Atheists....

[cuppajoe_9]

When I say I didn't much care for it, I am not refering to the fact that my freedom was restricted. I am refering to the capacity that was instilled in me to feel large ammounts of irrational guilt, not to mention irrational fear of eternal torture and the entirely irrational belief that sex and the sex instincts are somehow 'bad'. I don't need any of that, thank you, I'm stressed-out enough. On the off chance that I am, somehow, convinced that the Judeo-Christian version of God actually does exist, I suppose I might have a shot at Unitarian Universalism.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Well said.

I get so bored with these statements which come up as though pre-determined by some kind of christian lottery:

"Hey, it's your turn to point out that they can't be actual atheists..."

N.B. to any which think that way:

In case my screen name doesn't give it away, I'm a strong atheist.

It's taken me nearly half a century to arrive at strong atheism, having passed from an openly atheist child to an agnostic youth, a questioning twenty-something, an atheist thirty-something and on to where I am now, a complete and outspoken atheist as I near fifty.

Just a note for christians - every single one of your positions or arguments is something I've already heard many times over the years and can be summed as up "anecdotal evidence + a collection of Abrahamic god myths = christianity".

You're welcome to retain the comfort-blanket of the big sky-daddy, but please do not, even for a millisecond, suggest that you know anything about life on the side of the road where there are no gods - the real world - because you have no idea why I'm an atheist and almost certainly all of the reasons you've been given to explain why people are atheists are irretrievably wrong.

Atheists are atheists for the simplest of reasons - there are no gods. We'll never agree on that, but I do respectfully ask that you learn to tell the difference between fact and fantasy. It's all very easily explained - from the voice of Jesus you respond to, to the religious awe you feel in contemplating your god. It's all physical and you can find the facts, should you choose to do so.

You won't find the truth on an internet message board, but you might if you open your eyes for a second or two along life's journey.

And note my first Orwell quote - it applies equally to religion as The Party

However much you convince yourself otherwise, atheism has a shakier position than religion. There are no stories of how we are here that is proved by science, and the idea of a big bang that is undirected is ludicrous. Christianity (and possibly other religions, though I am not familiar with their beliefs) has more evidence, historical and scientific than atheism. The fossil record shows no evidence of darwinism and "halfway fossils", while it does show evidence of species appearing, seemingly out of nowhere, then vanishing (as from a flood). Considering this, however difficult you find believing in a "big sky-daddy", you might consider making a Pascal style gambit.
And a question; was Orwell an atheist?

[RobinHood3000]

Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens

Yes, no halfway fossils whatsoever.


The idea of a Big Bang is only ludicrous to those who don't understand what they're laughing at. The Big Bang was not undirected - science in its present form simply has no means of explaining it. And if evidence existed to support Christianity, it would cease to be a religion. Religion, by its nature, exists on faith and cannot be proven.

[cuppajoe_9]

And a question; was Orwell an atheist?Orwell was ambivalent. Some see Big Brother in Nineteen Eighty-Four as a parody of God, but that's a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. What does it matter?

[Dante Wodehouse]

Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens are basically the same thing that lost hair and gained brain. What I am talking about are links from, say, reptiles to mammals for a fairly simple one, or reptiles to birds.
Also, the Big Bang is a scientific theory stating how the universe was created. If it is directed, then there is a god who existed outside of the universe. There is evidence to support Christianity (without evidence there is no purpose for chosing Christianity over other religions). The evidence does not absolutely confirm it and faith must take you where evidence doesn't, but suggestive evidence exists.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Orwell was ambivalent. Some see Big Brother in Nineteen Eighty-Four as a parody of God, but that's a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. What does it matter?

I'm just curious. Also, you cite him as being against religion (unless I miss your meaning), so I wondered if he was against religion.

[cuppajoe_9]

Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens are basically the same thing that lost hair and gained brain.They evolved, in other words.


What I am talking about are links from, say, reptiles to mammals for a fairly simple one, or reptiles to birds.Ask and ye (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm) shall recieve. (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird)


Also, the Big Bang is a scientific theory stating how the universe was created.Nope. The Big Bang took place directly after the universe was created.


There is evidence to support Christianity (without evidence there is no purpose for chosing Christianity over other religions). The evidence does not absolutely confirm it and faith must take you where evidence doesn't, but suggestive evidence exists.I've yet to hear about it.


lso, you cite him as being against religion (unless I miss your meaning), so I wondered if he was against religion.Nope, I never claimed Orwell was against religion. Imperialism, laissez-faire capitalism and Stalinism, yes; religion, I dunno.

[JBI]

Anyone else here find it quite humorous that atheists are the most feared group in America?

[Dante Wodehouse]

They evolved, in other words.

There is a difference between simple changes and the creation of an organ. Biologists have yet to explain how organs have been created.



Ask and ye (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm) shall recieve. (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird)

The Archeopteryx was a dead end. They were an unfortunate creature that survived for a very short time unsuccessfully, and did not have enough time to exist beyond that.



Nope. The Big Bang took place directly after the universe was created.
How was the universe created then?



I've yet to hear about it.

Have you been looking?



Nope, I never claimed Orwell was against religion. Imperialism, laissez-faire capitalism and Stalinism, yes; religion, I dunno.

Sorry, that was The Atheist.

[cuppajoe_9]

Anyone else here find it quite humorous that atheists are the most feared group in America?

I think that serial killers, terrorists and used car salesmen are still ahead of us, but yes, it's fairly amusing. And quite sad.

[cuppajoe_9]

There is a difference between simple changes and the creation of an organ. Biologists have yet to explain how organs have been created.That is quite simply false. This is what biologists spend most of their time doing. Pick any organ you like and look it up.


The Archeopteryx was a dead end. They were an unfortunate creature that survived for a very short time unsuccessfully, and did not have enough time to exist beyond that.Those links listed a few more creatures than the archeopteryx.


How was the universe created then?I haven't the foggiest idea. That certainly doesn't mean that I have to accept your idea, however.


Have you been looking?Yes.

[RobinHood3000]

The Archeopteryx was a dead end. They were an unfortunate creature that survived for a very short time unsuccessfully, and did not have enough time to exist beyond that.Natural selection at work, then?

[billyjack]

How was the universe created then
.

who says it was created? maybe the answer eludes us because the question itself is silly. . .

[The Atheist]

However much you convince yourself otherwise, atheism has a shakier position than religion.

Baseless and incorrect assertion.

Ask an NSA scientist if you don't want to take my word for it.


There are no stories of how we are here that is proved by science, and the idea of a big bang that is undirected is ludicrous.

Baseless and incorrect assertion.

Hell, I guess it would look like that if you thought a sky-fairy had coughed it all out or whatever he did to get it brought into being - clearly far more logical - after all, it says so in the bible.


Christianity (and possibly other religions, though I am not familiar with their beliefs) has more evidence, historical and scientific than atheism.

Baseless and incorrect assertion.

Atheism pre-dates christianity, for starters.


The fossil record shows no evidence of darwinism and "halfway fossils",

Outright lie. Follow the links I gave earlier.


... while it does show evidence of species appearing, seemingly out of nowhere,

Outright lie.


...then vanishing (as from a flood).

Yet another lie.


Considering this, however difficult you find believing in a "big sky-daddy", you might consider making a Pascal style gambit.

When attempting to argue a point with me, it is imperative to at least know a little about the sucject matter in hand.

You clearly missed that bus, because all of your assertions made above are completely and irretrievably false. I certainly can't disprove god, nor do I particularly want to, but I can refute all of your pseudo-arguments anytime.


And a question; was Orwell an atheist?

No, firstly, he was far too consumed with this world to worry about the next, but his position was clearly agnostic. His position on religion was essentially the same as his opinion on Public Schools - bad idea, essential to survival of the human [English] spirit.

[Dante Wodehouse]

Baseless and incorrect assertion.

Religion is outright and claims to require faith, where as atheism appears to rely on science, but has no replacement for religion.




Baseless and incorrect assertion.


