves, nor just their particular social group.
The problem of intolerance is too wide and pervasive for me to have the answers, but for what they are worth, those are my thoughts.
------------------
"what are the alternatives to living in a civil society?"
An uncivil society?
"are all atheists inclined toward good and can be trusted to follow any rules theyd set forth?"
No, but then neither can all theists. You can get your axe-murderers within any and all social groups.
"so how would atheists set up a civil society?"
That would depend on the individual atheist. Personally I would prefer a democratic society based on secular humanism.
"any atheist saints?"
That would be a contradiction in terms. Saints are icons of religion, and therefore would not be atheists. Its like asking if you know of any vegetarians who eat meatlover pizzas.
"any uneducated atheists or must one be from the social strata to be an atheist saint that they can afford higher education?"
Atheism only requires the absence of belief in a supreme being. It does not require social status, a particular level of education, or even a job. It simply requires absence of belief in a supreme being.
"are there any atheists who have led lives of selfless service to humanity? .... selfless service without visible reward or benefit"
Be careful here, you are on the verge of wanting proof on the basis of appeal to authority, which is a fallacy. What makes you think that anyone, anywhere has ever led a life that was without reward, one which was truly selfless? We are social creatures, the reward of helping others and either knowing of their gratitude or otherwise having that warm fuzzy feeling of doing good is a reward in itself. Besides, it is virtually impossible for an atheist to commit to such a life as we do not have the communal structure set up to enable us to do so. We don't have the luxury of being able to rely on funding from our temples to support our living expenses in order that we be freed to travel about doing good deeds as we so wish.
No person has lived, or will ever live their life, completely without some measure of selfishness. But are atheists capable of selfless acts? Of course. All people are.
"one thing about belief is that you are never alone ... is an atheists conscience constant like that?"
And yet still priests rape altar boys. Go figure. Yes. I'm never alone. I'm always with me.
"i assume atheists dont steal"
I'll repeat back to you your earlier words here: "no absolutes ok". There are some atheists who might steal. There are some theists that might steal. People are people no matter what their station in life.
"where do they get their codes of ethics or is it an arbitrary personal thing, and if so- its not very dependable because we humans are so undependable"
I've always been there whenever I've needed myself. I think thats pretty dependable. As to my personal morality/ethics, yes they are fluid, they do change. They are adjusted to new ideas, new considerations. I wouldn't have it any other way. But even so, they are still very dependable. For instance you can depend on me never getting it on with a married man. It's just something I won't do.
--------------------
"it seems like alot of atheists are reacting to the closemindedness and judgementalism of fundamentalists"
Yes. Its basically a counter-balance reaction. If religious extremism and the effects thereof weren't so seemingly prevalent, you probably wouldn't get anywhere near the same reaction.
"what is the atheist answer? what is superior about atheism?"
The fact that we don't waste a good proportion of our productive lives claiming to have knowledge about an religious idea that is, ultimately, unknowable.
"is intelligence valued over character or ethics?"
No. Intelligence is merely a potential. Thats all it is. Just a tool. And not always used wisely. Never discount the wisdom of a person simply because they have a lower intelligence.
"are there atheist ethicists?"
Of course.
"what are their conclusions?"
Read their materials and find out. Do a google for 'ethicist atheist book', that should bring up a few. Perhaps start with 'Atheism, Morality, and Meaning' by Michael Martin.
"is it all just different personal questions?"
Yes?
"are there any famous atheists who became believers?
are there any famous believers who became atheists?"
Yes and yes. Again, be careful about the fallacy of appealling to authority.
"so what are their conclusions past the where did it come from question? ok, fine it came from evolution"
That depends, are you referring to the point where everything began? If so, then no one knows the answer to that one, it's all speculation. If you are referring to the forces which shaped the way we appear today, then, yes, evolution.
"where is it heading? where is it going?"
I think I dealt with that one in the previous posting re: its all about the path, not the destination.
"I thought atheists asked the big questions ... did they ever come up with any answers?"
I don't think we're at the point where we can discuss answers, mostly we're still framing the questions. But at least we ask them. Isn't that the point?
--------------------
"theres alot od reaction against people who practice their religion poorly- but even i know enough not to blame science if the scientist is inept"
So we must show pity for religious ideology because their practitioners can be fractured and misguided? I don't subscribe to that. Whatever the calibre of the practitioners, I'm not fussed. They believe or they don't, that has no interest for me because I simply reject their belief. I am without it. Their religion is meaningless for me.
"most of my life and now have been spent contemplating my own relationship to humanity and seeking ways to be the most effective human i can"
We all do this ... I would hope. Whether you subscribe to a belief in a supreme being or not, you will still feel the need to define yourself in relation to the world you live in. Therefore belief in a supreme being is of no consequence, no relevance.
"what solutions do you have?
what are the alternatives?
and how do you all agree on them?"
Why do we have to have all the answers straight away? Surely the first step is to find common ground (I would suggest secularism) and then to sit down together and debate topics of importance without allowing religion to get in the way ... as it so often does.
"are you saying that because someone has faith their selfless actions are invalidated somehow?"
Not invalidated. Just erroneously attributed.
"where are the selfless servers of humanity in atheism?"
As discussed above. Why single out atheism? Where are they anywhere?
"so what are you all FOR?"
I can't speak for all, no atheist truly can, but what I am for is a world where people can communicate openly together without fear or prejudice, a world where issues of great importance are discussed without seeking guidance from something we cannot see or presuming to know the will of a supposed entity which we have never and will never know.
"i think you were disrespectful to the old dad"
Yes. The imagery was a little too much on the crude side.
--------------------
In summary Victoria, you seem to feel that there are big deep questions for which there should be big deep answers and you seem to think that if atheism was worth its salt, then we would be able to outline them for you.
There is no magic bean.
The reason why many become atheists, or even agnostics is just that - they don't find the answers in religions, they find only confusion. So we reject religion and we try to find answers by contemplation within ourselves and of others. We find religious debate generally just gets in the way of the truth of matters.
WELL SAID DANIEL- that clarifies my own question for me- what is the world that is created by atheists?
thanks daniel
Kate says prove the nonexistence of invisible pink unicorns and then says it is impossible.--Which is why precisely they could possibly exist. But somehow Kate jumps to "you cannot prove the nonexistence of what does not exist in the first place". But the whole point Kate, is you have not proved the nonexistence of such in the first place...And if you attempt to prove the nonexistence of such it may well prove to be as you say impossible...Which is why they could possibly exist....
Victoria:
You say: any view is "personal and subjective of course - i dont know how that prohibits dialogue"
I disagree. Certain things are objective and some things are more or less subjective than others. Religious dialogues usually turn not on reason but rather on claims of the revealed will of god. I know that many debates I have had with Theists end up in the believer defending even clear biblical or quranic atrocities on this basis. So we have a dialogue but it is not a reasonable one.
You say: that "RELIGION HAS ALREADY PROVIDED ANSWERS and solutions to questions non believers have even asked yet."
I agree. If you want to be saved and your question is how can we all be saved you will find a afterlife full of pie and other rewards. The question one asks often drived the answers one finds. I can't speak for all non-believers but for me I ask what is the truth and I go there dispite what I want to be true. I believe this is the way people of reason behave, Believers on the other hand seek to bolster their belief with reason as a handmaiden. Your switch from christianity to islam is not a testiment to the power of reason but to the commonality of religious modes of thinking.
To Daniel,
"What do you believe if no proof is provided for an assertion? Nothing?"
I think you have this point confused.
It's actually the exact opposite, if no proof is required then the asserter can choose to believe anything and everything they want.
For example, they might choose to believe in: a god; that women should be confined to the kitchen barefoot and pregnant; that you will get some ridiculous number of virgins in heaven for your own personal pleasure if you commit some heinous crime to wipe out the infidel.
That is the beliefs you get when no proof is required.
That is why it is required that the asserter provide the proof.
-------------
How else do you obtain 'solid' belief without proof? If you had proof then your belief would be solid. You could also call 'solid' belief a little something I commonly refer to as 'fact'. If you don't have proof of any kind, then you only have belief. Which is neither solid nor fact.
-------------
By the way, it's not originally my reasoning, though I do subscribe to it. It's the reasoning of Logic. Do a google search on the topic sometime. Specifically search for (as mentioned before) 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' and 'burden of proof'.
-------------
"Even if no proof is provided we go with what sounds reasonable--and the reasonable has never been proved beyond doubt."
Sorry, but this is an erroneous suggestion.
I turn the stove on high. After 2 minutes I think it reasonable that if I touched the stove I would have my fingers burned. I touch the stove and burn my fingers. The reasonable has been proven beyond doubt.
There is a way for attempting to prove a 'reasonable' hypothesis as being true. It's called scientific method.
--------------
"Or to speak in religious and scientific terms, we have faith countered if by anything, countered only by theory, theory which itself is never conclusive."
Sorry, but this makes no sense. From what I can determine you are admitting that faith has no proof. Which is exactly the atheist's point. There is no proof for faith, no truth value.
--------------
"The burden of proof is mostly certainly on the denier."
You haven't explained how you arrived at the possition that the burden of proof is on the denier. Scientists actually do the opposite, they create a hypothesis and then test it in order to prove it. They don't test it in order to disprove it. Though, that can on occasion occur. But still the main point remains. Scientists conduct experiements to *prove*, not to disprove.
You suggest that god exists, so prove it.
------------------
"We call the denier precisely the scientist. Unless of course you want to define the scientist as the person that demolishes assertions such as religions provide without needing to provide alternatives which...depend on proof."
Ok, that section is really messed up. Think about the topic *before* you type. And while you're thinking, contemplate this: why are alternatives required at all?
-------------------
"Your concept of the burden of proof resting on the asserter is a passive stance. As if you assert nothing yourself and feel you arrive at truth by simply demolishing assertions or going along with other, more clearly demonstrated, assertions."
This gets back to my basic point - if an assertion had truth, it would have proof.
I said it to others & I'll repeat it to you. If you consider it valid that the burden of proof request on the denier, then prove to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist.
I'm still waiting for the others to give me proof. I'm not holding my breath.
------------------
"What you fail to see is that those clearly demonstrated assertions as you call them were arrived at by denial feeling it has to provide a world for itself in the absence of feeling it can rest on what it feels is inadequately proven."
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. I have some doubts on whether you even do. Try to rephrase, please.
------------------
"He who would deny must create a world for himself."
I don't see why given that there already exists a world for me to live in. I can see it, it's right outside my window.
------------------
"...Which is why they could possibly exist...."
lol, you didn't just suggest that Invisible Pink Unicorns actually exist, I know you didn't. Therefore you must be pulling my leg. Good one.
------------------
Seriously, I'm getting to the point where I feel I have to start grading some of these posts ... but possibly that might be 'disrespectful', so I'll contain the urge.
Wow. Under attack for believing something -- not certain I understand what this is all about. I hold to certain fundamental ideas I believe are truths. I believe those things because of my upbringing, my personal experience, my education, and my faith. If you don't agree, fine. But why belittle me, or make comments that my faith is a fairy tale. You cannot prove it is a fairy tale. I respect that you don't believe -- it is a personal choice. My faith guides me in many ways -- I hope mostly for the good. It teaches me that all are free to believe as they choose, to accept or reject Christ. It teaches me to care for the poor, tend to the sick, forgive, and love others as myself. It teaches me to do good works, for faith without works is dead. Now maybe you don't agree with why I believe what I believe, but it is pretty hard to argue with the fundamental message of Christ. Unless, that is, you accept the notion that it is better to ignore the poor, forget the sick, hold grudges, and hate everyone except yourself. The problem with all this is so many get caught up in the argument whether Jesus is God that His message gets lost in the shuffle. For me, He is real, God and our Savior. If not for you, OK, but why belittle me in my belief. I ask you, if I can't prove to you there is a God, then can you prove to me there isn't one. ( I know, I've heard it before -- the one postulating a notion must prove it. Still, can you prove there is no God?)
Kate, honestly, you are totally silly. Honestly. Why not confine the argument to the Pink unicorns, that should make things simple.
I have never seen a pink unicorn, have you? Of course you have not. Does that mean they do not exist? Of course not--we both merely agree we have not seen one. There is no proof for one and no proof otherwise. But we have the concept in mind and it could possibly be they exist. And why not? A unicorn is essentially a horse with a horn and as we know there are many creatures with horns and even horse-like creatures oddly colored like the zebra.
But really, I wish I had not gotten into zoology.
I should have merely confined myself to saying we have no proof for such and no proof otherwise. We remain in a state of tension with respect to the concept.
And that precisely my dear Kate is the hallmark of the scientific thinker.
A theory Kate is merely a somewhat reliable hypothesis and could be proved wrong tomorrow. Science is an increase of uncertainty and not as you seem to believe, certainty.
Science is to enter a world of imagination and simply go by what is most reliable.
Science was born of a collapse of assumption, an easy belief in absolutes. It denies an easy absolute and demands proof. But all it has are theories...
This is why science and agnosticism and not atheism go hand in hand.
God may or may not exist, we simply go with what is most reliable.
And if you want, dear Kate, to start grading my posts, go ahead. I look forward to it being a high-school drop-out...One with a genius level I.Q....A man that has educated himself far more relentlessly than our ridiculous educational system...
Your so-called logic is no logic at all. I suggest you read, actually read your pink unicorn reasoning. You begin by merely assuming they do not exist and then ask us to prove the nonexistence of what does not exist. I really cannot be any clearer than that. Prove to me first Kate that they do not exist, and then tell me to prove their nonexistence--and then crow because I cannot do such.
But you cannot prove their nonexistence anymore than you can prove the nonexistence of God.
How can you fail to see that Kate? Let me repeat again, because obviously this is so complex for you.
I will type your very words. You state: "Try this exercise. Prove to me the nonexistence of invisible pink unicorns. It's impossible. You cannot prove the nonexistence of what does not exist in the first place."
My dear Kate, YOU HAVE NOT PROVED THE NONEXISTENCE OF SUCH IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT COULD BE THEY EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND IF THEY EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVE THEIR NONEXISTENCE. YOU CAN PROVE THEIR NONEXISTENCE ONLY IF THEY DO NOT EXIST. AND YOU CANNOT EVEN DO THAT BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO TOTALLY BE IN A GOD-LIKE POSITION TO PROVE SUCH A NONEXISTENCE--WHICH IS TO SAY BE IN SUCH A POSITION AS TO BE ABLE TO CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATE SUCH A THING DOES NOT EXIST.
My 14 year old daughter, a young lady with a heart of gold, asked me about doubts. She worried about questions she had about her faith (we are Catholic). Is God real? Do you have doubts dad? This all scares her. I thought about what she said. It really set me to thinking. Is there anyway to prove God exists? Or that Jesus was His Son? Not sure there is. But I do know this much. A young man, who stayed very close to his home for his entire, short life, did something grand. So grand that it caused those closest to Him to go out into the world, risking their lives, to spread His message. I told my daughter, imagine why they would do such a thing if He was not special. Years after He was gone, they were spreading His message, and dying for it. If something miraculous had not happened, why would they risk all to spread His Gospel? It did not enrich them monitarily. It did not provide them with great power, or land, or security. To the contrary, it caused them to suffer consistently, to their deaths. No, those who lived with Jesus saw something miraculous happen to cause them to risk all to spread a message of hope and love. I believe the proof is there -- those who knew Him best, who lived with Him, and saw His miracles went out into the world to spread the Good News. Why else would they do such a thing? Why would they die, when simply denying Jesus would save them? So, I told my daughter, for me at least, there is the proof. A young jewish man did something so miraculous that years after His death, those around Him risked all for His message . She smiled. Not entirely certain about it all. I know her doubts -- faith is that way. It is not really subject to proof -- but logic can provide some answers, to those who seek them. For those who disagree, OK. My idea likely won't change your mind. But it is something to think about nonetheless. It is something to consider.
Kate, why not make things totally simple so even the veriest fool can understand. I will ask you a simple question: Do you or do you not believe it has conclusively been demonstrated that God does not exist?
If you believe that it has been conclusively demonstrated that God does not exist then you are indeed an atheist and of course a fool, unless you can provide for me the name of the man or woman that has demonstrated the nonexistence of God.
If you believe that it has not been conclusively demonstrated that God does not exist then you are in the camp of the religious or the agnostic, and of course the two are distinguished by the one either being an absolutist and saying God does exist or being simply a man or woman that has faith he does exist, and the other, the agnostic, preferring to go with non-belief although of course holding that it could be possible God does exist and that we simply do not have proof either way.
A simple question Kate. I would like to hear you answer it. You seem to think that it has conclusively been demonstrated that God does not exist and where you got that idea...The name of the genius please that has demonstrated such.
Greg,
I think this topic has reached the point at which all debates between atheism and theism ultimately reach: "I believe in my faith" "prove it true" "prove to me that it isn't" ... and around and around we go on the merry go round.
Personally it's why I subscribe to the belief (yes, I do have them), that the only way for atheists and theists to have 'productive conversations' is to leave god out of it altogether. Maybe then we can actually have a meeting of the minds.
Meanwhile, in the hope that you actually want to encourage your daughter in her overall development, not simply in development of belief, I'll give you this parting piece of information. The explanation that you used on your daughter is whats called an argumentum ad numerum, and possibly an argumentum ad antiquitatem. Basically you are arguing that because a lot of people believe it, or because people have believed in it for so long, it must be true/right/correct. They are common logical fallacies.
I'll try to give some examples why:
(a) slavery - for centuries people have practiced slavery. It doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Incidentally, the bible actually suggests slavery is ok - something you might need to address soon, given that she's already reached the grand age of 14.
(b) suffrage - for centuries people have thought of women as property, subservient to men. That doesn't mean it's true. I especially would think you wouldn't want your 14 yro daughter to think it.
If you truly wish for your daughter to honestly embrace your belief, I would suggest that utilising known logical fallacies in doing it is not the best approach. Something for you to consider.
PS I was raised catholic. Attended an all girls catholic school, the whole shebang. Only decided to refer to myself as atheist at the age of 19yrs (11yrs ago) after many years spent torturing myself trying to find just one good reason to believe. Many years wasted in which I thought that maybe it was true because everyone around me believed it to be. Still to this day my extended family are devout catholics and I have to deal with them simply refusing to acknowledge me if I say I am otherwise. I have already considered it, as you suggest, and have developed past that point.
Anyway, best wishes to you and yours.
----------------
To Daniel,
So you have a genius level IQ, welcome to club. So what? Yet *another* fallacy. Your IQ, or mine for that matter, has no impact on whether your argument is valid. Really, read up on the topic of logic and its fallacies before you try again. With a genius level IQ it probably won't take you that long.
No, I don't think that 'god' has been disproved because, as I have repeatedly stated, it is impossible to disprove the existance of something which does not exist in the first place. There it is (repeatedly) stated in terms that even the 'veriest' fool should understand, but which you do not. What does that make you?
Further, how dare you presume to tell me what I am. I consider this to be true: absence of evidence is evidence of absence. By this statement I most definitely am an atheist, not agnostic. By your argument we could say that the pope is a cannibal. Simply because we have failed to witness him actually devouring anyone is not evidence that he is not a cannibal. Whereas I would suggest that as we have not witnessed him eating other people, while there is a small probability he might still be a cannibal, I'm willing to accept that he is not.
As for me, I stopped giving your words any credence when you indicated that Invisible Pink Unicorns might actually exist. But good luck with that, and with the possibility the pope might actually be a cannibal.
----------------
To MNTNMAN,
Short answer: because it *is* a fairy tale.
PS Guess what - your assertion that because as a non-christian my beliefs must be opposite of yours - that is, I must "accept the notion that it is better to ignore the poor, forget the sick, hold grudges, and hate everyone except yourself" is ... dah dah DAAAA ... yes, that's right, a fallacy! It's whats known as a 'false dilemma'. It is actually possible to care for the poor, the sick, others generally and forgive people and yet still be an atheist, or more generally, be a non-christian.
Sam Harris has a good way of putting it simply, to ensure understanding. 'the fact that a belief might be useful is no argument that it is true'.
Meanwhile, as a christian, you follow a book that promotes slavery, prostituting your daughters, and stoning people, among other things. Well, that's actually bias on my part, isn't it. Maybe you are a christian that does not follow the bible.
----------------
Seriously, what is it with theists and logical fallacies?
----------------
Anyway, as mentioned to Greg, this forum is about done in real discussion terms, so I won't be back. Happy New Years to you and yours.
KATE- it is amazing tome- but somehow you managed to write alot of text without even one answer of any substance whatsoever-
*first you used half the text to comment on intolerance which wasnt even a question anyway and i have my own answers for-
* then you answer a question i already answered myslef without seeming to notice that
the answer is it would be naive to assume atheists dont have ethics-
/seɪnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[seynt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life, formally recognized as such by the Christian Church, esp. by canonization.
2.***** a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence.
3.***** a founder, sponsor, or patron, as of a movement or organization.
since you blew that question off by saying the definition didnt "fit" perhaps this dictionary definition will make you reconsider
are there atheists ethicists?
you tell me to do a google?
im supposed to work for you to get your answer?
if its true just say some names-simple
atheists to believers or believers to atheists?
you tell me to be careful of appealing to authority??? who says its a fallacy? you? on what "authority? what does that even MEAN? and if i do so what! its not an answer!
and then you pretend the questions dont need answers because its all speculation- well DUUUH-
SO SPECULATE SOEMTHING THEN! it requires putting a with b
'ARE YOU SAYING THAT BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS FAITH THEIR ACTIONS ARE INVALIDATED?"
where did that come from? i didnt say that- why is it in quotes? why are you answering a question that hasnt been asked
and further i am really sorry in a genuine way that in your journey on this earth your skepticism has prevented you from encountering people who have truly lived selflessly- this is maybe why you believe as you do-
without touching money for over a year i fed 100 homeless people a day and no one- no one supported me- it truly was a life on the edge and was packed with amazing coincidences and extraordinary experiences and there was no temple- no church- no person that did anything to support me- instead i managed to feed 100 every single day- it was most amazing and very very often i would literally scrape the last piece of miniscule rice from the pot and feed the last person and that is just one tiny instance and i know right ow a man who spends his life in absolute selfless service to humanity and another lady and there are just too many of them and im really sorry youve limited mankind this way but its not my purpose to convince you of the good of humans that somehow youve missed out on just know its there and thats why i asked if it was a phenomenon n the atheist community.
and then you actually presume to tell me what i expect??? that i expect a certain answer???
you are so very far removed and completely misunderstanding of my mentality so here is a clue
i respect honesty and directness- i have no time for self satisfied pat glibly given and frankly slippery answers that have no justification except in the mind of the giver-
you didnt provide even ONE single straight answer and yet you seemed to have come away imagining that you were satisfying my queries-
this post was so pretentious it is annoying me and i dont usually get annoyed but this was and this is the first time i have made any personal remark in the 100s of posts ive made-
really kate- nothing you said came close to being an answer- i reccomend that before you try to discuss how the affairs of man should be run with any secular humanist group you do some volunteer work and find out what humanity is in need of befroe pretending to have answers to questions that werent even asked
GREG- that was a really heartfelt and beautiful expression of your faith- its really appreciated for its simplicity and honesty-
i find most good and true things to be straightforward- it is in the hiding of questionable motives and ego driven purposes that people feel they have to resort to 10 dollar words and hide behind alot of words-
peace to you
KATE- I TOO AM A GENIUS OFF THE CHARTS AS WELL AS MOST OF MY FAMILY---BIG WHOOP DE DOOOO
I have never used my intelligence to castigate those around me in order to feel better than myself--
In your ego driven self centered self aggrandizing
opinions you are convincing no one of your rightness- rather you are alientaing people with your self righteous rudeness.
you are being arrogant and needlessly critical and you are among your peers-
perhaps you feel it is alright to be insensitive to others because of your "intelligence" but you are completely lacking in wisdom and also your logic is askew so as far as the intelligence goes- it is not as pristine as you imagine.
being smart doesnt mean you have to be ill mannered--- rather the opposite.
sometimes some christians will post with a fervor and sense of their own "rightness"and come off a little (or alot) smug n their beliefs- i always deal gently with them and have passed up countless opportunities to spar with tem because it would serve no purpose-
you can read back and see the incredible patience ive had with openly hostile people- so much so that many others have commented on it in my defense-
but there is no excuse for ripping people up for the sake of your own need to dominate and be right.
let us get back to our interesting and engaging conversation where we all show mutual respect for each other because that is why most of us are here.
Jon and Sally,
I must say I have certainly not experienced an atheistic vogue, or even an agnostic one. If anything, I find the country more religious now than it was around 1948 when it was first brought to my attention that there was such a thing as “religion”. If one can talk about religion waxing and waning over time, I would argue that we would appear to be at the peak (hopefully) of the waxing phase. I say that even positing that what you mean by Athiesm are those people who do not believe in God (s) or other forms of spirituality.
Actually I do think one can have a productive conversation between believers and atheists. E.G. as an atheist I must recognize that every culture we have uncovered has included evidence of some form of religion. There is more at work here than a simple absence of scientific logic and observation, i.e. science is not the exclusive path to religious belief. Indeed, it may be a consequence of evolution, where religious cultures are naturally selected over non-religious cultures. When you consider the effect of religion on the psyche, this is not so far fetched. The point is that whether or not religious conclusions or assertions are true or false does not matter, the belief in them has important actual effects on the culture, on the society. I don’t know. As an atheist I know that I remain both baffled and curious how so many people individually come to believe in religion, but they do. I certainly understand why I don’t.
There is also a lot of room for discussion about the limits of knowledge. Even atheists are ultimately bound by what is perceived between their ears as delivered from their individual senses. What can we say about what we can’t sense? Nada. There is a lot of room for discussion about morals, about codes of conduct. It is not necessary to have a religion per se to develop a system of morals.
Happy New Year !!!!!
THOMAS well my path was a great deal more circuitous than from point a christianity to point b islam-
and the greatest driving force was the acceptance of truth whether or not it happened to be palatable to me-
it went through different circumnambulations but if i may make myself vulnerable to an onslaught of criticism and picking apart of my process which is not really what i want but... well anyway the end result is in my spiritual path i prayed for 2 years for god to lead me to worship him in the way that he wanted me to- not in the way that i was comfortable with- and there was an awful lot of stuff before that happened also of course.peace
i understand your point its one ive made to others in order to get them to really question the why of what they believed
To DODGER:
I refer to the two posts dated 29 Dec 06 that you addressed to me:
At 11:49 AM you wrote:
"i wish you, and the panel, could understand just how insulting your response was. so only those of you who believe in god(s) are worthy to discuss the issue. very convenient."
SJT: I was merely suggesting that there were probably no atheists on the “On Faith” panel, because the discussion was meant for the public, which would of course include input from those who objected to the theistic views put forward by the panel. I presumed that the discussion was probably not meant to be a debate between the panellists on ‘faith vs. atheism.’ I mentioned that I had no way of knowing what Quinn and Meacham had in mind and I was merely guessing.
However my guess turned out to be wrong. Apart from Susan Jacoby and Sam Harris, who posted their views on atheism after I posted my guess, I noticed that there are at least two others on the panel (consisting of ?88) who are more likely to write on atheism, rather than on faith – Richard Hawkins and Daniel Dennett. Contrary to my conclusion, Quinn and Meacham have included atheists on the “On Faith” panel!
Pardon!
At 12:06 PM you wrote:
"pardon me if you are not a member of the onfaith panel and were speaking sarcastically concerning the lack of representation of atheists, etc. my comments were meant to be directed to Quinn and Meachum.
I just came I this gem from your mission statement:
“As Homer said, “All men need the gods.” Even the most ferocious atheists find themselves doing intellectual battle on a field defined by forces of the faithful.”
Okay, so be it. Even the most basic fairness of being heard is denied the atheist it seems, at least in your forum. How very hristian of you."
SJT:
• I’m not a member of the “On Faith” panel. I’m a lay person just like you. I simply happen to be a Christian by conviction, who is open to the truth in all religions and philosophies, including the beauty of truth and integrity and humane qualities in atheists. Some of the people I love, deeply respect and admire are atheists. I'm fully aware that some of the most generous philanthropists, greatest humanists, who have done immense good for humanity, whether it be through their generous donation of money, fighting for the underdog, fighting for justice and peace, contribution through science that have helped millions, made a difference through arts or even simple acts of kindness and great acts of bravery etc., have been and are atheists. I do not admire them because they are atheists. I admire them because they are wonderful human beings. Their lack of belief in God or religion does not stand in the way of my admiration simply because I believe that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, and goodness, truth and beauty comes from God, even if the atheist may not be aware of it or acknowledge it. That is not meant to be patronising, for the potential to be good is nothing unless it is exercised by the free will of a human being. If an atheist chooses to be good, it has been chosen freely. I am convinced too that human beings are capable of being motivated by more just the will to survive.
I hold the same admiration for goodness in believers. Even if a believer's motivation to be good stems from their belief in God, the choice to actually exercise acts of goodness, must be made nevertheless. I know only too well from personal experience that it is so easy to believe in goodness, but it is so difficult to actually translate it into action. Spiritual paths lay great emphasis on training the body and mind in the practice of virtue. I'm really quite amazed when I hear that being good is natural and easy. I wish I found it natural and easy!
• NO. I was not speaking sarcastically concerning lack of representation of atheists. It did not even occur to me that one must have a representation from atheists on the panel. I thought the readers would be the ones to represent atheistic views.
. You refer to a quotation of Homer and a mission statement supposedly posted by me. Where did you find it? I do NOT host a personal website or a forum, and I have not posted the Homer’s quote or a mission statement of any sort anywhere.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Ok, this is absolutely the last one.
To Victoria,
You know, just a thought, you really should read posts before you respond to them...
------------
"KATE- I TOO AM A GENIUS OFF THE CHARTS AS WELL AS MOST OF MY FAMILY---BIG WHOOP DE DOOOO"
Which was exactly my point. IQ is irrelevant. Which you might have noted if you had actually read my posts fully. I have mentioned it in passing on two separate occasions.
------------
"ARE YOU SAYING THAT BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS FAITH THEIR ACTIONS ARE INVALIDATED? where did that come from? i didnt say that- why is it in quotes? why are you answering a question that hasnt been asked"
Actually you did. Check your post from Dec 29th 5:11pm. Possibly you might even want to re-read your own posts before responding.
------------
"first you used half the text to comment on intolerance which wasnt even a question anyway and i have my own answers for"
You made a passing comment on intolerance, a topic I have some thoughts on, I expanded on my thoughts. So sue me. So much for 'productive conversations'.
------------
"then you answer a question i already answered myslef without seeming to notice that
the answer is it would be naive to assume atheists dont have ethics"
You asked the question. I gave an answer. I wasn't about to spend time pondering whether you'd found an answer in the meantime or whether your question was naive in the first place. You asked, I answered. Blame yourself for your own naivety, I had no hand in it.
------------
"are there atheists ethicists?
you tell me to do a google?
im supposed to work for you to get your answer?
if its true just say some names-simple"
You berate me for asking you search for answers, when it was you who wanted the answer in the first place. Please, take a moment to consider your hypocrisy. And besides, I gave you one name to get you started - again, actually reading the post is probably a good thing.
------------
"you tell me to be careful of appealing to authority??? who says its a fallacy? you? on what "authority? what does that even MEAN? and if i do so what! its not an answer!"
I've already mentioned the items of 'logic' and 'logical fallacies' numerous times already over numerous posts. Why am I responsible for your lack of knowledge? If you wish to learn more, google it, its that easy. To give you a starting point: an 'appeal to authority' is a type of fallacy.
------------
"without touching money for over a year i fed 100 homeless people a day and no one- no one supported me"
Obviously false. Fed 100 people a day for over a year without handling money and without support? You got support from somewhere. Otherwise this is a bit of a loaves & fishes type story, isn't it....
------------
"and then you actually presume to tell me what i expect??? that i expect a certain answer???"
Yes, I do. It was kind of an obvious deduction having observed the types of questions you had asked.
------------
"i respect honesty and directness- i have no time for self satisfied pat glibly given and frankly slippery answers that have no justification except in the mind of the giver"
...I ... must resist ... the .... uuuurge ... to suggest Victoria ... go look in ... to the mirror...
------------
lol, the rest of the post is just plain funny, so I won't bother responding to it. onto the next one
------------
"In your ego driven self centered self aggrandizing" blah blah blah
...still resisting the mirror suggestion.
------------
"being smart doesnt mean you have to be ill mannered--- rather the opposite"
I fully agree. Pity you don't.
------------
"but there is no excuse for ripping people up for the sake of your own need to dominate and be right"
If I ever 'rip' someone up it is because they have suggested something which is false. Like you have just done.
Congratulations, you're only human after all.
------------
"let us get back to our interesting and engaging conversation where we all show mutual respect for each other because that is why most of us are here"
Fully agree.
------------
Once again, farewell & Happy New Year.
Kate, honestly, you are truly laughable. Something is obviously wrong with your mind. You are not logical at all.
We shall take this sentence of yours which you tossed at me in reply: "No, I don't think God is disproved because as I have repeatedly stated, it is impossible to disprove what does not exist in the first place".
Dear Kate, YOU BEGIN BY ASSUMING GOD DOES NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THEN YOU SAY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. SO WHICH IS IT KATE? ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE ASSUMING GOD DOES NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE OR ARE YOU GOING TO SAY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?
But really Kate, why all this tortured nonsense with touting logic and all that? It is totally unnecessary. Once again, a simple question. Do you or do you not believe there is proof for the nonexistence of God? If you believe there is proof God does not exist, I would like to hear it. If you do not have proof then you are agnostic because God could possibly exist. How difficult is it to comprehend that? We are not talking about an abstruse argument here. This is common knowledge. No thinker has demonstrated the nonexistence of God, but you continue assuming God does not exist in the first place as if there is conclusive proof for his nonexistence.
Honestly Kate, I have no idea what is wrong with your brain. No one has demonstrated whether God does or does not exist. It is as simple as that. Therefore he might exist. An agnostic simply prefers to go with nonbelief and nothing more. But atheists such as you...Well you continue to act as if it has been demonstrated God does not exist. And then you blither on as if making some stunning comment that "it is impossible to disprove what does not exist in the first place".
Good grief woman, you are totally dense. When I contemplate all the books I have read...honestly Kate, please refer me to the books by which you learned to reason. I feel badly for you, I really do. I need not speculate that you are incapable of the uncertainty of the true skeptic. I can tell you have your personal dogmatisms. In fact I suspect you have virtually everything you consider reality reduced to your analogy of burning a finger on the stove. All in your life is as real as burning a finger or it is just fantasy and to be dismissed...But life could possibly be more than burning a finger Kate...Here's to you pulling your finger out of the fire....
Victoria wrote:
"i assume atheists dont steal
where do they get their codes of ethics or is it an arbitrary personal thing, and if so- its not very dependable because we humans are so undependable"
I think your assumption is wrong. I don't think atheists are any better than religious people. Jails are full of religious people, but there are atheists there as well. There is some evidence that atheists are less likely to commit crimes than religious people, but the evidence is not conclusive.
To ask where atheists get their codes of ethics is like asking where women get their codes of ethics. There is no such thing as an atheist code of ethics. It depends on the atheist.
Atheists get their ethics from the same place as anyone else. We learn our values from our parents, we try to get along with our peers; we admire and look up to people who set a good example. Atheists are often people who gave up religion because of the hypocrisy they found in organized religion, so I find that atheists tend to place a high value on truth. We would prefer to face reality rather than hang on to comforting illusions.
I have been a Christian a Hindu a Buddhist and a philosophical Taoist. I kept most of the values from these religious traditions. Of course the values promoted by these religions are constantly changing whether their adherents like to admit it or not. My mother’s protestant values are not anything like the Christian values of the middle ages.
What I don’t like about the morality of Christianity is that it is inconsistent and hypocritical. Christians perform this mental balancing act of claiming that the Bible is the basis of their morality, but they reject and ignore much of what is written there. I think it is psychologically unhealthy to base one’s morality on what was relevant to society as it was thousands of years ago and to pretend that it is still relevant today. Society has moved on – we know better now. I love the morality that Jesus taught, regardless of whether the details of his life were fictional or not. But his ideas were not original and are similar to ideas from many other cultures and traditions.
I believe in the basic goodness of people. This is perhaps the only comforting illusion that I still allow myself. I always assume that people are good and honest until I learn otherwise. My wife, also an atheist, who has had a much harder life than I have, is much less trusting than I am. I think nearly everyone wants to feel useful and helpful to other people. Virtually everyone hates to see suffering. There are amazing examples of unselfishness, goodness and sacrifice for the good of others in every culture. I believe that reflects well on human nature.
you are entitled to your opinon miss kate but you should draw the line ar accusing someone of lying.
i fed 100 people a day for a year at venice beach california- it was remarkably like the fishes and loaves in that it required a great deal of organization and i really never touched even a coin for well over a year-
i lived in the cadillac hotel which was run by an essene who was just a beautiful beautiful huan specimen- i had no habits of any kind to support except eating- i went to all the local merchants and got them to donate rice and spices and grains and the local supermarkets let me go through all their day old veggies and fruits and things- there was a bakery that gave me day old brad and cookies and all sorts of baked goods-even local restaurants sometimes sent over little surprises because through my program i stopped alot of the angrier homeless folks from bothering their patrons in the parking lots- i was asked by the town council to become a council person there-
the hotel i lived at was a rent controlled hotel for holocaust survivors and with the help of kind pro bono lawyers when they wanted to sell the building and throw them out (the survivors) we filed a class action lawsuit and won so they were able to stay- it is remarkable that when people see you truly doing something they will go out of their way to give to you- i also worked with the welfare system to obtain hotel vouchers and other services for some families that were homeless-
i am sorry you find this hard to believe- i dont mind if you dont- but you shouldnt accuse someone of lying.
you stated your deep conscience in a previous post- perhaps you arent aware that suspicion should be for the good intentions of people-suspicions for bad intentions will get the results you put into it- but in this instance your suspicion for bad intention is.. well..fallacious.
thi si one example and certainly doesnt comprise m whole life- go to a soup kitchen and volunteer for a day and you will meet a type of person that is just like this- and ithink it would be good for your soul or sense of self or whatever you want to call it- it would be valuable for your life experience.
then maybe you wont miss some of these subtle beauties of human nature next time they are presented to you through skepticism or suspicion.
suspicion for good in people often brings out their higher natures.
peace
REALIST OOOWHEEE you must really want the women to yell at you with that statement-about women getting their code of ethics- heehee should i logically assume that there is also no female code of ethics? bee hee hee ho ho to quote fred flinstone-
thanks for your always reasonable and deeply thought out answer-
one thing that is kind of amazing tome is that ahteists seem to relate religion to comfort-
in reality fir me anyway it is a constant reasessing and re evaluating and looking deep deep into the simplest things- in a societal sense i became muslim in 1998 and im a pretty little white woman and pretty charmimg if i want to be- (which aint often admittedly) but the point is there are so many opportunities i have purposely foregone because i felt it wasnt fair- now i wear hijab(head scarf) and have been arrested and had it ripped off me because they were curious to see whatr was under it i kid you not here in america- i had my license taken away for 3 years illegally within the legal system! it cost 1000s of dollars to get it back- spat on bricks in the window threats of physical violence(real ones) and all sorts of things- you wouldnt believe how many times ive been asked if i had to wear my scarf when i worked-what am i supposed to take a tape recoreder and record my interviews?
and all sorts of sundry things social and otherwise- christians look at me like i never stop stabbing Jesus(ata) in the back- my point is- if religion is a comfort zone for someone- they are not doind it right- it is hard to really practice the tenets of religion- wanting for your neighbor what you want for yourself- being ever so patient in the face of tribulation- all sorts of things-
o there i go again- ok im talkin=g way too much peace realist
PS TODAY IS THE LAST DAY OF HAJJ(PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA) THE LARGEST GATHERING OF HUMAN BEINGS IN ANY ONE PLACE AT ANY TIME ON THE PLANET EARTH
(AND WITH A SINGLE UNIFIED PURPOSE TO BOOT)
PEACE ALL AND EID MUBARAK TO ANY OUT THERE AND HAPPY NEW YEARS TO EVERYONE
For those of you complaining that there are no atheists on the panel, you are wrong. There are at least three atheists on the panel although Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have not made any comments on the last few questions. Susan Jacoby is also an atheist.
I suggest everyone should read Sam's excellent comment on this topic if you want to hear an atheist's views.
Victoria,
You are a good person. I'm sure you would still be a good person regardless of what you choose to believe about the universe and our place in it.
After all of your experiences of religious based hatred and discrimination, why do you still put your faith in religion?
If you want moral certainty as you seem to be asking for, I don't think atheism can help you.
Moral certainty is provided by religion (and sometimes other ideologies as well). I think that is the most dangerous thing about religion. Moral certainty is responsible for most of the really hideous acts in our history. Very few people are capable of extreme violence without the moral certainty that their violence is justified.
i dont know if theres that much premeditaiton to extreme violence but maybe there is - i know people get insanely angry and get violent-
thank you for that nice compliment thats very affirming- see we are always banking off other humans to affirm our own worth arent we?
but when were really alone alone like in prison and hopeless to see the light of day - or imprisoned in hopeless situations where we have no power or self determination- we have alot of time for self reflection- there are so many affirmations in life itself for me-
i would probably b a nature worshipper for sure if i were born in another time- but since im so easily distracted i would probably focus on one aspect of it still- like i bet id pick a favorite tree or something- o wait- i actually did that-
i tjink ive been very blessed- well maybe no more than anyone else- see the idea of God also insinuates a specialness doesnt it?
ive always loved the rant in the fight club when brad pitt is burning ed norton with acid where he says were not special children of god in fact god probably hates us- i have felt hated by god in my earlier years but it wasnt god at all it was my perception of myslef- and since i am naturally compassionate and optimistic-(my dad says im like that popup doll that when you punch it it pops back up- i think at the time he was telling me to stay down i didnt get it i thought it was a compliment he later told me it wasnt) so in my life ive needed challenge and upheaval to bring out the best in me otherwise i get complacent and lazy and since i really hate complacency i abhor it- religion as a base of human interaction when its practiced in a kind and tolerant way seems to bring out the highest instincts in me anyway-
all of my reasons dont involve reason basically-
although i wont accept blind faith that isnt logical or doesnt make sense- but are based on deep inside gut feelings-----
atheists can do feelings right?
o my- i was going to go into a long thing about it but washington journal just came on and im afraid im an addict and will only give half butterfly attention to what i write and its too important for that-
also im a little afraid to expose my soft underbelly- well not that afraid i believe in the innate goodness of humans too. eeekamouse im afraid some of the extreme is it called schaudenfreade? im not sure the word- the shameful joy- saddam hussein i mean- pedros on and it looks like its going to be interesting-but im ashamed and a little repulsed because i watched bbc and saw the people actually happy at this execution-
they even actually showed it on bbc- mashalla-
i think its going to give some people an excuse because theyll show some goofballs firing their guns off in a crowd and these are strange and scary sights for most i think-well i better get off now or ill start a holy war on this site with my many political opinions-
peace and i certainly have answers for why i am what i am-
but im not sure exactly what moral certainty is to be honest.
maybe you could elaborate a little on that
thanks again for the kind words
now peace to you
I always find it strange that many religious people seem to think the morality can only come from God. Which God? If we assume it is true, then where does God get his/her/its morality from?
Morality is all about getting along with each other. What would God know about it? Who does God have to get along with? Perhaps if mono-theism is not correct, it might make sense for God to know about morality because she hangs around with the other gods and has to get along with them. The concept of morality is completely meaningless to an omnipotent being.
Much of the morality presented by religions as coming from God, is quite ridiculous. Gods seem to be obsessed with what we eat, how we dress and with our sexual activities. Why should God care about any of those things? If the rules are made by God for our own benefit, then a lot of them are just plain stupid and petty, and many aspects of morality that have been attributed to God are now rejected by most people as being obviously wrong.
I think morality and ethics should be based on what is good for people and society. It needs to be based on a deep understanding of human nature. It's purpose should be to prevent suffering and promote happiness. I think it's obvious to anyone that it is better to live in a society where people are honest and considerate than one in which they are not. We don't need God to tell us that.
I think the universality of the concept of morality and the similarity of values between different cultures and religions has an evolutionary basis. Clearly, we are better able to surve if we cooperate with each other, so we have evolved a sense of compassion. There is a flip side to this also in that cruelty and agression are also fairly universal. It's all part of our human nature.
Compassion makes us want to help others and so increases our chance of survival. There are many examples of animals exhibiting altruistic behaviour. Many social animals will risk their lives for their young and for their companions.
Unfortunately, people tend to prefer to help others of their own “group” and are hostile towards people who do not belong to their “group”. This is exactly what you woule expect from evolution because it favours our relatives who share our genes and people who are most likely to help us survive.
I think this is a fundamental problem faced by humanity. Human nature is no longer well suited to the society we have created, so we need ways to control human nature. Morality is a solution to that problem. Morality based on tribalism might have been a good idea a few thousand years ago, but it is not suitable for a global society. I prefer to base morality on shared values rather than fear of a God who want to torture us for breaking an arbitrary set of rules.
Of course I may be wrong and we could be playthings for a saddistic and unjust God.
wel i think thats a good synopsis- now my [persepctive on that take is- well bear with me ill talk a little about god - or ALLAH as i call her-
since she created us shes the ultimate artist- she really knows our natures way more deeply than we could if we spent a 100 lifetimes because wed still only have a 100 perspectives- so with that knowledge she knows how to optimize our interaction- what might seem silly or petty to us may have some unknown effect on another human- it is maximizing the best potential - the best possible interaction- you know as we grow older we become of of some subtleties that affect those around us- for instance a person who has never been ill has little real patience with sick people in general- a young person will hurry an elderly person along not realizing the strain it puts on them- and since the older person has presumably learned some patience and forebearance thety will not chastise the young for what they dont know yet- just look at the wisdom youve gained inthis short life in your dealings with others- and compound that a millionfold- perhaps you might start to feel you might need some guidelines to insure the best treatment of everyone involved- i dont know i just made this up because i havent had a chance to think about it yet-
wouldnt it be interesting to for even one minute live in another persons skin and feel their particular pains and vibrancies and feelings and chemical reactions peculiar to their existence for a minute?
imagine the level of real compassion and understanding you could develop in that minute for that particular being!
as far as compassion being a tool for survival- iwould think it could also possibly be a great impediment for survival for the precise reasons you listed - self sacrifice involving death c\sort of negates survival doesnt it?
but i havent thought about it yet just a thought
i think compassion is way deeper and consistent than that- it enables us to care about the humans in our life with an urgency thatr one lone altruistic sacrifice doesnt encompass-
and creating aesthetics and homes and societies and luxury and driving suvs and playing guitar and watching ballets- well these are all past survival too but now there are some crazy southern baptists attacking the moderate muslim on washington post and i want to see what happens
it the president of CAIR
uh oh- theyre talking about freedon now- and attacking the Qur'an with the same old 9:5 and 8:12 like a broken record i can just tell you exactly what theyre going to say ah well
peace realist also i posted on sam harris' second question just a minute ago maybe its relative to what i was going to say to you before i got so easily distracted by my friend the teeveee
yes its on the faith wont heala divided world post by sam harris
From scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt
Every now and then someone with a substantial public platform says or writes something that transcends the stupid to the realm of the genuinely idiotic. Regular readers of the Island will know I am usually a little more respectful of those with whom I disagree, but I feel compelled to respond to Newsweek/Washington Post columnist Cal Thomas' latest offense to reason if only to provide some balance in the blogosphere. Also, it's not every day that every single phrase in a widely distributed, non-Ann Coulter column is so utterly wrong. Plus, the folks who syndicate Thomas describe him as "America's most widely syndicated op-ed columnist," so it's hard to let him go without a rebuttal.
So wrong is his column, if fact, that I will reproduce the entire thing here, in italics. My responses are in a normal font.
The Atheist Wager
I wonder about the question. Why is it "in vogue" to disbelieve in a Creator of the universe, who loves us and wants to have a relationship with us and not "in vogue" to believe?
I wonder where Thomas gets the idea that atheism is in vogue. Is he aware of a demographic trend previously and elsewhere unpublicized attesting to diminishing belief in the divine? More likely he's just annoyed that a few outliers among the semi-mainstream media are paying attention to Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and a few other authors of recently published books that treat religion with a skeptical eye. Last I checked belief among Americans was still hovering around the 90 percent mark, and the latest polls of members of the National Academy of Sciences shows only 7 percent are not atheists.
Anyway, of course I have conversations with atheists everyday, though I do not always know of their unbelief unless they tell me.
"Of course"? But if the subject isn't raised at every encounter, how do you know that you encounter atheists everyday? Given the depths of your faith and the small number of us out there, it seems unlikely that you would find yourself among too many atheists on any given day. I strongly suspect Thomas is once again extrapolating from a few isolated incidents.
We can talk about everything, or nothing. I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That's because if God is not the Author of life, then we are evolutionary accidents who may treat each other as we please.
I don't doubt that some atheists are pro-life, but I strongly challenge that idea that they have no basis for their opinion. This idea, that morality is necessarily dependent on a god, is among the most non-sensical notions propagated by theists. As many have pointed out before, what strikes you as more ethical: a morality based on doing what's right because it maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering in the world (that's called secular humanism), or a morality based on a selfish fear of what happens to you after you die (better known as Christianity)?
Thomas also manages to betray his complete lack of understanding of evolutionary biology with his use of the phrase "evolutionary accidents." There is nothing accidental about eons of natural selection operating on a species' physiology, morphology and behavior. And even if it was, why would that grant us license to abuse each other?
In conversing with an atheist, it is important to understand that such a person will never be brought to faith by information alone, because the same information is available to everyone. If information were sufficient to make a believer out of an atheist, then all would believe.
Au contraire -- it is precisely information that atheists demand before they switch sides. Information, in the form of empirical evidence, is the basis for belief for an atheist. The very fact that the available information has not convinced us atheists of the existence of Thomas' god should tell him something about the quality of the information.
It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe "happened" without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance.
This is another staggeringly bizarre notion, one that I've come across before in various forms -- it takes more faith not to believe? How so? If Thomas means, it's harder to suspend reason that not, then I will concede the point, but I doubt that's what he has in mind. On the other hand, I don't really know what it is he has in mind. How can it be intellectually lazy to abandon the intellect in favor of faith? Why should it require more intelligence to believe the universe was called into being by a designer but not worry about what called the designer into being?
And again,"unique" things like fingerprints and snowflakes aren't the product of pure chance. For one thing, neither are unique. For another, both are the result of molecular forces of cohesion and repulsion, theoretically predictable and reproducible given sufficient information.
It all reminds me of Goebbles' "big lie" strategy, if I may introduce the dreaded Nazi allusion. When you're trying to convince someone of something so obviously wrongheaded that no sensible person would be convinced, the best course of action is to tell an even bigger lie. Here, Thomas is calling the overwhelming majority of the nation's top scientists -- those who don't share his faith -- stupid, when it fact he is one who has chosen to suspend the intellectual capacity he would argue a god gave him.
An atheist wagers his or her present and eternal future that he or she is right. If the atheist is right and there is no God, there are no consequences. But if the atheist is wrong and there is a God and a Heaven for those who come to Him on His terms, and a Hell for those who reject Him, then that has the most important consequences.
Thomas hits rock bottom when he unearth's Pascal's inane wager. Can there be anything more offensive to any religious sensibility (not to mention common sense) than the proposition that one should pretend to embrace the ways of religion just in case a god exists? Thomas, however, argues that we should abandon atheism even if we don't really believe in a god. What god is going to fall for that? Not one that I would consider worshiping.
It's hard to believe that Thomas actually believes this argument has any merit whatsoever. In any case, we atheists can't by definition "wager" anything by refusing to buy into superstition. How could we? Remember, we don't believe we have an immortal soul.
I do not have the power to persuade anyone that God is, but I can demonstrate the difference He has made in my life and relationships - including with atheists - and pray that the One who brought me to belief will do so with them.
Actually, I think Thomas does have the power to persuade me that his god is real. He has the ability the speak my language and even the smarts to convince the editors of 540 newspapers to run his drivel. All he is lacking is the aforementioned information, or as I would call it, evidence.
On the other hand, I don't think he can demonstrate the difference his god has made in his life. All he can demonstrate is the difference that his belief in his god has made. By this point, I'm picking nits. Mostly because Thomas has run out of steam and is just coasting on inanities. And considering I've probably devoted five times as much time to rebutting his column as he spent spewing it out in the first place, it's time to call it quits.
okay im watching the authors of the view from the center ofthe universe and ive listened tothem on the radio before and i just caught this- theyre taking about dark matter and dark energy and saying these invisible forces comprise over 99% of the universe- we humans are made of stardust and embody less than 1 half percent of the total matter of the universe-
it is not demonstrably visible in any way- maybe one could make an analogy of the demonstrable invisibilty of god well it was better when i was thinking it with a little light bulb in my head im not a scientist
yours for rhyme crime and reason
archy the cockroach
heres a poem i like
heres a poem i like then ill leave everyone alone
Background info: The narrator is a poet reincarnated in a cockroach's body.
He types by jumping on the keys of a typewriter, hence the lack of caps.
Knowing that helps :)
```````````````````````````````````````````````
the lesson of the moth
i was talking to a moth
the other evening
he was trying to break into
an electric light bulb
and fry himself on the wires
why do you fellows
pull this stunt i asked him
because it is the conventional
thing for moths or why
if that had been an uncovered
candle instead of an electric
light bulb you would
now be a small unsightly cinder
have you no sense
plenty of it he answered
but at times we get tired
of using it
we get bored with the routine
and crave beauty
and excitement
fire is beautiful
and we know that if we get
too close it will kill us
but what does that matter
it is better to be happy
for a moment
and be burned up with beauty
than to live a long time
and be bored all the while
so we wad all our life up
into one little roll
and then we shoot the roll
that is what life is for
it is better to be a part of beauty
for one instant and then cease to
exist than to exist forever
and never be a part of beauty
our attitude toward life
is come easy go easy
we are like human beings
used to be before they became
too civilized to enjoy themselves
and before i could argue him
out of his philosophy
he went and immolated himself
on a patent cigar lighter
i do not agree with him
myself i would rather have
half the happiness and twice
the longevity
but at the same time i wish
there was something i wanted
as badly as he wanted to fry himself
archy
-- Don Marquis
to: Soja John Thaikattil
hi, and thanks for the reply. sorry, i thought you represented the panel. my bad.
interesting debate and quite enlightening. personally i think the issue of atheism is getting attention for obvious reasons. our tv's are filled with religiously inspiried violence. it's a straight line from there to dumping what appears to be the cause of so much strife. it's an hypothesis at least.
as someone on another discussion thread pointed out, imagine how you would feel if most of the people in your experience spoke to spirits and, then did what the invisible spirits told them to do. it really is like living in a madhouse. particularly since these spirits have instructed everything from helping the poor to dropping atomic bombs on innocents. why, just today i watched four men in leather jackets and hoods lynch a man on tv. my president sez that's okay by him. you gotta love that 'old time religion' as my baptist preacher daddy would have said.
peace.
Vogue? Are you kidding me?
Kate, no you're wrong about it simply being about numbers. It is about seeing is believing. It is not simply that people followed Jesus, but that they did so at great personal risk, without any obvious great reward. As many who simply argue to argue, you miss the point in its entirety. It is the very fact that so many believed that they unconditionally followed, even to death. What does that have to do with slavery? Or sufferage? I don't get your point. Let me make it clear again. Why would those who personally knew Jesus leave the comfort of their home, go out into the big cruel world, and spread His message -- at risk of death -- unless they saw something that made them certain that what they were doing was right. Salvery was about money -- it had a profit motive; sufferage was about control -- men ran things, women were property. Jesus' message was about placing others first, about love and hope. It had no obvious benefit to those who died spreading the Word -- So, its not simply about numbers, but about seeing is believing. They saw, and acted upon it. Finally, regarding your advice to my daughter, my wife and I raise her, thank you very much. I have four wonderful children, each head strong, good people. They ask questions, and acknowledge sometimes the answers are hard. They are aware of all the bad things you mention -- as are most Christians. (Jesus, I will point out, condoned none of the things you mention. He stopped a stoning, admonishing those without sin to act first. He treated all equally. He comforted the sick, the poor, the dying.) I have tried to raise them in the church because I believe it important. As adults, they will have to decide where they go. You may certainly raise your children outside any church if you so choose. But your hint that somehow I need to tell her certain things you believe in order to "actually encourage her development" is suggestive of someone who has an awfully big opinion of themselves. My attempt was to bring to the discussion a thought; one that you did not address -- you danced all around it. So, if you are out there -- answer the question -- why would so many die (for this discussion, lets leave it to those who personally knew Jesus) for such a simply message, without obvious personal gain, for a Man who had been dead for years -- unless they had personally seen something to make them believe. They were with Him for several years, living their daily lives together. Do you really believe they would die such horrible deaths for a conspiracy involving a dead man, when there was no obvious personal gain? No, this is one you need to address, directly, without dancing around it -- no need for big words, or obfuscation -- just a simple answer -- why? Delusion, hysteria, mass hypnosis -- why?
Kate:
You can conveniently call this "namecalling" too, but
Your verbal diarrhea is not worth commenting on.
You are SO clueless, you cannot understand the diff between Atheism and Agnosticism, and you cluelessly think it is just like "Tomato" vs "Tomahto".
Obviously I cannot get thru to you.
Nobody else posted Anything serious in response to my post, so there is not much left to do here.
Keep wasting your time.
Again, if any of you got any brains, USE THEM, instead of wasting your time HERE.
Become SCIENTISTS, Help HUMANITY, instead of wasting space quoting passages from allegedly holy books, tell us what YOU think, try to PROVE something without the crutches of "it is so because the book says so"!
To Kate from Daniel. Kate I want to apologize to you. It was getting late and I was tired and I certainly was not very polite. And in fact it could be my reasoning was totally off. Now that I think about it I wonder if you might have something with all your logic and it scares me to think I might have missed out on something important through sheer carelessness, as if missing out on the truth by a stupid mathematical error one might make in school.
So now I try again to digest what you say. You say it is impossible to disprove what does not exist in the first place and use this as reasoning for saying this is why you cannot disprove the existence of God.
But for the life of me it seems to me you are assuming first that God does not exist ("what does not exist in the first place") and then telling me it is impossible to disprove such. Of course I agree it is impossible to disprove what does not exist in the first place but one cannot just assume things do not exist in the first place.
Let us phrase the sentence differently. Let me state that it is impossible to disprove what exists in the first place. To this sentence I reply that indeed one cannot disprove what exists in the first place--but here too one is assuming that the something incapable of disproof exists in the first place.
This is why it seems to me one cannot really prove or disprove God and why I call myself an agnostic.
Furthermore this is why I state (and contrary to your views) that the burden of proof is on the denier as much as the asserter.
If people tell me God does exist--try to assert such--I expect proof. But I feel the same way about those people that deny God. They had better provide some compelling arguments.
And my personal belief--and to truly aid atheists here--is that if you want proof God does not exist and want to make compelling arguments for a life without God, then tackle the problem of good and evil and not approach the problem from the standpoint of "purely logically trying to pin the believers in God down".
The big question is why has an almighty God allowed so many obviously sadistic actions to occur. If God is almighty he must be responsible for evil.
But here too Kate the burden of proof is inescapably on the denier: If one wants to be angry and dismiss God because of the problem of good and evil one had better have a better explanation for such and orient the world in a more coherant manner--and that is truly difficult.
My belief is atheists all too often do not want to approach the problem of God by the problem of evil because this means a more serious reflection on morality than anything religion has proposed so far. Without God one must perpetually create morality and too many people when they say God does not exist are simply trying to get around morally or at best are not reflecting seriously on morals. In fact it seems atheists simply try to preserve something of an enlightened take on well-worn morals without the existence of God.
But that is not enough. One must go deeper. People of faith will not become less absolute--which is to say will not recognize that they believe simply by faith--true faith--unless better explanations for evil are offered and of course better courses of action to confute evil.
This is especially true in our age of science. We are angry at God for evil and say a simple dismissal of God will do wonders and clear up so much evil, but it is precisely by science and technology that we have arrived at being able to totally destroy ourselves. Simply dismissing God will not be enough. The problem is getting people to live with science and technology without succumbing to the dangers--and that can be solved only by grappling with the problem of good and evil.--And even then it might not be solved. We could well destroy ourselves.
This is as clear a reason as any for a backlash by religion against science. Science has not disproved the existence of God and tells us not to believe and has certainly made no new inroads against the problem of evil and has made it totally possible to destroy ourselves--even destroy ourselves accidently and without malice.
Science had better tackle the problem from the standpoint of evil because human evil does not exist simply because people believe in God. In other words, removing a belief in God is no innoculation against evil. Science quite simply has the wrong strategy.
But of course science proceeds in such a fashion because it seems easier, more in line with morality and freedom, to convince people to not believe in God. It becomes vastly more treacherous to offer better explanations for evil not to mention ways to overcome evil. We plunge headlong into social engineering. The big question really is how can we avoid harrowing social engineering when it is pretty obvious all too many of us cannot handle technology with the correct responsiblity? In fact, how are we to avoid genetic engineering, the creation of humans that are equal and in fact superior to man's ability to annihilate himself?
I hope I have not offended you too much Kate. I respect your trying to grapple with the concept of God logically. In fact I hope you succeed and succeed in convincing others. And I hope this proof has something of an effect on the way people behave to one another.
Thank you for listening.
Dan
If you desire a God, then you will have a God. If you do not desire a God, then you will not have a God.
However, I do not think you can desire to not have something.
Never mind, my feeble, western brain hurts.
James Hrynyshyn's post toward the end of page three against Cal Thomas was pretty damn solid. I like your reasoning James. I thought about taking a whack at it myself but so much calls...But I probably would have gotten around to it at least concerning the Pascal's wager part--that really piqued my attention. Now that James has taken a solid shot at Cal Thomas I can wonder if there really is something to phrenology--or rather face reading. Cal Thomas certainly looks like an immensely satisfied man by the photograph given to us by "On faith"....
Daniel, the reason for evil is humans not God. We are given free will, the right to choose our actions. Some people choose evil. It is not God's will, but peoples. Beating a child is not God's will or fault, it is the act of the bad person. Humans often use religion to justify their actions, but on further review, it is only an excuse, not the reason. Usually, although not always, the reason is enrichment, power or both. Bad people do bad things because they choose to act bad.
To Greg from Daniel. Greg, this is an age-old problem. I am well aware that Christianity for example pinpoints evil on man--although actually blaming an entity called Satan as well--but the problem is that an almighty creator must be the creator of evil in the final analysis or really not be all powerful.
The ancient conundrum: either God is all powerful and therefore is evil despite every assertion of goodness, or he preserves only the element of goodness at the expense of sacrificing power and having the evil element located elsewhere.
If you believe the one, God is evil. If you believe the other, then you have God truly good but not all powerful and therefore questionable as an entity to provide salvation.
Christianity tries to balance the issue by taking the middle course of man being responsible for evil, but that is logically unsatisfactory.
Actually all throughout the history of Christianity there has been an oscillation locating evil with God or man or Satan. A most unsatisfying situation...
My current answer to the dilemma is that God indeed created evil and is all powerful but is not evil because all was explained to man before man was born...In other words, life is something of a test, an endurance and attempt to avoid evil, willingly chosen by man before his birth and he has simply forgotten about it as an essential part of the test. So in this sense I agree with you that man is responsible for evil--that we chose it of free will.
But we totally knew what we would be getting into before we were born--and still chose it for some reason, as some sort of test before God. This way none of the evil created by God rests with God but only on ourselves. We knew we would be suffering evil to the point of often cursing God and yet we chose it...
This is the explanation I have at the moment--the one I am interested in at the moment. But I never stop thinking about this problem. We must always keep the problem of evil in mind.
daniel @ December 30, 2006 2:04 PM
& Gregg (I suppose):
The essence is Free Will. It si what makes us unpredictable, even for God. It is also why 'sin' falls on our shoulders.
In other words, God can force us to act this way or that. But we determine how we will act, and therefore the sin falls on us.
Another way to put it is that we are NOT pets.
, , well you know that short lived but intense feeling of appreciation for health when one has been in excruciating pain for awhile and it stops?
or the despair and longing when in the fresh throes of insecure love the beloved is away? and then the rush of exalted peaking love hat one experiences when the beloved returns and all is right with the world again for a few minutes?
or when your stomach is hungry for days and you reach a dizzying weakness and then you take a drink of cold milk and it hits your stomach with strenghth giving pungency?
or the terrifying prospect of the possibility of extraordinary loss of control and breakdown of the body and pain and associated myriad illnesses that goes with aids and when you wait for the results of that test- ( i was bitten by an aids patient one time who ripped a chunk out of my hand in a crazed klonopin induced mania) and then you get the results and the flood of renewed gratitude at the gift of life and health and then seeswaing back to realize that for some they never get that rush of relief because they will stay sick until they die and it just gets worse for them?
these are opposite experiences that come upon us swifltly and elucidate for us the differences of experience and one without the other loses its potency somehow-
please forgive my simplicity- i am not a formally educated person and for this admission i will probably hold myself up to the derision and superior snickers of some who may value those things above all else- but i am really happy with the decisions i made in my life and decided at a very young age i would have no regrets-
we moved every 3 months most of my life so i read a book a day for so many years(many of those years wasted in science fiction as an early teen i admit)the old stuff not the fantasy junk or scifi channel stuff- well- anyway ive observed how some people accept unconditionally premises and conclusions that i didnt come to sometimes i think i was lucky notr to be indoctrinated by academia but thats another story-
i see evil in that way- and i know this is philosophy 101 but without evil how would we distinguish good?
i dont have to be a liar to recognize dishonesty when i see it- rather i think innate honest is a precursor to the recognition of lies- it doesnt mean im a fool- it means we have the ability to distinguish different qualities in others and make conscious decisions to bhave in certain ways-
it is free will- free will is what is allowing us to have this discussion- i always say that america is the land of absolute freedom (even atheists can find enclaves to live unmolested here if they really want to make that their priority in decision making processes of where to live) but here we also have the freedom to make many mistakes too- it is exactly the idea of taking responsibility for and controlling my own actions form inside me that is the same for atheists agnostics snake handlers everyone-
it is not superimposed on me as a believer- belief is also my choice-
so people seem to get stuck on the why of evil and finding someone or some entity to blame-
well as always just a thought
peace
another big why for evil is suffering- suffering is what burns throgh us and in that fire the tarnishes of all the pettiness andself centeredness and pointlessness of so many actions enacted on a daily unconscious basis are revealed rfor just that- suffering polishes the mirror of our hearts- we all know in our lives some seemingly golden people who glide through with all the advantages- are these always the best xamples of humans we have to offer?
maybe sometimes the ease of their life prohibits them from being tested and having some self knowledge in a real and lasting and consisitent way-
self knowledge is valuable isnt it?
for everyone?
suffering is what makes us recognize it in others and develop a true and sensitive compassion in excess of what is simply ncessary for survival-
again i have simplistic ideas and even an atheist can see the logic in this(by that i mean it is not god centered an atheist might utilize it no derision intended by the even an atheist)
there seems to be energy suckers and energy radiators- when i throw a styrofoam container out the window of my hummer- im sucking the life out of my fellow humans right to live in a clean environment and leaving a legacy of gases to intoxicate the next generation with- when i try to find a responsible way to live without consuming styrofoam then im givng a little-
well im wandering off point i think-
i see faith encouraging energy radiation-
for me-
ok ill stop the point was that without suffering to create a humility in us we would be even more boisterous and obnoxious and arrogant than we already are.
and suffering is i think we can agree generated by the evil in this world- but it has undeniable value- it is the water that feeds the best in us also- without it we would be like animals who while they may have a pinpointed loyalty that would enable them to make sacrifcies- they cant build a house for our children to live in etc...
also the very imporatant issue that some things that appear to be cruleor evil on the surface- through underlying factors that may not be apparent to others- may thwart a greater evil and therefore actually are good deeds- this is that old terrible example like killing hitler vback in time or something-
actually i have a beautiful stroy about Moses(pbuh) from the Qur'an but i dont want to paste it here because it might annoy some people when ive taken up so much precious space that others might want to use-
if theres a lull later i might past ethe illustration-
peaCE
> the only way for atheists and theists to have 'productive conversations'
How about humor? The following are some of my favorite buttons from nancybuttons.com - I offer them in the hopes we can take a step back and have a short smile before continuing with the deathly serious debate:
Death? Life? I never did understand Zen.
God created music so people could pray without words
I am a Quaker. In case of emergency, please be quiet.
Lead me not into temptation--I can find it for myself
Militant Agnostic--I don't know and you don't either!
These are my opinions. If they were the biblical truth, your bushes would
be burning.
To you I'm an agnostic. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.
What do you get if you cross a Unitarian and a Jehovah's Witness? Someone
who knocks on your door and asks, "Now what do *you* believe?"
God wrote the program, evolution is the output, meteor strikes are the
reset button
You're here to save my soul? I'm here to test your faith
Many are willing to serve God, but only in an advisory capacity
It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't struck by lightning
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts
I want you to know I've talked to God, and He agrees with me completely
If you find God hates the same people you do, you may have created Him in
your own image
If your religion never surprises you, you're probably doing it wrong
Regarding religious civility today, I think it has gotten far worse.
I am not religious, but before the "current occupant in the White House" I was happy being in the closet—and when acquaintances said “Merry Christmas” to me, I never thought twice about returning “Merry Christmas” back with a big smile.
The new right wing drive to demonize non-Christians has angered me though. Stores like Wal Mart are ordering their employees to tell every person who walks in their stores to be greeted with “Merry Christmas”. How grotesquely disrespectful and discriminating.
If a person is going to try and FORCE their religion onto me == yes, I am going to start giving some pushback. I think that is the reason why there have been the spate of atheist books out recently. I can tell you that is the reason you see me being vocal on this site.
The far right wing remind me of the fundamentalist ayatollahs in Islam.
Do you think it would be acceptable for minority Arab Christians living in Muslim countries to be bombarded with “Happy Ramadan” in their local schools and when entering every store to make a purchase? You know, to inform them that they are second-rate citizens.
If you think this is morally wrong, should not the same principle apply in reverse in the US?
i dont knwo warp10- i think saying merry christmas is kind of a benign stement- i dont recall having people saying it to me to impose something on me- i think people are just in their little bubbles and think they are "sharing the joy"
and im running around in a hijab(head scarf) all the time and im clearly not celebrating christmas!
sometimes ill say well you too and happy new years
or happy holidays or any thing that seems appropriate at the time
people probably assume you celebrate it-now if someone KKNOWS you dont- and they say it- id say that is snide in intention and deserves to be rejoindered in the spirit in which it is given
i see that ahteists have suffered alot at te hands of christians in america
btw EID MUBARAK fern! and anyone else-
you too warp10 happy nw year to you (since its pretty secular and all)
tis the season to be exclusive, eh?
>Hey Atheist, think abt this:>
Hey Rasha, think about this...
>how did one come into being??>
from evolution over millions of years -- with our backbone and most of our organs developed as fishes in the ocean.
Now for you. Why is this?
*Genetic studies show that DNA molecules from closely related species resemble
each other more than distantly related species.
*Genetic studies show the Human genome is comprised of 95-98% junk, with the
working 2-5% sequences containing genes that show an evolutionary history that
includes viruses and bacteria
* Scientists estimate there are about 100 million species in the world. A
large proportion of these are bugs (twenty percent of the 100 million species
are beetles!) If God specially created each species, then he must have spent
more time making insects than humans. Did He then have a special affinity for
beetles?
>who is the creator of the Universe??>
You have no special knowledge that other multiple universes existed prior to the Big Bang and there was no Creator involved.
Your question is more akin to. "How many angels dance on the head of a pin?"
>can anyone predict one's death??
Sure, If it is based on cause and effect -- such as having a terminal illness, or knowing someone has put a contract out on your life.
Lincoln correctly predicted someone would try to kill him.... pure logic....
>who is controlling this Universe??>
Did you notice this was a repeat of who created the universe? Unless you think God created the universe and the Devil controls it (or visa versa.)
On that note, another one for you.
Theology keeps it simple for the believer so they have no hard choices. Suppose the Devil usurped the throne of heaven and only the Devil (and not God) could offer you eternal life.
Would you obey the Devil to get eternal life; or would you follow goodness (or God) and lose eternal life?
The above will demonstrate if one's real motive is based on greed or not.
I would chose goodness. That is why I(at least currently) am an atheist. I started out as a believer, but I chose to follow the truth instead, at least the best that I could determine it.
Cheers
Victoria,
You missed my point.
I said == until very recently == I wholeheartedly wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
It was only after the Right Wing took to forcing Merry Christmas on everyone == that I began to resent it. Why? It showed bullying and a crass lack of respect...
So why should I respect them back, is the automatic response?
And does this make it ok for fundies in other religions to persecute Christian minorities?
Victoria,
You missed my point.
I said == until very recently == I wholeheartedly wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
Virginia
It was only after the Right Wing took to forcing Merry Christmas on everyone == that I began to resent it. Why? It showed bullying and a crass lack of respect...
So why should I respect them back, is the automatic response?
And does this make it ok for fundies in other religions to persecute Christian minorities?
Victoria,
You missed my point.
I said == until very recently == I wholeheartedly wished everyone a Merry Christmas.
It was only after the Right Wing took to forcing Merry Christmas on everyone == that I began to resent it. Why? It showed bullying and a crass lack of respect...
So why should I respect them back, was the natural reflex?
And does this make it ok for fundies in other religions to persecute Christian minorities?
Oops.
I thought my system was crashing and I was halting it.... not multiplying posts. My apologies...
If anyone is religious, you can assume the Divine presence wanted my message out multiple times... (I'll stick with the natural explanations, thank you.)
To James Buchanan:
1. You missed the point. It wasn't the conception or birthing part that was the miracle, it was the development of their concern, caring, integrity, etc. (in short, their souls) that was the miracle. Where the hell did that come from? Certainly not biology.
2. You were lousy, racist, gutless president, too.
Hi Greg
I disagree with your proof you are telling your daughter. Here is why.
If you count "willing to die" for one's religion as "proof" of its validity, then you must apply this as a universal precept to all religions! -- else you will be picking and choosing.
Therefore, turning this around as a universal precept, I ask you the question:
Do the deaths of all other martyrs in other religions represent "proof" to you of the validity of those religions?
{Take an extreme test: the 9/11 Muslims died believing they would awake in heaven after their destruction.... they did "believe" this and were willing to die for this.) Was this proof for you?
The answer is NO. They were superstitious or misguided fools.
Meaning you have a double standard and are only counting the martyrs in YOUR religion and ignoring martyrs in all other religions.
This is no proof. I can prove Santa Clause exists if you let me ignore whatever facts I choose...
Victoria,
Your question, " are there atheists ethicists?" shows a complete lack of knowledge of the topic in history and the present.
Below is a link to an organization dedicated to morality and ethical behavior -- the term is secular humanism. Go look and see what terrible things you can find. they want to actuall help people (so terrible, yes?)
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration
Old Dad,
You asked:
**it was the development of their concern, caring, integrity, etc. (in short, their souls) that was the miracle. Where the hell did that come from? Certainly not biology.**
Certainly YES biology!! In a nutshell those organisms that did not develop altruistic behavior among their members did not survive as species. {The vast majority of species have died out over the aeons -- based on fossils found.)
You can find this discussed by Harvard's researh professor, Edward O Wilson under the topic of sociobiology (Consilience is a very famous work by him on this topic.)
So watch those assumptions....
Cheers.
"are there atheists ethicists?"
Yes, plenty:
Siddhartha Gautama (a.k.a. the Buddha)
Lao Tzu (a mostly fictional character like Jesus, but one of my favourite philosophers)
Confucious
Ayn Rand http://www.aynrand.org/ (I don't agree with her philosophy at all. Morality is not self evidient and cannot be derived by pure logic)
I'm sure I could come up with many more, but it takes time to verify the religous beliefs of historical ethicists.
See http://www.iheu.org/contacts for a list of humanist ethical organizations.
"joe :
I'm not understanding this "On Faith" section of the Post. It appears that you have 4 guest writers who all have the same opinion about "faith", which is that they all have it.
Can we non-believers, atheists, and agnostics have at least ONE person representing the other side? Or is that too much to ask?
December 27, 2006 7:19 PM"
I agree. And if the word "FAITH" is the driving force...well....I have FAITH any agnostic/pragmatic/reality-based need not hold their collective breaths.
Personally, I have found that people with NO organized religious affiliation have been some of the most moral and spiritual people I have had the honor to meet.
I have also found that every crook, pol and business sleaze I've had the inevitable opportunity to meet - professes to be a Born-Again.
A sad truth.
im sorry i misunderstood warp10
of course you should push back-
no one has the right to persecute anyone-
it is not an islamic premise to persecute minorities in their domain- there are definitely well thought out rules for respect for christians-
it is the fundies that mess everyone up everywhere-
because they yell the loudest they drown out the voices of reason and especially in america moderation makes for dull press--- i hope you forgive my insensitivity- thats why i said christians have given you all a hard time-
REALIST- thank you for taking the trouble-
well BUDDHA DID believe in nirvana- a state for some element of the selfhood to attain a different level of consciouness and not die-
im not sure of the claim of his atheism yet-
LAO TZU is great but the esoteric tao seems to have a little god flavor for me- but it may be what i brought to it of course-
CONFUCIANISM while it offered social order eventually fell in on itself and all i know is what chinese people have told me about the faults of the social system under it- and its all hearsay
ayn rand is a raging egoist and has nothing to offer me as far as insight into the human condition so i wouldnt probably respect her ethics but i dont know what she had to say but im also
not interested enough to even look because she already stole several hours of my life with her
books and im very unforgiving of someone stealing
my timwe-but that is a very subjective
observation ....
thank you for the posts and i dont have so much time i have to make dinner for my husband because im an oppressed muslim woman scurrying like a frightened rabbit under the demands of my roaring patriarchal chauvinist husband---
nahh im just kidding its cause i love him and want him fat and ever dependent on me so hell never leave- HE HE
KATE - I TOTALLY KNOW THAT IS YOU UNDER THE :
arent questions by their very nature an admission of a lack of knowledge and an open minded willingness to learn and thuis become knowledgeable?
OF COURSE theres a lack of knowledge!
that is why i asked!
why the sarcasm?
do you honestly believe i think helping people is a terrible thing?
mercy mercy me
well i better trundle on my merry way then
peace all
and warp10 you really are a spark of light here
Atheism may be lack of belief.
Agnosticism, for me, is a knee-bending sense of awe at mystery. On bad days, the awe beomes fear.
I have been lucky in life, so there are more good days.
Folks who mock agnostics for "not knowing what they believe" ... miss the point.
Belief is a loaded and noninclusive word. Love is not.
> Victoria EID MUBARAK fern!
And a Happy New Year to you.
> Agnosticism, for me, is a knee-bending sense of awe at mystery
I would not label that experience agnosticism but an experience of "God without form", a phrase that is used often in the biography of Sri Ramakrishna. For example: "...jnana-yoga, which believes that god is without form and which treads the path of knowledge and intelligence to get into contact with the primal source Brahman...." http://home.wxs.nl/~brouw724/Ramakrishna.html
but in his hurry to get to the brahman- in reality ramakrishna neglected his wife in the most abject way- saradevi was truly an example of forebearance and patience- but you could see glimpses and cracks in the veneer - one of the things about yoga is the constant seeking after a sensory experience- for me these are illusory and we all have to come back to earth and deal with the humans here with kindness and give them their due of attention and love.
it seems to my experience like an imbalanced way to live- also it propogated the very sexist mentality of woman as sufferer- the eternal victim and temptress that is always dragging the poor spiritually inclined men back to the nasty realities of lust and disease and the body-
but to each his own-
what is the purpose of the eid mubarak?
were you wishing me one?
thank you
Warp 10 -- missed the point. I applied the comments to those who lived with Jesus. They saw something that caused them to spread the Good News at much risk. If not, why did they? They were actually, physically present with Jesus. If He was not special, and they knew it, why did they act as they did? They were not enriched nor made powerful? They suffered for their belief in Him. Why would those who were physically present with Him die for a lie -- all of them? It does not make any sense unless they did know something. That's the point. As I said, seeing is believing.
Martyrs who died without seeing did so purely on faith. I do not use them as an example of my "proof" because it was faith that drove them to sacrifice, not personal experience. Those who lived with Jesus accepted martyrdom based on personal experience, actual seeing. There is a significant difference.
In any event, the fact you reject my "proof" doesn't surprise me in the least -- I believe I said it was personal to me. I also noted others might reject it.
Finally, your comment about other martyrs -- I specifically referenced those who actually lived with Jesus -- I don't think those who flew the plane into the twin towers actually lived with God, or even their prophet Muhommed? Did they? What martyrs are you referencing that actually lived with their diety? It is certainly easy to attempt to negate a debate point when the actual point is ignored, now isn't it.
o yes i meant to say namaste i salute the godhead within you peace
Daniel wrote:
"My current answer to the dilemma is that God indeed created evil and is all powerful but is not evil because all was explained to man before man was born...In other words, life is something of a test, an endurance and attempt to avoid evil, willingly chosen by man before his birth and he has simply forgotten about it as an essential part of the test. So in this sense I agree with you that man is responsible for evil--that we chose it of free will."
So God created evil, but isn't evil himself? Gee, that makes sense. Thanks God.
"all was explained to man before man was born" Gee that makes it all OK. God explained to me that he is an evil tyrant and is just playing with me before I existed. Funny about that, I don't remember it.
That would make God both evil for creating evil and stupid for talking to me before I existed.
My current answer to the dilema is that the Bible is a collection of stories written by a bunch of ignorant people thousands of years ago. My answer makes a lot more sense.
I'm not sure "in vogue" is the right terminology to use. Perhaps it is more than a fleeting "trend," but an awakening to rationality such as that experienced in The Enlightenment.
To Realist from Daniel. I was strictly working within the confines of that particular problem--that conundrum.
But what I find interesting and what I was waiting for was to see how people like you would react to it when my answer to the conundrum PUTS THE PROBLEM OF EVIL ENTIRELY ON MAN AS IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST. MY ANSWER REMOVES SATAN, DOES NOT BLAME GOD AND PUTS ALL EVIL DIRECTLY ON MAN AS A PROBLEM TO SOLVE--A TAKING OF THE WORLD IN GOOD FAITH AND A TAKING UPON MAN OF TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY.
But what is your answer realist to evil whether you believe in God or not?
Oh, I remember, you explained it to me before: Man does not need God in order to be good. In fact religion makes man more evil than he would be otherwise. Is that not something of your reasoning? Perhaps that is true realist, but...now with science we have the capacity to utterly destroy ourselves, and would you say realist that even if man can be good without God--even if it is true that religion conduces to evil--that stripping man from religion will make up for the drastic increase by science of man's capacity to destroy himself? And notice I have not argued at all that science is evil for having led to our capacity to utterly destroy ourselves....
I think religion is a means of manipulating and controlling people. If you can control someone's beliefs, you can make them do almost anything. This is why religious faith is dangerous.
If people based their beliefs on facts and evidence, then there would be no problem with religion. I prefer to remove the mythology from religion and learn what we can about the psychology of religion, and apply it to improving our society.
I believe people created both good and evil. They are both a natural part of human nature. We call some behaviour "good" and some behaviour "evil" depending on what is considered desirable by the society and culture that we live in.
Agression towards people who are different from ourselves is exactly what you would expect from evolution. This is a crude way to favour people with similar genes to ourselves.
Compassion is also a something you would expect. We are social animals and we benefit from cooperating with each other. Other social animals also exhibit similar behaviour.
All aspects of human nature are useful in some way for survival and reproduction. The problem is that our human nature is no longer well suited to the social environment we live in. Religion is a symptom and a partial solution to this problem.
We have to figure how to deal with our human nature in a global society. I think that's really the point of this forum. We need to agree on a cultural and moral rules that most of us can be happy with.
I think morality should be based on recognizing our human nature and finding healthy ways to deal with it.
To Realist, Kate, religious people, agnostics, atheists--anyone really--here is brute honesty.
We have religious people claiming atheists--essentially all "wayward folk"--to be less moral than religious people, and the "wayward" folk not only saying it is possible to be good without a belief in God but that religions have perhaps been responsible for more evil than any disbelief might bring to the world.
Now the "wayward" people might be correct, but correct with one small problem: It is absolutely indisputable that man's capacity to utterly destroy himself by science and technology has been concurrent, coterminous, coeval, coexistent,--however you want to put it--with the single biggest step forward in disbelief that has ever existed in the history of the human race.
And it is simply ridiculous to step forward and say man can be good without religion. In fact the disbelievers go right ahead and say religion is evil as if its eradication will make things right.
That is a hell of a thing to say after tinkering with nature to the point of being able to utterly destroy ourselves. Was it religion that is responsible for the utter destruction of the Amazon? How about global warming? How about nuclear holocaust? How about biological warfare? How about the emerging nanotechnology?
Of course science has made many things better, but when one enlarges the photo could this possibly be merely a better so that the grand finale is only larger and more destructive?
I can tell you right now, people antireligion here, you had better get real imaginative concerning the problem of evil real quick because you have not convinced me, an agnostic, of much of anything at all.
You had better damn well make sure we are entering a world of less evil otherwise why in hell would anyone abandon religion--abandon their only source of hope--or even embrace the positive aspects about science and technology--in a hellhole of a world without God?