Hell, I guess it would look like that if you thought a sky-fairy had coughed it all out or whatever he did to get it brought into being - clearly far more logical - after all, it says so in the bible.
Again, atheism claims to rely on logic but requires faith to deny faith, whereas religion states that it is based on faith.




Baseless and incorrect assertion.

Atheism pre-dates christianity, for starters.
You might want to find another response than 'Baseless and incorrect assertion'. What took place before what is neither here nor their.




Outright lie. Follow the links I gave earlier.
I did, and I responded to the old archeopterix, which appears to come from nowhere (except the distantly related dinosaurs) and go to nowhere in the evolutionary chain. If you have seen it, it can't have survived long. If it flew, it didn't fly well.




Outright lie.

See 'Cambrian Explosion'.


Yet another lie.
The flood part may have been baseless, but look at the dinosaurs. Some meteor or something completely removed them and mammals became dominant directly afterwards.




When attempting to argue a point with me, it is imperative to at least know a little about the sucject matter in hand.

You clearly missed that bus, because all of your assertions made above are completely and irretrievably false. I certainly can't disprove god, nor do I particularly want to, but I can refute all of your pseudo-arguments anytime.
You might try to prove me wrong using information, rather than 'outright lie' and 'Baseless and incorrect assertion.'[/QUOTE]

[Dante Wodehouse]

As this thread has drifted from the subject matter that is was based on and is becoming rather irritating (partially because of me, I must admit), I am leaving it. Goodbye.

[The Atheist]

You might try to prove me wrong using information, rather than 'outright lie' and 'Baseless and incorrect assertion.'[/QUOTE]

No point. If you had any interest in finding out facts, you'd be doing so instead of spinning fallacies all over a literature discussion board.

[whatsername]

Does anyone know what made C.S. Lewis become a christian after being an Atheist?

[Redzeppelin]

No point. If you had any interest in finding out facts, you'd be doing so instead of spinning fallacies all over a literature discussion board.

This thread is about atheism, not evolution. Your "facts" prove nothing beyond the reality that science has found some clues and thinks that it has a good shot at interpreting them into the answer it wants to arrive at. In that way, science is no different than religion - in that it begins with its conclusion (Naturalism) and makes the "facts" fit its plan - just like Christians begin with God and do likewise. Welcom to the presuppositional club - some of acknowledge we're members - others of us pretend we're not.


Does anyone know what made C.S. Lewis become a christian after being an Atheist?

On September 19, 1931, Lewis went for an evening walk at Magdalen College with JRR Tolkien and Hugo Dyson. They were discussing their shared interest in mythology and what gave myths their truth. Tolkien argued that the truth of myth is the degree to which it reflects the story of Jesus. Then Tolkien went on to argue for the truthfulness of Christianity. About two weeks later, Lewis converted to Christianity. That's a really truncated version - it's much more complicated than that and I believe Lewis fully lays out his experience in Surprised by Joy.

[Logos]

If you had any interest in finding out facts, you'd be doing so instead of spinning fallacies all over a literature discussion board.
Please discuss the topic and not each other.

[kilted exile]

Ok in an attempt to get things somewhat back on track I'll answer the original Q.

What do atheists believe in?

Seeing as atheism is a position of only one shared belief, I will answer from a personal standpoint.

1) I do not believe in a benevolent creator/god/supreme being. Looking around at the world I can see no evidence of it - I may be inclined however to think that if there is a creator he/she/it is disinterested and/or incompetent.

2) I believe that humans have the power themselves to do great acts of kindness and huge amounts of evil, and that we are capable of affecting real change ourselves without the need for a god to do it for us.

3) I believe in the "no harm" philosophy, so long as what you do does not adversely affect any unwilling participant I have no real issue with it. Of course with the condition about creating laws/regulations for children and others not able to make the decision on a concious level for themselves with regards to whether they wish to participate or not.

4) I do not believe in marriage, I have never seen the need for a piece of paper or the idea that people somehow love each other more or are less likely to split up if they get married (of course this is influenced by my childhood experiences)

5) I believe in taking responsibility for your own actions - to me pre-destination/fate seems like a huge cop-out, if I work hard enough life will be good.

6) I believe people should believe in whatever works for them without attempts from people to make them see "the light" as it is percieved by the converter. It doesnt matter to me whether people believe in nothing, god, Y-W-H, Allah, Buddah, the tooth fairy or Santa if it works for you go with it. Just dont expect everyone to agree with you.

[Redzeppelin]

Ok in an attempt to get things somewhat back on track I'll answer the original Q.

And I thank you kindly for doing so.


What do atheists believe in?

Seeing as atheism is a position of only one shared belief, I will answer from a personal standpoint.

1) I do not believe in a benevolent creator/god/supreme being. Looking around at the world I can see no evidence of it - I may be inclined however to think that if there is a creator he/she/it is disinterested and/or incompetent.

I understand the first statement and the second; I do not understand the third and would benefit from some elaboration.


2) I believe that humans have the power themselves to do great acts of kindness and huge amounts of evil, and that we are capable of affecting real change ourselves without the need for a god to do it for us.

I agree with the first statement, though I question your use of the word "evil" - if God (and by extension, Satan) do not exist, how does "evil" come into play? Without a Creator to establish an objective morality of good/evil, how can we define anything as "evil"?

If the second statement is true, then why are so many people in this world unhappy, addicted, dissatisfied? Why aren't we "self-actualized"?


3) I believe in the "no harm" philosophy, so long as what you do does not adversely affect any unwilling participant I have no real issue with it. Of course with the condition about creating laws/regulations for children and others not able to make the decision on a concious level for themselves with regards to whether they wish to participate or not.

But what is our assessment of "harm" based upon - observation? Can observation truly give us the full measure of the value of an action or behavior? Is anything really OK if both parties are consenting and nobody else is harmed? If I want to die, and I hire someone to kill me, since we're both consenting, are our actions to carry this plan out OK?


4) I do not believe in marriage, I have never seen the need for a piece of paper or the idea that people somehow love each other more or are less likely to split up if they get married (of course this is influenced by my childhood experiences)

The paper is a symbol, like the ring. It shows the level of committment. We have a "piece of paper" for marriage just like we do any other contract - it makes the contract more binding, beyond "OK - I'm tired of you now and I don't particularly feel like investing the time and effort it would take to grow in this relationship so I'm just going to bail out now."


5) I believe in taking responsibility for your own actions - to me pre-destination/fate seems like a huge cop-out, if I work hard enough life will be good.

I fully agree with the first and second statement. The third is impossible.


6) I believe people should believe in whatever works for them without attempts from people to make them see "the light" as it is percieved by the converter. It doesnt matter to me whether people believe in nothing, god, Y-W-H, Allah, Buddah, the tooth fairy or Santa if it works for you go with it. Just dont expect everyone to agree with you.

"Whatever works" for some people is immoral, selfish and destructive.

What if I knew with 100% certainty that the stock market would crash in one week and you had thousands of dollars invested. Would you consider my pleas to you to sell off your stock as unreasonable? What if I knew with 100% certainty that a tsunami was heading toward your seacoast town - would my pleas for you to evacuate seem unreasonable? What if I knew the way to become a millionaire and could share that secret with you - would you be annoyed by my trying to do so? Try to understand that Christians believe with 100% certainty that God will eventually execute judgment; as such, we don't want anybody left out of the great rewards that God has in store for everybody (EVERYBODY) who chooses to accept His gift of Salvation. Why wouldn't we be insistent?

[cuppajoe_9]

We have a "piece of paper" for marriage just like we do any other contract..."Any other contract"? Don't you think there's something of a difference between a life-long monogamous commitment and 'any other contract'? Mortgage, employee agrement, sale of real estate, renter's agreement, decision to enter into a pact of mutual support and friendship with the one person you love more than anybody else in the world. One of these things is not like the others.

[Redzeppelin]

"Any other contract"? Don't you think there's something of a difference between a life-long monogamous commitment and 'any other contract'? Mortgage, employee agrement, sale of real estate, renter's agreement, decision to enter into a pact of mutual support and friendship with the one person you love more than anybody else in the world. One of these things is not like the others.

Yes - there is a difference - a huge difference - but I levelled the marriage certificate to the generic term "contract" in order to emphasize its symbolic value in a way that pointed out the need for commitment within the marriage. In fact, my use of contract is actually intended to be ironic in that we take other, far less important areas of our life much more seriously, creating contracts to emphasize our willingness to keep our word - but marriage (the most significant relationship of your life) we treat as if it does not deserve the same seriousness, the same consideration. All this without even me bringing up the spiritual considerations inherent in creating a life-long relationship (it will suffice to quote from Genesis: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (2:24).

[cuppajoe_9]

In fact, my use of contract is actually intended to be ironic in that we take other, far less important areas of our life much more seriously, creating contracts to emphasize our willingness to keep our word - but marriage (the most significant relationship of your life) we treat as if it does not deserve the same seriousness, the same consideration.Oh, yeah. Irony. I knew that. Umm, me too, I was being ironic. Yeah, that's it.

One could, I suppose, take the opposite view and say that demanding something so crass as a written contract for something so important as a marriage degrades the institution, but I believe we've strayed into the realm of personal interpretation. *Goes off and hides in the "to each his own" corner.*

[Redzeppelin]

One could, I suppose, take the opposite view and say that demanding something so crass as a written contract for something so important as a marriage degrades the institution, but I believe we've strayed into the realm of personal interpretation. *Goes off and hides in the "to each his own" corner.*

You're correct on both counts. I think the state "demands" the "contract" because marriage is a socially recognized relationship (in terms of legality and such); for most couples it functions as a symbol. (The more crass - but I suppose practical in some situations - document is the "pre-nup.") I don't imagine it would hold much power in an ugly argument to pull out the marriage certificate and wave it at one's partner and say "Hey - we'ver got a contract here!" Either way, it functions as a tangible reminder that the relationship is an agreement not to be taken on whim or "feeling" (just as I cannot refuse to pay my mortgage on such things).

[kilted exile]

I understand the first statement and the second; I do not understand the third and would benefit from some elaboration.

Rereading that I probably should have limited it to "or" what I mean by that goes to my progression to atheism from good little boy with perfect sunday school attendance record to unsure agnostic fearing lightning and thunderbolts to committed non-believer.

I used to believe in a benevolent creator, but as I grew older I began to notice all the problems in the world (not man-made here) this led to the belief that either god is benevolent but incompetent with regards to addressing this indiscriminate pain & suffering or is capable of preventing it but is disinterested in doing so. This then progressed to my current belief that there is no God.



I agree with the first statement, though I question your use of the word "evil" - if God (and by extension, Satan) do not exist, how does "evil" come into play? Without a Creator to establish an objective morality of good/evil, how can we define anything as "evil"?

We have discussed this previously (need for "divine authority" for law/moral code etc) I disagree that it is needed, however I fully understand that you think it is - one of those agree to disagree things I think.



If the second statement is true, then why are so many people in this world unhappy, addicted, dissatisfied? Why aren't we "self-actualized"?

Because as a society we have not yet come to the full realisation that things work better if we try and work together instead of pulling against each other (cant really go too far into reason here due to forum rules on political discussion)



But what is our assessment of "harm" based upon - observation? Can observation truly give us the full measure of the value of an action or behavior? Is anything really OK if both parties are consenting and nobody else is harmed? If I want to die, and I hire someone to kill me, since we're both consenting, are our actions to carry this plan out OK?

By harm I mean causes a negative impact or undue mental/physical/emotional suffering. If you know a better way to assess this than observation I am willing to listen, but until we have mind reading equipment I think observation is the best way yes.

With regards to the agreement to terminate life, I may be slightly opposed to the idea of payment being offered in this respect (but that is a personal thing). However if you were of sound mental health and came to this decision that for you life was meaningless or intense pain (as in the case of medical euthanasia) I would respect your decision....I may not agree with it but I would not passjudgement on you for it.



The paper is a symbol, like the ring. It shows the level of committment. We have a "piece of paper" for marriage just like we do any other contract - it makes the contract more binding, beyond "OK - I'm tired of you now and I don't particularly feel like investing the time and effort it would take to grow in this relationship so I'm just going to bail out now."

As I said this is really influenced by my childhood, I realise for a lot of people marriage adds extra significance to the relationship. For me however it seems pointless....



I fully agree with the first and second statement. The third is impossible.

I think for my last statement it really depends on what you consider required for life to be "good" I dont really need much, I live a pretty simple life so long as I have a roof over my head and I am not constantly worrying about how to pay my bills I am perfectly content. I believe I can achieve this with hard work.



"Whatever works" for some people is immoral, selfish and destructive.

And as such would go against the "no harm" belief I stated earlier. The belief itself is ok, the acting on it would not be.



What if I knew with 100% certainty that the stock market would crash in one week and you had thousands of dollars invested. Would you consider my pleas to you to sell off your stock as unreasonable? What if I knew with 100% certainty that a tsunami was heading toward your seacoast town - would my pleas for you to evacuate seem unreasonable? What if I knew the way to become a millionaire and could share that secret with you - would you be annoyed by my trying to do so? Try to understand that Christians believe with 100% certainty that God will eventually execute judgment; as such, we don't want anybody left out of the great rewards that God has in store for everybody (EVERYBODY) who chooses to accept His gift of Salvation. Why wouldn't we be insistent?

You can tell me once, but if I choose to reject your advice then that is my decision to make. If you repeatedly tell me your secret to being rich then yes I would get pretty annoyed.

I dont think there are many people who have not been exposed to the main ideas of religions at somepoint throughout their lives, I have made my choice I will accept any consequences they hold in store for me.

[Redzeppelin]

Rereading that I probably should have limited it to "or" what I mean by that goes to my progression to atheism from good little boy with perfect sunday school attendance record to unsure agnostic fearing lightning and thunderbolts to committed non-believer.

I used to believe in a benevolent creator, but as I grew older I began to notice all the problems in the world (not man-made here) this led to the belief that either god is benevolent but incompetent with regards to addressing this indiscriminate pain & suffering or is capable of preventing it but is disinterested in doing so. This then progressed to my current belief that there is no God.

I kind of figured that you were speaking of the issue of pain and suffering here on earth. That is troubling, but God has His reasons for permitting it (just as a parent has reasons for permitting a child to experience a certain amount of failure and suffering). Granted - I'm not going to sit here and say that suffering is a good and necessary thing - but God has granted us freewill; He can't just grant freewill to those of us who want to do things His way (i.e. be loving, compassionate, fair, etc) because that means only certain people have freedom to act. I'll stop there, because that's a different discussion. I will say, though, that making the suffering issue a reason for discounting the existence of God requires us to believe that God is ignorant of our sufferings and indifferent - He is neither.




We have discussed this previously (need for "divine authority" for law/moral code etc) I disagree that it is needed, however I fully understand that you think it is - one of those agree to disagree things I think.

True.



Because as a society we have not yet come to the full realisation that things work better if we try and work together instead of pulling against each other (cant really go too far into reason here due to forum rules on political discussion)

OK - but my point would be that human nature is so flawed and self-interested that Christians believe that only through serving God do we begin to understand the servant-nature required to create good societies that "work together."



By harm I mean causes a negative impact or undue mental/physical/emotional suffering. If you know a better way to assess this than observation I am willing to listen, but until we have mind reading equipment I think observation is the best way yes.

Your point is well taken; but I think that observable harm is often only the tip of the iceberg - that by the time you see it, already a significant amount of harm has occurred at levels apparent only at emotional and spiritual levels. "Harm" is also somewhat subjective: how do we qualify what "harm" is and its effects? Isn't that related to a moral framework?