Stupid disbelievers--you think this is a game or something. You are playing with millions of people's lives.
You had better give us a damn fine reality or we will continue to embrace illusion, delusion, or whatever you want to call it atheists be damned.
Myself, I am agnostic and will simply accept the whole sad play of affairs...But I feel both sides of the issue--I am both sides, belief and disbelief, one side believing that man is better off without God, but on the other hand...
The outcome is most certainly uncertain.
And no one it seems can be really honest about it at all.
i had a suspicion lines in the sand would be drawn when this question was posted- ive tired to answer above some thoughts on the function of evil daniel-
perhaps it was insufficient to the cause-
greg has taken a beating for trying honestly to express his beliefs and i respect him for that-
it may not satisfy others- but it only has to satisfy him.
realist is tryng to offer soutions and i applaud his efforts-
i have gained a great deal of insight into frustrations and prejudices against non believers that i was not so aware of before-
i need to think and hopefully express more deeply the whys of my faith.
i hope i have not made anyone feel judged in their morals-
i have refrained from any xpression of my own faith and beliefs the hows and whys- because i felt it might make people think i was judging them or implying some superiority to them- maybe by trying so hard to monopolize the atheists forum because i felt that they really seemed to need one free of religious interference- ive done a disservice to my own faith- and to agnostics who have gotten lost in the shuffle- i know that any reasons i have are highly subjective and experiential and wouldnt satisfy the atheist need for logic- rather the opposite- it would probably give some fuel for the refutability of religion- but if its okay- i would like to put myslef out on a limb becasue i didnt think anyone had any interest-
i think daniel you just want honest expression- and not hypocrisy.
if its ok- tomorrow i will share some of my thoughts if it isnt getting in the way-
we really dont know the reality or provability of prayer and ethereal subjects like that-
i - in my heart of hearts think to myself- why dont people ask god themselves?
no one has to know- its not like a public declaration or anything-
one prayer i prayed for a very long tie that led me to my faith wasi asked god to lead me to worship hi the way he wants me to worship him
not the form i am comfortable with-
i think it is very open ended as far as prayers go- maybe his answer for some would be to smash the negative conventions of religion with science and logic for all i know!
peace daniel
i did write about evil and suffering at the top of this page- it went uncommented on so i thought maybe it was an annoyance or something
To Victoria from Daniel. I have been reading your posts Victoria. I have read the Koran. I prefer Sufi mystics. But one thing I do like about the Koran: it concentrates the mind wonderfully on first and last things.
I was going to write to you before the last post you did but then decided otherwise--getting late, etc. But then you posted again, so here goes: I was going to say your name, Victoria, says it all. May we have victory working on all these problems together. If you want to share thoughts tomorrow, that's fine--but I won't be able to answer until a couple days.
Your husband is a fortunate man Victoria, you seem a gentle, thoughtful and curious woman. I got hungry when you wrote about cooking...
Happy new year everyone. Enjoy, and then we try to solve these problems together again.
To FERN and RICHARD WADE:
Due to the delay in responding to the comments made by both of you on another thread (by FERN on thread ‘Who was Jesus?” Page 6, 25 Dec 2006 2:10 AM and Richard Wade on thread ‘Can there be a common ground?’ Page 18, 25 Dec 2006 5:46 AM) addressed to me, I’m posting my reply on this one because this discussion is ongoing. Besides, the piece I posted on the other thread fits in well with the current discussion. My response which overlap, I’m including here.
1. By way of clarification, the conversation between the atheist philosophy professor and student that I posted is neither a story, nor did I write it. It is supposedly based on a real conversation between Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, the President of India and his philosophy professor. (PS: Dr Abdul Kalam is a scientist and Dr S Radhakrishnan, a former president of India was a philosopher.) So it is really not my remit to decide what Dr Kalam should or should not have believed or said, or attribute the conversation to Dr S Radhakrishnan instead.
2.“Have you observed evolution with your own eyes?” (highlighted in FERN’s comment) refers to the 'evolution from monkey' mentioned before that. So the question actually means “Have you observed any human being evolve from a monkey?” And the answer: “No. I don’t believe anyone has”, merely emphasizes the “no”, and probably means that no one has actually observed a man evolve from a monkey. I don’t know much about evolutionary theories myself, but I recall vaguely that there is supposedly a missing link between the ape and man, that somebody went so far as to suggest that WE are that link, that we are merely in the process of evolving into human beings. I recall vaguely too that one little piece of bone from ‘Lucy’ was unearthed and a whole theory of evolution spanning millions of years was built around it, until a little piece of bone from somebody else (I don’t remember his/her name) was discovered that made ‘Lucy’ look at least a few million years younger in the evolutionary scale. Or something to that effect. Anyway I have no problem with any evolutionary theory, even if the theory depends entirely on the imagination of the person proposing it, and each new theory shifts the evolution of man around by millions of years every time a little bone is unearthed somewhere. All theories make interesting reading. Since the theories don’t affect my life one way or another, I’m not interested in demanding any further proof.
3.The reference to a monkey rather than an ape in the conversation has to do with the fact that monkeys are commonplace in India, whereas apes are not. Since apes and monkeys belong to the same species anyway, one should not judge the error of the student so harshly. After all only an evolutionary theory separates a monkey from an ape.
4. The conversation seeks to point out that even science depends on theories. Forces not exactly perceived by the five senses are considered valid entities. It is not an attempt to discredit science, but rather to elevate faith in God to a scientific level.
5. I do not take the Bible to be a science treatise or a history textbook. It does not matter to me in the least if the first human beings God created were called Adam and Eve or John and Mary; whether God created one couple at first or a dozen or even a whole village. It doesn’t matter to me if He created the world in six days or sixty million years. All that matters to me is that God created the world, an intelligence that is greater than yours and mine or any other human being. All that matters to me is that Jesus was real, and I’m convinced He is real, even if the evidence is slightly different to that of Lucy’s bone. Even if the whole thing were a myth as claimed by some, I’m quite happy to believe in a uniquely convincing myth that has lasted nineteen and a half centuries and has achieved some really stupendous things in the history of the human race. As proof of how unique the "myth" is, here we are discussing the “myth” of Jesus as heatedly today as the Jewish Pharisees in His time debated whether Jesus was the Messiah that their prophets had written about and they had been waiting for.
6. Scripture to me is the Word of God that reveals God’s eternal truths, values and plan for man. Scripture is not meant to instruct us in history or science. I believe that God expects us to use the brains He has given us to understand our world and our everyday life, and do whatever it takes to make this world a better place than we found it. Only some skeletal guidelines about everyday practical life have been given for our help through Scripture. God has given every human being the gift of common sense to guide us along. I have not at any time tried to verify scientific facts in the Bible or any other Scripture. I believe that all knowledge comes from God and therefore scientific knowledge comes from God. Science on many occasions merely discovers what God has created. Scientists discover and achieve wonderful things with the brain God has gifted man with. But the work of scientists, no matter how spectacular, does not lead me conclude that God does not exist. For example, recently, a man made computer beat the cleverest man at chess in Bonn. Does that mean that the computer could not possibly have had a human being as its creator, especially because it has proved to be smarter than man in the very program created by man?
7. It is unfortunate that my mention of yesterday’s science being superseded by today’s science has been misinterpreted as my lack of respect for science. It was meant to highlight the limitation of science in a context where science seems to be portrayed as the absolute truth. I’m less of a lay person with regard to science than I am with regard to philosophy and theology. I even believe in playing an advocate for turning beneficial science into health policy that will benefit the masses as quickly as possible, and disapprove of scientific theories, rather than scientific evidence, that try to stand in the way.
8. FERN, I’m terribly disappointed that you have thrown away my entire barrel of good apples for the sake of one bad (in your opinion) apple, that too an apple you took out of somebody else’s barrel.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
----------------------------------------
Posted earlier to which reference is made.
Food for thought:
As part of his lecture titled ‘The Problem Science has with God, the Almighty’, an atheist professor of philosophy asks one of his new students to stand up, and the following conversation ensues...
Professor: So you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Professor: Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Professor: Is God all-powerful?
Student: Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal Him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
The student is silent.
Professor: You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Professor: Is Satan good?
Student: No.
Professor: Where does Satan come from?
Student: From...God.
Professor: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God made everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Professor: So who created evil?
The student does not answer.
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them?
The student has no answer.
Professor: Science says you have five senses that you can use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, Have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Professor: Tell us then if you have ever heard your God.
Student: No, sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.
Professor: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science
says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Precisely. You only have your faith. And that is the problem science has with God, the Almighty. You depend only on faith to prove his existence.
Student: Professor, now may I ask you a couple of questions?
Professor: Sure, go ahead.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Of course there is.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes there is.
Student: No sir. There isn't. Sir, you have heat, even lots of heat, more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. A temperature 458 degrees below zero is referred to as no heat. Our measurement of temperature stops at that point. We do not measure cold. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure it. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
After a short pause, the student continues.
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Sure there is. How could there be night without darkness?
Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of light. There is low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light… But if there is no light, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is that your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue that there is life and then there is death. A good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought adequately. It makes use of electricity and magnetism, but it has never seen, much less fully understood either .To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.
The student continues after a brief pause.
Student: Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from
a monkey?
Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of
course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
Professor: No. I don’t believe anyone has.
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at
work and cannot even prove that this process is on-going, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you a scientist or a preacher?
The professor remains silent.
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
Professor's brain? Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain,
felt it, touched or smelt it?
After a pause, the student continues.
Student: No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect sir, how do we then trust your lectures?
Professor: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.
Student: That is it sir, FAITH. The link between man and god is FAITH. I take it on faith sir, that it is God, the Almighty, who creates the universe and everything in it, keeps it moving and every living thing alive.
----------------------------------
Disclaimer: The above professor-student conversation provided by Mr. P Vinod Bhattathiripad is supposedly a true incident from the life of Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the incumbent president of India. The authenticity of the claim has not been verified.
wwell- i think that professor is a little dumb if the student was more knowledgeable about the nature of light and heat but its cute the way it ends up with the professor saying take it on faith- although honestly since its a story that professor is...
i sure hope the incumbent president of india isnt represented by the professor!
i mean no disrespect sir im being a mite facetious
Oops! I thought it was pretty obvious that the student was the incumbent president of India, hence didn't mention it specifically.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
seriously im glad you mentioned it-since i wasnt sure i didnt want to blather on about how really dumb that professor was because i thought it might insult some people by saying their president ws---well you know---intellectuially challenged?
hee hee and i thought maybe your name is indian but thats neirther here nor there now peace to you mr thaikattil!
Victoria, wondering if the student was Dr S Radhakrishnan ( a former philosopher president of India), rather than Dr Abdul Kalam, the incumbent scientist President of India (who was trained as an aeronautical engineer first, and probably did not attend any philosophy lecture as part of his studies) was just my thought. It goes without saying that the student is being portrayed as the cleverer one. The incumbent president was not the student of the philosopher president!
Soja John Thaiakttil
Sydney, Australia
Victoria, I'm an Indian-Australian with dual citizenship. BTW I'm female. The male middle name, John, is my father's first name. It has to do with the custom of my community - father's first name and family name is added to one's name, which is replaced by the husband's first name and family name after marriage.
I wish you a Happy and wonderful New Year 2007!
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? - People are finally waking up to the truth - there is no god.
Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues? - No. Theists cannot conduct a civil, logical debate without personally attacking atheists.
yes- we thesits are an irrascible uncivilized and thoroughly loathesome bunch- devoid of any rationality- why didnt you know that your IQ drops automatically when you become a believer?
its true!
and of course we are most easily identified by our senseless and compulsive predilection for attacking in the most brutal manner any who disagree with us!
welcome SRB- so glad to have the non-biased open minded atheists come and put us in our place!!!
wheww- by your razor sharp logic you have subdued my savage breast already
wow its good you happened along- i was just preparing another mindless surprise attack on some unsuspecting atheist---
well- i guess they can close the post now since its been so eloquently answered
thank you soja- ive appreciated your posts GREATLY
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOURS!
I became an atheist when it dawned on me that I don't believe in the "god" of the big mouths, the bible thumpers, the flat earthers and the war mongers who govern our country.
Nice christians are out of vogue in America. These popular judgemental types are just not my cup of tea. I don't like their god at all. I can live without him.
Many people I know became atheists in response to the current, popular, "christian" god. Thank you, but I don't need an angry man in the sky invented by ancient people with a limited world view to dictate my conscience. I don't need to believe in the Genesis creation story in order to be a good person. I don't need to renounce scientific discoveries in order to be a spiritual person. I'm a much nicer, more loving and forgiving person without that 'god'.
Haven't you noticed that a lot of the so-called "christians" on television news are some of the most spiteful, hateful creatures ever? That's religion? If there really was a god person, wouldn't you think that this god would rather that his creation would freely love him rather than be threatened into loving him? He sounds like the alcoholic father in a dysfunctional family.
I prefer Jesus' teachings of love and compassion- His message is that we should look out for each other. When we look out for each other, that is how we worship god and all creation. How very simple. So simple that many christians just missed the boat.
I'd like to meet more "christians" who understand Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and perhaps I'd be more tolerant of modern day "christians." Until then, I remain a born again atheist.
DANIEL thank you so much for your kind words
i look forward to another post
Atheism became the counter-cultural thing to be starting in the 60's. Soon it will be religions turn.
If atheism is finally being talked about more by the general public it's just because more information is available than ever, and you can't hold on to your ancient mythologies in light of facts, unless you're willing to admit that you choose fantasy over reality.
One thing that makes the discussion unteneable for so many of us atheists is the judgemental tone taken by so many Christians. For example, "We are not a Christian nation because of the way you all behave" was a rather popular answer given by lots of Christians to a previous question on this website, as if the atheists are the ones filling the prisons and "killing babies".
Incidentally, it's always the Christians who come off with those ugly phrases. It's obvious that too many do in fact need bad reasons to be good.
I'm an atheist, I live a good, in fact deeply spiritual life. I hold doors open for people, take my cart back when I'm shopping, drive on my own side of the road, all the time; I go out of my way not to do anything for which I need to be forgiven.
I am open to discussion with everyone, until someone pulls out their religious trump-card, as one former poster has put it, and shuts down the lines of communication.
Oh, yeah, Agnostic; I'm not certain there's no god, so in that sense, I would have to say that all of us, even the religious, are somewhat agnostic as well. I just don't use the term agnostic to describe myself because that makes it sound as if there's as much chance of a god existing as not. There's a much greater chance that no gods exist, and besides, by calling myself aganostic, I'd be providing a concession to the religions that maybe, after all, they are correct.
They aren't, but good people will come together regardless; the rest will argue endlessly as they've always done.
It is not a matter of "believing" in God. It is a matter of what entity enables the vast ignorant masses to create Gods and religious establishments.
In algebra, we use symbols like X to stand for things we do not know. In religion, people use "God" to stand for things they do not understand. In its simplest form, "God" is the symbol for the various forces of nature, of which most are totally beyond the comprehension of most people. Those totality of natural laws that govern everything from our the physical universe to complex microbiological and biochemical processes of living things, are characterized as "God" by the ignorant who then try to influence those unbending laws of nature through "prayer."
Each day I am appalled at how religion and belief foster torture, death and neglect of the living throughout the world.
It is difficult for the enlightened to live in these dark ages.
It is not a matter of "believing" in God. It is a matter of what entity enables the vast ignorant masses to create Gods and religious establishments.
In algebra, we use symbols like X to stand for things we do not know. In religion, people use "God" to stand for things they do not understand. In its simplest form, "God" is the symbol for the various forces of nature, of which most are totally beyond the comprehension of most people. Those totality of natural laws that govern everything from our the physical universe to complex microbiological and biochemical processes of living things, are characterized as "God" by the ignorant who then try to influence those unbending laws of nature through "prayer."
Each day I am appalled at how religion and belief foster torture, death and neglect of the living throughout the world.
It is difficult for the enlightened to live in these dark ages.
i think that the propensity of people in all cultures to 'believe' in gods is due to our natural predisposition to believe what we're told. to believe what we're taught when young is obviously vital in a species that depends almost entirely on society for survival.
atheism, like many complex, sublime, beautiful things is an emergent property of intelligence; just like a snowflake is of gas pressure and water vapour.
Greg, you asked:
"It is not simply that people followed Jesus, but that they did so at great personal risk, without any obvious great reward."
Are you saying the promise of heaven and the avoidance of hell wasn't enough?
Your argument is full of flaws. the least of which is the fact that we have no actual historical information concerning what any of the people who "personally know jesus" did or did not do. The belief that the apostles were martyred is a tradition promulgated by the Catholic Church and accepting blindly ever since.
The real problem with your argument is that people act seemingly insanely all the time. Islam has as many tales of pointless martyrdom as Christianity. If you're going to use people's bizarre, inexplicable behavior as an evidence for your gods, then you can't deny any other gods without being a complete hypocrite.
Kate, no you're wrong about it simply being about numbers. It is about seeing is believing. It is not simply that people followed Jesus, but that they did so at great personal risk, without any obvious great reward. As many who simply argue to argue, you miss the point in its entirety. It is the very fact that so many believed that they unconditionally followed, even to death. What does that have to do with slavery? Or sufferage? I don't get your point. Let me make it clear again. Why would those who personally knew Jesus leave the comfort of their home, go out into the big cruel world, and spread His message -- at risk of death -- unless they saw something that made them certain that what they were doing was right. Salvery was about money -- it had a profit motive; sufferage was about control -- men ran things, women were property. Jesus' message was about placing others first, about love and hope. It had no obvious benefit to those who died spreading the Word -- So, its not simply about numbers, but about seeing is believing. They saw, and acted upon it. Finally, regarding your advice to my daughter, my wife and I raise her, thank you very much. I have four wonderful children, each head strong, good people. They ask questions, and acknowledge sometimes the answers are hard. They are aware of all the bad things you mention -- as are most Christians. (Jesus, I will point out, condoned none of the things you mention. He stopped a stoning, admonishing those without sin to act first. He treated all equally. He comforted the sick, the poor, the dying.) I have tried to raise them in the church because I believe it important. As adults, they will have to decide where they go. You may certainly raise your children outside any church if you so choose. But your hint that somehow I need to tell her certain things you believe in order to "actually encourage her development" is suggestive of someone who has an awfully big opinion of themselves. My attempt was to bring to the discussion a thought; one that you did not address -- you danced all around it. So, if you are out there -- answer the question -- why would so many die (for this discussion, lets leave it to those who personally knew Jesus) for such a simply message, without obvious personal gain, for a Man who had been dead for years -- unless they had personally seen something to make them believe. They were with Him for several years, living their daily lives together. Do you really believe they would die such horrible deaths for a conspiracy involving a dead man, when there was no obvious personal gain? No, this is one you need to address, directly, without dancing around it -- no need for big words, or obfuscation -- just a simple answer -- why? Delusion, hysteria, mass hypnosis -- why?
I think that the tipping point between athiests and religious people is in the way they present their quesion about God. An athiest asks for a prove that God exists, but a religous person would counter that by asking athiests to prove that God doesn't exist. An athiest would do almost anything to stay away from the scripture and tries to prove his theory through science. That's the major mistake in athiests' methodology in their quest to answer the question about God. Incidently, science will lead to one thing, the universe was created in a great balance and harmony that even a random creation theory cannot explain the perfect nature of how this universe is running. The Quran talks about the fact that the creation of the heavens and the earth are a bigger miracle than creating humans. It goes further and instructs people in general to go and search how this creation has started. It poses questions to athiests and idol worshippers (who inhabited the arabian island at that time) such as "have you been created from nothing?".
My point is that the scripture is a good starting point for athiests. Yet, there is a major issue that I have with athiests. They are very abstract and have very narrow focus that tend to sway them into more philisophical debate rather than scientific one. Search for the truth requires observational skills and the ability to transform subtle ideas into managable pieces of information. Did you ever wonder why most athiests come around as arrogant and stubborn? That's not because they have these characteristics, but their narrow minded approach makes it look so. Sorry if I offended anyone.
I'm writing a musical tentatively called "Oh God,Is This Boring Or What?" My first song -"Oh,the Atheists and the Theists Should be Friends," has a libretto and music but I keep falling asleep when writing the script. Anyone interested in a collaboration?
To Soja John Thaikattil,
Regarding your Abdul Kalam story. I think you may have been taken in by an urban myth. Reasons for my thinking are as follows:
a) Lack of credibility in the source. Which, and I'm sorry to say this as I don't mean to be rude (please don't take it personally), but the source is you. You repeat a story from someone else, you don't seem certain of the identities referred to within it and don't seem to have made any effort to check into the veracity of the story. Don't let it get to you, the same thing happened to me once. My sister sent me an email to scare me about HIV needles in cinema seats. I fell for it for a few days, then a friend pointed out that it was a known urban myth.
Moral of this story: just because you trust the person does not mean you can trust what they say.
The difficulty with the moral of the story: as social creatures we are kind of pre-programmed so that if we trust the person, we trust their words. At times we trust a person's words even if we don't know them ... its a difficult topic.
b) The basic outline of the story reminded me of a similar one I recalled reading which had been debunked as an urban myth. Main difference seemed to be the characters involved. So I re-read the article on Snopes.com. If you'd like to read it yourself its titled "malice of absence" and indeed, the similarities are striking: the arrogant atheist professor, the intelligent and faithful young student who challenges the professor, the reference to cold, the reference to darkness, there is even a variant to the main story which makes reference to not being able to see the brain. The main difference being, these variants of the same urban myth quote other 'intelligent and faithful' young students who put the boot up the arrogant atheist professor's butt. Instead of Abdul Kalam they use a Navy SEAL and Einstein. It seems that the story you've repeated is the same story but with different characters (perhaps to cater for an India-based audience) and a slight bit of padding out in the telling.
3) However, despite the above, there is one thing that needs to be considered. Perhaps this story is actually true? Perhaps this story was the original and the urban myths that have popped up here and there since then have simply been re-edited to cater for a western audience? So, ok, I went on a bit of googling for details and do you know what ... I couldn't find a time when both Abdul Kalam and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (Dr S) were at the same educational institution at the same time. In fact, I couldn't find any corroboration that Abdul Kalam had ever attended any of the institutions that Dr S had taught at while Dr S was still alive (unfortunately Dr S passed away in 1975). Which is very strange since they are both very well known in India and as such it seems their lives have been documented well on the web.
I could list you the timeline I have been able to glean from the net, but since I've already rambled on a bit earlier about the dangers of taking any person's word at face value, I'll leave you to do the investigating, if you wish to.
Conclusion - when considering the entirety: the striking similarity to a known urban myth; the lack of corroboration of attendance at institutions; the story having an unreliable source, I have to think that your story can only be a reincarnation of the same urban myth. However I am open to correction so if you are able to track down any corroborating evidence I'm certainly happy to reconsider my stance.
Quick last comment on the story: Dr S seems to have had such a full life so that you could almost say he is revered. I read he even has a national day, "Teacher's Day" celebrated on the day of his birth in his honor. It seems almost dishonorable that his name should be used as the butt of the joke in a fiction designed purely to make theists feel better about swallowing their belief. Particularly so given he passed away in 1975, and as such can't defend himself. Surely theists can find affirmation of their belief (if they need it) in a less hateful way.
-------------
To Victoria,
No, whoever the ":" that you are referring to, it wasn't me. This is the first time I've reposted since I made the post "ok, one more". I was intending to stick to that too, until SJT posted that quaint little theist feel-good story - I couldn't let that one stand without comment and so now I'll take the opportunity to respond to you also....
"KATE - I TOTALLY KNOW THAT IS YOU UNDER THE :"
....hmmm, tell me, is that feeling of knowledge similar to the one people get when they 'know' there is a god?
Actually, don't tell me, that was a rhetorical question. In fact, *please* don't tell me, I like to respond to posts that contain thought, whereas the posts you have addressed to me have degenerated to vitriol at best.
"OF COURSE theres a lack of knowledge! that is why i asked! why the sarcasm? do you honestly believe i think helping people is a terrible thing? mercy mercy me"
Huh?
What on earth are you going on about?
"you are entitled to your opinon miss kate but you should draw the line ar accusing someone of lying"
Even if they are? Besides which, I didn't *accuse* you of 'lying', I stated the following:
"Obviously false. Fed 100 people a day for over a year without handling money and without support? You got support from somewhere."
And the hilarious thing here? You actually confirmed that it was false. You followed up with the following comments:
"i went to all the local merchants and got them to donate rice and spices and grains and the local supermarkets let me go through all their day old veggies and fruits and things- there was a bakery that gave me day old brad and cookies and all sorts of baked goods-even local restaurants sometimes sent over little surprises"
All of the things you've just listed ... that is what I like to refer to as 'support'. I'm guessing those institutions who donated items would also like to think they were doing so in 'support' of your efforts. Thereby making the suggestion that you accomplished whatever it was that you did 'without support', false.
Like I've suggested previously, Victoria, try reading the posts before responding to them. Further, try the following: if you feel like making a post, type it up but don't submit it, get away from it for an hour to calm down. When you come back, re-read it to check if it's something you really want to say and that it makes sense. Putting posts up more quickly or more frequently doesn't necessarily equate to better quality, whereas taking the time to reconsider often does.
------------
To Daniel,
You know, I actually got a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside from your 12:48pm post. It's nice to know that you're willing to try and meet me half way and that you are capable of reconsidering your position.
"one cannot just assume things do not exist in the first place"
This is the fundamental difference between you and I. You seem to think anything and everything that can be imagined exists until shown otherwise. Whereas my position is that until something has evidence of existance I will accept that it doesn't exist. My cannibalistic pope example stands. Further, I'll give you another example. I know that (entirely by itself) my body is not capable of flight. It's capable of falling, but not of flight. I'm unwilling to throw myself off a building to prove that I cannot fly until I have some evidence that I can fly. And in this particular example, it better be substantial evidence.
So now I ask you Daniel, is your body, by itself, capable of flight? And please, if you are going to test it out, remember you'll probably need a bit of a run up and a tall building. You never know, maybe we are capable of flight, but only after having been in the process of falling for 30 seconds or so - it might need some kind of falling 'warm up' before it 'kicks in' so to speak. ^^ I'm joking of course.
...we'll have to agree to disagree, I think.
"then tackle the problem of good and evil"
I have, on a personal level, dealt with the question of good and evil. In fact contemplation on the nature of 'good' and 'evil' was one of the main considerations that turned me away from theism.
There is no good nor evil.
Good and evil are just labels we apply to things or occurances based on how we perceive their impact. If there is anything that is truly 'evil' it is that we label things as such, because by labeling something as 'evil' we place blame, thereby resolving ourselves of responsiblity for it.
I live with the above approach as I find it makes a straightforward kind of sense. Well it works for me at least, what others think of it I couldn't say and I'm not about to force it on them.
"We could well destroy ourselves"
Aren't we doing so already? I think this is one of the reasons why atheists are getting so angry.
"Science ... has made it totally possible to destroy ourselves"
I usually tend to hate the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" statement being used, but I'm going to co-opt it at this point. "science doesn't kill people, people kill people". The same could be said for religion "religion doesn't kill people, people kill people". That'll probably get me a few dark looks from my fellow atheists, but at its core it has truth. Its not the religion itself or the science itself that kills, it's the people making use of the religion or the science who do that.
"Science quite simply has the wrong strategy"
I have a different perspective. Neither science nor religion are strategies, they are simply tools. We have yet to sit down and set out the strategy because we're still arguing over who has the coolest tool. I think science is the coolest. Mainly because its all encompassing, has measurable outcomes and its core principles are comprehendable.
"... convince people to not believe in God ..."
There seems to be a thought that atheists must have a desire to de-convert everyone. I can't speak for all atheists, but I certainly don't hold that desire. Do I despair when hearing yet another story of religious intolerance? Yes. Every succeeding generation of humanity will continually struggle in delineating between the real and the surreal. We can't stop it, that struggle is inevitable, though some particular outcomes might bring me to tears. It is pointless to attempt to stop the inevitable, but I see worth in attempting to make the path easier to navigate, by ensuring that tools are developed for the use of those who follow us so that their task isn't as difficult as ours. Tools, for example, like logic and the sciences.
"In fact, how are we to avoid genetic engineering, the creation of humans that are equal and in fact superior to man's ability to annihilate himself?"
I think you typed that last sentence more from sentiment than reason. Further I think your 4.44 am post was more a rant than anything. Not staying up too late are we? I mean - "Stupid disbelievers--you think this is a game or something. You are playing with millions of people's lives" - just sliiightly over the top methinks.
---------------
From Realist:
"I think religion is a means of manipulating and controlling people. If you can control someone's beliefs, you can make them do almost anything. This is why religious faith is dangerous"
Agree, but I also think there's an individual reason for it, not just a mob rule reason. If people want something bad enough, they'll find a reason for it. If they can't find a reason, they'll create it. Religion is a ready made list of excuses. Hmmm, deja vu. Has someone said that before? Meh, probably.
Love your posts Realist. Always well considered and so well restrained. I aspire someday for your self-control.
Kate, Please read the disclaimer at the end of the story, and my post at 7:31 AM.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Kate, Please read the disclaimer at the end of the story, and my post at 7:21 AM.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Kate, there is nothing to suggest that Einstein studied philosophy at the university, and the 'story' involves a discussion during a philosophy lecture.
When I first posted the 'story' on 25 Dec 06, I did not mention Dr Radhakrishnan at all. In my post on this thread I was merely wondering if the incident attributed to Dr Kalam actually happened in the life of Dr Radhakrishnan. That seems to have created the mistaken impression that I implied Dr Radhakrishnan and Dr Kalam were in a professor-student relationship.
It is the content and spirit of the discussion that interested me and hence I posted it without verifying at which university, in which year, on what date and time the discussion took place and what the name of the professor was. It wouldn't have mattered to me if the student in conversation was named as George W Bush instead.
As to believing the modes by which the HIV virus is transmitted, there was much ignorance around considering it was a new disease and you can't be blamed for being too careful.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Kate, there is nothing to suggest that Einstein studied philosophy at the university, and the 'story' involves a discussion during a philosophy lecture.
When I first posted the 'story' on 25 Dec 06, I did not mention Dr Radhakrishnan at all. In my post on this thread I was merely wondering if the incident attributed to Dr Kalam actually happened in the life of Dr Radhakrishnan. That seems to have created the mistaken impression that I implied Dr Radhakrishnan and Dr Kalam were in a professor-student relationship.
It is the content and spirit of the discussion that interested me and hence I posted it without verifying at which university, in which year, on what date and time the discussion took place and what the name of the professor was. It wouldn't have mattered to me if the student in conversation was named as George W Bush instead.
As to believing the modes by which the HIV virus is transmitted, there was much ignorance around considering it was a new disease and you can't be blamed for being too careful.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Kate, there is nothing to suggest that Einstein studied philosophy at the university, and the 'story' involves a discussion during a philosophy lecture.
When I first posted the 'story' on 25 Dec 06, I did not mention Dr Radhakrishnan at all. In my post on this thread I was merely wondering if the incident attributed to Dr Kalam actually happened in the life of Dr Radhakrishnan. That seems to have created the mistaken impression that I implied Dr Radhakrishnan and Dr Kalam were in a professor-student relationship.
It is the content and spirit of the discussion that interested me and hence I posted it without verifying at which university, in which year, on what date and time the discussion took place and what the name of the professor was. It wouldn't have mattered to me if the student in conversation was named as George W Bush instead.
As to believing the modes by which the HIV virus is transmitted, there was much ignorance around considering it was a new disease and you can't be blamed for being too careful.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Myriad apologies! Problem with my computer. It didn't give me any indication that the message was posted, hence I reposted it twice.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
I see myself as an Agnostic. To me, the entire universe is natural and mechanistic, i.e., that everything we see in the universe can eventually be explained in terms of chemistry and physics. That includes the basis of life.
My problem with Atheism, and especially any Religion, is the dogmatic declaration of knowing the basis of the universe. While I embrace a naturalistic view of the universe, I don't believe that any human mind can do anymore at this time than guess at the origin of space, matter and energy.
Unfortunately, astrologers, witchdoctors, priests, and followers of the great variety of religions and sects, have created fantasies.
Surely, no human knows or understands the basis of our universe.
The atheist has to have the attributes of God to know there is no God. He would have to be all knowing or else the possibility of God's existence still exists outside his finite knowledge. He would have to be everywhere present because God could possibly exist outside his limited access to space and time. God does not believe in Atheists and man makes a sorry God.
Veritos
The atheist has to have the attributes of Santa Claus to know there is no Santa Claus. He would have to be all knowing or else the possibility of Santa Claus' existence still exists outside his finite knowledge. He would have to be everywhere present because Santa Claus could possibly exist outside his limited access to space and time. Santa Claus does not believe in Atheists and man makes a sorry Santa Claus.
a p.s. for those who still wonder why atheists are livid, and why we've become more activist since Bushco's election:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/12/29/park-service-cant-give-o_n_37406.html
Due to pressure from Bush Administration officials, the National Park Service is not permitted to give an official age for the Grand Canyon. Additionally, a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood is for sale at the National Park's bookstore.
The sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View was scheduled for review over three years ago, but no such review has been schedule or even requested. The creationist book was the only item approved for sale in 2003 (22 other items were rejected).
Atheists don't assume to know the basis for, or the mysteries of the universe; most of us just find it highly improbable, and most likely impossible, that it has been satisfactorially explained by any of the world's faith-based religions. There are no absolutes, except that something either exists, or it doesn't. It either happened or it didn't, and we should have credible evidence that determines whether we believe a thing to be truth or fiction.
"Atheist" doesn't mean against god, as some who are religious like to take it; it means
without god.
Amy, your posts are always so helpful & informative. Thanks!
Nice job Dodger. Simplicity at it's best.
Nice job Dodger. Simplicity at it's best.
> Soja John Thaikattil :
> 2.Have you observed evolution with your own eyes? (highlighted in FERNs comment) refers to the
> 'evolution from monkey' mentioned before that. So the question actually means Have you observed
> any human being evolve from a monkey?
It's still a stupid question. It's asking "Have you lived for millions of years (and thus been alive long enough to observe evolution). I can't really believe that anyone would ask such a dumb question or would answer it in the way you posted.
> 6. ... Scripture is not meant to instruct us in history or science. I believe that God expects us to
> use the brains He has given us to understand our world and our everyday life, and do whatever
> it takes to make this world a better place than we found it. Only some skeletal guidelines about
> everyday practical life have been given for our help through Scripture. God has given every
> human being the gift of common sense to guide us along.
I agree with you. The Bible/Quran/Gita/Buddhist sutras provide a moral and ethical framework not a statement of science. They provide a set of basic principles around which to orient one's life not a detailed roadmap.
Hi Greg,
I wanted to respond to your "proof" that Jesus must be divine because “Why would those who were physically present with Him die for a lie -- all of them? It does not make any sense unless they did know something. That's the point. As I said, seeing is believing.”
Now you and I agree on one point: History is replete with examples of how martyrs were willing to die for their faith – and this martyrdom is no convincing proof that their belief systems was real. Here are your words:
“Martyrs who died without seeing did so purely on faith. . I do not use them as an example of my "proof" because it was faith that drove them to sacrifice, not personal experience”
So I will focus on
(i) there are other believers who were convinced their follower was divine and followed him – willing to die for their beliefs, and
(ii) provide evidence where Jesus did not view himself as divine during his life.
Other leaders claiming to be divine:
(1) The New Testament states that there were many “false Christs and false prophets” during the times of Jesus who performed great miracles – and who were so convincing that even “the very elect” might be deceived by them. (ref. Matthew 24:23-6)
“Then if any man shall say unto you. Lo here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect... Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth..."
The gospels never deny that the “powers” from these individuals were not real. (Their powers just didn’t derive from the true god.)
(2) Kings proclaimed themselves divine even up into Roman times.
There are a number of cult leaders who have proclaimed themselves divine. Here are just a couple of RECENT examples:
--The Reverent Moon has proclaimed himself "humanity's Savior, Messiah, and Returning Lord. He has conducted mass marriages where the partners were strangers prior to the marriage.
-- the Reverend Jim Jones claimed to be an incarnation of Jesus, Akhenaten, Buddha, Lenin, and Father Divine and performed supposed miracle healings to attract new members. Many people willingly participated in the mass suicides in the People’s Temple.
(3) There are of course other individuals who claimed special divine powers (although were not necessarily part of the godhead.
The disciples of Mohammed who personally knew him and followed him and risked their life. But as he was merely the head PROPHET of the one God Allah (and not the godhead himself) – I predict you will use this to argue the followers of Mohammed – were still following their faith.
Seems to me “if” Mohammed had proclaimed himself god and had disciples, THEN what he said must have been true, according to your reasoning…
(4) There were other historical figures whose devoted disciples later proclaimed their teacher was divine. Buddha is an example of this category.
(5) There is evidence within the gospels that Jesus (like Buddha) did not proclaim himself divine during his lifetime.
-- See Mark 10:17-8, where a stranger approaches Jesus with the question, "Good Master, what must I do to win eternal life". And Jesus replies: “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone”.
(Christian apologists argue Jesus was not really lying, but was being coy about his true powers. How could this just be coy though...)
(6) There is evidence in analyzing the gospels whether Jesus' powers were really any more “incredible” than the large number of “other” miracle workers known to be common in the Palestine during the times of Jesus.
In Galilee, one of Jesus' main occupation was said to be from casting out demons:
-"They brought to him all who were ill or possessed by devils...He
healed many who suffered from various diseases, and drove out many
devils." (Mark 1:32-4; Matthew 8:16, Luke 4:40-1)
-"So all through Galilee he went...casting out the devils."
(Mark 1:39, Matthew 4:23)
In explaining (probably why at the time Jesus’ own family did not view him as divine) why Jesus could not perform a miracle in his home town, the gospels use the following apology:
"A prophet will always be held in honor except in his home town, and among his kinsmen and family. He could work no miracle there, except that he put his hands on a few sick people and healed them, and he was taken aback by their want of faith."(Mark 6:4-6)
[Sorry - that simply is not true...]
So in short, I’m afraid your proof is not a convincing one, except to someone who already believes.
Good day.
Warp 10 -- you certainly have a right to your opinion, and I to mine. Neither will give, I am certain. That is fine. Variety is the spice of life, I have always believed. My "proof" is simply one way I look at it all, for me personally. It may or may not convince others -- so be it. I do wonder, though, if atheists ever harbor doubts. Many seem so certain in their non-belief. One of my favorite stories about WC Fields (I know not if it is true) is telling. He was an avowed atheist. Toward the end of his days, he was caught by a good friend thumbing through the Bible. When asked why, he replied "Lookin for loop holes." Ah, life, ain't it grand.
there were no institutions kate- just individual owners of shops and markets and restaurants- and i really did not touch money for well over a year-
what is the point of trying to tear it apart?
it was a great time and i have my own memories and there plenty more stories where that came from-that was just one instance in response to a particular point-
i like the way i write kate- i dont sit and contrive my responses- theyre a true expression of my forthright being- so itsl likely that i will continue in my own fashion-
thanks for your advice and concern
ansd sorry i thought that was you it wasnt so sorry
Hi Greg,
My intent was only to point out your proof would not meet the rigid requirements for a nonbeliever; And that I have a rational basis for my point of view too.
Obviously you have a rational basis for your point of view too. Meaning, as long as your views do not hurt others -- it is really none of my business; and I will respect it.
Re: the Loophole quote by WC Fields. I do not think there are any loopholes for anyone escaping death.
I was brought up as a fundamentalist Protestant and switched to atheism in my early twenties only after extensive readings on the topic of religion, history and philosophy convinced me it was all built on a foundation of superstition and a fear of dying.
I made the choice to accept the truth (as best as I can discern it) wherever it took me. Rationally everything looks like everyone stays in the grave. I could give you whole posts on this. I see no evidence for the other position -- only hope; only faith (which means the same thing as hope).
I believe my atheism has made me a more compassionate person than I was before in caring about the poor and misfortunate. How many Christians have shown a concern to how we have destroyed the homes and lives of innocent Iraqis, the suffering in Dafur, etc, etc. I think I care more now because I realize this is the only life they will ever have... and it is a miserable one.
Perhaps one has to know a little philosophy to cope with nonbelief in God. These are some of the verses that have helped me.
The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus taught, that "Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not."
Mark Twain's version was: "I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit."
In his ILLUSION OF IMMORTALITY, Lamont suggested that by freeing ourselves from our illusion of immortality, we are revitalized to living life to its fullest depth:
"The truth about death frees us from both debasing fear and shallow optimism. It frees us from self-flattery and self-deception. To say that we cannot endure this truth is to abdicate to the weaker elements in human nature. Not only can we endure it, but we can rise above it to far nobler thoughts and acts than those centering around everlasting self-perpetuation...
"...the knowledge that immortality is an illusion frees us from any sort of preoccupation with the subject of death. It makes death, in a sense, unimportant. It liberates all our energy and time for the realization and extension of the happy potentialities of this good earth. It engenders a hearty and grateful acceptance of the rich experiences attainable in human living amid an abundant Nature. It is knowledge that brings strength and depth and maturity, making it possible a philosophy of life that is simple, understandable, and inspiring..."
Peace to you. Just please try not to elect leaders (like Bush) that make the world a worse place for ours and future generations -
oops sorry that was my post to kate
whats the use of an apology if theres no name attached, eh? i glad i peeked back in here on the way to foodnetwork
yours for rhyme time and reason
archy
An atheist is someone who has a deep and abiding faith that there is no god (or gods, almighty or otherwise) on high pulling strings, dictating fate or otherwise meddling in earthly affairs.
An agnostic is someone who can be targetted by religious groups into believing nonsense such as resurrection from the dead, eternal riches or that it is your purpose in life to suffer for the benefit of society.
A true atheist believes that heaven is (or at the very least should be) on earth and that everyone should have the opportunity to appreciate heaven.
The Seven Torah Commandments
============================
1) Do not torture.
2) Do not murder.
3) Do not enslave.
4) Swear only an oath of office.
5) Take a day of rest to worship
none other than heaven.
6) Be truthful.
7) Be succesful.
Our ancestors, you were on earth
Hallowed be your names
May your wisdom thrive
And guidance drive
So that heaven may journey with us
Give us all our daily nourishments
And help others to judge our failings fairly
As we fairly judge those that fail us
Elect wisdom within our republic
And promote peace on earth
Forever and ever.
Happy New Year everyone.
regards
Terence David Carroll,
email: tcarroll@acm.org and rabbi_general@hotmail.com
Copyright (c) 2006 Terence David Carroll
An atheist is someone who has a deep and abiding faith that there is no god (or gods, almighty or otherwise) on high pulling strings, dictating fate or otherwise meddling in earthly affairs.
An agnostic is someone who can be targetted by religious groups into believing nonsense such as resurrection from the dead, eternal riches or that it is your purpose in life to suffer for the benefit of society.
A true atheist believes that heaven is (or at the very least should be) on earth and that everyone should have the opportunity to appreciate heaven.
The Seven Torah Commandments
============================
1) Do not torture.
2) Do not murder.
3) Do not enslave.
4) Swear only an oath of office.
5) Take a day of rest to worship
none other than heaven.
6) Be truthful.
7) Be succesful.
Our ancestors, you were on earth
Hallowed be your names
May your wisdom thrive
And guidance drive
So that heaven may journey with us
Give us all our daily nourishments
And help others to judge our failings fairly
As we fairly judge those that fail us
Elect wisdom within our republic
And promote peace on earth
Forever and ever.
Happy New Year everyone.
regards
Terence David Carroll,
email: tcarroll@acm.org and rabbi_general@hotmail.com
Copyright (c) 2006 Terence David Carroll
Warp 10. Appreciated the response. If you followed my posts, you'll likely note that I did not vote for, nor support our current president. Many believers haven't supported the last 15 years of republican rule. Again, it is a big brush to paint all believers one way or the other. As for coping with nonbelief, I do just fine with it. It is for me about the freedom to chose. Believe or don't. That is what freedom is about. As for WC Fields, as I understood the story, the loop hole he was looking for related to heaven and hell -- or so I understood it. Good new year. Be careful all. I'm going out to eat. Check back later.
Greg, "as I understood the story". Yes, but you come at it from a perspective of a believer. The prejudice of such a quote that would commonly occur from the perspective of a believer is to think that that WC Fields was 'finally coming to his senses', so to speak. The believer looks for affirmation. Its another take on the old 'no atheists in foxholes' propaganda.
Try to consider it from an alternate perspectives. I'll offer you 2.
1) That of the atheist: when he is 'looking for loopholes' does he mean that he's looking for contradictions? Perhaps he was seeking comfort on his deathbed by re-affirming what he considered as ridiculous? After all, I understand he had also said in respect to the bible "I admit I scanned it once, searching for some movie plots, but found only a pack of wild lies."
2) That of irreverence: WC Fields was a funny man. He's on his deathbed reading something which he has ridiculed on various occasions throughout his life. Someone challeges him to explain why he is reading it (which raises the question, why does he need to?). He quips "I'm looking for loopholes". I don't know about you, but I think thats damn funny.
I think it likely irreverence was his intent. Perhaps in reading it he was making an attempt to self-medicate by having a bit of a laugh. It seems to fit the style of his life. It shows the desperation of theists when they wave around such a small and insignificant statement as if it were some significant validation for their belief ... but then, thats only my perspective as an non-believer.
Warp10, just one quick comment. We have to be open to the possibility that some atheists might have actually voted for Bush/Republicans for whatever reasons. I wonder if, by painting republican voters as being theists, we do so to distance ourselves from, to absolve ourselves of, the responsibility for the 'evil(s)' that Bush's presidency has brought us.
Greg, one quick comment.
I just wanted to say, from your posts I actually like you. You have come across as a sincere person. If there is one thing that I would not like you to take away from this discussion its the impression that all atheists want to do is disagree. I realise that whenever you've posted your sincere thoughts you've had atheists challenge your thought processes at pretty much every turn. We do this not because we disrespect you as a person, but because we feel the reasoning you have accepted is flawed. As Sam Harris put it - "useful delusions are not the same thing as true beliefs." Just because atheists might disagree with what you say, does not mean they disagree you as a person.
Happy New Year to you and yours.
> A true atheist believes that heaven is (or at the very least should be) on earth and that everyone
> should have the opportunity to appreciate heaven.
Then even though I believe in God, I'm also an atheist by these terms since I do believe heaven should be and will be on earth and everyone should and will have that opportunity.
Kate. Yes, as with all people, I come at everything from the perspecitve I've gained in my life. I'd like to think that in regards to the WC Fields comment, it was a joke on his part. I think it is funny. But the context of the joke suggests he was looking for a way into heaven. Even if he joking, thats the context. Nonetheless, I didn't posit the comment as support for my faith, but to address my comment that atheists seem so certain -- about something that being certain about is only a guess. I believe strongly in an afterlife, where God exists. You do not. Neither can prove which is right. I believe in Christ, but admit to doubt at times in life. Atheists on this post, at least, express a degree of absolute certainty that is hard to come by for anything in life, much less the greatest mytery -- what happens when we die. You cannot say with absolute certainty there is no God, and that Jesus wasn't His son. You may not think so, but you cannot be absolutely, 100% certain. Yet, at every turn, as you put it, I hear absolutism, where it simply cannot be. Admit it -- you cannot say with absolute certainty that there is no God. You may say that you don't believe, that I can't prove it, and that you dispute my thoughts. OK. But you can't be absolutely certain. That is why the WC Fields quote was posited. Maybe he was just joking, and maybe there are no atheists in fox holes. Don't know. Happy new year to all. I hope life treats you well.
God bless you and yours Greg and happy healthy spiritually wealthy new year to you
HAPPY NEW YEAR PEOPLES IM GOING TO GO BANG ON SOME POTS AND MAKE SOME NOISE
PEACE
Happy New Year 2007 to all from beautiful Sydney, Australia! May the New Year be filled with contentment, deep peace, great joy, good health, abundant life and a sense of greater meaning and purpose!
My thanks to all at The Washington Post and special thanks to Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham for hosting the “On Faith” forum, putting together a mind-boggling 88- member Who-is-Who panel and making it possible not only for their opinions on pressing issues concerning faith to be read by people like me, but also giving everyone a chance to participate in a lively discussion among readers. How urgently we need to dispel hatred and violence, based on ignorance, among people of all faiths and none. Thank you for putting the reputation of Washington Post “at stake” for a wonderful cause, since a couple of readers commented that they feared The Post was becoming a religious newspaper.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
----------------------------------
Happy New Year to all. May 2007 bring us ever closer to Truth, to Joy, to Peace.
SimpleWords wrote:
"My point is that the scripture is a good starting point for athiests. Yet, there is a major issue that I have with athiests. They are very abstract and have very narrow focus that tend to sway them into more philisophical debate rather than scientific one. Search for the truth requires observational skills and the ability to transform subtle ideas into managable pieces of information. Did you ever wonder why most athiests come around as arrogant and stubborn? That's not because they have these characteristics, but their narrow minded approach makes it look so. Sorry if I offended anyone."
I don't think you could offend anyone, you are very polite.
Many of us have been religious and we have read a lot of scripture. We just don't beleive that scripture is anything other than the musings of people who knew a lot less about the world than we do now.
I agree that the search for truth requires observational skills. Science is all about observation. That is why we don't believe that scripture corresponds to reality. When we apply our observational skills and compare scripture to the real world, we find that scripture contradicts itself and it contradicts reality. Therefore we can't accept scripture as truth.
I think you have it the wrong way around. I've found that the last thing Christians want is a scientific debate. Religion has always been proved wrong when it has tried to take on science. Since creationism has been thoroughly discredited as not corresponding to observable reality, they are now trying to disguise it as "intelligent design", and they lie and distort science to suit their ends.
In my experience, Christians do not want to listen to anything or observe anything that contradicts scripture. The last thing they want to do is actually observe the real world.
I'm happy to consider scripture, but you must convince me that it is a reliable source of information. It seems that the more I learn about it, everything seems to indicate the opposite.
to those who they donot belive in god
see if you can get yourself another earth to live in,another sky to cover your head,the air that you breath around the clock,see if you can afford another supplier,stop eating and drinking.if death come to you see if you can stop it.hi ho the holy, life is most jolly
( only when you praise the holy ).
Mo.
critics often say about a really good CD that "it is self-recommending"
your post is "self-annihilating"
the scary thing is that it is people like you who are apt to annihilate the world.
you are at least exhibit A for how religious extremism is a form of insanity.
Mo, no MO, please.
Mo:
"see if you can get yourself another earth to live in,another sky to cover your head"
No, I can't, can you?
I didn't think so. So we'd better start looking after this one instead of pretending that God will fix things.
i submit for your approval (its twilight zone marathon tonight) that the science of consciousness simply hasnt been discovered yet- i worked with a man for awhile who was one of 5 people on the planet at honeywell bull- he was a specialist in artificial intelligence and is working on a program to teach computers how to dream- (1987) perhaps some day science will have mastered the material and can move on to the last frontier- the mind
humbly
Mr. Meachem
your question already implies that atheism is a passing "vogue" like a new skirt length, while religion is "the real thing", trying to put anybody who disagrees into an awkward defense position to start with. May I call this a dirty trick?
Looking at this fruitless discussion, may I offer an observation:
The feeling of being in the possession of „Eternal Truth“ is like a drug: You are unable even to imagine giving it up or even reducing the dosis.
That is fine for you since it guarantees a maximum degree of security and happiness. People use drugs always to achieve some sort of happiness.
This warm and cozy feeling, together with its more or less intellectual rationalization (including every sort of pertaining hypocrisy), is located in the network of the neurons in your brain. They are wired in a certain pattern depending on your biography, which in turn depends on your social experience (birth, country, language, upbringing, school, intellectual tools, friends, fights, successes, failures etc..) Everybody has his/her unique pattern, but many, of course, are similar.
It is extremely difficult for whatever we have as free will to modify the wiring of those neurons in the brain without a considerable effort to give up the drug of „Eternal Truth“ in favour of a creative amount of doubt. To process new, even bewildering information about life and nature in a reasoned, objective, provable way (provable, of course, means provable by others!) might include the risk of taking away some of your established cozy certainty.
In communications research people talk of open and closed systems. Atheists tend to be curious, ready to expand, to learn (open system), believers are certain (closed system, at least so they pretend!). Choose one. But please, don’t force your brand of drug on others!
And, Victoria, your friends are not the first ones to occupy their minds with the research of the mind!
Gerry
actually gerry i modified it in another post to the seen and unseen- im sure that others must be-thats why i dated it-
gerry- i have had the same criticism of religious practices for some time- ive posted at lenghth about different practices and how they all seem to be reduced to "feeling good" i called it pursuing sensory experiences- yogis- emotional pentacostals-
buddhists- im not trying to attack just give examples theyre all welcome to their pursuits but it has never satisfied me or been an end for me-
i am sincerely trying to refine my soul and if i ever seem apologetic or lowkey about it i dont like to speak in absolutes becuase i think it is exclusionary language- well time for bbc and to pray
peace
I want to apologize for lumping all Christians together with the "intelligent design" crowd in my last post. I realize that many Christians do not support ID.
Hi Kate and Greg--
Actually, I am very aware that about 1/3 of atheists tend to vote Republican and about 1/3 of Christians who identify themselves as (strongly) religious -- vote Democrat.
But “I” did not make up the association of George W Bush as a “good Christian” . Bush held himself out as a super Christian (even saying the Bible was his only favorite book.) I personally know a number of people who voted for Bush because he had sold them how “sincere” and “good” a Christian he was. Many of them heard this message in their churches.
Kerry was demonized for being a “bad” Christian during the last presidential campaign. It was so hypocritical when Republicans put out fliers in West Virginia and other states showing a cover of a Bible with a slash through it – to dramatize that Democrats wanted to destroy Christianity.
Now there were a small handful of preachers who spoke out against these right wing ploys (which I saw as bordering on fascism). But most mainstream churches seemed content to go along. It was crass hypocrisy for me, considering Bush was slashing funds for the poor, while creating huge deficits by giving the very wealthy huge tax breaks.
So while I agree there are some GREAT Christians – my question is why were so many of them silent while this demonization campaign was going on? Can they now really say they were not allied with Bush after all?
I have many religious friends, and (it seems obvious to me) religion by itself is not the problem. The problem is today’s right wing POLITICAL alliance with RELIGION (which many-- including myself-- would argue espouse the **OPPOSITE** of what Jesus’ teachings were in the New Testament – e.g. glorifying greed and wars; and employing hate scapegoats such as gays, evolution, secular humanists, abortion, and most recently, liberals--interesting, because I would argue Jesus was a liberal.)
And I really don’t care what a person believes in, if s/he doesn’t hurt anyone; But harming others includes empowering a person (like Bush) who does the evil.
And what do I mean by evil? Lying about unnecessary wars to enrich large US oil and construction industries, filling federal agencies with lobbyists from industries who have slashed environmental laws to protect the public, showering massive tax cuts for the very rich while creating large deficits in the Treasury for the next generation; Doing nothing about our real energy crisis and papering this over by gagging scientists on the dangers of global warming; having a foreign policy that embraces torture and kangaroo courts and has made the US an embarrassment for moral leadership in the world. Today more people in the world list Bush as a greater threat to the world than Bin Laden.
So is Bush a good Christian? By the silence from most Churches, many would never doubt it.
Good morning Warp 10. As you noted, Bush labeled himself a Christian. Actions speak louder than words. As for churches, I think alot of them spoke this last election, don't you. Remember, churches are people, not some monolithic building where one person answers all for everybody. The silence you heard on election day was almost deafening, wouldn't you say. Hope everyone survived last night --
Greg,
The simplest answer to you is to firstly ask you to reach agreement with every other theist on the planet on what 'god' actually means before asking me whether or not I can say with 100% certainty whether it exists. Plainly and simply I have no intention to debate the point with every variable which occurs today or has ever occurred in history. Reach agreeance on what constitutes the characteristics of 'god' and then you'll have the right to ask that question.
Secondly, I repeat back your words/phrasing with some slight adjustment:
"{Many} christians express a degree of absolute certainty that is hard to come by for anything in life .... You cannot say with absolute certainty there is a God, or even if 'god' is accepted as truth, that Jesus was 'his' son. You may 'believe' so, but you cannot be absolutely, 100% certain."
Should I ask that you stop considering yourself christian until you can say that you are such with 100% certainty? Would you be a fool if you did say such a thing? Does this lack of absolute certainty in the existance of 'god(s)' mean that no one person is truly a theist? Or does this mean any 'true' theist - someone with 100% certainty - must therefore be a fool?
Thirdly, I'm going to have the gall to presume you might be interested on an outline of how I came to my current atheist stance. Note this is just my story, and you cannot expect any two atheists to come to atheism through the same path.
I feel I do understand the sense of awe and wonder that theists perceive as their god(s). Been there, done that. When I was a child I lived in a country area for a good length of time. I camped under the stars on occasions and, gazing up at them, was overwhelmed with wonder at the enormity of the universe and my insignificant place within it. When I was able to get time by myself I spent hours contemplating things like a small rock, a tree, an insect, a slight afternoon breeze ... and was dumbstruck by their beauty and intricacy. If I today allowed any theistic title to be tagged on to me it would have nothing to do with a notion of 'Jesus is the son of god' but would be one which worships the beauty that we see in our environment. The 'divinity' of our land, of our planet itself. It amazes me that so many indigenous cultures had it so right in respect of their connection to the land and yet to this day 'civilised' people still think sending out their faithful to convert indigenous groups to the 'one true god' is somehow an honorable thing to do. A 'calling' even. It amazes me that we have a world around us which is truly heaven, or can be, yet we allow it to fall to pieces as we sit around endlessly debating topics which are astounding in their arrogance. Like whether 'god' would want gays to be able to raise children. Thinking of this continuing travesty regularly brings me to tears.
I've mentioned in a previous post that I went through a period where I was trying to find a reason to believe. After having read through the bible, and as a result having rejected christianity, for a while I had faith that 'god' could be found in that sense of awe and wonder you get when contemplating our land, our universe, our reality. Then one day I had a bit of a personal epiphany when I realised when I referred to 'god', what I was really referring to was my lack of knowledge. 'God' for me was simply those awe inspiring things I knew I would never be able to fully comprehend, so to label them, to define it in a way my insignificant brain could handle, I named them 'god'. From that moment of epiphany until this day being an atheist for me is simply a way of being truthful to my self. Speaking truth to the power of my ignorance.
Just as we use 'cold' in place of 'absence of heat', we use 'god' in place of 'absence of knowledge'. It's not something that really exists, its just a word we use to label a concept. The concept of the uncomprehensible, the unknowable.
As I've stated before, I have no intention of attempting to convert theists. I consider their position to be misguided, but I also consider it inevitable there will always be at least some who will hold it. Just because I consider them to be misguided on the issue of 'god' doesn't mean I refuse the possibility of their having wisdom on other issues. Speaking to all those theists reading this, can the same be said for you? Even though you might consider my position as an atheist to be misguided, can you still have at least some respect for my person, that we can still have a dialogue on issues without our obvious philosophical differences having to be brought up?
I think I said it best in my first post, so I'm just going to repost a portion of it, and I'll leave my posting in this forum at that.
"On the question of whether there can be productive conversations and, if so, regarding what topics ... I would think the answer is perfectly obvious: yes, on anything that includes facts, reason, logical arguments and mutual respect of the self, but doesn't include or require acknowledgement of a supreme being(s)."
...
"I think my viewpoint is similar to that of Robin, an earlier poster. "For the most part the christians quote the bible and the atheists say 'prove it'. And then it just gets worse with name calling." The answer, therefore, is to leave 'god(s)' out of it."
Peace all.
Ah Kate, but you never answered the question. You turn it around, try to qualify it, and generally wrote an informative piece on your belief system. You know well when I say God what I meean, since I have made it clear that I am Christian. So lets make it simple -- are you 100% absolutely certain that there is no supreme being who created all, using His power alone. I posit the question because, as I said, since there is no proof either way, I'm just curious. No doubts whatsoever? None? I think most Christians would agree to doubt at some time in their lives -- but atheists don't seem willing -- again, just curious.
Greg,
i'm exactly as certain that your god is a myth as you are that thor is a myth. no one owes you any 'proofs' or any other nonsense until you 'disprove' the existence of the thousands of gods that aren't yours. i just don't believe (s)he/they/it exist(s). simple, really.
Hi Greg,
I appreciate the civility of your discussions. You addressed this to Kate, but I hope you do not mind if I answer this myself:
"So lets make it simple -- are you 100% absolutely certain that there is no supreme being who created all, using His power alone."
I am 100% convinced that the Judaic-Christian bible is based on superstition -- on the same level as the Olympic and Norse myths.
But, I am NOT 100% convinced that there might be a mysterious "Force" in the universe that one could describe as divine. (i.e. Deism)
I desire to ally myself with goodness and truth. If there is a force behind it, I wish to be part of it. If not, and I am alone, so be it.
I am a very spiritual person and feel great beauty for nature and compassion for others (probably MORE than before I was religious -- but again about the same).
So far I have seen ZERO evidence for any of the religions of the earth having any special connection with a supernatural divine power. Buddhism would probably be the closest -- if one judges religions according to the effect on adherents and their (good) works.
Hi Greg,
I have read that conservative Christians such as the Evangelicals still voted in HUGE majorities for Bush. It was the Independents and more moderates (who generally rate as "less" religious) that pulled away more from the Republicans.
And no – I did not see this as a landslide. Many of the biggest elections were extremely close - -and could easily have gone the other way.
I think a lot of the pushback from Atheists have been from the effects of the far right wing in politics. It is everywhere: They are even involved in Bush’s torture strategy—as I read Evangelist religious leaders put pressure on McCain to “cave” to Bush’s torture bills. What did they think they’d gain by this—that they could also torture Muslims to being Christian too – as Ann Coulter has alluded to? It's all just sickening.
In summary: if Christian leaders in this country truly want more converts (or at least more respect), it would be a better strategy to separate religion from politics – and at least pretend religion cares about the sick and less fortunate.—instead of the agenda of the corrupt and megawealthy.
Cheers.
Appreciate the responses. Ah, certainty -- its a great thing -- just not so sure about it.
: I appreciate the answer. Warp 10, always a thoughtful answer -- like many of faith, we all are concerned about those who twist faith and God for their purposes -- not the way its supposed to be -- yet it is unfortunately the way it is. As for my personal experience in this part of the world, I hear great regret from many evangelicals for supporting W. Some stand strong, but many regret their choice after seeing the consequences. They also seem to me more suspicious of claims of faith by individuals as an avenue to office -- once bitten ...
Everyone have a great day.
If we take GOD- THE CREATIVE ENERGY- out of all the religions and accept it as a fact rather than a belief then even the athiests would agree with that.
to those who they donot belive in the creator lord.
here is much simpler challenge ,see if you can creat a mosquito.please no dracula .
It might be argued that atheism is in the spotlight right now due to a couple of recent best sellers advocating rationalism by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and others. But this seems to put the cart before the horse. These books are best sellers precisely because people are curious about atheism. So why is that?
I think several factors happen to be converging. The first is 9/11. It was a wake up call to the sort-of-religious of the potential results of dogmatic religion. The religious overtones of the Bush administration's response sends the same wake up call.
The second major factor is the anonymity of the internet. For the first time in history atheists can speak their positions in brutal honesty without fear of reprisal.
The third is also related to the internet, in that for the first time in history, people can communicate freely with others around the world that have different perspectives on metaphysics. Upon realizing that there are thousands of religions worldwide devoted to various and assundry gods and metaphysical perspectives, it tends to lead to questioning one's own faith.
Fourth, the publishing of translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls and similar other archaeological finds has revealed for the first time in thousands of years that early Christianity comprised widely diverse, hostile, and inconsistent sects. For many, this directly undermines the monolithic church history they had been taught.
Finally, efforts by historians to uncover details about the historical Jesus have brought to the forfront the appaling lack of evidence of his very existence. Several authors have taken advantage of this to argue that Jesus never existed at all, but is instead purely mythical.
Can there be productive discussion between believers and atheists? I think there can be on some topics. It's in the best interest of both to keep religion out of politics, so there's certainly room for common ground there.
"to those who they donot belive in god
see if you can get yourself another earth to live in,another sky to cover your head,the air that you breath around the clock,see if you can afford another supplier,stop eating and drinking.if death come to you see if you can stop it.hi ho the holy, life is most jolly"
_______________________________
That's just plain silly. The universe can come about without supernatural intervention, and being an atheist is in no way tantamount to imagining oneself to be a god.
If you're trying to say that atheists are arrogant, I would suggest that it is the theists who are arrogant. Out of all the gods written about in holy books, how do you know you chose the right one? Or did you even make a choice? Are you a Christian because you grew up in a Christian family or a community with a lot of Christian influence?
Imagine for a moment you happened to be born into a community of wrong-headed theists, who are all destined to go to hell, or be reincarnated as cockroaches for their worship of false gods. What would be your excuse when you get to the afterlife and are informed that you should have been worshipping Zeus all this time?
The truth is, faith is a matter of chance -- where you happened to be born. If fundamentalist Christianity could really stand up to the marketplace of ideas it wouldn't be so nervous about a neutral government.
Hi Greg
<< As for my personal experience in this part of the world, I hear great regret from many evangelicals for supporting W. Some stand strong, but many regret their choice after seeing the consequences.<<
I have seen only a trickle of this.
But if you are part of that trickle -- then I admire and respect your role in this!
Now: What are we going to do about the **HellHOLE** we are creating for our children and grandchildren with the threat of global warming?
Can you guys employ at least a "little science" by supporting corrective action now... please???
Arnold in California supports this -- and he is Republican. This needs to be bipartison and cross all religious points of view.
Best wishes to you!
Hi Greg
<< As for my personal experience in this part of the world, I hear great regret from many evangelicals for supporting W. Some stand strong, but many regret their choice after seeing the consequences.<<
I have seen only a trickle of this.
But if you are part of that trickle -- then I admire and respect your role in this!
Now: What are we going to do about the **HellHOLE** we are creating for our children and grandchildren with the threat of global warming?
Can you guys employ at least a "little science" by supporting corrective action now... please???
Arnold in California supports this -- and he is Republican. This needs to be bipartison and cross all religious points of view.
Best wishes to you!
I’ve been a silent observer on this site for several days now and feel I have come to know quite a few of you personally, for what is more personal than one’s beliefs? I respect and appreciate the open and candid posts that have been shared and I feel compelled to share as well. I’ve worked many hours off-line on this post and it has become somewhat long. My apologies in advance to posters this may annoy.
The original topic, somewhat lost in the fray, was a two part question asking whether believers and atheists can have a productive conversation and, if so, over what kinds of issues?
Believers and atheists have been having a productive conversation right here for days; however, IMHO, the discussion is limited due to the lack of clarity in the question asked. One of the reasons I’ve waited until now to post is because I don’t know which camp I’m in. I have my beliefs, although I consider them spiritual as opposed to religious. But my beliefs are not shared by any posters thus far. I have a well-formed god-theory that I am completely comfortable with which provides me a flexible framework within which I may openly contemplate, yet it does not conform to the ‘popular’ definition of God.
The posts clearly demonstrate an age-old problem that continues to keep believers and non-believers from having candid conversations – semantics. We’re using the same words but define them with our personal perspectives. If you ask me if I believe in God, my answer would be yes. But if you asked me if I believed in your specific God, my answer would most probably be no. So, which am I, believer or atheist?
For me, the answer is simple – I’m a believer, of course. I have a very different concept of God than most, but a conceptual shift does not negate or invalidate my belief. However, it makes it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion on spirituality/religion because my approach is from that of a believer, but am always taken to be a non-believer by other believers with beliefs unlike my own – and vice versa. Always at this point, communication breaks down because we have reached a paradoxical impasse, of sorts.
Much time has been spent debating whether atheism is a religion. My two cents - I believe not. Atheism is the absence of religion/god-theory, just as cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light. Further, atheists do not act as a religion. They typically do not congregate to discuss their non-belief and many choose very carefully with whom they have these discussions for fear of social stigma and reprisal. I haven’t seen any Atheist churches in my travels and never has an Atheist came to my door to deliver and discuss their non-belief literature. Now, I have a question: Why does it matter if atheism is or is not a religion? Does one answer carry more weight than the other?
If Atheists and Agnostics were to rally their followers, organize and proliferate prominently within our communities, I suspect the reaction of most ‘Believers’ within the community would be swift and unkind. This Believer, however, would not mind at all if the ‘First Atheists Commune for Non-Believers’ or the ‘Agnostic Church of Divine Possibilities’ popped up on my block. I’d attend at least once just because I’d be interested to learn their choice of topics and forum (open, panel, sermon) used for discussion. My least favorite of these is the sermon, which allows for only one point of view. I’ve never attended any religious services that follow a sermon with a congregational Q&A session. My gut feeling it that this is by design. I learned very early in my spiritual quest that many religions feel that questioning implies doubt, and doubt implies a lack of faith, and lack of faith will leave you burning in hell for all eternity. This runs anathema to my view that questioning removes doubt, where refusing to answer casts doubt.
My beliefs do not fear questioning, they require it. It is through continuous contemplation of the questions I pose through the filter of my beliefs that I am able to further define, or know, my God. My questioning is not in search of absolute answers. I prefer the subtle nuance within shades of gray as opposed to the stark finality of black and white. It is the exploration of the question that keeps me grounded and inspired; hence, the quest is in the questioning. When I have no more questions, I have no more quest. No worries. I’m pretty sure that when I transition from this realm, their will be an unasked question left on my lips. Many, I hope.
My God is neutral. It is neither good nor evil, as I believe that these are attributes that we apply after the fact based on circumstance and intent. We are capable of both good and evil although I believe we are born neutral and our disposition for one or the other is defined by our unconditional trust of familial, social and cultural influences during our formative early years.
The same could be said of our choice of religion (or lack of). Who among you were given a choice of religions by your parents that included religions other than those of your parents? I suspect there aren’t many and I’m certainly not one of them. Generally, we inherit the religion of our parents and by the time we acquire and hone our critical thinking skills, our psyches are thoroughly entrenched with their brand of theology. This is a lonely and dangerous precipice at which to stand. It is where I asked my first question which is still the hardest I’ve uttered but simplest to answer: Have I found my truth?
My answer came easily but at a very high cost. I might as well have murdered my mother. Although she knew I no longer subscribed to her religion, she still insisted that I was just a lost member of the flock in need of being shepherded back into the fold. It was not that I had turned my back on faith, but that Satan had succeeded in casting doubt on my faith, as was his duty. She begged that I fight off Satan’s ever-tightening grasp, even suggesting that it would be selfish for me to ruin her heavenly afterlife by knowing that I was burning in hell. Apparently, Mother’s heaven allows guilt. Lovely. We both firmly stood our ground on this issue, but found other avenues in which to grow our relationship until she met her end.
My beliefs do not incorporate reward or punishment, so there is no need for the concept of heaven or hell. My God does not kill nor does my God prevent killing. My God does not resemble me as my God requires no form.
My God is not interested in whether I believe in it or not. I sought my God, it did not seek me.
My God does not offer salvation or eternal life and I anticipate neither. All my God offers is unconditional acceptance within a spiritual framework. Service to my God requires only that I diligently observe, interact and contemplate within my present realm to the fullest of my ability.
I arrive at my beliefs by using a very simple process as my yardstick. I didn’t invent this process, so you might recognize it or even use it yourself. You begin at a point on the left called ‘Possibility’ and end at a point on the right called ‘Probability’. The space between these two points is a sliding scale called ‘Certainty’. The closer the answer lies to the right end of the scale near ‘Probability, the higher the level of certainty in your answer. I must mention that the scale from left to right is at a significant incline. Your answer requires reason behind it to push it up the scale and increase its certainty. No arbitrary answers are allowed. I also incorporate the concept of imperfect knowledge so that the answer to any question cannot be considered an ‘impossibility’ or a ‘certainty’. As I stated before, I do not look for absolutes in my answers as they imply perfect knowledge, something I do not profess to have. It is within this construct that I ask questions that continually build upon my god-theory.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of this construct, I’ll use it to arrive at an answer I find suitable to a question posed oh-so often on this thread: Do I believe in the existence of the infamous pink unicorn?
In asking the question, I quickly realize that to find an honest answer (what would be the point in being dishonest?) I must ask myself not one, but three, questions: Do I believe pink unicorns ever existed? Do they exist now? Will pink unicorns ever exist?
Do I believe pink unicorns have ever existed? My breadth of knowledge and experience does not include a species called ‘unicorn’, so I have no empirical evidence to give reason to believe there has existed such a species. My answer is therefore found at the far left of the scale under ‘Possibility’.
Do I believe pink unicorns currently exist? Same answer as above.
Do I believe pink unicorns will ever exist? Ah, here’s where it gets interesting. Using the tool of deductive reasoning, I find my answer lies near center, around ‘Significant Possibility’. I arrive at my answer by asking a different, but equivalent question. Instead of asking me, a human, if pink unicorns will ever exist, I consider a similar question hypothetically posed to another species 100 million years ago – a dinosaur, any dinosaur: Do you believe humans will ever exist? The dinosaur would have no experience to base a reason for believing that we could come to exist, yet we do.
The gist of this exercise is to show the slippery slope of absolutes. You could say that 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth and I would not whole-heartedly disagree with you. But if I ask you for the numerical equivalent of pi, you would be hard put to come up with such a quick, definitive, absolute answer. For me, I can easily and honestly answer that both 2+2 = 4 and the numerical equivalent of pi is roughly 3.14 at a very high rate of probability. Personally, I resist the use of absolutes and am wary of anyone that incorporates them into their belief system.
For me, this system works flawlessly. It is akin to how I envision DeCartes arrived at his ground-breaking answer to his question of whether he truly existed. He became aware of the conscious observer, where thought resides. Others call it the soul, or self, or spirit, or essence. I call it the perspective conscience. My particular perspective conscience is unique to me and it is the most reliable source I have because it is based on my own knowledge and experience.
I don’t spend time imagining things I’ve never seen or experienced to determine whether or not I believe in them, such as pink unicorns, but I understand why the question was posed. But the question of God not does rest within the same realm as the question of pink unicorns, at least not for me. However, I can see how some it might for some of you.
To this end, I will close with a final explanation of how I arrived at my belief in a particular god-theory.
I believe my basis of being is my conscience. It is a singular, imperfect perspective that constitutes the sum total of my knowledge and experience at any given time. I call this spiritual self ‘gaian sapien’ or ‘wise earthling’. My God is the sum total of all conscious perspectives, not just mine – and not just human. I openly include the perspective of all conscious beings – canine, feline, etc., - in my god-theory, even those that I do not know currently exist, have existed or will exist. My God incorporates the collective conscience of all, even gay humans. I do not consider my God to be the Creator, but rather my God is the Observer.
I call my God ‘Omni Sapien’ or ‘All Wise’. It is the holder of perfect knowledge based on the ever-changing properties of the collective conscience. I believe Omni Sapien resides within its own dimension which houses the collective conscience. This is not a physical dimension like length, width or breadth or a linear dimension such as time. It is not necessary for me to know the properties or location of my God’s dimension for me to believe in it’s existence, just as Christians do not need to know the properties or location of heaven or hell to include them in their belief. I hope that we can all agree that there are at least four dimensions as mentioned above. M Theory (or Membrane Theory) poses the possibility of as many as 11 dimensions and I believe with a fairly high rate of probability that Omni Sapien occupies one of these dimensions.
Although these beliefs and my reasons for them satisfy me, I do not anticipate that they will (or should) satisfy others. However, your disbelief does not invalidate my belief and vice versa. But if we must begin by agreeing to disagree, it leaves us little room for productive discussion on issues such as ethics and morality because I approach those subjects much differently than believers of more popular religions. Our beliefs are an inherent bias and a significant roadblock to productive conversation with others that do not share our bias, because they form a basis of distrust.
I have no solutions, but am more than willing to explore the questions.
Peace!
{sigh} I seem to have the habit of saying "this will be my last post" and then changing my mind. I'm fearful that in repeatedly posting I might in some way be doing so as I'm a slave to my ego. It is difficult to not respond when people post after me questioning what I have already stated as there's an assumption that since I don't answer then they must be correct. I call it the 'nyah nyah na nyah nyaaa' 'truthiness' of they who speak last, as it give no consideration to the quality or the content of the words spoken, just to the fact that they made the last post. This assumption is a temptation which is very difficult for me to overcome. So *this* will be my last post, otherwise I will swear off chocolate completely for the 2007 calendar year. I have faith that in a fight between posting vs chocolate, chocolate will overcome.
Ah Greg, you don't really want to hear the answer. For I gave you my answer, in a long-winded version, just not in the short yes/no format which you seek. It seems for you this whole conversation comes down to posing a 'false dilemma'. "Can you say my god doesn't exist with 100% certainty - yes or no?".
I stated: "After having read through the bible, and as a result having rejected christianity" ...and... "we use 'god' in place of 'absence of knowledge'. It's not something that really exists, its just a word we use to label a concept. The concept of the uncomprehensible, the unknowable."
I don't know how to put it more plainly and politely than that. I deliberately couched it that way as I thought it might be a way of consideration which theists might be able to comprehend. I don't particularly care whether they accept or reject it, just that they comprehend.
This false dilemma of "yes or no" is akin to that fool Bill O'Reilly asking poor David Letterman "do you want us to win the war in Iraq - yes or no?". It is a stupid question for which only the stupid would think giving a yes/no answer is sufficient. Questions which should be asked (and I'll skip the ones that probably should have been answered *before* we went to war) are ones like:
What are the outcomes (and I mean this holistically, not just in the political sense of what the politicians can, at this time, still salvage in order to paint the picture of a 'mission accomplished') that we desire from our relationship with Iraq? With the Middle East region?
Which of these outcomes are achievable within the context of the current war, which ones are likely to be damaged by it and which ones are neither achievable nor damaged?
On measuring the balance of outcomes between those that are achievable and those that are damaged but salvagable, to what do we give greater priority? Which outcomes do we give greater value?
Wanting us to 'win' the war just because 'it's our team' is blindly nationalistic and 100% naive.
But I've digressed away from the topic at hand.
I'll ask and answer the question as you really meant to ask it: Do I have 100% certainty that the judeo-christian god is not real? Yes. The possibility of the existence of the judeo-christian god has been 'researched' for hundreds of years now. I think that if were true then there would be at least one particle of evidence found to prove it. No such evidence exists, therefore I think there is no judeo-christian god.
Do I have 100% certainty that Jesus is not the son of the judeo-christian god? Yes.
That is to say, I do not know whether such person as Jesus existed or not, but if he did exist he was not of the supernatural. And certainly, if I think the judeo-christian god to be an unreal concept, then surely it follows that no one can be its 'son'.
And the questions you did not ask... Do I have 100% certainty that a supreme entity of some kind did not the universe? No. But on the balance I think it unlikely, as, if we presume that at some point there must be a beginning to it all, this supposed supreme being would also require something to create it. Therefore, on the balance, I reject the proposition that some entity already in existence was the 'creator' as it is illogical.
And yes, this *will* be my last post, I will not respond further no matter how great the temptation. I realise there are going to be theists who will post on this topic with the intention only to affirm the degree of faith in their current belief structure and in doing so thereby will be dismissive or otherwise denigrate the atheists' position. That is the nature of the difference between the atheist and theist positions.
I had wanted to leave this forum at my last post as I wanted to focus back on the question being asked of us. The fact that we have become bogged down in "prove god exists", "prove god doesn't" reflects poorly on the possibility that theists and atheists may actually be capable of holding 'productive conversations'. I ask you one favour, regardless of whether or not you feel the need to post to reaffirm your stance. In making your post can you "leave god out of it" for at least a few moments to consider the question which was initially posed? Can we, atheists and theists, take this one small, initial step?
Mo,
You noted: : "to those who they donot belive in the creator lord. here is much simpler challenge ,see if you can creat a mosquito.please no dracula. "
My wife and I created three beautiful children and scientists are already working on creating life from basic chemicals. See Google.
Atheism or to put it correctly, agnoticism must be in vogue when the God does nothing to deter devilish people carrying out their nefarious deeds and lets injustice triumph over justice time and time again. After all, why have a God if he does not lift a finger to correct any unjust situation? Even if he does manage the everyday running of the world, he does not give any evidence that the right behavior will lead to good life. This writer is sorry to say the concept of God lacks some of the main ingradients. It could be that humankind has never understood the concept of God.
Warp 10 -- Please don't bunch me with those who ever supported W. Never have, never did. In fact, suggesting I have or did support W. is what we call here in the mountains fightin' words. (Yes, you touched a sore spot.) Don't like his politics, don't like his approach. Many Christians saw through it all and rejected W. Many Christians are environmentalists. Many Christians are avowed Democrats. Many Christians are not as you peg them. You seem to be under the false assumption that Christians are some monolithic brain that has one answer to everything, speaking with one voice. It simply is not the case. Glad I got that off my chest.
As for Kate, I'm glad she can be so certain about something so unknown. Good for her.
Now for global warming, how about cutting down the water heater five degress, cutting off unneeded lights, driving less, thermostat at 68 in winter 73 in summer, reduce consumption -- those simple acts by all would provide a huge benefit while we wean ourselves off fossil fuels, and work toward renewables. Of course, that's another issue.
Oh, I think the last 6 pages of comments suggest that it will be difficult for atheists and theists to have producetive conversations for the most part -- when one side regaularly calls the other a bunch of superstitious fools and bumpkins, its hard to have much of a discussion. I will note some exceptions here, so as not to lump all in to the group who can't communicate -- M Krag and Warp 10 among them. This looks alot like the last few years of republican v democrat -- lots of argument and vitriol, not much of substance gained, and little change of minds or hearts. That about sums it up for me at least.
Surely the WP can do better than such a loaded question. "In vogue?" Please.
As Dawkins says in TGD, some questions are without merit ("Why are unicorns hollow?"). This bone-headed question is one of those.
Believers in what? I am an atheist because I don't believe in invisible, all powerful, and all knowing beings. Why? because there is no credible evidence for such a belief. But I believe in the good morals of human beings because there is a evidence to support that. I don't think there can be any real progress between Chrstians and atheists until Christians stop trying to monopolize words and force their religion down everyones throats. The fact is that it is Christians who have inserted "Under God" in the pledge of allegience (so now if your don't believe in god, you must be anti-American). It is Christians who have been attacking stem cell research, Christians who have been pushing for Fairy Tales in science classes, Christians who have forced Walmart to say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays," etc. etc. All that, and now they claim a monopoly on words like "believer" and "people of faith." I believe too... I just do it with evidence. And as for faith, I have faith in people. So am I a "Person of Faith" too? It seems that whenever an atheist stands up to their bullies, we are called "extremists." Well, here I am. I guess you can call me an extremist if it helps Christians sleep better while the Religious Right rapes America of Freedom.
-Staks
www.DangerousTalk.net
Believers in what? I am an atheist because I don't believe in invisible, all powerful, and all knowing beings. Why? because there is no credible evidence for such a belief. But I believe in the good morals of human beings because there is a evidence to support that. I don't think there can be any real progress between Chrstians and atheists until Christians stop trying to monopolize words and force their religion down everyones throats. The fact is that it is Christians who have inserted "Under God" in the pledge of allegience (so now if your don't believe in god, you must be anti-American). It is Christians who have been attacking stem cell research, Christians who have been pushing for Fairy Tales in science classes, Christians who have forced Walmart to say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays," etc. etc. All that, and now they claim a monopoly on words like "believer" and "people of faith." I believe too... I just do it with evidence. And as for faith, I have faith in people. So am I a "Person of Faith" too? It seems that whenever an atheist stands up to their bullies, we are called "extremists." Well, here I am. I guess you can call me an extremist if it helps Christians sleep better while the Religious Right rapes America of Freedom.
-Staks
www.DangerousTalk.net
Why is atheism in "vogue?" I skimmed through and saw that a lot of people claim that it is because of the books of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. But there have been atheist books out there for a long time. It isn't the books themselves, it is the fact that they are best selling books. That means that there are a lot more people out there buying those books than in previous times. Why are there more and more people interested in atheistic issues? Because the Religious Right has become so much more oppressive than they have in the past... and now they have to power to be oppressive. As a result, clostet atheists now feel the need to stand up and fight back. Some do so while still staying in the closet. Young people in particular are fighting back too. That is why BlasphamyChallenge.com, the RationalResponders.com, The InfidelGuy.com, and of course my DangerousTalk.net have gained so much popularity. All you have to do is look at the atheist presence on websites like Myspace and YouTube to knwo that young people today are starting to question religion and view it no different than they would view anything else. If you are going to say that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, you better be prepared to show some evidence for it. Because if someone were to believe something like that without any evidence whatsoever, we would call them delusional and send them to the funny farm. Why does the invisible man in the sky get a pass? The media attacks Tom Criuse for his belief in Xenu, but not the 80% of the American people who believe in a "Holy Spirit."
-Staks
DangerousTalk.net
To RICHARD WADE:
This is the remainder of my response to your post addressed to dated 25 Dec 2006, 5:46 AM (thread – “Can there be common ground?” Page 18). The first part of my response addressed to you and FERN was posted earlier on this thread.
But first, I wish you a wonderful New Year 2007! May all the good you wish for yourself, your loved ones and the world come true (at least some of it : ) )!
It is lovely that you consider Australia an amazing country. I can’t get over the beauty of Sydney. I wish you a really wonderful time here.
I thank you for the welcome. I think The Post has done a great job in putting up such a discussion on their webpage to give everyone a chance to speak up, especially the atheists. Since believers have plenty of room to speak up elsewhere, I suppose this is really a chance to hear what atheists have to say and to work towards some kind of common ground based on mutual respect. Our point of communication should begin with what we have in common, rather than what do not have in common in terms of our beliefs. Our questions regarding the human condition is what all have in common - atheists, agnostics and believers. All of us want to be happy and live a meaningful life on this side of eternity, even if we may have slightly different ideas about happiness or how we should go about becoming happy. Human beings of goodwill want happiness for others as well. The rule of law ensures that one person’s idea of happiness doesn’t impinge on another person’s right to exist and seek their own idea of happiness. The God I believe in is a gentleperson (man+woman) and does not force me to believe in Him. (PS: I use the masculine because I have not yet invented a word that contains both sexes to denote God. God is both masculine and feminine, but until such time as I have invented a word or found one that satisfies me, I’ll stick to the male, because as C S Lewis put it, in relation to God we are all feminine. One could say that God is far more He-man than the He-est human being.) So as far as I’m concerned, if an atheist chooses not to believe, there is really very little anyone can do about it. On my part all I can do is to explain why I believe, and convey my conviction that it was not necessary for me to take leave of my senses or logic to believe in God.
I’m convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that all human beings of goodwill can communicate with each other, showing each other the greatest respect, and work together for the common good of man, no matter what their belief. As for discussion on beliefs, with mutual respect in place, we should be able to discuss our respective beliefs and compare notes. We may agree with some beliefs, we may be inspired to think about some other beliefs, or we may have to agree to disagree. But as long as we keep our common goals for human beings always in focus, we are not going to need to destroy anyone for their beliefs which may be different from our own.
I’m sorry to hear that atheists find themselves discriminated unfairly. That should not be. I apologise on behalf of all misguided believers and those who have abused religion to justify any kind of wrong doing, hatred or violence. Christians are expected to love their enemies, and at worst an atheist is an enemy. Jesus doesn’t give permission to hate anyone, so a believer should not use religion as an excuse for hatred. As long as an atheist does not use his/her non-belief to hurt anyone, I don’t see why anyone’s belief or non-belief in one’s Creator should be anyone’s business. Everyone, including believers, should be judged by their actions, not their words on what they believe or don’t believe.
Sorry, if the term “hardened atheist” sounded hard. I was using it in the same sense that I refer to myself as a “Christian by conviction”. Although I was born into a family which claims a tradition of Christianity going back to Apostle Thomas in 52AD, I did not become a Christian by conviction until I had thrown out all the Christian rituals and dogmas I had inherited and made my own spiritual journey and struggled through my doubts and questions and accepted Christianity, including some of the rituals and dogmas with a deeper meaning and wonder, very consciously with a rational mind and all of my heart. I do not have many answers and like all human beings I struggle to understand the origin of evil fully, and God’s seeming impotence in the area, although much of it is explained by free will. But I have faith that God has all the answers to the Universe He created, and thankfully I’m not asked to run His universe and provide all the answers, but only to do my little part as best as I can. (BTW my spiritual journey didn’t make me any kind of expert or a religious scholar. I’m still an ordinary lay person. I’m glad that Scripture in all religions is God communicating with ordinary human beings, not just to scholars. We need the scholars of course to keep Scripture alive and to interpret and communicate it in ways appropriate to the times.) So by the term “hardened atheists” I was referring to atheists who have made their journeys, questioned their all their beliefs and doubted all their doubts and arrived at atheism with a rational mind and all of their hearts. I suppose the term “atheist by conviction “would be more appropriate.
As to the ethics of “force feeding” children with faith: First of all not all believers force feed their children. At least it can be said of some believers that they simply take their children along when they themselves go through the motions of religious practice maybe once a week. Regular attendance at religious ceremonies or worship provides a sense of community, and human beings being social animals need a sense of belonging to a larger family and community. One could meet once a week on a regular basis and drink beer together instead and discuss all the virtues of beer, or any number of other alternatives. But believers choose worshipping and thanking their Creator in the company of others as their focus and topic for discussion simply because they consider it a little more worth their while once a week, that is all. But the personal relationship of every human being with his/her Creator is private business and each one opens up to the Spirit of God and allows transformation of their lives by the Spirit quite uniquely. That is revealed only through the fruits they produce.
Why do I consider it important to teach children about faith? Well, if I am a believer by conviction, then I have a moral duty to pass on to my children what I have found to be good for me. After all no parent has any control of a child’s belief at any time, and not much influence over it after it grows up. Most teenagers as we know question and rebel about everything they are told by their parents, not just about God. That should set every mind at rest that children have difficulty giving up what their parents teach them, whether good or bad. So children are always free to reject the belief at any time they choose. But it is the duty of every parent to give their children something to believe, giving the children the freedom to question and to reject that belief if need be. Children usually get their idea of God from their parents. Children usually create their God in the image of Dad and Mom when they are young. So if parents are loving, they have no difficulty whatsoever in believing in a God who is a bigger version of Dad and Mom. But if parents are less than loving, their image of God is distorted, and they will question that idea of God in their minds as they grow older. It is difficult to convince a child that it was born by chance and accident and evolved from a monkey, sorry ape. That is why it is easiest to teach about God when children are young. Jesus said “unless you become like little children, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” I don’t know of many people who have dedicated their entire lives to the teachings of pink unicorns, Santa Clauses and Spaghetti Monsters. But history can attest to thousands who have dedicated their lives to teaching and living their religious beliefs, whose lives were changed for the better, filled with more joy, more meaning and purpose, as a result of their beliefs, even if the founder of those religious beliefs failed to get pass marks in the exam conducted by historians and atheists who came along much later. Jesus didn’t get pass marks from the Jewish Pharisees even in His own time.
The necessity of teaching children about God was brought home to me because of a personal experience some time ago. I met a French-German fifteen year old who was going through her teenage crisis. She was searching for meaning and luckily it did not occur to her to search for it in drugs or wild parties. In her time of crisis, she was visiting her divorced mother and was impressed by her spiritual journey. She was being brought up by her French father, an intellectual atheist. Both parents felt it was best to let the child free to find her way when she was old enough and hence even the mother had not taught her anything about religion. Even though both parents had done what they thought was the best thing for their daughter, she was terribly angry with them. “I want to believe in God, but I can’t. I don’t know how to,” she told me. “But aren’t you happy that your parents didn’t force any religion on you?” I asked her. Her answer struck me dumb: “I wish my parents had given me something that I could have rejected if I chose. But now I’m finding it difficult to believe even though I want to because I was never taught how to.”
The crisis of the fifteen year old remains unique in my memory to this day. Having always been a believer, her crisis is hard to comprehend. I don’t know how many atheists go through that kind of crisis at all. But it has an important lesson to teach nevertheless.
Give children a belief in God when they are young enough. Give them the freedom to test the faith out for themselves in any way and at any time they choose and keep only what is worth keeping. But tell them only to put the founders of their respective religions to the test not the people who practice the faith imperfectly. Every Christian should put Jesus Christ to the test and no else, and try out Christianity for themselves, before throwing it out of their lives. It is bad practice to use poor role models for inspiration, especially when there are plenty of good role models. If I wanted to be a good swimmer, I would seek to learn from Ian Thorpe’s swimming skills, not search out someone who never won even a single local competition.
I was deeply touched by your admission that you were moved to tears that a believer could recognise the beauty of truth, integrity and compassion in an atheist. Truth is truth, beauty is beauty, compassion is compassion, no matter what dress of belief or non-belief it wears. Appreciation of that kind should not be a rare incidence in the life of any atheist. I feely terribly mortified if that is the case and hope that the discussion that has been started here will contribute in a small way to opening the eyes of everyone. Yes, we believers need a large portion of humility too and we need to open our eyes to the beauty of truth, integrity, and good works, no matter where we find it.
Sorry, I got so carried away, and digressed completely. This post has turned out to be sooo much longer than I expected. But since I want to post it before your New Year’s day comes to a close in a couple of minutes, I’ll post it as it is, without taking the time to cut it short.
In closing, and as commentary to scientists and science, I cite some of the opinions of Albert Einstein, who is acknowledged by the world as the greatest physicist of all time, by atheists and believers alike. From Wikipedia: “Einstein argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors." However "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies"... a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist… I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
If atheism is enjoying a vogue "right now," it's for some combination of two reasons:
(1) The 9/11 attacks is perceived to have had a substantial religious motivation.
(2) The US's war in Iraq is perceived to have had a substantial religous motivation.
This is only my personal opinion. I only listed these reasons to answer the whole question as posed.
As for productive dialogue between believers and atheists, I'm not sanguine about the prospects if the "believers" are evangelical Christians and if the "atheists" have the characteristics I've seen in postings and comments on this site.
On the "believer" side, evangelical Christians cannot and will not admit the possibility that God doesn't exist. They believe in a personal God, as personal as other people. For evangelical Christians, denying their heavenly Father would be as absurd and offensive as denying their physical father. (For full disclosure, I place myself in the group but note that people in this group do not all think the same politically.) Admittedly, close-mindedness is a problem for some evangelicals; but even if it weren't, belief in a personal God would still encumber debate.
On the "atheist" side, productive dialogue becomes extremely difficult when any of these conditions hold:
(1) When an atheist is convinced s/he has all the necessary evidence to "prove" there is no God. When the evidence is scientific, they effectively define the debate to nullify God by assuming that only things possible according to the laws of nature can have happened. If miracles in the Bible are not conformable with scientific law, then they can't have happened. If miracles in the Bible are conformable with scientific law, then we don't have to attribute them to God. Many atheists also make a false dichotomy, that one can either accept the Bible or reject all scientific advances since the Bible was written and cannot fathom the possibility of reconciling the two.
(2) When an atheist summarily rejects all historical evidence surrounding Christianity. S/he might do so because s/he has already rejected miracles, but in this rejection is also a condescendion toward evidence that all, premised on the notion that we moderns (or are we post-moderns or post-post-moderns) are smarter and wiser than they were. There is also an assumption that the present and the past are alike. Because we don't see miracles of the Biblical type today, they can't have happened in the past.
(3) When an atheist ignores Christian arguments because they come from theologians or historians or (rarely) scientists. An atheist should ask her- or himself, "Are there people whose arguments for Christ I won't distrust because of their stations in life?"
(4) When an atheist is satisfied that the claims of Christianity are ridiculous because other religions or imaginary beings are ridiculous without actually examining the competing claims. Some atheists will claim that they have examined Christian claims enough to know they're false. What counts as enough? I can't say, but I'll give a few examples of what doesn't:
1. Giving up at the first apparent contradiction in the Bible
2. Giving up because some events seem impossible according to natural laws
3. Asking God for a miracle or to speak (How could one tell that such an occurrence was from God?)
4. Stopping the search upon victory in argument against a Christian (if many such victorious arguments occurred in an honest search, I believe God would intervene...)
BTW, There's been much discussion about who has to prove what and about the semantics of "not believing" vs. "believing not." I don't buy it. Let's accept the standard that whoever has a positive belief has to prove it. This means I have to prove Christianity is true because I believe it is. Then an atheist who believes that the claims of Christianity are as ridiculous as those of other religions also has a burden to prove it.
(5) When an atheist feels s/he is generally a good person morally, in particular, better morally than people who call themselves Christians. Yes, many who call themselves Christians are only nominally so, and many others who are actually so are bad examples as people. However, to focus on religion as morals is to miss the point. In all the other relgions I know of, you have to be somehow "holy" enough by your own deeds to receive your reward after death. Christianity, however, allows us to receive this reward, despite the fact that no one is holy, by accepting God's forgiveness through Christ. An atheist does not meet God's standard unless s/he has always loved other people and never had contempt, resentment, or hatred for anyone else. In fact, I suspect that many atheists do not even meet their own standards for how to live.
(6) When an atheist assumes that Christians are Christians because they were "born" Christian. Evangelicals don't believe that anyone is "born" Christian. John 3.3 requires us to be born again to become Christian. Furthermore, there are many Christians, myself included, who did not grow up in Christian households and chose to become Christian. This is a phenomenon that an atheist should not dismiss out of hand.
-------------------------
When it comes to issues not directly related to God, like what to do about the world's problems, productive dialogue is much more possible, but still limited because of conflicts over priority. An atheist may see poverty, violence or disease as the key problem to be solved, but an evangelical Christian believes that death and sin (the wages of which is death) are the key problems, which have been solved by God. For many evangelicals, helping people accept salvation through Christ is most important.
to those who they donot belive in the creator lord.
see if you can creat your own sperm,and if you have a wife see if she can creat here own ovarian eggs.
I came from a family of atheists. On a lark I attended a church one day, then met with some people who gave me some thoughts on God and after my own epiphany became a believer. That is the very short version. One week into believing a friend asked me to present a rational belief in God without using the Bible or Faith or some such "religious" artifact/artifice. My answer was this: I posed a question.
What is our best guess for the destiny of the human race say a hundred billion years hence (figure just chosen at random to reflect a long time)?
Given the past fifty years of progress in so many fields can it be possible, even probable, that the human race will eventually come to a point where we will have figured how to prolong life indefinitely?
Would we eventually be able to engineer animals, insects, fish and fowl that would be different from the species with which we are familiar with today, at the same time using and building on the principals of life as we now know them?
Would we not then be de facto Gods?
Lori - I like your approach. It raises ethical questions that require candid debate.
If our race survives into the distant future, I'm hoping such ehtical questions will have been answered, but not decided for us by whomever has the greatest influence, by then.
Indeed, if by the time that now-distant future arrives we have unraveled the mysteries of life to the point that we can retard death indefinitely, the question, for me, becomes 'Should we?'.
Genetic engineering is already a booming industry. The creation of new dog breeds is very 'in vogue' right now, along with atheism apparently. Again, when we are able to cross-speciate in a laboratory, should we?
I don't fear technology, I fear those who would use it improperly to the detriment of anyone - or everyone. The trick is to keep technologies out of the hands of those people. Oops, too late...
I don't wish to be godlike. I don't wish to know the mind of God. And I don't wish to die for my God. To my God, that would be a disservice.
Peace!
well no we wouldnt become gods because no matter what we would be started with materials that are already created- mutating existing materials in interesting way is still not creation of that material.
that raises an interesting question for me-
in evolution do we assume that homo sapiens are at the top of the heiarchy?
if we go from a purely logical standpoint we are ill-suited to our environment- must construct all sorts of resource depleting and earth destoying
contrivances just to survive- like george carlin says-maybe god created us because he wanted plastic-
as stated animals act with compassion and self sacrifice to care for each other- what is te superiority of man as a species over others?
im just wondering from what i imagine is an atheist viewpoint-
without a soul and a connection to god- what makes humans better than dolphins which live in complete harmony with the planet?
do atheists believe in a soul?
what is the function of a soul without god?
just wondering
peace
My grandfather was a Protestant minister. I was indoctrinated in theism almost from birth. I also rejected it not that much later. The reason is simple: I'm a skeptic. The stories are prima facie preposterous (don't take offense at that -- I say preposterous just on the face of it, as, indeed, stories of walking corpses and ghosts are prima facie preposterous.) The empirical evidence in support of theism does not exist. The testimonial/anecdotal evidence, in the absence of empirical evidence, is thin gruel -- one may garner all the testimonial/anecdotal evidence one can stomach in support of, for instance, astrology. That leaves only argument in support of theism. Unfortunately for theism,in the face of a singular lack of evidence, it must put forth a compelling argument. It must compel me to believe it through argument alone. It does not. Its arguments are not even persuasive, let alone compelling. These are my reasons for rejecting supernaturalism, stated as clearly as I can.
As to dialogue with theists (and other supernaturalists,) an obstacle must be overcome. That obstacle is the unrelenting slander and libel of the nonbeliever as evil, immoral, abominable and damned. Not all supernaturalists engage in this, of course, just as only a few atheists pound the table and cry, "There IS no god!" That is an unprovable assertion of a negative and clear-thinking atheists make no assertions in that regard. We simply do not believe the assertions of theists.
Nevertheless, I suspect that the current pugnacity, shall we say, of prominent atheists and rational freethinkers stems in some small part from being constantly lied about and insulted. Scapegoats often turn surly.
"do atheists believe in a soul?
what is the function of a soul without god?"
If by "soul", you mean something that survives death, most atheists don't believe in such a thing. I don't because I haven't seen any reliable evidence that it exists. I believed very strongly in souls for more than twenty years. I gave up that belief very reluctantly.
Buddhists believe in re-incarnation, but they don't believe in a soul. Their concept is something like conservation of momentum. They believe that the person you are now is different to the person you were yesterday. The person you are today is a consequence of the actions of the person you were yesterday.
"without a soul and a connection to god- what makes humans better than dolphins which live in complete harmony with the planet?"
"Better?" Not sure what is meant by that -- seems to me that any being which is not forced to have pockets or purses has the best of it. ;)
However -- how can you assume that dolphins are without "god-connected souls", whatever they are? Such vague, nebulous things are beyond our powers of observation and analysis, are they not?
well at the beginning i asked what makes humans superior- what is the proof- and the next is if we assume that from an atheist view comparing
humans- without a soul and a connection to god-to dolphins- there is no judgement on whether dolphins have souls, actually from the example it would seem they may be superior to humans-
well no- they are definitely not beyond our powers of observation-
so since the question is clarified would you care to take a stab at it?
or how about this one-
also my husband pointed out to me that from an atheist perspective- since there is no way to "prove" consciousness in any way (i mean anima- not electrical activity)
that if taken in a purely material perspective- since every cell in our body is renewed every 7 years- in an atheistically run society- one would have to be released from prison after 7 years because they would be a new physical being.
now if believers are not allowed to present faith in an esoteric non material form without "proving" its existence- it seems that they would hold themselves to the same standards they demand of others.
i thought i might get some intelligent answers here- i posted it on the other sam harris question and all i got was because we have big brain we can run the ecosystem and build machines which was insufficient proof ofthe superirity of man to me.
and then a long paragraph of real nonsense that requires such a suspension of disbelief that i had to laugh.
i have to be honest- i have in the past prayed and meditated with buddhists- practiced various doctrines- and i have never heard or read that buddhists dont believe in souls or god until i came on this website and some atheists have staed this.
what form of buddhism doesnt believe in souls?
i studied mahayana- some hinayana- spent time at the temple of 10,000 buddhists in the pacific northwest-dabbled in zen which is anyones guess- sjot a qick glance at the beiefs of shintoists- worshipped with tibetan- specifically tara- and spent the most time with chinese buddhists of different stripes- practiced tai chi for a long time- some gong fu- and for another long time chi gong- read alot of orientalist works also-
but i never encountered an atheist claim of negation of god- nothingness negation of ego- b-impersonal deity- but never the outright denial of the existence of some supernatural force and the idea of a soul-there is alwatys some concept of a soul- a personal identity that may merge into the original creative source but the idea of reinacarnating without a soul?
i am starting to think atheists are as individual as each one- and some have an idea of their place in the cosmos- some have no clue- some are logical and almost all seem to base their lack of belief on reactions against something- which is a starting point i guess- but not a place to be stuck forever-
i actually find a great deal more consistency in theists and their posts.
really i think if atheists expect concrete non-negotiable proof of theists- they should apply it to themselves first. that i would respect-
well thanks for your considerate answer-
at least you didnt talk about devil robots and chaos as an answer- you thought well about what you had to say and i really appreciate that.
i had thought that thiests and atheists could dialogue- ive done it many times with my atheists friends- but here- im starting to doubt-
peace
MO saith:
"to those who they do not belive in the creator lord. see if you can create your own sperm . . ."
mission accomplished pal. fun, too. so i guess i'm supposed to go blind now, eh?
btw, say hi to larry and curly.
it was only a matter of time before SOMEone worked in a masterbation joke. in fact, THAT's why atheism, and it's mischievious little brother anarchy, continue to have an appeal to free thinkers. look at these posts and i defy anyone to see much of a sense of humor amongst these theists. talk about your rods up the butt . . .
all polls aside, i suspect you'd find that precious few in our modern world really believe any of this religious crap anymore. not really. the europeans are just more honest when they admit to their non-belief. americans are saying what they think they're supposed to say. as usual.
belief is a funny thing; a lot like political power. you can think you have a really really big pile of it, but the second you try to use it - poof, it's all gone. and like political power, belief is only really useful in it's potential form.
DODGER we all dont fit into predictable little boxes
i am a faithful believer
my faith and ALLAH have been forces in my life that have never dried up never disappeared
my faith strengthens me 5 times a day when i commune with the god and it gives me insights - offers every answer- i see visible tangible proof on a constant basis- it is not an invisible fairy tale- itis not a comfortable compacency-it is an everpresent and consistent refining of my soul my heart my intelligence my compassion my love for others my insight my remembrance of ALLAH my core of being my respect for others my gratitude my gratitude my gratitude-
it has been tested so many many times through thr fire and i am stronger and firmer today than yesterday-surer and more complete more a part of the stardust from which i and you are made- more solid more real- it is not easy and it is not magic- it is patience and patience and tolerance-
all the good things a human can be and become are possible with my faith- it is so burned into the deep recesses of my soul that it cannot be eradicated by skepticism, by mockery,by anything.
and it is my choice and should be respected as such.
and I BELIEVE dodger
and i KNOW as only i can know for myself
i wish i could know for you too but i cant
but peace to you sir or madame
i am in submission to the god dodger and there is no usury involved
i serve and am served somehow it works that way all i can do when i dont agree with what is sent to me is ask how can i grow from this what can i learn about myself how can i be the most self-knowledgeable human possible
that is my own focus and it makes me a dependable and consistent human in the small trials of life
i want to be there for those i love to forgive them when necessary and comfort as much as i can
please dodger- there are some who do believe
i dont like to say i know on this site out of respect for others because it might make them feel bad
but i really do
Greg,
As long as
* The majority of US Christian churches have decided to take an active role in politics, and
*the vast majority of the "most religious" of Chrsitians (as measured by those who tell pollsters that religion is most important to their lives) are strong supporters of an immoral leader like George Bush; and they are strong supporters specificially "because" they view Bush is such a "good Christian"
THEN it is fair to hold those same religions groups accountable for the works of George Bush.
Do they not (supposedly) have the Holy Spirit on their side to guide them -- Are we not allowed to look at the results to see if there is any real guidance going on??
Now: I do not blame liberal religious groups for George Bush -- never have. I hold great respect for these institutions -- always have!
And you could argue it is the (relatively) more liberal religious groups who hold to Jesus' original tenets of helping the poor and unfortunately...And I would agree with you completely.
I am not opposed to religion -- only right wing religion. It is NOT the same thing!
Point 2: Why do you presume I do not take personal measures now to minimize energy and greenhouse emissions in particular.
Since atheists comprise 5% of the population and Christians some 80-85% -- which group do you think needs to get activie? I suspect you would find now more atheists than Christians are concerned now about global warming and taking measures to reduce energy consumption (as a %). But we don't have the numbers to make an impact.
Why wasn't that obvious to you???
Daniel: When you say: “My current answer to the dilemma is that God indeed created evil and is all powerful but is not evil because all was explained to man before man was born...In other words, life is something of a test, an endurance and attempt to avoid evil, willingly chosen by man before his birth and he has simply forgotten about it as an essential part of the test”
There is a well known flaw with this philosophical position:
What about babies who are born with terrible deformities (such as severe retardation) that prevent their capacity for making moral "choices". What about half of the world who are born in abject poverty and there is no way out of an existence that spends most of their life worrying about their next meal?
In this cases, where there is no ability to make moral "choices"? In general, would it not make more sense (ie be far less wasteful) for an all-powerful, all-good God to only create "good" humans?
Along a similar line of reasoning, if one assumes that evil and suffering is "necessary" for humans as a "test", WHY MUST ANIMALS ALSO SUFFER FROM EVIL IN THE WORLD? Western religions do not hold that animals are rewarded for living a virtuous life. Yet, much of the evil in the world that afflicts humans also affects animals as well--which includes suffering from disease, genetic disorders, famine, earthquakes, wars, and pestilence.
"to those who they donot belive in the creator lord.
see if you can creat your own sperm,and if you have a wife see if she can creat here own ovarian eggs."
That's the most idiotic thing I've seen on this site. And as a woman, I also resent the assumption that only men can be atheists or be worth communicating with.
FYI, every man creates his own sperm and every woman creates her own ova. Learn some biology before posting in the company of people with an education! (Learning to spell would be appreciated too)
If you think that atheists feel superior to fundamentalists, the inanity of your supposed "argument" is good justification. If you'd actually read any of the posts here or done any reading outside of church, you'd know better than to post this ridiculous "argument."
Daniel: When you say: “My current answer to the dilemma is that God indeed created evil and is all powerful but is not evil because all was explained to man before man was born...In other words, life is something of a test, an endurance and attempt to avoid evil, willingly chosen by man before his birth and he has simply forgotten about it as an essential part of the test”
There is a well known flaw with this philosophical position:
What about babies who are born with terrible deformities (such as severe retardation) that prevent their capacity for making moral "choices". What about half of the world who are born in abject poverty and there is no way out of an existence that spends most of their life worrying about their next meal?
In this cases, where there is no ability to make moral "choices"? In general, would it not make more sense (ie be far less wasteful) for an all-powerful, all-good God to only create "good" humans?
Along a similar line of reasoning, if one assumes that evil and suffering is "necessary" for humans as a "test", WHY MUST ANIMALS ALSO SUFFER FROM EVIL IN THE WORLD? Western religions do not hold that animals are rewarded for living a virtuous life. Yet, much of the evil in the world that afflicts humans also affects animals as well--which includes suffering from disease, genetic disorders, famine, earthquakes, wars, and pestilence.
"to those who they donot belive in the creator lord. see if you can creat your own sperm,and if you have a wife see if she can creat here own ovarian eggs."
Let's prove these are divinely determined (and not the result of millions of years of evolution), huh?
IF you pray that a lifeless rock grows sperm and eggs
AND demonstrate convincing proof your prayers were answered with the prayed for result;
THEN I will most definitely listen to what you have to say!
Yours,
WarpTen
no AMY- men and women do not create anything- their bodies involuntarily produce ova and sperm from material that has already been created.
can you consciously even PRODUCE an ovum outside of your bodies natural cycles?
no you can not even produce something with already created flesh
let alone the creation of anything
but you could have made your point without name calling, it does not lend any credence to your opinion by doing so
while you are suggesting what people should learn
please respect us here
we all have something somewhere to learn
peace
Gerald Ford was within his rights to show mercy on behalf of the nation to Richard Nixon. But what his pardon over-looked was that spiritual mercy is not the same as the mercy of the court.
By crossing that line for a man of power and priveleged, Ford helped solidify the principle of two American justice systems. A system for the haves - filled with pardons and "let's move on for the good of the nation" - and one of hard time for petty criminals and unjustly accused and poorly represented.
By his bungling of the Nixon case, Ford may have inadvertently contributed to the increase in doubt about righteousness in our nation. It is not hard to imagine that such doubt led to a direct increase in doubts about God.
Warp 10 -- didn't presume anything -- you asked what we should do about global warming, and that was my response. I did not mean to leave the impression that it was directed solely at you, but in response to your question as to what to do. You did say:
"Now: What are we going to do about the **HellHOLE** we are creating for our children and grandchildren with the threat of global warming?" My comment was directed to all, both religious, nonreligious, men, women, dems and repubs, etc. I beleive those suggestions are the first step toward a long, difficult transition away from our current destructive practices toward renewables.
As for your other comments I personally don't believe that God chooses anybody to lead us, we do. I don't know if others feel their choice for who to vote for was inspired or not, I don't. Finally, I'm not sure where you got your numbers about who elected W. but I beleieve many people voted for W. because of his stated (but not practiced) belief in tax cuts, smaller government, getting tough on terrorism, and the like. Those are all decidely secular positions.
to those who they donot belive in the creator lord.
i see you guys are getting smarter,here is much much more simpler challenge,gather all the scientests of the world,all the highest technologists in the world ,all mankind,all the jin kind ,all together,and see if you can creat a mosquito.no time limit to the challenge ,its challengeing till the last day,and certainly you can pass it to your childern.
A modern task: to try to determine if the move from religious belief to disbelief results in man becoming more or less evil. If man becomes more evil without religion then we can assume the creation of morality is more difficult than we currently imagine. If man becomes less evil without religion then we can postulate that not only is morality possible without belief but that a significant step toward man becoming good can be accomplished simply by encouraging disbelief.
In other words we are questioning here the simple effect of belief and disbelief on morality. In our age we seem to think that not only is morality possible without belief, we can actually improve on morality without belief. No doubt without belief morality is "freed up" but this is a far different thing than improved. And the problem only becomes more complex when we introduce the effects of science and technology and their relationship to disbelief.
A strong argument can be made that science and technology go hand in hand with disbelief (at least since the scientific revolution) and as we well know science and technology seem highly ambiguous today, which is to say have increased man's capacity for both good and evil--and which will win the day, good or evil, nobody knows.
On one hand the positive aspects of science and technology argue for disbelief leading to a "better type of man" than the religious man, but on the other hand the destructive aspects seem to argue that even if it can conclusively be demonstrated that religion leads to a more evil type of man than the disbeliever, the disbeliever is by no means pure at all. In fact he could well be more evil than the religious man.
What it comes down to is something of a chart which might show that morality might not only remain intact without religion, but be actually improved. But will this be enough to offset the questionable aspects of science and technology and validate an attack on religion? If science and technology cannot become less ambiguous--cannot tilt clearly toward becoming more positive than negative--then it would seem an attack on religion is unjustified even if it does make man more evil.--For even if he does become more evil under religion still he will have the illusion of God to comfort him in a world brought to its knees by the negative aspects of science and technology.
For science and technology to decisively win the day against religion, science and technology must demonstrate that morality will be improved without religion,--and drastically improved beyond a simple removal of man from religion--for this is the only thing that can prevent them, science and technology themselves, from being ambiguous in their effects.
If science and technology cannot do so, it becomes difficult to argue for disbelief, a turning away of man from God. If one wants to turn away from God he must in a sense be more than a man himself. Otherwise he must return to God as nothing more than a simple and in fact error-ridden man. We are still, and probably always will be, waiting to see if we are equal to disbelief, let alone vast increases in science and technology. Science and technology come more and more to seem the vast and complex equipment of God. A God that would expect man to be more than a man before handling them.
Notes to atheists
Supposing one wants to dispense with the concept of God (the actual belief in such) for the various reasons ranging from the problem of evil existing in a universe ruled by God to the probability of his non-existence in general (no evidence for such) to a general dislike of expecting salvation from an almighty being, one had better address a whole host of problems before calling for his dismissal.
First of course must be a perpetual questioning of the problem of evil and a constant reorientation of man's behavior toward more and more effective action and harmonious behavior with respect to not only himself and his fellow human beings, but the whole world around him.
Second, no evidence for God's existence should not be turned into a wholesale attack against imaginings in general--in fact it should be mandatory that a rejection of God goes hand in hand with a theory of imagination apart from God.--And this second problem only deepens when we add to it the desire to reject God out of a dislike of expecting salvation from a divine being.
Too often people fail to perceive that the concept of God is not born just out of weakness, out of a desire for salvation in a confusing world, it is born out of man's imagining, idealizing tendency as well. In short it is what he desires himself to become. If we reject God because we believe there is no savior providing life after death, we have to all the more strive to make ourselves omnipotent, omniscient.--In short it becomes a collective goal, a collective striving in absence of being something we prostrate ourselves toward for life after death.--And it could be that as a collective goal--a project toward immortality--it will require more prostration than any religion has expected before.
Furthermore we can say that a rejection of God must go hand in hand with a new theory of inspiration. We cannot automatically assume inspiration exists apart from God. The God of Mohammed far from being a God one timidly expects salvation from inspired Mohammed to create a religious movement which now spans from the West of Africa to the Far East. In sum, without God how do we not only keep imagination and inspiration intact, but increase them to routine revelatory experiences which however are carefully controlled? Science is struggling with keeping theories of matter from leading to the holocaust of man, but perhaps he is struggling even more to control his imaginative and inspirational powers.
A life without God must perpetually answer the question of evil; must increase rather than decrease imaginative and inspirational powers; and must keep the concept of God alive as the ideal of man (omnipotence, omniscience). But all this really is just another dialogue with God--and perhaps the severest one because we insist there is no one else there but man.
Victoria, I noticed that I hadn't responded to your post of 31 December 2006 9:05 AM on Page 4 addressed to me.
Thank you for the New Year wishes and the appreciation of my posts. I admire your posts too - they are very sharp and sometimes witty. I admire the fact too that you undertook your personal spiritual journey and arrived at your religious convictions through hard internal work.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
victoria asks "in evolution do we assume that homo sapiens are at the top of the heiarchy?"
The short answer is no. Evolution is a linear process directed at a any sort of goal. Human beings are just primates which have evolved the ability to reason as an effective adaption to their environment.
We're not "better" than other species, or at the top of some animal hierarchy. That's a religious conceit.
As an atheist I prefer to think of myself as just another part of nature, and as such I need to pay attention to my place in nature and my effect on my environment and to treat them with respect, as part of my own being.
Sorry, that should have read "Evolution is NOT a linear process..."
Sorry, that should have read "Evolution is NOT a linear process..."
...pages and pages of trite comments like, "can you create your own universe", "can you make your own sperm", "you can't prove god doesn't exist", "it's arrogant to insist on a rational basis to your positions", "well if there's no god, what happens when you die", other fallacious arguments from consequences, appeals to authority, emotional appeals, appelas to popularity, appeals to ancient texts, etc., and not a single good logically consistent argument that actually supports the existence of any deity.
Discussions about the existence of gods between atheists and theists are about as productive as discussions of the nature of god between theists of different flavors.
I can't generally prove to you that your god doesn't exist. Yet you reject countless other gods that you can't disprove either.
Perhaps we have common ground in the rejection of those other gods. Would any theists care to explain why they reject some gods?
"For science and technology to decisively win the day against religion, science and technology must demonstrate that morality will be improved without religion..."
It's not "science and technology" nor some ineffable God but reason and our common humanity to which we should look for answers to ethical questions.
From Daniel to Warp10. I like your reasoning. Solid.
I really wish I had not grappled with that conundrum on this forum because it does not really pertain to the issue--it was just on my mind at the time--but your answer is solid because it directly operates within the confines of the conundrum as I was doing and makes a devastating criticism. It especially hit hard now because I am arguing with a friend of mine to keep one of his dogs out of a cage he insists it should be in because the dog is chewing on...his shoes.
My friend apparently feels his shoes are more important than the dog. Can he not find a better place for the shoes? AHHHHHH THE HELLWITHIT!
Getting back to your criticism, my only response can be "I think therefore I am", which is to say my reasoning holds only provided I in fact wonder if I am really the only human being in existence and you, Warp10, and everyone and everything else are illusion and simply part of the test...
And that is no inconsiderable response on my part when you consider that it is common knowledge in philosophy that we cannot be certain anything or anyone other than our individual selves actually exists with the same degree of consciousness, etc.
In short I cannot be certain you exist warp10 with the same consciousness I have or even consciousness at all. How do I conclusively demonstrate that anything other than myself is alive, conscious, has demonstrated even an iota of the suffering I have?
Can you warp10 demonstrate that you are not alone in the world? This is the celebrated dilemma of artificial engineering, etc. How do we know the people we are encountering are not robots? There is a very profound truth to obversations of certain schizophrenics.
I simply accept your devastating criticism because like you I accept that other people and things do indeed feel as myself. But I cannot be certain...
I will work on the conundrum some more for other people to read. I actually have been aware of the criticism you mention but I did not synthesize it with the conundrum yet. Actually I might have...I have so many papers, so much writing set aside....
But I do like your reasoning--it makes me think about solidly working on the problem now.
Thanks, Dan
"it is common knowledge in philosophy that we cannot be certain anything or anyone other than our individual selves actually exists with the same degree of consciousness, etc."
Too many people simply stop at this point and assume that this makes all existential propositions equally valid. This misses Descartes point, which was that, while we cannot be 100% certain of anything beyond "cogito ergo sum" we can, by using the tools of reason and logic, make valid decisions about which existential propositions are more likely to be true.
It COULD be true that I am alone in the universe and everything else is a figment of my imagination, or that I am caught in some Matrix-like world of illusion, but it is far more likely that reality is what it appears to be.
Victoria asked:
"what form of buddhism doesnt believe in souls?"
It's called "anatta" which means "without soul".
See
http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm
This is mainly the view of the Theravada or Hinayana school. Some Mahayana schools are more open to the idea of a soul.
It's actually a bit insulting to call them "Hinayana". Mahayana means "greater vehicle" and Hinayana means "lesser vehicle".
Theravada is the more traditional form of Buddhism and closer to Buddha's original teaching. Mahayana is broader in accepting a wider range of beliefs.
Atheism has been in "vogue" -in case you missed the history of the communist block countries, and it was most likely THE darkest period in European history.
Just look at Russia and the remnants of that major human experiment during the entire 20th Century...
Thus I do not understand your point about "now"-- and vogue atheism. In America the media is behind your observation. The kibutz in Russia started by Jews as a fact. The Marx Brothers were a lot more fun than Marx himself. Marxism is still alive and kicking in Academic "intelligentsia" who were not subjected for the "real thing" in America yet...
God -or all the Gods, will always survive in our own souls but there is no chance for "productive" talks with the atheists -for they don't understand even their own misguided souls.
I wish that ALL American homos, atheists et al go & live just one year in a communist country -then they might have find their ways to God...
Royal Scytha:
1) Communism is not synonymous with atheism.
2) The real "Dark Ages" are what we call the period when religion ruled Europe.
3) Christian rulers have easily killed as many or more people than the Communists. Look up Leopold II and the genocide in the Belgian Congo for just one example, or the religious wars of the 17th century for another.
4) You're probably right about one thing, there can be no productive dialogue with ignorant, dogmatic bigots like you. But that's down to you, not atheists.
A CHURCH, SYNOGOGUE, OR MOSQUE SHOULD BE TAXED if it claims to represent the only way to salvation, an after-life, or truth.
If, on the other hand, it simply ministers to the spiritual needs and well-being of its congregation, it would continue as a tax-free charitable institution.
The point being, the world, much smaller in this 21st century, can ill-afford calls to arms to either convert or annihilate those who disagree with religious dogma. Namely, the Evangelical Christians, the Muslim jihadists, and others of that fanatical kind. Taxing the bastards will slow them down.
I grew up in a country where religion was a very personal thing, and most of the population - about 80% - likes to define themselves as agnostics, not quite ahteists but certainly not tied to any dogmatic religious frame. I have to say that these agnostic people have very high moral standards, are guided by a need to learn and understand instead of a mandate to proselitize and judge. Also, since they cannot count on any kind of absolution, they have to comply with their high standards. They have something that's commonly called "a conscience", and that has not been handed over.
This having been said, I believe that what's "in vogue"nowadays is a growing disafection with all religious institutions, more than the religious ideas. Those institutions have exploited, killed, abused and persecuted in the name of religion - people are opening thier eyes and starting to see them for what they truly are.
I am not convinced that atheism is enjoying a certain vogue. I think that belief in God is as strong as it ever was, if not more so. A few ultra-fundamentalist atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris et al managed to get some books published and reap some publicity but they actually do not do a good job of representing mainsteam atheism any more than Osama bin Laden represents mainstream Islam or Pat Robertson represents mainstream Christianity. Richard Dawkins can "take on" God all he wants but in the end his rantings and railings will prove to be nothing more than a bad case of fundamentalist atheist foot-in-mouth disease. . .
Victoria,
You have been busy!!!!!
You are obviously a better Muslim than I am. Me, I do get combative and relish it. That was why you assume I'm a man.
Have to go now and pick my parents returning from the Hajj.
Happy Eid Mubarak to you.
Victoria,
You have been busy!!!!!
You are obviously a better Muslim than I am. Me, I do get combative and relish it. That was why you assume I'm a man.
Have to go now and pick my parents returning from the Hajj.
Happy Eid Mubarak to you.
TJ :
If we take GOD- THE CREATIVE ENERGY- out of all the religions and accept it as a fact rather than a belief then even the athiests would agree with that.
****************************************************
Better you take religion out of everything since it is dangerous for the mind as AIDS for the body.
There may be a God but all that is necessary to take from religion is " Do unto Others that you want done to you" or " Don't do to others that which is hateful to you"
The rest is pure belief and not the WORD but manure
The problem is that religion claim to know things they don't and then teach learned ignorance in their seminaries or yesheva or muslim schools.
Why is religion questioned more today then ever is simply due to the fact that information is out there that wasn't before and that is why religions go to third world and other such places where they can con people who are clueless like Paul did since only a hand full of Jews followed Jesus he went to the unknowing. Jews that lived in schtels also went to their own schools and had no clue about other religions until they went out into the world, Catholics learn the religion from an early age and seem to be the most unknowledgeable about the Bible.
Why the God of the Bible isn't God see http://www.religionquestioned.com
Virginia “if taken in a purely material perspective- since every cell in our body is renewed every 7 years- in an atheistically run society- one would have to be released from prison after 7 years because they would be a new physical being.”
So grotesque and insulting: That is simply the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life (and I've heard a lot).
It is our DNA that builds the cells and chemical process in our body – it is our food that replenishes (replaces) our cells. All atheism means is that there is no divine hand CAUSING this to happen.
Of course, we are still different people within different stages of our life – baby, child, young adult, elderly adult. This is part of the natural human cycle.
This can pose a metaphysical problem – only if you believe you have an eternal soul and each person embodies the same soul. For if you go to heaven – exactly which person will be brought back? the baby, the old man or woman?
To Daniel,
Thank you for the compliment. As to how you know you exist?
If you were somehow alone as the only person in the universe -- what would be your source of energy? How would you account for the illusions you appear to have of a reality? Crazy people usually cannot make any rational sense out of the reality they perceive.
To me, evolution explains our existence as humans – because if humans were crazy or limited in sensory range not to detect reality, we would have been eaten by something that was less crazy or less limited in sensory range... and therefore not survived as a species.
The fossil record shows there are a lot of species over the millenium that did not make it.
Good day to you.
EID MUBARAK NAFI- pleease dont say such a crazy thing like that! i am experiencing jealoust right now at the conversations youll have with your parents-
Warp 10 - grotesque- insulting and ridiculous are unnecessary adjectives
well the assumption is that metaphysical problems would not be an issue in an atheistically run society-
but even still i posited the question of the soul separately to make that distinction andanticipate half atheist half metaphysical answers- which- if one is an atheist then i assumed they wouldnt try and jump back and forth but just give a logical answer-
the soul question was to circumvent the exact kind of half one half another answer that you just gave-
if an atheist has a certain expectation of reason and proof in their discussions- i try to answer in that framework out of respect for them-
its hypocritical to claim logic-but use metaphysics as a cop out -
it is really ok to say you dont have an answer
so exactly - by atheists own reasoning-
if there is no divine "out"
what would the answer be?
you are the 4th count it 4th atheist who has answered by attacking the value of the question- which is MY question and not your right to judge
attacking the question doesnt hide the fact that you dont have an answer- it just makes it obvious that the question bothers you because you have no answer- around and around
honestly it was just a thought i have
i do that
have thoughts- and i allow others to own their own inquiries
now on sam harris' faith healing divided world question ive had many interesting responses-
no answers but honesty in their attempt to answer and certainly no one resorted to such transparent tactics of avoidance of the question by being the question police.
and for the 2nd time- the name is victoria but ill always answer to virigina (my moms name)
now peace warp 10 i intend to have plenty more thoughts in the future for a long time
mercy
I've read the few posts with references to the conscience with great interest for that is my spiritual focus.
Although I regard myself a believer, I most often side with the views of atheists and agnostics. I think that believers of popular religions think that I'm an atheist trying to trick or confuse them by calling myself a believer and then bombarding them with a scientific viewpoint. I'm really not. I was an agnostic until I formed a god-theory that incorporates scientific method.
I know, I know. It doesn't matter if you are a believer of popular religion or an atheist, I know you're saying to yourself, 'Ridiculous!'. Believers say it because I call myself a believer, but in their eyes I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing and atheists say it because in their viewpoint science and religion is like oil and water, you can't mix the two due to the faith factor.
Yes, religion requires faith by definition. My belief has faith in the same way that Quantum Mechanics has faith, only the term used is 'Probability'. It is a science that does not allow certainty. You could say it is a faith-based science. ;)
There is a major difference between my God and those of other religions. My God is the collective conscience and although it is all-knowing via the contribution of all singular consciences, it is powerless in the physical world because it does not reside within physical dimensions and therefore it is something that we cannot discern with our five senses.
Okay, you might consider that statement to be a deal-breaker and your about ready to write me off as a kook, but before you go please let me say this - time resides in a non-physical dimension as well. We cannot discern it with any of our five senses either, but I haven’t found anyone willing to say they don’t believe in time. The three physical dimensions move through time (aka spacetime). They work in perfect concert and are meaningless without one another.
The concept of a dimension that houses the conscience, or Observer as I like to call it, is not a far stretch from the concept of a time dimension - especially if you are already familiar with the concept of time as a dimension.
To illustrate the concept, I envision all of the conscious beings that I know to exist and they are all right here on this planet - humans, dogs, insects, birds, whales, etc. For the sake of argument, let us say that Earth is the only place in all of creation that has such rare and wondrous creatures. Then one day, by whatever unfortunate event - BOOM! No more Earth.
All that is left is physical matter moving through time, but what are they worth without an observer? They are instantly meaningless. Just like matter is meaningless without time and time is meaningless without matter, both become meaningless if there is nothing – or no one – to observe them.
In my belief, the dimension of conscience, or rather the conscious dimension, is a cohesive member of this awesome realm and without it, there can be no concept of awesome, no concept of realm. No concepts at all.
As I stated in an earlier post, M Theory suggests as many as 11 dimensions. My belief is that the conscious dimension is one of them. Since only four dimensions are currently known, that still leaves room for further discovery.
Although my God in all-knowing, it is in no way powerful. Power is a physical concept and resides in the physical dimension. My God has no physical form and therefore no power over physical things. It can only observe via consciousness. All conscious beings (of which I'm aware) are limited in this way. For instance, we cannot move objects by thought. If we want to move something, we must move it by physical means within the physical dimensions. When we want to move something and then physically move it, we are making a ‘conscious effort’ (the physical manifestation of thought) which demonstrates our inter-connectedness to the physical dimensions and the conscious dimension.
Most of us are aware that we are inter-dimensionally connected to, and experience, time and physical matter cohesively. It is a small step to accept that we also experience conscience. Or rather, without conscience we cannot experience anything or prove that experience itself exists. A physical body devoid of conscience is, for all practical purposes, dead.
How could it be proven that ANYTHING EXISTS if there were no observer? This may sound like a stupid question, but a true thinker will lose sleep over it.
The human species has a mind-body combination that allows us to observe, question and experience our environment and communicate unlike any other earth species. Our distinctly human ability to convey complex ideas and concepts to one another using language in both verbal and written form differentiates, and separates, us from our other earthly brethren.
In my opinion, that is why we, the human species, don’t consider other species to have souls (or a conscience, as I prefer to refer to it). I disagree with that notion. Most other species have a monumental comparative disadvantage to humans due to physical and language limitations. If you compare our closest relative, the chimp, you’ll find that their major remaining disadvantage is lack of complex language. It is not that the chimp doesn’t want to speak, it can not speak due to the physical location of its voice box. However, for years now researchers have been successfully teaching chimps sign language. These chimps regulary communicate emotions - love, fear, anger, lonliness, etc. - the basis of conscience. And now those chimps are teaching sign language to the next generation of chimps. Granted, chimps may never make great tax accountants but it doesn’t make them any less a conscious being than you or I or any other species. They, as all conscious beings, are observers that participate and contribute their unique perspective of creation and existence.
Much has been written here about good and evil. These are human concepts attributed to physical acts after the fact. I cannot think of a single thing that is good or evil that is non-physical. We can think evil thoughts, but are we evil if we never commit the physical act? Someone once told me that intentionally starving someone unnecessarily would qualify because no physical act needed to be carried out, i.e. not bringing food is an evil non-physical act. I disagree. The ‘evil’ physical act is starvation which you’ve allowed to continue. This can be turned into ‘good’ by the physical act of bringing food to alleviate starvation. Acts, whether good or evil, require a ‘conscious effort’, of which my God is incapable – but we certainly are.
To that point, in my rationale, we are responsible for good and evil via free will. The blood of every heinous unnatural act in our history rests on human hands. The glory for every good deed is ours as well. My God cannot forgive, forget, reward or punish for any physical act. That is our responsibility and our burden.
We all experience our conscience and we all share similar conscious experiences. Our five incredible senses allow our conscience to appreciate the external physical world and it allows us to think, dream and experience emotions.
For me, there is no need to prove the existence of conscience. The conscience exists because without it, you could prove nothing else.
Peace!
To Pamela from Daniel. I like you Pamela. Whatever I might disagree with you about, still I respect the thought and careful writing you put into your world understanding. I would go so far as to say I would marry you and father your child sight unseen. Your mind is beautiful enough to compel me...I have read similar things to what you put forth, but it seems you have internalized things well and put things into your own language. I look forward to reading some more of your stuff....
Pamela,
It's refreshing to find a believer who doesn't have to reject reality in order to justify their dogma. I like your posts. I have no problem with your beliefs. Your religion comes close to Deism or Pandeism. Do you know much about Hinduism? Do you know that what you are saying is also similar to the core beliefs of Hinduism?
I've never been able to argue with Deists, because their God is so abstract that I can't point out any absurdities in their beliefs.
I guess the only reason I'm not a Deist is that I feel that Deism is just putting a name to the unknown.
I prefer to just say that I don't know what created the universe. Maybe M-Theory will actually explain the Big Bang. I would consider that to be the last nail in Yahweh's coffin, but your God would live on.
The true meaning of life can never be put into words.
The words that you use to explain life are words and nothing more.
Whether you see the secret of life calmly and cooly
Or you see the surface of life with passion,
The secret and the surface are different views of the same thing.
-- Lao Tzu (my favourite fictional philosopher)
I think your view of the world is not very different to my view of the world. You just call things by different names and categorize things differently.
I think of consciousness as being an illusion, just a side effect of the brain's model of the world, but you think of it as being almost essential to existence in some sense. I think both views can be correct.
You are right in that everything we know depends on consciousness. Ultimately everything we know comes down to information. We can't ever directly perceive matter/energy. At best we can only see hints and shadows of what really exits. Our most accurate views of the universe are written in the language of mathematics which is a pure abstraction that exists only in people's minds.
Maybe Believers and Non-Believers can reach a common understanding.
Why does atheism seem to mean immorality to a great number of this country’s population? The atheists I know are more moral than the majority of religious people I know. Since they are not indoctrinated to believe concrete statutes they are flexible, understanding and kind to all people, not just those like them.
Why does atheism seem to mean immorality to a great number of this country’s population? The atheists I know are more moral than the majority of religious people I know. Since they are not indoctrinated to believe concrete statutes they are flexible, understanding and kind to all people, not just those like them.
Greg,
In a country where some 80-85% of its population views themselves as Christian – I am very aware that Bush did not receive 100% of this vote; plus Bush also received a portion of the other 15% of votes from non-Christians.
I am also aware that there are two groups of Republicans – fiscal (just give me my tax cut) and the socially-conservative religious. The terrorist scare tactics were definitely played up in a big way by Bush and Rove.
The reason why I bring up the religious angle is because I have read: Bush receives some of his strongest support among religious individual who tell pollsters they frequently go to Church and religion plays a LARGE role in their lives. So for example, roughly half of Catholics voted for Bush – but it was the half of the Catholics who considered themselves the most religious and go to Church frequently that have been strongly pro-Bush. (And the numbers at stake are large – i.e. a block of some 25-30% of the population. )
Religion also played a large part in the dirty tricks campaign of the last Bush election. The Republican Party DEMONIZED Kerry, the Democratic Party, and liberals – slandering them that they wanted to destroy religion. The example of the flyer with the Bible and a slash through it and the title stating Democrats wanted to destroy religion; plus the phone banks calling up voters on the same message, and the tv and radio shows saying the same thing. It was disgusting.
The Bush administration brought out religious explosive social issues-- usually gay marriage just before an important election. Then there was all the references how the Bible was Bush’s favorite book, Bush prayed all the time, etc etc.
I read that many churches taught Bush propaganda right out of their pulpit.
The Churches remained largely silent on the dirty tricks going on. Only a trickle of people spoke out. I ask you – why were the vast majority of the churches silent about these tactics?
And a large block of voters did tell the exit pollsters that the #1 reason they voted for Bush was because he was a “good Christian.” I had one relative who did the same; and I heard the same story over and over from friends and co-workers who saw this in their family networks. My friends and co-workers who have remained staunchly pro-Bush consider themselves extremely religious (and frankly seem to equate Bush with God’s appointed right hand.)
Now you are correct to point out – that there is no perfect correlation between the very religious and being staunchly pro-Bush; but there is still a strong correlation. And I agree there have been some wonderful exceptions. Jim Wallis from Sojourners was one. I think he is an Evangelical too.
But the image of Bush as a “super Christian” is still out there, and I think this image has been powerful in deflecting criticism against him (including more moderate Christians remaining silent).
(Perhaps Bush’s recent plans of increasing Iraq troops may be the straw that finally breaks his lock on power. The takeover of Congress by the Democrats may help too. I sure hope so.
However, it definitely will not be the “MOST” religious sector of the country that takes him down – from what I have seen based on my personal experience -- many will support him to the bitter end!
pamela,
if you haven't yet done so, you should read Spinoza. You will find a soulmate.
pamela,
if you haven't yet done so, you should read Spinoza. You will find a soulmate.
pamela,
if you haven't yet done so, you should read Spinoza. You will find a soulmate.
sorry for posting the same post this 3 times.
I had the feeling I couldn't get through.
Stefan - "Where does all the anger and judgement I see in these posts come from?"
How about from being attacked as immoral just for being atheist.
It can’t be we are searching for the real truth.
It “has” to be because we see ourselves as superior to the godhead.
It would like me saying you are immoral because you hold yourself superior to the Greek gods by disbelieving in Zeus.
Such rubbish.
Here’s a whopper from Virginia on the is atheism enjoying a vogue thread:
Virginia “if taken in a purely material perspective- since every cell in our body is renewed every 7 years- in an atheistically run society- one would have to be released from prison after 7 years because they would be a new physical being.”
This one was so totally whacked – I didn’t even know where to begin. There was no rational basis to even start with. Why not just say we are devils and be done with it:
Try experiencing people attacking you for being demonic or immoral – just because you don’t accept their assumptions on religion. You just might find yourself getting a little testy back.
Yours,
WarpTen
Daniel - I thank you for your kind appreciation of my posts and respect for my beliefs. It is not often that I get to fully articulate my beliefs. In fact, this is the first public forum in which they've been conveyed. For days, I hesitated to post at all because my beliefs were not represented in the posts of others and I feared backlash. Your acceptance of me and my beliefs, with respect to your own, is uplifting. I feared backlash and found acceptance. That is truly inspiring.
Realist - I must confess that I have little knowledge of Hinduism, Deism and Pandeism, but I thank you for pointing out that they are similar to my beliefs and would like to learn more. Can you suggest any authors or texts that may serve as a good primer for a novice such as myself?
I, as you, have no explanation for the creation of the universe. The creation of creation is the greatest of all paradoxes. But I am humbled to know that I have been embued with the ability to ponder it at all. It is the most wondrous gift.
Erik - I have not read Spinoza and I thank you for the suggestion. I will make it a point to add Spinoza to my suggessted reading list, as one cannot have enough soulmates!
All who have sincerely bared their souls and shared their beliefs here are to be commended. As they say, politics and religion do not make for polite conversation.
Personally, this experience has proven a very worthy dialogue and has given me a deeper understanding and respect for the beliefs of others and their reasons for them. It has shown me that, although our beliefs - or non-belief - are diverse, they are all similiar in that they provide us with understanding, acceptance, meaning and purpose.
That is the reason for my journey as well. Maybe we can carpool...
Peace!
Pamela
Belief in a supernatural powerful being or multiples thereof responsible for the creation and direction of the physical world and humans with no factual evidence to support the existence of the same arose in every culture, in every time. It would seem obvious that without the tools for rational understanding of the processes of the natural world answers would be sought in one form or another of some mystic power. With the onset of the age of reason and development of mathematical and scientific tools and methods of explaining the construct and processes of the natural world the need for a supernatural basis diminishes. Without the stifling influence of religion on the advance of understanding of our world,our universe and ourselves we stand now in awe of what we have learned and in still greater awe of what we have yet to learn. We perhaps will never come to a full understanding of our universe and the role of humanity in it but the promise is there. It is bound to be more rewarding than clinging to an unnatural and outdated belief system.
Belief in a supernatural powerful being or multiples thereof responsible for the creation and direction of the physical world and humans with no factual evidence to support the existence of the same arose in every culture, in every time. It would seem obvious that without the tools for rational understanding of the processes of the natural world answers would be sought in one form or another of some mystic power. With the onset of the age of reason and development of mathematical and scientific tools and methods of explaining the construct and processes of the natural world the need for a supernatural basis diminishes. Without the stifling influence of religion on the advance of understanding of our world,our universe and ourselves we stand now in awe of what we have learned and in still greater awe of what we have yet to learn. We perhaps will never come to a full understanding of our universe and the role of humanity in it but the promise is there. It is bound to be more rewarding than clinging to an unnatural and outdated belief system.
Virginia,
First I apologize for getting the name wrong (again). Obviously nothing derogatory was intended – it was purely sloppiness on my part --I do seem to link the two names together in my mind for some reason.
I later reflected that perhaps you did not really intend to imply that in an “atheist-run society” as you put it – people would be more likely to be locked up in prisons. That was what I found grotesque and disgusting.
I was also shocked that you would make up metaphysical concepts and ascribe them as craziness -- without having a clue what you were talking about.
Perhaps you had a completely foreign concept of what materiality was. (Do let me know – because I still can’t tell from your last post.) If so, why not "ask" first before jumping to assumptions.
A naturalist view of the body means there is no soul. It means the brain is the seat of our individuality and personhood. It means our brain cells are merely tiny components of this framework and are replenished by the foods and liquids we consume, as they wear out over time.
If you replaced the oil and or a part (with an identical one) you still have an engine that is a replica of the original.
Your struggle for making up these definitions only make sense if you are struggling how atheists dealt with the issue of there being no soul.
This is no recent discourse. Some of the ancient Greeks had reasoned why it was unlikely there was no divine mystical soul (that was separate from our material bodies.)
Their reasoning was that the MIND is a natural part of our material physical bodies – and not a separate soul was very modern for its time and is relevant even today: This is by Lucretius:
* When the body is severely wounded, the mind is also affected.
* When one is drunk, the body AND the mind are both affected.
* The mind ages with the body. Babies are born with few if any mental
abilities. Learning over time greatly enhances our mental capabilities.
As the body breaks down from age, mental capacity can diminish also.
* "Understanding" does not occur at random in the body--say in the feet or
hands. It occurs only in one physical place--the brain.
* If the soul is immortal, why can't we remember actions from our previous
lives?
When the brain is dead, this is the even when the person is dead – for it is the real seat of our human consciousness. Terry Schiavo died years earlier (at the time her human brain functions irrevocably stopped) than when her physical body died.
You appear to assume it is the individual cells that have some intelligence in themselves to form a different person – instead of the structure of our brain.
Yes -- this is metaphysical in outlook. If you want to ascribe to this view – please don’t associate it with atheism please.
It’d be like me claiming your religion believes in something wild and egriciously false-- say voodoo. It was a display of complete lack of respect on my part to make this assertion.
And yes if I really made a claim like the above, you could correctly call it grotesque and disgusting and disrespectful of your views.
Yours
WarpTen
Belief in a supernatural powerful being or multiples thereof responsible for the creation and direction of the physical world and humans with no factual evidence to support the existence of the same arose in every culture, in every time. It would seem obvious that without the tools for rational understanding of the processes of the natural world answers would be sought in one form or another of some mystic power. With the onset of the age of reason and development of mathematical and scientific tools and methods of explaining the construct and processes of the natural world the need for a supernatural basis diminishes. Without the stifling influence of religion on the advance of understanding of our world,our universe and ourselves we stand now in awe of what we have learned and in still greater awe of what we have yet to learn. We perhaps will never come to a full understanding of our universe and the role of humanity in it but the promise is there. It is bound to be more rewarding than clinging to an unnatural and outdated belief system.
Belief in a supernatural powerful being or multiples thereof responsible for the creation and direction of the physical world and humans with no factual evidence to support the existence of the same arose in every culture, in every time. It would seem obvious that without the tools for rational understanding of the processes of the natural world answers would be sought in one form or another of some mystic power. With the onset of the age of reason and development of mathematical and scientific tools and methods of explaining the construct and processes of the natural world the need for a supernatural basis diminishes. Without the stifling influence of religion on the advance of understanding of our world,our universe and ourselves we stand now in awe of what we have learned and in still greater awe of what we have yet to learn. We perhaps will never come to a full understanding of our universe and the role of humanity in it but the promise is there. It is bound to be more rewarding than clinging to an unnatural and outdated belief system.
Belief in a supernatural powerful being or multiples thereof responsible for the creation and direction of the physical world and humans with no factual evidence to support the existence of the same arose in every culture, in every time. It would seem obvious that without the tools for rational understanding of the processes of the natural world answers would be sought in one form or another of some mystic power. With the onset of the age of reason and development of mathematical and scientific tools and methods of explaining the construct and processes of the natural world the need for a supernatural basis diminishes. Without the stifling influence of religion on the advance of understanding of our world,our universe and ourselves we stand now in awe of what we have learned and in still greater awe of what we have yet to learn. We perhaps will never come to a full understanding of our universe and the role of humanity in it but the promise is there. It is bound to be more rewarding than clinging to an unnatural and outdated belief system.
Belief in a supernatural powerful being or multiples thereof responsible for the creation and direction of the physical world and humans with no factual evidence to support the existence of the same arose in every culture, in every time. It would seem obvious that without the tools for rational understanding of the processes of the natural world answers would be sought in one form or another of some mystic power. With the onset of the age of reason and development of mathematical and scientific tools and methods of explaining the construct and processes of the natural world the need for a supernatural basis diminishes. Without the stifling influence of religion on the advance of understanding of our world,our universe and ourselves we stand now in awe of what we have learned and in still greater awe of what we have yet to learn. We perhaps will never come to a full understanding of our universe and the role of humanity in it but the promise is there. It is bound to be more rewarding than clinging to an unnatural and outdated belief system.
also my husband pointed out to me that from an atheist perspective- since there is no way to "prove" consciousness in any way (i mean anima- not electrical activity)
that if taken in a purely material perspective- since every cell in our body is renewed every 7 years- in an atheistically run society- one would have to be released from prison after 7 years because they would be a new physical being.
now if believers are not allowed to present faith in an esoteric non material form without "proving" its existence- it seems that they would hold themselves to the same standards they demand of others.
no judgement- just a hypothesis
absolutely no "crazy" metaphysical theories made up
i am hardly going to "ask" if im asking my question "correctly"
no misunderstanding on my part
its my query!
and for all the 4 deconstructions of my question i have received- not one gave an answer
the question is fine as it is
i cannot help what assumptions people jump to
i made 2 long posts addressing suffering and evil with no response
but youve commented endlessly on the question posited with still no answer
its ok
also my husband pointed out to me that from an atheist perspective- since there is no way to "prove" consciousness in any way (i mean anima- not electrical activity)
that if taken in a purely material perspective- since every cell in our body is renewed every 7 years- in an atheistically run society- one would have to be released from prison after 7 years because they would be a new physical being.
now if believers are not allowed to present faith in an esoteric non material form without "proving" its existence- it seems that they would hold themselves to the same standards they demand of others.
no judgement- just a hypothesis
absolutely no "crazy" metaphysical theories made up
i am hardly going to "ask" if im asking my question "correctly"
no misunderstanding on my part
its my query!
and for all the 4 deconstructions of my question i have received- not one gave an answer
the question is fine as it is
i cannot help what assumptions people jump to
i made 2 long posts addressing suffering and evil with no response
but youve commented endlessly on the question posited with still no answer
its ok
Beliefwatch: Blasphemy
'Hi my name is Lindy and I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit and you should too.'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16409851/site/newsweek/from/ET/
Comments?
Hi Pam Meloy, you are the next contestant on "whats your line?"
Pamela;
I enjoyed your comments, and found much to agree with and more to think about. I know it's sometimes hard to speak out about our beliefs, and you have obviously put a lot of serious thought into yours, so please don't take this the wrong way, but I have a question for you.
You said "All that is left is physical matter moving through time, but what are they worth without an observer? They are instantly meaningless."
I wonder why so many people insist that the universe must have "a meaning"? We insist on on seeing purpose and value in things because that's what we do as human beings, but why should the Universe have to be observed? To me this just seems like an unnecessary bit of anthropomorphizing. Why does the Universe have to be "worth" something? Why can't it just "be"?
I think the Universe just IS, and we are just little bits of the Universe which are, for a very brief moment in time, capable of perceiving dimly our small part in it all before we blend back into it. That's awesome enough for me without having to invent meanings or purposes or gods.
Just my humble thoughts.
Regards
A Hermit
Pam Meloy,
Perhaps not believing in God or religious precepts is in vogue. Always has been for a minority since forever. They get burned at the stakes, dunked in water, quartered and beheaded among others. Excommunication is the least cruel punishment for not believeing, no agreeing with a set of beliefs.
But come on, admit it, human beings create beautiful and impressive structures because of God and religion - from the magnificent structures and pyramids in the Egypt/Middle East and Latin America, to the Sistine Chapel to the Dome on the Rock.
Warped belief in religion and God certainly has its negative effects and impact, but you can't deny the beauty humans create in the name of religion and for the transcendent God in the arts.
And oh yes, irony of irony, secular humanism is also a form of belief, a set of beliefs with its own commandments call acts and laws. Its priests and bishops are the lawyers and judges and they issued fatwas too, so to speak, secular fatwas, but fatwas all the same. And we now have agnotic/atheistic prophets like Dawkins whose latest book is quoted like the Bible and Quran by the adherents of atheism and agnotism against non believers of atheism/agnoticism.
And of course, discourses on evolution and creationism/intelligent design are the New Testaments of the High Church of Agnoticism and Atheism.
And atheists, agnostics and freethinkers can be be quite militant in their non-beliefs in the public square/forum/domain. I recognize that tone as a Muslim attuned and used to the diatribes of everyone from Christians, Hindus, agnotics and atheists. Not to mention my literalist/extremist fellow Muslims.
Nothing wrong with that, and I find it admirable to defend one's beliefs/non-beliefs. But, admit it, some atheists and agnostics can be as bigoted as believers are in insisting only their "truth" is the real truth which should prevail as their truth is supported by facts, research, logic, rational reasoning etc. Who ever said most believers of God and religion are against science?
And yet, we humans wants to transcend our limitations in imagination, in belief that there has to be something better, greater, more powerful, transcendent, infinite, omnipresent and timeless. No one said faith is logical or rational. Faith is the human capacity to hope and believe.
Which brings us to the question, what do agnostics/atheists/freethinkers hold dear in their beliefs? Secular humanism? We believers subscribe to that too. And secular humanism is really a fine-tuning/updating of ethics with religion and God taken out.
Pam Meloy,
Perhaps not believing in God or religious precepts is in vogue. Always has been for a minority since forever. They get burned at the stakes, dunked in water, quartered and beheaded among others. Excommunication is the least cruel punishment for not believeing, no agreeing with a set of beliefs.
But come on, admit it, human beings create beautiful and impressive structures because of God and religion - from the magnificent structures and pyramids in the Egypt/Middle East and Latin America, to the Sistine Chapel to the Dome on the Rock.
Warped belief in religion and God certainly has its negative effects and impact, but you can't deny the beauty humans create in the name of religion and for the transcendent God in the arts.
And oh yes, irony of irony, secular humanism is also a form of belief, a set of beliefs with its own commandments call acts and laws. Its priests and bishops are the lawyers and judges and they issued fatwas too, so to speak, secular fatwas, but fatwas all the same. And we now have agnotic/atheistic prophets like Dawkins whose latest book is quoted like the Bible and Quran by the adherents of atheism and agnotism against non believers of atheism/agnoticism.
And of course, discourses on evolution and creationism/intelligent design are the New Testaments of the High Church of Agnoticism and Atheism.
And atheists, agnostics and freethinkers can be be quite militant in their non-beliefs in the public square/forum/domain. I recognize that tone as a Muslim attuned and used to the diatribes of everyone from Christians, Hindus, agnotics and atheists. Not to mention my literalist/extremist fellow Muslims.
Nothing wrong with that, and I find it admirable to defend one's beliefs/non-beliefs. But, admit it, some atheists and agnostics can be as bigoted as believers are in insisting only their "truth" is the real truth which should prevail as their truth is supported by facts, research, logic, rational reasoning etc. Who ever said most believers of God and religion are against science?
And yet, we humans wants to transcend our limitations in imagination, in belief that there has to be something better, greater, more powerful, transcendent, infinite, omnipresent and timeless. No one said faith is logical or rational. Faith is the human capacity to hope and believe.
Which brings us to the question, what do agnostics/atheists/freethinkers hold dear in their beliefs? Secular humanism? We believers subscribe to that too. And secular humanism is really a fine-tuning/updating of ethics with religion and God taken out.
Pam Meloy,
Perhaps not believing in God or religious precepts is in vogue. Always has been for a minority since forever. They get burned at the stakes, dunked in water, quartered and beheaded among others. Excommunication is the least cruel punishment for not believeing, no agreeing with a set of beliefs.
But come on, admit it, human beings create beautiful and impressive structures because of God and religion - from the magnificent structures and pyramids in the Egypt/Middle East and Latin America, to the Sistine Chapel to the Dome on the Rock.
Warped belief in religion and God certainly has its negative effects and impact, but you can't deny the beauty humans create in the name of religion and for the transcendent God in the arts.
And oh yes, irony of irony, secular humanism is also a form of belief, a set of beliefs with its own commandments call acts and laws. Its priests and bishops are the lawyers and judges and they issued fatwas too, so to speak, secular fatwas, but fatwas all the same. And we now have agnotic/atheistic prophets like Dawkins whose latest book is quoted like the Bible and Quran by the adherents of atheism and agnotism against non believers of atheism/agnoticism.
And of course, discourses on evolution and creationism/intelligent design are the New Testaments of the High Church of Agnoticism and Atheism.
And atheists, agnostics and freethinkers can be be quite militant in their non-beliefs in the public square/forum/domain. I recognize that tone as a Muslim attuned and used to the diatribes of everyone from Christians, Hindus, agnotics and atheists. Not to mention my literalist/extremist fellow Muslims.
Nothing wrong with that, and I find it admirable to defend one's beliefs/non-beliefs. But, admit it, some atheists and agnostics can be as bigoted as believers are in insisting only their "truth" is the real truth which should prevail as their truth is supported by facts, research, logic, rational reasoning etc. Who ever said most believers of God and religion are against science?
And yet, we humans wants to transcend our limitations in imagination, in belief that there has to be something better, greater, more powerful, transcendent, infinite, omnipresent and timeless. No one said faith is logical or rational. Faith is the human capacity to hope and believe.
Which brings us to the question, what do agnostics/atheists/freethinkers hold dear in their beliefs? Secular humanism? We believers subscribe to that too. And secular humanism is really a fine-tuning/updating of ethics with religion and God taken out.
Pam Meloy,
Perhaps not believing in God or religious precepts is in vogue. Always has been for a minority since forever. They get burned at the stakes, dunked in water, quartered and beheaded among others. Excommunication is the least cruel punishment for not believeing, no agreeing with a set of beliefs.
But come on, admit it, human beings create beautiful and impressive structures because of God and religion - from the magnificent structures and pyramids in the Egypt/Middle East and Latin America, to the Sistine Chapel to the Dome on the Rock.
Warped belief in religion and God certainly has its negative effects and impact, but you can't deny the beauty humans create in the name of religion and for the transcendent God in the arts.
And oh yes, irony of irony, secular humanism is also a form of belief, a set of beliefs with its own commandments call acts and laws. Its priests and bishops are the lawyers and judges and they issued fatwas too, so to speak, secular fatwas, but fatwas all the same. And we now have agnotic/atheistic prophets like Dawkins whose latest book is quoted like the Bible and Quran by the adherents of atheism and agnotism against non believers of atheism/agnoticism.
And of course, discourses on evolution and creationism/intelligent design are the New Testaments of the High Church of Agnoticism and Atheism.
And atheists, agnostics and freethinkers can be be quite militant in their non-beliefs in the public square/forum/domain. I recognize that tone as a Muslim attuned and used to the diatribes of everyone from Christians, Hindus, agnotics and atheists. Not to mention my literalist/extremist fellow Muslims.
Nothing wrong with that, and I find it admirable to defend one's beliefs/non-beliefs. But, admit it, some atheists and agnostics can be as bigoted as believers are in insisting only their "truth" is the real truth which should prevail as their truth is supported by facts, research, logic, rational reasoning etc. Who ever said most believers of God and religion are against science?
And yet, we humans wants to transcend our limitations in imagination, in belief that there has to be something better, greater, more powerful, transcendent, infinite, omnipresent and timeless. No one said faith is logical or rational. Faith is the human capacity to hope and believe.
Which brings us to the question, what do agnostics/atheists/freethinkers hold dear in their beliefs? Secular humanism? We believers subscribe to that too. And secular humanism is really a fine-tuning/updating of ethics with religion and God taken out.
Pam Meloy,
Perhaps not believing in God or religious precepts is in vogue. Always has been for a minority since forever. They get burned at the stakes, dunked in water, quartered and beheaded among others. Excommunication is the least cruel punishment for not believeing, no agreeing with a set of beliefs.
But come on, admit it, human beings create beautiful and impressive structures because of God and religion - from the magnificent structures and pyramids in the Egypt/Middle East and Latin America, to the Sistine Chapel to the Dome on the Rock.
Warped belief in religion and God certainly has its negative effects and impact, but you can't deny the beauty humans create in the name of religion and for the transcendent God in the arts.
And oh yes, irony of irony, secular humanism is also a form of belief, a set of beliefs with its own commandments call acts and laws. Its priests and bishops are the lawyers and judges and they issued fatwas too, so to speak, secular fatwas, but fatwas all the same. And we now have agnotic/atheistic prophets like Dawkins whose latest book is quoted like the Bible and Quran by the adherents of atheism and agnotism against non believers of atheism/agnoticism.
And of course, discourses on evolution and creationism/intelligent design are the New Testaments of the High Church of Agnoticism and Atheism.
And atheists, agnostics and freethinkers can be be quite militant in their non-beliefs in the public square/forum/domain. I recognize that tone as a Muslim attuned and used to the diatribes of everyone from Christians, Hindus, agnotics and atheists. Not to mention my literalist/extremist fellow Muslims.
Nothing wrong with that, and I find it admirable to defend one's beliefs/non-beliefs. But, admit it, some atheists and agnostics can be as bigoted as believers are in insisting only their "truth" is the real truth which should prevail as their truth is supported by facts, research, logic, rational reasoning etc. Who ever said most believers of God and religion are against science?
And yet, we humans wants to transcend our limitations in imagination, in belief that there has to be something better, greater, more powerful, transcendent, infinite, omnipresent and timeless. No one said faith is logical or rational. Faith is the human capacity to hope and believe.
Which brings us to the question, what do agnostics/atheists/freethinkers hold dear in their beliefs? Secular humanism? We believers subscribe to that too. And secular humanism is really a fine-tuning/updating of ethics with religion and God taken out.
Victoria,
I will not reply to all of your interventions.
I just wanted to set the record straight on 'cell renewal' in the body.
You say every cell in our body is completely renewed every 7 years.
I don't know where you got that piece of 'information', but it's wrong.
Cell renewal is extremely variable between organs and between cell types in organs; the fastest cell renewal is in our bone marrow and the lining celle of our digestive tract. It varies between a few days (bone marrow, digestive tract lining) and essentially never (brain).
Maybe it would be good to check the facts before making inferences.
Victoria:" my husband pointed out to me that from an atheist perspective- since there is no way to "prove" consciousness in any way (i mean anima- not electrical activity) that if taken in a purely material perspective- since every cell in our body is renewed every 7 years- in an atheistically run society- one would have to be released from prison after 7 years because they would be a new physical being.
now if believers are not allowed to present faith in an esoteric non material form without "proving" its existence- it seems that they would hold themselves to the same standards they demand of others.
no judgement- just a hypothesis
===========================================
MY RESPONSE:
* I have no problem if you try to challange "the atheist view" --- "if" you properly and honestly present their true views first.
*I DO have a problem with you making up a metaphysical statement and presenting this as the "atheist" explanation.
You didn't ask - -but I will tell you anyway: The atheist perspective is that consciousness is purely physicial (not metaphysical) comprised of the nerve cells and wiring in the brain.
Again you seem determined to define what others "must" think.
You can do this if you are accurate.
But you are way off mark-- and it is derogatory.
To repeat: present my views fairly and accurately -- and THEN you can challenge me all you like.
Distort my views (as you have done)-- then you should expect me to react hotly back.
I assure you -- you would feel exactly the same way if someone treated you in this manner!
Yours,
Atheists are beginning to have a stronger voice now in balance with the strength of evangelicals. Christian marketing is more powerful than it has ever been, the religious right is growing in influence, and the president is oozing evangelical rhetoric. Beneath the surface trends, Western theology clings to an obviously flawed claim of possessing the one and only answer to the mysteries of God. I think many people realize that there is wisdom in moderation and have felt compelled to seek out the opinions of "the other side."
yes warp- as stated- the assumption was indeed that athesits believe in the consciousness (and clearly phsical) body being comprised of a physical nature-
there was no challenge- that is your take- its a simple question that seems to be obsessing you-
surely you are not suggesting that i should have prefaced the question with a thesis on what atheists believe-
*I DO have a problem with you making up a metaphysical statement and presenting this as the "atheist" explanation.
where is the metaphsics ?
*Again you seem determined to define what others "must" think.
where did i determine what others "must" think?
*But you are way off mark-- and it is derogatory.
how can an inquiry be off mark? its not a statement- its a question- by its very nature implying a desire for an answer- answers arent provided they are asked for
where is the derogation? the disrespect?
honestly you are seeing soemthing that isnt there
also i went to 15 different sites on the 7 years question before i posted the question
its a really really simply expressed question warp-
theres no judgement in it- no derogation- no presumption-
again if you dont have an answer i dont especially
mind- but this useless picking apart and accusations seem really driven by some misinterpertation on your part-
there is no bad intention there-
nothing is inferred-
no one is challenged unless it is just a challenging question itself and isnt that a good thing?
it is no secret that i am a believer but i never criticize or insult anyone who has a different paradigm than i do-
and this question was an afterthought to the first which noone has had anything to say about-
im sorry it doesnt fit into whatever preconceived notion you have as to how believers should frame questions but you are really consumed with something that simply doesnt exist-
no derogations anywhere
i have no idea why you are so bothered by this
or what you are projecting into it but it is truly in your own mind
and please stop cutting this out and pasting it over all the other panelists questions because clearly no one else is seeing what you do because no one else has seen fit to respond
thats just a request because im feeling harrassed by your pasting this all over the place
Surely, it must be increasingly apparent by now that according to incontrovertible results of modern scientific research, everything (existence) is composed of interacting fields of energy such that slowly or fast, everything is constantly changing into everything else. Our individual atoms, for example, were forged in the stars. It now seems that this restless, all inclusive "soup" of energy has neither a beginning nor an end and in its turn recommends to humanity an ethic based upon reciprocal interdependence and care for each other. Such an ethic is certianly more trustworthy than the impossible absolutes offered by imagined Grand Plans and Master Minds of religion with its non-existent intrusive supernatural divinities, its impossible immortal souls and the various promises and threats of its exclusive salvations.
So let us agree that the latest attacks on religious thought are welcome. Their rhetoric has stirred a pot that was in danger of stagnating into self-satisfaction. Too long have we acquiesced to the claims of religion. We should (perhaps now we must) acknowledge the force of Susan Jacoby's recommendation to permit us to believe whatever we want even while bewaring of tyrants and all who take fantasy for fact. The human imagination is a powerful tool and can make dreams seem real, but only acceptance of every individual's right to form personal opinions will rescue us from disaster. Our planet is in danger. Our species may self destruct. This discussion is urgent and timely. We cannot afford to cease from exploration. The achievements of science are all around us and not to be sneezed at. Likewise, the mistaken consolations of religion. Let's sort them out!
-------------------
Bernard Duncan Mayes is a Cambridge classicist and former Episcopal priest who became a dean and professor of media studies at the University of Virginia. His award-winning autobiography, Escaping God's Closet, was published in 2000. He was co-founder of National Public Radio, founder of Suicide Prevention and co-founder of the Parsonage, an Episcopal think tank.
The hell with man made religion.
Why?
You do the math.
I believe that God is not a God of confusion. However, there are many man made religions, as you all well know. There can be 15 Baptist churches in one town for example; however not 2 churchs will believe the same thing. This goes for any religion, not just Baptists.
Do you think God is acting through a mass of man made religions all doing their own thing?
I think not.
If your a Christian, and you divorce, expect the church doors to slam shut in your face. So Christ like, dont you agree?
People - -wake up! Man mande religions are fear based, gloom based and see you in Hell if you dont give 10% (and a little more) of your income.
So many people miss entirely the deep meaning of God because man has, as usual when man gets his paws on anything good, turned Christianity into a side show.
Man made religions: Keep your guilt. Keep your doom and gloom and fear tactics for those who need to be taken advantage of because its all they know.
Think for yourself.
A Hermit - Greetings! I welcome your question openly and thank you for asking it. It is a valid question and one that I have pondered, even struggled with, myself. I can offer only the explanations I have adopted and there is no offense if it does not satisfy you. It may not be simple or straight-forward, but in this sense few things are. I suspect you will find more questions than answers in my response. Personally, that’s the way I like it, but I hope it doesn’t put you off.
For me, meaning is one of the primary functions, or concepts, of the conscience. Without an observer to apply meaning, there can be no context for that which we as conscious beings know to exist.
One of my favorite mind-bending exercises is the paradox of the universe devoid of any perception, because only the conscience can perceive that such a place could exist - or can it? This brings into question the limitation(s) of conscience, but that is for another discussion.
Can, or does, or will, the universe exist in the absence of an observer to supply the context of meaning? My answer can only be... possibly. For me, their is a vast difference between a universe with an observer and one without. A universe without conscience loses value - maybe even its most significant value. It is hobbled in some way. By way of comparison, imagine if the physical dimension of breadth did not exist but the conscious dimension did. The concept is difficult to grasp other than as an abstract that is, in some way, less. Not only in the physical loss, but how it’s loss limits that which is left behind. That is how I feel about a universe without a conscience. It is somehow more than the sum of its parts.
If there is a conscious dimension and it ceases to exist, I envision it leaves a void and that void is meaning. And purpose. And understanding.
On the other hand, a universe with conscience is imbued with a sense of its own existence, a witness to existence if you will. In my view, the conscience is a tightly woven thread in the fabric of existence. It is a complex dynamic that unites and repels, akin to how the laws of physics interact.
As with the laws of physics, F = MA is a powerful tool and a good start, but with the addition of one more simple equation, E = MC2, you've increased your ability to understand exponentially. This concept of combined influence has been the most explosive revelation yet along my journey. You see, I am not alone. I have been profoundly blessed to find a like-mind scrambling along a parallel path and when our paths met, they diverged and continue to widen. For twenty years, my husband and I have walked this path, clearing much debris along the way. We are each other’s sounding board. Alone, we wandered. Together, we explore. Our combined perspectives and discourse is something that I can only describe as spiritual intercourse. My hope is that you’ve shared this experienced yourself or will someday.
Personally, my spirit is not concerned with whether the universe is meaningful or meaningless without me. Rather, it is the realization that I have the ability to search out and apply my own meaning to it for the short time I am here that appeals to me.
Meaning is where we find it and I'm always on the hunt. At times, I find hidden meaning in unsuspecting places. Epiphanies, or conscience bursts of revelation, are a marvel. They are chocolate to my soul and orgasms of my mind.
All knowledge is lost without someone or something to explain it to those that inherit it. When I consider the incredible gifts we have and the vast knowledge we’ve amassed, it is a scary prospect to think it might all be for naught. I don’t dismiss the possibility of that prospect. My greatest fear is that our religion also becomes our cause of death. That would be a fitting last breath of consciousness – irony.
To your original question, can the universe exist without meaning, I can offer you that I must accept it as a possibility. But I can’t be certain…
Sorry, A Hermit, I’ve gotten carried away which I’m predisposed to do. I hope you don’t mind, because I’ve enjoyed the ride.
Peace!
The word "atheist" presumes the existence of a god, or gods, and of someone in denial. Perhaps it is not atheism, but non-theism, that is in vogue. Freeing oneself of god-myth opens the mind to explore all that theism obscures; it is this sense of greater purpose that is finding more following. Conversation between "believers" and non-theists is possible when the discussion leads to improving man's condition; it becomes impossible when theism is a requirement to that end.
The word "atheist" presumes the existence of a god, or gods, and of someone in denial. Perhaps it is not atheism, but non-theism, that is in vogue. Freeing oneself of god-myth opens the mind to explore all that theism obscures; it is this sense of greater purpose that is finding more following. Conversation between "believers" and non-theists is possible when the discussion leads to improving man's condition; it becomes impossible when theism is a requirement to that end.