With regards to the agreement to terminate life, I may be slightly opposed to the idea of payment being offered in this respect (but that is a personal thing). However if you were of sound mental health and came to this decision that for you life was meaningless or intense pain (as in the case of medical euthanasia) I would respect your decision....I may not agree with it but I would not passjudgement on you for it.

But can we be sure of the "sound mind" thing? Why can't I just end my life if I want to? Why must it have the qualifiers of "meaningless" or experiencing "intense pain"? And why wouldn't you agree with my decision? Aren't you - at that point - rendering a sort of judgment as to the moral value of my choice?



As I said this is really influenced by my childhood, I realise for a lot of people marriage adds extra significance to the relationship. For me however it seems pointless....

Perhaps; but decreasing the importance of the level of commitment required will do little to repair this suffering institution.



I think for my last statement it really depends on what you consider required for life to be "good" I dont really need much, I live a pretty simple life so long as I have a roof over my head and I am not constantly worrying about how to pay my bills I am perfectly content. I believe I can achieve this with hard work.

I spoke with a bit of extremity and with considerable obscurity in terms of making my points clear. Christianity believes that a life lived without God may be gratifying, but not satisfying; C.S. Lewis pointed out that - since God created humans - humans were designed to "run" on God; any other substitute would be unfulfilling.



And as such would go against the "no harm" belief I stated earlier. The belief itself is ok, the acting on it would not be.

Point taken; but as Christ pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7), the motivation precedes the action - and the motivation is where the sin begins.



You can tell me once, but if I choose to reject your advice then that is my decision to make. If you repeatedly tell me your secret to being rich then yes I would get pretty annoyed.

Fair enough (but, if judgment arrived and you faced eternal loss of heaven and eternal life, would you think kindly on he who gave up so easily in trying to avert such an outcome?)


I dont think there are many people who have not been exposed to the main ideas of religions at somepoint throughout their lives, I have made my choice I will accept any consequences they hold in store for me.

Fair enough. I'm only trying to explain some of the intensity of Christian evangelizing - we really really believe that heaven is real and we'd like everybody there.

[Babbalanja]

I kind of figured that you were speaking of the issue of pain and suffering here on earth. That is troubling, but God has His reasons for permitting it (just as a parent has reasons for permitting a child to experience a certain amount of failure and suffering). Well, you assume He has reasons for permitting suffering. Because, say, leaving hundreds of thousands dead and homeless from a tsunami seems like just the sort of thing that a benevolent God would stop if He could, or cared to.

But oddly enough, there doesn't seem to be much difference between a universe in which God takes care of us and one in which there's no God.

Interesting.

[Devon_Marie07]

Well, you assume He has reasons for permitting suffering. Because, say, leaving hundreds of thousands dead and homeless from a tsunami seems like just the sort of thing that a benevolent God would stop if He could, or cared to.

But oddly enough, there doesn't seem to be much difference between a universe in which God takes care of us and one in which there's no God.

Interesting.

I have no doubt that there is a god.;) I believe that God permitts suffering because of the fact that we screwed up so many times. Note the fact that God only let the suffering start after the first time humans sinned. Plus there are people who gain Christ through suffering. I personally would not be a Christian if it were not for having to have open heart surgery at the age of 14, I was in the hospital for over three months because the doctors made a mistake. I had to relearn how to walk. My parents were told I would die in less than a week. You know that saying about how you never forget how to ride a bike? Well my best friend had to reteach me. I never saw something miraculous but for some reason I just knew. I will never regret going to have the surgery, instead I praise that I have. I know there are many people who suffer more than myself, but there are also many who suffer less. After suffering comes compation, which is the only godly persona in suffering. God doesn't want us to suffer, he never has wanted to hurt us, he wants to help us through the suffering we get from the world. Suffering comes from the world not from God.:banana:

[kilted exile]

I kind of figured that you were speaking of the issue of pain and suffering here on earth. That is troubling, but God has His reasons for permitting it (just as a parent has reasons for permitting a child to experience a certain amount of failure and suffering). Granted - I'm not going to sit here and say that suffering is a good and necessary thing - but God has granted us freewill; He can't just grant freewill to those of us who want to do things His way (i.e. be loving, compassionate, fair, etc) because that means only certain people have freedom to act. I'll stop there, because that's a different discussion. I will say, though, that making the suffering issue a reason for discounting the existence of God requires us to believe that God is ignorant of our sufferings and indifferent - He is neither.

See the suffering caused by the actions of humans I could always reconcile in my head, the issue I have is with the natural disasters which cause so much suffering e.g earthquakes, tornadoes etc.



OK - but my point would be that human nature is so flawed and self-interested that Christians believe that only through serving God do we begin to understand the servant-nature required to create good societies that "work together."

I think there is a distinction to be drawn here I dont think we need to adopt a servant nature. I would far prefer an "equal nature" I know this is really idealistic, I am cynical enough to realise this will never happen but I believe it can.



Your point is well taken; but I think that observable harm is often only the tip of the iceberg - that by the time you see it, already a significant amount of harm has occurred at levels apparent only at emotional and spiritual levels. "Harm" is also somewhat subjective: how do we qualify what "harm" is and its effects? Isn't that related to a moral framework?

Yep harm is related to a moral framework



But can we be sure of the "sound mind" thing? Why can't I just end my life if I want to? Why must it have the qualifiers of "meaningless" or experiencing "intense pain"? And why wouldn't you agree with my decision? Aren't you - at that point - rendering a sort of judgment as to the moral value of my choice?

I would think with the example you gave we would need to have an examination of sound mind and an idependently witnessed agreement in order to prevent somone killing another and then saying they had been asked to do it.

With regards to the meaningless qualifier, I would think if you have decided you want to die you have already decided that your life is also meaningless.

With regards to not agreeing & that itself being a moral judgement: I may think that I would never do such a thing, but I do not have to live that persons life. - I do not so much see this as judging the morality of the act, I am ascribing it as neither good or bad just simply something I wouldnt do.



Perhaps; but decreasing the importance of the level of commitment required will do little to repair this suffering institution.

That of course depends on whether you believe marriage should be repaired.
Quick history perhaps giving some insight as to why I think this: My parents were together for 7years, my dad left my mother for another woman and stayed with her until she died approx 16years later (never remarried to her)




I spoke with a bit of extremity and with considerable obscurity in terms of making my points clear. Christianity believes that a life lived without God may be gratifying, but not satisfying; C.S. Lewis pointed out that - since God created humans - humans were designed to "run" on God; any other substitute would be unfulfilling.





Point taken; but as Christ pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7), the motivation precedes the action - and the motivation is where the sin begins.

Yes but we can not prosecute people for a thought.



Fair enough (but, if judgment arrived and you faced eternal loss of heaven and eternal life, would you think kindly on he who gave up so easily in trying to avert such an outcome?)

Ok, if that happens I will think kindly on the person who tried to alert me to the situation - the annoyance/dislike would be for myself



Fair enough. I'm only trying to explain some of the intensity of Christian evangelizing - we really really believe that heaven is real and we'd like everybody there.

I understand the explanation, and that people think that way. I am just unable to agree with the position.

I posted a poem by Norman McCaig called Assissi in the favourite poems thread (somewhere near the top of page 20 if I remember correctly) The second stanza really sums up my opinion (wrong word, but best I can think of) on the matter:

"A priest explained
How clever it was of Giotto
To make his frescoes tell stories
That would reveal to the illiterate the goodness
Of God and the suffering
Of His Son. I understood
The explanation
And the cleverness"

[Redzeppelin]

See the suffering caused by the actions of humans I could always reconcile in my head, the issue I have is with the natural disasters which cause so much suffering e.g earthquakes, tornadoes etc.

That surprises me that you blame God for the disasters that nature causes? Generally people get angry at God for the inhumanity they see coming from human beings.



I think there is a distinction to be drawn here I dont think we need to adopt a servant nature. I would far prefer an "equal nature" I know this is really idealistic, I am cynical enough to realise this will never happen but I believe it can.