The word "atheist" presumes the existence of a god, or gods, and of someone in denial. Perhaps it is not atheism, but non-theism, that is in vogue. Freeing oneself of god-myth opens the mind to explore all that theism obscures; it is this sense of greater purpose that is finding more following. Conversation between "believers" and non-theists is possible when the discussion leads to improving man's condition; it becomes impossible when theism is a requirement to that end.
PAM youre limiting the search for meaning to a personal one- and its fine whatever any think for themselves- but there is a broader meaning inthe context of all of mankind before and after-
and that is the beauty of prophets that are sent-
knowledge once thought lost- reasserts itself in newer more conscious forms-
people get so carried away condemning religious institutions and the people who misunderstand and misapply and abuse them-that they seem to forget to look at the enlightened ones beofre us and just pay attention to their messages- their lives- and not get caught up and distracted by the "followers"
just as a last breath of consciousness spent in irony would be a tragic waste- so too is ignoring the knowledge that has reappeared to us over history-
and while it is wonderful to find our life partner in our journey- the connection doesnt stop there- it is all of humanity that is the ultimate connection to each other-
you seem to conclude that a universe without meaning is pointless in your previous statements- but then at the end say you simply dont know-
unless you believe you have reached the highest plane of consciousness possible on your own-
i dont understand why our journey wouldnt include investigating the possibility that there are some who have known- and try to understand why and how they know this-
ive asked before without answer- just who are the enlightened predecessors in atheism- and what was their conclusion on life the universe and the meaning of it all-
from what ive researched- through cogitating alone- there havent been any answers that suit all of humanity- and isnt that part of the point?
Nafi Sahgem : "secular humanism is also a form of belief, a set of beliefs with its own commandments call acts and laws."
I think you are making some unfounded assumptions about humanism here. I consider myself a Humanist, but I know of no commandments or laws I must obey, no priests or organizations I must follow. Just thinkers I respect and ethical principles which are not just appealing to me but reasonable and effective. There's certainly no element of superstition, as with religious faith, and no one has ever been burned at a stake for challenging any humanist principle.
I've lived by faith and I now live bt reason. I know the difference.
it is possible to be a believer and still think deeply and consider the universe in all its different manifestations- i am a believer in a personal god- since prayer unifies other believers with me in intention- i dont see a big difference inbelieving in a personal god or an impersonal one- but i think it takes a more identifiable committment to state in personal terms and personal responsibility is my priority- the essence that is me is dependable in my interactions with other humans and i dont see how that could possibly threaten or upset anyone- believer or non-
ive tried to be open hearted in other peoples expressions but my experience in reading the volumes of posts from an atheist perspective has actually deepened my own committment to my particular path-
i hope that all the seekers find what theyre looking for
PEACE as always
Thanks for the response Pamela. You're right, I can't entirely agree with you, although I appreciate the clarity of your thinking, and we're not that far apart really.
But it still seems to me that the only difference between an observed universe and an unobserved universe is the presence of the observer. The rest of the universe will keep cycling on just fine without us watching it. Whatever value we attach to it may be important to us (certainly is to me) but even as a shared human experience I just don't see how that rises to the level of deity.
Like you I find meaning where I can; often in surprising places; a flavour, a single note (especially through a vintage tube amplifier) a touch, a texture, a moment of eye contact, a flash of colour, a shared thought in an internet forum...;-)
But these are profoundly human perceptions, and and that is enough to make them important to me. It just doesn't seem very likely, nor does it matter much to me, whether or not the rest of the Universe is interested in them. In fact, focusing too much on that possibility (which is what religion does) seems to me to deny the human-ness of it all, and that's where religious faith breaks down and we lose the worth of the experience.
Regards
A Hermit
What most atheists and agnostics quietly know is that "God" is only a word, i.e., the only place you can point to "God" or determine "God's" attributes is by pointing to words. If "God" cannot be determined outside the artificiality of language, then it would appear that "God" and everything attributed to "God" is only a construct of language. Reality is what you have when all the words have been removed. You can determine whether something is real or not if you can experience it without resorting to language (whether spoken or written). What does this make of the notions of Heaven, Hell, the Soul, Afterlife, Angels, Devils, etc? Like "God" none of these can be determined outside of language either. It's so utterly a simple test of reality, and yet most people are so busy talking-reading-arguing religious doctrine they haven't been able to quiet their minds long enough to figure it out. Reality without words is reality indeed.
Pax et bonum,
Craig
http://www.control-z.com
Atheism is gaining popularity because George Bush, Pat Robertson and others give Believing a bad name. God tells George its OK to Invade Iraq and kill thousands of people. Pat tells us he is God's spokesman on Earth? Now That IS HARD TO BELIEVE!
Atheism isn't "in vogue." It's always been around, and not just exclusively to the scientific community. It isn't on the rise either; it only appears that way because today's society is less demonizing to anyone who "comes out of the closet."
I'm also tired of people "blaming" consumerism/the media for atheism. If you want to blame anything for Atheism, blame science, the BIBLE, and the bloody history of the Abrahamic religions. The day secularism eventually takes over... add Wikipedia to the list. :D
Perhaps more of today's educated people realize they simply don't need an imaginary friend in the sky to live their lives. The legends of the past are interesting to study, to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors. But we should not perpetuate myths and bad practices without reason. And there is no reason to mix government (in its best form: the rule of democratic law) with religion (spiritual beliefs and superstitions.)
Atheism isn't "in vogue." It's always been around, and not just exclusively to the scientific community. It isn't on the rise either; it only appears that way because today's society is less demonizing to anyone who "comes out of the closet."
I'm also tired of people "blaming" consumerism/the media for atheism. If you want to blame anything for Atheism, blame science, the BIBLE, and the bloody history of the Abrahamic religions. The day secularism eventually takes over... add Wikipedia to the list. :D
I don't think Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue. Compared to the time when Madeline Murray O'Hare organization rivaled the evangelical movements of Today. It is the same Today as in Jesus' day when He said wide is the path that leads to destruction and many go that way. But narrow is the path which leads to life and few find it. If anything the division is simply more clear in our time than during some other times.
I do think there are honest questions which need answers but quick and simple doesn't work for every question.
A lot of atheism is more anger than unbelief. Consider the truth is narrow but we like to keep our options open: we like the wide path. Therefore some view truth as narrow minded and offensive. Secondly, we have a tendency sometimes to push truths beyond their contexts and limits for political and manipulative gains. When we do this, we polarize people and throw our whole integrity into question. Finally, faith contains an experiential element. I cannot deny my experience anymore than someone who has not had such an experience can be expected to understand it. I can only share my experience. The judgment of the hearer, whether I am nuts, mistaken, or real, is still only their judgment.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
Victoria:"surely you are not suggesting that i should have prefaced the question with a thesis on what atheists believe-"
#1 It was prefaced as a statement not a question. I still don't understand the metaphysical logic, let alone the reference to when atheists are in charge and people in jail.
#2 if you purport to describe what atheists believe - an "attempt" for accuracy would show a bare modicum of respect instead of using a straw man.
#3 Perhaps you really wanted to hold a discussion with the straw man "atheist", and I was just interfering...
I will endeavor not to make "that" same mistake again .. (altbough I'm sure there will be plenty of other mistakes elsewhere... like getting the poster's name right. Smile)
Yours,
WarpTen
A Hermit
There are principles of secular humanism - e.g. freedom of speech, freedom of belief, freedom of expression and other fundamental rights and freedoms cast in the Constitutions of many states. State constitutions are the new Bible and Torah and Quran laying the grounds for human behavior. And protected by the laws of the land and jugdes and lawyers.
I am looking secular humanism as a set of beliefs from the perspective of all the fuss over last year's Prophet Muhammad PBUH cartoon controversy where the priciples/beliefs of secular humanism clashed with Islamic principles/beliefs. You remember that one don't you? I do believe that you would be defending freedom of expression as much as the Muslims are defending the notion that there be no images of the Prophet. It is one set of beliefs/principles against another.
What is apparent over the centuries is that, religious entities' domination in affairs of state is being replaced by secular, democratic governance. A set of beliefs replaced by another set, or rather, taking precedent of one particular set of beliefs which may subsume or marginalize the beliefs of others. Is equality, liberty and fraternity of all men not a belief?
Whoever said anyone is against secular humanism or humanists? I am for seperation of state and religion as the best defence against and protection from adherents of any set of beliefs prevaling over and persecuting any group of believers and unbelievers who do share the same beliefs as them.
Secular humanism, as universal principles and beliefs, and secular governance, is the best antidote to the excesses of any oppressive and repressive religious/non religious beliefs, including Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism etc.
For what it is worth, I love self declared humanists. They defend the rights of everyone, whether they agree with them or not, and they never start a fight or war.
Peace be with you.
"Peace be with you."
And with you, Nafi.
As for the cartoon controversy my feeling was that the papers certainly had a right to publish them but were wrong to do so. And the clerics who whipped up the issue were equally to blame. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD. Being deliberately provocative is never good policy.
I'm glad you can love us humanists. I love people whose faith moves them to acts of compassion and kindness and are willing to see the good even in others whose beliefs may differ from their own.
Regards
A Hermit
As a "believer" I write to all of you with caution. I know that the way to get a point across to you isn't to quote scripture or even to refute some of the things you say as atheists or you will just ignore me and put me in the box that Christians sometimes get put in. Try not to judge God by the acts of us Christians however, we will fail every time. It isn't about proving things by science or judging religion based on peoples actions but by seeing the possibility that a loving God created us for His pleasure - just the way we do our children. Sometimes they and we fail - sometimes in the most horrible of ways, but we love them anyway. It's about faith and not having to explain everything for it to be real. I do feel sorry for atheists for one reason, in the end no matter how you have justified it, your non-belief will be robbing you of a more fullfilled life on Earth and an afterlife with the creator of all.
I think it is popular now with some just like it has always been and always will be - we humans tend to put ourselves at the top of every list for intelligence. If I don't get it then it can't be. Maybe you should ask God to help you get it - try it!
The Bible tells us that this will be the "scene" in the end....II Timothy, Chapter 4:3
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.." (athesism, Cathoclism, Islam, Hinduism...etc,etc.).
"I do feel sorry for atheists for one reason, in the end no matter how you have justified it, your non-belief will be robbing you of a more fullfilled life on Earth and an afterlife with the creator of all." Jennifer
Don't feel sorry for me, Jennifer, I assure my life on Earth is much more fulfilled as an atheist than it ever was as a believer. As for the afterlife, no one can honestly say they know what happens when we die. I suspect it is like Carl Sagan said, we are made of the same stuff as the stars, and when we die we just go back to being "star stuff". That's actually OK with me.
regards
A Hermit
A Hermit - I feel that we are very alike, you and I.
I feel a part of something and I can only explain it from my imperfect perspective in terms that make sense to me. I admit that God is not the perfect term, but I fail to find another more fitting. In discussions with others, it's difficult to label my beliefs. When I try to step away from the use of 'God' and rely on terms like consciousness and dimensions people generally tend to quickly tune out before they've truly listened. Criticism I can deal with. It's outright rejection that I gets to me.
I balk at the thought of my "God" expressed as a diety. It has no power, no influence. As in your belief that the universe 'just is' in its form, my God 'just is', but without form, like time.
As a natural scientist, I have a deep-felt belief that if something exists it must have somewhere to reside. I believe my conscience exists because I experience it. But where does it come from, where does it go? To me, my brain is not that place, it is the conduit through which conscience flows. I feel my conscience as a presence. I am aware of it. I can only hope that what I feel is conscience and not schizophenia... ;)
If I die, time continues to exist. In that same vein, I believe consciousness, in general, continues to exist in my yphysical absence in much the same way. If the universe 'just is' and can exist without any conscious meaning, would it also be acceptable to say that time 'just is' and could exist without physical form? Or are they inextricably linked and dependent? Or are we hung up on the simple perception that what we see if what we believe? Perception, their it is again. I am a slave to its filter, but nothing without it. Paradox.
My overall interest is not in the universal structure, although it may seem to be. It is more about how all things fit together - you, me, the birds and the bees. Harmony. Balance.
Our shared experience is like striking a beautiful chord. It can't be achieved by one note alone. However, that one note has it own place and own beauty and should not be overlooked. Luckily, we can have both.
Peace!
Pamela
I like your pantheist approach; and you're right; "God" is just not the best word for it; the term carries too much baggage.
I like to think of us as little bits of the universe that have come together in such a way that we can actually perceive, however dimly, that we are part of the Universe. Mind-boggling idea, really, impossible to fully describe in mere words, but you've come close, I think...
Peace to you too...
A Hermit
Jennifer :
- "Try not to judge God by the acts of us Christians however, we will fail every time."
Jen, please don't do that to me. Don't debase yourselve to elevate god. I'm unable to imagine that the creator of the universe want's you to do that. He (she/it) knows what it's worth.
- "It isn't about proving things by science or judging religion based on peoples actions but by seeing the possibility that a loving God created us for His pleasure - just the way we do our children."
You don't know that. Of course, neither do I. I'm sorry to only propose a simplton answer:
Any beeing that has created a place like the universe is rather incomprehensible to us - at least as long as we can't talk to it. Don't try to grasp him by human concepts - like fatherhood. (And while we're on, don't give it a gender either)
- "Sometimes they and we fail - sometimes in the most horrible of ways, but we love them anyway. It's about faith and not having to explain everything for it to be real."
Jen, we are the only species on this planet that can use reason. That can find answers. It's in our nature to look for explanations, thats deeply human. Don't forsake one of the most human traits - and don't fear human nature.
- "I do feel sorry for atheists for one reason, in the end no matter how you have justified it, your non-belief will be robbing you of a more fullfilled life on Earth and an afterlife with the creator of all."
What can I say - you've got a kind heart. And it's painful for me to imagine, that you really believe my life would be more fullfilling with your faith.
Trust me - we're doing alright. And we're not going to miss an afterlife - we didn't expect one in the first place.
(BTW: Are you shure you want to live forever? I'm not shure I wanted, if I could.)
- "I think it is popular now with some just like it has always been and always will be - we humans tend to put ourselves at the top of every list for intelligence. If I don't get it then it can't be."
Yes I guess one must see it that way. Refusing your god must be like a slap in your face. Well, the other side to it is our high hope that with more reason in the world we can diminish some of the suffering.
I know religion wants to do the same - however, can't you forgive us that after 2000 years of waiting for betterment we get impatient and try something new? (Well, relativly new.)
- "Maybe you should ask God to help you get it - try it!"
Well, you know asking something from a beeing you don't believe in for something you're not missing is bit of a stretch.
That is why it won't happen.
Thank you for your post. You came openly and barehanded, putting the bible asside for the moment. I realy appreciated that.
And I only whinced twice reading your post - hopefuly you're not going to whince more often at mine.
Sorry, the post with the empty names mine.
Another thought for Jennifer...
What do you think will happen to atheists after death? I have tried to believe, but find that I can't. Will your God torture me for all eternity for my honesty? Why?
Jennifer wrote:
---"I do feel sorry for atheists for one reason, in the end no matter how you have justified it, your non-belief will be robbing you of a more fullfilled life on Earth and an afterlife with the creator of all."---
Well I feel sorry for the athiests and Jennifer. We Last Thursdaists believe the universe was created last thursday and we have until next thursday to get our life in order and prove our worth because next thursday is when the apocolypse happens. I doubt Jennifer is doing what God has prescribed to reach heaven by next thursday, like giving her worldly possessions to the poor, like devoting all her remaining time to prayer and devotion. But her belief in a different religion will not be forgiven. God will only accept those who are poor and devotely praying next thursday. Everyone else is doomed to remain on earth after next thursday not knowing that we who are poor and devoted have gone off to heaven. And those who remain will have nothing to look forward to but their ashes becoming ashes. Jennifer, your non-belief in Last Thursdaism will be robbing you of a more fullfilled life through next thursday and an afterlife with the creator of all. Become a Last Thursdaist and you shall be saved. Come on Jennifer, believe!
Nafi and Bill L who ask "what is my line"?
Nafi you are correct in saying that many A/A's (athesist/agnostics) are very militant in their beliefs. No different than others who are persecuted for their beliefs. I have never personally had a bad experience with my non-belief because I am just now coming to terms with what I do and don't believe. I make no secret that I do not attend any church even to my church attending friends. I will answer their questions when they ask but do not feel the need to go into a detail. I believe it is a personal choice and I do not owe anyone an explanation of what I believe or don't believe.
I have never believed in any religion or a personal god but haven't given it much thought until I started blogging on this site. It has been a non issue for me most of my life.
This idea that atheism is "now in vogue" is a crock. It is just that more people are starting to come out of the closet with their non-beliefs. I think it is because this current administration in Washington has brought so much emphasis on religion and it has scared many of us into speaking out. I suppose it may well be just a passing thing but it seems like for the first time in my 61 years of life that the religious fanatics are out there preaching to all of us.
PAMELA I did spend a short period of time in the space you seem to be in. It was short lived for whatever reason. It was when I stopped drinking and turned to AA for help. People did try to convince me that I needed so kind of god to help me. After 20 years sober now I have come to the conclusion that it was not a higher power that helped me but many doctors, therapists, caring friends but most of all my desire to help myself. I have no problem with people who I have heard share on here that Jesus and who all have helped them kick drugs, alcohol and whatever else. However, I do think that they fail to understand that they were the one that did most of the work in accomplishing that hard task. If they need a crutch for that fine. As we say in the program "whatever works for you".
Victoria, I am not sure what you are referring to that I only look at it personally. I don't know why I should not look at how it affects me personally since I am not a member of any religion and how I believe is only important to me. It has nothing to do with others around me. I do honestly believe that everyone has a right to believe in whatever they want to (a door knob) if it does it for them. My only rule is please don't try and convert me or judge me. I am very curious to how you came to the decision to believe in Islam.
Jennifer wrote:
---"I do feel sorry for atheists for one reason, in the end no matter how you have justified it, your non-belief will be robbing you of a more fullfilled life on Earth and an afterlife with the creator of all."---
Well I feel sorry for the athiests and Jennifer. We Last Thursdaists believe the universe was created last thursday and we have until next thursday to get our life in order and prove our worth because next thursday is when the apocolypse happens. I doubt Jennifer is doing what God has prescribed to reach heaven by next thursday, like giving her worldly possessions to the poor, like devoting all her remaining time to prayer and devotion. But her belief in a different religion will not be forgiven. God will only accept those who are poor and devotely praying next thursday. Everyone else is doomed to remain on earth after next thursday not knowing that we who are poor and devoted have gone off to heaven. And those who remain will have nothing to look forward to but their ashes becoming ashes. Jennifer, your non-belief in Last Thursdaism will be robbing you of a more fullfilled life through next thursday and an afterlife with the creator of all. Become a Last Thursdaist and you shall be saved. Come on Jennifer, believe!
I feel sorry for Jimbo, `cause Hank's gonna kick his butt...
Sorry, that should have read "Hank's gonna kick the snot out of him". Wouldn't want to mislead anyone, theologically speaking...>;-}
Good find Hermit. Hank is in hell now. Believe me. But others have taken his place.
Oh, and did I say you had to give your possessions to the poor by next thursday. I meant to say to give your possessions to me, yea, that's it, at least that how I'm interpreting Last Thursdaism this thursday.
-And the Lord said daddy there's a million pigeons
-waiting to be hooked on new religions
-hit the road daddy leave your common-law wife
-spread the religion of the Rhythm of Life
---(Sweet Charity)
A HERMIT:
You ponder too, too much for a non-believer about death :) Your are really an existentialist. Oh, wait. And existentialist has no hope, no faith. You have both. Not faith in the traditional way, but faith that man will see reason and behave reasonably. Actually, you sounds like a secular Pope Benedict, nay, Pope John Paul II.
If you don't believe in the hearafter, when you die, you die, no heaven and hell.
If you believe, then you will wonder whether you'll go to heaven or hell if you are aware enough that you are going to die and your brains is still working.
In the end, it is all in the mind.
As for I think as a believer? You won't go to hell. God will be the judge of that. After all, you chose the right path - the path of the righeous and one who has not gone astray as a human being. Don't flinch, but you are really very Islamic minus belief in God and all the baggage of other religious precepts and injunctions if you want to call them that:)
I'm will be off reading On Faith from tomorrow when my vacation ends. It was a surprise to be reading all the entries/postings in the On Faith threads.
My very best A HERMIT. God bless you, if you can stand it :)
PAM MELOY : I am glad to have read your entries. We are all looking for the "truth" in our lives and beliefs after all.
May peace be with you both
A HERMIT:
You ponder too, too much for a non-believer about death :) Your are really an existentialist. Oh, wait. And existentialist has no hope, no faith. You have both. Not faith in the traditional way, but faith that man will see reason and behave reasonably. Actually, you sounds like a secular Pope Benedict, nay, Pope John Paul II.
If you don't believe in the hearafter, when you die, you die, no heaven and hell.
If you believe, then you will wonder whether you'll go to heaven or hell if you are aware enough that you are going to die and your brains is still working.
In the end, it is all in the mind.
As for I think as a believer? You won't go to hell. God will be the judge of that. After all, you chose the right path - the path of the righeous and one who has not gone astray as a human being. Don't flinch, but you are really very Islamic minus belief in God and all the baggage of other religious precepts and injunctions if you want to call them that:)
I'm will be off reading On Faith from tomorrow when my vacation ends. It was a surprise to be reading all the entries/postings in the On Faith threads.
My very best A HERMIT. God bless you, if you can stand it :)
PAM MELOY : I am glad to have read your entries. We are all looking for the "truth" in our lives and beliefs after all.
May peace be with you both
Actually I don't think about death much at all; I'm too busy living. (We hermits have such a busy social life, you know...)
It was nice meeting you Nafi. Peace to you and yours.
Regards
A Hermit
to the person who responded to me on Jan 4 at 10:53, Falk perhaps?
Thanks for being open minded. I never want to be one of those Christians who writes others off but I do have strong Bible based convictions. No...I don't know anything for sure but I believe what I read is the inspired word of God and I have faith in His promises. Reading the Bible is hard - not easy to understand and although I am a busy woman with children and living as a military wife overseas I try to find the time to attend Bible studies to help me clarify it. It makes so much sense to me that it is hard to comprehend someone not believing in it the way I do.
As for the "I feel sorry" comment. That was not meant to be disparaging or condesending. See it from my point of view. I really believe that God is in control of the universe and is waiting anxiously to have me home with Him one day where all the mysteries will be unravelled and life with Him, as he promises, will be unlike any treasure we can imagine. I get that you don't believe that so it seems like I am patronizing you but I'm not. I'm not even judging you. One of my prayers is for people who don't know Him to have that blessing and feel as comforted by it as I do.
As for debasing myself to elevate God, I am doing no such thing. I really hate to see people view God through humans. I think I am a great person...sometimes I make a totally crappy Christian but I still am one. No matter what we do or don't do (believe or don't believe) God is still God. He does ask me to be a light to all unbelievers - to walk the walk and talk the talk basically so that if my behavior is attractive to others I can attract them to a life with Christ. I wish I did that better.
To Hermit,
No, God won't torture you for all eternity for honesty but your future isn't pretty. I don't say that to be threatning, again - I believe what the Bible has to say. I also believe if you have tried to believe that God will answer your prayer and help you. If you are really open to seeing Him, He won't deny you. God sent his Son into the world to bring us to Him, not to judge us and convict us. He only insists on our faith.
To all, don't do to Christians what I am reading you hate to have done to you. We are not all closed minded judgemental nuts. I am you. I am not a coward nor am I ignorant, I am an (almost) middle aged woman who likes to laugh, love, watch junky tv, eat fatty food and have a drink when the kids are making me nuts. I also believe with all my heart in God. Not some spirit or higher power or a door knob - God. He never promised me a perfect life, many biblical stories are chock full of disaster but He promises that He has a plan for my life and if I choose to follow Him he will give me what I need to get through it and learn along the way.
Jen
Oh JEN, how I wished that all of the believers were like you. Maybe we could all get along and do great things in this world. I thank you for your words.
Atheism seems to be in its large group of believers because it is the easier way to go. It is easier to believe that there is no answer to the emptiness, because then we don't have to look for something to be filled with. It is easier to say there is no concrete truth, because then we can never be wrond by not knowing it. It is easier to just believe in myself and blame nature for our shortcomings.
Atheism seems to be in its large group of believers because it is the easier way to go. It is easier to believe that there is no answer to the emptiness, because then we don't have to look for something to be filled with. It is easier to say there is no concrete truth, because then we can never be wrond by not knowing it. It is easier to just believe in myself and blame nature for our shortcomings.
Gio wrote: ---Atheism seems to be in its large group of believers because it is the easier way to go. It is easier to believe that there is no answer to the emptiness, because then we don't have to look for something to be filled with.---
Do you need something to be filled with? Do you feel empty? Why? I'm serious, I have never felt empty, except when my college girlfriend dumped me for a guy older than her father. That was some real emptyness then, but I find life and all it has to offer more than enough to fill my life. Why do you feel God fills your emptiness?
---It is easier to say there is no concrete truth, because then we can never be wrond by not knowing it. It is easier to just believe in myself and blame nature for our shortcomings.---
But athiests believe in many concrete truths. Morality is not derived from God. Its in all humans of all faiths and those with no faith, and animals as well. As for shortcomings, sure we all have them, christianity says we're born with it. At least in that we all seem to agree, no one is perfect. But if you think we should all be perfect and God is the way to make that happen I think you'll be disappointed.
For me it comes down to giving up my ability to take responsibility for my own actions, how I determine what actions to take, and hand it all over to God. I don't think He's there to hand it to and I don't feel the need to hand that to Him or anyone else. I am my own keeper. When I do something wrong I don't ask for God's forgiveness, I take responsibility. When I need help in making a decision I ask other people and think about it, I don't pray. I never feel empty because I am always there for me. Believe me, its not the easy way to go, facing up to your mistakes and not blaming God, or the Devil, or other spirits. If I run a red light and cause an accident I don't wonder why God meant for me to cause that accident. I don't consider it punishment for something I did or any shortcoming. I screwed up, it was my fault and I'll admit it, not because lying is a sin but because lying is against my moral fiber. If I lie I know I won't sleep at night because I'm now a liar. I don't like liars so I would not like myself, something that would keep me awake. I guess you would be worried God would not like you and maybe give you a few extra days in pergatory. If that's what you need to be a good person then I guess that's better than the alternative.
Victoria: also my husband pointed out to me that from an atheist perspective- since there is no way to "prove" consciousness in any way (i mean anima- not electrical activity)
that if taken in a purely material perspective- since every cell in our body is renewed every 7 years- in an atheistically run society- one would have to be released from prison after 7 years because they would be a new physical being.
now if believers are not allowed to present faith in an esoteric non material form without "proving" its existence- it seems that they would hold themselves to the same standards they demand of others.
==========================================
If it's YOUR view (or someone else's view -- respectfull submitted) then please proceed. This would be valuable.
My issue is you are telling me what a typical atheist thinks. Then inferring I can't understand the question, so how can I disagree with your position of what an atheist really believes. (circular)
For starters you mistke what a typical atheist believes is the nature of consciousness and being a human.
#1 A typical atheist does not believe there is "no way" to explain consciousness. [an atheist typically holds the cognitive neuroscientific view that consciousness results from the complex physical structure of the brain; Want to discuss the science in more detail?)
#2 A typical atheist does not think when the body replenishes its cells, this makes a new human. It is the brain and its wiring that makes us human.
Do your fingernails growing out mean anything other than it is replacing an old fingernails? Consciousness has nothing to do with replenishing your cells. It is the brain structure that matters.
This was the statement I (still) dislike.
Let's turn your statement about the atheist run society. Try this:
"In a Muslim run society -- one would have to be released from prison after 7 years because they wuld be a new physical being."
-- Do I know enough about Muslim-run societies to say this?
This is no longer a discussion about beliefs -- when I start picking on some outside group from myself. The tone is derogatory with an implication Muslims may throw higher numbers in jail. But look -- Muslims also have this kinky view that prisoners aren't the same person -- so they would have to let them out every seven years.
Muslims don't really think like this, you might correctly respond. This is a distortion of what Muslims really think.
But you see--I am merely expressing my faith/spiritual views in a non-esoteric way. The problem is that you just don't understand the concepts correctly. No Muslim does.
========================================
Just as I defended you (and anyone else) against the "Brights" label for it being smug and offensive-- I would have defended ANY target group above from what I saw as a smug, degrading reference -- by a person who didn't have a clue (or cared to have a clue) what the other group really held.
It is "ok" for your husband to say this in private to you -- in private you do not need to respect anyone.
It is different to go public and tell a person what they are supposed to be like.
To repeat: Please tell us your own personal views. These are valuable.
Speculations on what OTHER groups HAVE to think -- are not valuable unless you present their views accurately.
==============================================
I assure you I have already (and will continue) standing up for Muslims when I hear some of my more conservative Christians friends tell me they believe all Muslims are terrorists. [Count -- personally about 10 people; on public boards a lot more.]
They also get inundated by facts from me.
Do try and keep your facts accurate please.
Yours.
WarpTen
"No, God won't torture you for all eternity for honesty but your future isn't pretty. I don't say that to be threatning, again - I believe what the Bible has to say." - Jennifer
Well, the Bible I used to study says unbelievers go to Hell; a a pit or lake of fire, cast out into the darkness, wailing for eternity. I'd say that's more than just "not pretty"...
But if it's not that what is it you think hapens to an honest unbeliever like me? Why is it "not pretty"? Am I to be punished for my honesty? Would it be better to accept Pascal's Wager and pretend to believe?
---------------
"I also believe if you have tried to believe that God will answer your prayer and help you. If you are really open to seeing Him, He won't deny you. God sent his Son into the world to bring us to Him, not to judge us and convict us. He only insists on our faith."
You misunderstand where I am coming from I think. I was raised in the Mennonite faith, I was baptized at the age of 16; I studied the Bible all my life, I lived a life of faith. In fact, I gave myself up completely to the will of God, to a degree I don't often see from many Christians. I strove to become like the lilies of the field, relying on God's grace to provide.
And nothing happened.
Now, I know I can never convince you of the truth of this, you can always believe that I'm lying to you, or you can accept that I devoutly and sincerely sought the Lord; that I waited patiently for that "still small voice" but never heard it.
If you accept the truth of my story you are left with some serious questions (the questions I had to answer for myself); was my failure to feel God's presence due to some defect on my part? If I was inadequate why did God create me as an inadequate being? Was I wrong to have doubts and questions? I tell you honestly I did all I was able to do.
Was my faith not strong enough? If so what does that say about the idea of grace; that we are saved not by our own efforts by God's mercy? Why was there no mercy for me? If all it takes to find God is to follow your prescription and try to believe, to pray and to be open to God and I have done that why would I find myself feeling more and more an absence of God instead of a presence?
In the end I could believe that I was an inadequate failure or that God exists but despises me and hides Himself from me for some reason, or that there is no God and I'd better start believing in myself and getting on with life.
I eventually came to realize the third option made the most sense. I'm a lot happier now, much more well adjusted and, I think, a better person to those around me. If your God exists and has something "not pretty" planned for my future than he is not worthy of my worship; He is a sick prankster who hides form me and will punish me for not believing in Him anyway.
I realize this might sound bitter or angry, but it's not. It's been a great relief to me to realize that the God I used to try to believe in really doesn't exist; that there is nothing wrong with me for not being able to believe in something which doesn't exist and life can be joyful and full of love and wonder without all that baggage about gods and the afterlife.
I'm going to live my life to be the best human being I can be; I will create, I will love my friends, family and neighbours and do what I can to make little corner of the universe a better place. And when my moment of life is over I will go back to being part of the larger whole; whatever that looks or feels like I don't know and I don't care it is beyond my control and worth wasting time and effort worrying about.
So don't feel sad for me, and don't bother with dire warnings for my future. It's nothing I haven't heard and carefully considered before. I appreciate your concern, I truly do. I sense it comes from a place of compassion and kindness in you, but it isn't necessary.
Thanks all the same.
Regards
A Hermit
warp i have no idea what you want or why you are mad
there was no implications- no inferences there were no polarities suggested- the perceived offense is most emphatically and truly in your own mind
youve done yourself a disservice
you really need to let go of this
youll never convinve me that there were some secret implied bad intentions and you never will
they simply are not there
they were fine questions (there wwere several beofre that post you know it was an afterthought)
and no one had any answer and it doesnt bother me at all
i had many responses to it all saying they didnt know in the end but absolutely no one(and they were all atheists) seemto have the remotest problem with it
let it go warp
really really peace to you
Victoria,
The principle is very simple: You have every right to believe what you want to about yourself and other Muslims.
You don't have the right to declare that Christians, Jews, or atheists, etc, believe "such and such"; and when they say you have your facts wrong, pretend this is irrelevent.
You can JUDGE them anyway you want afterwards -- but you have to be open to the ACCURACY of the basic facts.
As a parallel:
My fundi Christian friends don't get it either when I suggest they need to get THEIR facts right about the Muslim religion -- before arbitrarily saying Islam is a naturally violent religion that produces terrorists.
The facts easily show it is only a minority of Muslims who have a violent mindset (similar to fundies in other religions,)
But they have to care about the facts first. Like you, some DON'T Care.
If you don't get this -- fine. I face the same thing (often) with them...
Seems to me: Sometimes being religious means you don't have to be careful about the facts. (Doesn't apply all the time -- it just applies too often.)
Yours,
victoria :
that raises an interesting question for me-
in evolution do we assume that homo sapiens are at the top of the heiarchy?
if we go from a purely logical standpoint we are ill-suited to our environment- must construct all sorts of resource depleting and earth destoying
contrivances just to survive- like george carlin says-maybe god created us because he wanted plastic-
as stated animals act with compassion and self sacrifice to care for each other- what is te superiority of man as a species over others?
im just wondering from what i imagine is an atheist viewpoint-
without a soul and a connection to god- what makes humans better than dolphins which live in complete harmony with the planet?
do atheists believe in a soul?
what is the function of a soul without god?
just wondering
peace
January 2, 2007 4:55 AM
also my husband pointed out to me that from an atheist perspective- since there is no way to "prove" consciousness in any way (i mean anima- not electrical activity)
that if taken in a purely material perspective- since every cell in our body is renewed every 7 years- in an atheistically run society- one would have to be released from prison after 7 years because they would be a new physical being.
now if believers are not allowed to present faith in an esoteric non material form without "proving" its existence- it seems that they would hold themselves to the same standards they demand of others.
warpten- where is any judgement criticism presumption of telling anyone waht they think?
im only responding to you becasue it seems to disturb you so much-
heres me-
im just wondering from what i imagine is an atheist viewpoint-
imagine to be- is there any more benign way or more respectful way that i couldve phrased that?
i am really baffled by your distress
so ive made it easy for you
just paste whatever offensive line is in there for you - because i honestly want to understand
if somehow ive done something i wasnt aware of to insult atheists-
make me aware of it so i dont make the same mistake in the future, ok?
consider yourself my atheist sensitivity trainer ok?
peace
Hi Jenifer,
yes the respons on Jan 4 at 10:53 was by me.
thanks for your answer.
- "As for the "I feel sorry" comment. That was not meant to be disparaging or condesending."
Don't worry. I know that. And to the best of my abilities I tried to see it your way.
My "And it's painful for me to imagine, that you really believe my life would be more fullfilling with your faith." comment was likewise not meant to patronize you. I just tried to give you the atheists perspective - as information.
When I said that it is painful for me I didn't mean you hurt me by thinking so. I just imagined it must be a source of concern for you. And I thought maybe I can take that burden of worry off of you. Have a light heart, an atheists life is as fulfilled as yours is.
At times our sources of fullfillment might differ - but they are there.
Take care,
Falk
I'll take a shot at this...;-)
victoria : "that raises an interesting question for me-
in evolution do we assume that homo sapiens are at the top of the heiarchy?"
Me: - No -
victoria : "if we go from a purely logical standpoint we are ill-suited to our environment"
Me: I disagree. We are very well adapted to our environment in that we have the ability to modify it to suit our needs. Beavers do this to, with their dam building, we're just a lot better at it than they are. Are we sometimes destructive? Yes. So are Beavers. But we're (hopefully) also s,art enough to be capable of fixing our mistakes; if we act rationally...
victoria : "as stated animals act with compassion and self sacrifice to care for each other- what is te superiority of man as a species over others?"
Me - There is none, really. we're just a lot better at certain mental tasks, like visualization, projection and abstract reasoning. doesn't make us "superior" necessarily I've even seen it suggested that "intelligence" may ultimately fail as an evolutionary adaptation, for reasons similar to those you and George Carlin suggest).
Certainly in the vastness of the Universe we are pretty insignificant creatures; the Dinosaurs were around lot longer than we have been...
victoria : "im just wondering from what i imagine is an atheist viewpoint-"
Me - And this is where you get into trouble with warp10; your imaginary atehist's viewpoint doesn't have much in common with his viewpoint as an atheist (or the viewpoint of any atheist I know of..)
victoria : "without a soul and a connection to god- what makes humans better than dolphins which live in complete harmony with the planet?"
Me - Nothing, really. We're more important to each other, but I imagine dolphins are more important to other dolphins, too.
victoria : "do atheists believe in a soul?"
Define "soul" and we'll talk...I suspect most atheists don't believe in a soul, but I don't ant to make assumptions about what you mean by that word.
victoria : "what is the function of a soul without god?"
Again, you'll have to define your terms before anyone can begin to answer that question.
Regards
A Hermit
THANK YOU HERMIT!
Jen and other believers – Got a sense of humor about your beliefs? Here are a few excerpted lines from the website http://www.jhuger.com/kisshankbutt.php that A Hermit posted:
John: "If you kiss Hank's butt, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the snot out of you." …"Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His butt."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the butt?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's butt with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's butt often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
….
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the snot out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's butt, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's butt for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's butt He'll kick the snot out of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His butt?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His butt. Other times we kiss Karl's butt, and he passes it on."
Mary: "[Karl is] A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's butt. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
John: "… Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing."
If Atheism is in "Vogue", why am I so afraid to let it be known that I can no longer accept any of the traditional concepts of Christian religion. I listen to friends who are torn apart by some passage they have read in the Bible or by something their minister said. One is terribly troubled that her daughter is a lesbian. I asked her to read Leviticus. Everyone should read Leviticus and then ask themselves if some of this is so ludacrus why do we make so much out of a couple of lines. How can we say we believe in the Bible and then pick and choose what we accept and what we don't accept. In Leviticus, it states that if you son or daughter curses you should kill them. I have spent much time reading the Bible and other religious works and thinking about what I truly believe and I can't accept any of it. I feel religion is the ultimate con. You can't prove it or disprove it. In order to be saved, you must believe. Salvation is not based on good works, but on faith. Faith means you believe in something with absolutly no proof. It is also BIG BUSINESS. People make a lot of money off of it so they are certainly not going to point out the inconsistencies and fallacies.
I have found a kind of peace in my view. I am at peace with myself and that is a good thing. I am a rule follower who has done nothing but try to be kind and helpful to others throughout my life. I am known for my integrity and am respected and trusted in my community. I can accept that I will cease to exist at my death and have no more conscious thought.
I am very thankful for the writings of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as they reenforced my own thinking.
I would never share my views in the workplace because there is a good chance that I would pay a huge price for what would be an unpopular world view. I feel that very strongly so I can not believe that Atheism is truly enjoying a certain Vogue. Not in my midwestern city.
with all the scientific evidence it would be hard not to be an atheist.the real question should be how there can so many people duped by religion the evidence is overwhelming for evelovultion.really is there any real difference between a religon and a political organization
Phil C :
I found the "Hank" story a few years ago. It's taken all my willpower to resist the temptation to print up copies and drop in on my sister in law and all her Jehovah's Witness friends...>;-}
Why do atheists believe that they have a monopoly on truth--not to mention on sense, free will, and so on? A person can examine her faith rationally and carefully study alternatives and still come to the conclusion that God does, in fact, exist.
Hermit, Thanks so much for "Hank."
I'll be spreading it around liberally. Surprised I hadn't already seen something that's so good.
I wish you would put them in those mailboxes.
Keb –Atheists don’t claim a monopoly on truth – they just deal with facts and evidence. So do you, I’m sure, in most aspects of your life.
If it’s raining, you’ll put your umbrella up. If it’s not, you won’t. It’s that simple. You act based on facts and evidence. But I bet you decided God exists, without the kind of evidence you’d insist on in any other aspect of your life.
Keb, please read the “Hank” story at the bottom of the previous page. It’s funny and irreverent, while making the point that many people are not so rational when it comes to God.
Phil C
thanks for the 'Hank' story.
i came up with this earlier today as a little 'homage' to doug adams, rip:
well i'm convinced. as an atheist, i've been all wet so i'm ready to adopt theism right here and right now.
and for those of you out there who, like me, are in the market for a shiny new deity, here's a little buyer's guide i threw together:
there appear to be lots of gods to choose from. for those of us heathen who reside in north america, europe, or the mid-east, it looks like one of the 'Yaweh' model of deity is readily available and 'good to go' right out of the box.
there seem to be three main varieties:
1) New 'improved' YAWEH - providing first rate deism for going on two millenia (includes divine son and holy ghost at no extra charge)
2) Newer, even more 'improved' YAWEH/w really loud prophet - for those with a newer, hipper, 'in your face' attitude toward their deities (comes with an 'anti-globalization' package that plugs right into your radical politics outlet)
3) and finally, YAWEH Classic - a back-to-basics perennial that keeps on giving. perfect for those gated communities, yet 'retro' enough for weekends out clubbing. and you won't be disappointed with the 'smite thine enemies' option . . .
i think we can all find something we like among this fine selection. and for those with an esoteric bent, i suggest the nordic package (thor, wotan, etc) while any with a tropical taste might opt for the Mezo-American selection (some nice blood cults for those who like a bit of spice).
hope this helps.
important addendum:
the new, improved YAWEH model has produced some confusion. the divine messiah and holy ghost components are not, repeat NOT, optional and must be plugged in for this deity to operate correctly.
on another, related note, believers in this deity should use the 'Monotheism' line at the airport as the messiah/holy ghost units do not count against the one-god carry on rule.
thank you, and there will be no more announcements until this cosmos arrives at enlightenment. passengers should be advised of a bit of a headwind and that the drink cart will be by shortly, so mind your feet.
Atheism has become popular for those who want attention brought to themselves.
It is the religion of non-religion. Why else work so hard to convince others of your non-belief???
The difference??? No collection plate..........
I guess this is very important to some.......
HAPPY NEW YEAR
A Hermit - Thank you for sharing your personal journey. It should not surprise me that it is similar to my own, although I suspect your Mennonite upbringing was a bit more intense than my Southern Baptist experience.
Even though I left religion, I'm grateful for the experience. Actually reading the Bible put religion in a whole new light for me. I expected to find a God of love, but instead I found a God of intolerance and vengence. It was, and still is, difficult for me to reconcile the gentle nature of Christ of the New Testament to be in any way related to, let alone the son of, the vengeful God of the Old Testament (Torah).
I recognize there are valuable lessons and good messages within religion, but I don't think they hold the copyrights. So many intensely profound messages can be found outside of the pretext of religion. One that speaks to my core is Gandhi, 'We must be the change we wish to see.'.
I wish you peace, although I believe peace is already yours. May it continue...
The idea that there is a man in the sky who watches over us is an obvious lie to those who are not afraid to think. There is no heaven and there is no hell. There is only death and beyond that nobody will ever know what, if anything exists. It is not knowable at this time. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. So what. Can you prove that there is a god?
Why should anyone believe in something that is not provable? Who is stupid enough to believe someone who promises you anything after death? If I make you a promise that will come true after you die, are you gonna believe it? How will you know if it came true when you're dead?
Religion is stupid and there is no use for it. Maybe you get some comfort from it now but that doesn't change reality. You're still gonna die. Prayer won't stop it, it never has. It can't.
Virgins don't have babies. You're not gonna get raptured. The sun doesn't revolve around the earth. You are not God's pet. Get over it and live for now because that is all you ever have.
To Dodger - A hermit deserves the credit for initially posting Hank.
To Jorge Swartz - Atheists trying to convince people of their non-belief? kidding, right?
Has an athiest ever come to your door telling you about the "good news" of atheism and that you would go to hell if you didn't accept it?
Of course not - but that's what some Christians have done on this forum.
Has an atheist ever told you that your life was hopeless and sterile and empty? Of course not - but that's what some Christians have done on this forum.
Atheists tell you that they use evidence and facts to come to conclusions - and encourage you to do the same. Christians encourage you to count on faith concerning matters of religion.
Dear Jorge Swartz:
The very word convince / convert, I am afraid has been appropriated by religious men / missionaries
'Go forth and spread the message / news of GOD' - whatever. You find things like these in every religion. Always wondered why GOD always needed brand ambassadors to spread the word?
Dave:" with all the scientific evidence it would be hard not to be an atheist.the real question should be how there can so many people duped by religion the evidence is overwhelming for evelovultion.
=======================================
Dave, it's simple -- it's fear of death.
When I had some topics once with a friend, he stopped back and said to me that I was making a lost of sense, but he would have to open doors that he was afraid of facing...
Some people are so depressed -- even I wouldn't want to bust their fantasies -- it could send them over the edge at this point in their life.
I read Elaine Pagels speculate once another reason people are religious -- it is because they feel it gives them a special power over nature (i.e., when they pray -- they feel empowered by God.) It doesn't matter it is well documented that prayers don't work.
Yours,
Warp10
Phil C
I,as a "Christian" do NOT spread hopelessness, sterile and empty to anyone -- I know what it is to be hopeless, sterile and empty and it most certainly is not where I am today. All because I, a former JW, found the true truth. John 3:17.
Thank you again for your reply in the previous forum question.
Take care and be blessed tremendously...
Arlene of Lowndesboro
ARLENE you most certainly do not spread hopelessness- i would venture to comment that you indeed spread joy and i bet your family will back me up
peace from a muslim to a sister of the book
One reason that Atheism is on the rise is because of the wealth of knowledge at one's fingertips. Today, one can readily communicate with any number of people with similar beliefs or non-beliefs, or can look up information to satisfy one's curiosity.
Even 20 years ago, it was difficult to do this. You had to go to a library or look for a person or a group to find this information or depend on someone to give you this information.
I think this is why fundamentalists today are withdrawing (or other religions or religous people). This wealth of information is threatening to many of these people because many people depend and want someone to tell them how and what to believe. That is what they are used to. New ideas and thoughts that threaten their beliefs threaten their way of life.
Many people, when they actually begin to think and study and question can easily question their beliefs and can easily turn to atheism. It isn't difficult.
It seems the people that turn to Christianity are those that something drastic has happened in thier lives (alcoholism for example, hitting the bottom of their lives).
Can atheists and Christians converse...sometimes. I have found that Christians typically want to try to convert/preach and do not care to listen.
Atheism is not in vogue, but the number of atheists coming out of the closet seems to be increasing. And thank god for that! Believers on this and similar sites need to be reminded that we (atheists) have been afraid to make our opinions publically known because of the potential harm we might suffer at the hands of all the god-fearers.
One cannot argue with experience.When at the point of death the best of medical science fails to help a man, and nothing extra but the name of one God miraculously gives one his life back, when your blind eyes gets popped open and you see physically, when at the mere mention of a name a man's lame legs receive life, what argument can you put up to such a man to convince him that name is made up and the one who healed him does not exist. And if they are so many thousands of men the world over who are alive today only because of that God's name,(people like me) what's the point of the argument? That one has yet to come into an experience does not make that exprience non existent.You'd need to meet me to know I exist.
We will all agree to the stupidity of one who assumes an automobile in all its design is a product of chance, the human body is a much more intricate machine that we have yet to fully understand, and so is the immense organisation and functioning of our universe. If we really search our souls in sincerity, we will not need search any farther to realise that if we see strong functional design all around us, there is a designer, an original architect. His name is GOD ALMIGHTY. Romans 1:19-20.
Azza said:
"We will all agree to the stupidity of one who assumes an automobile in all its design is a product of chance,"
Bad example. The automobile has evolved tremendously from the earliest models, even if the basic workings are pretty much the same. Certainly, the search for a workable, reliable internal combustion engine was a process of experimentation, chance, failure and success. Or are you saying that the internal combustion engine sprang fully developed upon the world? If so, did it take one day to create, or seven?
Someone please explain how science shows that God does not exist? Doesn't science merely attempt to try to show how things function from observable experimentation?
Someone please explain what morality is? On any of these posts noone can answer that question.
Example: is it right to steal, take something from someone else that is not your own without paying for it or permission from the owner?
someone from an atheist point of view give an answer to the question. do we have laws against stealing because it is for the betterment of society? if we allowed stealing than businesses could not function? but what about the man who needs to steal to survive...he needs the money or food for his family? Is it wrong for him to steal? is the betterment of society better than the betterment of a man and his family? I assume that from an evolutionary stand point I would rather survive than have society survive. I mean if it came down to my children dieing or following the rules of society I would protect my family. At least that would be my instinct. Every man for himself. So than is morality based on making decisions that best protect myself or things that are important to myself?
What a sad way to live? I know that I have always been inspired by those people who laid down their lives for something other than themselves? I guess when it comes down to it my greatest example of this is Jesus Christ. He laid down his life for all people even those who would call him a fool or even hate him.
Please after all the reasoning...don't confuse religion and things that have been done in the name of religion as being true Christianity. For in the end I was taught by my Savior to lay down my life for others and not just my family and friends but even those who may be my enemy. For in laying down your life, you truly live. The world doesn't need to reject God, they need to find Him through Christ.
Everyone should be an atheist and just the wipe the slate clean of all conditioned knowledge, expectations, hopes, dreams...and then there is the possibitlity of going beyond the known. The problem is our belief or non-belief in words like God. Both are still beliefs in a concept, and a concept is not God. If we substitute Life or Being for God, then who would say they didn't believe in life. And here too, the word gets in the way. Do we believe in life or do we become life? One can't know life (of God) unless one is life.
And we can't experience life (God) if our mind becomes the "priest" to whom we have to go in order to experience the totality. Institutional religion as become the Catholic religion of the Middle Ages. We are going through a reformation, which means the old concepts must be thrown out. Atheism is the first step, but not the last.
Mr. Mark:
Are you saying that the automobile was a product of chance? I think you missed Azza's point. Even though there have been changes to the automobile there are two conclusions: the changes were a product of designers and the automobile is still an automobile.
"Someone please explain what morality is? "
I'll take a crack at it...;-)
Morality is a pattern of human behaviour, evolved over tens of thousands of years of social interaction, which maximizes the benefits of living in social groups while minimizing friction and conflict thus increasing survivability of the species.
Altruistic or selfless behaviour, even self sacrifice, is not inconsistent with this view, since the product is perpetuation of the species, not the individual organism. Human beings are not alone in behaving this way.
Not very poetic, I'm afraid, but I think it's a more reasonable explanation than magical instructions from an ineffable deity.
Regards
A Hermit
Does vogue means that it is now in fashion to be an atheist, and will go out of fashion, like last year's Prada's designs?
Good God! The questions posed! Being vague about God is the perennial vogue for some of the people some of the time, and for most of the people most of the time.
Does vogue means that it is now in fashion to be an atheist, and will go out of fashion, like last year's Prada's designs?
Good God! The questions posed! Being vague about God is the perennial vogue for some of the people some of the time, and for most of the people most of the time.
Keb wrote:
---Why do atheists believe that they have a monopoly on truth--not to mention on sense, free will, and so on? A person can examine her faith rationally and carefully study alternatives and still come to the conclusion that God does, in fact, exist.---
I was agreeing with you until you used the phrase "in fact". God does not "in fact" exist for anyone. The existence of God is a belief. If you think it is a fact you need to get your facts straight.
There is much common ground between athiests and believers. Very much. I think we all agree on our laws, that murder should be punished for example. But what I think gets believers and athiests into these arguments is believers insisting that God's existence is a "fact" when it is not. Getting some believers to understand that their belief is just that, a belief, then a lot of the devisiveness starts to go away.
Oh yea, and athiests do not "not believe" in God any more than they do not "not believe" in Thor, Zues, etc. If we begin to work on these concepts and reach a common ground of what "belief in God" is and that "athiest" is not a "belief in no God", maybe we can begin to understand one another.
Peace, Love and Understanding. We always forget that last bit.
i had an interesting conversation with an atheist lady somewhere else on this site-
because of the above post by ms or mr sully
i feel God
i feel love
both are subjective/and can be universal (for some)
i cannot prove with empirical method god exists
you cannot prove with empirical method love exists
yet clearly you believe in love and peace and understanding
all are intangibles
enotions too
why if i respect the validity of your reason and thinking and humanity indeed as a fact for you
would you not respect the validity of my reason and thinking and humanity as a fact for me
i do insist God is a fact for me- therefore a fact
you do not need to get me to believe anything
as you stated above
i have no desire to get you to believe anything
but i do insist on mutual respect
so do you deny the existence of love?
Victoria wrote:
---you cannot prove with empirical method love exists---
Its been done. Love is a fact. It is not intangible. It has been observed, verified, tested and in scientific circles studied as to which part of the brain it comes from and what emotive chemicals in the body cause the "feeling". It has been shown to exist in other mammals as well. So "love" as a human emotion exists and is a fact.
---so do you deny the existence of love?---
Not at all. I think you are arguing that because you feel love and it exists then a feeling of God shows He exists. If that is what you are saying then it is a stretch. Love did not require years of caticism, attending a "love" church each Sunday and the pain of hell for not believing in love. Also, the feeling that Thor, Zues and the other previous gods existed was probably just as real a feeling as the feeling you have about God today, so by your logic all these past gods also existed since people believed in them and could "feel" their presense as you feel the presense of God, not to mention Santa and the Easter Bunny which I will assume you had real feelings about as a child.
Those of us steeped in the sciences can observe religion for what it may well be: flocking (or herding or schooling) phenomena very analogous to what we observe in the natural world. With humans, there is an ideological overlay, of course, but the net effect is to ensure the survival of "one's kind" even at the expense of any one individual.
That being said, and having personally migrated from atheism through agnosticism to Judiasm, I've come to realize that G-d is a matter of definition. My core realizations have not changed through my migration, rather my understanding of G-d has.
Hewitt Rose, I beleive it is the atheists who are afraid of religion. Ever wondered why just even the name of God or Jesus can be a lawsuit from atheists who say they "dont want God shoved down their throats"(if I had a nickel every time i heard an atheists say that, then i would b richer than Bill Gates) To me religion is the most logical thing on this planet and explains everything. Atheists allied with the ACLU and the mainstream media have been trying for decades to eliminate religion from our society. Yet 95%( and well over half the world's population) of this country's people beleive in God. And just so you know I am deeply religious and Atheists have never made me doubt my faith or belief in God. Ever.
Hewitt Rose, I beleive it is the atheists who are afraid of religion. Ever wondered why just even the name of God or Jesus can be a lawsuit from atheists who say they "dont want God shoved down their throats"(if I had a nickel every time i heard an atheists say that, then i would b richer than Bill Gates) To me religion is the most logical thing on this planet and explains everything. Atheists allied with the ACLU and the mainstream media have been trying for decades to eliminate religion from our society. Yet 95%( and well over half the world's population) of this country's people beleive in God. And just so you know I am deeply religious and Atheists have never made me doubt my faith or belief in God. Ever.
Hewitt Rose, I beleive it is the atheists who are afraid of religion. Ever wondered why just even the name of God or Jesus can be a lawsuit from atheists who say they "dont want God shoved down their throats"(if I had a nickel every time i heard an atheists say that, then i would b richer than Bill Gates) To me religion is the most logical thing on this planet and explains everything. Atheists allied with the ACLU and the mainstream media have been trying for decades to eliminate religion from our society. Yet 95%( and well over half the world's population) of this country's people beleive in God. And just so you know I am deeply religious and Atheists have never made me doubt my faith or belief in God. Ever.
Hewitt Rose, I beleive it is the atheists who are afraid of religion. Ever wondered why just even the name of God or Jesus can be a lawsuit from atheists who say they "dont want God shoved down their throats"(if I had a nickel every time i heard an atheists say that, then i would b richer than Bill Gates) To me religion is the most logical thing on this planet and explains everything. Atheists allied with the ACLU and the mainstream media have been trying for decades to eliminate religion from our society. Yet 95%( and well over half the world's population) of this country's people beleive in God. And just so you know I am deeply religious and Atheists have never made me doubt my faith or belief in God. Ever.
"Atheists allied with the ACLU and the mainstream media have been trying for decades to eliminate religion from our society."
That, quite frankly, is a paranoid fantasy. What atheist's ask is that the power of the State not be used to impose religious practices on citizens.
The ACLU, by the way, has a long history of defending religious believers from state imposed restrictions as well. That just never makes the news.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64.html
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
Please get your facts straight.
Regards
A Hermit
Calling athiesm vogue is an attempt to attack it as trifled and fleeting. People are simply finding it more acceptable-- due to globalism and multiculturalism, I think (as well as science, needless to say). And because it has become more popular, popular writers that espouse it are embraced. The fervor will die down, but athiesm will remain as the most widely-accepted "belief" system.
SULLY thank you- by claiming that love is valid because it is measurable by chemical and physically proven phenomena- you forgot or peraps werent aware that people in prayer have also been tested upon and its been discovered that these same reactions are isolated and traced to specific fromtal lobe regions of the brain- so i guess weve just proven scientifically the incontrovertible profo of the existence of god.
to presume that i had feelings about the easter bunny or santa as a child- would require a knowledge of my life that you currently dont know- empirically speaking - so well just discount that part as innacurate
god does not require any training either
assumptions shouldnt be made one way or the other dont you agree?
so the conclusion is god is a fact then, isnt it
Victoria wrote:
---you forgot or peraps werent aware that people in prayer have also been tested upon and its been discovered that these same reactions are isolated and traced to specific fromtal lobe regions of the brain- so i guess weve just proven scientifically the incontrovertible profo of the existence of god.---
I'm aware of it. It proves the existence of prayer as a mental state, one that can create emotional responses, but it is far from any proof of God's existence. And I would again point out that if you are willing to use people's feelings as proof of the existence of what they are praying to, you will need to accept the existence of every god anyone has ever prayed to. My ancestors prayed to Thor and I'm sure their prayers were as powerful as any christian's today. Was that prayer proof of Thor's existence?
But what I really find interesting is some faithful are willing to make any argument that will in the end support their belief. The difference Victoria between believers and atheists is that atheists are willing to be proven wrong with convincing evidence while many believers go out of their way to discredit evidence that does not support their beliefs, the treatment of evolution by some christians being an excellent example. Compare its treatment with the treatment of the big bang by christians who embrace it as proof of the creation of the universe by God. And while these christians accept the big band but not evolution, they have no understanding of either, only how each supports or does not support their religious belief. When you accept or do not accept scientific facts based on whether they support or do not support your belief, you need to understand that your reality by definition is what you believe, not what actually exists.
sully i didnt say emotional responses i said verifiably chemical ones-
your words sully--
Its been done. Love is a fact. It is not intangible. It has been observed, verified, tested and in scientific circles studied as to which part of the brain it comes from and what emotive chemicals in the body cause the "feeling". It has been shown to exist in other mammals as well. So "love" as a human emotion exists and is a fact.
the same had been proven with prayer states-
so by your definition it is a fact-
personally i wouldnt have gone that far to define it as fact-
you also claim to speak for christians- thats fine by me-
but you dont speak for me-
ill reserve that right
im ot a christian
(and i doubt they need a catch all spokeperson)
if atheists are willing to be proven wrong when evidence is submitted to them- as you say- using your own reasoning i have done so-
but i dont care really-
it is what it is
i wont presume to tell you what you think
you can reciprocate
or not
doesnt change a thing
sully i didnt say emotional responses i said verifiably chemical ones-
your words sully--
Its been done. Love is a fact. It is not intangible. It has been observed, verified, tested and in scientific circles studied as to which part of the brain it comes from and what emotive chemicals in the body cause the "feeling". It has been shown to exist in other mammals as well. So "love" as a human emotion exists and is a fact.
the same had been proven with prayer states-
so by your definition it is a fact-
personally i wouldnt have gone that far to define it as fact-
you also claim to speak for christians- thats fine by me-
but you dont speak for me-
ill reserve that right
im not a christian
(and i doubt they need a catch all spokeperson)
if atheists are willing to be proven wrong when evidence is submitted to them- as you say- using your own reasoning i have done so-
but i dont care really-
it is what it is
i wont presume to tell you what you think
you can reciprocate
or not
doesnt change a thing
sully i didnt say emotional responses i said verifiably chemical ones-
your words sully--
Its been done. Love is a fact. It is not intangible. It has been observed, verified, tested and in scientific circles studied as to which part of the brain it comes from and what emotive chemicals in the body cause the "feeling". It has been shown to exist in other mammals as well. So "love" as a human emotion exists and is a fact.
the same had been proven with prayer states-
so by your definition it is a fact-
personally i wouldnt have gone that far to define it as fact-
you also claim to speak for christians- thats fine by me-
but you dont speak for me-
ill reserve that right
im not a christian
(and i doubt they need a catch all spokeperson)
if atheists are willing to be proven wrong when evidence is submitted to them- as you say- using your own reasoning i have done so-
but i dont care really-
it is what it is
i wont presume to tell you what you think
you can reciprocate
or not
doesnt change a thing
Jesus Victoria how many times do you have to post to get your message across?
I have agreed that prayer has been scientifically studied, that its chemical and emotive responses measured as love has been similarly measured. But neither proves the existence of anything except the cause of the human emotion within each of us. It does not prove the existence of God, Thor, Zeus or anything supernatural, just that one's belief can cause changes that can be measured. It only proves that humans have these emotions and they are caused by the release of hormones and chemicals when stimulation of the brain occurs. What do you think you have proven wrong here? Why have you closed your mind? Why so defensive?
its simple sully
if you conclude from the stated criteria
love is a fact
using the same criteria
god is a fact
from your own reasoning-
these are all your own thoughts and now since they support something you dont agree with you reject them? its ok
your responses if logical should be free of personal observations as they are a distraction
im the believer yet ive stuck with logic and the facts and not one disparagement
and the logical atheists makes unfounded accusations
just be concsistent thats all
stick with the point
respond to whats presented as i have with out rancor
what i dont care about is if atheists are willing to be proven wrong as you stated
clearly not but again
it doesnt matter
you to your belief and me to mine
if you call somethin a fact when a certain criteria is applied to it
then apply that same criteria to something else
that would necceariliy be a fact also
their both equal in value
o i said that
you dont get it?
ok by me
Victoria,
So my ancestors who prayed to Thor proves Thor existed?
People hear bumps in the night, get scared, grab the gun out of the nightstand with a belief that a burglar is in the house. Its a belief that causes a lot of chemically induced emotions, fears, apprehensions and heightened senses. But it is not proof a burglar exists, just proof of the belief that one exists. You might want to consider that the measured chemically induced emotions that happen with prayer are due to the belief in God and a belief that you are communicating with God and not proof that God actually exists.
I'm also a bit confised how you got from love being real to God being real. Could you restate your logic? I think it went something like love is fact because it is measurable so prayer, which is measurable, is fact therefore the object of prayer must be a fact. That's makes no sense to me...
you say
love is a fact
love is a feeling
god is a feeling
both feelings can be measured in chemical demonstrable methods
by the same criteria
just simple science without ascribing a value to it
if you choose to ascribe a subjective value to god go ahead
but it doesnt change that the criteria for proof from your own paradigm has been fulfilled
now i wouldnt personally use this as proof
it was your reasoning im basing this on
if you want to add things on as an afterthought go right ahead
somoene might love unicorns it doesnt make them real
but the experience is real
your words-
You might want to consider that the measured chemically induced emotions that happen with prayer are due to the belief in God and a belief that you are communicating with God and not
saying that chemically induced phenomena is preceded by belief is is inaccurate
buddhists dont believe in god
but their experience is also demonstrable in meditaitve practice(lke prayer)
so belief is not an issue at all
it is what it is
if you dont get it its ok
maybe it makes sense to me so thats what matters i guess
i wouldnt have thought about it like that if you hadnt brought up the chemically induced state of love- its all interesting to think about
sam harris post on consciousness states an experiment of scientists meditating together and observing form methods the physical response
i think thats interesting too- we will assume at least some of them are not believers
it would follow that their lack of belief will not yeild any results
if the non believer also have a physical repsonse then belief as a precondition wont exist
ok peace
It's for many reasons if you think about it. The secularization of Europe, the internet, a reaction to the lunatic fringes of Islam, Judiaism and Christianity etc. And yes there can be good dialog between both sides, provided that the issues are dicussed not the people.
The very wording of this question is condescending to those who are not religious. The question, as posed, implies that these nonreligious "idiots" with a skepticism of religion are but a passing fancy. It would make one believe that a religious minister had formulated the question in its current context.
To the contrary, my belief is that atheism will begin to emerge more and more strongly in the future. It truly will be beneficial to eliminate the imposition of religious mores on people who don't subscribe to a particular religious belief.
Just looking at the amount of grief, death, despair, poverty, turmoil, hell the "believer" Bush has brought to this world, I think the debate to which degree Hitler et.al. were Christians or not seems completelely pointless. And the unctuous preaching of Cal Thomas in the other thread borders to the ridiculous.
Gerry
Atheism has never been in vogue. Throughout history in all parts of the world man has taken up religion of some sort, inventing it when necessary. Many prayed to help defeat an enemy. What is unusual today is the emergence of religions that have peaceful intent. There will always be religions as long as man is around. Just look at where scientology came from, a science fiction writer...
Another point is that religion has little to do with the state of peace or war. Our current religious president's war and the religious muslims flying planes into buildings illustrates this point. People make decisions to kill or not kill for a multitude of reasons with religion being at the bottom of the list of things to consider. Jails are full of christians, jews, muslims and atheists. Our social leaders, people we respect, are also christians, jews, muslims and atheists. Religion is truly a personal issue and not some social contract we all live by. If all religion were to disappear tomorrow, wars would still rage, peace would as well, the KKK would be alive and well, charity would still exist. The only thing you might see different is people no longer prejudging each other based on now absent religious affiliations, but other prejudices would still exist. Am I the only one who thinks the existence of separate black and white churches is an oxymoron of christianity? While growing up I asked a nun about this and was instantly smacked. Guess that is what is called 'maintaining the faith'.
If atheism is enjoying a resurgence in the U.S. it is because we are catching up with the rest of the educated people in the world -- no small accomplishment given the Herculean efforts of the religious right to kill science education.
Unfortunately, some people are so amoral that they are willing to let someone else die for their sins, so progress will undoubtedly be slow.
If there is some resurgence of atheism in the U.S., it may be that we are finally catching up to the rest of the modern world, no small feat given the power of the religious right here and its efforts to hamstring science education.
Unfortunately, some people are so amoral that they are perfectly willing to let someone else die for their sins instead of taking personal responsibility. It will always be difficult to reach people who won't own up to their faults or act with intellectual honesty.
As my grandfather, a closet atheist, used to say of those caught in professional duplicity, "He's acting like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis!"
This discussion reveals a distinct difference between a true believer in God; and an atheist.
One has surrendered to the universe,--to God. The other continues the battle for power.
---One has surrendered to the universe,--to God. The other continues the battle for power.---
No, the first thinks they understand the universe and God while the atheist continues to *try* to understand the universe. Good thing too or we'd have witchdoctors instead of doctors, a flat earth instead of a round one, and donkey carts instead of cars, locamotives, airplanes and spaceships.
And consider that atheists really do not care that religion exists. Its the imposition of belief on those who do not believe that atheists don't like.
If anyone is battling for power its the religious, like the evangelicals who have tried to push their religion into our schools and government. Atheists have not pushed for any particular teachings in the school and have fought a defensive battle to keep evangelical belief out. Its a bad argument to call atheists the agressors when they are fending off evangelicals trying to stuff "intelligent design" down the atheist's kids throats. But I guess they are just trying to save souls so the atheists, by resisting, are the agressors right? Like a patient fighting off a nurse trying to give him some medicine? We atheists should be thankful for the help the evangelicals are offering and stop battling for power?
The overall arrangement of our world is a REAL-IDEA interchange. A human body takes an environmental picture, and delivers it to personal consciousness. Images of a real world form a mind. Our progress in essence is escape from the mind so-formed by the body. A human has PERSONAL 'feelings',and thoughts;--a conscious sense;--an ability to separate from an acquired mind;--and follow personal convictions. These are the people who 'made a difference'! Guided us to truths, comfort and compatibility.
To separate from the physical mind,--or mind formed by the body;--and be guided by God,--by love---is the basic message of Jesus. To comply with the overall theme of REAL-IDEA, as planet earth preceded us; consciousness should have preceded ours, or any 'earth-formed' mentality.
I believe personal consciousness, separated from the physical images it holds is TRUE consciousness;--and our pursuit of justice suggests our image,--or 'likeness' to God.
Sully -
"Am I the only one who thinks the existence of separate black and white churches is an oxymoron of christianity? "
What I understand, from clergy - is that people freely choose what church to go to and most choose one with their race predominate and/or in their neighborhood or with some other attractive feature - e.g. good childcare or music program.
I've seen mixed race churches - in mixed raced neighborhoods.
I know of a church that tried to recruit Black people, because they wanted more racial integration on Sundays (would make them feel better). They were not successful, nor were they happy with the suggestion that the fastest, easiest way for them to get racially integrated on Sundays, was to join a Black church.
The same church hired a Black pastor. For a few weeks, the white folks got very excited because some Black people from his old church came around, but they didn't join.
well look at the immigration patterns that have emerged in america over the past century- in the early 1900s it was unthinkable for an italian catholic to marry an irish catholic-
things change when new generations change them- now thats the beauty of a mosque- these frivilous designations were done away with 1470 some years ago. you wont find a wider more diverse group of humans anywhere in america or the world for that matter-
---now thats the beauty of a mosque- these frivilous designations were done away with 1470 some years ago.---
Well, all except the labeling of anyone not a muslim an "infidel" who should be converted or killed. I agree it takes generations.
The problem with religions, fraternaties, nationalism and other methods of exclusivity is that once you have joined the group for whatever reason, it is human nature to begin excluding those outside the group. Its the painted bird phenomenon. In a book of the same name a child catches and paints birds which he then releases to watch the other birds of the same species attack the painted birds eventually killing them. Timothy Leary used this as a metaphor for how during the 1960s American society was treating the "hippies" (not killing them but attacking them for being 'different'). Leary later wrote that the hippies eventually formed their own culture and began lashing out at the rest of society, the painted birds, now a group hippies could identify as belonging to, were treating the rest of society in the same fashion. It was due to the same self identification any society has and the fear of anything different.
The 'society' can be your friends and neighbors, church, gang, fratertity, football team, you name it. Its human nature and it finds its way into groups in many ways and it finds its way into religious groups. Atheists are like observers watching the birds of different religious paints attacking each other wondering why they see themselves as different. Jews, Christians and Muslims are so close to each other in what they worship that to an atheist its hard to tell the difference. Having grown up catholic I attended a jewish wedding and only realized it was an actual jewish service when the groom crushed the glass.
I guess my point here is that religions, by being a group of people who identify with the same phylosophy, assume others outside the group do not identify with the phylosophy. I can't tell you the number of times my evangelical brother-in-law tells me "the christian thing to do is...", like there is a christian way for doing things that would otherwise be done differently. And I do not see religions working to stop this self identification from happening. That was my point about white and black churches. Religions usually work to expose the bad things we do, without concern for others, etc... If religions realy want to save humanity they need to teach that we naturally stay near what we consider OUR groups while fearing other groups in a mostly irrationally way. Like most phobias, once they are exposed the fear tends to go away. So I see two problems:
1)religions, by being an identified group, can cause people to be fearful of those outside the group.
2)religious leaders do little to prevent it and in the case of fundamentalist religions, encourage it.
NO SULLY- YOU ARE WRONG- DONT BELIEVE WHAT OTHERS TELL YOU- THAT REFERS TO A SPECIFIC WAR INWHICH A TREATY WAS BROKEN AT A SPECIFIC POINT IN HISTORY
its the only thing youll ever hear complains of islam about because it is latched onto by islamophobiacs and one verse out of context- once they are proven wrong they have no rebuttal and go soemwhere else to spread that lie-
read for yourself- racism is forbidden in islam no other religion does that
"Never let hatred of others lead you to deviate from Justice. Be just for this is closest to Righteousness. Remember God is well aware of all that you do"1
United Muslims of America Interfaith Alliance (UMAIA) asserts that the Islamic scriptures proclaim the equality of all people, male or female, rich or poor, of any race, class, caste or national origin.2 According to UMAIA, the monotheistic belief that there is only one God to all humanity and that all human beings originated from a single pair, namely, Adam and Eve, is backed up in the Quran.
"Oh, Mankind! We created you from a single soul, male and female, (Adam and Eve) and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another (not to despise each other). Truly, the most honored of you in God's sight is the one who is most righteous." 3
In one specific instance Prophet Mohammed spoke about race related problems rampant in Arabia in the pre-Islamic days.
"All human kind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, and a non-Arab has no superiority over an Arab. A white person has no superiority over a black person, and a black person has no superiority over a white person, except by piety and righteous actions." 4
In Islam, it is very important to understand the attributes of One and only One God for all humanity. The All-Knowing, The All Aware, The Merciful, The Forgiver, The Truth, The First, The Last, The Just, etc. With regard to racism, UMAIA asserts that God is All Responsive and the Provider for All humanity, showing no discrimination of race, religion, caste, creed or national origin.
I waste not the labor of any that labors amongst you, be they male or female - each one of you are equal to me. 5
UMAIA recognizes that just as there are numerous flowers of various colors, each having their own intrinsic value, so also, there are humans of various shapes, colors, sizes and intellectual capabilities. Quran, according to UMAIA, compares the diversity within the human race.
"To each among you (various groups/races - not excluding anybody) we have prescribed the Law (Gitas, Vedas, Torah, Gospels, Quran, etc.) and an Open Way (given a conscience with reference to indigenous people). If God had willed, all humanity would have been of one single community (this is not a part of God's plan). God's plan is to test you in what each one has received (in form of Holy Scriptures or Conscience). So strive, as in a race in all virtues. The goal of all the people is to God. God (alone) will tell you the truth in matters of which you dispute." 6 (This means do not fight over religious beliefs or practices - establish peace and open a dialogue with wisdom and beautiful conduct to understand each other).
Not only does the Quran denounce racism, but it advocates the eradication of racism as well.
"Stand out firmly for Justice as witnesses in front of God, even against yourselves, against your children and against your parents, against people who are rich (lobbyists) or poor. Do not follow your inclinations or your desires, lest you should deviate from Justice. Remember God is the best of all Protectors and well acquainted with all that you do." 7
"It is righteousness to spend your income to help your relatives, the orphans, the needy, the traveler, to liberate the slaves (by buying them out, or paying them fair wages and upgrading them economically) and those who ask for help. It is righteousness to give regular charity, to pray steadfastly and to be firm and patient in pain or sufferings, and during all periods of turmoil and panic. Such are the people of Truth, the God conscientious." 8
UMAIA, once again asserts that to wipe out racism, hatred and bigotry from our lands, we have to enforce laws of equality. This requires an ideal judge, ideal witnesses and an ideal jury. The above revelations address the character of such people. If we have such people dispensing justice in our courts of law, then racism will not only be wiped out of America, but also the whole world.
END NOTES
1. Quran 5:8
2. This statement was completed from an article by Iftekhar A. Hai, Director of Interfaith Relations, United Muslims of America Interfaith Alliance in San Francisco, CA
3. Quran 49:13
4. Last Sermon of Prophet Mohammed
5. Quran 3:195
6. Quran 5:48
7. Quran 4:135
8. Quran 2:177
as for the non mulsims living in muslim lands- there are also prescribed rules for treating them justly-
these rules concern people of the book- but there are no instructions anywhere to kill unblievers- infidel is a christian term used by crusaders to describe muslims- there is no equivalent term in islam- some people misuse kafir as unbeliever- but it means to conceal- cover up- or reject- and is in reference to people who have been taught islam fully- but purposely cover up its true meaning to mislead others-
im not trying to flood anything here- its about died out and most have moved on to the war issue- i just dont want people to define for me what my religion is- and i find most americans have been deliberately misled (i am an american) so i try to rectify it- just as i dont presume to define atheists- i leave that to their own discretion
peace this is a paste fllowing
here is the concept of dimmis from the true islamic perspective
The People of Dhimma
Dhimmies, or the People of Dhimmas, are Jews and Christians who live under Islamic government. Unlike what many people think, Dhimma is not a derogatory term at all. In fact, the word Dhimma means promise. This is because these people are promised to live peacefully and be protected under Islamic law. In fact, Prophet Muhammad made this very clear in his Hadeeth [Prophetic statements]:
1. "Whoever harms a Dhimmi, then he has harmed me. Whoever harmed me, then he has harmed God" [Tabarani]
2. "Whoever harms a Dhimmi then I will be his opponent. Whoever I'm his opponent, I will defeat him on the Day of Judgment" [al-Khateeb].
3. "Whoever oppresses a person of contract [Dhimmi], or he takes some of his rights, or overburden him, or takes something from him without consent, then I will be his opponent on the Day of Judgment" [Abu Dawud].
The Muslims scholars expounded on these rules. For example, al-Qarafi, a Maliki [one branch of Islamic law] scholar said, "The contract of Dhimma necessitates responsibilities upon us because they [Jews and Christians] are in our protection, our promise, the promise of God, the promise of his Prophet, and the religion of Islam. So whoever attacks them even by an evil word, backbiting their honor, or any kind of harm, or he assisted in such, then he has forsaken the promise of God, His Prophet, and the religion of Islam" [al-Furooq]. Ibn Hazm, a Dhahiri [another branch of Islamic law] scholar, said, "If someone was under Dhimma law, and the enemy came to our land looking after him, then it becomes obligatory upon us that we come out and fight them and that we die before they get to him. This is to protect the person who is in the protection of God and His Messenger. To turn him to his enemy is negligence of the contract of Dhimma" [Maraatib al-Ijmaa'].
there is the meaning- that muslims will fight and die to protect them-
pretty insidiuos isnt it
My question to the atheist: What would God have to do, say, or be to prove to you that he exists?
Would he have to create the universe?
He has. (Genesis 1)
Would he have to say, "I am"?
He has. (Exodus 3:14)
Would he have to be almighty?
He is. (Numbers 24:4)
Would he have to take your life?
He will. (Deuteronomy 32:39)
My question to the atheist: What would God have to do, say, or be to prove to you that he exists?
Would he have to create the universe?
He has. (Genesis 1)
Would he have to say, "I am"?
He has. (Exodus 3:14)
Would he have to be almighty?
He is. (Numbers 24:4)
Would he have to take your life?
He will. (Deuteronomy 32:39)
To Jerry:
I'd say, if he made people like you feel less rightous would be a good start.
Atheism is flourishing because at last communication is just so good and some great leaders (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett & many others) have stepped forward and said 'enough is enough'.
There's clearly been a multitude of latent Atheists in the world who simply needed this spark.
Throughout the centuries, a major strength and tactic of religion has been to keep the 'great unwashed' ignorant, subservient and unquestioning about their religion. This is due to the fact that an intelligent, thinking and questioning mind will always arrive at the conclusion that the concept of a God is absurd.
Those times are ending and with the limitless avenues for communication of thought, we are seeing the demise of religion.
In short, the religious blindfold is slipping and as a general rule, it is being widely realised that intelligent thought and religion are totally incompatible.
Falk Steinle: "I'd say, if he made people like you feel less rightous would be a good start."
You have a good start. That is exactly how he made me feel. If you care to read more about how exactly he made me feel, go to http://www.afoolforChrist.com
Because it is True!
To Jerry:
Realy? Your way of reasoning doesn't indicate that you keep in mind, that you could be wrong.
To Victoria,
You can quote scripture until the cows come home, for any religion, but the actions of the "believers" is how they should be judged. The 10 commandments say to love your neighbor as yourself yet I see that broken daily by all religions that believe that these are the word of God. Just because someone is Muslim, or Christian or Jew does not mean they follow their scriptures. I cannot fathom how some evangelical christians can be for the death penalty. I cannot fathom how some devote muslims could fly populated planes into populated buildings, or cheer those who committed the act, or behead innocent people or even guity people. I cannot fathom how devote Jews can hold the land of other people and keep them refuges for decades.
You talk about the Koran saying men and women are equal but then you see the immense inequality in Saudi Arabia, a land where no christian church may be built. The inhumanity is everywhere and I agree its not dictated in the texts or scriptures, but they seem to have little to do with the actions of those who profess the beliefs. If only the religious would follow the dictates of their religions, then maybe things in this world would be better but what I see is the old human antagonisms being backed up BY the religions, taking scripture out of context, using the religion as a shield and at times as a sword, something it was never meant to be. In Europe's past, "witches" were burned at the stake by devotly religious people and their soldiers would wear crosses on their uniforms. Atheists just sit back and shake their heads at the hypocracy, but it is what all people do. People who do not try to understand other people, other cultures, or ther religions, are doomed to fear those other people, other cultures and other religions. Once you have fear in place, it is easy to start wars, justify killing that the ten commandments states you should not do, the inhumanity against neighbors the ten commandments says you should not do.
I'm glad to see that you love the best parts of your religion, but you need to understand that religion can be used as a weapon or at least an excuse to lay aside the teachings of the religion in order to preserve the religion. I see that happening today in many of the major religions. Just because someone is religious does not mean they stop being human with all the faults of humans. Once you believe you are above your human nature, that human nature can come flooding out with the religion to justify it, the targets being anyone seen as a treat. And atheists are not above this either, no one is, they just don't have a religion to back up their actions.
Jerry R. wrote:
---My question to the atheist: What would God have to do, say, or be to prove to you that he exists?
An appearance before me would be a good start.
---Would he have to create the universe?
He has. (Genesis 1)---
No, people, the writers of the bible, say God has.
---Would he have to say, "I am"?
He has. (Exodus 3:14)---
No, people say he has said "I am".
---Would he have to be almighty?
He is. (Numbers 24:4)---
No, people say he is almighty.
---Would he have to take your life?
(Deuteronomy 32:39)---
No, people say he will take my life. People die just like every other animal on this planet. Your belief in a God and your specialness in this universe is delusional. If you are going to take the words of people who profess to know the word of God then you need to take all the words of people who profess to know the word of God, but my guess is you only take on set of words, interpreted by yet more people, words that have been applied to your culture and mixed with pagan beliefs (different words by different people). Christians attend church on Christmas day but the major efforts of that season are putting up a tree (idolotry?) and buying gifts (a pagan practice to celebrate the equinox), then on easter hide eggs and talk about bunnies, when none of it is in the bible. You are caught up in your culture which acclimated the religion.
My question to the religious: What would it take to prove to you God does not exist? Now atheists know the answer to this, nothing can prove such a well crafted God, crafted by men, one that cannot be proven not to exist. The religious take the words of men as the word of God, a delusion that has proven its ability to kill millions and cause great inhumanity throughout the ages to this very day. That may be taken as my answer of proof God does not exist, because those who believe in God who commit these terrible "sins" are not struck by lightning.
The difference between the "believers" and the "atheists": The believer substitutes an invented concept (god) as a chiffre to everything he does not know (a lot! ha! God is great!).
The "atheist" admits that he does not know (maybe YET), what he doesn't know, and tries to increase his knowledge (Socrates).
The atheist thus is honest in his acceptance of his so far limited knowledge, looking for a broadening of these limits. The believer is dishonest, substituting faith in the unprovable for his ignorance of the provable, and forcing everybody else also to "believe" that black is white, that ignorance is knowledge.
And if ignorance already is "perfect knowledge" (faith), there is no reason to broaden the limits of knowledge. Hence the hatred against everything close to "science".
It fits beautifully into the story of God forbidding Eve to "eat from the tree of knowledge": Only ignorants can be fooled into complete mental submission, into assuming that thinking is sin. Easy and approved way to wield power over the happy, believing majority. Iraq.
The wording of your question is an impertinence against anybody who wants to maintain his spiritual, intellectual and emotional freedom.
Sully- i notice that atheists dont have an answer though- i am getting pretty educated here about the reacions against religion that seems to be the core of many posts- but i never hear what they are FOR-
any one can enumerate the obvious problems in the world- and we can certainly waste alot of time pointing fingers and blame- but its all a circular conversation that not only has no resolution- but tears peoples beliefs apart- without changing their minds and ususally ends up giving believers a firmer resolve-
clearly its a very ineffective method-
perhaps you could share with us exactly WHAT about atheism is positive- a constructed philosophy-
without negative comparisons to any religion-
this is what ive been asking atheists and im still waiting for a reasoned answer-
lets assume you are right about everything youve said about religion- what is next?
Gerry: You make the Atheist out to be a seeker of truth and knowledge though I have come across many an atheist that "knows" that there is no God and that truth is found only in science and empirical reality. I think it's agnosticism that remains open and unsure.
Socrates was sentenced to death for maintaining that the only thing he knows is that he doesn't know. He was killed for not believing in Zeus and the other gods. He was killed for refusing to pretend to know something he did't know.
It has been the same picture through history, Jews, Christians, Moslems: If you don't believe our stories and rather think for yourself as a dignified, autonomous human being, we kill you. There is a representative of this pervasive stance on one of the threads (Canyon Shearer) who doesn't hesitate to threaten that he wants atheism to be "killed", that is, atheists to be killed.
Victoria, here I am again: It is not a question to be FOR or AGAINST something. It is a question on how much courage an individual can muster to define himself within the rather chilling atmosphere of strict pursuit of knowledge and reason.
And I am FOR the same things as you supposedly, for love, beauty, admiration of the immeasurable nature, music, art, poetry, happiness to enjoy together with others. I am NOT for trying to convert anybody to join a historical metaphorical system (which is what every religion represents at best). And I am certainly not FOR trying to persuade anybody that white is black.
Gerry
Aslinn,
my personal definition of my being an atheist is I am not even asking the question if there is a god or not, and still pursue knowledge and happiness and try to broaden my horizon. The sophism pervasive on all these boards as to the difference between agnostic and atheist does not even touch my attitude: I don't ask either question.
For real scientists in the original sense of the word the pursuit of truth is much more than empirical reality. Try to occupy your mind with quantum dynamics etc. and you will find very little "empirical reality"! You may find miracles by far exceeding that of a guy walking on water!
Gerry
Falk Steinle: "Your way of reasoning doesn't indicate that you keep in mind, that you could be wrong."
Yes, I keep that in mind. I assume you also keep in mind that you could be wrong. If I am wrong, what do I lose? If there is no God, there is nothing to lose. If you are wrong, what do you lose?
to fool for christ:
"If there is no God, there is nothing to lose. If you are wrong, what do you lose?"
Is that why you believe in God - as an insurance policy against going to Hell?
Do you think God would fall for such a cheap trick?
E. Favorite: "Is that why you believe in God - as an insurance policy against going to Hell?"
No. I believe in God because He loved me and gave Himself for me (Galatians 2:12). (He did the same for you.) Solomon said, "Love is as strong as death" (Song of Songs 8:6). John tells us that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). I believe in God like I believe in love--or for that matter like I believe in gravity. I can't see them, but I can feel them. They have a powerful attraction for me.
Victoria :---Sully- i notice that atheists dont have an answer though- i am getting pretty educated here about the reacions against religion that seems to be the core of many posts- but i never hear what they are FOR---
A very good question Victoria. First, let me just emphasise that "atheists" are not a religion, not some singluar group with a specific belief, like another religion, though you seem to place atheists into a single group. You are painting birds Victoria and atheists understand that painting birds leads to evil. By joining a religion you exclude everyone else, other religious beliefs and in many cases, reality. Nothing good can come of that.
Atheists are very different people who simply do not believe in a supernatural God. As other posters have said, of all the Gods people over the world believe in, atheists believe in one less than you do.
That said, as to what atheists are FOR is not clear since they are not a single movement. I would venture to say that most are for truth, reality, and keeping supernatural beliefs out of our laws, out of our schools and government. You only have to look at the fight between christian evalgelicals and atheists on teaching "intelligent design" in schools to understand the things atheists stand for and against. We all look at the jihadists killing people based on their religion and we all shake our heads but atheists see what religious people do not, that muslim beliefs, though professed to be loving and good, can produce such evil. Atheists understand that this is not only a muslim issue. Christians produced a lot of evil in the dark ages. Do I need to remind you of the burning of witches?
I'm not saying all religion produces evil and evil can certainly be produced in the absense of religion. I'm only saying that religion has rarely prevented the evil man is capable of. Atheists do not blame evil on supernatural beings like the devil. Instead atheists live in reality, face up to their own failings and try to improve themselves by looking deep into themselves, not giving up and asking God for help. Maybe that's what you are failing to grasp, that atheists have beliefs, beief in right and wrong, belief in good and evil. Its just not based or maintained by a belief system like the bible, but instead based on reality and the results the belief brings. For example, I believe tolerence should alwsys be practiced and if someone holds an opposing view to mine then I need to understand WHY that person holds that view and not dismiss it out of hand. My belief is that all people have reasons for what they do. The trick is to understand what is going on in their heads. I might even learn something in the process.
I think its also worth bringing up why atheists get onto these blogs and debate. Why should we care you might wonder. Go to any school in Kansas and see the labels on school science texts and you'd understand. Talk to those opposing stem cell research and abortion and you'd understand. There are many reasons to be in favor or oppose political positions but if someone were to bring up the flying spaghetti monster, well, it would just frustrate you. That's what bringing up God and the bible does to atheists, who like to discuss topics that affect us all in a reality based atmosphere, not an atmosphere where God might send us all to hell when we die. You see, you probably think God told us that these things are wrong but atheists understand that YOU are telling us what is wrong and basing it on the twisting of biblical texts that atheists, many who have been brought up in religious environments, know all too well.
Fool For Christ -
You Say, "I believe in God because He loved me and gave Himself for me (Galatians 2:12)...I believe in God like I believe in love--or for that matter like I believe in gravity. I can't see them, but I can feel them. They have a powerful attraction for me."
Please consider that just because something is written in a centuries old document that has been copied and changed many times doesn't mean it's factual. Also consider that because you feel something and it has a powerful attraction to you doesn't necessarily make it factual either. Often a person has a powerful attraction to someone who absolutely does not feel it back, or to something (for instance, drugs) that is very harmful.
Also, I still wonder if you think non-believers will decide to get on the right side of God as insurance against the possibility of Hell?
Again -- Do you think God would fall for such a cheap trick?
Something else - Have you seen this? I've posted it on other threads. This information hasn’t been widely disseminated among the public, but it is widely known by clergy and published in the back of the latest edition of the Conservative Jewish Torah. I’ve copied a few lines from the NY Times article, then provided a link.
New York Times, March 9, 2002 New Torah For Modern Minds, By MICHAEL MASSING
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now. [For full article, go to:]
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm (Free link, with NY Times link at the end)
Also, go to Amazon for a review of “The Bible Unearthed” by Jewish scholars, Finkelstein and Silberman.
I’d be interested in your reaction to this. Yours too, Victoria.
Fool For Christ -
You Say, "I believe in God because He loved me and gave Himself for me (Galatians 2:12)...I believe in God like I believe in love--or for that matter like I believe in gravity. I can't see them, but I can feel them. They have a powerful attraction for me."
Please consider that just because something is written in a centuries old document that has been copied and changed many times doesn't mean it's factual. Also consider that because you feel something and it has a powerful attraction to you doesn't necessarily make it factual either. Often a person has a powerful attraction to someone who absolutely does not feel it back, or to something (for instance, drugs) that is very harmful.
Also, I still wonder if you think non-believers will decide to get on the right side of God as insurance against the possibility of Hell?
Again -- Do you think God would fall for such a cheap trick?
Something else - Have you seen this? I've posted it on other threads. This information hasn’t been widely disseminated among the public, but it is widely known by clergy and published in the back of the latest edition of the Conservative Jewish Torah. I’ve copied a few lines from the NY Times article, then provided a link.
New York Times, March 9, 2002 New Torah For Modern Minds, By MICHAEL MASSING
Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now. [For full article, go to:]
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm (Free link, with NY Times link at the end)
Also, go to Amazon for a review of “The Bible Unearthed” by Jewish scholars, Finkelstein and Silberman.
I’d be interested in your reaction to this. Yours too, Victoria.
regret repeated post.
Jerry: Yes, I keep that in mind. I assume you also keep in mind that you could be wrong. If I am wrong, what do I lose? If there is no God, there is nothing to lose. If you are wrong, what do you lose?
You have to answer that for yourselfe, of course. In my mind you loose a lot of time, energy and focus.
It seems to me questioning our own faith and the faith of others is not only acceptable is is essential. Here is why:
1. All or almost all of our actions arise out of our faith (sometimes religious faith but often not - as with faith in other drivers to obey traffic signals) so what we believe affects how we behave
2. Believing wrongly can lead to inappropriate actions - even catastrophically inappropriate ones
Therefore it is appropriate to make sure that what we believe is as in as close a conformance to reality as possible so we have the highest likelihood of acting appropriately.
As we can be adversely affected by other people's misguided beliefs (e.g. suicide bombers) we need to challenge other people in their faith also.
All of this makes atheism and/or agnosticism appropriate parts of the dialogue.
I think non-belief in religion is popular right now because of several reasons. I think the focus on religion by the political machines in the United States, and the consequent coverage of such in the media over the last 6 years has been so prevalent so as to force people to pick a side.
Politicians pander to voters, and if you can group those voters into very large groups based on emotional concepts, then you can have better luck getting their vote. When politicians exploit peoples' core beliefs by saying "hey, i believe the same god as you, and i have this opinion on this controversial political topic, the same as you, so if you vote for me, its voting for somebody like you" and given the fact that religious people are obviously already pretty gullible, you're going to have huge groups of people talking about those topics.
And then when the media eats this all up and sees that those same groups of people that the politicians are exploiting for votes can also be exploited for ratings, you end up with this obessesiveness in the culture.
If that obsession happens to be on something completely absurd (like the notion that a virgin can have a baby, or a man once rode a magical winged horse to heaven) eventually some more rational people are going to start speaking up and discovering each other, and forming their own groups.
These were people that were otherwise pretty silent for years...but when legislation and policy starts being dictated by some delusional faith, the non-delusional people are going to feel a bit worried about what's happening.
If we have to show our numbers, we will.
If we have to hijack the branches of government like the religious have, then we will.
If we have to hijack the media and criticize, or even denigrate religion, we will.
The heretics, blasphemers, infidels have worn the labels of "heretic; blasphemer; infidel" for a long time without caring, because the whole concept behind those labels is silly. But if it is going to come down to losing freedom and replacing it with religious oppression, or worse, war....
....well, what do you expect?
What has happened in the past when people were oppressed in that manner? (Hint: it was one of the reasons the pilgrims came to America)
Another reason atheism is so popular right now: it is really really really easy to get information today. People start looking things up and what do they find? "We don't actually know what the original manuscripts of the bible said" "it is impossible to successfully argue that the earth is only 6000 yrs old without being laughed at" "theologians readily admit there are mistakes in the bible" "we only care about isreal instead of tibet because israel fits into some weird bible prophecy, it was never about being altruistic" "religious leaders of the same religion can't agree on morals, so it actually is all subjective"
and so on, and so on, and so on, until the believer simply loses faith.
I don't think any conversation about theology or religion between believers and atheists will be incredibly productive. Besides, each side has a different idea of what productive means.
However, outside of theological/existential topics, if everybody can agree to be as objective as possible, and to drop their own biases and agendas, and instead choose to look at topics with reason, then we will be productive (as a society). Whatever the conversation may be about.
But usually to ask a religious person to drop their biases and agendas is futile. You're essentially asking them to stop "really" believing whatever they say they believe.
We have to all just admit the truth here: religious people are unreasonable.
In most cases, to ask them to be reasonable is literally to ask them to not be religious for a moment about something that they have been trained to be religious about.
Ausar says, "We have to all just admit the truth here: religious people are unreasonable."
Well, that sure clears up matters.
Beliefs are closed systems. It is easier for a child ("Jesus: If you do not become like children...") to believe in fairy tales as final "Truths" than to live and think in an open system (hypotheses valid until expanded, falsified, developed further, restructured...) as in modern scientific thinking.
A fairy tale in our monotheistic religions (Adam & Eve, Noah, Abraham etc. etc.) of course, once you believe it, gives a lot more comfort than an open system with an uncertainty principle according to Heisenberg.
To me, of course, the latter is so much more interesting: It is a process, like life itself, full of surprises and development. Of course, it is a little bit more dangerous: You may have to reconsider some convictions. But that is what I regard as development in life.
In my own experience, atheism seems to be more of a reaction against the *HUMAN* failings within religions than a complete disbelief in the Sacred.
Sadly, some people become as "fundamentalist" atheists as their families/friends are "fundamentalist" Christians. The result? Just more misunderstandings and hatred as if they had never left. They are STILL caught in the traps they think they have abandoned.
As humans, I think it is part of us to look around in wonder at the beauty, harshness, and infinity of creation. Throughout our combined known history, there has never been an 'atheist' civilization/society. Even the most secular societies have their remembered myths and sacred origins close to people's hearts.
Personally, I don't believe the problem of "religion" is with the Creator/The Sacred. To quote the bard: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves..." -- it always comes down to our human frailities, how even the best intentions can be used for bad.
I've also found that even those professed non-believers find things to supplant the traditional place of religion-- NEVER simply abandoning that place. Usually, materialism becomes the new religion-- things mean more than they should. Getting 'things' from people equals love, the more 'things,' the more 'love.' Somehow, even if the Christmas season is 'secular,' the commericalism of it is not a topic for joking. Not for me.
Can there be agreement? Perhaps an agreement to disagree. I can accept the differences, but not the expectation that coming into a non-believer's immediate area means that I should cover up my adventure of spiritual discovery. And also, I do not expect a non-believer to express any agreement with my views.
How fortunate we are to live in this country and are able to discuss these questions!
In my own experience, atheism seems to be more of a reaction against the *HUMAN* failings within religions than a complete disbelief in the Sacred.
Sadly, some people become as "fundamentalist" atheists as their families/friends are "fundamentalist" Christians. The result? Just more misunderstandings and hatred as if they had never left. They are STILL caught in the traps they think they have abandoned.
As humans, I think it is part of us to look around in wonder at the beauty, harshness, and infinity of creation. Throughout our combined known history, there has never been an 'atheist' civilization/society. Even the most secular societies have their remembered myths and sacred origins close to people's hearts.
Personally, I don't believe the problem of "religion" is with the Creator/The Sacred. To quote the bard: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves..." -- it always comes down to our human frailities, how even the best intentions can be used for bad.
I've also found that even those professed non-believers find things to supplant the traditional place of religion-- NEVER simply abandoning that place. Usually, materialism becomes the new religion-- things mean more than they should. Getting 'things' from people equals love, the more 'things,' the more 'love.' Somehow, even if the Christmas season is 'secular,' the commericalism of it is not a topic for joking. Not for me.
Can there be agreement? Perhaps an agreement to disagree. I can accept the differences, but not the expectation that coming into a non-believer's immediate area means that I should cover up my adventure of spiritual discovery. And also, I do not expect a non-believer to express any agreement with my views.
How fortunate we are to live in this country and are able to discuss these questions!
In my own experience, atheism seems to be more of a reaction against the *HUMAN* failings within religions than a complete disbelief in the Sacred.
Sadly, some people become as "fundamentalist" atheists as their families/friends are "fundamentalist" Christians. The result? Just more misunderstandings and hatred as if they had never left. They are STILL caught in the traps they think they have abandoned.
As humans, I think it is part of us to look around in wonder at the beauty, harshness, and infinity of creation. Throughout our combined known history, there has never been an 'atheist' civilization/society. Even the most secular societies have their remembered myths and sacred origins close to people's hearts.
Personally, I don't believe the problem of "religion" is with the Creator/The Sacred. To quote the bard: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves..." -- it always comes down to our human frailities, how even the best intentions can be used for bad.
I understand how damaging *human* actions associated with religion, draped in some religious aspect can be. I've been on the receiving end of some of those hateful, power- and control-driven human actions. I also believe that humanity has something unique-- free will. We have the ability to choose our actions, for the good or for the bad. Humans have the ability to study, to grow, investigate, LEARN. We are NOT confined to instinct, some internal flowchart governing our actions. We can be more-- something that (imo) spirituality not only addresses, but can complement and assist us to make the world a better place. Of course, there is always the opposite-- we're humans, and we have failings. (such as the ability to attempt to de-humanize other humans because of their {insert reason here}) But that is not sufficient reason to completely abandon the idea of the sacred, for me anyway.
I've also found that even those professed non-believers find things to supplant the traditional place of religion-- NEVER simply abandoning that place. Usually, materialism becomes the new religion-- things mean more than they should. Getting 'things' from people equals love, the more 'things,' the more 'love.' Somehow, even if the Christmas season is 'secular,' the commericalism of it is not a topic for joking. Not for me.
Can there be agreement? Perhaps an agreement to disagree. I can accept the differences, but not the expectation that coming into a non-believer's immediate area means that I should cover up my adventure of spiritual discovery. And also, I do not expect a non-believer to express any agreement with my views.
How fortunate we are to live in this country and are able to discuss these questions!
Dahozho,
you said "As humans, I think it is part of us to look around in wonder at the beauty, harshness, and infinity of creation." Call it creation or nature or universe - I fully agree!
That does not lead me to believe in a god, especially not in a god of those well-meaning scriptures that appeared so many centuries ago out of lack of knowledge. This lack of knowledge was then even "sanctified" by the story of god forbiddung to eat from the tree of knowledge: Search for knowledge as the original sin! Grotesque.
Another jump to conclusions: Why should an atheist be a "mere" materialist? Matter is energy, that should meanwhile be even known in Kansas (Kansas as a chiffre). If you want to call this a religion, it boils down to a semantic squabble.
---dahozho : In my own experience, atheism seems to be more of a reaction against the *HUMAN* failings within religions than a complete disbelief in the Sacred.---
Its both. Atheists are not just atheists to the Judeo/Christian God, its an atheism to all forms of the supernatural, ghosts, devils, Zues and all the many many others humans have invented throughout the ages. Its also a reaction against reality being shoved aside, such as the 6000 year old earth, or Gaia, or guardian angels, or UFOs, or ghosts or contacting the dead. None of this *requires* a sacred being and in some cases one is not part of the belief but they ignore reality and are based on little or no evidence.
---Sadly, some people become as "fundamentalist" atheists as their families/friends are "fundamentalist" Christians.---
You'll need to explain this notion a bit more. Religious fundamentalists will tell you black is white if their belief says so. For example, the fundamentalist christian belief is in a 6000 year old earth. Atheists however live in reality. They do not carry beliefs that are outside reality or the available evidence.
---As humans, I think it is part of us to look around in wonder at the beauty, harshness, and infinity of creation. Throughout our combined known history, there has never been an 'atheist' civilization/society. Even the most secular societies have their remembered myths and sacred origins close to people's hearts.---
Yes, I *believe* belief in supernatural entities is endemic in human beings. I think, as you say, history has proven this and we know it goes back a looooong time.
---Personally, I don't believe the problem of "religion" is with the Creator/The Sacred. To quote the bard: "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves..." -- it always comes down to our human frailities, how even the best intentions can be used for bad.---
Well, atheists will agree with you there. Its not the problem of God, it the problem with what we all agree exists, the humans who make up gods.
---[...]I also believe that humanity has something unique-- free will. [...]We are NOT confined to instinct, some internal flowchart governing our actions.---
We are confined to instinct more than you can probably imagine. There seems to be a large diversity of people, how they live, etc, but imagine being an alien from space and coming to earth and looking at the diversity of humans. The alien would notice little difference. We all form social governance systems, we all wage war, we all grow crops and use similar techniques to bring in food. We all have charity, we all have prejudices, we all have religious beliefs. The diversity you seem to see in human beings is an illusion. We are more like each other than some animals are like each other. And while you think you make decisions, most of what you do is based on instinct. Your ability to reason is better than all other animals and humans are great at anticipating change and at imagination, which is likely how religion got started.
---I've also found that even those professed non-believers find things to supplant the traditional place of religion-- NEVER simply abandoning that place. Usually, materialism becomes the new religion-- things mean more than they should. Getting 'things' from people equals love, the more 'things,' the more 'love.' Somehow, even if the Christmas season is 'secular,' the commericalism of it is not a topic for joking. Not for me.---
Christmas (the winter equinox) IS a secular holiday. Very little in it is based on any religion existing today. And atheists value a lot of what the religious consider their exclusive area of value: family, friends and charity. I am always surprised when I help out at the soup kitchen that there are both atheists and very religious people, but little in between (people who say they are religious in hopes of staying out of hell). If you look at people without your religious filter you will see most people of al faiths and no faith are pretty much the same. We all have some people from all walks of society, both good and bad.
---Can there be agreement? Perhaps an agreement to disagree. I can accept the differences, but not the expectation that coming into a non-believer's immediate area means that I should cover up my adventure of spiritual discovery. And also, I do not expect a non-believer to express any agreement with my views.---
Atheists really do not care about your religious views. They only care when you take those views into a school and teach them as fact to their children, use them to justify war, use them to condemn others to hell for "sin", etc... I know many people who are religious and consider it a personal experience, not one that needs to be spread to save the world. As for common ground, well, religion is not the totality of existence. We can all be charitable, loving, tolerent, etc. I don't need a god proding me to help my fellow man. We can all volunteer at the fire department, hospitals and nursing homes. We can work together to prevent crime, watch out for our neighbors and in general take care of one another. One of the things that gets under my skins is a belief by some in the religious community that in order to have certain qualities, such as charity, you MUST believe in Jesus because Jesus taught charity, otherwise you're just a selfish human being with morals equivalent to a dog's.
---How fortunate we are to live in this country and are able to discuss these questions!---
Absolutely, and under a constitution that saw the effects that religion can have on a government and the need to keep it free and separate from government.
Victoria:
O ye wives of the Prophet! Whosoever of you committeth manifest lewdness, the punishment for her will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah.--33:30
1. It's OK to have sex with your wives on the night of the fast. 2:187
2. Menstruation is a sickness. Don't have sex with menstruating women. 2:222
3. Have sex with your women whenever and as often as you like. 2:223
4. Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." 2:228
5. A woman is worth one-half a man. 2:282
6. Marry of the women two, or three, or four. 4:3
7. Males are to inherit twice that of females. 4:11
8. Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15
9. You may not forcibly inherit women, unless they flagrantly lewd. 4:19
10. Instructions for exchanging wives 4:20
11. "All married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."
You can't have sex with married women, unless they are slaves obtained in war (with whom you may rape or do whatever you like). 4:24
12. Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34
13. Don't pray if you are drunk, dirty, or have touched a woman lately. 4:43
14. Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. 4:98
15. They invoke in his (Allah's) stead only females. 4:117
16. A man cannot treat his wives fairly. 4:129
17. "Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females." 4:176
18. When it's time to pray and you have just used the toilet or touched a woman, be sure to wash up. If you can't find any water, just rub some dirt on yourself. 5:6
19. Lot offers his daughters to a mob of angel rapers. 11:78
20. Lot offers his daughters to a mob of angel rapers. 15:71
21. When the doom of Allah comes, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, nursing mothers with forget their babies. 22:1-2
22. You don't have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls "that your right hand possess." 23:6
23. If you accuse an honorable women of adultery, be sure to bring four witness. Otherwise you will receive 80 lashes. 24:4
24. A husband can accuse his wife of adultery with only one witness. 24:6
25. Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves. 24:31
26. If Muhammad's wives are good, Allah will give them "an immense reward." 33:28-29
27. The wives of Muhammad will be punished double for lewdness. (And that is easy for Allah.) 33:30
28. The wives of Muhammad are not like other women. They must not leave their houses. 33:32-33
29. When Allah or Muhammad decide that a man and a woman should marry, they must marry. 33:36
30. Allah gave Zeyd to Muhammad in marriage. This was so that all Muslims would know that it's OK to marry your adopted son's ex-wife. 33:37
31. Allah says it is lawful for Muhammad to marry any women he wants. 33:50-51
32. If men must speak to Muhammad's wives they must speak from behind a curtain. And no one must ever marry one of his wives. 33:53
33. But it's OK for Muhammad's wives to talk with certain people. 33:55
34. Women must cover themselves when in public. 33:59
35. Those who "did wrong" will go to hell, and their wives will go to hell with them (no matter how they behaved). 37:22-23
36. But the single-minded slaves of Allah will enjoy a Garden filled with lovely-eyed virgins. 37:40-48
37. Female companions await those who enter the Gardens of Eden on the Day of Reckoning. 38:52
38. Allah will reward faithful Muslims after they die with "fair ones with wide, lovely eyes." 44:54
39. Allah will reward those in the Garden with beautiful wives with wide, lovely eyes. 52:20
40. Those who disbelieve in the afterlife give female names to angels. 53:27
41. Allah will give those in the Garden women of modest gaze whom neither man nor jinn have touched before them. 55:56
42. Allah will reward believing men with "fair ones" (beautiful women) in heaven. 55:71-72
43. Those in the Garden will be attended by immortal youths with wide, lovely eyes. 56:17-23
44. Allah made virgins to be lovers and friends to those on his right hand. 56:36-37
45. Your wives and children are your enemies. They are to you only a temptation. 64:14-15
46. Instructions for divorcing your wives. 65:1-6
47. Allah's rules for divorcing wives that have not yet reached puberty. 65:4
48. Muhammad's wives need to be careful. If they criticize their husband, Allah will replace them with better ones. 66:5
49. The wives of Noah and Lot (who were both righteous) betrayed their husbands and are now in the Fire. 66:10
50. Doom is about to fall on all disbelievers. Only worshippers (Muslims) and those who preserve their chastity (except with their wives and slave girls) will be spared from "the fires of hell" that are "eagar to roast." 70:1-30
51. You don't have to be chaste around your wives or your slave girls. 70:29-30
52. Abu Lahab will die and be plunged in flaming Fire. His wife will have on her neck a halter of palm fiber. 111:1-5
Gerry:
Glad we can agree on something!
You wrote:
That does not lead me to believe in a god, especially not in a god of those well-meaning scriptures that appeared so many centuries ago out of lack of knowledge. This lack of knowledge was then even "sanctified" by the story of god forbiddung to eat from the tree of knowledge: Search for knowledge as the original sin! Grotesque.
: and thus proving my point! Who "sanctified" and interpreted that story? That particular interpretation is-- yours? It isn't mine. There are many, many interpretations for these, and other stories. But some of these stories have been around for so long, and seems to address basic human questions, behaviors, and striving to connect with the sacred-- I think that stories/writings of a sacred nature do have something to add to human experience, part of humanity's development and relation to creation.
Another jump to conclusions: Why should an atheist be a "mere" materialist? Matter is energy, that should meanwhile be even known in Kansas (Kansas as a chiffre). If you want to call this a religion, it boils down to a semantic squabble.
: Materialism is an example of my experience of what replaces some people's sense of the spiritual-- which simply becomes the gathering of more and more "stuff". I don't see the point of gathering all this energy for yourself without purpose or without sharing this 'energy' with others. But that's my thing, and if its just semantics, then we're in agreement again.
This hope of the believers' in being able to say that "atheism is a religion too" or that we supplant religion with materialism/humanism/science/etc is really nothing more than somebody who is, on some level, acknowledging that religion is irrational, and saying that atheists are just as irrational (which this arguement doesn't even do anyway) takes the 'craziness' burden off of the religious.
"Yes, i'm irrational. But you are too, so its ok"
Ok, there are some irrational, "fundamentalist" atheists out there. But the ratio of them to atheists who aren't 'fundamentalists' is probably less than the ratio of fundamentalist christians vs moderate christians. The thing is that you are usually only going to see or hear the loudest people from any group.
Regardless, if everybody is irrational that doesn't mean being irrational is a sensible thing. That doesn't mean it is "ok." It just means everybody is irrational.
As Sully said, I do not care if you believe in bigfoot. I do not care if you have some ritual every week where you go look for bigfoot. I do not care if you choose to ignore the fact that there is no conclusive evidence to prove bigfoot exists. I do not care how delusional you are as long as you do not oppress me with your delusional beliefs.
We can talk about any specific religion and find admirable things about each of them. But when it boils down to you MUST believe that a man was literally born from a virgin and literally walked on non-frozen water unaided and another man literally had a conversation with a brush fire, or that a man literally rode a winged horse to "heaven," you lose me. These ideas truly are the most absurd things anybody could possibly think make a difference on eternal suffering vs salvation. Besides the fact that there is no reason to believe in the concepts of eternal sufferring or salvation anyway.
The non-believer in this situation is simply somebody who doesn't believe in nonsense.
I don't feel some void in my life that is left where the fantasy fairy tales of the bible would be if i were christian. Rather, i feel less duped than the masses of the desperate, filing into church each week because they think there is a god that cares whether or not they think a burning bush can talk.
Being more reasonable doesn't make "reason" into a religion, and saying that it does will not rationalize religious faith. We are not on an even par. The religious need fantasy to give meaning to their lives and the world. Non-believers are satisfied with the mysteries and answers nature presents. The world and all of our lives are amazing enough without the fairy tales.
My question to the religious is How is this world not enough for you? How is this life lacking so much that you feel a need for another one?
Ausar I agree! "My question to the religious is How is this world not enough for you? How is this life lacking so much that you feel a need for another one?" Often religious people seem to be so because they need a crutch or because they lack imagination. Howver your arguements will be better when you stop making wide generalities or using straw man arguements.
If there is a god/goddess/whatever - don't you think he/she/it would have shown us the truth? Some sort of revelation? I'm fine with the idea that all religion is false, but they can't be all true because they contradict each other.
If God exists then obviously all things are possible but if he/she/it is a product of human culture why waste our time on morals and value judgements and all the rest? And why get angry over it? I don't get angry over Bigfoot or The Loch Ness Monster and I don't get angry over Buddha. I simply don't see a reason to trust any of it.
Ausar I agree! "My question to the religious is How is this world not enough for you? How is this life lacking so much that you feel a need for another one?" Often religious people seem to be so because they need a crutch or because they lack imagination. However your arguements will be better when you stop making wide generalities or using straw men.
If there is a god/goddess/whatever - don't you think he/she/it would have shown us the truth? Some sort of revelation? I'm fine with the idea that all religion is false, but they can't be all true because they contradict each other.
If god exists then obviously all things are possible but if he/she/it is a product of human culture why waste our time on morals and value judgements and all the rest? And why get angry over it? I don't get angry over Bigfoot or The Loch Ness Monster and I don't get angry over Buddha. I simply don't see a reason to trust any of it.
Ausar I agree! "My question to the religious is How is this world not enough for you? How is this life lacking so much that you feel a need for another one?" Often religious people seem to be so because they need a crutch or because they lack imagination. However your arguments will be better when you stop making wide generalities or using straw men.
If there is a god/goddess/whatever - don't you think he/she/it would have shown us the truth? Some sort of revelation? I'm fine with the idea that all religion is false, but they can't be all true because they contradict each other.
If god exists then obviously all things are possible but if he/she/it is a product of human culture why waste our time on morals and value judgements and all the rest? And why get angry over it? I don't get angry over Bigfoot or The Loch Ness Monster and I don't get angry over Buddha. I simply don't see a reason to trust any of it.
Dahozho,
we do have some common points: "Materialism" in the less philosophical meaning of the word we find in a lot of people who are neither religious nor atheists nor thinking at all nor moral in any sense but who just let themselves be dragged along by things they want to aquire from one day to the next to bolster their feeble ego. Here I agree with you. In this sense, I do not claim that matter is energy, lol! So far, so good (bad).
My meaning of the concept of materialism is the meaning I am served with by people who say I am a "materialist" for not believing in institutionalized superstition. In this sense a true atheist is not a materialist, he can be as spiritual as any religious human, even more so. Spiritual is someone who uses his spirit in an unbiased, open-system, honest way, not in a closed-system way with a prefabricated "truth" someone forces him to believe.
When religious people talk about religious truth as opposed to atheist reason, you cannot argue that the fact that a fairy tale has been around long enough it mysteriously morphs into truth. (The flat earth idea has been around very long also. Did it morph into truth?) And, of course, being around so long it has had and still has its huge effects, no doubt, and has added to human experience, for better and much worse. Still, I stay with my interpretation of the story that "god forbade Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge". The religious hatred against science stems from this devastating story. It certainly has not led anybody to the "sacred". It has capped human development. Cue: Kansas.
Pamela,
You are simply awesome! I wish I had your power with words! Our Gods seem to be very closely related, if not identical twins! I thank you for your candor and your abiity to express your thoughts and feelings in writing in a way that does not need a so-called holy book as a template.
E. Favorite:
I found your post very interesting, especially since I never believed in those tales anyway.
I a way it reminds me of how a rumor grows. You know, someone makes a little remark, and pretty soon the molehill has grown into an insurmountable mountain.
Also, with all the scientific advances we have nowadays, I alway wondered why our satellites can not pick up Noah's huge ship (it must have been huge, after all it supposedly carried a pair of every species alive) sitting on top of Mt. Ararat. You'd think we have found it by now.
Hello, Gaby - yes it's interesting how these stories live on. To me, it's amazing that clergy who know they are myth still tell them to their congregations as if they are true.
When you have a whole society implicitly and explicitly relating and accepting these stories as truth rather than fiction, it's no wonder people believe them without thinking about them much. I think many people, assuming they have average reasoning skills, would question such stories if they gave them any serious thought.
why does anybody worship an evil god? and why would any all powerful god need business agents?
why can't he build his own churches or collect his own money? all powerful, doubtful.
if you play chicken with god, he will lose!! who wants to worship a god that can't win playing chicken.
does god have a free will? if he does know the future with infallible certainty he can't change it, and if he doesn't know the future, does he know what he will do before he does it?
evil god: Amos 3:6, Lam 3:38, and Isaiah 45:7
what kind of god does this: 2kings 2:23
2 Samuel 24
enough for now.
Is atheism experiencing a faddish rise in popularity or are more people simply willing to admit that they just don't believe? I have considered myself an agnostic for decades ... I don't have a faith that a God exists, but I can't claim with any authority that one does not. However, I have noticed that a good many people seem to claim they have a belief, but act to the contrary. I believe that many people simply say they beieve because it's easier than saying they don't. I find that many religious people have a very black or white understanding of faith ... either you have the faith or you actively disbelieve - the onus being on the person and not God. Well, I don't have that faith ... it's not as if I woke up one day and decided I would not believe, I just never did. I didn't abandon a faith, that faith never captured me in the first place. Perhaps that is what we are experiencing, not a faddish surge in atheism, but a simple acknowledgement from many that their previous professions of faith were statements of convenience or unconsidered declarations.
I suggest that one reason for atheism is that people do not want someone else to have power over them. This happens even though God is a perfectly loving Father and will only bless people. The problems start when people want to live in a way other than the very loving way that God made the world. It is made by God for love, peace, and joy. The Bible shows the way that gives the blessings and happiness.
“Perhaps that is what we are experiencing, not a faddish surge in atheism, but a simple acknowledgement from many that their previous professions of faith were statements of convenience or unconsidered declarations.”
I think you’ve got something there, Paul M. I asked a friend, who is the biggest cynic I know, if she believed in God. She answered that she did, because if humans were the pinnacle of what was possible in world, then the world was a pretty sorry place (told you she was cynical). Then I asked her about this God of hers and he/she/it didn’t look anything like any known God of religion – no heaven, no hell, no dogma, no road to salvation, no Jesus, no Abraham, etc., etc. I told her that I hoped in a few years, society will have changed enough so that someone with her perspective would be comfortable saying she didn’t believe in God. Sounded good to her.
To Herb:
Well Herb, it sounds as if you suspect that people become to haughty to admit that god exists.
You have stated it much friendlier, however I grasp this as the gist of your concept. (Sorry if I misrepresent you here.)
The way many people struggle with this question let me doubt this explanation. Some moan the loss of their faith and that doesn't seem to fit with the wish to get rid of somebody who has power over them. Apart from that, a non-believer has to accept that there is nothing to protect you from accidents. (Not that I think believers have this privilege, however they seem to believe that they can pray for or against something with an effect.)
Of course you shouldn't forget that not everybody is disseminate this favourable view of god as a friendly father. There are some believers around here who seem to think that god is a real meanie, and that you better get on his side before he kicks the snot out of you.
In cases like this I indeed do react stubborn, but not to god (for I still don't think that he exists) but to his selfe declared ground personnel. Of course I can only speak for myself here.
I don't believe because I haven't found anything, that would connvince me that there is a god.
And since I believe it is justifiable to say that something doesn't exist if you haven't found sufficient evidence for its existence, I come out on the atheist side.
It is actually that simple. I'd argue a lot of other people are going along that line as well.
Atheism is acceptable to me because, after a childhood raised in the Episcopal faith, I saw the church back then splintered over what liturgy to use, and then the ordination of women; at that point I left in in disgust. Even as a teenager I could see it was more about political prestige and who got to be a bishop. I haven't been to church regularly for 30 years. Now that church is fragmented yet again, ostensibly about homosexuality and women (again). But what are the loudest argements about? Who owns the PROPERTY---if you read the scriptures LITERALLY as the most vocally pious claim that they do, that should not be a concern to the truly faithful.
Ultimately, when one reads history closely, one learns that most major wars in human history have been about, or over, religion. See the Crusades, the hundred years war, England vs the French, England vs the Spanish; down to more modern times, the US has been historically hostile (socially, if not officially) to Irish and Italians (Roman Catholics), Jews, and now Muslims. World War II was ulitmately a religious war, since the Nazis gained adherants largely because in Christian Europe, it was OK to hate "Christ-killers", and if Hitler had not been hungry for world domination, and restricted his butcheries to Germany, no country would have lifted a finger to intervene. I don't imagine the organized churches (Episcopal, Catholic, Baptist, you name it) would have offically protested very much, or done anything to stop a limited Holocaust. In the end, religion, at least organized religion, has done more to divide humanity than "save" it.
Is there a god? Who knows? His most fervent adherants have done a good job of killing him off.
If "God" is supposedly a kind, forgiving being, then why would he condemn non-believers to hell, even if they are truly good people?
It seems to me that religion has brought about nothing but violence and intolerance.
I accept other people's beliefs, because they have a right to think what they think and I'm not going to change that.
It's true that some people are better people because of their religion, but sometimes religion gets in the way of being a good person.
I have many friends who are believers and very few who are atheists and they don't care that I don't believe the same thing as they do and I don't care that they are different from me. I just fail to understand why we can't all just get along peacefully and forget our differences.
Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, " We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."
Why can't we all accept each other for who we are?
Kate - it sounds like you have an exceptional set of friends.
Unfortunately, I don't think it's the rule and I think right now, there are too many religious people who want to change the rest of us (atheists, moderate/liberal religious people) to either accept their extreme form of religion or accept living as an oppressed minority.
If Atheism is enjoying more popularity it is only because some of those atheists don't know or understand what a agnostic is! An agnostic is unsure of what to believe or believes that as far as they are concerned they don't have enough proof to say for certain either way.
Atheist and religious zealots are the same in that they both are very certain that they are right! This makes sense for the religious and the delusional because in the context of their world view they are connected with "God" and thus (by revelation) could know what is otherwise unknowable.
But what of the Atheist? In order to be 100% sure that in the vastness of the Universe no god/goddess/ or gods exist you must yourself be omnipotent! In other words, to declare by fiat that there is no god you must yourself be a god (albeit a very confused one).
I think many of us are agnostics. Some of us just pretend to dress as atheists because the arguments are more fun and we can stir up the rest of us this way!
News Cynic - I think your much to harsh.
I call myself an atheist because I subscribe to the idea that it is justified that, after you try to find a proof or compelling argument for the existence of something and you don't come up with anything, I say it's safe to say it doesn't exist. I do this with a lot of things: Ghosts, astrologie, superstition, Bach flower remedies and many more subjects. God is just one of them, and I don't regard this matter any different than the above.
Can I be wrong about any of this? - Shure.
Is it likely? - I don't think so.
If you want to call me an agnostic none the less - well, go ahead, I can't hinder you.
But I think I would live my life a little bit different, if I'd see myself as an agnostic.
Gotta agree with Falk here. Being an atheist doesn't mean I assert a 100% certainty that God cannot possibly exist. I just don't believe he/she/it does.
I am agnostic in my approach to existential beliefs, that is to say I do not accept as true that which is not supported by objective, empirical evidence and reason. I may have varying degrees of confidence in such beliefs, depending on the quality of the evidence. In the case of the existence of god(s) the quality of the evidence I have seen leaves me with a confidence level of close to zero, so I don't believe in him/her/it/them.
OK. Sorry for being harsh - too cynical? But if an aitheist is as you say, then what is an agnostic? Because your defination of an atheist is much more realistic. You're not claiming there are no gods or goddesses - just that you have no reason to think that there are correct? Would would be the technical term for that? Easy Atheism? Atheism Light? Pragmatic Atheism? (Opps! Maybe a bit cynical again.)
How would an Agnostic live or think any different?
Thanks guys and thanks for your cool responses.
Hi NEWS CYNIC,
thanks for your response. To begin with an aside: No, I don't think that you are to cynic. I take you as a person who likes to think things through.
It is all to often that we mistake honesty for cynism.
Okay, to the matter at hand:
What would I do differnt if I'd call myself an agnostic:
Primarily I'd continue searching for clues or new methods to decide the matter. A true 'I don't know' means that the issue still needs adressing.
Atheism to me means: 'I don't know but all the evidence points to an extremly low probability'. So low, that I don't think putting more time and energy in the matter will be fruitful.
It's like the luminiferous aether theory, the once believed medium in which light propagates. The theory is dismissed meanwhile, but as far as I know it's not disproven.
However, we nowadays have better models for the propagation of light and if I'm interested in physics I'll use my limited time learning them.
And adressing one of you questions:
NC - You're not claiming there are no gods or goddesses - just that you have no reason to think that there are correct?
Well, almost. I do claim there is no god. But I'm not claiming this is 100% shure, just that this is the best answer to everything I see in the world. Simply put: It makes more sense to me than any other explanation.
But I must not forget: I'm human, I'm fallible.
But so is every believer as well. And many of them seem to forget it.
So I'm precautios to their introspect.
Okay, this post gets to long. Just to the qualifier bit of atheism: To my knowledge there are quite a lot out there: weak atheism, strong atheism and practical atheism.
TO NEWS CYNIC:
Apathy is not caring. Maybe you tend towards believing in god or not believing. You just don't care what the answer really is.
Thiesim is you believe in a god or at least in a religion of some sort. Maybe you haven't made up your mind which religious view is correct and maybe you have, but thats a different question altogether.
Agnostic is not knowing. There might be a god and there might not be a god (any god). You just don't know, but you do care what the answer is. Maybe someday you'll answer the question for yourself.
Athiesm is believing there is no god and its a belief you care about. You know that god is the imaginary friend that lots of people have. The Bible, Koran, Torah, etc... are just a bunch of short, fictional stories about life, death, and powerful creatures that sometimes punish people. Its what Stephen King would have wrote if he lived thousands of years ago.
Personally, I believe that while its OK to believe in things based on proof or past experiences (TRUST), logic or hypothesis you plan on testing (REASON), its NOT OK to believe in something based on no experiences, no proof, and no attempt to ever get proof (FAITH). Human beings have used science to explain many little mysteries of the universe and eventually the great mysteries will broken into a bunch of little mysteries. Death is like sleeping without dreams and there is no heaven, hell, god, angels or whatever...
I will continue to believe this until God takes CNN's cameraman backstage and shows us how Heaven and Hell really work.
Its your life. Believe what you want, but let me believe what I want too.
I believe in nothing but the infinate mystery of the universe.
Does that mean I believe in god - as in on who has created and runs the show?
Nope - I found the idea ridiculous while in sunday school at the age of 6. I've read the bible, and it's silly and horrifying. a partial oral history of one small group of people - i'll even give it great literature status - but nothing more.
as for an athiest ethics - technically, only athiests can be truly ethical, because they don't have to do so to avoid punishment or to reap some otherwordly reward. They choose independently to be ethical (or not). They choose to support social contracts (i.e. the "golden rule" which needs no religion to support it).
People refer to science as the new religion - a wrongheaded reference, since science must continuially question and occasionally overturn some of its most beloved concepts. If you "believe" in science, then you must accept that its basic tenants can be proven wrong. Show me the religion that is capable of such self-examination.
I believe in nothing but the infinate mystery of the universe.
Does that mean I believe in god - as in on who has created and runs the show?
Nope - I found the idea ridiculous while in sunday school at the age of 6. I've read the bible, and it's silly and horrifying. a partial oral history of one small group of people - i'll even give it great literature status - but nothing more.
as for an athiest ethics - technically, only athiests can be truly ethical, because they don't have to do so to avoid punishment or to reap some otherwordly reward. They choose independently to be ethical (or not). They choose to support social contracts (i.e. the "golden rule" which needs no religion to support it).
People refer to science as the new religion - a wrongheaded reference, since science must continuially question and occasionally overturn some of its most beloved concepts. If you "believe" in science, then you must accept that its basic tenants can be proven wrong. Show me the religion that is capable of such self-examination.
I believe in nothing but the infinate mystery of the universe.
Does that mean I believe in god - as in on who has created and runs the show?
Nope - I found the idea ridiculous while in sunday school at the age of 6. I've read the bible, and it's silly and horrifying. a partial oral history of one small group of people - i'll even give it great literature status - but nothing more.
as for an athiest ethics - technically, only athiests can be truly ethical, because they don't have to do so to avoid punishment or to reap some otherwordly reward. They choose independently to be ethical (or not). They choose to support social contracts (i.e. the "golden rule" which needs no religion to support it).
People refer to science as the new religion - a wrongheaded reference, since science must continuially question and occasionally overturn some of its most beloved concepts. If you "believe" in science, then you must accept that its basic tenants can be proven wrong. Show me the religion that is capable of such self-examination.
As Joe so eloquently stated in his 12-26-06 post, let those of us with opposing views have a voice in Faith. I would be happy to volunteer. This forum would be a playground.
This was a lengthy reading and well worth the time. I can't call myself an atheist or a theist, as I, since about 12 years old, have known that there is no god. So, with there being no god one can neither be atheist or theist. I just know there is no god, but as usual I have no proof. Today I am pushing 84 years. My mother and father were Greek Orthadox (both deceased) and my younger brother married fifty years ago into a southern Baptist family and still runs around his neighborhooh expounding "I have been saved". I really have no idea what he is talking about. Now then, and especially being of Greek blood the spectrum above seems to be quite large. For me, I shall always need empeirical proof before I can declare myself atheist or theist. In closing, I am sure I'll die without knowing and at my age I'm closer than one might think.
Calli sou mera, Philip
News Cynic:
Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods or goddesses. No more and no less. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge that any gods or goddesses exist or that such knowledge is impossible.
Therefore, one can be an agnostic atheist if one lacks a belief in gods but doesn't claim to know for sure. One can also be an agnostic theist if one believes in a god but doesn't claim absolute knowledge.
Atheism is on the rise because people are finally realizing that there is no God. Science and Darwinism have proven that most biblical explanations and historical 'facts' are bunk!
Hey Atheist, think abt this:
how did one come into being??
who is the creator of the Universe??
can anyone predict one's death??
who is controlling this Universe??
_________________________________________________
The fact that these questions are used by theists to prove god exists is logically unsound. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th questions imply that someone or something absolutely has to be "controlling" everything and that it's the ONLY possible explanation of the existence of the universe and all living creatures (which is clearly untrue). Why isn't it sufficient to say that "we don't know for sure"? Are theists so arrogant that they can't admit when they don't know something? Using god as a euphemism for the unknown isn't proof that an omniscient and omnipotent supernatural being exists. I don't see where the 3rd question fits into this argument at all - regardless if the answer is yes, or no.
Atheism in vogue?
Sort of like, if more kids figure out Santa is not for real then being an a-santa-ist is in vogue?
I think they call us "atheists" because we are in the minority.
We certainly do not have a word that starts with an "a" for people that do not believe in purple dragons.
We just call them reasonable. And there are very few people that demand reasonableness of their religious beliefs.
Atheism is not in vogue.
Atheism in vogue?
Sort of like, if more kids figure out Santa is not for real then being an a-santa-ist is in vogue?
I think they call us "atheists" because we are in the minority.
We certainly do not have a word that starts with an "a" for people that do not believe in purple dragons.
We just call them reasonable. And there are very few people that demand reasonableness of their religious beliefs.
Atheism is not in vogue.
Atheism in vogue?
Sort of like, if more kids figure out Santa is not for real then being an a-santa-ist is in vogue?
I think they call us "atheists" because we are in the minority.
We certainly do not have a word that starts with an "a" for people that do not believe in purple dragons.
We just call them reasonable. And there are very few people that demand reasonableness of their religious beliefs.
Atheism is not in vogue.
Interesting way to define terms, Mike K. I like it. I got a lot of response on that post. It seems that those who like to use the term "atheist" to describe themselves all define it a bit differently - kinds like "Christians"!
To quote the Atheist Boy: "Its your life. Believe what you want, but let me believe what I want too."
Very cool.
Interesting way to define terms, Mike K. I like it. I got a lot of response on that post. It seems that those who like to use the term "atheist" to describe themselves all define it a bit differently - kinda like "Christians"!
To quote the Atheist Boy: "Its your life. Believe what you want, but let me believe what I want too."
Very cool.
It may be true that some use terms differently, News Cynic, but the definitions I provided are generally accepted. Some people may use "atheist" in a general way. As with theists, some atheists claim knowledge concerning the existance of gods while others do not. Both can correctly describe themselves as atheists. That may appear to be an inconsistency in the use of the term, although it's not. Both are correct if not entirely complete descriptions.
To complicate the matter, some fall in between those definitions. I'm an atheist who doesn't claim knowledge about the existance of *any* gods or goddesses, though I do claim knowledge that *certain* gods or goddesses do not exist.
The one aspect that atheists share is a lack of belief. That's the only thing one should assume when another claims to be an atheist.
Mike K. "The one aspect that atheists share is a lack of belief. That's the only thing one should assume when another claims to be an atheist." Another good post my friend, but in trying to find common ground for all atheists haven't we watered the term down to almost meaninglessness? OK - maybe I'm off base here (wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last), but it seems to me that what we have here now is a very vague definition. The term could be applied to anyone since everyone probably doesn't believe in at least something. Although this is technically accurate is it no longer a practical term to use in a forum like this?
Also I think we are gonna have to define the word "belief" since you seem (again I could be wrong) to have delinked it from agnostics who you said claim to have no knowledge of god. Is the implication that in order to really have religious faith we can't have (or imagine ourselves to have) any valid reasons to "believe"? Or (and this might be a better question) if an agnostic (according to you) is someone who has "a lack of knowledge that any gods or goddesses exist or that such knowledge is impossible", then is an atheist's lack of belief not based on knowledge? If it is then who different are atheists and agnostics when you are done defining them?
Thanks for helping me sort this out.
The basic question is not the difference between agnostics and atheists. That is a more semantic word play sophistically repeated over and over again in these threads, leading nowhere. Especially the smart guys who state that if you deny the existence of something you affirm it because you mention it - hogwash, not worth the pixels used for spreading it. Try to prove that lightning is NOT caused by Thors hammer...
The basic question is if I let myself be made dependent on a prefabricated, unprovable fable concocted by people millenia ago with their then valid world knowledge.
Religions, especially the monotheistic brands, are a mockery to an honest use of the brain of a person of the 21st century, as scientific, accountable thinking demands. They are also a mockery to the huge idea of development, Latin: evolution, both in nature as a whole as well as in a human individual.
Debates are fun but battles over semantics are not. Still how an atheist defines herself is key. Because in order to catabolically deny a being of infinite wisdom exists you must yourself have infinite knowledge.
If you say that "in all probability and to the best of my knowledge there is no reason to think such a being exists", then that is a very reasonable position to take. Sometimes I have seen fellow posters that despise organized religion take cheap shots at Christians who share their faith. They say things like, "How can you be so arrogant" to assume that the rest of us need to believe what you do to go "to Heaven"."
The reality is that such evangelists only speak from what they believe to be true. Those who think they are wrong also only speak from what they believe to be true - very reasonable. But those who condemn the witnesses and tell them that they should NOT try to spread their faith, not only are they trying to make Christians adhere to their own system of values, but are making a much greater truth claim. They are saying "Not only do I think there is no god, no one else has reason to either, therefore anyone trying to win converts is arrogant (never mind that such people are almost always also trying to win over people to their view).
It’s like four people sitting around a campfire at night. Each one is facing a different direction of the compass. The person facing the South sees a storm cloud coming and says, “From my perspective I see a storm cloud coming. We better get in the cave or we’ll get wet!” The person facing West says, “I believe you think you see clouds but I see a nice starry night. I’m fine with where I am. Until I see something that can convince me otherwise I’ll stay here.” The guy facing East is persuaded to take a look and happens to see what the first man sees. They could both be delusional but that’s what they see. They both call to the person facing North to look South and be saved. But he scoffs at them, “I see a beautiful moon. Quit all the noise and the doom and gloom. How sick you are to say we have to move or we’ll all get wet. How can you be so arrogant to say that if we don’t see the clouds you do we’ll get soaked. Whose to say your view is any better than mine?” See those who see clouds may be crazy, but the more arrogant claim is that “Since I can’t see clouds no one else can either. And since in my world view proselytizing is a no no, then other people in other world views must convert to my view and STOP IT!”
So, wars over semantics are no fun. But how we define ourselves helps explain what we believe and that matters on a forum like this (if not in eternity itself).
Categorically
What amazes me, is the fact that everyone
(mostly everyone on this iste) is out to disprove that there is no God.
What I would like to know, is why is it so bad to believe in someone who is perfect. Someone who can Love you without judging you. There is nothing bad at all about God.
What it all boils down to, is that people who don't know or Love God are scared to come to grips with reality that one day they will have to meet him and be accountable for what they did, how they lived & why.
God is a good thing, not a bad thing.
One day, I hope you all see it in one way or another.
Well, here we go, go ahead and believe in God.
Don't forget santa and the tooth fairy.
They're waiting for you, too, I'm just sure of it.
Pastor Dan,
nice story. But I'd say the real picture would be more like this:
People are declaring there will be a great storm coming. They say so because there is a prophesy. And they declare that everyone has to build storm shelters.
But others say that this is only a prophesy, and that it won't come true. And that everyone has to go out on the field to bring the harvest in. Or there will be famine next winter.
To atheists: My proof:
1)I can feel God's constant presence (perhaps I'm insane? Is there a form of insanity that only manifests itself as feeling a presence?)
2)My prayers are answered.
3)Miracles Have occured and been documented.
4)Science isn't as self-evident as you think, it's taught using the written word just as religion is.
5)Just as science is a record of our experiences and observations of the material world and wouldn't be what it is today without written records,
6)the Bible records a variety of individual's experiences with God. I obtain insight by comparing my experiences with theirs. I attend church for more insight and to commune with my fellow believers.
7)I feel bad that atheists are missing out on this particular experience with being human, but maybe that's not their path in life. If you don't feel God, you don't, you don't have to justify that.
To atheists: My proof:
1)I can feel God's constant presence (perhaps I'm insane? Is there a form of insanity that only manifests itself as feeling a presence?)
2)My prayers are answered.
3)Miracles Have occured and been documented.
4)Science isn't as self-evident as you think, it's taught using the written word just as religion is.
5)Just as science is a record of our experiences and observations of the material world and wouldn't be what it is today without written records,
6)the Bible records a variety of individual's experiences with God. I obtain insight by comparing my experiences with theirs. I attend church for more insight and to commune with my fellow believers.
7)I feel bad that atheists are missing out on this particular experience with being human, but maybe that's not their path in life. If you don't feel God, you don't, you don't have to justify that.
SJ wrote:To atheists: My proof:
---1)I can feel God's constant presence (perhaps I'm insane? Is there a form of insanity that only manifests itself as feeling a presence?)---
Yes there is, but its not likely what you are experiencing. You were more than likely raised to feel the presense of an imaginary being. Some people do it spontaniously (imaginary friends). I wouldn't worry about it. I used to feel the presense of Santa on the roof when I was younger. I don't think I was insane.
---2)My prayers are answered.---
So have mine though I only prayed to myself (hope), not to any God. One question ... are ALL of your prayers answered?
---3)Miracles Have occured and been documented.---
In many religions miracles have been documented. Here's one documented for the Hindu god Ganesh (this miracle was caught on video, see here: http://www.milkmiracle.com/ ). So are you saying that all religions have a connection to God? Does that make it ok for a christian to start praying to the hindu god Ganesh?
---4)Science isn't as self-evident as you think, it's taught using the written word just as religion is.---
But science's written word must past the muster of repeatable experimentation and peer review. Religion relies on faith. Its night and day (or as I like to refer to it, darkness and light)
---5)Just as science is a record of our experiences and observations of the material world and wouldn't be what it is today without written records, 6)the Bible records a variety of individual's experiences with God. I obtain insight by comparing my experiences with theirs. I attend church for more insight and to commune with my fellow believers.---
Nothing wrong with that as I see it and as most atheists see it. You keep studying your religion and become a better person. Just don't think you have some right to impose your beliefs on me or others because your belief is somehow superior. Don't try to get your beliefs into the schools and government because you believe God should be in those places which represent ALL people. Atheists are not necessarily anti-religion, they are anti-evangelist.
---7)I feel bad that atheists are missing out on this particular experience with being human, but maybe that's not their path in life. If you don't feel God, you don't, you don't have to justify that.---
Thanks for allowing me to not practice your religion. I would just add that I, as a scientist, feel bad for theists who ignore observation in favor of belief, the glaring example being ignoring evolution's obvious history (and beauty) since it conflicts with biblical genesis. I also feel sorry for those who do not study quantum mechanics, which deals with how the universe works on the smallest scale, and is nothing like the reality you and I experience every day with particles winking in and out of space and time. You don't need to be religious or non-religious to understand the math and consequences of quantum mechanics, but I feel once you have an underlying belief that is strong, it is hard to see evidence that contradicts it and pursue it. Even Einstein would not work on quantum mechanics because he did not believe God would "play dice with the universe". Einstein called it his biggest blunder. What it was was he let his religious beliefs cloud his thinking. Good thing the hebrew bible never said anything about time and space being an absolute or Einstein may never have imagined time and space warping which lead to his greatest scientific discovery, relativity.
Belief can be strong, but if its wrong it can be a powerful wrong. And even if its right, no one should have the right to force others to believe it, because all belief is personal.
I think "naturalist" is a better term than atheist. A naturalist doesn't deny that God exists but simply points out that there is no work left for supernatural beings to do. The big bang doesn't need a big banger to make it happen, and evolution doesn't need the assistance of an intelligent designer. Natural science and biblical scholarship together have completely undermined traditional theism- at least for those who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and the ability to be guided by evidence.
I think this question is even to blame why we have the problem we have. The Church has dropped the ball...simply. Especially the American church. Why do we separate people? LOVE! We have everything in common with them.
News Cynic:
I don't find "atheist" vague in the least. It may not completely describe one's position, but neither do "theist" or "Christian".
You asked in regards to agnosticism, "Or (and this might be a better question) if an agnostic (according to you) is someone who has "a lack of knowledge that any gods or goddesses exist or that such knowledge is impossible", then is an atheist's lack of belief not based on knowledge?
No, that's not the implication at all. Agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge concerning the existence of gods. It doesn't refer to the basis for a belief or lack of belief. Conversely, a gnostic claims to know (for sure) that god(s) or goddess(es) exist.
You then asked "If it is then how different are atheists and agnostics when you are done defining them?"
They're very different, though not mutually exclusive. One deals with questions of belief and the other questions of knowledge. As I mentioned before (I think), one could be an "agnostic theist", one who believes in a god but doesn't claim to know for sure.
News Cynic: Sorry, that last comment was mine. Forgot to sign in.
News Cynic: Sorry, that last comment was mine. Forgot to sign in.
There is no such thing as a miracle:
Something is either possible or impossible. If it happens, it is possible, on certain conditions known or (yet) unknown. Otherwise it would not happen.
Why not call everything that is possible in nature - God? The whole discussion then would simply boil down to a semantic definition. We then could go one step further and call everything that exists, starting with ourselves, a "divine miracle". And we could close WP's "On faith".
Thus, religions and all this arguing would be completely superfluous.
Dear Mr. Faulk Steinle,
Thank you for your kind response (Well, any response is nice right?). I’m glad you liked the story. I have no problem with your version of the story. It’s fine to say that the “storm” is a prophecy. Plug it in and the story still works. I think you would fit in as the man facing West who sees no convincing proof. He may even take a look to the South but he won’t see the storm because either it’s not there and the other two are delusional, or he just can’t see it for some reason (there are many possibilities). Remember the story I gave wasn’t a proof that the storm is real - only a rebuttal against those who call believers arrogant because we want others to believe as well. Of course we may have arrogant personalities, but that doesn’t mean the basic desire and belief is arrogant. All a believer is saying is, “From my perspective and experience this is what I believe to be true. If you like, please take a look at my reasoning and decide for yourself.”
In that respect evangelism has been likened to one beggar showing another beggar where to find bread. On the other hand the guy who says, “I don’t see the storm, therefore no one can see it” is actually making a much greater truth claim. How do you know what others have seen or felt? In fact to be 100% certain that there is no God is a claim to universal knowledge. In other words you can’t be right. If you are wrong you are wrong and if you are “right” your still wrong because if your are omniscient, then you are god..
The simple way around this problem for a well meaning atheist is to just say, “From my perspective and experience I have no more reason to believe in god than I do flying pink dinosaurs on Mars." And of course include all the weight of science, philosophy, theology, sociology, archeology, and all the other disciplines you can muster. Then we toss all the world views in the arena and see what happens. I think at least we can see that most people of other faiths or even no faith are still decent people. It’s good to see that even if we don’t believe what they do.
Why is atheism in vogue?
Why is premarital sex in vogue?
Why is believing that money=happiness in vogue?
Why is believing that right and wrong relative?
ITS VOGUE BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT WOULD CRAMP OUR STYLE.
Dear Lizzy, You wrote that many people become “atheist in response to the current, popular, “christian” god.” I have seen people who are atheists now because of their parents or a bad experience in church. One famous atheist made the claim that he was a non-believer because Jesus said we should love our enemies and that (according to him) was just crazy talk. Another famous atheist said that he and others threw their faith because they wanted sexual freedom. Still others become atheists for intellectual reasons and as such are still open to having their minds changed on the matter. On the other hand many so called Christians are only cultural Christians and use religion to justify anything and everything. Religion gone wrong is when it is used to make ourselves feel good as we judge others. Religion done right challenges us to view ourselves and our culture through God’s eyes. When we can finally say, “God forgive me. I’ve been selfish (or self-righteous, or critical, or impatient, or whatever)” that is a huge turning point in our lives.
As a Christian I hope my clumsy way of living out my faith never gets in the way of you being able to see God’s love and grace for you!
Pastor Dan:
You stated "In fact to be 100% certain that there is no God is a claim to universal knowledge."
I disagree. One *can* logically conclude that because of the gratuitous, non-moral suffering that exists on Earth (tsumamis, deadly earthquakes, etc.), that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent god cannot exist. That's not claiming universal knowledge. It's applying logic, reason and demonstrable evidence.
I will agree that to claim 100% certainty that *no* gods or goddesses exist (for example, one that's only omniscient and omnibenevolent yet not omnipotent) would approach claiming universal knowledge.
Of course, one that claims 100% certainty that one particular god exists is also approaching universal knowledge.
100% certainty cuts both ways.
I have to take exception to Pastor Dan's little campfire story; "It’s like four people sitting around a campfire at night..."
The story here is that the atheist just hasn't looked in the right direction and is therefore unaware of the approaching storm. The unbeliever in your story is just too stubborn to look in the right direction and therefore is ignorant of reality. Not a very flattering portrait.
Well, Pastor Dan, some have us have looked, in more than just four directions, and still don't see your storm clouds. It's not because I'm too lazy or stubborn to look, as your story would have it, I'm just not convinced that what you think you see is really there.
Regards
A Hermit
Alright. Sorry for the lack of clarity. In regards to Mike K I was coming from the point of view that a high degree of probability still does not equate to certainty. And as I’m sure you’ve guessed by now I accept that knife cutting both ways. Rationally we can only get so close to God. For most people what brings them over the line is an experience of God.
And to the Hermit I also have to apologize because you were the second person to see my story of the camp fire as a proof for the existence of God. It really proves nothing of the sort. My bad. As you can see in my post to Faulk Steinle, I wrote, “the story I gave wasn’t a proof that the storm is real - only a rebuttal against those who call believers arrogant because we want others to believe as well. Of course we may have arrogant personalities, but that doesn’t mean the basic desire and belief is arrogant. All a believer is saying is, “From my perspective and experience this is what I believe to be true. If you like, please take a look at my reasoning and decide for yourself.” In that respect evangelism has been likened to one beggar showing another beggar where to find bread. On the other hand the guy who says, “I don’t see the storm, therefore no one can see it” is actually making a much greater truth claim.... The simple way around this problem for a well meaning atheist is to just say, “From my perspective and experience I have no more reason to believe in god than I do flying pink dinosaurs on Mars.” And of course include all the weight of science, philosophy, theology, sociology, archeology, and all the other disciplines you can muster. Then we toss all the world views in the arena and see what happens. I think at least we can see that most people of other faiths or even no faith are still decent people. It’s good to see that even if we don’t believe what they do.”
So Mr. Hermit, I can see why you felt offended and I hope you can see that was far from my intent. I honestly feel bad about this.
Pastor Dan:
We agree that a high probability does equal certainty.
I think your example may have come across as one-sided. Your arrogant atheist example ("if I can't see it, it's not there") wasn't balanced with an arrogant Christian ("well if you can't see what I do, then you're just not looking closely enough.")
From your position you may have experienced the former, but I have experienced a good deal of the latter.
It's not only the atheists who need to be "well meaning" and phrase our positions non-confrontationally.
There are real problems with unreasoned beliefs. (ghosts, demons, gods & spirits)
When a bunch of yahoos who believe that we must all behave according to those unreasoned beliefs, pass laws that punish me for being different, I have a real problem.
Christians are pretty much done with burning people to death but Muslims are not.
Silence allows unreasonableness to grow.
Thanks for the gracious reply, Pastor Dan. Apology accepted, and on your intended point I agree, it should be enough for the well meaning atheist to simply offer their view as another perspective. I just wanted to make it clear that many of us have looked at the question from more than one perspective. I understand the desire to "save" unbelievers, or at least to have them share the joy of faith. I used to hold that perspective myself.
It's been my experience, however that a statement like "“From my perspective and experience I have no more reason to believe in god than I do flying pink dinosaurs on Mars” usually evokes a less than reasonable response from believers. They tend to be offended (and perhaps justifiably) when one compares their cherished beliefs to imaginary animals, or the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. The atheist who makes such a statement is usually accused of mocking the believer's faith, or god himself. I try not to start with such blunt comparisons...although something of the kind does probably become inevitable at some point.
Regards
A Hermit
Just a couple thoughts. Up the thread a while ago someone said, “you couldn’t NOT prove that Thor’s hammer created lightning.” However we can recreate lightning which shows that Thor’s hammer would not be REQUIRED to create lightning. We have, not to my knowledge, created a world, or a universe, or even a human being from scratch, so dismissing belief in God that way won’t work. I have not even heard of being able to replicate evolution in anything. Maybe some one can point me in the direction of that evidence. Not that I have a problem with evolution as a general rule, just don’t see it as proof there is no God. I have always thought of God as someone who follows the rules he has set up, he just knows all of them while we know just a few.
I always find it interesting that people say that there cannot be a God because bad things happen in the world. What makes you think God would control, or even want to control, every single thing like that? As a father, I don’t control everything in my children’s world. I don’t try to protect them from all harm, pain, or suffering, especially if their choices are the cause of their harm, pain, or suffering. I think that God gives us the ability to make our own choices and He will not try to force us one way or the other. He has provided us with instruction and guidance and will judge us on how well we do with what we have. Most parents I know do the same.
Stephen wrote:
"We have, not to my knowledge, created a world, or a universe, or even a human being from scratch, so dismissing belief in God that way won’t work. I have not even heard of being able to replicate evolution in anything. Maybe some one can point me in the direction of that evidence."
I did a search for "evolution experiments" on the net. This came back in less than two seconds:
Evolution experiments with microorganisms: the dynamics and genetic bases of adaptation.
Elena SF,
Lenski RE.
Instituto de Biologia Molecular y Celular de Plantas, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 46022 Valencia, Spain. sfelena@ibmcp.upv.es
Microorganisms have been mutating and evolving on Earth for billions of years. Now, a field of research has developed around the idea of using microorganisms to study evolution in action. Controlled and replicated experiments are using viruses, bacteria and yeast to investigate how their genomes and phenotypic properties evolve over hundreds and even thousands of generations. Here, we examine the dynamics of evolutionary adaptation, the genetic bases of adaptation, tradeoffs and the environmental specificity of adaptation, the origin and evolutionary consequences of mutators, and the process of drift decay in very small populations.
PMID: 12776215 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
For more, click here:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=evolution+experiments&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
I think that you could come up with this stuff on your own...if you really wanted to, that is.
Stephen says:
"As a father, I don’t control everything in my children’s world. I don’t try to protect them from all harm, pain, or suffering, especially if their choices are the cause of their harm, pain, or suffering."
But if your child were suffering because of someone else's choices wouldn't you try to help them?
If your child were being raped wouldn't you stop it, if you could?
If your child became sick and you could cure them wouldn't you do it?
I hope you're a better parent than God is. I know I am.
Regards
A Hermit
If I make a claim that with the wave of a hand, water can be changed to wine, then the burden of proof is on me to show you reasonable proof that this is true.
The burden of proof is not on the bystander that hears your claim. The bystander does not have to prove that it is not possible. The one claiming that such is true must prove their claim.
Likewise, the non believers have no burden of proof to show that god does not exist.
This is why the tooth-fairy, santa clause and the like are lumped with god, demons and other supernatural claims as equal. Any person that claims that they exist has the burden to provide reasonable proof that they exist. So far, no one has done so for any of them.
Acrapist - Good points. The burden of proof is certainly on the one who wants to be believed.
Non-believers have no burden unless they are curious or oddly open minded.
I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. I'm not curious about it and I'm really not even open minded about it! I don't believe in Thor or Zeus either.
But what would make belief reasonable for you and I? I believe the Universe is huge and old because it fits with the way I see other things. I believe in Quantum physics (but I'm willing to shift gears if science does) because I have no good reasons not to.
But what about God? What would it take for me to confess my "sins" and say "God I need you. I've hurt myself and those I care for most and I need you to forgive me/save me/heal me/whatever."
Or can we put God in the category of "Not curious and not open"?
Dear Pastor Dan,
thank you for your answer.
Well, where to begin. I had all kinds of thoughts reading your reply and I'm a bit unshure from which point on I could start a coherent train of thought.
Let me say this:
I am very grateful that your approach is to engage in conversation, stating you worldview and saying that from your perspective and experience you hold your religion to be true.
(Actually you didn't exactly state that, you were speaking of believers in general. I merely assert this point of view to you, since I take you to be a believer. Please correct me, if I'm misrepresenting you here.)
However, my musing is that the story you have given is already way to much in favor of the believer. Apart from the fact that he is stating something from an observation, that could be easily verified, if just anybody cared to look, he is also issuing a warning on behalve of the others.
Of course you are right - you never stated that the observation as such is true - yet you make tacitly the claim that a huge value has to be credited to it.
After all, could it realy hurt to be a bit more carful?
And yes indeed, it could hurt a great deal. That is why I proposed a different story.
There we still have the believers caring for the wellbeing of others. But I included a warning, that pursuing the prophecy could come to you at a great cost.
This is the core of our argument. I'd like to leave you with a real world example how dangerous religion can become to inocent bystanders:
In 1995, members of the Aum Shinri Kyo sect unleashed sarin nerve gas in a Tokyo subway station, killing 12 people and injuring more than 5,000. Had things gone as intended, the death toll would have been hundreds of times greater. A more determined group armed with a more lethal weapon— chemical, biological, nuclear even— could have done far more damage.
I picked an example of a less prevalent denomination to offend as little people as possible. However, our matter at hand is everything but academical.
It might become a matter of survival.
I am an Engineer and a Scientist. Phenomena must be observable and repeatable. Deductive reasoning must follow the rules of logic: the premises must all be true and the structure of the argument must be of valid form. This is what I mean by reasonable (able to reason).
My general nature is pragmatic. My energy goes to things of obvious value to me or others.
My curiosity led me to study many religions from the inside to get to know how it feels. For me it was not enough to understand words, I wanted to know how enlightenment feels, I wanted to know how being one with god feels... much of it feels pretty good but the dogma maxed out my B.S. meter.
Feelings are good but they cannot be logically connected to anything except the teasing of chemical/electrical signals your neural network. No proof of anything there, just fun.
When you say god, I don't know what that is, as a phenomena. Same with sin. Dip into the Ganges to wash it away? what exactly is on me then, off me in that washing process? These are groundless concepts that have no reality. I can pull a zillion things out of my imagination but why should I think that any were real? The supernatural exists only in language. Having a word for something, even a whole cosmology, written down in a book does not make it real.
Confessing sins (i.e. something you did that caused suffering) though, does have a real psychological consequence: catharsis and the resumption of intimacy. I don't think it has any effect to confess in prayer (trapped in the thinking in your head) but it has the maximum effect when confessing them to the people for whom you caused suffering. I do not need a god to do that. You know who you have wronged, you go to them and apologize and ask what you can do to make it right. The goal is to remove that which separates you from everything else. This is simple psychology, not supernatural.
The concept of the supernatural seems to have a welcome spot in our brains making it as prevalent as our sense of "I". The fact that so many crazy ideas...beliefs...actions come out of this conceptual domain makes is worthy of more than just curiosity. It makes it worthy of fear. I fear the insanity of the mass delusion that is the god based religions. Coupled with the strength of today's weapons, they have the potential to cause more suffering than the world has seen to date.
That is my claim. And now for me to expect you to believe it, I must now prove it. This is not exactly an experiment that I would want to run repeatedly. But deduction and extrapolation of past events my do the trick.
What is the difference between a Christian fundamentalist and a terrorist? (answer): You can reason with a terrorist!
I am an atheist, but I feel that I am under attack not only from theists, but also from my fellow atheists...because I tell the truth.
I am a human being. As such, this is what I KNOW: approximately 9 months before I was born, I was summnoned into existence by two creatures who, to the best of my knowledge had no design or purpose in their collaboration of summoning beyond their desire to satisfy an immediate carnal compulsion.
To the best of my knowledge, neither of those two creatures (who I later came to know as my parents) ever once gave a single moment's thought to the idea that they may be summoning a consciousness and intelligence into this universe that may one day wish to ask them some very disturbing questions. Questions, as it turned out, they were ill-prepared to answer with any degree of honesty or accuracy.
It took me many, many years to be able to frame those questions in a coherent fashion, but eventually I was able to do so.
Question #1: Who or what am I?
Question #2: Where did I come from before I was born.
Question #3: What is going to happen to me when I die?
Question #4: If I was born simply to live this life, experience some pleasure, some pain, health, sickness, old-age, infirmity and eventual, inevitable death, then what is the purpose of my existence?
Though it will be argued that there are many questions regarding the so-called "mysteries of life", much as a mathematician will reduce a complex equation to its simplest terms, all such questions regarding the so-called "mysteries of life" can be reduced to those four questions.
Those four questions ARE religion. The only religion there is. The only religion there has ever been.
Faith, belief, philosophy, systems of thought and paradigms of science ARE NOT religion; those things are the ways that we have RESPONDED to religon; the only religion there is, the only religion there has ever been, the only religion that can be honestly acknowledged by any human being. In order for any human being to purport belief or non-belief, they must go through the process of asking themselves those questions. Thus, anyone who has, does, or will ask those questions of THEIR SELF is actively involved in the practice of religion. Even atheists and agnostics!
Of the questions that I wanted to ask my parents one is paramount. But I never asked that question of them because I knew what kind of pain it would engender in their minds. But I ask that question now of all of you:
"If, when you summoned me into existence, you knew that you could not honestly or accurately answer my questions, and if you knew that one day I would come into the certain knowledge that one day I must die and you could not tell me why I must die or what death represents, and if you knew that the world you were summoning me into was hostile, and that most of my fellow human beings would be hostile to me and my questions, and if you knew that instead of trying to solve the problems of life, existence and death that my fellow human beings had decided instead to wallow in superstition, dogma and ignorance, then why did you summon me here?"
I do not know what this universe really is. I don't know where it came from, or how, or why it came into existence. I don't know why we, as human beings exist in this universe.
I recognize myself as a human being in exactly the same way that all of you are human beings. And I accept that all of you came into this universe in exactly the same way that I came into this universe; summoned here without your fore-knowledge, without choice. And since I am a human being and know what it is that I DO know, and what it is that I DO NOT know, and since I accept that all the rest of you are human beings in exactly the same way that I am a human being, I am compelled to accept all of you know what it is you DO know, and what it is you DO NOT know. The only difference between us, is that I am honest about this.
Stan:
I don't know how many other atheists would disagree with you about the difference between belief and knowledge. I would disagree with you that the act of addressing those questions is "religion". Religion is the act of holding and adhering to a specific set of rules and rituals involving a supernatural being(s).
I'd refer to addressing those quesitons as philosophy. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all addressed them and few would argue that they were practicing religion as opposed to philosophy.
Me thinks the mind has run amok.
Breathe in
Breathe out
Repeat.
It is as simple as that.
Stan Boyett,
I have asked the very same questions as well. No one was able to answer them. I do not believe in the Bible because I'd have to either believe all of it or none of it. Just picking and choosing which versus would fit in my lifestyle seemed hypocritical.
I have come to the conclusion that the only faith I can live with is the one I have created for myself.
Then, while reading the many entries on these threads, I came across this one and it moved me:
"PAMELA :
I've read the few posts with references to the conscience with great interest for that is my spiritual focus.
Although I regard myself a believer, I most often side with the views of atheists and agnostics. I think that believers of popular religions think that I'm an atheist trying to trick or confuse them by calling myself a believer and then bombarding them with a scientific viewpoint. I'm really not. I was an agnostic until I formed a god-theory that incorporates scientific method.
I know, I know. It doesn't matter if you are a believer of popular religion or an atheist, I know you're saying to yourself, 'Ridiculous!'. Believers say it because I call myself a believer, but in their eyes I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing and atheists say it because in their viewpoint science and religion is like oil and water, you can't mix the two due to the faith factor.
Yes, religion requires faith by definition. My belief has faith in the same way that Quantum Mechanics has faith, only the term used is 'Probability'. It is a science that does not allow certainty. You could say it is a faith-based science. ;)
There is a major difference between my God and those of other religions. My God is the collective conscience and although it is all-knowing via the contribution of all singular consciences, it is powerless in the physical world because it does not reside within physical dimensions and therefore it is something that we cannot discern with our five senses.
Okay, you might consider that statement to be a deal-breaker and your about ready to write me off as a kook, but before you go please let me say this - time resides in a non-physical dimension as well. We cannot discern it with any of our five senses either, but I haven’t found anyone willing to say they don’t believe in time. The three physical dimensions move through time (aka spacetime). They work in perfect concert and are meaningless without one another.
The concept of a dimension that houses the conscience, or Observer as I like to call it, is not a far stretch from the concept of a time dimension - especially if you are already familiar with the concept of time as a dimension.
To illustrate the concept, I envision all of the conscious beings that I know to exist and they are all right here on this planet - humans, dogs, insects, birds, whales, etc. For the sake of argument, let us say that Earth is the only place in all of creation that has such rare and wondrous creatures. Then one day, by whatever unfortunate event - BOOM! No more Earth.
All that is left is physical matter moving through time, but what are they worth without an observer? They are instantly meaningless. Just like matter is meaningless without time and time is meaningless without matter, both become meaningless if there is nothing – or no one – to observe them.
In my belief, the dimension of conscience, or rather the conscious dimension, is a cohesive member of this awesome realm and without it, there can be no concept of awesome, no concept of realm. No concepts at all.
As I stated in an earlier post, M Theory suggests as many as 11 dimensions. My belief is that the conscious dimension is one of them. Since only four dimensions are currently known, that still leaves room for further discovery.
Although my God in all-knowing, it is in no way powerful. Power is a physical concept and resides in the physical dimension. My God has no physical form and therefore no power over physical things. It can only observe via consciousness. All conscious beings (of which I'm aware) are limited in this way. For instance, we cannot move objects by thought. If we want to move something, we must move it by physical means within the physical dimensions. When we want to move something and then physically move it, we are making a ‘conscious effort’ (the physical manifestation of thought) which demonstrates our inter-connectedness to the physical dimensions and the conscious dimension.
Most of us are aware that we are inter-dimensionally connected to, and experience, time and physical matter cohesively. It is a small step to accept that we also experience conscience. Or rather, without conscience we cannot experience anything or prove that experience itself exists. A physical body devoid of conscience is, for all practical purposes, dead.
How could it be proven that ANYTHING EXISTS if there were no observer? This may sound like a stupid question, but a true thinker will lose sleep over it.
The human species has a mind-body combination that allows us to observe, question and experience our environment and communicate unlike any other earth species. Our distinctly human ability to convey complex ideas and concepts to one another using language in both verbal and written form differentiates, and separates, us from our other earthly brethren.
In my opinion, that is why we, the human species, don’t consider other species to have souls (or a conscience, as I prefer to refer to it). I disagree with that notion. Most other species have a monumental comparative disadvantage to humans due to physical and language limitations. If you compare our closest relative, the chimp, you’ll find that their major remaining disadvantage is lack of complex language. It is not that the chimp doesn’t want to speak, it can not speak due to the physical location of its voice box. However, for years now researchers have been successfully teaching chimps sign language. These chimps regulary communicate emotions - love, fear, anger, lonliness, etc. - the basis of conscience. And now those chimps are teaching sign language to the next generation of chimps. Granted, chimps may never make great tax accountants but it doesn’t make them any less a conscious being than you or I or any other species. They, as all conscious beings, are observers that participate and contribute their unique perspective of creation and existence.
Much has been written here about good and evil. These are human concepts attributed to physical acts after the fact. I cannot think of a single thing that is good or evil that is non-physical. We can think evil thoughts, but are we evil if we never commit the physical act? Someone once told me that intentionally starving someone unnecessarily would qualify because no physical act needed to be carried out, i.e. not bringing food is an evil non-physical act. I disagree. The ‘evil’ physical act is starvation which you’ve allowed to continue. This can be turned into ‘good’ by the physical act of bringing food to alleviate starvation. Acts, whether good or evil, require a ‘conscious effort’, of which my God is incapable – but we certainly are.
To that point, in my rationale, we are responsible for good and evil via free will. The blood of every heinous unnatural act in our history rests on human hands. The glory for every good deed is ours as well. My God cannot forgive, forget, reward or punish for any physical act. That is our responsibility and our burden.
We all experience our conscience and we all share similar conscious experiences. Our five incredible senses allow our conscience to appreciate the external physical world and it allows us to think, dream and experience emotions.
For me, there is no need to prove the existence of conscience. The conscience exists because without it, you could prove nothing else.
Peace!"
Perhaps the answer to the question, "Why is atheism in vogue", is that many of us are simply not embarrassed by the idea that we need evidence to support a claim, and take pride in the idea that blind faith is not a virtue for a human being born with a brain that has the form and function, in part, of examining evidence in the first place. The timing of our outspoken candor has much to do, I think, with 9-11, with years of relgious wars, with religion interferring with stem cell researce and getting condoms to aids-ravaged nations in Africa.
The more important question is "Why do people have blind faith when they have a brain?", and I think Jon Meachum provided a reasonable answer to that on a recent visit with Tim Russert, as he stated (and I'm paraphrasing) "if not religion, what then?" And his answer really highlights the problem: As humans we are capable of these phenominal sensations, one of which is inspiration. The problem is that we have been taught the following equation: inspiration = god, although the equation has no evidence. People are genuinely afraid that if God disappears, inspiration disappears with it. I can tell you, as a stone-cold atheist, every time I see a fellow human do something great, or every time I do something great, I feel the sensation of inspiration, without dogma being involved at all. I have a great reverence for some of the humanist ideas of Ayn Rand and her thoughts about what makes humans great. It is not required that anyone agree with me, or her ideas, but it would be helpful if we could simply dispense with the dogma and be content with the truth: inspiration = inspiration. The fact that we feel it should really be enough, and if we examine objective truths about human beings, there is plenty to be inspired about.
Perhaps the answer to the question, "Why is atheism in vogue", is that many of us are simply not embarrassed by the idea that we need evidence to support a claim, and take pride in the idea that blind faith is not a virtue for a human being born with a brain that has the form and function, in part, of examining evidence in the first place. The timing of our outspoken candor has much to do, I think, with 9-11, with years of relgious wars, with religion interferring with stem cell researce and getting condoms to aids-ravaged nations in Africa.
The more important question is "Why do people have blind faith when they have a brain?", and I think Jon Meachum provided a reasonable answer to that on a recent visit with Tim Russert, as he stated (and I'm paraphrasing) "if not religion, what then?" And his answer really highlights the problem: As humans we are capable of these phenominal sensations, one of which is inspiration. The problem is that we have been taught the following equation: inspiration = god, although the equation has no evidence. People are genuinely afraid that if God disappears, inspiration disappears with it. I can tell you, as a stone-cold atheist, every time I see a fellow human do something great, or every time I do something great, I feel the sensation of inspiration, without dogma being involved at all. I have a great reverence for some of the humanist ideas of Ayn Rand and her thoughts about what makes humans great. It is not required that anyone agree with me, or her ideas, but it would be helpful if we could simply dispense with the dogma and be content with the truth: inspiration = inspiration. The fact that we feel it should really be enough, and if we examine objective truths about human beings, there is plenty to be inspired about.
Stan,
For logic to work we must first agree on the meaning of the words. If you redefine words, it requires everyone to adopt your definition in order to carry on a conversation. I get that those questions are important to you. I cannot tell you why but I have never given them much thought. I simply do not care.
Pamela's cosmology is well thought out and seems to be grounded in the latest mathematical thinking. The collective conscience is no more sustentative than puff the magic dragon. Mathematics is a useful tool to help us model and predict the behavior of the physical world. Both mathematics and puff the dragon are conceptual. One has utility and the other is amusing.
We create mathematical models to mirror the physical world; not the other way around. The falling apple is not obeying the laws of physics. Apples fell the same way long before Newton described it in a formula.