Einstein said that only a life of service is worthwhile (paraphrased); Mother Teresa proved it. Our culture's demand that we all be "equal" hasn't done much to improve the condition of society. Choosing an attitude of service might be an improvement.



Yep harm is related to a moral framework

We agree.


I would think with the example you gave we would need to have an examination of sound mind and an idependently witnessed agreement in order to prevent somone killing another and then saying they had been asked to do it.

How could you ever really be sure? Are you saying my desire to die (which may show up many times for reasons that may or may not be that dire) is sufficient reason to end my life?


With regards to the meaningless qualifier, I would think if you have decided you want to die you have already decided that your life is also meaningless.

Are we always the best judge of the value of our own lives (especially when our value to those around us is often unclear to us)?


With regards to not agreeing & that itself being a moral judgement: I may think that I would never do such a thing, but I do not have to live that persons life. - I do not so much see this as judging the morality of the act, I am ascribing it as neither good or bad just simply something I wouldnt do.

May I push a bit further? Why wouldn't you do it? Your choice not to do something implies an evaluation of some sort.



That of course depends on whether you believe marriage should be repaired. Quick history perhaps giving some insight as to why I think this: My parents were together for 7years, my dad left my mother for another woman and stayed with her until she died approx 16years later (never remarried to her)

But aren't you condemning the institution for the failure of the people in it? My parents split when I was 12 - I know the drill. My first marriage ended within one year; my second has struggled mightily - but I think there is great value in a committed relationship and the growth that can result from it. We assume marriage is supposed to make us "happy" - I believe it is to help us grow - but many of us run because the required growth asks more than we are willing to give (but I also understand [from experience, mind you] that some things cannot be repaired).

Avoiding marriage doesn't avoid pain - it just avoids the seriousness of the commitment.



Yes but we can not prosecute people for a thought.

Right - and I wouldn't advocate that. What I was implying was that although people are free to believe as they wish, that atrocious behavior is always preceded by atrocious thoughts.


Ok, if that happens I will think kindly on the person who tried to alert me to the situation - the annoyance/dislike would be for myself

Fair enough.


I understand the explanation, and that people think that way. I am just unable to agree with the position.

Unfortunate, but understandable.


I posted a poem by Norman McCaig called Assissi in the favourite poems thread (somewhere near the top of page 20 if I remember correctly) The second stanza really sums up my opinion (wrong word, but best I can think of) on the matter:

"A priest explained
How clever it was of Giotto
To make his frescoes tell stories
That would reveal to the illiterate the goodness
Of God and the suffering
Of His Son. I understood
The explanation
And the cleverness"

Yes, that's one way of seeing things.

[Babbalanja]

That surprises me that you blame God for the disasters that nature causes? Generally people get angry at God for the inhumanity they see coming from human beings.No, generally people just realize that either is exactly what we'd expect from a Godless, indifferent universe.

[wrestle-135]

There is no way that I could ever be athiest. I've grown up in an Apostolic Pentecostal church all my life and I've seen the deaf ears open and people with cancers have them completely healed when they went back to their doctors. I've seen my Youth Pastor get his big toe healed after he ran it over with a lawn mower and take off running and jumping in praise. God's real no doubt in my mind. He's a great God.

[Redzeppelin]

No, generally people just realize that either is exactly what we'd expect from a Godless, indifferent universe.

This comment presupposes some idea as to what a universe with God in it would look like. What would such a universe look like?

[kilted exile]

That surprises me that you blame God for the disasters that nature causes? Generally people get angry at God for the inhumanity they see coming from human beings.

No, I blame humans for humans problems, for example I do not blame God for the fact that my brother needed major facial reconstructive surgery, has 3 plates in his head & is still being treated for PTSD 2& a half years later, I blame the 3 #$%^%$^&$&$&$ that callously attacked him and the useless police force for not charging anyone in connection with it. I see things like earthquakes as a "design" flaw.



Einstein said that only a life of service is worthwhile (paraphrased); Mother Teresa proved it. Our culture's demand that we all be "equal" hasn't done much to improve the condition of society. Choosing an attitude of service might be an improvement.

This again relates to my political views, which I cant go into here. Suffice to say my issue with the servant nature is that it is dependent also on a master



How could you ever really be sure? Are you saying my desire to die (which may show up many times for reasons that may or may not be that dire) is sufficient reason to end my life?

Are we always the best judge of the value of our own lives (especially when our value to those around us is often unclear to us)?

100% certainty on most things is impossible, however I think we can be pretty close to sure using psychological techniques. As far as the reaons behind the choice, I would hope that the person has put at least some thought into it, and if they have not the discussions necessary in a case like this would cause them to if the reasons are simple things they would come out in this process and the person may well change their mind about going ahead with it. If they are still committed to the deed so be it (I know that seems kinda cold and uncaring)



May I push a bit further? Why wouldn't you do it? Your choice not to do something implies an evaluation of some sort.

This has to do with other issues from my past which I have since put behind me and do not really like discussing, suffice to say at one point I sat with the knife in my hand, but was unable to make the cut.



But aren't you condemning the institution for the failure of the people in it? My parents split when I was 12 - I know the drill. My first marriage ended within one year; my second has struggled mightily - but I think there is great value in a committed relationship and the growth that can result from it. We assume marriage is supposed to make us "happy" - I believe it is to help us grow - but many of us run because the required growth asks more than we are willing to give (but I also understand [from experience, mind you] that some things cannot be repaired).

Avoiding marriage doesn't avoid pain - it just avoids the seriousness of the commitment.

My point with the example about the difference in time period my father spent with my mother compared to the second women was to show that the level of committment was not reduced by not being married to her, if anything he was more committed



Right - and I wouldn't advocate that. What I was implying was that although people are free to believe as they wish, that atrocious behavior is always preceded by atrocious thoughts.

Yes, I understand and agree with that but until they act on those beliefs we can not do anything about it & we cant prevent them from holding the belief

[Redzeppelin]

No, I blame humans for humans problems, for example I do not blame God for the fact that my brother needed major facial reconstructive surgery, has 3 plates in his head & is still being treated for PTSD 2& a half years later, I blame the 3 #$%^%$^&$&$&$ that callously attacked him and the useless police force for not charging anyone in connection with it. I see things like earthquakes as a "design" flaw.

I agree that human beings are responsible for their behavior. I would suggest that earthquakes may or may not have been God's inteded ideal for the earth; Chrisitian thought (at least one strain of it) believes that sin affected all of reality - not just humanity. In my mind, expecting God to stop how nature appears to work is similar to expecting him to stop all humanly-constructed tragedies.



This again relates to my political views, which I cant go into here. Suffice to say my issue with the servant nature is that it is dependent also on a master

Right - but I speak in terms of ideal: ideally, if all people have a servant attitude, there are no masters. (Granted, human nature pretty much squashes the practicality of this idea to an extent: I think it is possible to serve without becoming enslaved - you serve because you choose to - not because you're obligated to.)



100% certainty on most things is impossible, however I think we can be pretty close to sure using psychological techniques. As far as the reaons behind the choice, I would hope that the person has put at least some thought into it, and if they have not the discussions necessary in a case like this would cause them to if the reasons are simple things they would come out in this process and the person may well change their mind about going ahead with it. If they are still committed to the deed so be it (I know that seems kinda cold and uncaring)

I suppose my response would be that humans are very emotional, fickle, and self-interested creatures; without a moral law to say "look - this behavior is wrong" we then end up with situations like you described where we really have no good reason to say "no" to a particular behavior - but we naturally recoil from it and think "I'm not totally comfortable with this."



This has to do with other issues from my past which I have since put behind me and do not really like discussing, suffice to say at one point I sat with the knife in my hand, but was unable to make the cut.

Fair enough.



My point with the example about the difference in time period my father spent with my mother compared to the second women was to show that the level of committment was not reduced by not being married to her, if anything he was more committed

But why not "dot the i's and cross the t's" since he was so committed? I think "burning one's ships" is a demonstration of commitment; if you intend to stay forever, why not demonstrate thusly? What's gained by refusing to offer public affirmation of commitment? How is the relationship better for not getting married?


Yes, I understand and agree with that but until they act on those beliefs we can not do anything about it & we cant prevent them from holding the belief

I'll agree there.

[Babbalanja]

This comment presupposes some idea as to what a universe with God in it would look like. What would such a universe look like?Why don't you tell me?

It seems our universe has as much brutality as beauty, and rewards us with its wonders as often as it shocks us with its heartlessness.

Occam's Razor, amigo. The word "God" might help you make sense of it, but the rest of us are just fine with the universe the way it is.

[Redzeppelin]

Why don't you tell me?

Because I asked you the question - that's how questions work. Whoever gets asked the question is supposed to answer it.

If you claim a definition of what a "godless" universe is like, I assume that you must have some idea about what a "God-filled" universe looks like (because to claim something as "less" - example: "heartless" - you must know what it is that is "minus" [if I have no feelings, compassion or love, I am, therefore, "heartless"]). If you can't or won't answer the question, that's fine, but I don't know how you can say what a "godless" universe looks like unless you have some idea as to what the universe is missing in terms of events or actions of characteristics that reveal that God's not here.


It seems our universe has as much brutality as beauty, and rewards us with its wonders as often as it shocks us with its heartlessness.

The universe does not have a "heart" - its ability to kill us is incidental and not a matter of intent.


Occam's Razor, amigo. The word "God" might help you make sense of it, but the rest of us are just fine with the universe the way it is.

I have no idea why you're telling me this. Why bring up Occam? I'm waiting for you to present what the universe would look like with God in it, since you seem to know what a "godless" universe looks like. I await a better answer than the one you've given.

[kilted exile]

I agree that human beings are responsible for their behavior. I would suggest that earthquakes may or may not have been God's inteded ideal for the earth; Chrisitian thought (at least one strain of it) believes that sin affected all of reality - not just humanity. In my mind, expecting God to stop how nature appears to work is similar to expecting him to stop all humanly-constructed tragedies.

Yeah, I've heard this reasoning before. It's never really worked for me however. My main issue is with the indescriminate nature of natural disasters.



Right - but I speak in terms of ideal: ideally, if all people have a servant attitude, there are no masters. (Granted, human nature pretty much squashes the practicality of this idea to an extent: I think it is possible to serve without becoming enslaved - you serve because you choose to - not because you're obligated to.)

I think we may be arguing semantics here, what you describe I would describe as an equal nature seeing as everyone has the same nature



I suppose my response would be that humans are very emotional, fickle, and self-interested creatures; without a moral law to say "look - this behavior is wrong" we then end up with situations like you described where we really have no good reason to say "no" to a particular behavior - but we naturally recoil from it and think "I'm not totally comfortable with this."

Yes we are emotional, fickle and a lot of the time self-interested. What makes me more uncomfortable is not having a good reason to refuse a particular behaviour, but still telling people they can not do it because a preconcieved notion of how we might act under the circumstances.



But why not "dot the i's and cross the t's" since he was so committed? I think "burning one's ships" is a demonstration of commitment; if you intend to stay forever, why not demonstrate thusly? What's gained by refusing to offer public affirmation of commitment? How is the relationship better for not getting married?

If people wish to get married and wish to display it publically that is fine. However if the two people involved in the relationship, are happy living a "private" life that is fine also it is just what works for some people.

I have also realised I never actually responded to one of your previous points


I spoke with a bit of extremity and with considerable obscurity in terms of making my points clear. Christianity believes that a life lived without God may be gratifying, but not satisfying; C.S. Lewis pointed out that - since God created humans - humans were designed to "run" on God; any other substitute would be unfulfilling.

I believe you are referring to Matthew 6v24 here: "Man can not serve 2 masters etc" This is/was one of my favourite verses from the bible. It is a point which there is some degree of difficulty arguing with seeing as it is a personnally (albeit wideheld amongst the religious in nature) held belief. For a number of people the belief in a God gives their life extra meaning, for others it adds little.

[Devon_Marie07]

There is no way that I could ever be athiest. I've grown up in an Apostolic Pentecostal church all my life and I've seen the deaf ears open and people with cancers have them completely healed when they went back to their doctors. I've seen my Youth Pastor get his big toe healed after he ran it over with a lawn mower and take off running and jumping in praise. God's real no doubt in my mind. He's a great God.

Speaking of people healing, on the same day my pastor's daughter found out her "hole in the wall of her heart was completely gone" and she was discharged my best friend went to the doctor and found that her breast cancer that had been there a week ago was completely gone. God works gread miracules!

[Babbalanja]

Because I asked you the question - that's how questions work. Whoever gets asked the question is supposed to answer it.

If you claim a definition of what a "godless" universe is like, I assume that you must have some idea about what a "God-filled" universe looks like.No need to be snide. You being a believer, I thought you might have a better idea what to expect from an omnipotent deity.

Can I assume there would be any discernible difference between a universe controlled by an all-powerful, all-loving God and one without? Am I naive to think that this Being would protect His creatures from harm? That the innocent would not suffer? Isn't that what prayers and submission and belief are all about?

The mere fact that the innocent DO suffer should make us wonder whether belief in the all-loving-all-powerful God isn't wishful thinking. Because then we have to create ad hoc explanations for why the omnipotent Being, no doubt in His infinite wisdom, allows such random brutality in His creation.

I invoked Occam's razor, because it's relevant to this dilemma. Is the universe amoral and indifferent because that's just the way it is, or is it because God is trying to make us think that's just the way it is? Are we being honest with ourselves about the tragedy inherent in the suffering of the innocent, or merely trying to rationalize it away by pretending it's not really tragedy?

In other words, is there actually a good reason to think there's an all-powerful-all-loving God overseeing the universe? How would the universe look if there weren't an omnipotent Being controlling everything?

[ennison]

The creation groans as we do due to the existence of evil, within and around us. I guess some of us find that hard to accept. And a few might say, 'Well why did God create evil?' Some of us accept that there was a Fall and find that an explanation of sufficient strength. I believe this might be a partial response to some of the comments above.

[Babbalanja]

The creation groans as we do due to the existence of evil, within and around us. I guess some of us find that hard to accept.But you're really not accepting it if you think it's all part of "God's plan," are you? Either you accept that tragedy and happiness are part of our existence, or you relinquish the right to see anything as tragic, since God has His reasons for making or allowing it to happen.

So am I blaspheming for asserting that I don't see what greater good He could want to achieve by allowing child abuse or devastating tsunamis? Or are you blaspheming by asserting that God is basically responsible for these things since he doesn't deign to prevent them?

[Bookworm4Him]

No, I blame humans for humans problems, for example I do not blame God for the fact that my brother needed major facial reconstructive surgery, has 3 plates in his head & is still being treated for PTSD 2& a half years later, I blame the 3 #$%^%$^&$&$&$ that callously attacked him and the useless police force for not charging anyone in connection with it. I see things like earthquakes as a "design" flaw.

:( I'll pray for him.

[Redzeppelin]

No need to be snide. You being a believer, I thought you might have a better idea what to expect from an omnipotent deity.

No snideness intended. You said this: "No, generally people just realize that either is exactly what we'd expect from a Godless, indifferent universe."
So, I assumed that such a statement implied a knowledge of what a godless universe looked like. To know this, one must have an idea of what is missing. To turn it back to me struck me as a way of avoiding an answer. My apologies if my reply was offensive.


Can I assume there would be any discernible difference between a universe controlled by an all-powerful, all-loving God and one without? Am I naive to think that this Being would protect His creatures from harm? That the innocent would not suffer? Isn't that what prayers and submission and belief are all about?