Because we can use the concept of n dimensions to model the behavior of the universe does not mean that those dimensions exist. It means that the formulas accurately describe the phenomena that is the universe, or that is an atomic particle.
Pamela's cosmology is again, one of a zillion things that could be imagined. I could just as easily say that our physical nature is that part of a collective blob that exists in the mystery dimension. Proof? There is none, but I sure can imagine it.
The next question is, why do certain sets of beliefs have legs and others, not? What is it about the fit between Christianity or Islam and the human brain, that propels it and keeps it going? (like that damn bunny) Is it the threats of a patriarch? Is it the comfort it provides in answering Stan’s questions, or easing the burden of "sin"? Maybe it is the camaraderie or clan nature of a group?
I do not know.
I'm not sure I'd say that atheism is in then ascendency at all. Thirty years ago, I didn't know a soul who didn't belive in evolution. Back then, it was a settled question in the political dialogue after the Scopes trial.
Back then, I never heard any "young earth" theory. People accepted scientific evidence that the earth and the universe are millions of years old. Science was in.
In the 50's, Americans were scared to death of the Russians. In the aftermath of Sputnik, science was a national obsession. Everybody was for it. Now that the Cold War is over, I guess we can just forget about science and go back to superstition. Of course, the Chinese and the Indians are working like crazy to beat us in the scientific world, so we turn our backs on science at a price.
America; A paradox.
-America is the most religious state in the modern industrial world
- It has the most advanced technical and academic centres of learning
- It has a huge multicultural demographic mix because it is the first continent to be colonised
So it has religious fervour, advanced knowledge.
Yet...........
-It is the most violent country in the industrial world. The use of guns freely avalilable, the high level of state executions, the use of pornography and drugs, the lack of care for the needy. It is willing to project massive military power, causing the misery and death of millions. It is willing to impose taxes on poor country exports in protection of it's own. It produces products that are promoted to the consumer to cause massive health problems. It tries via GM to own rights to poor country seeds and on and on the list goes. As an outsider, the USA has become a nasty monster state. How does this connect to it being the most religious state in the modern world? Does it's religiousity cause this condition or is it really not religious at all but merely culturally confused?
Can anyone explain this paradox?
Thanks
To Gaby (re: Pamela)
Actually, I have thought along the same lines as Pamela's missive. But, still, that is "faith", not truth!
In my ***speculations***, it is difficult for me not to think that this universe may be a living organism. An organism whose consciousness may be born of the interactions of gravity, light, or other phenomena of which we may not be, or cannot be, aware. But, my ***speculated*** creature does not necessarily imply "god" to me. Nor does such a ***speculation*** imply that such a creatue would be personally aware of my...or our...existence; anymore that I am aware of the personal existence of a particular group of cells in the big toe of my left foot. !!!If!!! my speculated creature were real, I rather suspect that, in it's own way, it would be asking itself the same questions that we ask ourselves: Who/what am I? Where did I come from? What will be my fate? What is the purpose of my existence?
Further, it does seem to be verified that there is some kind of intrinsic link between existence and observation. There are many examples of these phenomena born out by theoretical physics and empirical experiment. Thus, it is not difficult to ***speculate*** that there may be some kind of ultimate observer who may have set this universe and all the phenomena we experience into play. But, once again, that does not necessarily imply that such an observer is "god", or even "god-like". Such an assumption, in my opinion, is nothing more that anthropmorphizing a pure ***speculation***.
In theory, I don't have a problem with "faith". If one's faith gives one comfort in the face of their personal mortality, if their faith compells them to be better, kinder, more compassionate, then I don't have a problem with faith. But, can anyone honestly claim that that has been the history of "faith" as engendered and embodied by the judeo/christian/islamic paradigm...the judeo/christian/islamic ***problem***?
All three of those institutions of faith have made the claim that they believe in exactly the same deity, as expressed by their common patriarh: Abraham. All three of those institutions of faith have claimed that their alleged deity has inspired in them the qualities of love, compassion, tolerance, and peace. Yet, every since their alleged deity first entered into the sphere of human consciousness, those three institutions of faith have been responsible, either directly through physical altercation, or indirectly through dogma and superstition, for more human misery, suffering and death, than all other forms of human calamity combined throughout all of human history. A history that I learned in an educational system designed and perpetuated by those very same "faithful" people; an education that those people absolutely insisted that I take part in; an education in which they provided me with the information, facts, dates, and figures that they wanted me to be aware of. I just did not reach the conclusions that they wanted me to reach. I reached my own conclusions. And my conclusions of those three institutions of faith are not kind! For, though those three institutions of faith claim that their faith engenders in them the qualities of love, and compassion, and tolerance, and peace, their REAL history...that they themselves delivered unto me, compells me to believe that if their alleged deity has inspired anything at all in them, it is the polar opposite of the qualities they claim. This REAL history of those three institutions of faith does not speak to me of love, or compassion, or tolerance, or peace! Yet, this REAL history of those three institutions of faith is what they would have us believe is an acceptable form of ethical and moral standard for all of humanity. I don't think so!
We can speculate about this universe and our relation to it all we want. But no speculation, no matter how it may be born of physical, empirical, or theoretical conjecture is the truth. The truth is, We Don't Know! And no amount of wishing or desire will turn lack of knowledge into truth.
In order to Know what this universe really is, I think we would have to find a way of stepping outside of this universe and looking back at it with some degree of objectivity. But, when I think of the shear emensity of this universe, I have serious doubts that any human mind would be able to comprehend what it might observe.
Great imagination Stan Boyett. Or is it an incredible amount of faith you have? You said, "...it is difficult for me not to think that this universe may be a living organism. An organism whose consciousness may be born of the interactions of gravity, light, or other phenomena of which we may not be, or cannot be, aware."
Now ya gotta do the Robert Tilton/L. Ron Hubbard deal and get fools to part with their money (Opps! Was that a value judgement?).
Ya know - I have often imagined the same kinds of things. What if the Universe is a giant cell in the body of a being in a society of beings much like our own? Or what if this world - Or even the entire Universe were in some dish under some giant cosmic microscope in the lab of a graduate school for demi-gods? We might be just the graduate project and in other dishes nearby are other graduate projects. Who is gonna pass? Will we earn our Creator pass or fail marks?
See it's possible to imagine all sorts of realities, but at the end of the day shouldn't we go with what is most probably true? We may never "know" with certainty, but that doesn't mean we can't gather all the philisophical, historical, and scientific info we can and make more informed choices does it? I guess I was just surprised to read: "...it is difficult for me not to think that this universe may be a living organism."
Stan,
Your points are well taken in regards to judeo/christian/islamic theocracies. That is precisely why I will not be indoctrinated by those institutions.
However, something inside me compels me to believe in some higher power. I am not talking about the proverbial "god" of the bible. The only way I can describe it is instinct or gut feeling.
As far as your last paragraph, I wonder if we could comprehend the universe were we able to use our brain to full capacity. I have always wondered why we have this big glob of gray matter in our heads when we don't utilize it. Seems a waste of space. You appear to be a highly intelligent person and I really would like your thoughts on this.
Rod Large had some great questions. hope some oen takes a crack at them.
I have a couple more - If religion saved us from wars why so much touble in the Middle-East and India?
If education saves us from wars how come Germany & Japan crushed all the nations they could? Both were the most highly educated in their regions.
How come religious and well educated people still get divorces and get "bent out of shape" and easily offended and can be very self-righteous and critical.
And why ask moral questions if morality is relative to time and location? Don't different cultures in different generations have different values?
So what's up America? With all the religions and all the learning why all the bad behavior?
Rod Large and News Cynic,
--"It is the most violent country in the industrial world. The use of guns freely avalilable, the high level of state executions, the use of pornography and drugs, the lack of care for the needy. It is willing to project massive military power, causing the misery and death of millions."--
There is a big difference between the average American and American politics. The average American does not own a gun (other than a hunting rifle, maybe), views porn or uses drugs (at least not any more than people in Europe), and gives willingly to charity.
--"It is willing to impose taxes on poor country exports in protection of it's own."--
Most other countries do the same.
--"It produces products that are promoted to the consumer to cause massive health problems."--
I really don't quite understand what you mean.
--"It tries via GM to own rights to poor country seeds and on and on the list goes."--
Most scientists agree that GM is nothing to fear and that it would benefit poorer nations to produce their on food.
--"As an outsider, the USA has become a nasty monster state."--
There are many Americans who feel the same way privately, but to declare this publicly would make you unpatriotic. Patriotism is very important to most Americans. (At least in my opinion.)
--"How does this connect to it being the most religious state in the modern world? Does it's religiousity cause this condition or is it really not religious at all but merely culturally confused?"--
I can't comment on this one because I can't identify with religion.
--"If religion saved us from wars why so much touble in the Middle-East and India?"--
Whoever said religion saved us from wars. Most of the time religion is the cause of war.
--"If education saves us from wars how come Germany & Japan crushed all the nations they could? Both were the most highly educated in their regions."--
Education doesn't save us from war, morality does. While one does not exclude the other, educaiton by itself is meaningless. Look at the Unibomber.
--"How come religious and well educated people still get divorces and get "bent out of shape" and easily offended and can be very self-righteous and critical."--
Because they still have egos they can not part with.
--"And why ask moral questions if morality is relative to time and location? Don't different cultures in different generations have different values?"--
Absolutely, but the sanctity of live is (should be) universal. (Except of course for power hungry religious zealots and educated, but high disturbed nutcases.)
By the way I am a European immigrant who has lived 2/3 of her live in Europe and the rest in the America. I love this country, but sometimes I don't like it very much.
Gaby says "I wonder if we could comprehend the universe were we able to use our brain to full capacity."
Actually it's a myth that we don't use all of our brain's capacity.
http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=12
It's a misconception which is useful to phony psychics and other purveyors of wishful thinking, but it just ain't true.
Regards
A Hermit
For Acrapist:
Redefining terms? Yes. That's exactly what I'm doing. And it's nothing new. Language is not a steady state object. It evolves over time from one culture to another. If I could let you pass through a time machine back to 16th century England, you would be virtually unable to communicate with anyone, even though everyone would be speaking English. But you inablility to communicate would not be because of accent or dialect, it would be because the English language has changed that much. The meanings of words change. The contexts of words change.
In a way, I can allow you to pass through a time portal to earlier eras of English speakers. Pick up an unabridged, un-modernized copy of Chaucer's Cantebury Tales. Unless you are a scholar of Old English, I doubt seriously that you could read even the first page without having some type of Old English lexicon to guide you. Or, try reading unabridged un-modernized Shakespeare...a little easier to grasp, but still difficult for most people of our day to understand. Meanings of words, colloquialisms, slang, all these things change with time and cultural context.
Even in our recent American history. As little as fifty years ago, the word "gay" simply meant "happy". The word "queer" simply meant "strange". But the contexts of those words have changed and now those words are often used derogatorily to insinuate homosexuals and homosexual activity.
But even more recently, there has been a consistent, concerted push by the so-called religious-right to redefine the circustances of the founding of the United States of America. Evangelical and fundamentalist clergy have attempted to distort the principles that people of my generation were taught in school regarding the meaning of "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state" as regarded by the founding fathers.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If they want to redefine those terms, placing me in a state of fear with their rhetoric, then I'm going to assume the same right as they. I'm going to redefine the meaning of the word "religion". What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
A state of fear? Me? Yes! Allow me to explain:
Some thirty years ago I began to hear rather disturbing sermons and rhetoric being preached from the tax-exempt pulpits of America. Evangelical and fundamentalist preachers were inciting their congregations...their minions...to
declare war (they actually used the word "war"). And who was it that they wanted to declare war against? Me! And people like me...non-christians; they were declaring war on their fellow American citizens.
I served in the military. I took an oath to protect the Constitution and the republic from all enemies...foreign AND ***domestic***. I took that oath seriously! Though I have extreme non-violent convictions, I felt that as a citizen of the United States of America, that it would be my duty to take up arms and defend my fellow American citizens should some agency try tell my fellow citizens that they could not pray or worship as they may choose, even though I may not agree with their faith. Yet, when those evangelical and fundamentalist clergy exhorted their minions to declare war on me and people like me...non-christians, how many of my fellow citizens so much as blinked an eye in our defense?
At the time those evangelical, fundamentalist clergy were preaching their hate from their tax-exempt pulpits, they already lived in nation where they had "Freedom of Religion". Yet they were not happy. They openly preached for the creation of a new political entity, something they wanted to call "Christian America". What I never understood, and still fail to understand is why those evangelical, fundamentalist clergy were not arrested, indicted, and convicted of sedition and treason against the REAL United States of America...a nation that was once a beacon of light and hope for billions of people all across the globe, a nation that is now largely considered to be an evil police state enforcing its will and rhetoric on the global community.
Friends and family tried to tell me calm down...saying: it's just talk, and they have freedom of speech. And that is true. But are there not limits to freedom of speech? Have not courts upheld that standing up and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not considered freedom of speech, because of the probability of creating a death-dealing stampede?
But haven't we seen this before...more than once in human history? And doesn't it always start with people who are "just talking"? It usually goes like this: People in a society are nervous. Something is wrong. Nobody can exactly put their finger on it, but something is wrong and an entire society is nervous. Then, something bad happens! And invariably, some damn fool stands up and says "Hey folks...I've been talking to someone...something. You can't see who I've been talking to, and you can't hear who I've been talking to...but they're there. I promise! Anyway, I've been talking to this...something. And it has told me that all these bad things that are happening is all "Their" fault...go get 'em!" And they do...every damn time!
Forgive me, but I don't think I'm going to wait for these people to actually start stacking the wood for their fires of redemption and purging before I at least try to speak up about these things. So, perhaps a little redefinition is in order.
Consider the word faith. In every dictionary that I'm aware of, the word faith is defined as a belief in a supernatural entity. But, there are usually several definitions associated with the word faith. Among them, and I paraphrase here, faith is also defined as "acceptance without benefit of knowledge". Acceptance without benefit of knowledge! Those evangelical, fundamentalist seditionists would like for us to ignore that definition. Because if "faith" means acceptance without benefit of knowledge, then simply by declaring that one has "faith" one has already admitted that one Does Not Know! So, when I hear someone declare to me that they have "faith", and in the same breath qualify that word "faith" with the word "truth", can anybody...anywhere on this planet...explain to me why I should not consider that I have just been ***Lied To***?
There is a line that is crossed when one goes from saying "this is my faith", to saying "this is my faith, and it is the absolute truth!" When they cross that line, they have placed their feet firmly upon the paths of segregation, persecution, facism, warfare, and genocide. And this is what they would have us believe is an acceptable form of ethical and moral behavior.
I don't think so!
For Acrapist:
Redefining terms? Yes. That's exactly what I'm doing. And it's nothing new. Language is not a steady state object. It evolves over time from one culture to another. If I could let you pass through a time machine back to 16th century England, you would be virtually unable to communicate with anyone, even though everyone would be speaking English. But you inablility to communicate would not be because of accent or dialect, it would be because the English language has changed that much. The meanings of words change. The contexts of words change.
In a way, I can allow you to pass through a time portal to earlier eras of English speakers. Pick up an unabridged, un-modernized copy of Chaucer's Cantebury Tales. Unless you are a scholar of Old English, I doubt seriously that you could read even the first page without having some type of Old English lexicon to guide you. Or, try reading unabridged un-modernized Shakespeare...a little easier to grasp, but still difficult for most people of our day to understand. Meanings of words, colloquialisms, slang, all these things change with time and cultural context.
Even in our recent American history. As little as fifty years ago, the word "gay" simply meant "happy". The word "queer" simply meant "strange". But the contexts of those words have changed and now those words are often used derogatorily to insinuate homosexuals and homosexual activity.
But even more recently, there has been a consistent, concerted push by the so-called religious-right to redefine the circustances of the founding of the United States of America. Evangelical and fundamentalist clergy have attempted to distort the principles that people of my generation were taught in school regarding the meaning of "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state" as regarded by the founding fathers.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If they want to redefine those terms, placing me in a state of fear with their rhetoric, then I'm going to assume the same right as they. I'm going to redefine the meaning of the word "religion". What's good for the goose is good for the gander!
A state of fear? Me? Yes! Allow me to explain:
Some thirty years ago I began to hear rather disturbing sermons and rhetoric being preached from the tax-exempt pulpits of America. Evangelical and fundamentalist preachers were inciting their congregations...their minions...to
declare war (they actually used the word "war"). And who was it that they wanted to declare war against? Me! And people like me...non-christians; they were declaring war on their fellow American citizens.
I served in the military. I took an oath to protect the Constitution and the republic from all enemies...foreign AND ***domestic***. I took that oath seriously! Though I have extreme non-violent convictions, I felt that as a citizen of the United States of America, that it would be my duty to take up arms and defend my fellow American citizens should some agency try tell my fellow citizens that they could not pray or worship as they may choose, even though I may not agree with their faith. Yet, when those evangelical and fundamentalist clergy exhorted their minions to declare war on me and people like me...non-christians, how many of my fellow citizens so much as blinked an eye in our defense?
At the time those evangelical, fundamentalist clergy were preaching their hate from their tax-exempt pulpits, they already lived in nation where they had "Freedom of Religion". Yet they were not happy. They openly preached for the creation of a new political entity, something they wanted to call "Christian America". What I never understood, and still fail to understand is why those evangelical, fundamentalist clergy were not arrested, indicted, and convicted of sedition and treason against the REAL United States of America...a nation that was once a beacon of light and hope for billions of people all across the globe, a nation that is now largely considered to be an evil police state enforcing its will and rhetoric on the global community.
Friends and family tried to tell me calm down...saying: it's just talk, and they have freedom of speech. And that is true. But are there not limits to freedom of speech? Have not courts upheld that standing up and yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not considered freedom of speech, because of the probability of creating a death-dealing stampede?
But haven't we seen this before...more than once in human history? And doesn't it always start with people who are "just talking"? It usually goes like this: People in a society are nervous. Something is wrong. Nobody can exactly put their finger on it, but something is wrong and an entire society is nervous. Then, something bad happens! And invariably, some damn fool stands up and says "Hey folks...I've been talking to someone...something. You can't see who I've been talking to, and you can't hear who I've been talking to...but they're there. I promise! Anyway, I've been talking to this...something. And it has told me that all these bad things that are happening is all "Their" fault...go get 'em!" And they do...every damn time!
Forgive me, but I don't think I'm going to wait for these people to actually start stacking the wood for their fires of redemption and purging before I at least try to speak up about these things. So, perhaps a little redefinition is in order.
Consider the word faith. In every dictionary that I'm aware of, the word faith is defined as a belief in a supernatural entity. But, there are usually several definitions associated with the word faith. Among them, and I paraphrase here, faith is also defined as "acceptance without benefit of knowledge". Acceptance without benefit of knowledge! Those evangelical, fundamentalist seditionists would like for us to ignore that definition. Because if "faith" means acceptance without benefit of knowledge, then simply by declaring that one has "faith" one has already admitted that one Does Not Know! So, when I hear someone declare to me that they have "faith", and in the same breath qualify that word "faith" with the word "truth", can anybody...anywhere on this planet...explain to me why I should not consider that I have just been ***Lied To***?
There is a line that is crossed when one goes from saying "this is my faith", to saying "this is my faith, and it is the absolute truth!" When they cross that line, they have placed their feet firmly upon the paths of segregation, persecution, facism, warfare, and genocide. And this is what they would have us believe is an acceptable form of ethical and moral behavior.
I don't think so!
In a book by David Barrash (The Tortoise and Hare) he explores the behavior of human beings using the following model: Picture a tortoise and a hare in a field connected by a long rubber band. The tortoise is our physical nature evolving slowly and the hare is all the conceptual stuff in our brains (education, culture, political & economic systems, religion…) Our conceptual space is very flexible, free to run far a field, as evidenced by the varied cultures, political systems, religions, etc. The rubber band is the fact that the conceptual systems that we create cannot get too far from our biology before an adjustment happens to bring it back closer to our biology. The further away that conceptual systems get from what works for us as animals and a species the more pain there is in the world.
Morality is where we decide (conceptually) that what we would freely do (in line with our biology) is not desirable in that it causes suffering.
It is a good book and it goes far to explain the dynamics between our conceptual and physical nature.
If we as Americans (USA) continue to cause suffering throughout the world, it is because we don’t want to look at it or ourselves. In any case, the rubber band will pull insane ideas back to the center.
Hermit,
Thanks! I looked at other websites as well and they corroborate what your's is saying.
I alway tell people not to believe everything they read and to questions. Obviously I should follow my own advise.
To Stan “Scary-man” Boyett,
Dude do you read the stuff you post? I understand getting worked up. Hey I’m cynical for a reason! And I’m with you in your condemnation of what you call “evangelicals” who teach hate for people they don’t like. (Although it should be said I have met THOUSANDS of Christians and only 2 come to mind as being the way you describe - and they didn’t want to attend church with all the other “soft” Christians!) But when you write things like, “What I never understood, and still fail to understand is why those evangelical, fundamentalist clergy were not arrested, indicted, and convicted of sedition and treason against the REAL United States of America...,” that is pretty freaky.
Do you really think we could do that and keep our “soul”? And when you wrote, “all these bad things that are happening is all "Their" fault...go get 'em!" And they do...every damn time!” I thought of you. Aren’t you the one who wants a preemptive attack on the people you hate and disagree with? When your friends and family tell you to settle down have you thought that they might be on to something? I know you feel like you are right and they are all wrong, but what if they have a point?
Anyway, enough of that. I thought you made a good point about how to define the word “faith”. People should just admit they don’t know. When Muslims quote the Koran at least I know that in their world view the Koran speaks for God. They could be right. They could be wrong. But when a person first says they don’t hold to any Scripture and then starts to spout all they think about God why don’t they just say “I don’t know”? Maybe all (very possibly) all so called Scriptures are of human origin - but at least it is possible one is from God. But when we toss out Devine revelation all we’re left with is a bunch of hot air. It would be like me saying “I have no picture or letter or any info at all about your sister but let me tell you what I very sincerely believe her to be like.” How could I know? All I would have is blind faith.
So if we define the word “faith” as you do what word should people who think they have valid reasons to believe something use? How about “trust”? I can’t see or measure my wife’s love but I trust her. Does that work? Please give me your input and please don’t call the cops on me! : )
because, religion is the devil's work
I would like to see some statistics on whether there has been a recent change in the number of people saying they are atheist.
"Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists?" If productive means that change can been made, an atheist, being guided by reason, should be ready to believe in God provided there is some evidence presented. We're all waiting. My experience as a religious person years ago, and with many religious people around me, is that they have no such built-in condition for change.
If religious people cant's change "they have no such built-in condition for change", then why is this thread packed full of people who assure us they were ardent theists before they wised up and became atheists (or at least agnostics)?
Apparently religious people can become irreligious people.
Of course that doesn't prove anything either way. I was just surprised by your comment.
"True dialogue requires a willingness to have one’s beliefs about reality modified through conversation." Sam Harris
"then why is this thread packed full of people who assure us they were ardent theists before they wised up and became atheists (or at least agnostics)?"
And I am one of them. My comment wasn't to say that a person can never change. But in the course of a dialog, while that person is behaving as a believer, there is often no such mechanism active. That is why such debates seem to go no where, not everyone is abiding by the same rules.
Good point. I would like to hear from a theist - maybe a Muslim what it would take to convert to Hinduism. Or a protestant to a Catholic. Or what would it take an intellectual and world wise atheist to become a "on fire" evangelical Jesus Freak?
In your opinion what would cause you to become an evangelical Christian?
News Cynic:
You asked "Or what would it take an intellectual and world wise atheist to become a "on fire" evangelical Jesus Freak?"
My answer: I'm not prone to being "one fire", but to believe in a god or goddess I'd require evidence of such that could withstand my honest scrutiny.
Mike K. I hear ya. And if a person is being honest or not it's hard to say without being in their brain. It's even hard to know when we're being honest with ourselves! I feel like I'm with you. If evidence for a god or goddess could withstand my honest scutiny I would have to belive they exist. Now if I decide to "trust" this entity and base my life on it is another question all together.
BTW did you see my essay on Thorism?
Mike K.
OK, let’s rephrase the question as “Do you believe that Thor was the son of Odin? If so, what exactly does that mean? If not, who was he?” Obviously you do NOT believe in a demigod named Thor who controls the storms and lightening. But why don’t you? Have you dismissed it a priori? Or, have you weighed the facts and found them wanting? Hmmm, it’s clear that there are so many competing truth claims out there that we can’t check them all out. Let’s put them in a category called myth/religion and only test a few of the main candidates. For now we'll just look at the Good Old Norse Boy Thor. But what about the others in that wide category? What criteria could we use to find out what’s right and what’s not? (This is getting fun!) Use your imagination. Lets push ourselves. Is there anyway to test one faith verses another? Help me on this one. What would it take for you and I to convert to Thorism! Think I’ll grab a few lines from my post on Zaid Shakir’s conversion to the great desert religion of Islam. You don’t have to agree with me but lets try and make a list. If any of my ideas are “crap” just let me know but remember it’s harder to come up with ideas than shoot them down!
- Ok, let’s start by cutting out all the ancient faiths that have no current practitioners. Fair enough? I mean we could keep them all in the running but then it might look like we care more about muddying the waters than finding out if the Mighty Thor is the one and only Thunder God!!
- Second lets use the law of contradiction to agree that all religions could be false but they can’t all be true since they all contradict. (Although the various Pantheons of Greek, Norse, Chinese, Egyptian, and Indian gods could all be representations of the same primordial powers, so we can let those stand and fall as one if you like.)
- If Thorism is true we should find that belief in it transcends culture and time. The Pagan gods seem to fit that bill. We can't really imagine the Scandinavian Thor in another context but that culture might have a different thunderer that we could equate. Still - is the Tao of China or the Shinto (Way of the gods) of Japan close enough to be compatible?
- Now some say the Koran can only be truly understood in Arabic. Can Islam be understood outside of an Arabian context? Is belief in Thor tenable in the jungles of Peru? Or Ares in Shanghai? Or Jesus in Korea? Or Jesus in Nagaland India?
- What is the "fruit" of faith in Thor? Well the Vikings were feared from Constantinople to Vine-land! They ruled the rivers of Russia and the seas of the North! They even sacked the coast of Africa. In some respect they rivaled the zeal and might of emergent Islam. But did faith in Thor bring us more schools, hospitals, compassion for the poor etc.? And why after killing countless unarmed missionaries that were trying to “force” their beliefs on them, did they just give into the “weak” religion of Christ? (I see this as a mark against Thor. What do you say?)
- Is there a body of writing or knowledge that claims to be inspired? (I only ask because of Confucius - more on that later.) If so is it internally coherent. If it is that still doesn’t mean we should worship Thor, but I sure won’t join you if it isn’t!
- Does faith in Thor distinguish itself in anyway from the other competing paths to truth (again this doesn’t make it true, but if Thor is a god you would expect something here!)
- Does following the Way of Thor restore hope to the lost and brings husbands and wives closer together? Does it takes the "animal" out of humanity and makes it more gentle and forgiving? (This seems unfair to me because it seems like a very 21st century and very Western question, but hey, I want to see what is in it for me.)
- Do billions of people claim a personal relationship with Thor? (Again - billions of people claim to know Jesus so this is NOT proof - but it helps us to see what we might be getting ourselves into.)
- What are the ramifications of belief? For me? For society? (And lets ask this in two ways: What do we see those to be and, to be as fair to the Thor worshipers as possible here, what do they say the ramifications should be?)
- Do we have any historical evidence pointing to Thor? (Would you agree that we have lots of historical evidence for Mohamed?)
- What if we could see that societies that embrace Thorism have more tolerance? Are more open to various ideas? That they usually have advances in medicine, freedom of the press, political freedom, and that contented young men work and study hard to make a better world?
- Does the worship of Thor stand against the test that great truth claims demand great evidence?
- Is there a single compelling proof or a web of probabilities that point us towards faith in Thor?
- Are there “artifacts” in Nature that point us to the gods? (Carl Sagan first got me thinking on this years ago. He had a pet theory or whim that went something like, “What if we are the decedents of the garbage tossed on the ground after an alien family picnicked on the primordial earth? Or what if we are simply the science project for some space alien graduate student?” Something like that. As I said it’s been a long time. But it got me thinking. How could we ever know if we are? And what if Seti ever finds a “code” in the signals from the stars? How will we ever be able to identify it as coming from an intelligent source? In other words - how do we recognize evidence of Thor’s hand in nature? Maybe we can’t. What do you say?
- Lastly, one preacherman in the 19th century was in San Francisco bullying a crowd and trying to cow people into asking God to forgive their “sins” so they could get on the right track and get right with (g)od (whole-nother argument there!) when a famed atheist champion of common sense challenged this preacher to a debate. The preacher probably knew he couldn’t win so he tried to embarrass the Man of Reason by saying he would accept the challenge for the debate if the atheist would bring a bunch men or women who had been alcoholics, prostitutes, and/or criminals that had reformed because of the new life and hope they found in atheism and the “bible slinger” would then bring a bunch of people who had their lives supposedly similarly transformed by faith in Christ. Obviously that was not fair and it wasn’t a very intellectual way to respond. Still, in the whole category of ‘what’s-in-it-for-me’ I want to know what good old Thor has going for his humble servants!
So what else could we add? What would it take for you and I to fall down and worship the Lord Thor? What would we need to ‘convert?’ It’s not an easy question to answer, but especially not for religions that don’t have “revelation” for us to take apart and dismiss (or find intriguing as the case may be). That’s because plenty of people can talk for Thor but who’s to say they're right? Confucius once was asked a question about Heaven. His answer was very cool and very fitting for our discussion of Thor. He said something to the effect of, “how can I, who am of this earth, speak of Heaven since I have never been there? Ask me questions of this world and I will try to answer.” Siddhartha Gautama answered the same question in a very similar way. Without a Thor ‘bible’ at least claiming to speak for him we are limited in how much we can examine.
News Cynic:
The attributes and actions attributed to Thor do not withstand my honest scrutinty. Thunder has been explained by science and there is no evidence that supports a belief in Thor.
Whether or not a society that believes in Thor is better off does not support the fact the fact that such a being exists. Similarly, the number of people who believe in something has no bearing on the validity of the claim.
There's simply no evidence to support such a belief, thus I lack it.
Mike K.
Again we are on the same page. In fact you and I both noted that "the number of people who believe in something has no bearing on the validity of the claim." It's easy for a creative person to think of reasons not to trust anything. Kind of makes you wonder why we have words like "faith" "hope" "belief" and "trust" in the first place.
What tests would satisfy you that a person could be trusted? I think if we keep after this we can come up with some better questions than the ones I had don't you agree?
Canyon:
I think that your question concerning the trusting of people is a little off the track.
In terms of claims, I think there are a number of factors that should influence whether it is accepted or not:
Is it internally consistent?
Is it is consistent with external factors?
Is there evidence that supports or contradicts it?
Is there another claim addressing the same issue that withstands the first three questions better?
In terms of a belief in a god, one of my favorite quotes is this: "When you understand why you disbelieve in the myriad gods that have been purported through the ages, you'll understand why I disbelieve in yours."
Mike K. News Cynic.
Have you read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris? You guys are working out some things that that book can help with. Sam has a way of bringing clarity to these issues.
Steve:
No, but it's on my list. I've done a good deal of reading on the topic and I'm currently reading Michael Shermer's "How We Believe". Sam Harris is on my to-read list, but his recent two books are three or four books down on my list. Jacoby's "Freethinkers", Hecht's "The End of the Soul", Eliade's "The Sacred and the Profane" as well as Shermer's "Science Friction" are all sitting on my shelf.
I've read Harris' posts here and agree with your assessment, though.
Acrapist, you said, "I am an Engineer and a Scientist. Phenomena must be observable and repeatable."
Very interesting, the problem is that our senses are basic to say the least. Science defines 5 senses, but that is so very lacking in this world. They forget the sense of morality(right and wrong), the sense of depth(similar to sight, but not the same), the sense of heat(similar to touch, but not the same), the sense of pleasure, the sense of pain, the sense of joy, and Christians sense the Holy Spirit...and not to mention the senses we don't have. We are able to detect with our person less than 1% of the frequency spectrum. We can't see Microwaves, we can't hear Gamma Rays, we can't see music(unless you're on something). In order to even understand these things it is necessary to transcribe them to a frequency band we can perceive so that our basic senses can perceive them. Our senses are so deprived that even though science believes human beings release pheromones, there is no sensory receptor capable of receiving them.
You're basing your eternity on less than 1% of perception? Seems a little foolish, doesn't it? We don't even KNOW what's under the Earth's crust, we're pretty sure it's hot down there, a lake of fire, but we've never been, Yale failed miserably to dig a hole to scientifically determine it. Isn't it disconcerting that the Bible knew the Earth's core was molten two-millenia before science?
When a baby is born, they have to come to terms with something called object permanence, in which the child realizes that something he or she can't see still exists. It's why a baby freaks out when mom leaves the room, because the baby thinks the most important person in their life has ceased to exist. Usually around 5 months we realize that things continue to exist or can exist even if do not perceive them. Some of us has a severely retarded idea that things exist only if we've sensed them with our weak 5 senses. I've never seen you, heard you, touched you, smelled you, or tasted you...but I'm pretty sure you exist.
That goes against your logic.
Canyon, are you claiming that religious believers have more senses than unbelievers?
Or are they relying on the same 1% of perceptions to which you say we are limited?
If the latter, than is it not more reasonable to honestly admit a lack of knowledge about the other 99% than to insist on knowledge of God to explain it all?
You are claiming knowledge of something which you yourself admit cannot be perceived, and calling those who don't accept your claim of knowledge "fools".
Now THAT'S illogical.
Regards
A Hermit
Canyon wrote: "You're basing your eternity on less than 1% of perception? Seems a little foolish, doesn't it? We don't even KNOW what's under the Earth's crust, we're pretty sure it's hot down there, a lake of fire, but we've never been, Yale failed miserably to dig a hole to scientifically determine it. Isn't it disconcerting that the Bible knew the Earth's core was molten two-millenia before science?"
Hmmm, volcanos spew out molten rock but only the ancients who wrote the bible KNEW there was molten rock under the earth? Do you think only biblial writers are the only ones who dreampt up an underworld of fire where sinners go? Why didn't the biblical writers tell us how the earth revolved around the sun, or that the sun was a star like the other stars in the sky refered to as the firmament believed to only be as high as the blue sky?
You're right that we only have our five senses but science has improved on that enormously. We CAN see microwaves and gamma rays. We even have gravity detectors. And in all the scientific investigations of things beyond our perception we see nothing like God. We have detected where we "feel" God in our brains though.
And as for the senses of morality and the holy spirit, watch a young foul being cared for by its mother. Watch as a family dog braves flames to save a baby from a fire. You think man has moral character and the other animals have none? You think man is unique among the animals? Maybe its time to take your head out of your imaginary world and actually look at this world. You might even see a fossil or two or start to see the spires of rock in the American west for what they are, lava chimneys from volcanos millions of years ago and not created in place 6000 years ago. Religion waprs the senses since belief makes some reality impossible to believe or understand. So your 1% of perception becomes half of that when religion is believed.
The more you know about THIS world the more you will realize humans are unique in intellect, but that is about all. We still have all the emotions of other mammals, we are born, east, procreate and die like the other animals. We live in societies similar to some other animals. We bleed like other animals. We share the same type of DNA to the point where we can splice human DNA into another animal or bacteria cell and it will produce that DNA's product. Have you ever wondered why the animals do not pray to a god? Have you?
Canyon wrote: "You're basing your eternity on less than 1% of perception? Seems a little foolish, doesn't it? We don't even KNOW what's under the Earth's crust, we're pretty sure it's hot down there, a lake of fire, but we've never been, Yale failed miserably to dig a hole to scientifically determine it. Isn't it disconcerting that the Bible knew the Earth's core was molten two-millenia before science?"
Hmmm, volcanos spew out molten rock but only the ancients who wrote the bible KNEW there was molten rock under the earth? Do you think only biblial writers are the only ones who dreampt up an underworld of fire where sinners go? Why didn't the biblical writers tell us how the earth revolved around the sun, or that the sun was a star like the other stars in the sky refered to as the firmament believed to only be as high as the blue sky?
You're right that we only have our five senses but science has improved on that enormously. We CAN see microwaves and gamma rays. We even have gravity detectors. And in all the scientific investigations of things beyond our perception we see nothing like God. We have detected where we "feel" God in our brains though.
And as for the senses of morality and the holy spirit, watch a young foul being cared for by its mother. Watch as a family dog braves flames to save a baby from a fire. You think man has moral character and the other animals have none? You think man is unique among the animals? Maybe its time to take your head out of your imaginary world and actually look at this world. You might even see a fossil or two or start to see the spires of rock in the American west for what they are, lava chimneys from volcanos millions of years ago and not created in place 6000 years ago. Religion waprs the senses since belief makes some reality impossible to believe or understand. So your 1% of perception becomes half of that when religion is believed.
The more you know about THIS world the more you will realize humans are unique in intellect, but that is about all. We still have all the emotions of other mammals, we are born, east, procreate and die like the other animals. We live in societies similar to some other animals. We bleed like other animals. We share the same type of DNA to the point where we can splice human DNA into another animal or bacteria cell and it will produce that DNA's product. Have you ever wondered why the animals do not pray to a god? Have you?
Hermit,
Fair enough. But the deal is that it takes a whole lot of faith to believe something doesn't exist in the face of overwhelming evidence. For example, some agnostics are so hatefilled that they say Jesus Christ didn't exist. What kind of nonsense is that? Seven canonized authors attest to His life, and many others that were just people.
The crazy thing is that they weren't a conspiracy club like people think is going on with "The Da Vinci Code", no, these guys had documented fights, didn't get along, and had different views on mission work. On one occassion Paul kicked a member off of his mission trip. The crazy thing is, even though several of these guys didn't get along, they have the exact same view of Jesus Christ and His life. If they were truly trying to spread their agenda one would say, "Paul is the greatest." and another would say, "Luke is greater." And "John was Jesus' best friend, believe this Gospel." and "This is the true Gospel by Matthew, written to correct the others." But it doesn't say that, each one is complimentary to the other and there are no contradictions. The only way it could fit so perfectly is if it wasn't a story, but rather Truth.
Next, take a look at the monitor you are reading this on. Where did it come from? It's ordered, it serves a purpose, it appears to be designed. I bet you've never met the guy that designed it or put it together. Do you think it happened on accident? Of course not, a monitor proves a monitor maker, even if the monitor is the only evidence of it. Creation proves a Creator. The overwhelming order, purpose, and design of the tiniest atom to the solar system are undeniably designed. In complete absense for proof of a different origin, logic says that our monitor was undeniably created; the monitor manual tells us who that maker is.
My argument was not for the 5-senses. But rather for the hundreds of other senses that science is so ignorant as to ignore. Right and Wrong point to a Moral Giver; the sense of Guilt; the Conscience(Con-With Science-Knowledge); and especially the Holy Spirit are all senses to be used and to prove there is a higher being. The crazy thing about the Holy Spirit is that you must be Born-Again to receive Him; only after you believe He exists will He prove Himself to you. You have to believe it to see it.
It is absolutely ridiculous to view a monitor and say, this monitor happened on accident; the fingerprint on the screen means nothing, it had no designer influence. It is more ridiculous to look at the perfectly designed Creation and say the same thing.
I'm saying that if you rely on the five senses you've used your entire life, you have dulled them to the point of stupidity. Your eyes see creation, your ears hear the Word of God, your fingers fly across the keyboard; almost like the keyboard was designed for them and them for manipulation; your conscience screams when you do something wrong. Everything points to God, yet if you fail to seek and instead blind-fold yourself, of course you're not going to see Him. The Bible says that if you seek Him, you will find Him, because He is not far off from any one of us.
For only the fool would say in his heart, there is no God.
Fate,
In 160 years have we come up with those things. If you told someone about gamma rays in 1830, they would look at you like you were crazy. You're saying that because you can't detect God in 2007 that you are so much better than that person in 1830?
He was ignorant of energy waves back then, you are ignorant of God now. What's the difference?
@ACRAPIST - You ask "The next question is, why do certain sets of beliefs have legs and others, not? What is it about the fit between Christianity or Islam and the human brain, that propels it and keeps it going? (like that damn bunny) Is it the threats of a patriarch? Is it the comfort it provides in answering Stan’s questions, or easing the burden of "sin"? Maybe it is the camaraderie or clan nature of a group?"
I believe the answer is simply tribalism - the herding instinct. Most people want to belong and are loathe to do things that place them in opposition to the local tribe, and the larger the tribe the more power it wields. Most people believe in the religion they were indoctrinated into as children. For the vast majority, religious belief is determined by geography and nothing else.
Beyond that, religion is the ultimate tool of intimidation and sleight of hand. "Morality" is a word not rooted in religious dogma, but how many people believe that it was invented by god? How often do you hear believers say that they don't understand how atheists can be moral without god, as if it requires the promise of an eternal reward or the threat of punishment to have any self control, or see the simple logic of the golden rule? Any system that's so successful at replacing faith in self with faith in tribe is bound to proliferate. Religion isn't just the opiate of the masses. It's the cudgel.
Canyon wrote:
---Fair enough. But the deal is that it takes a whole lot of faith to believe something doesn't exist in the face of overwhelming evidence. For example, some agnostics are so hatefilled that they say Jesus Christ didn't exist. What kind of nonsense is that? Seven canonized authors attest to His life, and many others that were just people.---
I know a lot of agnostics and atheists and I don't know any who thinks Christ did not exist. And they understand the New Testament follows Christ's life pretty well. But if you are going to take the writings of the the four apostles you need to take the writings of the other apostles and others of the time who tell of other miracles by others. As an atheist I'm very impressed by Christ and what he stood for and some of his phylosophies have made it into my code of conduct, but to claim he is the son of God is a big leap beyond his having existed. You should also ask why evalgelical christians deny the existance of evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence.
---The crazy thing is that they weren't a conspiracy club like people think is going on with "The Da Vinci Code", no, these guys had documented fights, didn't get along, and had different views on mission work. On one occassion Paul kicked a member off of his mission trip. The crazy thing is, even though several of these guys didn't get along, they have the exact same view of Jesus Christ and His life. [...] The only way it could fit so perfectly is if it wasn't a story, but rather Truth.---
Well, their Truth is very likely to agree considering they traveled together and studied together. Also remember that these people were as consumed by their religius beliefs as the Puritans were in America, and the Puritans burned witches after they were convinced the women were being possessed by the devil. In other words, you cannot assume they were thinking rationally or scientifically. They likely were not. Plus considering the times, which were very barbaric, a religion based on love must have been refreshing. I can see why so many adopted it.
---Next, take a look at the monitor you are reading this on. Where did it come from?---
NEC, it says so in the upper left hand corner.
---It's ordered, it serves a purpose, it appears to be designed. I bet you've never met the guy that designed it or put it together. Do you think it happened on accident?---
Nope, NEC is a good company.
---Of course not, a monitor proves a monitor maker, even if the monitor is the only evidence of it.---
Yes.
---Creation proves a Creator.---
Err, No. Creation is a mystery I will grant you, but other mysteries have been reveiled by science that religion used to ascribe to spirits, such as how the sun could shine for 6000 years (it can't without nuclear fusion) or procreation, or disease. These were thought to prove a god (or a devil) but today, through science, we know WHY these things exist. Mystery does not prove God's existance. Its just proves an answer is not known at this time.
---The overwhelming order, purpose, and design of the tiniest atom to the solar system are undeniably designed.---
Its a lousy design. It makes little sense. The solar system, once thought to be a sign of God's perfection is littered with asteroids, comets, and other things the church used to deny since the stars were fixed (they could not fall) and new stars (novae) were not allowed to be mentioned. Comets were hard to ignore but the church did not permit any mention of their existance so astronomers of today look to Chinese and other non-christian writings to find these objects in the past. Any attempt to learn the truth outside the christian religious texts was not allowed in the middle ages. That's not an organization I would trust to find the truth in anything.
---In complete absense for proof of a different origin, logic says that our monitor was undeniably created; the monitor manual tells us who that maker is.---
Yup, and what the components are, and how they were made and from what, and so on. The manual exists and tells us just how it works and was designed. But to compare that with a human, well, the monitor is a cleaner design, identical from copy to copy, unlike people. If God designed us, well, NEC proves to be the better designer.
---My argument was not for the 5-senses. But rather for the hundreds of other senses that science is so ignorant as to ignore.---
You keep mentioning them but do not tell us what they are outside of mystical descriptions such as the moral sense. Morality is heavily studied by sociologists. I think if you look into sociology you'll find the meanings behind a lot of your other "senses".
---Right and Wrong point to a Moral Giver; the sense of Guilt; the Conscience(Con-With Science-Knowledge); and especially the Holy Spirit are all senses to be used and to prove there is a higher being.---
There you go using that word "prove" again, as though because you believe it it is so it is automatically true. Look, I have a dog. I caught him eating some chocolate in the pantry. He skedadled when he saw me come into the kitchen, before I saw what he was doing. Guilt? He then got sick, really sick. I called the vet and sat up with him all night watching him vomit, giving him water and feeding him crushed charcoal to adsorb the poison. He stopped getting sick around 4am and we slept until noon. He stayed by my side for days. Did he think I was God? Was it love? Or is he just a dumb animal unable to understand your emotions?
---The crazy thing about the Holy Spirit is that you must be Born-Again to receive Him; only after you believe He exists will He prove Himself to you. You have to believe it to see it.---
Why born-again? Do you think no one is just born believing in God? If so why?
---It is absolutely ridiculous to view a monitor and say, this monitor happened on accident; the fingerprint on the screen means nothing, it had no designer influence. It is more ridiculous to look at the perfectly designed Creation and say the same thing.---
Hahahahaha, perfectly designed creation? Do you know how many diseases monitor's get? None! Do they have to eat to stay alive? Can you turn them off, let them go stone cold, then turn them on again years later with no harm done? Now that's design! Humans are a pretty good design of nature, but what an awful "intelligent" design they are. Cancer, disease, only one heart (worms have 10!). You need to breathe to carry oxygen inside. You must kill other living things and ingest them to stay alive. I'd give that designer a D- for making such a fragile creature. To look at it another way, your monitor will likely outlive you.
---I'm saying that if you rely on the five senses you've used your entire life, you have dulled them to the point of stupidity.---
Only if your belief in God has prevented you from seeing the true beauty of nature, of evolution, of parallel evolution and of the possibility life is likely on other worlds. But withyour religious glasses on, these sights are either impossible or not allowed by the religion, so you do not see. Consider that religion dulls some of your senses and replaces them with senses that detect imaginary things. A child is convinced that Santa is on the roof. Presents under the tree PROVEs he exists.
---Your eyes see creation, your ears hear the Word of God, your fingers fly across the keyboard; almost like the keyboard was designed for them and them for manipulation; your conscience screams when you do something wrong. Everything points to God, yet if you fail to seek and instead blind-fold yourself, of course you're not going to see Him. The Bible says that if you seek Him, you will find Him, because He is not far off from any one of us.---
Well, if everything pointed to God you'd have to explain why so many people stop believing in God, especially when things happen that God should not allow, the premature death of a spouse, or child, or a deformaty science is working hard to prevent or cure, like muscular dystrophy. Churches even raise money to support research for these diseases. If that isn't proof that God is limited I don't know what is. And if your God is limited, he cannot exist by definition.
---For only the fool would say in his heart, there is no God.---
I agree. There cannot be any absolutes in areas we have not fully explored. We do not understand the nature of spacetime, how the universe began, why it is expanding so fast, why quantum mechanics is how the very smallest of things get around, etc. So if only a fool would say there is no God today, only a fool would say there is proof of a God today. Because if you admit you do not understand the universe you cannot say a God exists. And of the universe we do know and understand, none of it "proves" a God exists. So belief in God is just that, a belief. To say otherwise is foolish.
Ack! Apologies for the multiple posts!
FATE,
Pretty cool comeback there to CANYON.
Daily we are faced with the inanities of an ever more vocal and influential religious constituency. Atheists are voicing their dismay at a madness that threatens to destroy this planet.
In an age and time of discovery about our origins and our universe it becomes more apparent (except to those retarded by religion) that religion is based on superstition and myth. To any rational human being one cannot reconcile religion to reason.
Jonathon: ---In an age and time of discovery about our origins and our universe it becomes more apparent (except to those retarded by religion) that religion is based on superstition and myth. To any rational human being one cannot reconcile religion to reason.---
Its really the other way around, people reconsile reason to the religion. Osama wants US troops out of the ME so he uses religion to justify it. You could switch the religions around and wars would still exist, people would still do what they want based on their cultures and culture is explained in religious terms. Religion does not determine the actions of people, people's actions determine the actions of the religion. That's why christianity's practices vary around the world as do muslim practices from place to place. Same religion but only the parts that agree with the local culture are followed with the religion used to justify the culture. Just think about why christians in the US and Europe celebrate christmas with a tree and Easter with bunnies and eggs. None of it is in the bible. The biblical teachings were twisted to agree with the cultures of trees at the winter solstace and bunnies/eggs during the past pagan spring fertility celebrations. Same culture, new religion to justify the practices. America could be a muslim or buddist nation, little would change. We'd still value family, commercialism and the Super Bowl.
Chip,
Are you serious? Of course athinkist's morals come from God. If they aren't coming from the Bible, they are coming from your conscience. No doubt about that. Some people listen to their conscience a little better than others.
Fate responce forthcoming...
Fate,
So because you don't know any athinkists that don't deny that Jesus existed that means there are none. Ok.
As for evolution, there isn't an ounce of evidence anywhere in the world. But we won't discuss that here, please try to catch up to this discussion starting on page 15 first by Mr Mark, but continued by me:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2006/12/who_was_jesus/comments.php?page=15
I think you'll be surprised by the blind faith you possess.
The difference between the Puritans and the Apostles was that the Apostles witnessed the resurrection. You may say that I am a fool for believing the Bible...the Apostles were there in person; they either all believed the exact same lie, or it actually happened. I'm sure I wouldn't die by stoning, upside-down crucifiction, beheading, being tossed off of a cliff for something I knew was a lie. The only reasonable explanation is that it was the Truth.
You are blinded by science. You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA why things die. None. It doesn't make sense if you don't look at it from the sin standpoint. There is also no such thing as a new star, which is odd considering how often they are seen to die.
My minor is in psychology, don't think I don't know things about social sciences and the terrible descriptions made up by Freud, Pavlov, White and Kinsey amongst all others. Morality is a fixed thing. A lie is wrong all over the earth, rape is wrong all over the earth, murder, larceny...don't you dare say you believe in sliding ethics. That was disproved by psychologists decades ago.
I can't reply to you anymore. You typed a whole lot and didn't say ANYTHING. You clearly don't understand Christianity at all, I will post a Gospel Message in a moment so that you can at least know why you are going to Hell. That you for proving that a fool says in his heart that there is no God.
Open Air Gospel Sermon
Canyon Shearer
© Dec 2006
For circulation with or without permission; in part or in whole
I only have one sermon, I’ve tried to write others, but I always come back to this one. It’s the one I open-air with, it’s the one I e-mail to friends, it’s the only Sermon I have committed to memory. In my opinion, it’s the only Sermon worth preaching.
I always start with my favorite Bible Verse, that verse being Psalm 19:7, “The Law of God is Perfect, Converting the Soul.” The importance of this verse is the law that it is talking about. In the beginning, there was one law, and that law was, “Don’t Eat the Fruit of that Tree!”1 As we all know, that law was broken, and with that transgression came a new law, a law found written on your conscience2, but also in the 20th Chapter of the Book of Exodus.
That law is the 10 Commandments, and I’d like to go over a couple of them. The easiest of the 10 Commandments to remember and to break is the ninth, which says, “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness”, in other words, Don’t Lie! Proverbs 12:22 says that Lying Lips are an ABOMINATION to the Lord, Revelation 21:8 promises that all Liars Shall Have their Part in the Lake of Fire! In the 9th Commandment we can see the Holiness of God, because if you lie to a child, you might get away with it, if you lie to me, I might get mad, if you lie to your spouse, you might end up on the couch or divorced, if you lie to a police officer, you’re obstructing justice and you’ll go to jail, if you lie to a judge, it’s perjury and you’ll go to prison, even more strict still, if you lie to your government, you’re guilty of treason, and the punishment is death18! The offense of a lie to God is so much more injurious and so much more condemning that the only just punishment for lying is eternal suffering. But wait! You say, “I’ve told lies, but I’m not a liar.” Lets consider this; if I rape one girl, I’m a rapist, if I murder one person, I’m a murderer; in the eyes of God, if you’ve told one lie, you are a liar, and will face the consequences as such.
Now I know what you’re thinking, you’re thinking, Thou Shalt Not Murder! Now that’s a commandment I know I have kept! But listen to this! Jesus said, “He that hates his brother is a murderer, he that calls someone an idiot is in danger of eternal Hellfire!”3 God is so Perfect and Holy that He sees the intentions and condition of your heart, and on this will you be judged.
Murder is the 6th commandment, lets move onto the 7th. You’ve heard it said of old, “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,” but Jesus said, “He that looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart!”4 Once again, God is concerned with the condition of your thought life, not just the actions that you pursue in the flesh.
The 8th, and final Commandment I’m going to preach says, “Thou Shalt Not Steal.” Consider this, every tiny thing you have stolen has distanced you from God, be it a paperclip, a pen, a piece of gum, or a song on the Internet, all of these constitute larceny and require punishment!
Now just wait one minute, aren’t the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament? Aren’t we under a new Covenant now? You’re exactly right! In the Old Testament, the punishment for thievery, according to Deuteronomy 24:7, was death! In the New Testament, the punishment for thievery is eternal suffering5! God has taken in the reigns, made His laws MORE strict, not less.
Based on these four, of ten, Commandments we have examined, it is clear to see that the whole world has sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God6, and God cannot just let a transgressor go, because He is a good judge, and a good judge will see to it that law-breakers are punished. The Bible says that the depraved nature of our sins has made us a child of wrath7, of disobedience8, of the devil9, an enemy of righteousness9, separated from God10, and doomed to Hell11. This punishment have we earned, and only by the Love of God is it possible to be redeemed and to escape the fire to come.
God became flesh, came to this world which He created, born of a virgin12, lived a perfect sinless life, and was sacrificed for your sins on a Cross overlooking Jerusalem13. In a beautiful, incomprehensible showing of love, Jesus Christ substituted Himself for you, took your punishment upon Himself and died a terrible, painful, humiliating death. Death could not Hold the God of the Universe, and He rose on the Third Day, and Delivered your Soul from Hell14.
In a worldly courtroom, a Judge can let a perpetrator go if his fine has been paid and if he promises not to repeat the crime. In front of the Great White Throne of God, you can be absolved of your crimes, as your fine has been paid in Jesus Christ; repent now of your sins in order to receive the gift of Life so richly given.
Repent, Apologize and Turn from, your Sins today, and trust in Jesus Christ to save you from Hell, like you’d trust in a parachute to save you from Gravity15, don’t wait until tomorrow, the world is a dangerous place and you could die tonight! It is appointed once for a man to die, and then the Judgment16, it is a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of the Living God17.
Get yourself a Bible and read the Book of John, it was written by one of Jesus’ closest friends, and it will reaffirm everything I’ve said today.
References
1- Genesis 2:17
2- Romans 2:15
3- Matthew 5:22
4- Matthew 5:28
5- Revelation 20:12-15
6- Romans 3:23
7- Ephesians 2:3
8- Colossians 3:6
9- Acts 13:10
10- Isaiah 59:2
11- Revelation 20:14
12- Matthew 1:23
13- Luke 23:34
14- Luke 24:76
15- Ray Comfort, “Hells Best Kept Secret”
16- Hebrews 9:27
17- Hebrews 10:31
18- Todd Friel, “Way of the Master Radio”
Canyon, of course I'm serious. On what rational basis do you declare with such certainty that morality comes from god? Simply because that's what you've been told to believe?
If the Christian god was such an authority on good behavior why did he advocate stoning disobedient children to death? Why does he plan to torture the majority of people who've ever lived on the planet for eternity for nothing more than belonging to the wrong tribe? Why does a golden ticket to the after life depend on blind obedience and not deeds?
If I knew with certainty that the Christian god actually did exist (or the gods of most religions for that matter) I certainly wouldn't bow in worship to tyranny enforced by violence. The god of Abraham is capricious, vindictive, jealous, and cruel. Is that morality? Please enlighten me with something more substantive than "or course morality comes from god." It's no more reasoned or self-evident than asserting it's delivered in tiny baskets by gnomes.
"Get yourself a Bible ... it will reaffirm everything I’ve said today."
...Yet again Canyon completely misses the point.
I'm beginning to think that maybe Canyon is a troll. How else would you explain his use of the derogatory term "athinkist"? So very 'christian' of him, wasn't it.
I'm not going to bother picking out which of Canyon's statements were complete nonsense and attempting to explain exactly why they are complete nonsense because in the end Canyon (and others of his ilk) are so blinded by their 'faith' and 'belief' that they will not be capable of comprehending. It is a waste of my time. Its a waste of our time.
"Get yourself a Bible ... it will reaffirm everything I’ve said today."
...Yet again Canyon completely misses the point.
I'm beginning to think that maybe Canyon is a troll. How else would you explain his use of the derogatory term "athinkist"? So very 'christian' of him, wasn't it.
I'm not going to bother picking out which of Canyon's statements were complete nonsense and attempting to explain exactly why they are complete nonsense because in the end Canyon (and others of his ilk) are so blinded by their 'faith' and 'belief' that they will not be capable of comprehending. It is a waste of my time. Its a waste of our time.
Canyon : ---So because you don't know any athinkists that don't deny that Jesus existed that means there are none. Ok.---
No, just that I don't know of any, and I know a lot, so if they exist I'm assuming they are a minority while you are stating they are a majority. And calling atheists "athinkers" is rude and shows little respect for other people. This is where hate begins, by not respecting people you know little about. Its also called prejudice. Not a moral value though the church has supported it in the past.
---As for evolution, there isn't an ounce of evidence anywhere in the world. But we won't discuss that here, please try to catch up to this discussion starting on page 15 first by Mr Mark, but continued by me:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2006/12/who_was_jesus/comments.php?page=15---
Meet you there...
---I think you'll be surprised by the blind faith you possess.----
Faith is based on belief, which may be based on facts, but belief is not truth. In every facet of life, not just religion, we need to separate facts from belief or we get into trouble. Its easy to takes ones own beliefs and call them truth, but it does not make it so. Belief is a condition resulting from an analysis and conclusion, not on proof. If something is proved, it is no longer a belief. This needs to be understood by everyone on each side of this debate, because if we say that someone 2000 years ago wrote something down it is proof, well, a lot of things were written down then and you'll need to accept them all, not just the one's you choose, as proof. So you'll need to believe that Mohammed was a prophet of God, that the Greek and Roman gods are real, as well as the Norse gods and ancient Egyptian Gods. Have you read the other gospels, the ones the church does not include in its New Testament?
---The difference between the Puritans and the Apostles was that the Apostles witnessed the resurrection. You may say that I am a fool for believing the Bible...the Apostles were there in person; they either all believed the exact same lie, or it actually happened. I'm sure I wouldn't die by stoning, upside-down crucifiction, beheading, being tossed off of a cliff for something I knew was a lie. The only reasonable explanation is that it was the Truth.---
No, there are many reasonable explanations including that they all conspired to lie. I don't think that's true, but it is a valid consideration. We were not there. We can only rely on what was written down and as I said before others wrote things down that the church does not recognize including the gnostic works. The church cherry picked the writings so its no wonder they agree. Maybe you should seek out the other writings and see what they say.
---You are blinded by science. You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA why things die. None. It doesn't make sense if you don't look at it from the sin standpoint. There is also no such thing as a new star, which is odd considering how often they are seen to die.---
Hmmm. Check out:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070108145732.htm
As for why things die, why is sin the reason? I just put a pontsettia plant outside last night and this morning it died from the freeze we had. Did it sin? And let me ask you where you go when you get really sick or your life is threatened by a medical condition? A church? Or do you rely on the benefits of science? Should the mentally ill see a exorcist or seek medical attention?
---My minor is in psychology, don't think I don't know things about social sciences and the terrible descriptions made up by Freud, Pavlov, White and Kinsey amongst all others. Morality is a fixed thing. A lie is wrong all over the earth, rape is wrong all over the earth, murder, larceny...don't you dare say you believe in sliding ethics. That was disproved by psychologists decades ago.---
I don't believe in sliding ethics, but it is a fact of society that ethics will slide. History is full of examples, including within the church. The church used to imprison people you know based on their thoughts. I mentioned the Puritans. I was comparing their absolute belief in God and in the case of the Puritans how it warped their sense of reality to the point where witches were real and in some cases needed to be killed. This is not rational thought unless the belief becomes rational. My point was that the apostles were, like most in Judae back then, comsumed by belief.
---I can't reply to you anymore. You typed a whole lot and didn't say ANYTHING. You clearly don't understand Christianity at all, I will post a Gospel Message in a moment so that you can at least know why you are going to Hell. That you for proving that a fool says in his heart that there is no God.---
A little hate or anger coming out? I was taught to pray for those who did not accept God, not hate them or be angry with them. I do understand Christianity, more than you would know. My atheism is an informed one, not one of ignorance in your specific religion, which is only one of thousands which have existed. Have you ever wondered HOW you came to be a christian?
Chip and others,
It is funny that you always assume that I was born into Christianity and that I haven't seen anything else. The problem with your assumption is that it is the opposite of truth. The closest thing I had to Christianity was growing up in the shadow of it that abounds on the morals of the United States. My dad is a freaking Buddhist, my mom doesn't care one way or the other.
I grew up immersed in the religion of evolution. I fell in love with it, it seemed like the greatest thing ever. Then someone asked me, "Prove it." And you can't prove it, not even a little. In court they have this thing called the Preponderance of the Evidence, in which circumstantial evidence proves something. You can't even do that with evolution. You can't prove 1% of it, it's all religion. See the link above if you want to discuss this.
After that, I read the Bible, scientifically perfect in all ways testable, archaelogically perfect, historically true, an infallible moral map, and so filled with prophecy as to be impossible for man to write.
I can say that I don't believe in coconuts all day long. I can even prove without a shadow of the doubt that there is no such thing as coconuts if I'm not willing to look at the evidence. That what you've done, that's why you're an athinkist; one without thought.
Stoning is a punishment for transgression. Unlike your imperfection, God is perfect; He doesn't like stoning or killing, but He is just to do so. Your torture won't be for disbelief, it will be punishment for transgression, see my post titled, "Open Air Gospel Sermon"; if you've already read it, read it again, but this time pay attention.
Fate,
Let's get off the idea that Jesus might not have existed. I never said majority, I said some.
You assume that I have blind faith in the Bible, that is ludicrous. I hate blind faith and I won't stand for it. I've read the Bible, the Koran(twice), the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, the iChing, the Origins of Species, many books on evolution, I thumbed through the God Delusion, I've read the Apocrypha. The Bible wasn't put together by a bunch of nit-wits. In 325 the Council of Nicea canonized scripture so that the weird books that people were trying to say were written by God were removed. It's like if someone stapled the Communist Manifesto to the Constitution of the United States in 1977 and said, "This was also written by the founding fathers." The Bible was complete prior to the Council of Nicea, they simply ensured that every book in the Bible was written by God, by a scientific method, and that same method stands today. Someone would be foolish to think the Bible is complete simply because some Romans said so. The Bible is complete because God said so, there are multiple self-authenticating things within the Bible to show us it is complete.
That said, the 'Gospels' you are referring to are not Gospels, but rather bits and pieces of accounts by people that never knew Jesus, or did not have the authentication that the canon required. The 4 Canonized Gospels are testaments to Jesus Christ from the beginning of His life to His Resurrection. The Gnostic Gospels are just snippets of His life. Just like the Book of Romans; some think it should be called, "The Gospel of Paul." But it's not a Gospel account, it is a relaying of how to be saved in a letter to the Romans; where-as Luke's Gospel is an account of Jesus Christ in a letter to Theophilus. Until you understand the Canon, read some conflicting accounts that aren't canonized, and research the worlds other religions, you have blind faith...as many Christians have, but it's better to have Blind Faith in something that teaches love and foregiveness than the hatefilled religion that springs from evolutionism.
Once again you have proven that you don't know why death happens. Sin is death. The first animal that died, died as a result of sin, not his sin, but Adam and Eve's sin. Sin has caused many things to die, stars, plants, babies, cells, people. It's the only explanation thus far that makes any sense. Why would a cell reproduce itself perfectly so many times and then just quit? Science can't say way. Only the Bible has a good explanation.
You think that science has a good grasp on health? Here are four things science hasn't cured:
1. Common Cold
2. Cancer
3. AIDS
4. Death
and you've put full trust in such a fallible thing? Even if they do cure your pnemonea, you're still gonna die of something; it's best to be ready for the judgement to come.
Your first post was so arrogant and pridefilled and misdirected that I thought for sure you must be an 11 year old kid. Now I realize that you may be a little older, though your spiritual growth is stunted in the preteens.
Our posts are similar in scope, we both think we know things about spirituality. When you throw out your wild religious understanding of things and call them truth, that gets to me. I don't think you're an informed athinkist(I don't believe in atheists) at all; but rather a confused agnostic who thinks he knows anything about religion. You'll get there, just keep paying attention.
Question: Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is?
Is atheism really in vogue or is it just that people are too busy in their materialistic pursuits to take the time to think about God or any other deeper questions in life for that matter? Is atheism being portrayed as a sign of intellectualism and hence is considered cool?
One thing is certian: We live in the age of narcisstic materialism and sensory over-stimulation. A mind that is entirely preoccupied with gratifying the senses, and the false ego that is in control which has an insatiable desire to gratify the senses, cannot think about God. So only a person who takes the time to withdraw the mind from the senses long enough to think about God has the opportunity to accept or deny His existence. It may be more likely that atheists participating in this thread have pondered the question of God and have made the decision not to believe in God. But I wonder if that is the case with the vast majority of people out there for whom the question of God’s existence doesn’t even arise in their minds.
Question: Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists and if so over what kind of issues?
If there is one thing that the discussion on these threads between atheists and believers has shown is that there cannot be a conversation about faith. All the discussion about faith has gone around in endless circles with no mutual understanding or compromise in sight. It has been pointed out several times that atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby. So it is pointless for a stamp collector to discuss stamp collection with someone who doesn’t collect stamps. However I have been wondering whether that analogy reflects the true state of discussion on these threads for it seems that those who don’t collect stamps are quite vocal about their non-collection and seem to feel a need to stamp stamp-collection as a stupid hobby. Warum? A believer who hopes to bring an atheist around with the right argument or explanation is wasting time. Atheists participating on these discussion boards have all been exposed to religion and religious ideas and have made a conscious decision to reject them. A believer does well to respect the free will of the atheist for God does.
So what could be discussed? The issues we have in common as human beings – urgency to tackle global warming, danger of nuclear weapons, role of materialism, morality, science, values in the happiness of human beings, our concept about what it means to love our neighbour, our definition of neighbour etc; i.e. everything other than faith in God and religious beliefs.
So what about the anti-theists who claim with missionary zeal that all religions and religious practice should be abolished in the best interests of mankind, and seem eager to accomplish that goal? Anti-theists claim passionately there is evidence that religious belief is destructive. What exactly constitutes evidence? In what way does an anti-theist different from a fundamentist religion person with a missionary zeal who wants to spread the good news? What research or statistics support the claim of anti-theists, who insist on spreading the bad news that religion is dangerous? Considering religion has played an important role in the history of mankind, reference to isolated incidents is simply insufficient as convincing statistics. Reliable statistics could be the result of a retrospective cohort study assessing the destructive affect of religion on human beings since the beginning of time. The data needed are world population in real numbers, number of believers (all religions to be included, and could be stratified if necessary), contribution to human development – in science, art, architecture, literature, music, medicine, social work etc, etc. The results for believers should be compared with the results for atheists; atheists since the beginning of time in real numbers, and their contribution to human development – in science, art, architecture, music, medicine, etc, etc. ONLY when we are able to compare notes can we safely conclude whether or not religion is detrimental to mankind. If the atheist is proven right, he should then be taken seriously with his solution of abolishing religion for the welfare of mankind. Until such time we should continue to look upon religion as a source of beauty, hope after death, meaning, moral guidance, motivation to selfless love of neighbour, love for enemies, wisdom, self-knowledge… in our lives.
BTW I’m a Christian by conviction. I have been asked by atheists on this forum if I had any historic basis for my beliefs, as they were convinced that Jesus was merely a myth, not a historical person. So I searched the Internet today and found this link: http://www.request.org.uk/issues/evidence/evidence.htm
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
@Canyon - "After that, I read the Bible, scientifically perfect in all ways testable, archaelogically perfect, historically true, an infallible moral map, and so filled with prophecy as to be impossible for man to write."
Wow. Just wow. Thanks for saying that since now I know beyond any doubt that you're so completely indoctrinated that trying to have a rational discussion with you is pointless. I just rolled my eyes so hard I think I sprained something. The bible is scientifically perfect? That must explain why the very first chapter contains two creation stories that contradict each other, and where god creates light days before he creates stars (the Sun would be a star and stars are where light comes from in case you're confused on that point). I wasn't aware that science had verified that the sky is an upside down metal bowl with holes in it to let the water come through. Kudos to NASA for having such good aim. Kudos also to Noah for fitting two of every species on earth on a small wooden boat only 450 feet long, not to mention swimming back from the other continents carrying them all on his back, or loading them all on his boat in a single day. Yeah, no way for science to test that theory. Simple math is way beyond us mere mortals. It does leave one to wonder how the animals continued to procreate though after Noah killed one of every "clean beast" as an offering to God. Didn't he only have two of each to begin with? And that Jonah, living inside a whale. Quite a scientific feat that. I could go on but why bother? My apologies for being rude but people like you scare me. To hear an adult claim that all of the above is not only true but scientifically perfect is simply horrifying. If you defend yourself by claiming those stories are allegorical, what rational basis do you have for believing that any of the bible is true? (hint: the answer is none). I remember hearing the story of Noah's ark the first time in Sunday school when I was around eight years old. I felt patronized even then.
Wow Chip, you'd think that if you're going to argue this stuff, you'd actually read about it first.
Gen 1 is the order the Universe was created in. Gen 2 is the order the Garden of Eden was created in. Read it. How stupid do you have to be to believe the Bible would have a major contradiction in the first sentences of the first book?
The reason God created light before stars is to prove that God is sufficient. "Rejoice Not Against Me, O Mine Enemy! When I Fall, I Shall Arise! When I Sit In Darkness, the Lord Shall Be a Light Unto Me." Micah 7:8
You have no idea how studied Genesis 6 has become with the plausibility of the Ark Account. Read a little about it before you go off sounding stupid.
I didn't say that Jonah living in a whale was scientifically perfect, you're projecting my words out to say what you want them to say. Jonah living in a whale is supernatural, Daniel surviving the Lions den is supernatural, Shadrach surviving the firing kiln is supernatural, Jesus rising from the dead is supernatural.
In all ways TESTABLE the Bible is scientifically perfect, such as when it talks about radio waves, dinosaurs, a sherical earth, that the earth's core is molten, that under our feet we should find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. Perfect in those ways and thousands more.
Remember the quote that was written solely for your sake:
It is better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Canyon: ---Once again you have proven that you don't know why death happens. Sin is death. The first animal that died, died as a result of sin, not his sin, but Adam and Eve's sin. Sin has caused many things to die, stars, plants, babies, cells, people.---
If that is so why did God first create a perfect universe, where death does not exist, then due to Adam and Eve's actions create another. Did He not see it coming or did He know they would sin and the world would end up as it is, with death for everything? In other words, how did God screw up his creation or did He plan it that way and if so why?
---It's the only explanation thus far that makes any sense. Why would a cell reproduce itself perfectly so many times and then just quit? Science can't say way. Only the Bible has a good explanation.---
Again with the assumptions "only explanation thus far". Maybe for you, but science has explanations including programmed cell death, telomere's not being copied during each replication and many more. No, there is no one thing and no it is not completely understood, but we do know that there are cells that apparently life forever. HeLa cells, cancer cells from a woman named Henrietta Lang in 1951 when she was 31 dying from cervical cancer. Those cells have been propagated in the lab and continue to exist to this day as vibrant as the day they were taken from her body. They appear immortal, showing no sign of aging and are used in cancer research. They are also studied to understand why they live indefinitely while our own cells do not.
And cells do not reproduce themselves perfectly each time. Cancer is just one example of imperfect replication, after all, cancer comes from once healthy cells. And how this happens is very well understood in some cases. Scientists paint extract from cigarette tar on the backs of mice to produce a skin cancer. Its so repeatable that it has become a standard method for producing cancer in mice to then study ways to prevent or kill cancer. And how this tar causes the cancer is well understood at the molecular level. I know you don't really care much but this is what happens when scientists study reality and demand proof and repeatability. We learn things, things we can use to learn more things until more and more is known and understood. Over time things we used to ascribe to God's hand are now understood, such as how the sun shines, how the earth formed, how volcanos work, how tornados and hurricanes form. Diseases we used to ascribe to the devil and mental illnesses we used to ascribe to possession are now well understood and are being treated. Do we know it all, definitely not nor will we anytime soon, but one thing is for sure, organized religion did little to advance this knowledge and in many cases suppressed it. Why was it suppressed? To prevent the truth from exposing the falibility of biblical teachings. The next time you need any medical treatment consider what would have happened had man not ignored the fear of hell and challenged the biblical view of man, disease and the universe. You are likely alive today because scientific truth won out over biblical truth because of couragous people who in spite of religious and sometimes governmental suppression sought the truth and found it leading to cures for what was once incurable.
That's sage advice you might want to apply to yourself, Canyon. For your information, I have read extensively on these subjects. I'm simply not the kind of person to let the desire for a myth to be true to trump reality (out of a selfish desire to be absolved from responsibility for my actions, to avoid torture, or to claim an eternal reward).
If your standard of belief amounts to no more than the fact that something can't be disproved (the supernatural)then you must believe all things that meet that same burden of proof, which would entail anything anyone could possibly imagine or fabricate and assert as truth. There is absolutely nothing plausible about the Ark, and it's truly sad that people such as yourself will so willingly twist and abandon what we know about reality to justify their beliefs. It is the very definition of foolishness and willful ignorance. You have completely divorced yourself from reason. Justifying absurdity by claiming it's magic is a license to justify anything, including all manner of atrocity with which history is littered.
To Canyon:
Thanks for your comment, (well, except for the part where you call me a blind, stupid fool.) I'll try and come up with an exhaustive reply for you later; I want to give it the attention it deserves ; not always an easy task in forums like this one.
For now I'll just make three quick points:
First of all you have a misperception of your own if you think I am unfamiliar with scripture, Christian teaching, being Born Again or faith. Been there, done that.
I'll also point out that one of the elements of good design is simplicity, not complexity, so pointing out the complexity of the universe actually argues against a designer. (To use your computer monitor example, in a warehouse full of such monitors each monitor of a particular model will be identical with all other monitors of that model. In a forest, however, each tree is unique; even those of the same species vary in detail one from another. Such relative simplicity is what distinguishes a designed artifact from a naturally occurring object.)
On the question of morality, ask yourself this question; is something good because God says it's good, or does God say it's good because it is good in and of itself?
If the former, than isn't morality just arbitrary? If God can say that genocide is good (as He allegedly does in the Old Testament, ordering the massacres of Canaanites, Ammonites, Midianites and others) then morality is not the universally accessible "sense" that you describe; it's just whatever God (or, to be precise, believers in God) say it is. Could be something else tomorrow...
If, on the other hand, God is just telling you what is good because it is already good in and of itself then morality exists independently of God and is not evidence of God's existence.
(Google "Euthyphro's Dilemma for more on God and morality.)
You see, contrary to your description of me as a blind stupid fool I am actually someone who has done a lot of thinking about these things...please keep that in mind and try to stay away from the gratuitous insults if you want to have a constructive conversation with me.
Regards
A Hermit
Too many words, not enough logic.
For the conclusion of an argument to be true, the premises must be true and the structure of the argument must be valid.
You cannot use god, the holy-spirit or any other ghosts in your arguments unless you first prove them to be true, (not at all likely) and secondly prove that they have the qualities you profess in your statements (not necessary because they haven't been proven to exist)
These arguments above (both christians and atheists) do not rise to a level of rigor to be considered anything more than the chatter of children.
I do not even know how to have a debate with a "person of faith" because the initial set of assumptions is absurd.
The only conversation I recommend between christians and atheists is:
Hello.
Hello.
Do you like my hat?
No. I do not like your hat.
Good bye.
Good bye.
OK, one more:
Please don't tread on me.
Soja John Thaikattil says:
"It has been pointed out several times that atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby. So it is pointless for a stamp collector to discuss stamp collection with someone who doesn’t collect stamps. However I have been wondering whether that analogy reflects the true state of discussion on these threads for it seems that those who don’t collect stamps are quite vocal about their non-collection and seem to feel a need to stamp stamp-collection as a stupid hobby."
The reason the non-stamp collectors are so vocal is the insistence of the stamp collectors that we must participate in their hobby; that those who do not participate in their hobby are less fulfilled, less worthy, less moral, less deserving of consideration in the political arena, etc. etc.
It gets a little frustrating for those of us who don't collect stamps, and yes, sometimes that frustration is expressed rather hotly. I hope I have been more temperate myself, and I make no excuse for anyone else's rudeness, but I do understand it.
And it's not exactly a one-sided problem; look at my exchange with Canyon; I tried to respond to what looked like a reasonable post with what I thought was a reasonable answer, and was called a blind stupid fool for my trouble. Just `cause I don't collect stamps anymore...
Regards
A Hermit
Chip,
If you have read extensively on this, then I pity you, there is something severely with your brain's storage and retrieval mechanisms.
I'm not going to explain the ark to you because you don't want to understand...but know that you can look it up and be amazed.
You want the Bible to be wrong so much that you will believe the most basic of lies about it or the most complicated lies about the origins of the universe.
Fate,
Your first question is all about how little you know about Christianity. Look up Supralapsarian. God planned the fall so that His Glory could be seen and you would have the opportunity to live.
What a religious bit of wording you have come up with, "thus far." That's like me saying, I'm Caucasian thus far. Like it could change.
I have just learned something about HeLa cells. But they aren't immortal...thus far. They're only 81 old. But don't you remember Carrel's chicken cells that they thought were immortal...but ended up they were feeding live cells in every time they fed it? Science is far from infallible. We'll keep an eye on it...but keeping something living is a lot easier than curing death.
As for why mental illness happens. Science knows HOW it happens, they don't know why it happens in most cases. Perhaps not all mental illness is caused by supernatural forces, but that can't be ruled out yet. You are making the fallacy of reasoning that because you can't sense something, it doesn't exist.
Remember, you'll most likely be in Hell in 100 years because pseudoscience won out over the Bible in the battle for your soul...because you let it.
The Bible labels you:
Professing to be wise, they became fools.
Hermit,
I can say that I was once the King of Sweden. That doesn't make it true. If we want to find out if I was the King of Sweden, we'd have to call Sweden and ask them. If they affirmed I was, then you could believe me; or if I had something of proof that I was once the King, like a crown, you could believe me.
You, sir, have neither. God has promised that once you are born into His family, you cannot fall from His graces; no matter how badly you screw up. If you don't know God now, you didn't know Him then. The other way would be to see fruit of repentance. I see no good fruit, I see the opposite of good fruit; and that's just over the internet.
Your simplicity argument is simple, to say the least. Things need to be as simple as possible; that is true, but a stick isn't better designed than a person. I'll post my complexity sermon in a moment.
That is a very good question on whether good is good because God says so, or because good is already good that God proclaims it as such. I'd say because it's a moral law, God created it. Lies kill. A lie to your spouse will result in heartache. Continued lies will result in separation. Further lies will lead to divorce. A lie will also result in your spiritual death.
God is 100% justified in killing everyone on Earth. When you sin against God you instantly fall from His graces. A genocide is merited, not just for the AngloSaxons, not just for the Irish, not just for the Bath, but for the whole human race. But because God is slow to wrath, He lets us continue living in sin, but He will get His justice.
Abraham Lincoln once said, "Without the Bible we wouldn't know right from wrong." That is absolutely true, look at people that don't have the Bible, people that eat one another, people that kill babies as blood offerings, people that allow embryonic stem-cell research when umbilical and mature cells are the only ones proven to work, but more importantly that amniotic stem-cells are identical to embryonic cells. The Bible tells us that those that don't love God love death. That is true beyond truth.
I liked your post about stamp-collecting. If only it were so simple as to bow out of the hobby of religion. You're stuck in the game, it's as necessary as breathing. It is in your best interest during the game and after the game to learn the rules and find out how to win.
I see that you have done a lot of thinking on these things, but I don't retract my previous opinion.
Windows of the Soul Sermon
Canyon Shearer
© Jan 2007
For circulation with or without permission; in part or in whole
It was once compared that evolution is similar to a tornado going through a junkyard and a 747 coming together as a result. It is an insult to my intellect and to yours to suppose such a thing could happen.
This is because a Jumbo Jet is incredibly designed by ingenious men working for years to bring together something like what Boeing has created. It is difficult to understand just how intricate the whole of a 747 is, so maybe we can take a look at a small part of it, the fuel control for just one of its four engines.
The fuel control on a 747 is composed of approximately 300 parts contained in a box approximately 12 inches by 8 inches by 6 inches. In order to work on this part, you must go to school for an additional two years after completing your part 65 training, which takes two years, and trains you to work on airframes and powerplants. The reason for the additional training is because the Fuel Control is the most important part of the 747. It controls fuel flow to the engines; when the engine needs fuel, it gives it to it, when the engine doesn't need fuel, it keeps it back. It does this by measuring and comparing input fuel, turbine temperature, ambient pressure, fuel pressure, throttle position, bleed air, several other inputs, and contains multiple redundancies.
If the fuel control fails to give the engine enough fuel, the airplane will fall out of the sky, killing as many as 544 people. If the fuel control gives the engine too much fuel, the airplane will instantly become a fireball, killing 544 people in the air and innumerable more in the path of the flaming debris. This part is directly responsible for thousands of lives; undoubtedly the fuel control is wonderfully and incredibly designed.
Contained within these 576 cubic inches are 300 minute parts, all placed with a purpose, and we consider this item to be a marvel of engineering.
Consider then, a tiny piece of the human being, the human eye. The human eye contains 137......MILLION......light sensitive cells packed into an area the size of a POSTAGE STAMP. The human eye measures and compares light levels 24 times a second. It focuses quicker than you can realize it is out of focus. It contains a self-lubricating system and automatic windshield wipers. Each second it ticks imperceptibly left to right and back again, helping the brain to determine distance. The eye filters harmful UV rays by directing them through the very blood vessels that replenish it in order to protect and sustain itself.
The eye humbles all human engineering; infinitely more complex and better working than any human machine ever conceived.
The eye is so important to us, that when asked if someone would consider donating just one for the sum total of One-Million Dollars, the majority unhesitatingly turn the offer down. But more importantly, when offered One-Billion Dollars for both eyes, not a single taker can be found.
And yet the eyes are only the windows to the soul. If the pair of eyes is worth more than One-Billion Dollars, how much more is the Soul worth?
Jesus Christ gave us a taste, by saying that if the eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it into the fire, for it would be better to enter Heaven missing an eye than to enter Hell whole.
The eye is a tiny, nearly insignificant part of ourselves, and if we put so much emphasis on maintaining it, how much more should be put forward to maintain our soul?
We know that in the presence of the degeneration of the species and the world that our eyes have become weak and damaged. Through the intelligence of man are we able to place tiny pieces of glass on the SURFACE of our postage stamp sized eye and see clearly. I am blind without these lenses, but through the grace of science I am able to see.
We also know that in the presence of the degeneration of the species and the world that our souls have become weak and damaged. Daily we fall short of the Glory of God, every time we fail to thank God for the gift of sight, every day we claim that chance lead to the creation of a fuel control unit, every day we lie to God and say that we don’t need him because we are quite capable of fixing our own eyesight problems. We offend God, we transgress His laws, we ignore Him, and even still, God has corrected the damage done to our soul.
In that a lens can correct eyesight, the Lamb can correct the soul. Jesus Christ came and provided the correction by being the perfect Human; subjected to the law, to the degeneration, the temptation, and came through it unblemished and perfect, only to die a humiliating death on the cross, rising from the dead, and correcting the deflection of the human soul.
If you want to fix your eyesight, there are two things you need to do. You need to realize you have an eyesight problem, and then you need to put on the corrective lens.
If you want to fix your soul, there are two things you need to do. You need to realize you have a soul problem, and then you need to put on the corrective action of Jesus Christ. In other words, repent of your sins and place your trust in Jesus Christ to save you!
For I was blind, but by the Grace of God, now I see.
Appreciations:
Thanks to Todd Friel, Ray Comfort, Paul Washer, Ken Ham, Charles Spurgeon, John Newton, and especially Jesus Christ for subject matter contained here-in.
"Look up Supralapsarian"
Hmmmm...Canyon raises the spectre of Predestination! I wonder if you've looked at that very carefully yourself, Canyon. The idea raises some difficult questions.
Is it just of God to punish Adam and Eve for doing what he pre-ordained they should do?
What happens to free will if the fall was part of God's design? Does this predestination apply only to Adam and Eve, or to all who came after?