To answer your question would take many very lengthy paragraphs. In short: God gave His creatures freewill - as such, the presence of freewill brings with it the potential for suffering, because human beings are free to choose evil instead of good. To stop humans from exercising their free choice would be to deny freewill. Now, if we assume that God is all-benevolent and morally perfect (as the Bible describes Him), then we must assume He has a valid reason for making the world in the way He has; that is not meant to justify the fact that good people suffer - it merely explains that the existence of suffering does not negate the existence of God. For God to prohibit the exercise of men's freewill would ultimately be to limit free thought (since thought precedes action); God won't do that - He desires His creatures to be free. Prayer is not "all about" just getting things we want - it is about communication with God and the development of a relationship with Him. It is His prerogative (as an all-knowing, all-powerful Being) to answer prayers in a number of ways - one of those ways being "no."


The mere fact that the innocent DO suffer should make us wonder whether belief in the all-loving-all-powerful God isn't wishful thinking. Because then we have to create ad hoc explanations for why the omnipotent Being, no doubt in His infinite wisdom, allows such random brutality in His creation.

Only if God is merely an exaggerated version of a human being. He's not. If He is all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing as He is described, then we must assume that He has good reasons for the way He allows what He allows. Just like children who don't always understand the complexities of the adult world that influences adults to make the decisions they do, God's decisions are far beyond what we - with our limited perspectives - are sometimes able to understand. We see only now - God sees the entire picture.


I invoked Occam's razor, because it's relevant to this dilemma. Is the universe amoral and indifferent because that's just the way it is, or is it because God is trying to make us think that's just the way it is? Are we being honest with ourselves about the tragedy inherent in the suffering of the innocent, or merely trying to rationalize it away by pretending it's not really tragedy?

It is tragedy; it is suffering. Saying that it exists and that God has reasons for allowing it to exist is not "rationalizing" it so much as framing it in a way that suggests that there is a reason for its existence.


In other words, is there actually a good reason to think there's an all-powerful-all-loving God overseeing the universe? How would the universe look if there weren't an omnipotent Being controlling everything?

Two good reasons exist: 1) God sacrificed His own Son - Jesus Christ - to redeem all of humanity from the consequences of sin - Christ who was sinless paid the price for the sin of all humanity; as such, God freely has given us Grace, and we all may have eternal life if we choose; 2) God's kindness and compassion shows up in the people of this world who choose to serve Him by trying to alleviate suffering wherever they can.

In a godless universe, there is no need for good to exist at all.

[cuppajoe_9]

In a godless universe, there is no need for good to exist at all.Bah, and again I say bah. 'Good', almost by definition, is an excellent way to meet certain basic human needs, such as the need to not be murdered. That's a good enough reason for me, quite independant of the existence of any God or gods.

[ennison]

'But you're really not accepting it if you think it's all part of "God's plan," are you? Either you accept that tragedy and happiness are part of our existence, or you relinquish the right to see anything as tragic, since God has His reasons for making or allowing it to happen.'
Well as a matter of reality I do accept it. If I get caught in the rain (as I often do) then I get wet. Whether I like it or not I have to accept it.
And as I said The Fall explains things for many of us - at least up to the limits of our understanding.
The question of evil could be seen as a consequence of darkness which I take to be not created by God but the thing/condition from which God separated life/ Creation and which The Fall allowed back in to Creation.The fourth verse of Genesis 1 seems clear to me that Darkness is a negation of God's work. Evil belongs to darkness. Darkness is in us, as it was not in Adam and Eve at the start.
And yes I do see your point about 'Why doesn't an omnipotent God etc?' but what benefit is it to me to take such a line which can leave individuals who have suffered loss as embittered, angry and unconsoled? Unless, of course, you want us to be supermen. There have been and are some who claim such status.

[HannibalBarca]

I may be a deist, but i'm definitely not an atheist.

[Redzeppelin]

Bah, and again I say bah. 'Good', almost by definition, is an excellent way to meet certain basic human needs, such as the need to not be murdered. That's a good enough reason for me, quite independant of the existence of any God or gods.

I didn't say it wouldn't exist or couldn't exist - I said there is no need for it to exist at all and its existence would be a chance occurrence that we might/might not find usefull.

There are plenty of situations where bad/evil is the more expedient, practical or convenient way to protect myself and my interests.

[cuppajoe_9]

There are plenty of situations where bad/evil is the more expedient, practical or convenient way to protect myself and my interests.Granted, but I submit that doing the good/virtuous thing pays off better in the long term, in the sense of helping to create a society in which the good/right thing is the norm. (I am aware that this reasoning is a bit circular, as I'm defining the good/virtuous thing as that which creates the 'best' society, if everybody did it. Oh well.)

As an aside: "is it", in your opinion, "pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious?"

[Redzeppelin]

Granted, but I submit that doing the good/virtuous thing pays off better in the long term, in the sense of helping to create a society in which the good/right thing is the norm. (I am aware that this reasoning is a bit circular, as I'm defining the good/virtuous thing as that which creates the 'best' society, if everybody did it. Oh well.)

This is workable as long as people possess the maturity to look at the long-term picture (which I would suggest is not necessarily the norm; consider our current levels of credit card debt and the housing disaster in North America where people got into houses they couldn't afford during the low-interest boom of the last 5 years - we are now looking at record foreclosure numbers due to rising interest rates - the examples go on and on that we're pretty much "I want it now and don't care about tomorrow - bill me").


As an aside: "is it", in your opinion, "pious because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is pious?"

I have trouble with the term "pious." I will swith to the word "good": Things are "good" in so much as they reflect the character of God; things are "evil" in so much as they reflect that which is not in God's character. The problem with the statement you originally posed is twofold:

1) the first statement implies that it is God who decides what is right/wrong because He likes/loves it - which implies that He could perhaps like/love some other thing and call it "pious": this makes right/wrong a product of God's whim.
2) the second statement implies that "piety" exists outside of God and that He loves it for what it is; this implies that God must hold to some external standard of right/wrong; this disagrees with Christian theology that believes that good doesn't exist outside or independently of God - He is the definition and source of all that is good.

[cuppajoe_9]

I have trouble with the term "pious." I will swith to the word "good"I say 'pious' only because I'm quoting.


Things are "good" in so much as they reflect the character of God; things are "evil" in so much as they reflect that which is not in God's character.Ok, fair enough, but saying that God's character is 'good' implies some outside standard of comparison, no?

[ennison]

Well one 'outside' standard of comparison is Satan (and his/hers/its demons). Though I fear our friend does not believe in Satan either - kinda hard for me not to though.

[cuppajoe_9]

Well one 'outside' standard of comparison is Satan (and his/hers/its demons). Though I fear our friend does not believe in Satan either - kinda hard for me not to though.God is good because Satan says so? This is assuredly the craziest kind of christianity I've ever heard of.

[ennison]

You asked for an outside standard of comparison.

[cuppajoe_9]

I don't think you undrstand me. If you want to say that God is 'good' and Satan is 'bad', you obviously need a definition of 'good' and 'bad' independant of God or Satan.

[ennison]

The evidence of Satan's works suits me as a reason for defining him as bad.

[cuppajoe_9]

The evidence of Satan's works suits me as a reason for defining him as bad.

Thus implying that what you define as 'bad' has nothing to do with Satan, unless you're a fan of circular reasoning.

[ennison]

No but I don't feel the need to define the obvious until it becomes ridiculous. If my hand gets cut off I need a doctor not a dictionary. If Satan is the enemy of my soul I need a friend for my soul.

[Redzeppelin]

I say 'pious' only because I'm quoting.

Right - I did catch that - was that from Plato? I think one of the dialogues of Socrates begins with a discussion on piety. It seemed familiar. So I could have been more accurate by saying I take issue with the speaker's use of "pious."


Ok, fair enough, but saying that God's character is 'good' implies some outside standard of comparison, no?

No - God's character is what-it-is; He tells us that all that is good is a reflection of Him - that "goodness" is defined by its approximation to the character of God. We call "good" good because of its closeness to the character of God. Most people (I would asume) would call the characteristics of God - love, compassion, justice, mercy, kindness, longsuffering, patient, loyal, forgiving, etc - "good" things.