Did God create me to be an atheist, and if so how can He then justifiably punish me for my atheism? Are you defying God's will if you try to convert me from my pre-ordained atheism?
I don't expect answers to these questions, Canyon, I just wonder if you've thought about them. I have.
Regards
A Hermit
Acrapist,
"A person of faith", that is an interesting moniker. I assume you mean someone with faith in God.
I bet you think you don't have faith.
But you do.
You have faith that there is no God.
You have faith that there is no judgement to come.
You have faith that the Bible is wrong.
You have faith that you're a pretty good person and if there is a God, He'll whisk you away into Heaven.
Your faith is worse than my faith, because your faith is blind.
Canyon, you said "You want the Bible to be wrong so much that you will believe the most basic of lies about it or the most complicated lies about the origins of the universe."
Oh the irony.
Oh the Irony, what?
The Irony that I've nailed you square on the head and that you think you're a good person?
You want the bible to be right so much that you've abandoned reason, logic, empricism. and rationality. A grown person believing in Noah's ark? Sorry, but to me that's simply shameful. I've read the tortured logic and hilarious mental gymnastics of those who try to justify the absurd (Noah's Ark, dinosaurs in the bible, etc etc.), but having no horse in the race I don't have any need to willingly lay down reason in favor of belief. There is an immense difference between reason and religious dogmatism. Science doesn't claim to know how the universe began. It only theorizes based on what can be observed and measured. I don't need to believe in the god of the gaps. I'm satisfied with "I don't know."
Science is like a lens pointed at big questions like the origin of the universe. It starts out blurry and out of focus and as we learn and discover more and more it slowly comes into focus. It doesn't start out asserting absolute truth and then bend reason or deny fact to fit its preconceived notions, or regard contradictory evidence as a lie or a conspiracy. It revises, repostulates, reworks, and adapts. That's how I view the world and what we think we know. I assert no absolutes. Science is the process of learning. Religion is pretending you know it all already.
Hermit,
Well done, I'm impressed.
The question is indeed complicated, and I wish I had an answer. The truth is that no-one is smart enough to determine God's plan and it is my hope that in Heaven He will reveal it to me/us.
The analogy that fits perfectly though is a clock in a clock shop. To steal an idea from Douglas Adams, imagine that clock suddenly became sentient on a holiday. It looks around the clock shop, doesn't see it's creator, but from the other clocks and their actions, and a text-book on the shelf called, "Swiss Quartz Movement Theory", it determines that it is wonderfully made, with many important pieces, and although it doesn't know what it is, it knows it has a purpose. It doesn't matter one iota if that clock knows the intricacies of human reproduction, anything about its Creator, or if it knows to what purpose it was created; it is created and it has a creator.
We're slightly more sentient than that clock, we know one of our purposes is to Glorify God, we know God through His revelation to us, we have an idea that God has no origins because He is outside of time and origins are an element of time. But as to just what we can do for God, or for what ultimate purpose we are created; that is yet to be known. That doesn't make us any less created or Him any less of a Creator.
I am of the opinion that our greatest purpose(only purpose at present) is to Glorify God, but by no means do I think that is our sole purpose. As for if God knew that you would reject Him and likely go to Hell; that is a tough one. But don't you think the clock maker knows that a certain number of his clocks will break? That doesn't keep him from creating clocks.
If a clock fails to operate to standards; or the battery dies; the clock maker will make every attempt to fix the clock. If the clock refuses to be fixed, it will be thrown away.
To A HERMIT (Ref post 30 Jan 2007 4:32 PM):
I agree that name calling and insults is shameful no matter who does it. What we are supposed to be doing on these threads is to share views, increase understanding and work out a way to find common ground. It is not about converting anyone. So in my opinion, it is imperative that there is mutual respect on all sides. I notice that most atheists are simply happy to have finally found a group to share their atheistic opinions with. I can understand that feelign perfectly, especially if they have felt alone and isolated all along, even though I would rather they broke out of that isolation by becoming Christians instead, finding their home in a Church that appealed to their heart and mind. What has been revealed in the exchanges between believers and atheists however is that there are irreconcilable differences, and it seems almost pointless to discuss it over and over again. However I think it is possible to accept the differences without insulting each other in the process. Many on both sides have already shown the way. I feel indignant when I feel unfairly attacked too and I can’t guarantee that I have or will always respond as I should at those times. However I hope to be forgiven when I slip up, both by the one I hurt and by God! :)
As someone who was born into a very old Christian family, which belongs to a Church without an evangelical tradition, (like the Baptists for instance) I’m not familiar with the process of being converted to Christianity as an adult. My Christian faith evolved over time, but none of it was forced. I made my own journey in response to an inner call and no one coerced me into doing anything. I'm sure it would have been counter productive if anyone had tried. I believe firmly that it is foolish to force or coerce anyone into accepting a religion, or use threats of any kind as an incentive. Belief in God should be based on personal experience and the decision to join any religious group should be made freely, completely free of fear or coercion of any kind. It goes without saying that the person should feel happier within the church than without.
The way I understand Christianity, Jesus wanted his disciples to preach the GOOD NEWS that He came to bring the message of God's love and mercy, to forgive sinners, heal the sick, free the captives, identify with the outcaste etc. He told the parable of the lost sheep to illustrate His point: about the shepherd who left his ninety sheep to go in search of the one lost sheep; was overjoyed when he found it; carried it home on his shoulders and called for a celebration.
Just as a small reminder of all the beautiful and lofty things Christianity teaches, I’ll indulge in my share of copying Bible verses:
“If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. We love because God loved us first. If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And He has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.” (1 John 4:15-21)
“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food, if one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action is dead…Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did, when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was complete by what he did…You see a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone…As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” (James 2: 14-26)
“Wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peace-makers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.” (James 3:17-18)
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Do you know there is no God?
Science is a God-given gift to mankind; you've worshipped the gift more than the giver. But science is so weak a toy for us to play with; it is all but worthless in this world. What good has it done?
Lets see; Science has:
1. Ended Poverty
2. Cured Depression
3. Fed the World
4. Saved the Passenger Pigeon
5. Stopped Global Warming
6. Protected us from UV Rays
7. Ended War on Earth
8. Put a Man on Mars
9. Cured the Common Cold
10. Answered the question, "Why are we here?"
It hasn't done any of that? What a wasted idol you put your faith in.
Until you give me any sort of reason not to believe in the Noah account, you are not allowed to disbelieve in it. Just as God judged the people of Noah's day, will you be judged.
My sincere appologies, I meant to address the above post from 8:37 to Chip.
Errata:
The parable of the lost sheep(Luke15:1-7)- it was meant to be ninety-nine sheep and not ninety.
Soja John Thaikattil;
A nice testimony you have, and I'm glad to have you as a sibling in Christ.
I must admit that I am quite influenced by the world when it comes to evolution believing atheists. After all, Jesus didn't cite the 20th century specifically with the dangers of this particular religion. If Jesus had spoken up about all of the false religions, the Bible wouldn't be a Bible, but a Library of Congress. (In the beginning, God created man in His image. Man has been returning the favor ever since.)
Anyways, it seems to me in 1934 there was a person quite enamored with evolution and he killed, directly or indirectly, an estimated 63 Million people.
I also seem to remember another atheist nation that killed a DOCUMENTED 61 Million people between 1922 and 1991.
Evolution and Atheism(which usually come as a package) are responcible for more deaths in the 20th century alone than Organized Religion Anno Domini.
No way can we let them take control of the United States. It's not just their souls we're worried about, it's the souls of millions of people.
Canyon, re "Until you give me any sort of reason not to believe in the Noah account, you are not allowed to disbelieve in it."
Try math, but then, to your way of thinking, why bother? Belief in magic will always trump the need for intellectual honesty. Fortunately for me, I neither request or require your permission to disbelieve the absurd.
"No way can we let them take control of the United States. It's not just their souls we're worried about, it's the souls of millions of people."
After your previous comments about how genocide is warranted against those who displease your god, I can only hope that the morality carrying gnomes deliver you a plethora of tiny baskets. You are one scary extremist.
I'll leave you with some words from our founding fathers...
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses." - John Adams
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England." - Benjamin Franklin
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church." - Thomas Paine
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity." - Thomas Paine
"Numberless have been the systems of iniquity.... The most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandizement of their own order.... They even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully, and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure ... with authority to license all sorts of sins and crimes ... or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; say, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude." - John Adams
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" -treaty with Tripoli, passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate and signed by President Adams on June 10, 1797
Chip,
You can't pick and choose quotes you want to make you sound right. We've already established ad nauseum with a topic dedicated to that question on this website that the United States was founded as a nation of Christians.
More importantly, the Noah Account fits perfectly with our knowledge of Plate Techtonics, Salinity Records, Fossil Records, Boat Building...it fits so well because it is true.
Thaikattil wrote: ---Just as a small reminder of all the beautiful and lofty things Christianity teaches, I’ll indulge in my share of copying Bible verses---
This may shock you but I, as an atheist, love to read these parabols as I also love Aesop's and others. They teach us much, have withstood the test of time, and are very useful in teaching my daughter such basic things as good and evil. Whether God exists in one's mind or not, these are valuable lessons for everyone. But the good of the lesson does not make God exist. You can read the Analects of Confucius and also learn much about morality and how to avoid the mistakes we all make. But Confusius was not a God nor did he represent a God.
Acnyon: ---Look up Supralapsarian. God planned the fall so that His Glory could be seen and you would have the opportunity to live.---
Hmmm, so Eve did not have free will. Hermit asked a lot of good questions above as well. The church has been agonizing over this for years, just another example of Man, not God, defining the religion. But it is a dilema that needs to be reconsiled or the theory of God does not stand. Does God predetermine our actions and if so how can we have free will, and, if God is perfect, how did God not see his creation being destroyed by Eve's eating of the tree of knowledge? Oh what tangled webs WE weave.
---As for why mental illness happens. Science knows HOW it happens, they don't know why it happens in most cases.---
Not true, they do know why it happens in most cases, they simply do not have cures in all cases. But they do have some cures and treatments. Funny how a chemical imbalance was once ascribed by the church as possession by the devil. Take a pill and the devil goes away. What power man has over the devil! Or, maybe not, for when you remove the existance of the devil, reality comes into view and we are able to cure what had only been thought to be supernatural. That has been the history of man and his religions and his science. Belief is blinding, and I agree with you Canyon, blind belief is a bad thing and all people, religious or not, need to guard against it because it is truly blinding.
---Perhaps not all mental illness is caused by supernatural forces, but that can't be ruled out yet. You are making the fallacy of reasoning that because you can't sense something, it doesn't exist.---
And you are making the fallacy of reasoning that because something is believed by others to exist it must be considered to exist against all reason. If I think the flying spaghetti monster is in YOUR mind making up your views on God, then it also can't be ruled out yet. Since nothing can be ruled out is it possible you are insane or possessed or is that an impossibility and if so why?
While you're wondering whether to consider the possibility that you are insane or possessed, chew on this:
"Last Thursdaiests believe the universe and everything in it was created last Thursday. Fossils in the ground were created, light from distant stars was created in transit, and you and everything in your brain including memories that never happened though you think they did. Last Thuesdaiests also believe that you have until next Thursday to change the life you have been given, to begin believing in God, follow his dictates as prophets your implanted memories tell you about have prescribed. Give all your money (that you were created with) to the poor and begin a life of poverty as described by your implanted memories of Christ's teachings. Only then will you get into heaven when the apocolypse starts next Thursday morning. Prepare!"
Now, I've written this down so it must be true. There are others who written this down as well (or it was written down by God before last Thursday). So Canyon, is the Last Thursdaiest's version wrong and if so why?
Also, do you believe in a 6,000 year old earth as the bible (the "scientifically perfect" bible) describes and if so how do you explain all the problems that creates with what reality tells us about the earth's and universe's age?
Dear Fate,
What a wild and crazy belief system you have. You are wrong because you are not alligned with the Truth. I could type out a 9,000 word essay on why that is, but I'd rather you read the Bible.
You believe that demons don't exist, yet you believe in an Earth older than 6,600 years. For which there are the same amount of evidence. That being ZERO in the scientific world.
Canyon:
You know nothing about me other than what I have written here.
No where do I even hint at being the fool that you describe. It sounds to me that your words are more aligned to you.
Hermit,
-----"I can say that I was once the King of Sweden. That doesn't make it true..."------
If I'm reading this correctly you are essentially calling me a liar here. I tell you I once believed, that I had faith, that I was "born again". Well you're right, I can't prove it to you in the context of this forum, but even if I were to produce my certificate of baptism (of my own free will at the age of 16) and produce witnesses who would testify to my piety and devotion, the years of study and service, the passion with which I sought to bring others to faith you would not believe me.
Apparently it's easier for you to resort to denial and insults and call me a liar than to consider the possibility that someone who once sincerely believed no longer does.
You talk of good fruit and say you see the opposite of it in me, but I have to ask you, Canyon, which of us has remained calm and reasonable and which has resorted to insults at every opportunity? You lack a rational rebuttal, so you must assume the worst and accuse me of lying, on top of your previous characterization of me as a blind, stupid fool. You might want to ask yourself what kind of fruit you are producing here?
I seem to remember something about getting the beam out of your own eye before looking for specks in others...
-------------
----"I'll post my complexity sermon in a moment.----
I read your sermon, It's very nice, but it doesn't address the point I raised. In it you simply reiterate the "complexity = design" fallacy. Fact is, we've invented cameras which are far more sensitive than the human eye. They are also simpler, and lack the design flaws of the human eye (like the built in blind spot), so that example is actually self defeating for you.
--------------
----That is a very good question on whether good is good because God says so, or because good is already good that God proclaims it as such.----
Wish I could take credit for it, but Plato thought of it a few years before I did...http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
-----------------
-----I'd say because it's a moral law, God created it. Lies kill. A lie to your spouse will result in heartache. Continued lies will result in separation. Further lies will lead to divorce. A lie will also result in your spiritual death.-----
The people hiding Anne Frank from the Nazis lied to the Gestapo. That lie saved lives, for a time at least. One must consider the intent and the end result in determining the ethical value of an action.
-----------------
----God is 100% justified in killing everyone on Earth.----
And this is where the arbitrariness side of the Euthyphro dilemma comes into play. If that which is good is only what God says is good then literally anything can be justified by claiming it is God's will.
Hitler said he was doing God's work when he slaughtered the Jews.
So here on the one hand you condemn lying as always evil, then in the next breath give us a rationale for genocide. I'm sorry, but with results like these I can't see how you can claim Divine commands as a sound basis for human morality.
------------
----look at people that don't have the Bible, people that eat one another, people that kill babies as blood offerings,----
I don't know anyone who does those things. I certainly don't. I do know lots of people who don't believe in your Bible who don't do anything like that. I know people who do believe in your Bible who do terrible things. (think rwanda or Srebrinica for recent examples.) Possession of the Bible is no guarantee of morality.
-------------
----people that allow embryonic stem-cell research when umbilical and mature cells are the only ones proven to work, but more importantly that amniotic stem-cells are identical to embryonic cells----
Here you are just factually wrong:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/harvard-lettertakingbushtotask.pdf
I'm no biologist, and I don't think you are either, so on this subject if I have to choose between believing you and believing the people actually studying the subject and doing the research I have to go with the opinion of the latter. But that's a whole other debate...
-------------
----The Bible tells us that those that don't love God love death.----
On this point the Bible is wrong. I do not love death, neither do I fear it.
---------------
----I liked your post about stamp-collecting. If only it were so simple as to bow out of the hobby of religion. You're stuck in the game----
You may be right there, I try to get out but I keep getting sucked back into conversations like these. Yes I still have an interest in the subject, but from the outside now. I'm not so much interested in the stamps as in the stamp collectors. I actually like a lot of them, and would like to be able to get along with them. If only they'd stop trying to sell me more stamps...;-)
---------------
----I see that you have done a lot of thinking on these things, but I don't retract my previous opinion.----
Does that mean you still think I'm a stupid, blind fool? Or that you will continue to believe in God?
If the former, I'm sorry to hear it, if the latter I'm happy for you. If it works for you that's great. Just please try to accept that we are not all the same in this world, and some of us are really better off without your hobby.
Regards
A Hermit
Canyon, could you answer my questions from above? Can you tell me why giving all your money to the poor by next Thurday is a bad idea considering you will be damned to hell if you do not?
Soja John Thaikattil says:
"I think it is possible to accept the differences without insulting each other in the process."
For some of us it is. I don't blame all believers for the bad behaviour of those who call me a stupid fool and I hope you won't hold atheists responsible for the bad behaviour of the few who insult you.
Like you I grew up in a Christian family; Mennonite Anabaptists. My faith grew organically, and at the age of 16 I was baptized as a full member of the Church by my own free will as is our custom. No doubt many of my opinions are still influenced by the teaching of my youth; my belief in love, my desire for peace are well grounded in that Mennonite tradition.
But I found I had questions still, and I continued to look for answers. I continue to believe in love and desire peace, but I could not continue to believe in the magical aspects of faith; in gods and angels and miracles and resurrections. I like to think that I just kept growing, perhaps in a different direction than you have.
You say that you wish atheists could find a home in the Church, but for many of us we have found more fulfillment after leaving that home. I appreciate your feelings here, but they are misplaced.
I am grateful for your thoughtful comments, Soja, yours is an example of the kind of faith I respect and even admire, and I am glad to have met you.
Regards
A Hermit
There is no god. God is a convenient excuse for the corrupt to justify their actions. The world would be a better place without god. God is the denial of reality.
There is no god. God is a convenient excuse for the corrupt to justify their actions. The world would be a better place without god. God is the denial of reality.
God and Evolution
TableofContents
What I am about to say is not something I totally believe in. Nor do I totally disbelieve in it. It is just something I put into consideration. It is something that I can consider because it opens doors for me to be able to talk to and discuss the word of God with atheist and agnostics. It can also be the proof that God always saves for just the right occasion.
What I am talking about is Evolution. Many Christians today argue the point that Evolution could of never happened, without ever even considering that God might have had things Creep from the sea as Scientist and Evolutionist say they did. Or not!
Lets Check out Darwin here first and then go on to see what the Bible says about these matter’s.
Regarding Charles Darwin, He might have been right about a couple of things. Of course he did not really discover these things. They were already Known to man. If man (We) would of only studied the Bible more often, we might have had a better argument for him. Granted that we have more knowledge today then when Charles Darwin and those before him started their little escapade over a hundred and fifty to two hundred years ago. Our knowledge of what the Bible actually says has increased probably by about four fold or more since the eighteenth and nineteenth century’s
Darwin or Evolutionist were most likely right about life beginning in the sea. WHAT! you might say! Yes I say! “Think of it like this first” Where do Evolutionist say life first began? And what do they say was the first land mammals that roamed the earth. Now after thinking about this carefully, go ahead and read the first chapter of Geneses, starting at verse 20. It also mentions birds as the first land mammals.
The only thing Darwin discovered here was where God created Life first. How Amazing. Written thousands of years ago and we missed it. “Here” Let us read it for ourselves.
Geneses 1: 20 to 23. And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.
Funny is it not that Evolutionist say that life started in the sea and that the first mammals were bird like creatures. When one reads in the old testament, they tend to take it just as it comes out to them instead of studying the whole book to find answers that are just waiting to jump out at them. The bible says that God created the world and universe in 6 days. Again there are people out there that take this to be 6 days, as we know it. It says in the bible that a day to God is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day.
(2 PETER 3:8) This does not mean that it is a literal thousand years to a day. It could be that a day to God is like a million years or more. I tend to believe (Not saying this to be a fact) that when it says that the world was created in 6 days it could have been six million years, or six billion years. We do not know how long God really took to create the world. The word of God when it says that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day seems to just be trying to explain to man that time as we know it means nothing to God. God seems to be trying to explain it on a level that man could understand.
Remember God is Infinite. He is forever. Without a beginning, and without an end. Have you ever stopped to think what God was doing before he created the Earth and the universe around us. It’s kind of awesome to think about things like that isn’t it. “Here is God” What? Doing nothing before the 6 days that he took to create the earth? I don’t think so. How long was it that the Lord took to create the universe and every thing in it? No one knows. But since God was always here, it could have been thousands, millions or even billions of years. Or even more. Time as we know it, is not the time that God feels and sees. We as humans know not time. The only time we know as humans is the time that God gave us by the Sun, moon and stars. And in mathematical terms. He created the mathematical equations that keep the universe from exploding around us. Even Albert Einstein came to the conclusion that the planets and universe were held together too perfectly. He said that there has to be something out there holding it all together. He came to the conclusion that the mathematics were too perfect to just happen on their own. So he came to another conclusion and said that there had to be a God. “And-Oh yes” If God wanted to create the world in just Six days as we know it, there would be nothing to stop him from doing it. God is God. Nothing is impossible for him to do, “Nothing at all”.
Think about this for a minuet. What if a day to us which consists of Twenty-four hours, or one thousand four hundred and forty minuets, or eighty six thousand 400 seconds, where in another reality actually one year. Or one thousand years.
“You see” God controls all reality. God can make time in any manor that he chooses to. We only have clues to what time really is. There are some, experimenting with what they call the String Theory. Which consists of different theories on time as we know it. This is another subject we will discuss later in this book.
Final Note:
Would you not think it strange that mankind thinks that he is evolving. And with this evolution process, man would some day become an initiate himself. In other words, evolutionist think that man will some day become like Gods themselves. Being able to leave their bodies or evolving into a higher type of being. I’m sorry, but that is so ironic that man could believe that he could become a God himself, but that there is no God already. Come on people, Wake Up!
Canyon,
I feel sorry for you. You have been carefully indoctrinated and are now a full fledged religious zealot who knows it all. The Bible is a book written by man, nothing more nothing less.
Hermit,
I like your style! You have more in your little finger than Canyon has in this body.
Canyon says:
"Evolution and Atheism(which usually come as a package) are responcible for more deaths in the 20th century alone than Organized Religion Anno Domini."
Little lesson for you here, Canyon:
1) Atheism is not synonymous with Communism.
2) The Stalinists rejected Darwinian evolution in favour of Lysenkoism. They rejected science in favour of ideology, in the same way that many Christians do.
The adoption of Lysenko's methods contributed to the famines which cause most of the deaths you mention.
3) Theistic regimes have been responsible for many more deaths than you may imagine. The Christian Belgian colonists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries killed between 12 and 15 million people in the Congo, for example.
4) Playing this silly game of "body count" in no way contributes to the conversation about faith. As you can see, I can play too, but I would prefer not to. Blaming atheists in this forum for Stalin's crimes is no more fair than blaming the Christians here for the crimes of Hitler or Leopold II.
This latest comment of yours is just another way of avoiding the real issues. If you can demonize us you don't have to deal with the real people here. You call us blind, stupid fools and condemn us for Stalin's crimes so you won't have to face who we truly are. This is just cowardice on your part.
Regards
A Hermit
Hermit,
Once again you have provided a well thought out and comprehensive reply. Once again I disagree with nearly all of it.
I am saying that you were never a Christian; the proper term for someone who lives like a Christian without actually being born again is a Christianist or a False-Convert. Please listen to a great sermon on the matter:
sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=2230517301
The bad fruit that is evidenced by your posts; Only an evil man would stand by a cliff and tell blind people, "There is no cliff." It would be completely something different if you'd say, "I don't believe there is a cliff, but you should check for yourself." Instead you are making an effort to deliver people to Hell. That would make you a worker of iniquity, a child of the devil.
But not only that, you try to defend lying, you clearly don't understand the Bible's sinfullness of sin concept. Even if the Bible is not the Word of God, it is quite clear on sin; and you don't understand that. You also seem to think that Hitler claiming God's name makes him an advocate of Christ? More importantly, you seem to love killing babies in the name of science. Did you actually read that letter? It is more religious than the Bible. "Hold's promise", "Hope for cures", "Greatest Potential". It other words, it hasn't worked yet, but if we kill a few million more babies, it might. No, Embryotic Stem Cells are worthless and a great love of death. Maybe you ought to read a bit about stem-cells. Embryonic cells taken from rats have failed to cure a single rat, and leads to cancer in the majority of rats tested on. Adult Cells have healed(not in entirety, but in part) persons paralyzed from the waste down.
http://www.joniandfriends.org/
If you really wanted to see healing from stem-cells, you would drop the Embryotic campaign and place full support behind Umbilical and Adult Stem Cells in order to get them funded by the government; and if you really want to see if Embryotic cells are worth anything(they're not), you are welcome to use the identical amniotic cell.
I never said that complexity equals design. Those are your words about my ideas. Application to purpose equals design. The human eye was designed for a purpose, the camera was designed for a purpose, the whiffle ball bat was designed for a purpose. You say that we've invented cameras. That's right, they didn't magically appear when someone dropped a rock and some sand on the ground and left it for a Billion years; it took an intelligent designer. Your idea that the human eye has a blind-spot is ridiculous. You've resorted to preplayed evolutionistic nonsense. I don't see a blind-spot. So actually that 'blind-spot' that the eye has is for some use that science hasn't been smart enough to figure out yet.
Do you remember when science thought the eye was mal-formed because it filters light through blood vessels? They said that the squid had a better eye because light went straight into the retina? Do you know that the blood vessels are designed that way in the eye to filter harmful UV rays...something the underwater dwelling squid doesn't have to deal with? Perfect design, something science has only recently become aware of.
The truth is that something as simple as a pen is designed, something as complicated as a Space Shuttle is designed. Complexity doesn't equal design, desired operation equals design. There isn't a single part of the human body that we wouldn't miss if removed. P.S. If you don't know it, I'm setting you up for failure with my last sentence.
The lie told to save a life is the justification of justifications. If God would overlook the few lies that each person has to tell to spare someones life, or feelings, are those the only lies you've told?
I wanted to state earlier that God is the only one that can judge and is worthy of Genocide. Let he that is without sin cast the first stone. Men are not justified in killing anyone; God in His holiness is perfectly just to create a Tsunami over sinful nations; to wipe out whole tribes; to kill me or you or anyone on the way home from work today. The important thing is to be ready for that Judgment.
And you're right, possession of the Bible is no guarantee for morality; being in possession of the Spirit of Christ is. Fortunately some people without the Bible listen to their consciences; and other people people without the Bible grew up in a Nation developed by Christians and caught a little bit of the morality growing up.
Your rejection of God, despite overwhelming evidence, doesn't allow for me to think anything less of you than Psalm 14:1. You say we are all different. That is wrong. We may look different, live different, smell different, think different, type different, eat different; but we are the same, in that we are all unholy before a Holy God and will face judgement as such, unless Someone steps in on our behalf. In all of the superficial ways, we are different, but not in the important matters of the universe.
David Gentry says:
"evolutionist think that man will some day become like Gods themselves."
This is a common misunderstanding about evolutionary theory. Evolution is not a linear process from some lesser to a greater form of being. It is simply the process by which organisms change over time as they adapt to their environment.
Don't confuse science fiction movie plots with actual science.
Regards
A Hermit
Hermit,
Once again you have provided a well thought out and comprehensive reply. Once again I disagree with nearly all of it.
I am saying that you were never a Christian; the proper term for someone who lives like a Christian without actually being born again is a Christianist or a False-Convert. Please listen to a great sermon on the matter:
sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=2230517301
The bad fruit that is evidenced by your posts; Only an evil man would stand by a cliff and tell blind people, "There is no cliff." It would be completely something different if you'd say, "I don't believe there is a cliff, but you should check for yourself." Instead you are making an effort to deliver people to Hell. That would make you a worker of iniquity, a child of the devil.
But not only that, you try to defend lying, you clearly don't understand the Bible's sinfullness of sin concept. Even if the Bible is not the Word of God, it is quite clear on sin; and you don't understand that. You also seem to think that Hitler claiming God's name makes him an advocate of Christ? More importantly, you seem to love killing babies in the name of science. Did you actually read that letter? It is more religious than the Bible. "Hold's promise", "Hope for cures", "Greatest Potential". It other words, it hasn't worked yet, but if we kill a few million more babies, it might. No, Embryotic Stem Cells are worthless and a great love of death. Maybe you ought to read a bit about stem-cells. Embryonic cells taken from rats have failed to cure a single rat, and leads to cancer in the majority of rats tested on. Adult Cells have healed(not in entirety, but in part) persons paralyzed from the waste down.
http://www.joniandfriends.org/
If you really wanted to see healing from stem-cells, you would drop the Embryotic campaign and place full support behind Umbilical and Adult Stem Cells in order to get them funded by the government; and if you really want to see if Embryotic cells are worth anything(they're not), you are welcome to use the identical amniotic cell.
I never said that complexity equals design. Those are your words about my ideas. Application to purpose equals design. The human eye was designed for a purpose, the camera was designed for a purpose, the whiffle ball bat was designed for a purpose. You say that we've invented cameras. That's right, they didn't magically appear when someone dropped a rock and some sand on the ground and left it for a Billion years; it took an intelligent designer. Your idea that the human eye has a blind-spot is ridiculous. You've resorted to preplayed evolutionistic nonsense. I don't see a blind-spot. So actually that 'blind-spot' that the eye has is for some use that science hasn't been smart enough to figure out yet.
Do you remember when science thought the eye was mal-formed because it filters light through blood vessels? They said that the squid had a better eye because light went straight into the retina? Do you know that the blood vessels are designed that way in the eye to filter harmful UV rays...something the underwater dwelling squid doesn't have to deal with? Perfect design, something science has only recently become aware of.
The truth is that something as simple as a pen is designed, something as complicated as a Space Shuttle is designed. Complexity doesn't equal design, desired operation equals design. There isn't a single part of the human body that we wouldn't miss if removed. P.S. If you don't know it, I'm setting you up for failure with my last sentence.
The lie told to save a life is the justification of justifications. If God would overlook the few lies that each person has to tell to spare someones life, or feelings, are those the only lies you've told?
I wanted to state earlier that God is the only one that can judge and is worthy of Genocide. Let he that is without sin cast the first stone. Men are not justified in killing anyone; God in His holiness is perfectly just to create a Tsunami over sinful nations; to wipe out whole tribes; to kill me or you or anyone on the way home from work today. The important thing is to be ready for that Judgment.
And you're right, possession of the Bible is no guarantee for morality; being in possession of the Spirit of Christ is. Fortunately some people without the Bible listen to their consciences; and other people people without the Bible grew up in a Nation developed by Christians and caught a little bit of the morality growing up.
Your rejection of God, despite overwhelming evidence, doesn't allow for me to think anything less of you than Psalm 14:1. You say we are all different. That is wrong. We may look different, live different, smell different, think different, type different, eat different; but we are the same, in that we are all unholy before a Holy God and will face judgement as such, unless Someone steps in on our behalf. In all of the superficial ways, we are different, but not in the important matters of the universe.
Gaby says:
Hermit,
I like your style!
-----
Thanks Gaby. I'm home sick from work today and should be resting. It's probably just the fever talking....;-)
And don't be too hard on Canyon. He (she?) probably hasn't run into a lot of these ideas before. I know from experience it can be quite a shock...
---------
Canyon, there are too many errors in your last post for me to address right now. Just because something works doesn't mean it was designed. It may have evolved.
Oh, and Douglas Adams was an atheist, by the way. I think you have misunderstood his work.
----------
I'm going to go take some more decongestants now and sleep....nice to meet you all.
Regards
A Hermit
Gaby,
You're wrong, you've been carefully and wickedly indoctrinated and you are a full fledged religious zealot.
David Gentry,
That is a nice thought, but it's wrong. Evolution doesn't happen, 6-days can only be 6-days. Unfortunately(or more-so fortunately), when we read the Bible, it supports science, which says that evolution doesn't occur.
The most important part is that evolution thinks that death occured before the sin of man. That is completely unBiblical. Science can't explain death either; without sin, death is just a natural event with no basis in evolution or science. The fact that things die is a great disprover of the evolutionary view of origins.
Duncan Steeves, welcome to the conversation, I hope that you can learn something while you're here.
Fate, your home-spun religion is just as weak as any other of the world's religions. It is not routed in fact, it is not scientifically sound, its historicity is ridiculous, it provides no supernatural prophecy or events to back it up. That's the main reason why it's wrong. But the main reason it is wrong is because the Bible is true, and there can't be two contradictory truths.
David
Hermit.
One would have to read more into what evolution actually says. And part of it does talk about becoming Greater beings then we are already.
Not Si-Fi. Just what some Believe.
String Theory
TableofContents
The belief in the string theory is that there could be up to 10 or 11 other dimensions. Basically, in realty the only thing being discovered here is what God already created. Except for a lot of the hubbub in this theory. The discoverers of the string theory believe that there could possible be other earth’s out there in other dimensions. Possible exactly the same as this earth, with the same people. But there could be a difference. They believe that there could be a possibility that you or I in that dimension might have made a different chouse in there lives and everything could of come out differently for them. In other words, Hitler could of won the war on another earth.
This part of the string theory sounds a little two strung out. The part that they could be missing is that there is, or could be a dimension within a dimension. What do I mean by this you might ask. Well, think about this for a moment. The Bible says that there are angles and demons that travel from Heaven, Hell and earth. You and I can not see them, but the way that the bible explains it. It sounds like they are among us from time to time. If they are among us and interacting with us by either helping us to excape from temptation (If they are angles from heaven) or tempting us into sinning against God (If they are Demons from Hell, actually fallen angels). Then they are interacting with our dimension. If we can not see them , or interact with them. But they can interact with us through maybe thoughts only. Then that seems to maybe possible being another dimension. Except for that this dimension is interacting with ours. The Bible says in another place that sometimes God permits angles to actual transform themselves into looking like humans and interacting with Humans Physically. You will find this in Hebrews 13: 1 to 2. HEB 13:1 Keep on loving each other as brothers. 2 Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.
So what we find here is that the discoverers of the string theory have only discovered a part of what God has already created. Imagine if you could what would be taking place in our minds if God actually had men write down all that was in his mind when he created the heavens and the earth. We would probably never get out of the book of Geneses. In other words the book of Geneses would probably fill up all the libraries of the world just by itself. Mankind would never have time to learn anything else because of Gods mathematics, calculations and science. God created everything! He left all the things that he created open for mankind to discover. Man has discovered nothing that God hasn’t created already.
So in the conclusion. Could there really be the possibility of the string theory being true. I believe the possibility of a part of it is in fact true. Buy hey! That’s just my thoughts on the matter. I could be wrong. I’m no Genius. But in reality could there be other dimensions. Of course there could. There is nothing impossible for God to create. He is everything. And then some.
Superstrings!
Borrowed from Web site of John M. Pierre
There are two types of particles in nature - fermions and bosons. A fundamental theory of nature must contain both of these types. When we include fermions in the worldsheet theory of the string, we automatically get a new type of symmetry called supersymmetry which relates bosons and fermions. Fermions and bosons are grouped together into supermultiplets which are related under the symmetry. This is the reason for the "super" in "superstrings".
A consistent quantum field theory of superstrings exists only in 10 spacetime dimensions! Otherwise there are quantum effects which render the theory inconsistent or 'anomalous'. In 10 spacetime dimensions the effects can precisely cancel leaving the theory anomaly free. It may seem to be a problem to have 10 spacetime dimensions instead of the 4 spacetime dimensions that we observe, but we will see that in getting from 10 to 4 we actually find some interesting physics.
In terms of weak coupling perturbation theory there appear to be only five different consistent superstring theories known as Type I SO(32), Type IIA, Type IIB, SO(32) Heterotic and E8 x E8 Heterotic.
Type IIB Type IIA E8 x E8 Heterotic SO(32) Heterotic Type I SO(32)
String Type Closed Closed Closed Closed Open
(& closed)
10d Supersymmetry N=2
(chiral) N=2
(non-chiral) N=1 N=1 N=1
10d Gauge groups none none E8 x E8 SO(32) SO(32)
D-branes -1,1,3,5,7 0,2,4,6,8 none none 1,5,9
Type I SO(32):
This is a theory which contains open superstrings. It has one (N=1) supersymmetry in 10 dimensions. Open strings can carry gauge degrees of freedom at their endpoints, and cancellation of anomalies uniquely constrains the gauge group to be SO(32). It contains D-branes with 1, 5, and 9 spatial dimensions.
Type IIA:
This is a theory of closed superstrings which has two (N=2) supersymmetries in ten dimensions. The two gravitini (superpartners to the graviton) move in opposite directions on the closed string world sheet and have opposite chiralities under the 10 dimensional Lorentz group, so this is a non-chiral theory. There is no gauge group. It contains D-branes with 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 spatial dimensions.
Type IIB:
This is also a closed superstring theory with N=2 supersymmetry. However in this case the two gravitini have the same chiralities under the 10 dimensional Lorentz group, so this is a chiral theory. Again there is no gauge group, but it contains D-branes with -1, 1, 3, 5, and 7 spatial dimensions.
SO(32) Heterotic:
This is a closed string theory with worldsheet fields moving in one direction on the world sheet which have a supersymmetry and fields moving in the opposite direction which have no supersymmetry. The result is N=1 supersymmetry in 10 dimensions. The non-supersymmetric fields contribute massless vector bosons to the spectrum which by anomaly cancellation are required to have an SO(32) gauge symmetry.
E8 x E8 Heterotic:
This theory is identical to the SO(32) Heterotic string, except that the gauge group is E8 X E8 which is the only other gauge group allowed by anomaly cancellation.
We see that the Heterotic theories don't contain D-branes. They do however contain a fivebrane soliton which is not a D-brane. The IIA and IIB theories also contain this fivebrane soliton in addition to the D-branes. This fivebrane is usually called the "Neveu-Schwarz fivebrane" or "NS fivebrane".
It is worthwhile to note that the E8 x E8 Heterotic string has historically been considered to be the most promising string theory for describing the physics beyond the Standard Model. It was discovered in 1987 by Gross, Harvey, Martinec, and Rohm and for a long time it was thought to be the only string theory relevant for describing our universe. This is because the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) gauge group of the standard model can fit quite nicely within one of the E8 gauge groups. The matter under the other E8 would not interact except through gravity, and might provide a answer to the Dark Matter problem in astrophysics. Due to our lack of a full understanding of string theory, answers to questions such as how is supersymmetry broken and why are there only 3 generations of particles in the Standard Model have remained unanswered. Most of these questions are related to the issue of compactification (discussed on the next page). What we have learned is that string theory contains all the essential elements to be a successful unified theory of particle interactions, and it is virtually the only candidate which does so. However, we don't yet know how these elements specifically come together to describe the physics that we currently observe.
Do you think there are other dimensions? Well I have news for you. There is. But maybe not like some might think. Other Dimensions are a most definite, yes there are! Do I have the brains to prove it to you in a mathematical equation? No I do not. It is by faith that I know.
String theory
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html
Traces the progress of cosmological theory from strings, to superstrings, and finally into M-Theory. Includes a discussion of black holes.
www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html
Just something to ponder upon.
The Big Bang Theory
The ones who say the universe began with a big bang also say that it will end with a big bang. Now the next thing you read is not something I believe is true, neither do I believe it is not true.
It is something I put into consideration with all other things until I find the truth. Or come closer to it.
Consider all that goes with this.
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens ( add in commentUniverse) will disappear with a roar; (add in comment---(Roar” Bang, kaboom, all basically the same thing) the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
2Peter 3:11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.
So Gaby,
You most likely will live to be---- What? about 77 to 100 years old. And you study what other men have written and put down in books with their great wisdom. Men live but a short time. But we as humans what to believe in other men because they say that they are someone because they have man made degrees to prove it. These are Women and men who have been taught by others who think that they have conquered over all others because they convince themselves that they are right because others agree with their thoughts.
Yes, religion can be looked at in the same way. That’s why there is so much garbage out there by those who call themselves Christians. Actually the Bible tells everything that was to happen before it happened. Except that others interpret it the way that they want to because they have not really done any true studies on the history that goes with it.
I leave myself open to being possible wrong or right on different thoughts. Everyone makes mistakes. But I see that you have Accumulated all the wisdom that the universe has to offer. Very well done. I wish I could do that.
And please, You have to come up with a new saying to those you dispise. That one is getting Old.
The Best
David
I'm Sorry.
That Last Comment was for Cannon, Not Gaby.
Sorry Gaby
So Cannon,
You most likely will live to be---- What? about 77 to 100 years old. And you study what other men have written and put down in books with their great wisdom. Men live but a short time. But we as humans what to believe in other men because they say that they are someone because they have man made degrees to prove it. These are Women and men who have been taught by others who think that they have conquered over all others because they convince themselves that they are right because others agree with their thoughts.
Yes, religion can be looked at in the same way. That’s why there is so much garbage out there by those who call themselves Christians. Actually the Bible tells everything that was to happen before it happened. Except that others interpret it the way that they want to because they have not really done any true studies on the history that goes with it.
I leave myself open to being possible wrong or right on different thoughts. Everyone makes mistakes. But I see that you have Accumulated all the wisdom that the universe has to offer. Very well done. I wish I could do that.
And please, You have to come up with a new saying to those you despise. That one is getting Old.
I try to use History and the likes to talk to my friends and others who are Atheist so that they might have something to Think about. But you sit there and attack all who run a comment. Even if they are Christians or Not. I Have to tend to believe that you do not really believe in God. But are pretending to be something that your not to confuse others.
If you do believe in God. I Hope that some type of wisdom will inter into you so that your attacks will not hurt others to come to know the Truth.
The Best
David
I'm looking for an answer from an atheist.
Many posts here say that the burden of proof is on the one who believes, As a believer in one God, I don't think I have to prove anything to anyone.
If you choose to believe, go ahead. If you choose not to believe, go ahead.
Now if it was possible to prove that God exists, don't you think that EVERYONE would believe. The reason why God created us, is to test us and see who believes and who doesn't (and also who does the best of deeds among the believers.)
Now on to the question,
If we were created by chance, then when we die we have nothing to worry about. How about if we were really created by a creator, do you still think that as a non-believer, one would have nothing to worry about?
Speaking of fairness, I can never understand the atheists' views on life after death. Do all atheists believe that their bodies return into the ecosystem. If so, will the evil ones and the good ones have equal rewards? Hmmm, makes one think, doesn't it.
“Muhammad and the Prostitute” Part 1
Muhammad, The Great Anti Christ?
(TGAC)
A New Beginning?
Table of Contents
Beginning Note: Those who call themselves Christians and Muslims alike distort what the Bible actually says just to meet their needs and beliefs. But the Bible says what it says in truth. Mankind adds things to it. Read the Bible for what it really is, and you will find out things that you never thought were there.
When one translates something. They should realize that the translation all depends on how the sentence was said. But many take every possible meaning that one word might have and translate it to be what they want. It all depends on the tone and way that something is said also. Was it said in anger? Was it said as in a learning way? Was it said as a question? Was it said as a Parable to teach? Look in the book of Proverbs and wonder who is actually speaking here. (Proverbs 8:) Who was this craftsman at Gods side, The first of all creations? There are many other sections in the Old Testament where one can find Christ. But neither Catholics or Muslims will give into what God is really trying to tell us. Mostly because we have been told by other men who claim to be someone, and also claim to have all the answers to not study or even look for the truth on their own. Muslims are taught not to trust the people of the Book (Book meaning Bible). They are told that the People of the Book will lead them astray. And that would be true, if they followed the Church of Rome (Or the Prostitute that sets on the seven Hills. Actually the prostitute represents the City that ruled the world at one time. But the Bible speaks of another power coming from the First power in it’s own likeness).
But anyway, there is a big difference between those who call themselves Christians, and those who at least keep on trying to obey Gods Will.
We fight among each other because we refuse to obey God. We choose rather to do what Satan wants us to do. “Oh” how Lucifer must so delight in our hate for one another. I am only a man. But I will let God teach me what I need to Know. Of course many others say the same things as I do, but never truly try to understand what God is telling them. I am not saying I am totally right on everything. I make mistakes just like you. But I will always keep trying to learn more about the Lord. That is why I always say. Do not believe me for what I say. Prove me right or wrong by studying for yourselves. Pick up the Koran and study it. How will you know what your brothers believe in, unless you read it for yourself. The same goes for my Muslim Brothers. Pick up the Bible and read it for what it really says. Open up a history Book. Study, Study and Study some more. Do not let Satan deceive you any longer. This has been his plan from the beginning. To deceive mankind so as to have him destroy each other because of our own wants and beliefs. Do not believe just mere men (For which we all are). Believe God, and the proven history of the Bible. And as I hope and pray for Muslims in this truth, I also pray and hope for those who are Catholics.
Read these verses from Proverbs in the Old Testament. Who do you think it is speaking here? He says he was the first of all creations. He says he was the craftsman that stood by the side of God. Read for yourself what has been hidden, but was truly not. Only by our own selfishness do we miss what is really written in the Bible.
Proverbs 8: 22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,
before his deeds of old;
PR 8:23 I was appointed from eternity,
from the beginning, before the world began.
PR 8:24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
when there were no springs abounding with water;
PR 8:25 before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
PR 8:26 before he made the earth or its fields
or any of the dust of the world.
PR 8:27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
PR 8:28 when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
PR 8:29 when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
PR 8:30 Then I was the craftsman at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
PR 8:31 rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind
The above is very interesting is it not. But even as it is. There are those who will make it say what they want it to say. Now, one might say that these verses are only giving an example of the Wisdom that was Gods. But any way you look at it, It still points bank to the wisdom that stood next to God. But if you do not believe that this is speaking of Christ, then here is something a little bit more just to confirm what is written here.
Read Colossians 1: 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Very Interesting, Is it Not? A child sometimes understands these things better then we. They understand it better mostly because they do not have the selfishness that we as adults have inside of us. Because of this selfishness of ours, we kill, torture and maim one another, and claim that we are doing it in the name of the Lord and for his sake. Never has anything been spoken so wrongly by Mankind! What hypocrites we are to follow the words of men, instead of God.
“Muhammad and the Prostitute” PART 2
A New Prophet?
Muhammad while In Madinah was able to work freely in spreading Islam. The followers of Islam increased day after day. The ever increasing threat by the Makkans did not stop. Some small battles and confrontations occurred with the Makkans . Sometimes the battles were won by the Muslims, and sometimes by the Makkans. Muhammad also engaged in battles with the Persian and Byzantine Empire’s that were jeopardizing his newly formed Occult from the north and the east. But the battles with the Makkans stopped for a while after a treaty was made at Hudaibiyah that was signed by the Muslims and the Makkans who were thought as being unbelievers.
In Madinah, Muhammad succeeded in establishing Islam as a way of life in its supposedly true meaning. He provided Muslims with rules and Regulations to obey as if they were from God himself. His laws and rules govern many with an Iron scepter even till this day
Just before the fall (Or I should say the last fall of Rome the city, and the western Roman Empire) of Rome in the 7th century. (Of Course many say that Rome as a power with its Emperor was defeated in or around 470 AD) A certain man went to Rome to find out more about God. He thought he would be able to learn more about the Lord by talking and studying with the Christian Church (The Catholic Church) in Rome. But the only conclusion he came up with was that the Catholic Church at that time was not following what God had put down for man to obey. He saw them worshiping false idols in the Church buildings. They were praying to Mary, Peter and other saints. So in reality he knew that this was wrong. Except for the fact that he judged all Christianity on what he saw and learned in Rome. So he seemed to think that it was his duty to straiten mankind out on who God really was.
One might be able to say because of this, he started one of the worlds greatest Anti Christ’s Movements ever. He became the worlds greatest anti Christ leader, even to this day. (Could he have been the Great Anti Christ himself? He possibly could of been. But there is still much to study on this matter. Mostly because one could always be wrong on his theory’s). This mans name is Muhammad.
But anyway that one might look at who Muhammad really was and is. He still comes out to be an Anti Christ. He and his followers all deny that Christ is the Son of God. They say that he was only a profit. Basically they are saying that Christ was a minor prophet, and Muhammad was the great prophet that was to come. Are we to hate Muslims because of this? No we are not! They are mislead just like others are mislead by those who say that they are someone, when in reality they are only deceivers who want to rule over other’s. By doing this, they do it in his name. And I don’t mean Christ.
It is strange to me that this has not been spoken of through out the century’s. It seems to just have passed right by the Christian world. Except for the wars that went on during the Crusades. And the wars that went (Read the excerpts on the first page of this book.) on to make the Muslim religion what it is today. Some might think by reading this that the Church of Rome did think that he was the anti Christ (or something like one). Then again why would the Church of Rome think something like that? (When most likely the prostitute that sits on the seven hills spoken of in the Bible might represent the Church in Rome. Or it might even be the second beast. Remember, Rome was built on seven hills. Now Don’t jump up and down and stone me yet. These are just things that one should really study hard on). But that seems not to be the case. The wars were fought for land and rulership, and to force others to believe in what they believed. Of course both sides used God as their Excuse. Both sides thinking that God was on their side.
One would seem to wonder where the “devil” did not stand in those wars. And one might think which side was God really on. Well” you would have to take in the history of the Catholic Church at that time. And if you knew the Bible and studied it like you should. Then you would know that neither side obeyed what Christ left for us to honor the Father with. But even with all this happening, we should remember that there still were those then that knew neither side was right and followed the Lord in sometimes hidden places. There were always those who knew Christ for what he really was, and is. The Son of God, our savior. They knew that it was wrong to worship idols and the such. But because of their rebellion against the Catholic Church and the Muslims, they were often tortured and killed.
Our brothers and sisters of that era had it pretty bad it would seem. But they knew the truth. And as it says. The truth will set you free. Our brothers and sisters died because of their faith in the Lord. Even though they feared the pain of torture and death. They knew that they would live forever with the Lord. They knew that the Lord would save them in this way. By our Brothers and sisters dying in this way, they became an encouragement for others in times to come.
Many today believe that the anti Christ will rise and rule the world in the days to come. Some believe that he might be alive today and is just waiting for the right opportunity to start his rain of terror. I can not say that this will not happen in this way for sure. But by everything that I read and come up with in the Bible seems not to be on the side of those who think that the antichrist will be what they have made him out to be.
Not saying yes. But not saying no to this. There are many things we as Christians can be off on. Just like the Jews thought when Christ came. They thought when the Christ came, he would destroy the Romans and restore the Kingdom at that Time. They read the Scriptures and miss-interpreted them just as many do today. Never be to sure of yourselves of what you think you have found. The Bible also says that the antichrist will be Reveled. It could just Possibly be someone who might of already been here and the religion that he represents. This man could be someone that the Christians and world alike have just passed by without a second thought. Give or take a peace here and there.
Many Christians today get stuck on one idea, or belief, and stick with it till the day they die without exploring the rest of the Bible and the history that goes with it to see if what they believe could in realty be off just a little. “Not saying that they are wrong in there thoughts totally. But possibly being not quit right with the unfolding of the matter. I myself come to no permanent conclusions on many matters in the Bible, for I leave myself open to possibly being wrong on some things, but am convinced on many other matters. The Book of Revelations can be a tricky book for some. Mostly because many are taught by others to believe in what they have come up with in their own findings, which can be a good thing in some teachings. But can become a disaster if not put down and studied in the manner that God set for us to in the Bibles history. I am still studying and come to no permanent conclusions yet about some things in the Book of Revelations. But I do sway towards the positive in many other matters in what they might mean for us today.
If I hear someone talking about an antichrist that will be in the form of a man and will rule the whole world soon, or in the days to come. And if those who believe this, also preach a thousands years of peace on the earth and then the coming of Christ. Then I move back and take a deep breath because of the fact that the Bible does not really speak of a thousand years of peace. The ones who believe this, get this Idea from Revelations 20:, read this for a better understanding of what the thought might be in believing in a thousands years of peace on the earth. Also read Revelations 7: 1 to 4 and Revelations 14: 1 to 5.
But one can not just read two or three lines in a chapter and come up with the conclusion of a thousand years of peace before our Lords return. It is just not saying that here. You have to read the rest of the chapter, and the Bible to understand and get the big picture of it all. Here is something that tells us why it probably will not happen in this way. Mostly because it is to obvious. (But again, I say that I am still studying these matters also. So I could be wrong) Read in (1 Timothy: 1 to 11. Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.)
But don’t stop here, or begin here. Read the rest of it also. The whole thing fits together like a puzzle. “A simple, but complex Puzzle”.
There is a big possibility that the antichrist has already come and set his mark upon the world through a false religion, which is the second largest religion in the world. This religion and many of its followers are the reason that the world leaders of today are looking for new ways to protect themselves. Because of this religion, new security measures are being sought through out the world. One of the security measures being looked at today is an ID card that possess sophisticated biometric data, Called the Smart ID Card. This card would have a Chip in it with all your vital information. The chip could be monitored from satellites, and your location could be known at anytime. The Smart ID card is a thought still in process for our Government. But others are considering it soon.
The Card seems like a good idea because of all that is happening in the world today. So many will most likely agree to something this simple. “But then again” why not! It would make life much more secure and convenient, wouldn’t it? Or would it. The Smart ID Card could be just a stepping stone to the next level of a so called National Security plan.
Just Some Possibilities Folks. Not saying it will happen this way. just saying, Never give up your Studies.
NZMAM,
If we could prove that God exists, it wouldn't be a belief any more, it would be reality.
Would that reality make everyone praise and worship him? I doubt it very much.
Since I am not an atheist, I can't answer your question about life after death in their view. However, I think there can only be two alternatives. Either we die and that is the end of our body and all conciousness, or we have a soul and that will live on in whatever form.
Someone told me once that there is no hell. He explained it like this. Hell is the ultimate death, the absence of conciousness. Heaven is life after death. May sound simplistic, but makes sense to me.
Atheism is not "in vogue." Perhaps nonbelief, or doubt about the existence of deity/ies, has always been talked about or admitted to more readily by those who are not quite in the "mainstream," but it's not a fashion. It's a way of looking at the world--there have always been atheists. In fact, I would say that it's more difficult to admit to atheism at the present, especially for anyone who wishes to take part in public life. If anything is "in vogue," it's vague talk about spirituality, seeking one's own path, etc. What does it mean to say, "I am not religious, but I am spiritual"? Does that mean that you believe in entities outside the natural realm? That you are a more rarefied, insightful person than others?
Atheism is not "in vogue." Perhaps nonbelief, or doubt about the existence of deity/ies, has always been talked about or admitted to more readily by those who are not quite in the "mainstream," but it's not a fashion. It's a way of looking at the world--there have always been atheists. In fact, I would say that it's more difficult to admit to atheism at the present, especially for anyone who wishes to take part in public life. If anything is "in vogue," it's vague talk about spirituality, seeking one's own path, etc. What does it mean to say, "I am not religious, but I am spiritual"? Does that mean that you believe in entities outside the natural realm? That you are a more rarefied, insightful person than others?
Canyon: ---Fate, your home-spun religion is just as weak as any other of the world's religions. It is not routed in fact, it is not scientifically sound, its historicity is ridiculous, it provides no supernatural prophecy or events to back it up.---
Blasphemy! We Last Thursdaists take our religion seriously. I dreampt it while sleeping. God spoke to me (supernatural prophecy) and for the life of me I cannot prove it wrong. Can you? Can you prove you existed last Wednesday or do you only have memories? Remember now, you're heading for hell if you don't figure this out by tomorrow.
---That's the main reason why it's wrong. But the main reason it is wrong is because the Bible is true, and there can't be two contradictory truths.---
The bible was created with everything else last Thurday. Why is that so hard to believe? Can you prove it is not so? Can you prove God did not speak to me (he does speak to people to get the word out does he not)?
Canyon you claim I have my lifetime to begin believing and get me life in order. Based on Last Thursdaism you have until midnight to believe and give your worldly goods to the poor. Maybe this is a fool hardy mission. Why do I do it, oh yea, I'm trying to keep you from going to hell.
NZMAM, you stated "Speaking of fairness, I can never understand the atheists' views on life after death. Do all atheists believe that their bodies return into the ecosystem. If so, will the evil ones and the good ones have equal rewards? Hmmm, makes one think, doesn't it."
I can't speak for all atheists, but I don't believe there are rewards nor punishments; there is no disparate treatment as there is no treatment whatsoever.
You also asked "If we were created by chance, then when we die we have nothing to worry about. How about if we were really created by a creator, do you still think that as a non-believer, one would have nothing to worry about?"
Another form of Pascal's Wager. As a believer, are you worried that we were created by the god of Mithra or Osiris? When you can answer that for yourself, you'll understand why I'm not worried that it was created by your god.
NZMAM, you stated "Speaking of fairness, I can never understand the atheists' views on life after death. Do all atheists believe that their bodies return into the ecosystem. If so, will the evil ones and the good ones have equal rewards? Hmmm, makes one think, doesn't it."
I can't speak for all atheists, but I don't believe there are rewards nor punishments; there is no disparate treatment as there is no treatment whatsoever.
You also asked "If we were created by chance, then when we die we have nothing to worry about. How about if we were really created by a creator, do you still think that as a non-believer, one would have nothing to worry about?"
Another form of Pascal's Wager. As a believer, are you worried that we were created by the god of Mithra or Osiris? When you can answer that for yourself, you'll understand why I'm not worried that it was created by your god.
---But the main reason it is wrong is because the Bible is true, and there can't be two contradictory truths.---
Wow, do I have to point out the contradictions in the bible itself? Here, someone else did it:
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/contradictions.html
My favorite: "Do you answer a fool".
David,
I believe in the original Bible, the original Torah as well. I just don't believe in the ones that exist today because they have been changed to suit whomever changed them. It was as simple as taking out the verses that they didn't agree with and adding their own man-made verses.
"Muslims are taught not to trust the people of the Book (Book meaning Bible). They are told that the People of the Book will lead them astray"
I'm a Muslim and I was never taught that. The only reason that I see that they will lead them astray, is because the majority of them are already astray without even realizing it.
How many versions of the bible exist today? With so many, what makes you sure that the one in your hands is the right (holy) one?
"Pick up the Bible and read it for what it really says."
Which version are you referring to?
"He provided Muslims with rules and Regulations to obey as if they were from God himself."
They were from The God himself, not Jesus (peace be upon him)
Question: If the Quran was made-up by Prophet Mohamed(PBUH), then why is there a chapter in the Quran called Mary(may Allah be pleased with her)?
He could have made a chapter and named it after his wife, his mother, his daughter, etc.
And why were there a couple of instances where Allah admonishes the Prophet for his behavior (after all he was only human and no one is perfect)
"There is a big possibility that the antichrist has already come and set his mark upon the world through a false religion, which is the second largest religion in the world"
This is ignorance at it's worst. I take it to mean the following:
Anti-Christ = Prophet Mohamed (PBHU)
Second largest religion = Islam
You haven't got a clue what Islam is about, have you? Just because Muslims love and respect Jesus (PBUH) as a prophet sent by God, and not God himself, you think that the final messenger sent after him is the Anti-Christ.
I could go on and on, but I won't.
Here are verses for thought:
Chapter 5, verse 116 to 120
And behold! God will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.
"Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship God, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things.
If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servants: If Thou dost forgive them, Thou art the Exalted in power, the Wise."
God will say: "This is a day on which the truthful will profit
from their truth: theirs are gardens, with rivers flowing beneath,- their
eternal Home: God well-pleased with them, and they with God: That is the great salvation, (the fulfilment of all desires).
To God doth belong the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is therein, and it is He Who hath power over all things.
-End of verses-
If you want to have a better understanding of these verses visit
http://www.islamfrominside.com/Pages/Tafsir/Tafsir(5-116%20to%20120).html
Peace on those who follow guidance
Wow, Fate, what a ridiculous website you have found.
Pick a contradiction, one you really like, post it here, and let me explain it to you in context. There are no contradictions in the Bible.
Remember how easy it is to believe something if you really want to believe it; that's what you've done with those supposed contradictions!
As for your religion, you clearly don't understand Christianity; prophecy; history; science...God didn't speak to you because revelation is over. The next time God speaks to someone on Earth it will be after the Rapture. You do know the penalty for being a false prophet, don't you? Death by stoning. Are you prepared to take that chance?
I'm bowing out of this debate...I will only come back to answer the contradictions. I've wasted enough time, my hands are washed clean of your blood.
I've got to go on a business-trip over the next five days and I feel my internet time will be limited.
Nzmam says:
"Speaking of fairness, I can never understand the atheists' views on life after death. Do all atheists believe that their bodies return into the ecosystem. If so, will the evil ones and the good ones have equal rewards?"
No one can honestly say they know what will happen after death. It seems most likely to me that, as Carl Sagan put it, we go back to being the same stuff the stars are made of.
As for rewards and punishment, I have no reason to think anything of the kind will take place after death. That's why we must fight so hard for justice here and now.
Mike has given an excellent response to your other question. Do you worry that Odin will banish you to Nastrond after you die?
Neither do I.
Regards
A Hermit
Canyon
I have read the Koran. Jesus is and was the last to come. Jesus was the first of all creations. I bet you did not know that did you. There is actually only one God. But he had a Son, a First creation that he gave his will to. Just as A first born son here on earth in many country's still inherit the family’s fortunes. So was Christ the First Born of creation. I read all the Bibles. And yes you are somewhat right about some of them being changed to suit man’s belief. Here is a God that created the universe and you think that he can not keep a little book together as he meant it to be.
For Fate about Contradictions.
Actually the Part about the end of Time. Most of what you put down from the Bible was talking about the fall of Jerusalem by the Romans. And the new Covenant taking over. In Other words Man would no longer be under the Old Testament way’s of animal sacrifice and others. There is too much to put down on this matter. You will not believe in the Bible because you have been taught by other men and women who live for just a short time and claim to have accumulated all the wisdom that the universe has to offer. Atheist and Christians alike are fooled by those who claim to be someone because they have money or a place in the spotlight.
The Bible is like a simple puzzle. One sentence or paragraph means nothing without the rest of what is said. But just like Those who call themselves Christians change what they want to change in the Bible for money’s sake, or just because they just don’t get the History of the matter. So also will you and others believe in what you want to believe. In realty there is not one thing that contradicts itself in the Bible, Just those who will not truly study for the sake of there not wanting to be wrong.
I never try to say I am perfectly right on all matters, (Because I’m not). I can be wrong just as I know others, being those who claim to be Christians or those who think that their own minds have exceeded all others especially if the other person is a Christian. In Being a Christian or an Atheist if one thinks he knows all things and is right in his own mind, Then he or she is really messing many things which are out there to explore.
Here is a small example. Where do evolutionist say life first began, and what was the first land animal. These things were thought of within the last 150 to 200 years. Read the First chapter of Genesis verse 20. We were already told where life first began a few thousand years ago. It began in the same place where evolutionist says it did. Did God create the world in 6 Days or 6 thousand years or 6 million years or longer. It says a day to God is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day. It is not saying that it is a thousand years, It is just letting us know that we have no concept of Time as God does. Many Christian would love to stone me for this because they can not get over the 6-day thing. They say that God is an awesome God but then deny that he can do anything.
Anyway this conversation could go on for Days, weeks, years. There is much more to the Bible then most know. Especially many who call themselves Christians.
Don’t get me into the string theory, That’s in the Bible also, If one looked for it properly.
Have a Great Day Folks
David
Canyon:
"I don't see a blind-spot. So actually that 'blind-spot' that the eye has is for some use that science hasn't been smart enough to figure out yet."
No, you really do have a blind spot. The reason you don't see it is that your brain compensates by filling in what it thinks might be there, but it's very easy to prove it. Draw two dots on a piece of paper about 4 inches apart horizontally. Hold the paper at arms length, close your left eye and stare at the left dot. Move the paper toward you and at some point the right dot will disappear. Keep moving the paper closer and it will reappear. Ta-da, your blind spot!
"Do you know that the blood vessels are designed that way in the eye to filter harmful UV rays"
Then why do fish have the same blood vessel arrangement as land vertebrates?
Mike,
"I can't speak for all atheists, but I don't believe there are rewards nor punishments; there is no disparate treatment as there is no treatment whatsoever."
I'm sure you can't speak for all of them. It's not like you all follow a certain doctorine (but you never know, that might change)
O.K. then, "...as there is no treatment whatsoever."
I'm glad I got an answer, but your statement CAN'T be proven. At least those who have genuine faith will have something to fall back on if you're wrong(Don't get me wrong, faith won't help alone, it goes hand in hand with good deeds)
"Another form of Pascal's Wager. As a believer, are you worried that we were created by the god of Mithra or Osiris? When you can answer that for yourself, you'll understand why I'm not worried that it was created by your god"
Or Adonis Or Attis Or Dionysos Or Herakles Or Buddah OR OR OR ......
You see if I found that my religion didn't make sense (or just plain confusing) I would also be an atheist. I worship the CREATOR of all CREATIONS and not the CREATIONS(including prophets) of the CREATOR (research the names of the so-called gods above)
I can't prove to you that God exists and you can't prove to me that God doesn't exist. We'll just have to wait and see.
Peace
Someone, I didn't doubt that I have a blind-spot. What I said is that there must be a purpose for the spot...my guess is that it helps with single-eye depth perception, but that's just a guess.
Fish (if they do) would have the same arrangement due to their often close proximity to the surface where water fails to filter the UV rays enough. No one ever said it was fish that had better eyes, the thought was that Octopus' had better eyes.
The blind spot is where the optic nerve bundle comes together and then goes to the brain. No photo receptors there. Yup, fish have them too, but just expect Canyon to say it is God using the same design. He has an answer for everything except those things he does not want to answer. Guess when God's on your side anything is possible except facing reality.
Canyon, I've asked some questions, maybe some uncomfortable, but I think my sticking with you this long means that I deserve an answer. Can you prove your religion is real while Last Thursdaism is not? Without waving your hands and saying one is the truth and the other is not. Be fast, you only have until midnight.
A Hermit,
"It seems most likely to me that, as Carl Sagan put it, we go back to being the same stuff the stars are made of."
Yeah well, just like how atheists want proof of God's existance, I want proof to back up such statements as these.
"As for rewards and punishment, I have no reason to think anything of the kind will take place after death. That's why we must fight so hard for justice here and now."
And in the many cases where justice isn't achieved here and now? So what does it mean for the terrorists that perished with their victims on 9/11. Are both groups in the same state of nothingness right now? Just wondering.
I'm trying my best no to offend anyone and their beliefs. I just like to be as well informed about other beliefs as I am of my own.
Peace
David, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying about Jesus being the first and last to come. He was not the last revelation if that's what you mean. He was not even created, because He has always existed; He is God. Anyways, Paul was divinely inspired, John, Judah, Peter, all for years after Jesus went back to His Throne. Jesus is the beginning and the end of time, but not revelation, but I'm not sure I understand you right.
As for 6-day Creation. If you don't trust the Bible on that, how can you trust your soul to be saved? There is no way that Day 3 was anything other than a day...the others...maybe, but because Day three was the same word as the other 6 days...I believe it to be literal. Also, the 7-day week still perplexes astronomers. Everything else has a celestial purpose, but not the 7-day week.
Fate, as an agnostic, you haven't had the opportunity of knowing God; of being filled with the Holy Spirit; of receiving a new heart. If it were just me, then I would say it was just feelings, but these are scientifically(observable, measurable, repeatable) identifiable traits in those who are genuinely born again(saying you're born again doesn't make you so). Your religion has no such claim.
Besides that, your long-term prophecies don't exist, your short-term prophecies go unfullfilled, you are only one person espousing your ridiculousness, my personal testimony tells me I existed last Wednesday, my conscience says you're full of it. Nothing can be proven absolutely, but your religion has been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Which questions don't I want to answer? If they are easily answered questions, I fully expect you to Google them before wasting my time.
Did you give up on the contradiction?
I probably won't be on all-day Thursday(maybe in the evening), but that doesn't mean your Rapture has come. I will most likely have several hours on Friday of sitting around waiting for the work-phone to ring.
To NZMAM:
My father, a Catholic, has a similar viewpoint to yours. He thinks the god of Catholicism is the one true god, that there is only one true god, and the gods of other religions/sects are just his god in disguise.
When I hear comments like this I wonder to myself, if the god of a Catholic and the god of a Muslim (or others, pick whatever deity) is the same god, then why do Catholics and Muslims call themselves "Catholic" and "Muslim"? The difference in name is reflective of a difference in belief. A difference of belief is reflective of a different perception of what 'god' might be. Therefore they are not the same.
Or more to the point ... even if there did exist a perfect being (aka god - and only one of it to boot) its much more complex that just saying you can't prove that the god of Mohammed is it. You also can't prove that Osiris or Zeus is it.
It isn't as simple as saying 'either my god exists or it doesn't, it can't be proved either way'. You have to go further and say 'either my god exists, or god A exists, or god B exists, or god C exists .... etc etc etc , or god ZZZ exists, or perhaps gods XY, BBC and MNOP exist in conjunction with each other ... or ... no god exists'.
The Pascal's Wager argument - that it is better to believe in your god as nothing is lost if you are wrong and your god doesn't exist, but a hell-type afterlife occurs if you are right and your god does exist - has been around for awhile. The rebuttal for Pascal's Wager has also been around for awhile. Pascal's Wager is only a 'false dilemma' and is a known logical fallacy. It works by setting up only 2 options for truth, saying that if one option is false, the other must be true. Its often applied incorrectly to situations where more than 2 options exists.
And this is one of those situations.
I can clearly see that you've rationalised this in your own mind by concluding that your god is the true god and all other gods are simply 'creations'. I'm not going to argue this point because to do so will sooner or later be interpreted as an attempt to 'deconvert' you, and frankly whatever unprovable thing you choose to believe in, I really don't care. Go your hardest. It's your life, not mine.
Just please, please don't ever reach that point of prejudice where you consider your life must be more 'moral' or 'true' or 'good' as a Muslim compared to a person atheistic towards Islam simply because you follow the Islamic doctrine and they do not. This applies to all religious doctrines, I'm not singling out Islam, I'm just referring to it because its your professed faith.
But understand that when a theist uses Pascal's Wager on an atheist (or perhaps I should say, an informed atheist) the theist appears foolish, maybe arrogant, or at best just plain ignorant, because from the atheist's point of view the theist is not just asking us to consider their god, but all other deities that also threaten a hell-type afterlife if you don't believe. Further, a number of religious doctrines demand that you must only believe in *their* god or you will be penalised in the afterlife.
So, the theist is saying that the atheist should believe in their god because of the penalties if the atheist doesn't - but is simultaneously suggesting that only the rewards and/or penalties that are to be considered are the ones of that single theist's religious doctrines - because all the others are false gods and don't mean anything.
It is a contradictory argument at its most basic level. That contradiction, that blindness to consideration of other possible 'gods', that *false dilemma* - is, as I said above, perhaps foolish, perhaps arrogant, perhaps just plain ignorant. Frankly, when theists try to convert me by using it, I just feel insulted.
I will, however, thank you for at the least being capable of admitting that your god can't be proven. If more theists (and perhaps some atheists too) had that 'we'll just have to wait and see' attitude then I think there wouldn't be so much friction between the positions.
Peace
Canyon: ---I probably won't be on all-day Thursday(maybe in the evening), but that doesn't mean your Rapture has come. I will most likely have several hours on Friday of sitting around waiting for the work-phone to ring.---
I'm sure of it. In fact I think that's the definition of hell, waiting around for the phone to ring...
I'm done here.
To NZMAM :
Well the star stuff bit is easy to prove; it's just simple chemistry. We are made of the same materials as the stars; hydrogen, carbon etc.
When we die our bodies break down into their chemical components..star stuff.
We are "Star stuff contemplating star stuff". Honesty, as far as I can see there's nothing in religion to equal that mystery.
----And in the many cases where justice isn't achieved here and now? So what does it mean for the terrorists that perished with their victims on 9/11. ----
Don't forget, those terrorists believed that they would be the ones going to a reward in paradise. I'd hate to think they were right...but they must have believed it. And they had no more basis for their version of the afterlife than any other religious belief that I have come across.
It would be nice to imagine that all things will be made right, but there's no guarantee that I can see. Perhaps the best we can do is to keep both good and evil in our memories; to honour the good in all we do and refute the evil wherever we can; to move humanity forward a little bit at a time in our own little corners of the universe.
regards
A Hermit
Kate : Good comments on Pascal's Wager (or as I like to call it, "The Sucker's Bet".)
Another objection to the wager is that it is not so much an attempt at a proof of God's existence as an argument for hypocrisy. Pascal is saying we should hedge our bets; even we don't really believe we should behave as if we do, just in case God really is up there watching us.
This always leads me to wonder if the God imagined by Pascal or NZMAM or Canyon would really prefer hypocrisy to honest atheism.
Any thoughts on that, NZMAM? Would I be better off in your cosmology to pretend to believe in that which I do not believe, or does the God you believe in value honesty and integrity? Like you I am
Just Wondering:
A Hermit
NZMAM,
You stated "I'm glad I got an answer, but your statement CAN'T be proven. At least those who have genuine faith will have something to fall back on if you're wrong(Don't get me wrong, faith won't help alone, it goes hand in hand with good deeds"
Again, that's the fallacy of Pascal's Wager. By "making a choice" to believe in a certain deity, one still risks being wrong in equal measure. It's not a "god vs. no god" question. It is a question of "all purported gods and no gods or goddesses." That was Pascal's error is reasoning as well.
And I don't claim that I can prove that no gods or goddesses exist. I only claim that there exists no viable evidence sufficient to believe in any of them.
Kate,
I didn't read your post before writing my last. You covered Pascal's Wager sufficiently and I didn't intend to simply restate your points as they were well taken.
Canyon
You se here that people just do not read what it actually say's in the Bible
Here is where it says it in a couple of places, about Christ being the First Of all creation. he even says it himself.
And what I am saying about 6 days is just a summery that God can do anything that he wants.
Read on Please.
Just Who is Christ Anyway
Many people of many different religions do not truly understand the concept of who Christ really is. Most Catholics and Muslims alike, tend to believe in one similar thought. The thought being, who is Christ anyway? The Muslims believe Christ to be only a prophet. Many Catholics believe him to be exactly the Same God that God the father is. Which in a since, he is. But not quite as they might think him to be.
There is only One God, the Father. And there is only one true God the Son, which is Christ our Lord. But there is one major difference between our Father in his Son. Are you ready for this? “Well” I will tell you in just a moment. Some of you reading this will be in denial about what is about to be said here. The denial you might have comes from not studying the Bible as you are suppose to (Or the way that our Lord wants us to). In other words, Many people do not study the Bible at all. They just simple listen to others speak on Sundays at the place of worship where they attend. By doing this they probably only ever learn about 5 percent of what they really need to know about what is truly said. I just wonder if some (if not many) actually think that by not knowing what the Bible really says, that they will not be held responsible for their actions of not knowing what is really put down as laws in the Bible. I sure hope not. Mostly because the Lord explains many times in the Bible, that these kind of thoughts will not hold up on Judgment Day.
Let’s get back to who Christ really is. We already know that Christ is the Son of God. Those of us who are Christians believe this. Those who are Muslims, and many other religions do not believe this. The Muslims believe that Christians are misguided to believe that Christ is God the Son. In reality they do not really understand in the way that many Christians believe this. Many Muslims are confused of who Christ is because of the way that many Catholics believe who Christ is. Are you ready for the answer now? Christ our Lord, the Son of God, was created by Our Father in Heaven. Now hold on before you close this book in anger. Read for yourself in the Bible of what it says regarding this matter of Christ being created.
It seems that Christ is the pure essence of God. Not like Angels or mankind. No one I know can really explain this perfectly. But maybe it is something like, God bringing himself out of himself to make a Son of pure origin. That’s about as well as I can explain it. The only thing I know for sure is that Christ is our Lord. And God is the Father of all creation. Again I will say this. There is so much more to God and his creation then we will ever know while on this earth. We as humans, tend to want to make things happen in our own truths and wants. We have to leave ourselves open to the possible fact that we could be wrong in our thoughts. And I am saying this about myself also. I could be wrong on this subject also. But the point I am trying to make here is this. If I am wrong, then please show me and let us study together to find the truths of Gods Words. In other words, do not come to complete conclusions on what you think the Bible says. One should always leave himself open to maybe being wrong. Never give up on studying Gods ways. Never think because you have read the Bible 4 to 6 times that you don’t need to read it any longer. There is much more in it then you might think. Any way, let us look at some verses that might give us some insight into who Christ really is.
Here is some proof of the matter. Let us start in Colossians 1: 15
(Colossians 1: 15 to 19 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.)
Not enough proof for you in Colossians 1:15 to 19. Well then, here comes some more for you. Let us look in Proverbs Chapter 8 again. This is just a few verses from the whole chapter. Please read all of chapter 8 for a better understanding of what is being said here. Some might believe that this is Solomon speaking. Or that it is Wisdom speaking. But read it very carefully. “Remember” God is Wisdom. So who is this speaking?
Proverbs 8: 22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,
before his deeds of old;
PR 8:23 I was appointed from eternity,
from the beginning, before the world began.
PR 8:24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth,
when there were no springs abounding with water;
PR 8:25 before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
PR 8:26 before he made the earth or its fields
or any of the dust of the world.
PR 8:27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
PR 8:28 when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
PR 8:29 when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
PR 8:30 Then I was the craftsman at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
PR 8:31 rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.
For more information on who Christ really is. Go to (JCOT)“Is Jesus Christ in the Old Testament” in this book. Is Christ in the Old Testament?
The Chapters we just read from Colossians and Proverbs proves once again that mankind refuses to come to the knowledge that is waiting for them to discover in the Words that God has left for us. Instead we listen to others who say that they are someone special, and tend to believe in what we are told instead of what we can discover for ourselves in the truths that God has left for us in his Book. These words are true in just, and not just made up by man. You can believe in what God says. Or you can believe in what others tell you. Others, in some form just might want power, If not power, then maybe the power that comes with money (Riches).
We fight and kill each other because we refuse to learn the truth. We hate and kill each other because we believe in what others want us to believe instead of what God wants us to believe. The Lord created all things. If he created all things, then one should believe that he can keep his words together in a little book just the way that he wants to.
Study and find the truth. Many today (as also in times past) refuse to listen to anyone that is not of there own kind and thinking. Remember, no one is perfect. Just because we might want to think that we have all the answers does not mean a thing to God. We have to realize that we could be wrong in what we might think is right. Do not just believe in something because you have been raised to believe in it, and because it is the custom of your people. God honors no made up religion. Go out and find the truth. It just might set you free form mans thinking. It is a life long journey to come closer to God. But as one comes closer to the Lord, he comes closer to us. If you think that you have the right to go to war because that the beliefs of others are not yours. Then you have already proven that you have nothing to do with God and his kingdom. You are an outcast that he will spit from his mouth. God is what He is. Not what you want to make Him to be.
The above, or on previous page is a work still in progress.
But it is just something to think about. I am not saying that I totally believe this to be true or not. But I will continue to study this and the rest of the bible for more and more answers, as we all should be doing. Studying history helps a lot in this field.
How could one avoid the proof that is written down?
Well if we, as theists do, are welcome to post our favourite fictional books on the topic of religion in response to a topic talking about *atheism* (seriously, how desperate do you have to be?) ... then I'd like to add my own personal favourite. It not only has a number of very insightful observances on religious tradition but is also funny. Its one of my favourite Discworld books.
Try "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett.
Its a fantasy/fiction, so those of you who don't like to read about dwarves, trolls and giant space-dwelling turtles probably won't get into it that much. But then if you liked the bible, you probably won't have any trouble.
...
The turtle moves.
Dear Rev. Shearer,
I am really impressed by your rocksolid faith and your universal wisdom (you even were a minor in psychology, and you even know that the blind spot in the eye was created to measure distance with one eye!), and I would like to know, just like you do, who is going to Heaven and who is going to Hell, and you even know why! I think you are almost a Saint with all this wonderful insight. If you know why people go to Heaven, you can tell everybody what they have to do in order to get there. I also admire your convincing rhethoric ability which all but smashes the ignorant arguments of non-believers and even of believers in wrong faiths.
I think, in Heaven they sing a lot and praise the Lord all the time with prayers, songs and music, and I always wanted to learn how to play the guitar, for which then I will have so much time to become a real virtuoso! This is wonderful, and I am sure you can help me to achieve your degree of knowledge to be able to go to Heaven, which I dearly want together with my family, which has not acquired this degree of faith yet.
Somebody told me, that the nearest star is 4 light-years away from the earth, others are supposed to be millions of light years away. What bothers me a little is the fact that I have some difficulty in thinking in terms of days when there is no earth yet revolving around its axis to count the days. (1 day = one revolution of the earth). But I think this is just seductive Darwinian rubbish: God the Almighty can compress a million light-years into one second, can't he?
Your wonderfully strong, mountain-moving belief provides you with the admirable ability to bridge such seeming inconsistencies with your inspiring concept of the supernatural where natural, scientific or "atheistic" explanations blatantly fail. The supernatural I also believe in, isn’t it, is the final proof of God’s existence! If it was only natural instead of supernatural, God would not exist, and even Darwin, may he rot in Hell, could win a point there. Can you imagine anything dumber than that! How can anybody be so stupid as not to see this clear fact? That is why they demanded holy people in early Christianity to believe in the absurd, to believe that black is white, to test the strength of their belief! With this “technique”, if you forgive me to use this word as an expression for human behavior and enlightened thinking, it will be easy to believe anything, which I so desperately want to do.
Thus such “seeming” inconsistencies are invented by God, I think, to test the faith of a real Christian. They can lead weak, despicable atheists (“athinkists”, as you so brilliantly describe them) to go astray from the so obvious path of Truth, which I am aspiring to walk with you. They become evil liars, criminals, frauds, murderers, even communists, destroying other people’s faith, and even God the Almighty, cannot help those poor misled creatures from going to Hell, since he is the God of Justice and Revenge, as is stated in His Holy Bible. They should really all be killed unless they believe. (It has been tried in history, unfortunately with mixed success.)
And I am really looking forward, as the summit of joy once I am in Heaven to hear the shrieks of pain of all the idiots who were not converted by you and other enlightened figures such as Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, the great counselor of our wonderful president, and others.
To CANYON SHEARER (Ref post 30 Jan 2007 8:57 PM):
Thank you for your comments on my testimony and for expressing your gladness to have me as a sibling in Christ. I appreciate your zeal at spreading the message of salvation through Jesus Christ.
I can understand your terrible fear of atheists gaining political power, if in your mind the word atheism automatically brings up the association with Hitler and other non-Christian murderous communist regimes. But I do not make that association when I hear the word atheist. Apart from the fact that not all atheists in communist regimes were involved in the massacres or murderous policies of their government, atheists in Western democracies, in my mind are simply people who happen, for whatever reason, not to believe in God. As long atheists don’t get militant and try to impose their non-belief on others by force, it is a life philosophy like any other. Atheists and believers alike have the opportunity to spread their ideas via the Internet and people will make their own choices. Believers in democracies should respect the freedom of atheists, and not treat atheism as a threat by giving the philosophy of atheism undue weight. No person who seeks God with all their heart is likely to be stopped by an atheist, so what is the fear? And politicians, no matter what their belief or unbelief, are voted in and out of office by the people. The public should choose politicians based on their humanism – whether it stems from religion or atheism, and elect them only after testing their dedication to the welfare of all the people they are going to serve. The American Constitution, as all democracies, ensures freedom of religious belief, so how could any atheist stamp out religious belief or the religions of those who wish to practice it? Such Communism didn't work in the Soviet Union, why should any American atheist want to impose it in their country?
As to theories of evolution, I must make the confession, that it doesn’t interest me very much one way or another how the world was made or how long ago and how exactly everything came into being. I’m interested in the world as it is now, and what we ought to do as human beings to be responsible stewards of God’s creation and care for another as members of the human family. If the atheist believes that the world came into existence by chance or accident or whatever; nature and mankind has no meaning or purpose - as long as the atheist is dedicated to acting in the best interests of human beings and nature, that is what atheists and believers have in common. The common bond should be celebrated. In our association with atheists it is wise to seek for the common bonds that unite us as human beings rather than dwell on the beliefs that separate us.
It is the Holy Spirit who draws human beings to God. As believers we should trust the infinite love of God and the mighty wisdom of the Holy Spirit to work in the best interest of all human beings in ways that may be completely different from our own. Believers who are called to teach and preach as you are can after all only sow the seed of belief. Only God can make it sprout and grow with the permission of the one in whose heart it has been sown.
I wish you joy, patience and success in your calling as a preacher!
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Soja,
please don't mix up everything in history:
1. Hitler was a Christian and quoted Luther and the Bible quite a lot, talked about his role as fulfilling the will of divine Providence all the time. Both Churches, Catholic and Protestant, were integrated in the Nazi state (the state collecting taxes for the churches).
2. "other communists": Hitlers war in Russia was against communism. He killed many millions of communists. The help of the US to the communist regime finally brought the victory over Hitler.
(Things are usually a little more intricate than this simple black-and-white thinking of good vs. evil.)
3. Stalin believed in the historic Truth of communism; his actions can be looked at almost through a religious angle: Communism was his religion!
4. Marx was a philosopher. He didn't hurt a fly. He certainly did not kill anybody. The horrible crimes were generated by the belief in his ideas as "TRUTH". It is the truth angle that botches up everything! In the 30 years' war, were one third of the Christian German population was killed, both the catholics and the protestants believed in the truth of their doctrine, just like the 9/11 killers - and just like Canyon Shearer.
Supplement to last post:
Without US help (FDR), there probably would not be any communism any more. The US saved the life of Russian communism against Hitler in 1944/1945.
German politicians at that time even tried to convince Churchill to fight communism together - he refused.
Without US help to Iraq in its 10 years' war against Iran, including furnishing the poison with which Saddam killed his Kurds, there would not be an Iraq war today either.
History is complex, to say the least.
Cool post, THEO.
If you are interested in the matter of indoctrination and see Evangelism in action, just watch Jesus Camp, now in DVD. Very revealing and the last segment with Ted Haggard, pre-scandal, shows, simply, the hypocrisy of the all thing. Not mentioning the "leader" of the camp, a woman who preaches self-disciplined to 6-9 years kids and must weight more than 240 pounds !
Kate,
"Go your hardest. It's your life, not mine"
Same here, it's your life, not mine.
"If more theists (and perhaps some atheists too) had that 'we'll just have to wait and see' attitude then I think there wouldn't be so much friction between the positions."
Yup, guess we'll just have to wait and see.
A Hermit,
"Any thoughts on that, NZMAM? Would I be better off in your cosmology to pretend to believe in that which I do not believe, or does the God you believe in value honesty and integrity? Like you I am"
To pretend would equal hypocrisy. One's faith in God has to be genuine. There are many that say they believe, but their hearts don't have a drop of faith in them. So it's better to be an atheist than to be a hypocrite (saying you believe and not really meaning it)
Mike,
"By "making a choice" to believe in a certain deity, one still risks being wrong in equal measure"
Because one wonders, "Am I worshipping the wrong God?" Well, to me the God of this world is the same God of the whole universe. Let's use the process of elimination
-All tangible man-made gods are out, A God does not need someone to make (create) Him
-All of the humans(including prophets, saints, angels,righteous people, etc.) who are/were worshipped as God, the sons of God, the daughters of God, the mother/father of God, etc. are out because 1.They are only humans, like you and me 2. God is sufficient unto Himself, doesn't have or needs a family, wasn't begotten and does not beget....
- Is God human? Well, let's see, if that was true then everyone would have the potential to be God.
-How does God look like? I don't know and neither do you.
-Does God know all that you do, in secret and in public? Of course, otherwise He wouldn't be God.
-Did someone not create me, am I just an occurence of chance, is their a purpose to my life other than eat, drink, sleep, be good to my fellow humans, etc? One would have to push arrogance and pride away for a few minutes in order for them to honestly answer this.
"And I don't claim that I can prove that no gods or goddesses exist. I only claim that there exists no viable evidence sufficient to believe in any of them."
You're your own proof.
Peace
Gerry!
Hitler was a Christian? Do you really believe that or do you enjoy pulling people's chains? Christians themselves don't believe that every born into a Christian family is automatically a Christian.
Just because a politician knows how to work a crowd doesn't make them genuine Christ folowers.
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)
Was Hitler a Christian?
To those who say that Hitler was in fact a true Christ follower it would go a long way to establish your credibility if you were to read the following qutes from Hitler and say "Gee that doesn't sound like a Christian to me!"
HITLER on Christianity (from the website "Adolf Hitler - Christian, Atheist, or Neither?"
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."
13th December, 1941, midnight
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... ....
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)
9th April, 1942, dinner
"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
Does this sound like a Christian to you? Gerry, you seem like a person who enjoy's the rich complexity of history and human nature. The fact that Hitler was not a true Christ follower doesn't make Christianity any truer or atheism false on any level. (Hitler was obviously a mystic of some sort.) What it does show is that those who blame faith in Christ for all the worlds ills are ignoring Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. It seems that you were right to say the world is rarely black and white/ good vs. evil. Rejection of Christianity in general (and Christianity in specific) is no inoculation against mass murder.
Take a step back and look at this conversation. (all of the posts above)
It quickly lost its original purpose and has sunk into the typical mud slinging between Christians and non-believers.
If who we are is what we think then we rise to defend it when under attack.
The only way to have a conversation that rises above this mud-pit is to entertain the possibility that we are not what we think; that maybe we could step outside of that domain and look at our thoughts and beliefs like we would evaluate a used car.
As I see it, the structure of our thoughts and beliefs gives us utilitarian value in evaluating the experiences we have and shaping our response to them. I think of it like a conceptual jungle-gym that we crawl around in. Depending on the construction of this "jungle-gym," we have either more or less effectiveness in our ability to survive and prosper and what-ever we want.
Christians see the belief in the bible as a necessary construct in order to survive/prosper in a possible afterlife. It may cost them some "freedoms" in this life but to them it is worth the cost.
Non-believers have no concern for a "possible" afterlife and do not see value in subjecting themselves to the rule-set that religion requires.
I am a non-believer but I will not begrudge the believer their goal or path there-to, so long as they, likewise do not tread on me.
NZMAM, you can't use some arbitrary process of elimination to validate Pascal's Wager.
New Cynic wrote:
"The fact that Hitler was not a true Christ follower doesn't make Christianity any truer or atheism false on any level."
There's some truth in what you say, but in the case of Hitler, one could respond by posting numerous quotes where he avers in the strongest possible terms that he believed himself a Xian who was doing the work of god. Hitler remained a Roman Catholic until his death. He certainly had the Papacy behind him, even as he murdered his way across Europe.
But for the sake of argument, let's stipulate that Hitler was never a "true Christ follower," but that he used Xianity as a scam to rope in the German people, down to having the words "God With Us" printed on the belt buckles of some troops. What does that say about the German people who bought it hook, line and sinker?
Today, I often read Xians asserting that George Bush and his cabal "aren't true Xians." (and, no, I am NOT comparing bush to Hitler). Yet a substantial number of Xians in this country continue to vote for these people for the sole reason that they as Xian voters want to vote for a born-again candidate. They continue to pray their prayers for god's guidance to these people, though by all appearances, their decisions are seldom if ever informed by a god of love and mercy. They ignore the evidence of what bush actually does and continue to hold an idealized image of bush in their heads, all because he professes his Xian faith at every opportunity. What does it say about American Xians today that they buy bush's scam hook, line and sinker, just like people have in the past?
Why is it that every despotic, murdering Xian throughout history, Xians who have committed their crimes in the name of Christ are so easily dismissed by today's Xians as "not being real Xians." Why can't Xians own up to their human monsters? Indeed, doesn't Christ tell you to hold out hope for these people until death? If a murdering tyrant has a TRUE deathbed conversion to the faith, is he not welcome in the kingdom of heaven? Would it not be more honest to say that such despots - including Hitler - WERE Xians who were possibly mentally ill, or who just got way off the track in their lives, overwhelmed by absolute power? Why not embrace the monster as an example of faith gone wrong or faith abandoned, rather than averring that they "never were Xians to begin with?"
I understand that all Xians are professed sinners who continue to sin and continue to ask for forgiveness. The question is this: when does the sin become so great that such a sinner gets labeled with the "never was a true Xian" moniker?
If the way to spot the TRUE Xians is to look at what they do, not what they say, then one needs to ask: are there any "true" Xians out there at all?
Mike,
"NZMAM, you can't use some arbitrary process of elimination to validate Pascal's Wager"
Why not?
You see, it looks like atheists are forcing themselves into believing that there's no God simply because they (and everyone else) can't prove that god exists.
There's the good and the bad in every group, whether it be in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, Hinduism, Satanism, and every single -ism one can think of.
True belief in God does not tolerate any kind of unhumane acts (even towards non-believers) People were created with intelligence for a reason. Some just accept what is being spoonfed to them through the biased media without actually putting forth an effort to really understand what a certain group really believes.
I just hope that every single person on the face of the earth are as comfortable with their beliefs as I am with mine.
News cynic:
Please, I never said that Hitler was a true follower of Christ. He was just as cynical and hypocrite as a lot of other "Christians" in quotation marks we hear from every day in public. He introduced even the "Deutsche Christen" movement to make it appear that Naziism and Christianity can have a close coalition. Of course he used religion as a means for power, as was the case with religion from its very detectable beginning by introducing the concept of eternal hell and the necessity to placate gods by all sorts of offerings, from cutting the throat of relatives to using sheep instead.
People are afraid. Modern psychology regards angst as one of the constituting emotions of any animal and any human for the purpose of sheer survival. If someone gets a handle on this angst he can use it to any arbitrary purpose. You can also frighten people to go to hell if they don't follow your beliefs, as Mr. Shearer tries here so unconscionably.
If you add Goering's remarks in the Nuremberg trials that all you have to do is to frighten people and call them traitors if they have an independant opinion, they will follow you out of fear for their lives. You have a picture that looks uncannily familiar.
(Btw. I have read "Mein Kampf" also!)
And, Acrapist, I don't personally begrudge anybody for his worldview, but I don't want to be threatened with original sin and hell and similar human constructs by "missionaries" like Mr. Shearer.
Mr. Mark, thank you!
NZMAM, because by doing so you're inventing a mechanism to exclude other gods and goddesses from the equation improperly. However unlikely you decide such supernatural beings are, it's improper to completely remove them from the realm of possibilities. You are still "betting" against all other possible deities.
Oh goody, let's play duelling Hitler quotes.
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922
________________________________________________________________________
It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity.
-Adolf Hitler, in an article headed "A New Beginning," 26 Feb. 1925
__________________________________________________________________________
We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
_________________________________________________________________________
We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our Volk.... This the national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state, under its firm protection....May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk.
-Adolf Hitler, on 1 Feb. 1933, addressing the German nation as Chancellor for the first time, Volkischer Beobachter, 5 Aug. 1935, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
_________________________________________________________________________
And my favourite:
We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933
_________________________________________________________________________
Lots more like that here:
http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
It is silly to bring Hitler into this discussion, but if anyone brings him up to bash atheists I do feel obligated to refute their misconceptions. Hitler and his followers may or may not have been "real" Christians (even Christians can't seem to agree on what that means) but he most certainly was NOT an atheist.
A Hermit
News cynic:
Please, I never said that Hitler was a true follower of Christ. He was just as cynical and hypocrite as a lot of other "Christians" in quotation marks we hear from every day in public. He introduced even the "Deutsche Christen" movement to make it appear that Naziism and Christianity can have a close coalition. Of course he used religion as a means for power, as was the case with religion from its very detectable beginning by introducing the concept of eternal hell and the necessity to placate gods by all sorts of offerings, from cutting the throat of relatives to using sheep instead.
People are afraid. Modern psychology regards angst as one of the constituting emotions of any animal and any human for the purpose of sheer survival. If someone gets a handle on this angst he can use it to any arbitrary purpose. You can also frighten people to go to hell if they don't follow your beliefs, as Mr. Shearer tries here so unconscionably.
If you add Goering's remarks in the Nuremberg trials that all you have to do is to frighten people and call them traitors if they have an independant opinion, they will follow you out of fear for their lives. You have a picture that looks uncannily familiar.
(Btw. I have read "Mein Kampf" also!)
And, Acrapist, I don't personally begrudge anybody for his worldview, but I don't want to be insulted and threatened with original sin and hell and similar atavistic human constructs by "missionaries" like Mr. Shearer.
Mr. Mark, thank you!
NZMAM, because by doing so you're inventing a mechanism to exclude other gods and goddesses from the equation improperly. However unlikely you decide such supernatural beings are, it's improper to completely remove them from the realm of possibilities. You are still "betting" against all other possible deities.
Correction:
"... unhumane acts ." Should be "..inhumane acts."
One last Hitler post: Young Adolf learned his anti-semitism in Vienna when it was ruled by the Christian Social Party
http://motlc.learningcenter.wiesenthal.org/text/x05/xm0530.html
The Holocaust had its roots firmly in Christian anti-semitism, not atheism.
Right, Hermit, and may I add Martin Luther's incredible hate explosions here once again:
„The Jews are such a desperate, evil, poisoinous thing, that for 1400 years they have been our pain, pestilence and calamity and they still are. In short, we have real devils in them... one should burn their schools and synagogues to honour our Lord and all Christianity, so that God will see that we are Christians... destroy their homes as well“.
„Therefore you should know, dear Christian, and never doubt, that next to the devil you have no more bitter, poisonous, atrocious enemy than a real Jew, who seriously wants to be a Jew.“
„I will give you my faithful advice. First, that one must burn their synagogues and schools with fire, and that which will not burn, be covered with soil, so that in eternity no human shall see a stone or cinder thereof.“
Hitler said: „I am only doing what the church does for the last 1500 years, only more thoroughly“.
Right, Hermit, and I would like to add once more Martin Luther's incredible antisemitic hate explosion:
„The Jews are such a desperate, evil, poisonous thing, that for 1400 years they have been our pain, pestilence and calamity and they still are. In short, we have real devils in them... one should burn their schools and synagogues to honour our Lord and all Christianity, so that God will see that we are Christians... destroy their homes as well“.
„Therefore you should know, dear Christian, and never doubt, that next to the devil you have no more bitter, poisonous, atrocious enemy than a real Jew, who seriously wants to be a Jew.“
„I will give you my faithful advice. First, that one must burn their synagogues and schools with fire, and that which will not burn, be covered with soil, so that in eternity no human shall see a stone or cinder thereof.“
Hitler said: „I am only doing what the church does for the last 1500 years, only more thoroughly“.
Of course, certainly somebody will "qualify" such religious outburst, put them into perspective etc. That doesn't change the substance of these dreadful utterances.
Sorry for the double post: My computer was coughing!
Mike,
"NZMAM, because by doing so you're inventing a mechanism to exclude other gods and goddesses from the equation improperly."
What was so improper about it?
Really, I'm interested in knowing.
This is my reasoning:
God cannot be human (as in a male or a female), so the terms god and goddess don't apply. Nor is god more than one, so the plural terms (gods and goddesses) also don't apply. I think the term "Creator" is more suitable.
I'm only excluding other man-made gods and goddesses because they also have a "Creator".
Peace
PS I like this dialogue with you, thank you for engaging in a respectful manner
Mike,
"NZMAM, you can't use some arbitrary process of elimination to validate Pascal's Wager"
NZMAM responded:
"Why not?
"You see, it looks like atheists are forcing themselves into believing that there's no God simply because they (and everyone else) can't prove that god exists."
I'll assume that you count yourself among the "everyone else" who can't prove that god exists. If true, then why should anyone believe that the god you worship has any more validity than any other god ever proposed by man?
NZMAM wrote:
"True belief in God does not tolerate any kind of unhumane acts (even towards non-believers)."
Then that rules out the god of the OT who was one inhumane SOB. He didn't only tolerate inhumane acts, he ordered them.
Re: Pascal's wager - the flaw in the wager is that it posits that unbelief is OK as long as the unbeliever fakes belief. As George Burns once said about acting, "it's all about sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made."
NZMAM :
Mike,
"NZMAM, because by doing so you're inventing a mechanism to exclude other gods and goddesses from the equation improperly."
What was so improper about it?
Really, I'm interested in knowing.
This is my reasoning:
God cannot be human (as in a male or a female), so the terms god and goddess don't apply."
Dear NZMAM - are you aware that the Bible has god saying "let us create man in our image?" Are you further aware that the Hebrew word for "image" is "tselem," a word derived from a root word that means "a carved image?" It is the same tselem that is used in Exodus 20: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image [tselem]. . . ."
With that in mind, how can you say that our physical bearing - arms, legs, ears - have not been created to reflect the image of god? And, if god said "let US" create man in our image, is there not the possibility that such an image encompassed gender? One need not go too far down the Midrash highway to arrive at such conculsions.
Mr. Mark,
"If true, then why should anyone believe that the god you worship has any more validity than any other god ever proposed by man?"
Your three last words answer the question.
"Then that rules out the god of the OT who was one inhumane SOB. He didn't only tolerate inhumane acts, he ordered them."
Isn't he the same god that is known as "the father" in the NT? Just curious
Peace
NZMAM wrote :
"Mr. Mark,
"If true, then why should anyone believe that the god you worship has any more validity than any other god ever proposed by man?"
Your three last words answer the question."
Not really. All gods were invented by man. The god of the Bible had his forebearers in the gods of Egypt and elsewhere. The god (Jesus) of the NT had his forebearers in the gods of Rome and the Greeks. The Hebrews weren't always monotheists, you know.
"Then that rules out the god of the OT who was one inhumane SOB. He didn't only tolerate inhumane acts, he ordered them."
Isn't he the same god that is known as "the father" in the NT? Just curious."
Apparently, he is. He seems to suffer from schizophrenia, doesn't he? SOB in the OT, nice guy in the NT (thought the OT rules would still seem to apply to the NT world).
NZMAM,
I stated "NZMAM, because by doing so you're inventing a mechanism to exclude other gods and goddesses from the equation improperly."
You replied: "What was so improper about it?
Really, I'm interested in knowing."
You can't properly exclude other deities because it's *possible* they exist. In your Wager equation you purport that only one creator, god, deity, or whatever else you want to call it, exists. That's the improper procedure. The Christian god is but one possible deity that exists.
The fact that you believe in one particular god does not negate the possibility of others. If we each can argue possibilities based on our own beliefs, then I could exclude your god as man-made and fail Pascal's Wager on that point.
Mr Mark,
"Dear NZMAM - are you aware that the Bible has god saying "let us create man in our image?" Are you further aware that the Hebrew word for "image" is "tselem," a word derived from a root word that means "a carved image?" It is the same tselem that is used in Exodus 20: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image [tselem]. . . ."
Yes, I'm quite aware of that saying, there is one that resembles it in the Quran:
Chapter 32, Verses 7 to 11
7. Who made everything He has created good and He began the creation of man from clay.
8. Then He made his (man's) offspring from semen of despised water.
9. Then He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him the soul; and He gave you hearing, sight and the sense of deduction. Little is the thanks you give!
10. And they say: "When we are lost in the earth, shall we indeed be created anew'' Nay, but they deny the meeting with their Lord!
11. Say: "The angel of death, who is set over you, will take your souls. Then you shall be brought to your Lord.
Let's examnine verse 9 closely
9. Then He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him the soul; and He gave you hearing, sight and the sense of deduction. Little is the thanks you give!
The above verse declares, "breathed into him (Adam) the soul" by no means does it imply that god created his creations to resemble Him.
Are you aware that today's bible has been distorted and changed so many times that most of it's verses do not resemble the verses that were revealed to Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him)?
Are you also aware that the Quran that exists today is the same as the one that existed more than 1400 years ago with not a single dot omitted or added?
Peace
My post addressed to Canyon Shearer 1 February 2007 5:25 AM, in which I wrote, “I can understand your terrible fear of atheists gaining political power, if in your mind the word atheism automatically brings up the association with Hitler and other non-Christian murderous communist regimes. But I do not make that association when I hear the word atheist.” seems to have been misinterpreted. I was simply referring to Canyon’s fear based on his personal association with the word atheists. I was NOT discussing Hitler’s beliefs or his rationale behind the Holocaust; nor was I trying to give details of atheistic communism or its rationale for genocide. Discussing those topics needs two separate threads dedicated to them alone. Since I’m not well versed in either of those topics and they don’t interest me particularly, I would not even participate in such a discussion. Notwithstanding, while I’m at it, here two links related to Hitler, since a mention of his name sparked vigorous responses:
http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/9587/attrelig.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Kolbe
In the context I wish to add my two cents with the following:
1. Hitler built his political campaign and rationale for ethnic cleansing by creating a theory of German ethnic superiority based on Aryan descent. While his primary ethnic cleansing that was named the "Endloesung der Judenfrage" (The Final Solution of the Jewish question)involved only Jews, ethnic cleansing was extended to include the mentally and physically handicapped, homosexuals, gypsies, and anyone who opposed him, irrespective of their ethnic background. As a result some of those who got killed for opposition included Germans, who by Hitler’s definition was of “pure ethnic Aryan” descent. The Nazis used as their symbol the “Hakenkreuz”, the ‘hooked cross’. The Hakenkreuz is NOT Christian. It is a holy symbol from Hinduism called the Swastika, which the Nazis adopted by turning the direction of the hook, almost like using the symbol of the cross upside down. It is believed by some that some Nazis indulged in occult practices, which is more in keeping with satanic worship, and has nothing to do with Christianity. It is well known that Hitler first manipulated the Christians(there was no talk of "Endloesung" then)to get their support to come into power and turned against them soon enough. But then Christians were not the only ones he manipulated, he manipulated politicians from other countries as well. It is true that in a dictatorship many people end up remaining silent to save their own lives, but that does not imply that they approve of what the dictator does. It is the height of ignorance to equate the tactics of a pathological dictator with Christianity.
2. The Holocaust did NOT have its roots “firmly in Christian anti-Semitism.” The first country Nazi Germany invaded was Poland, a country which is 95% Catholic. Except for the Soviet Union, all the countries Nazi Germany invaded were Christian.
A gentle reminder now that this is an “On Faith” forum to explore the question: “Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?”
A good read that deals with Pascal’s Wager in a different style is: “The Great Divorce” by C S Lewis, written in prose along the lines of “The Divine Comedy” by Dante.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
NZMAM quotes the Quran & sez:
"Let's examine verse 9 closely
"9. Then He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him the soul; and He gave you hearing, sight and the sense of deduction. Little is the thanks you give!
"The above verse declares, "breathed into him (Adam) the soul" by no means does it imply that god created his creations to resemble Him."
I quote the Bible, you quote the Quran. I agree that they don't agree. How does one rectify such contradictions?
However - the Biblical citation I give is singular in that there are two different words used: one word for god's physical "image" (tselem) and a different word for his "likeness" (demuth). (Gen 1:26 - 26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness;...). The original Hebrew is quite specific that man was created to resemble the physical attributes of god (tselem) as well as in his "likeness" (demuth, ie: non-physical attributes).
NZMAM wrote:
"Are you aware that today's bible has been distorted and changed so many times that most of it's verses do not resemble the verses that were revealed to Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him)?"
Oh, it's worse than that. The distortions started immediately.
BTW - you'll notice that my point to you about god's image refers back to the original Hebrew of the OT, not any later distortions.
"Are you also aware that the Quran that exists today is the same as the one that existed more than 1400 years ago with not a single dot omitted or added?"
Yes. Does that mean it's true and the word of god? How about the Book of Mormon? It's been around for even a shorter time than the Quran, let alone the Bible. Does that make it more authoritative than either the Quran or the Bible?
Sometimes my dog just barks and barks and barks...
only because he likes to hear his own voice.
Mr. Mark
"All gods were invented by man"
Well, just to satisfy my soul I like to believe that for all of the gods invented by man, there really is a powerful God who cannot be compared to man-made gods.
To each his own.
"Apparently, he is. He seems to suffer from schizophrenia, doesn't he? SOB in the OT, nice guy in the NT (thought the OT rules would still seem to apply to the NT world)."
Wow, what an insult to all christians. You know, I'm kind of offended by this too. As I recall, The father, the son, and the holy spirit are all one according to some christians. So that would mean that Jesus is one with the father (ie Jesus is God). In a way you are actually dissing Jesus (PBUH) and as I believe in him and respect him as one of the prophets sent by God, I don't appreciate this.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intentions, but this is what it seemes like to me.
Mike,
"You can't properly exclude other deities because it's *possible* they exist."
Even if they did exist, they don't have what it takes to be God.
Back to the drawing board:
I'll never worship a statue, figure, picture, etc. because they're man-made
I'll never worship a prophet, saint,human, angel, etc. because they are creations themselves.
If someone from another religion tells me that they believe in a God and don't associate any partners with that god nor give that god humanlike characteristics, I would 100% agree with them. It's not all about religion, but faith.
"The Christian god is but one possible deity that exists."
Christians themselves are confused about God.
Some believe it's three gods in one
Some believe that Jesus(human) is god
Some believe that Mary (may Allah be pleased with her) is more deserving of worship than Jesus(PBUH)
Some believe that God needs a go-in-between (profess sins to priest to be forgiven)
Etc.
Again, to each his own.
Peace
Mr. Mark,
"...the original Hebrew of the OT,"
Sorry to tell you that the OT has been as distorted as much as the NT
"The original Hebrew is quite specific that man was created to resemble the physical attributes of god (tselem) as well as in his "likeness"
No wonder so many Christians believe that Jesus(PBUH) is God.
I know this won't make a difference but I'll post it anyway
Quran Chapter 2
78. And there are among them (Jews) `Ummyyun (unlettered) people, who know not the Book, but they trust upon Amani (false desires) and they but guess.
79. Then woe to those who write the book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allah,'' to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby.
"Yes. Does that mean it's true and the word of god? How about the Book of Mormon? It's been around for even a shorter time than the Quran, let alone the Bible"
Are we talking about how long a claimed holy book has been around or about if it has been around for a while without being distorted by human hands. I did some research and found that the Book of the Mormon is not error free.
Sometimes I wonder if people who call themselves atheists are really agnostics. Some of the postings here appear to suuport my theory.
Would anyone like to opine?
NZMAM wrote:
"Are we talking about how long a claimed holy book has been around or about if it has been around for a while without being distorted by human hands. I did some research and found that the Book of the Mormon is not error free."
What do you think of apparent contradictions in the Quran?
See here: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/contra/by_name.html
Gaby - "Sometimes I wonder if people who call themselves atheists are really agnostics. Some of the postings here appear to suuport my theory.
Would anyone like to opine?"
Quite the opposite. Most people who call themselves agnostics are really atheists. After all, the term agnostic has a relatively short history. Before that they were simply called atheists.
In my opinion, belief is binary. You either do or you don't. "I don't know" is still disbelief, ergo, atheism. It is my personal opinion (and apologies to self-described agnostics as this tends to rile them up), the term agnosticism was invented so that people could distance themselves from the stigma of atheism.
Atheism is generally split into two categories - weak atheism (aka agnostic atheism) and strong atheism (aka gnostic atheism). The former is by far the most common view. It encompasses people who do not currently believe in a god or gods but don't entirely rule it out if sufficient evidence were ever presented (though I think most of us consider the likelihood of that to be so remote that it's not really a factor). Strong atheism would qualify for the argument that theists like to use against atheists, that atheism is as much a "belief" as theism. Gnostic means "knowledge" so a gnostic atheist claims they know there is no god, where an agnostic atheists claims "I don't believe there is a god."
Most people who call themselves agnostics in actuality have the exact same position as most people who call themselves atheists. Silly, but that's the truth of it. I myself call myself an atheist as I find using the term agnostic would be disingenuous unless I actually thought to odds were 50/50. I place them more around a billion to one, but I can't rule it out entirely.
Hope that helps.
Mr. Mark,
Did you bother to click on the links right under the so-called contradictions. At least that website gives a chance for someone to clear up their misunderstandings, I've seen worse sites attacking the Quran.
Let's just say for arguments sake that those were real contradictions. They only came up with 23(even x2) out of more than 7000 verses? Compare that with how many contradictions there are in the OT and NT, as well as other "holy" books.
Peace
To A HERMIT (Ref post 31 January 2007 10:58 AM):
Thank you for your nice post. No, I DON’T hold all atheists responsible for any atheist who might misunderstand me or treat me with contempt. I’m glad to have met you too. I value truth and goodness no matter where I see it, and your belief in love and desire for peace is something I value. If your search for God, led you away from Him, I feel sad of course. But that does not prevent me from respecting you as a person and admiring all that is admirable in you as a human being. I personally feel that anyone who abandons religion simply because they have had bad experiences in their Church or with Christians, or have had other personal experiences that were painful, is throwing the baby out with the bath water. If I had not made the wise transition, born of painful experiences, to looking to Jesus Christ as described in the Bible, rather than Christians, for my inspiration and strength to be a Christian, I would be a non-believer too. Now that I’m older I realise that all, including me, are fallible human beings, each living according to their own insights and in accordance with their own levels of consciousness. I don’t live up to my expectations, leave alone to the expectations of others. How could I expect more from others?
Every human journey is unique and I am learning to accept the mystery of it all, without trying to impose my own interpretation of it to anything.
Since I’m not one of those Christians who consider the Bible a science treatise or history textbook, I do not look to the Bible for scientific answers. My Christian faith and science do not contradict each other. Being from India, I’m familiar with the ancient Hindu tradition, where Brahmins were not only authors of revealed spiritual knowledge, but also pursued other fields of knowledge. For instance Ayurveda (the traditional medicine) is considered a revelation from the Gods, although the knowledge was cultivated and passed on by Brahmins. There is a similar history in Christianity of priests being involved with science and scientists being persons of faith.
As far as proof of God itself is concerned, “absence of evidence (in the scientific sense of measuring the physical universe) is not evidence of absence.” No scientist tries to study the stars with an electron microscope, nor is the Hubble Space telescope the best instrument to study the DNA. Two hundred years ago, as far as the scientists were concerned the DNA didn’t exist, simply because they had no means of studying it. So the argument that nothing exists unless science can measure it quantitatively is very weak. To a believer the whole world is proof of God’s existence, although the absolute nature of God is beyond human comprehension.
To each his own.
I have shared all my lines on this topic.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
PS: To me the attempt to prove God's existence quantitatively is like an ant scientist trying to prove the existence of an elephant in its test tube.
Mr. Mark
The Al Qur'an was compiled during the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs early on without conscious and deliberating editing.
The Suras of the Al Qur'an were memorized by the reciters before being written. Rather than conveniently and dishonestly editing the the "contradictions" out, the Al Qur'an was compiled as recited.
There is no, say, Caliph Haroun Al Rashid version of the Al Qur'an. Nor do Muslims have a council meeting to deliberate and decide by consensus or vote, on the nature of God or Prophet Muhammad PBUH.
And before you get into hair-splitting arguments on contradictions of Suras in the Al Qur'an, let me say that it was, from the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and still is, today, argued by Muslim ulemas and scholars. Muslim ulemas do abrogate some Suras that contradicts, and are points of contentions among themselves and Muslims.
Muslims have know the contradictions in the Suras of the Al Qur'an for over 1400 years now, and yes, we remain Muslims regardless. And no, I have never been defensive about it, like most other Muslims.
Believers can be stubborn in their faith, no, especially Muslims who have read Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" and skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/contra and hoaxbuster sites. And oh yes, Ibn Warraq's books too, including, "Why I am not a Muslim". I am really that delusional and stupid :)
Suggested reading:
Professor Alister McGrath, The University of Oxford: “The Dawkins’ Delusion” posted on AlterNet 26 January 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/47052/
Soja says:
"I personally feel that anyone who abandons religion simply because they have had bad experiences in their Church or with Christians, or have had other personal experiences that were painful, is throwing the baby out with the bath water."
I hope I didn't give you the impression that I had bad experiences as a Christian. I didn't. I Just came to a point where I realized I no longer believed in the magical aspects of the whole story. Christ's teachings on peace and loving one's neighbour still inspire me, but I cannot believe in gods, miracle and resurrections.
Regards
A Hermit
Gaby says - "Sometimes I wonder if people who call themselves atheists are really agnostics."
I'm both. Agnosticism is a method; a way of approaching knowledge which rejects mystical revelation (gnosis) and by which one withholds acceptance of existential statements which are not grounded in empirical evidence and objective reasoning.
Agnosticism, therefore, must lead to atheism since belief in god(s) is a matter of faith, not evidence. If an agnostic does not believe in those things which cannot be proven to exist and God cannot be proven to exist, then the agnostic does not believe in God.
Absence of belief in God is a-theism.
So, I am both agnostic in my approach to knowledge and an atheist in practical terms.
Regards
A Hermit
NZMAM wrote :
Mr. Mark,
"Did you bother to click on the links right under the so-called contradictions. At least that website gives a chance for someone to clear up their misunderstandings, I've seen worse sites attacking the Quran."
1. Yes, I clicked on the links. I've visited that site a number of times. 2. I don't think that site is attacking the Quran. It's just pointing out certain aspects of things contained within the Quran, including contradictions. And yes - the site does allow for dialogue and will update information if their presentation of it is shown to be wrong-headed.
"Let's just say for arguments sake that those were real contradictions. They only came up with 23(even x2) out of more than 7000 verses? Compare that with how many contradictions there are in the OT and NT, as well as other "holy" books"
1. I would assume that if god inspired a book that was supposedly innerent, even a single contradiction would give one pause. 2. The sister site to Skeptics Annotated Quran (skeptics annotated Bible) has been around a lot longer than the Quran version. I'm sure the researchers for that sister site are much more knowledgeable about the Bible. They will no doubt add to the list of ontradictions in the Quran the more they study. 3. I don't think that making the claim "my holy book has fewer contradictions than that other holy book" is much of an endorsement either way.
Peace
Soja says:
"I personally feel that anyone who abandons religion simply because they have had bad experiences in their Church or with Christians, or have had other personal experiences that were painful, is throwing the baby out with the bath water."
And some of us had a great experience with religion that lasted for years. But eventually, the emptiness - maybe "hollowness" is a better word? - gets to be too much. The lie can only be sustained to the extent that one wishes to suspend disbelief, and as we mature and take on a more-responsible life, we decide that it is time to put away childish things, and that includes faith in imaginary gods.
Believe it or not, many of us find our atheistic lives much more fulfilling and very much more spiritually active than we did our religious lives. Hate to spoil the party, but it's true.
Mr. Mark
No one is saying atheists, agnostics and secular humanists are having a less fulfilling or less fun life than believers.
For some, it is the "hollowness", the "emptiness" in their lives that made them turn to religion for fulfilment.
Your assertion that you are now "very much more spiritually active" as an atheist confuse me a bit. It does not concern the material world and I was relating it to spirituality. But yes, the human spirit, the human soul is mysterious in its quest for personal fulfilment.
And no, you are not spoiling the party at all. We are not crucifying you here. If you feel bad about the way some believers are attacking atheists, just read some of the more excitable postings from some atheists and non-Muslims taking on Islam and Muslims.
I believe you that you are now much happier as an atheist. Just don't go around throwing pork in any mosque, or to pull the burqas/chadors/hijab and niqabs (face veils) off Muslim women, or to condone such acts :)
Have a nice weekend and peace be with you.
As I see Fate has abandoned his post, I'd like to add one more point. There has been some very good(and some very bad) conversation from both sides, mostly from me.
I'd like to make my final observance that one of the greatest evidences for the true message of the Bible is that the majority of 'atheists' cannot say the following statement.
"If (Big IF) the Bible is true, I am guilty of lying, stealing, blasphemy, adultery of the heart, hatred without provocation, coveting, and loving sin above righteousness. If (Big IF) the Bible is true, I am Guilty before God and should be sentenced to Hell."
As you probably know, I often open air preach; the funniest thing you'll see is a flustered 'atheist' faced with that statement. They are INCAPABLE of admitting that, even thought they think the Bible is wrong.
As an 'atheist', you should be able to readily admit that and say, "But the Bible's not true." Most 'atheists' jump on, "It doesn't matter, because the Bible isn't true." without actually admitting their sins out-loud. It's really an enjoyable spectacle and one my crowds love to experience.
Finally, if you're an 'atheist' and you see someone open-air preaching, please, please, please Heckel us! It is the quickest way to gather a crowd and we LOVE it.
Have a nice weekend.
Edit! I meant the bad was from me! Not the good!
I have no problem with this:
If (Big IF) the Bible is true, I am guilty of lying, stealing, blasphemy, adultery of the heart, hatred without provocation, coveting, and loving sin above righteousness. If (Big IF) the Bible is true, I am Guilty before God and should be sentenced to Hell."
I would add that if the Bible is true your God is a vicious bastard if he would torture me for all eternity just because I was honest about my beliefs.
Of course, if the Vedas are true you and I are probably both being reborn as cockroaches, Canyon. Does that worry you at all?
Me neither.
Regards
A Hermit
I'd forgotten to reply to NZMAM on this one, re: Pascal's Wager-
NZMAM said: "To pretend would equal hypocrisy. One's faith in God has to be genuine. There are many that say they believe, but their hearts don't have a drop of faith in them. So it's better to be an atheist than to be a hypocrite (saying you believe and not really meaning it)"
So the big question now is, will your God, if he exists, still burn me in hell for being an atheist? If so, then I can't win either way, can I? I will either be punished for hypocrisy or punished for honest atheism.
On the other hand, if your God values integrity and does not punish me for being an honest atheist rather than a hypocrite there is no value in my trying to believe in that which I cannot believe.
So the "cost benefit" argument of Pascal's Wager is invalidated; the simplistic "win/lose" structure of the argument is inadequate to cover all the possibilities.
Regards
A Hermit
Aha,
Hermit, once again you proved why you were never a Christian.
I could be quite capable of saying, haphazadly, "I have cancer." And show little worry or remorse.
Once the doctor says, "Here is what Cancer is, your cells have mutated and your white blood cells are being depleted trying to erradicate them from your body, you are going to get weaker and weaker until the cancer poisons your blood and in about 7 weeks, it will kill you."
Then I would say, "OH NO! I HAVE CANCER!" Before I didn't understand the seriousness of the disease.
You don't understand the sinfulness of sin.
Is an earthly judge being a vicious bastard when he sentences a serial rapist to prison for life?
No, life inprisonment is quite fitting. Consider then that God does not see a difference between sins, even the least of sins is unholiness, and unholiness equals death, if God let you into Heaven without you expressing sorrow for your transgressions and asking for a holy-heart, you would bring death into Heaven. God says that all liars shall have their place in the lake of fire. That shows you how sinful sin is to God.
Imagine this:
If I lie to a child, nothing will happen.
If I lie to my wife, I'll end up sleeping on the couch.
If I lie to a police office, I'm obstructing justice and I'll go to jail.
If I lie to a judge, it is perjury, and I'll go to Jail.
If I lie to the government, it is treason, and I'll be hanged.
So much more injurious is a lie to God that the consequence is Hell. But if you're like me, I've told more than one lie, I'd say a reasonable guess is 2 lies a day...mostly little, some big. That makes me a serial liar, and means that if I live to be 75 years old, I'll have told 54,750 lies.
The same way, if someone kills a cockaroach, no one cares except maybe PETA, if someone kills the president, EVERYONE cares because the entity that is offended is so much more important.
A sin to an infinite God demands an infinite retribution.
At first I thought, "Hey, Hermit actually does understand the Bible and sin." But now I realize that you still think you're a pretty good person in the eyes of God and it is HIS fault that you'd go to Hell. Rest assured, it is your own fault if you end up in Hell.
Chip and Hermit,
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I always interpreted it differently. I thought Agnostics believe there is no God and ahteists know there is no God.
Pretty much like religious people who say the believe in God and those that claim they know there is a God.
NZMAM
It's important to remember that Pascal didn't design his wager arguement to convince atheists to "repent". The wager doesn't "prove" there is a god. The intent behind Pascal's illustration was to add another factor into the decision making process of those who were right on the fence and could go either way. A person who deep down suspects there is a god/goddess/whatever but was wondering if he/she should live a life of faith or not might find some motivation to choose faith in Pascal's Wager.
Beyond that the wager is kind of pointless.
Dear Sally,
first I would like to quote from Geography of Religion (p.18): Human consciousness raises questions that cannot be answered through fact, reason, or observation: "Who am I, and why am I here". In search for an explanation or an elucidation religious beliefs, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam emerged and were formulated over periods of several hundred years in connection with religious practices and rituals. I would like to invite my fellow contemporaries to consider the scriptures of all religious beliefs as wonderful fables which offer us rituals for the enjoyment of life and for bonding together.
Canyon, re "As an 'atheist', you should be able to readily admit that and say, "But the Bible's not true." Most 'atheists' jump on, "It doesn't matter, because the Bible isn't true." without actually admitting their sins out-loud. It's really an enjoyable spectacle and one my crowds love to experience."
As usual we see things from completely opposite vantage points. I have no trouble admitting my faults. I believe where I and many theists differ is that I don't pass the buck. I ask no god to absolve me of responsibility for my actions. If I do something wrong, or of which I am ashamed, I don't claim that the devil made me do it. If I hurt someone then the only forgiveness I'll seek and the only amends I'll make is to that person.
One of my favorite philosophical questions is this - Imagine there are two people. Both are honest, loving, responsible, fair, good to those around them, and lead good lives. One is a Christian (or other religion), and one is an atheist. The Christian, through his actions, expects a heavenly reward and seeks to avoid punishment. The atheist has no such expectations or fears. Whose actions are more pure of heart? Personally, I'd go with the one who has no selfish ulterior motives.
To me, religion is, ultimately, a thoroughly selfish pursuit, driven by desire for reward and fear of punishment. I'm simply not comfortable with that as I feel it would taint and diminish any good I do or accomplishments I achieve, and would dilute any wrong for which I alone should be responsible.
If I'm wrong, so be it. If I live a good life and strive throughout to be a good person and be good to those I share the planet with, and then I end up tortured for eternity because I refused to blindly pledge obedience to your god, then your god is a monster who wasn't worthy of my praise anyway. I will not bow to tyrants.
Chip-
"If I'm wrong, so be it. If I live a good life and strive throughout to be a good person and be good to those I share the planet with, and then I end up tortured for eternity because I refused to blindly pledge obedience to your god, then your god is a monster who wasn't worthy of my praise anyway. I will not bow to tyrants."
wiccan gives Chip a standing ovation and her admiration. Well said, Sir.
Canyon SAYS:
"Aha,
Hermit, once again you proved why you were never a Christian."
-------------
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. My opinions about sin are different now than they were when I was thumping that Bible. Back then I would have been agreeing with you (honestly it's embarrassing to read your comments and realize how much I used to sound like that. Makes me cringe...)
I realize it's a blow to your worldview to consider the possibility that a believer might actually grow out of his belief and therefore a comfort to you to believe that I am a liar who was never a "real" Christian, but it is true. It's just that my beliefs have changed. That's kind of the whole point.
No, I understand what your saying, Canyon; if the Bible is true (or to be more precise if your interpretation of the Bible is correct) we are all deserving of Judgement. I used to believe that too, but I have come to realize that such a dim view of humanity is destructive and self defeating. I no longer believe the Bible is true, nor do I accept your interpretation of it's message.
Like Chip says in his excellent comment above, I recognize my own shortcomings and have no problem admitting to them, but since we're all sinners I am no worse than you, am I? You too are, according to your Bible, unworthy of salvation and can be rescued only by God's grace. So if the only real difference between us is that you believe in God and I cannot share that belief than, according to you, God will burn me in Hell ultimately just for being honest about my disbelief.
Seems like an odd thing for a just and loving God to do...
Regards
A Hermit
Chip,
I like that analogy; you've nearly nailed it. But you're assuming that those two people are deserving of heaven. I'll bet they have both broken the Law of God.
A better analogy for the way it actually is, and forgive me for using your template:
Imagine there are two bank-robbers. Both are deceitful, caught on tape, admitted to their guilt, begged the court for forgiveness. They are very poor, but one has a very rich relative. Both, through his actions, expects a to be let go and to avoid punishment, but has broken the law. The judge has levied a $1Million fine. Neither man can pay his fine, both are due punishment. Who should be let go, both beg forgiveness, both have no money, the man with the rich relative has his relative pay $1Million, the other man cannot pay the fine. Personally, I'd like both of them to be let go if they genuinely repent of their sins...but the judge won't let either one go until the fine is paid. Both are thieves, the Christian is the exact same person as an 'atheist', we both deserve Hell. One of us has a rich relative and the other doesn't.
Canyon stated "As you probably know, I often open air preach; the funniest thing you'll see is a flustered 'atheist' faced with that statement. They are INCAPABLE of admitting that, even thought they think the Bible is wrong.
...It's really an enjoyable spectacle and one my crowds love to experience."
That reminds me of the Biblical passage wherein Jesus and his apostles were approached by a nonbeliever. Jesus mocked him and flustered him. Jesus loved entertaining his apostles by making others feel bad and creating such an "enjoyable spectacle". Jesus told them that this was "the funniest thing you'll see." They laughed and laughed and laughed. Good times, good times...
Hermit, right up until your very last sentence, I thought, "Hey, he really does get it." But you still don't, because this is wrong:
"Seems like an odd thing for a just and loving God to do..."
It is not an odd thing for a just judge to put someone in Jail or send them to the Gallows if there is adequate evidence to convict them.
Your conscience has recorded every transgression you have ever made. God will flip open the book of your conscience and your trial will last four seconds.
God is loving because a judge has every right to send law-breakers to jail. If your dad was a judge and you broke the law, and stood before him, you father, because he's a good judge, won't let you go because you're his son. But after he's sentenced you with a fitting punishment, he can pay your fine for you. That proves his love.
God paying your fine proves His love for you. You claim to understand that, but you keep throwing in comments that show that you truly don't.
The Bible says that people should take responcibility for their actions, appologize, strive for improvement. Humanism and evolutionism don't do either. Humanism says that human-esteem is god, that you are good enough, no matter how imperfect your soul is; evolutionism says that if you're a sloth, you might not produce the next great species, but you won't be around anyways.
It was said of a famous explorer, James Cook, that if they landed on an Indonesian island, whether or not the natives invited them to dinner, or tried to make them into dinner, was whether or not Christian missionaries had preceded the trip.
You can keep pretending you were once a Christian, but based on your testimony and bad fruit, I can only maintain that you were a false convert.
Canyon,
Thank you for proving my point about passing the buck. I can't help but wonder if believing you have a get out of jail free card makes you more inclined to do wrong rather than less.
Chip,
That is a very good question. The answer is, no.
Paul said, "Should we keep on sinning so that grace may further abound?" Of course not.
The deal is that you get saved from repentance and receiving the gift from Christ. That is HOW you get born-again.
But the empirically provable regeneration is when Christ creates a new heart in you, and you then hate sin, and love righteousness. If you don't hate sin and love righteousness, then you aren't a Christian.
It feels like you should be able to keep on sinning, doing all sorts of things like having sex with hundreds of beautiful girls, lying, stealing music off the internet...but your new heart doesn't want to do those things.
Canyon, I'm afraid you're the one who just doesn't get it.
The thing that's odd is that the only difference between you and me is that you believe in God and I cannot believe in God. So if God punishes me and not you then I am essentially being punished for the sin of being honest about my beliefs. Does that sound just to you?
To use your rather weak analogy, its as if the judge decided to pay a fine and let his son go free while sending someone else's son to life in prison for the same crime just because he didn't know the judge. Wouldn't that seem like an odd thing for a fair judge to do? Judges who do that sort of thing tend to get impeached if they're caught at it.
You say "The Bible says that people should take responsibility for their actions, apologize, strive for improvement. Humanism and evolutionism don't do either."
It is true that evolution doesn't say anything about ethical behaviour; but it's just a scientific explanation for biological diversity, so there's no reason to expect evolution to address morality than to expect the theory of gravity to critique art.
Humanism, on the other hand, teaches that we alone are responsible for our actions; that our actions have consequences both for ourselves and for others and that we must therefore act in a manner which is ethical and just. There are no gods or angels to clean up after us, so contrary to your ignorant assertion, the humanist must take full responsibility for his or her actions.
Your Cook story, by the way, is a bit of racist historical revisionism, I'd say. The idea that all South Pacific peoples were murderous cannibals is, to say the least, an overstatement and those Christian missionaries were likely to slaughter or enslave the native populations they encountered whenever possible. You need to read some history, I think.
And once again you conclude by calling me a liar. You complain about my "bad fruit", yet you are the one who resorts to insults when the facts are inconvenient for you. I'm sorry that my story doesn't fit into your narrow minded view of things, but there it is.
------------
And here in his next comment we have a peek into Canyon's secret desires! He would "keep on sinning, doing all sorts of things like having sex with hundreds of beautiful girls, lying, stealing music off the internet.." but his new heart has let go of those ugly desires!
You pompous, self righteous ass! Do you think that just because I don't share your superstitions I am some sort of hedonistic libertine? What a rich fantasy life you have!
No, Canyon, I do not go about lusting after women, engaging in orgies, lying or stealing from people. I am an ethical man who, as I have just pointed out to you, takes full responsibility for his actions and their consequences.
In fact, since I shed my faith I have become a much better man, I think. I certainly lost that judgmental attitude which you display so proudly here. You know nothing about me or Chip, but you assume we are immoral beasts just because we can't swallow your childish religion?
How sad that anyone should live in such a narrow little world. You have my pity.
On the other hand, if the only thing stopping you from going on a nationwide rape and murder spree is your fear of God's judgment please keep your faith strong. If you haven't matured to the point where moral behaviour arises from reason, empathy and an informed concern for the well being of others and requires instead the threat of punishment to restrain you from giving in to your basest desires then by all means cling to that fear.
As for me, I have better things to do with my life than to waste time worrying about your imaginary friend.
Regards
A Hermit
WOW! Hermit! You totally don't get this, do you! It's incredible, you've been in the Christian faith for only God knows how long, you've been reading my posts, and yet you're still confused beyond confusion.
To use your analogy of my analogy. The judges son gets to go scott-free because he has repented and has had his fine paid. Let's say that's me. Now you get judged by the same judge, and he says, "Ok, you're guilty, you're going to prison. But it doesn't have to be that way, if you'll genuinely tell me you're sorry and promise to never do it again, I'll pay your fine for you."
Yet you say, "NO! You're a bad judge for sentencing me! I won't repent! I won't humble myself before you! I won't accept the payment for my fine!"
Then the judge says, "Bailiff, take him away."
About evolution...if it were just a biological theory, then no, we wouldn't expect it to give an ethical code. But evolution is a religion, and as such gives a terrible ethical code. Please refrain from evolution debate here, rather take it to:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2006/12/who_was_jesus/comments.php?page=15
Humanists don't have to take responsibility for anything. If they screw up their life, then great, ask the government to bail them out. Remember, it was humanists who came up with the slogans, "I'm a victim!", "It's not my fault!", "That coffee didn't have a warning on it!" Humanists try to build your self esteem by saying, "No matter what, I'm good enough, I'm strong enough, I'm smart enough, and dog-gonnit, people like me." It's the stupidest of religions after evolutionism. Together the two are ruining this country.
Way to go on your religious bigotry of the Christian missionaries. Very well done.
Your bad fruit is trying to deceive people into Hell. You know full well that the Bible says if you are not born into the family of God, then you are a Child of Wrath, of the Devil, of Disobedience, an Enemy of Righteousness, Separated from God, and Doomed to Hell...and you're trying to spread your religion. Your fruit is as rotten and wicked as it possibly could be.
Thank you so much for trying to use my words to say what you want me to believe. I didn't say you were a hedonist, I never even implied that. That post was based solely on MY old heart and what it loved doing. It had nothing to do with you.
Remember the adage, If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit. You should hold down your yelps and whimpers a bit.
My fear of God isn't keeping me moral, my love of God and the wonderful new Heart He has created in me is.
It is absolutely wonderful if you are listening to your conscience and trying to live a righteous life; thank you for being a good man amongst men. Know that God isn't going to judge you against men though, He is going to judge you against Righteousness.
Please know that I am not judging you; I am attempting to warn you of the wrath to come.
Canyon wrote:
"Your bad fruit is trying to deceive people into Hell. You know full well that the Bible says if you are not born into the family of God, then you are a Child of Wrath, of the Devil, of Disobedience, an Enemy of Righteousness, Separated from God, and Doomed to Hell...and you're trying to spread your religion. Your fruit is as rotten and wicked as it possibly could be."
Who the hell are you? An evil reincarnation of David Koresh and Minister Jones of Jonestown?
Let me tell you something. The Bible would be much more believable had it been written by Jesus himself. If he was the son of God, it should have taken him longer than a blink of the eye. At least then we would know what he really thought. As it is, it was written by a few renegade Jews who are telling us what they thought Jesus was really like. At a miminum there should have been a book written by his family members who would have known him a lot better than all the so-called apostles.
So I'm with Hermit, you are a pompous, self-righteous ass!
My that was fast!
I appreciate your concern for my soul, Canyon, I truly do. I believe you are quite sincere, but your rudeness, combined with your evident ignorance of science, history and philosophy and the fact that you haven't said anything I haven't heard a hundred times (and often much more articulately) leave me quite unmoved.
I'll try and reply more fully later; some of us have to work.
In the words of the old Son House song:
I'm gonna get me religion
Gonna join the Baptist Church
Gonna be a Baptist Preacher
So I won't have to work...;-)
Regards
A Hermit
Hermit and/or Chip,
Do you remember that old black and white movie about a preacher who wore a long black coat and a black hat and had "love" and "hate" tatooed on his hands. The letters were tatooed on his knuckles to spell out those two words. He terrorized people with his brimstone and hell-fire sermons. I can see the actor in front of my eyes, but can't for the life of me come up with this name or the name of the movie.
Help me out please.
Gaby,
I'm not sure I've seen it, but I'm pretty sure it was "Night of the Hunter" starring Robert Mitchum.
Canyon: "Fish (if they do) would have the same arrangement due to their often close proximity to the surface where water fails to filter the UV rays enough."
What about deep-ocean fish who live well beyond the reach of any sunlight?
What about squid who *do* live close to the surface?
Canyon: "Fish (if they do) would have the same arrangement due to their often close proximity to the surface where water fails to filter the UV rays enough."
What about deep-ocean fish who live well beyond the reach of any sunlight?
What about squid who *do* live close to the surface?
To CANYON:
In my post addressed to you, I expressed my appreciation for your evangelical zeal. You style of evangelisation however leaves me feeling very uneasy. After reading your exchanges, I doubt that I would have accepted Christianity if it had been presented to me in the way you do. Knowing from the Gospels how Jesus went about His ministry, I know that He was meek, gentle and compassionate with sinners. He identified with the outcastes and sinners who came to Him, and always accepted the decision of anyone who did not want to follow Him, without humiliating or cursing them. Jesus was harsh only when it came to voicing His anger at religious leaders who were hypocrites. So I am wondering if you might like to pray about the wisdom of using threats and humiliation to spread the Word of God.
Just my thoughts based on the feelings that your exchanges evoked in me.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
GABY: I must let you know that I am overwhelmed that my second post on this long blog moved you so! I've been away for several weeks and was astounded to see your posts so kindly referencing me. Wow, I'm absolutely blown away. Please know that it means something to me. You have moved me as well.
Yes, from your posts I've gathered we are much alike. It's been a long, strange journey which I hold oh-so dear. May our journeys continue well into the future!
I know that other posters take issue with the semantics I incorporate into my god-theory. I have those very same issues as well. The problem arises when articulating my beliefs with people of differing beliefs, which is basically everyone on the planet. So, to communicate my hypothesis effectively with those who may not have a solid scientific background, I simply use the term 'God' in these discussions so that we may at least connect on concept, if nothing else.
I find it far easier to communicate my beliefs using common terms to provide a level of basic understanding, that’s all. A kind of 'explanation by association', if you will. Otherwise, spiritual discussions fall apart when my turn to speak comes around. Believe me, I’ve tried going the scientific route in these types of discussions, but more often than not I seem to be perceived as somewhere between Timothy Leary and Dr. Moreau…
I am guilty of anthropomorphizing, agreed. I’ve made it abundantly clear in previously posts (and with others with which I have such discussions) that ‘God’ is an ill-fitting term for my beliefs. In my first post on this blog, I reveal that I personally refer to my 'God' as 'Omni Sapien' or 'All Wise'. Yeah, that goes over well at parties and family/social functions... ;)
So, if not ‘God’, if not ‘Omni Sapien’, then what? How should I refer to the collective conscience? Should I just call it ‘The Collective Conscience’ (which, BTW, can be found right next to ‘Omni Sapien’ in the dictionary)? If I say ‘God’, I’m anthropomorphizing. If I say ‘Omni Sapien’, I’m just making up words to suit me. This is nothing new to me. I learned this lesson long ago. In a rare fit of frustration many years back, I let loose with ‘I call my dog Logan. What do you call yours?’. I don’t think they got it and it was a bad analogy, anyway.
ACRAPIST: You commented on January 25, 2007 8:18 PM to Gaby’s post of one of my earlier posts, so I thought I’d respond in kind – albeit very late. A thousand pardons for my tardiness. I do concur with most of what you say, however…
You state that mathematics is a useful tool. Absolutely, I couldn’t agree more. But then you state: ‘Both mathematics and puff the dragon are conceptual. One has utility and the other is amusing.’. I must say that I do not agree with your comparison of mathematics to Puff the Magic Dragon. Surely, Newton is writhing in his grave (figuratively speaking).
A little further along in that same post you state: ‘We create mathematical models to mirror the physical world; not the other way around. The falling apple is not obeying the laws of physics. Apples fell the same way long before Newton described it in a formula.’
Again, I completely agree. Newton did not ‘invent’ gravity, he discovered it. I’m sure you know that it was one of many scientific discoveries attributed to him. Personally, I’m especially fond of Newton’s laws of motion (F=MA rocks!), but I digress...
It was by ‘observing’ the apple that Newton made his discovery. Using that observation, he was able to conceptualize gravity and later formulate his theory mathematically on a universal scale. That theory has been mathematically ‘proven’ and now stands as one of the few scientific laws that we have today. Sorry, I’m not trying to patronize as I’m sure you know all of this. My point is that math is more than a conceptual tool and has contributed far more to human understanding than Puff the Magic Dragon.
If I may take this point of Newton’s discovery of the force of gravity down another avenue, might I suggest that his discovery is a glowing example of what I term the ‘shared perspective’. Through Newton’s conceptual undertaking, we ALL share that perspective because it is so tightly defined and empirically verifiable. Although, I must say that I feel an even further understanding of gravity is on the horizon as scientists probe why the force of gravity is so much weaker than the other three natural forces… Sorry, digressing! Anyway, we don’t find ourselves arguing over gravity. We argue about who, or what, created it. Again, in earlier posts I state that I do not consider my ‘God’ (please insert the spiritual term of your choice) to be the ‘Creator’, but rather the ‘Observer’.
That said, does math prove my belief (or hypothesis)? Absolutely not. Might it some day? Possibly. To me, as a scientist on a personal spiritual journey, that’s the beauty of it. If you’ve read my early posts, you already know that I do not dabble in absolutes and I incorporate imperfect knowledge in my belief system. I am not looking for answers or converts to my way of thinking. I seek only to better understand anything, everything… To observe fairly, yet critically, through the filtered bias of my unique conscience perspective. It’s all I have. At my core, it is all that I am. My homage to Descartes…
Rather than just accept that I am a slave to my conscience perspective, I have embraced it. Moan if you must, but to paraphrase the Serenity Prayer, ‘I accept those things I cannot change.’ I can not lift the veil of consciousness, nor do I care to. It is my only conduit with which to experience existence. If I, as a physical being, were devoid of all five physical senses, I believe I would still be self aware. To me, the bigger question is: Would I be aware of you or anything else? Ah, therein lies the rub!
I make no ‘trade-offs’ in my beliefs. I lose nothing by having them. To the contrary, I gain immensely. My beliefs are not pitted against science, but I’m fully aware that my beliefs are not science and would never profess as much. I have far too much respect for science to even dare to think such a blasphemy…
As you further state in your post: ‘I could just as easily say that our physical nature is that part of a collective blob that exists in the mystery dimension. Proof? There is none, but I sure can imagine it.’ Again, I concur. However, if I may play the semantics card - aren’t concepts also ‘imaginings’? And as Einstein famously stated, ‘Imagination is more important than knowledge’. I concur with that as well.
It may well be that these are the fanatical ravings of an insane woman. I accept that possibility. But it comforts me to ‘imagine’ the collective conscience as an amalgam of all conscious (but not necessarily physical) experience, like an ocean of unique conscious perspectives where each being contributes their individual drop to become part of the whole.
If I were the only conscious being known to me, could I ever be certain of anything? How would I define myself? Words like short, thin, and blonde would be mere concepts should I even think to imagine them. My point here is that we rely on each other’s perspective to define ourselves, our relationships, our environment, our beliefs, our meaning, our existence.
Some may decree that I am an existentialist. Maybe, if I were alone. But I am not alone. You are here with me…
Peace!
CHIP,
You are absolutely right. Man, I just love you!
This is exactly who Canyon reminds me of!
The film scared the )*)& out of me!
CANYON:
Watch the movie and tell me that is not you!
Dear Rev. Shearer,
you have not answered my post yet (page 14), and I want to add a few questions on the subject of Heaven and Hell, of which you are the most competent expert I know. It strikes me that you can make a huge crowd burst out laughing at the stupidity of a non-believer at an open air sermon event, which proves to me, that you really can preach well and that you certainly will be in heaven, once the final judgment has been installed, if only for converting so many people to you, I mean to Jesus.
As I have said, I want to learn to play the guitar once in heaven. But then somebody told me that you cannot learn anything unless you make mistakes. Is it tolerated in heaven to make mistakes, to sin even, in order to learn and be forgiven and make progress? Or are they not allowed to make progress anymore, once in Heaven?
Then, I figured what I was going to do in heaven all the time every day. It may be a little boring, since all the Hollywood stars are down there in Hell, and I am not sure the Schadenfreude listening to their nerve-racking constant screaming will be enough joy for a whole eternity, at least not for me.
This leads me to a further reasoning: Is it possible, that Hell is much more entertaining than Heaven, especially since a lot of colorful, interesting sinners will be down there. The fact that you, Rev. Shearer, have only one sermon, however powerful, I am afraid will not catch my interest for such a long time, maybe only the first couple of times, when we see the poor stupid creatures hilariously being made fun of by the overpowering force of your rhethoric converting abilities.
Another question arises: Will we ever get sick in Heaven? It is such a joy after being sick, to recover and regain one’s strength. I think this would be a wonderful reward for believing in you, I mean in Jesus. And, finally, excuse my lewdness for which I might get punished, even in Heaven: Do they have sex in Heaven? To me, this is one of the greatest gifts god has bestowed on us (as a matter of fact, the reason we even exist!), and the Moslems (male), in case they go to Heaven, will have to satisfy 72 virgins. Where do they do this, in limbo, since it simply may be too hot in Hell to achieve such a feat? (Maybe the all-loving God forgives even the Moslems and can help them to achieve such miracles).
There are so many open questions, and I am sure you can answer them easily, judging by the unshakable inerrant statements you are so famous for. I admire you for being able to define a person simply by a post in “On faith” to such a degree that you can tell him and all of us exactly if and even why they go to Hell or Heaven, respectively. I have learned so much about you and about faith in general by simply reading your posts, and I want to thank you for this degree of information and enlightenment, which enables me to make deductions I never before was able to make...
Rev. Shearer,
one final question I cannot solve by myself: Suppose I get to be 90+ years old, maybe with Alzheimer and completely debilitated, unable to think straight and completely unable to sin anymore, plus other diseases, I might not even want to have an eternal life, not even in Heaven.
Now, is there an age limit, say, a mature but still vigorous age of 40, would I be admitted at that age level? If yes, the problem arises that my sinning (and possibly repenting) account accumulated after that age would not be represented, and the decision to go to Hell or Heaven would be based on incomplete information. Can you decide this question for me? Thank you!
"Vogue?" Where is atheism "vogue?" Anytime the money changers of Christianity see their ridiculous position as spokespersons of the nation challenged they resort to idiot statements like this. I doubt that superstition will every be anything but in possession of the majority of humans. We're inclined to believe in the fantastic and impossible.
Today, many atheists and agnostics have simply had enough of the incredibly stupid tenents of religion and are speaking out, loudly and often. There is nothing vogue about it. It's no different than when Tom Paine wrote about "The Rights of Man" in opposition to King George and the Church of England's outrageous control over common thought and speech.
Gaby, As soon as I read the Amazon review I figured that had to be what you were thinking! hehe. Sounds like a great film, and anything that gets compared to German expressionism I'm bound to enjoy. Our dear Canyon also reminds me of a certain Dr. Caligari.
Here's the most telling comment Canyon has made; he claims "My fear of God isn't keeping me moral, my love of God and the wonderful new Heart He has created in me is."
On has to wonder why if it's God's love which Canyon finds so wonderful he spends most of his time railing about hell and damnation and punishment.
If the love of God is sufficient to keep you moral, Canyon, why do you feel it necessary to try and convert others with dire warnings His wrath?
Just curious
A Hermit
One of my favorite theological sources is Author Terry Prachett, who writes hilarious books about "Discworld":
Exerpt from "The Last Continent": "Against the stars a turtle passes, carrying four elephants on its shell. Both turtle & elephants are bigger than people might expect, but out between the stars the difference between huge & tiny is, comparatively speaking, very small. "But this
turtle & these elephants are, by turtle & elephant standards, big.
They carry the Discworld, with its vast lands, cloudscapes, & oceans. People don't live on the Disc, any more than, in less hand-crafted parts of the multiverse, they live on balls.
"Oh, planets may be the place where their body eats its tea, but they live elsewhere, in worlds of their own which orbit very handily around the center of their heads."
Check out "The Last Continent", it's a terrific antidote to the oppressive fundamentalist religious climate permeating all the "tribal" religions now, which is making them so "deadly" serious. As in, literally, "deadly"!
Think how you felt the moment the first Astronaut set foot on the Moon, & we saw the Earth from that mind-boggling perspective, & it was so beautiful. Peoples all over the World shared that spiritual moment. We need to recapture that spirit, encourage it!!
canyon Shearer my good ole friend :)
So, this is where you are! How many have you caused to climb up walls? How many have bite the dust in their 'dialogue' with you? :)
Let me put to your the Five Pillars of Atheism so you would respect their creed and dogma:
1) There is no God
2) Belief in God is a delusion
3) All religions are a farce and myths created by man
4) All believers of God are irrational, illogical and idiotic
5) All believers, at all times, should be told the truth and supported by facts to realize their delusions and belief in God and subsribing to religion.
I glean the Five Pillars of Atheism from what the atheists, agnostics, secular humanists all said in various thread in On Faith.
I wish the atheists themselves would enumerate it succintly for effective, cogent and punchy "marketing" in the marketplace of ideas.
They seem to be very passionate and devout unbelievers and deserve respect, if a bit preachy now and then, here and there in the On Faith threads on what not to believe.
As a convinced atheist, I regard myself a highly spiritual person. Spiritual in the sense that I have an infinite awe and admiration for the incredible beauty of nature, of which I have the privilege to be a part, for the evolution of nature, animals, for the infinite universe, for humans, for art, music, literature, philosophy, for the beautiful possibilities of human thinking and imagining and creating and, most of all, for the huge challenging field of things unknown and unknowable, like the question of why we exist, why we can say “I”, what is time, what is space, can we imagine the unimaginable (11 dimensions, when Hawkings jestingly admits he even has trouble imagining three dimensions!).
I am convinced that this attitude of “atheist spirituality” or "spiritual atheism" will finally prevail. It is the truly honest scientific and yet humble, I am almost inclined to call it “religious” approach to nature and to our existence. If people want to call this universe “God”, fine with me, it boils down to semantics. (And, Mr. Meacham, it certainly is not based on a “fad” – what a condescending attitude!)
By contrast, the monotheistic religions with their “Scriptures” and the superstitious belief and centuries old babbling (and mass killing) about its contradictory details prevents people to achieve such a spiritual freedom. The 30 years’ war was, in part, fought over the sophistic struggle if bread and wine “is” or “means” blood and flesh of Jesus. Sophistic nonsense based on sophistic nonsense. Nonsense square – with disastrous results.
The silly ranting of people like Shearer with their lowly and sadistic fairy tales of hell and an infantile picture of a “heaven”, where nobody knows what he is doing there, are actually an impediment against any reasonable AND spiritual “belief” whatsoever. It makes me laugh when Shearer quotes from his bible in an attempt to “convert” or convince someone for whom this conglomerate of myths, legends, some memories maybe, collected through the superstitious millenia, has only historic and literary meaning.
The stupid misconcept that moral depends on the adherence to any given denomination is to me one of the most disingenious, evil anti-moral usurpations invented by man to wield power over fellow humans. Thus, established religions PREVENT spirituality rather than to enable it, at least for many people. (It is fine with me, and I don’t feel superior for that matter, that a lot of people need a more palpable handle like an established religion to get well integrated into social behavior. Personally I don’t think, however, that fear of punishment and hope for reward in the “afterworld” can be regarded as the highest "moral" tools of human dignity in order to lead a decent life).
Forgive me for "preaching" a little everybody - I am sick of only having to defend atheism!
Not "whining" anymore!
Gerry
To Linda the Discworld reader:
May Offler and Blind Io smile upon you!
OK, maybe not Offler, those teeth would make me nervous...
Regards
A Hermit
To Jihadist - re: Five Pillars of Atheism:
There are no doubt some people who would happily embrace with your five points, but I would state them somewhat differently. Here's my version:
1) There is no compelling evidence that any gods exist.
2) Belief in gods is not founded in objective reason but in subjective faith.
3) All religions are myths created by man as analogies of life and therefore contain insights of great value as well as much that is absurd or even destructive. The danger in religion comes from the insistence that the analogy is reality.
4) Belief in gods is ultimately illogical since it is based on subjective faith even though believers may be intelligent rational people in other ways.
5) It would be better if believers would admit that their beliefs are a matter of subjective faith, and as such are not a useful basis for determining objective reality or public policy.
...and that those of us who do not share their faith are not some sort of spiritual cripples in need of "saving" just because we don't subscribe to any particular set of superstitions.
---------------
Not as punchy and marketable as your version, perhaps, but a better reflection of my own thinking.
Regards
A Hermit
Jihadist - "4) All believers of God are irrational, illogical and idiotic"
I don't recall who said it, and I wish I could give it proper attribution, but I recently heard what I considered a very wise comment about religious belief. "Intelligent people are very good at justifying things that they came to believe for very unintelligent reasons." I think that's a lot more accurate than simply labeling people as idiotic.
A Hermit
"So the big question now is, will your God, if he exists, still burn me in hell for being an atheist? If so, then I can't win either way, can I? I will either be punished for hypocrisy or punished for honest atheism."
I'm sorry, but I don't know the answer. It's up to God to forgive or punish. I never stated that all believers are going to heaven nor did I ever state that all atheists are going to hell.
For the believing crowd, choose one:
1. Everything that happens happens through god’s will. Therefore everything that happens is proof of gods will. (That is the main course of the believers’ argument in all these threads.) But then, you don’t have to pray, not even believe (meditating for yourself is something else!), it will always be god’s will, whatever happens, whatever you do, and you have the "proof" of his will on top. (They call this “circular argument”.) The notion of “accountability” is completely superfluous in this thinking/believing, and the notion of hell or heaven really stupid.
2. Everything that happens happens by chance and causality. Therefore everything that happens is a "proof" that all happens by chance and causality. You can pray to chance and to causality, but that doesn’t change the statement No. 2. (Also circular arguing). Here, like in No. 1, your personality is excluded.
3. If you suppose you have a free will, bound into a social context, accept your accountability, since whatever happens then depends on nature and its inherent laws PLUS your freedom as a human being, but by no means on god’s will (we have excluded this with No. 1!). However, in this third case, and only in this case, you have the burden of accountability. No eternal punishment, no eternal reward outside yourself, only the Kantian a priori conscience and the starred sky, the admiration of nature (not anything like heaven or hell, "god" forbid!). Heaven and hell are nothing but human projections, which don't even withstand the simplest intelligent argument.
To All
First of all, I tend to think that Canyon might be a "Plant". (No not a Vegetable)
But Here is something for, if there is a God and a heaven and Hell, Then it might be explained something Like This story.
The Believer?
TableofContents
Coming to God and entering his kingdom is kind of like this for some.
Let's say you saw a job add in the paper for a Nuclear Physicist. And you tell yourself. Hey! I want that job because it pays really good. I think I will go and get it. So you pack up your resume and head on out for the interview. You get there and stand before the C.E.O's desk and say, here I am ready to work. When do I start. And you are all excited about all the money you are going to make with this new title that you decided to take unto yourself. And just when your excitement is at it's peek. The C.E.O says. Well" (Put your name here) I see here by your resume that you have no experience in Nuclear Physics. You do not even have any schooling at all in this field. What made you think that you should apply for this Job. And you say something like. Well I read about it sometimes. And I live in a world where it exists. I kind of agree with it to the point of what I know about it. So I said, Hey! That's the job for me. So when do I start Boss? I'm more then happy and ready to enter into your domain, so lets get going!
Then the C.E.O of the Company looks at you and says. Well (Put your name here) I'll tell you what. I can not hire you for this position because you have not worked for it. You know nothing about it, or seem to understand it's concepts. If I hired you on, it would be a disaster for my domain. Here is what you are to do before you can come into my domain. You must first go out and learn all that you can about being a nuclear Physicist. You must be trained and come to know all that you can before you can enter into this type of field (Life). If you come back, and you do not have the proper training. Then how can I make you a part of this Company. You must first know all that you can about what this place is all about and how it works. If you know nothing about this work or even care to understand what it really stands for. Then you can have nothing to do with my people and their work. You can not co exist with this Company with just a hint of how it works. But you can start at this point and learn what you can about it. After you show me that you have at least tried to improve your knowledge,. Then I will try to place you in my Domain. In a position where you might fit.
And you say (Put yourself here), but I believe in your Company and your authority there. I want the job now. Not tomorrow! Now! Why should I have to accept the schooling for this position?
“The C.E.O says to you” many believe in my company and authority, but that does not make them Nuclear Physicist.
After saying this and hearing your last words. The C.E.O of the company has security come up and kick you out of his office.
NOTE: Is it not Kind of Funny that through evolution that there are Hundreds if not thousands of different types of Fruits and vegetabl's with all types of Vitamins and minerals that heal our body's and keep us strong and healthy. Kind of funny is it not that these things evolved just to suit our body needs. For those who eat only vegetables, I did not want to mention the different types of meats that have proteen and other good, and bad stuff for the Body all so. bad being Fat.
Best to you
David
I spent many years vacillating between being agnostic and atheistic. My childhood years were spent in various religions. I saw all the discrepancies between what my role models said, and actually did. I came to believe that Hypocrisy was a way life. And that religion was to blame. I had an intense hate and loathing for anyone or anything remotely religious. And of course I equated God with religion. I think the reason that I found Atheistism so comforting were the cold hard facts that I could use against my friends in debates, and it entailed no risks on my part in my belief systems. But the number one reason was that I could not understand our species unrelenting thirst and hunger for inflicting pain, misery, and death upon each other
for whatever the reasons. And if there was a God than he was one mean, sick and twisted dude for allowing all this to go on under his nose, and not do anything. Just easier to not believe. That was then and this is now many years later. Now I do believe in God. I think in answer to the secondpart of the question"can their ever be a productive dialogue between the to groups" is yes. If we can just quit trying to convince each other that the other who is right, or wrong. And "what issues can we discuss". How to stop all the killing, the pollution of our planet, children and adults starving, animals becomming extinct, etc ... I think any if not all those problems would be a good start. I watch the news here in America, and its insane. I want go there, never mind.
I spent many years vacillating between being agnostic and atheistic. My childhood years were spent in various religions. I saw all the discrepancies between what my role models said, and actually did. I came to believe that Hypocrisy was a way life. And that religion was to blame. I had an intense hate and loathing for anyone or anything remotely religious. And of course I equated God with religion. I think the reason that I found Atheistism so comforting were the cold hard facts that I could use against my friends in debates, and it entailed no risks on my part in my belief systems. But the number one reason was that I could not understand our species unrelenting thirst and hunger for inflicting pain, misery, and death upon each other
for whatever the reasons. And if there was a God than he was one mean, sick and twisted dude for allowing all this to go on under his nose, and not do anything. Just easier to not believe. That was then and this is now many years later. Now I do believe in God. I think in answer to the secondpart of the question"can their ever be a productive dialogue between the to groups" is yes. If we can just quit trying to convince each other that the other who is right, or wrong. And "what issues can we discuss". How to stop all the killing, the pollution of our planet, children and adults starving, animals becomming extinct, etc ... I think any if not all those problems would be a good start. I watch the news here in America, and its insane. I want go there, never mind.
I spent many years vacillating between being agnostic and atheistic. My childhood years were spent in various religions. I saw all the discrepancies between what my role models said, and actually did. I came to believe that Hypocrisy was a way life. And that religion was to blame. I had an intense hate and loathing for anyone or anything remotely religious. And of course I equated God with religion. I think the reason that I found Atheistism so comforting were the cold hard facts that I could use against my friends in debates, and it entailed no risks on my part in my belief systems. But the number one reason was that I could not understand our species unrelenting thirst and hunger for inflicting pain, misery, and death upon each other
for whatever the reasons. And if there was a God than he was one mean, sick and twisted dude for allowing all this to go on under his nose, and not do anything. Just easier to not believe. That was then and this is now many years later. Now I do believe in God. I think in answer to the secondpart of the question"can their ever be a productive dialogue between the to groups" is yes. If we can just quit trying to convince each other that the other who is right, or wrong. And "what issues can we discuss". How to stop all the killing, the pollution of our planet, children and adults starving, animals becomming extinct, etc ... I think any if not all those problems would be a good start. I watch the news here in America, and its insane. I want go there, never mind.
A Hermit
Thank you for the A Hermit version. There are now versions of the Atheist creed, like in organized religion. Can I call your Hermitian or Hermitish School/Church or Atheism and mine the Jihadian School/Church of Atheism? We are not going to engage in hair-splitting over the finer points leading to wars are we?:)
Chip
You do know that we use our mind to rationalize and justify everything even in the face of "facts" and argued over them. Ask any good lawyer.
David
Heaven and hell can be here on earth too.
Going to a Tina Turner concert is Heaven.
Living in Iraq right now is Hell.
And fundamentalist atheists can be as wordy as fundamentalist believers.
Between the both of them, I am experiencing hell here.
And Canyon is neither plant or vegetable. He talks about lungfish in another thread and now American basket flower and Scottish thistle here.
Gerry
To quote Lalla, David Hawkins's wife, who was unhappy in her school, told her parents and was informed she should have told them, she did not know she could leave that school.
"I didn't know I could" she said and quoted by Dawkins in his book, "The God Delusion"
I didn't know I could believe in God in spite of everything. And I know I can chose all or just one in the questions you posed if I want to.
And no, I am not obsessed about heaven and hell in the afterlife but with heaven and hell here on earth if I don't live my life well ethically and morally as called for by my faith. Not blind faith, but wide awake to everything around me and in the world.
Jihadist - "You do know that we use our mind to rationalize and justify everything even in the face of "facts" and argued over them. Ask any good lawyer."
Yes, that's indeed true, and you'll find dogmatists in all walks of life, including the sciences. That, however, doesn't mean that all methodologies for evaluating knowledge and information are equal, or that opinions forcefully taught with fire and brimstone are ever reevaluated by the majority unless that reevaluation is inherent in the methodology. Don't confuse rationalism with rationalizing. They're not the same thing.
Where you find dogmatists, you also tend to find severe repercussions for contradicting them like separation from family and community, or difficulty in advancing one's career, or in the more extreme instances, being burned at the stake. Compare the frequency with which scientific dogmatists are overturned against the frequency with which religious dogma is overturned. The former can't stand forever because the system of scientific inquiry is designed to prevent that from happening (unless no competing theory can make a better case). Religious methodology is the opposite - designed specifically to protect the dogmatist, not subject him to continual challenge.
I should point out that I'm not a scientist (artist, actually), but simply trying to contrast different ways of approaching knowledge and belief.
Jihadist says:
"There are now versions of the Atheist creed, like in organized religion. Can I call your Hermitian or Hermitish School/Church or Atheism and mine the Jihadian School/Church of Atheism? We are not going to engage in hair-splitting over the finer points leading to wars are we?:)"
Well, the big difference between my opinions, or even a creed-like statement like Paul Kurz's Affirmations of Humanism and a religious doctrine is that you will never hear an atheist, agnostic or humanist claim that their ideas were divinely inspired and are therefore infallible. So it's unlikely any wars will start over the fine points. Our all too human attempts to find common human ground are always open to improvement.
Regards
A Hermit
PS here's a link to Kurz's Affirmations; I certainly don't treat them like scripture, but I do find a lot to agree with here:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations
David says:
"Is it not Kind of Funny that through evolution that there are Hundreds if not thousands of different types of Fruits and vegetabl's with all types of Vitamins and minerals that heal our body's and keep us strong and healthy. Kind of funny is it not that these things evolved just to suit our body needs."
I think you have it backwards. Organisms evolve as they adapt over time to their environment, so the fact that our bodily systems evolved the way they have because they had to adapt to the available nutrients in the environment is not surprising at all; in fact this is exactly what one would expect if evolutionary theory is correct.
Regards
A Hermit
Pamela,
Great hearing from you again! I wish I could help you with what to my/our "god". I talked to my Native American friend and he suggested to adopt the name "Spirit" or "Creator", but somehow that doesn't fit. It's something else, but I can't put my finger on it. I can feel it is there, but it's so very elusive at the same time. So right now I'm just calling it "IT" for lack of something better. Maybe I'll give it a name someday.
Chip,
I am wondering if Canyon is going to watch the movie.
Hermit,
As always you are a model of decorum on this site. By the way, are you British?
Gaby, I'm wondering if perhaps he's finding it painful to type while waiting for the tattoos to heal.
Chip, hahahahhahha! You are too funny!
Gaby asks:
"Hermit...are you British?"
No, sorry, I'm Canadian. We have a reputation for being extremely polite; I hope that's OK with everyone? Thanks...
;-)
Regards
A Hermit
Hermit and Chip
Thanks for what you said in your respective postings. If only some believers are as civil and well considered as you are.
Speaking for myself, I find Canyon Shearer enthusiastic. And frankly, sometimes, I think there is more than one of him talking on everything from creationism, evolution to intelligent design, and not just Scripture and Theology.
I do need the likes of Canyon Shearer, Concerned the Christian Now Liberated et al to remind me how dogmatic and persistent some believers can be in their insistence on their truths.
It is said that doubt is an element of faith. But these types have not had a shred of doubt at all. Nor the humility of the truly devout and spiritual believers, regardless of any faith.
Some believers here also seem to suspend reason, reasonableness and civil behavior toward fellow men in insisting that their truths prevails above all others.
Before I sign off, if Muslims are the new blacks, I welcome it. Soon, everyone will be listening to our music and wanting to dance like us. But, oh wait. What music? What dancing? :)
All the best and peace be with you both always
Jihadist
Thanks for the kind words, Jihadist. I very much enjoy your posts as the Muslim world is very opaque to me. It's very interesting to learn about your views.
I kid Canyon. I may see the world completely differently, but I enjoy spirited debate, and even people who are completely dogmatic are exposing themselves to other viewpoints by engaging them here. I think that's grand even if they aren't necessarily receptive to them. At the end of the day I think most of us just want to be understood.
Someone above said: "GOD DOES NOT BELIEVE IN ATHEISTS." I ask: how do you know that? Do you have the one direct line to God? What about people of faith who disagee with you on that issue - are they mistaken? If so, how do you know they are wrong?
Atheism is not in vogue, as far as I can see. We are forced into being silent about our beliefs because of the hostility of others. I, too, have received intense prosylizing (sorry for the misspelling) and hostility when I've revealed my beliefs. I can't help but keep it to myself, if I want to do well at work and live a decent life.
Hermit,
Ahhh, Canadian eh? ....well that explains it! :0
Jihadist says:
"...if Muslims are the new blacks, I welcome it. Soon, everyone will be listening to our music and wanting to dance like us."
I hope you're right! I remember the Lebanese bass player in a local band at an outdoor music festival performing the call to prayer in the middle of the band's set. The moon was rising behind him as he sang and the whole crowd (old hippies, young punks and everything in between) stood still and silent. Even after he finished there was this moment of perfect, quiet calm before the audience erupted in applause. It was one of the most moving things I've ever heard.
Regards
A Hermit
NZMAM says:
"It's up to God to forgive or punish. I never stated that all believers are going to heaven nor did I ever state that all atheists are going to hell."
So the Pascal's Wager argument completely falls apart at this point. If a state of belief/unbelief is no determinant of whether one is rewarded or punished after death then the utilitarian choice presented by Pascal is meaningless.
I know we'd kind of already reached that conclusion, nut this just reinforces it.
Now, if belief is not required to guarantee our position in the afterlife (if there is one) then we are left with the question of what function belief does have in our lives.
I imagine everyone has a their own answer for that question.
Regards
A Hermit
In December Lynn had said: "1. Many mysteries historically attributed to divine intervention have been explained."
Modernity has separated so much of our culture out from under the control of churches and opened them up to public discussion and criticism; this has been beneficial. It has also made for a wider range of views which so many people cannot grasp. The result is to use simplistic labels which by intent villify what is not understood.
We are all agnostic. No one knows or understands what was here before the "big bang." We can only speculate in human terms what is named the divine.
Note that the universe was not "built" around the earth; the earth is not at the center of what we know at present.
Pamela,
I found the following website. I thought it might interest you in your quest for naming our great spirit in the sky.
http://www.yhwh.com/GINGN/gingn.htm
I don't endorse the religious part of the site, but thought that the explanation of God's name sounded interesting.
A Hermit,
"Now, if belief is not required to guarantee our position in the afterlife..."
Is this your own conclusion, or are you putting words in my mouth.
The religion I practice forbids those who follow it to judge who will end up where. The only thing we know is that those who have sincere faith in their supreme creator will do time in hell (if applicable) for whatever sins they committed and eventually go to heaven.
On the other hand, God has the power to punish those who denied His existance or if He so chooses, to forgive them.
Now, if a believer is punished for his/her sins before entering heaven, don't you think it's only fair that the punishment of those who rejected God should be worse than the believers' punishment? And it's no guarantee that all of those that didn't believe in their creator will be forgiven.
The ones who will have the worst punishment of all (and no chance of forgivness) are the hypocrites and those are the only group that we are allowed to judge based on what is in the Quran.
Peace
Atheism has become more common because:
1. Many mysteries historically attributed to divine intervention have been explained.
2. Church and family have lost influence in shaping young minds (vs. the media)
3. Exposure to a wide variety of cultures has re-enforced that there is no single of view of God for all of mankind (hence no single religion can claim their God is THE God).
Good people, both faithful and atheists can agree:
1. Many religions provide a structure that can help improve behavior and provide hope
2. Bringing people together to better mankind is a good thing
3. We have lot of work to do to stop cruelty, selfishness, bigotry, and hate.
December 27, 2006 6:02 PM