[cuppajoe_9]

Right - I did catch that - was that from Plato? I think one of the dialogues of Socrates begins with a discussion on piety. It seemed familiar. So I could have been more accurate by saying I take issue with the speaker's use of "pious."It's Plato, specifically the Euthyphro Problem. It showed up on my ethics final a few days ago. In context, 'pious' means the same as 'virtuous' or 'morally correct'. I may be reading from a poor translation.


No - God's character is what-it-is; He tells us that all that is good is a reflection of Him - that "goodness" is defined by its approximation to the character of God.But God is self-created according to the Christian conception of him, no? So he must have, at some point, molded his own character. Did he choose the character traits that you mention arbitrarily, or did he recognize them as good in and of themselves, and decide to endow himself with them on that basis?

[Redzeppelin]

It's Plato, specifically the Euthyphro Problem. It showed up on my ethics final a few days ago. In context, 'pious' means the same as 'virtuous' or 'morally correct'. I may be reading from a poor translation.

Good - that's the dialogue I was thinking of (it's the first in my copy entitled The Last Days of Socrates). I thought it sounded familiar. Yeah, "morally correct" is better than "piety" because "piety" carries a religious connotation (as in "being religious" which Christianity acknowledges as no clear indicator of moral character); "morally correct" is closer to "good" in my thinking.


But God is self-created according to the Christian conception of him, no? So he must have, at some point, molded his own character. Did he choose the character traits that you mention arbitrarily, or did he recognize them as good in and of themselves, and decide to endow himself with them on that basis?

I don't think Christianity sees God as "self-creating" because that implied He didn't always exist; we believe He is (to paraphrase Aristotle) the "unmoved mover" - the First Cause. In Christian lingo, we mean that God is the only "non-contingent" entity in the universe; only He is uncreated. We define "good" based upon God's character. God does not "choose" His character - it just is. In other words: love, compassion, justice, mercy et al are "good" because they are attributes of God. Not vice versa.

[3kixintehead]

The beliefs of athiesm in their most basic form are:
The athiest believes in nothing supernatural or unexplainable by science. They believe there is a scientific explanation for everything even if that explanation hasn't been found yet. Most have confidence that science one day will find an explanation.

[cuppajoe_9]

The athiest believes in nothing supernatural or unexplainable by science. Wrong. The atheist believes in no gods. Buddhist atheists certainly have beliefs that could be consider supernatural.

[cardplay]

I'm surprised that one third said they were atheists. Polls say 90% of Americans 'believe in God'. I guess we're not representative of the nation, huh?

[Logos]

Definitely not. Only about 40% of the members here are from North America (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=135).

[hyperborean]

90% of Americans believing in God (most blindly following faith) does represent the western populace. Sad ain't it?

[3kixintehead]

Wrong. The atheist believes in no gods. Buddhist atheists certainly have beliefs that could be consider supernatural.
If they are buddhist then they are not very good athiests since buddhism is a very spiritual faith. Vice versa also. One can follow the philosophy of buddhism but if they participate in the faith then they are buddhist not athiest.

[RobinHood3000]

If they are buddhist then they are not very good athiests since buddhism is a very spiritual faith. Vice versa also. One can follow the philosophy of buddhism but if they participate in the faith then they are buddhist not athiest.Wrong - theism is not the same as spiritualism. Buddhist atheists are Buddhists who consider Siddhartha a teacher, but NOT a deity. If they do not believe in a deity, then they may be called atheists.

[The Atheist]

90% of Americans believing in God (most blindly following faith) does represent the western populace. Sad ain't it?

It's not at all representative of general western attitudes. Most of Western Europe is non-religious, by comparison.

[Redzeppelin]

I suppose the question waiting to be asked might be this:

What is the atheist spiritual about - since spiritualism generally refers to some sort of supernatural entity or dimension; if God (or gods) are dismissed as a reality, then what is the Buddhist "spiritual" about?

[billyjack]

you could call their spirituality god or soul or mind or universe, but they dont personify or deify the spiritual into something supernatural or beyond reality. their spirituality isnt a godhead who controls or judges or creates. instead, spirituality is the way of things, the workings of nature, the spontaneous unity of the universe. its completely empirical, observable, knowable, but not speakable-only experiencable.

[cuppajoe_9]

What is the atheist spiritual about - since spiritualism generally refers to some sort of supernatural entity or dimension; if God (or gods) are dismissed as a reality, then what is the Buddhist "spiritual" about?Reincarnation, the idea of a "pure land" afterlife for the virtuous, the concept of Bodhisattvas – noble spirits that continually return to the earth to educated and assist the rest of us (the Dalai Lama being one example), &c. These are all supernatural beliefs held by certain Buddhist sects, while still maintaing that there is no such thing as a god. I'm going to cut myself off here, because I am definitely not an authority on Buddhism.

Oh, and "the atheist" is as fictional an entity as "the theist".

[cuppajoe_9]

I'm surprised that one third said they were atheists. Polls say 90% of Americans 'believe in God'. I guess we're not representative of the nation, huh?Aside from the reasons other have given, I imagine a person who is an atheist is more likely to read a thread titled 'Atheists'.

[The Atheist]

What is the atheist spiritual about - since spiritualism generally refers to some sort of supernatural entity or dimension; if God (or gods) are dismissed as a reality, then what is the Buddhist "spiritual" about?


See, you clearly don't understand atheism or Buddhism.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

Buddhists don't have a god.

Ergo, Buddhists can be atheists - and most of them are.

[RobinHood3000]

What is the atheist spiritual about - since spiritualism generally refers to some sort of supernatural entity or dimension; if God (or gods) are dismissed as a reality, then what is the Buddhist "spiritual" about?You answered your own question. Say spiritualism refers to belief in a supernatural entity or dimension. God is a supernatural entity. Isn't it logical, therefore, that if athestic Buddhists do not believe in God, then they believe more in the spiritual dimension?

[Redzeppelin]

I think I asked a silly question that I wasn't fully clear on. Excuse, please.

[Scrivenor]

God was created by man in his own image. Before we were aware of our mortality, we didn't build churches, we didn't pray, we didn't imagine some omnipotent "eye in the sky" watching us or watching over us. People are religious because they lack the intellectual resources and personal determination to work out ethical questions on their own.

Why would someone who wrote fourteen hundred years ago, two thousand years ago or five thousand years ago have more wisdom than people who live today.

And why are churches ond of the most lucrative businesses on earth today?

[mtpspur]

[
And why are churches ond of the most lucrative businesses on earth today?[/QUOTE]

Wow, I knew I was at the wrong church. Lucrative?? I've been around Protestant churches on and off over 30 years and have only known a couple of ministers that owned their own homes. SO where is this rich and well off establishment so I can put on my best presentation of a fallen saint that needs picking up? Where oh where--please tell me beacuse it sure isn't in Ohio.:yawnb: :yawnb: :yawnb:

[Redzeppelin]

God was created by man in his own image.

Incorrect.


Before we were aware of our mortality, we didn't build churches, we didn't pray, we didn't imagine some omnipotent "eye in the sky" watching us or watching over us.

Would you mind identifying this era of our history? When exactly were people unaware that they eventually would die? I figured that would catch on pretty quick (within at least a generation or so, don't you think?).


People are religious because they lack the intellectual resources and personal determination to work out ethical questions on their own.

Wrong again. Unbelievably wrong.


Why would someone who wrote fourteen hundred years ago, two thousand years ago or five thousand years ago have more wisdom than people who live today.

Because wisdom is not a product of technology, "civilization" or whatever it is you think we have that they didn't. Another wrong idea that we moderns have some sort of lock on wisdom.

[The Atheist]

Wow, I knew I was at the wrong church. Lucrative?? I've been around Protestant churches on and off over 30 years and have only known a couple of ministers that owned their own homes. SO where is this rich and well off establishment so I can put on my best presentation of a fallen saint that needs picking up? Where oh where--please tell me beacuse it sure isn't in Ohio.:yawnb: :yawnb: :yawnb:

You must be in the wrong church.

Blokes like this have no troubles - cars, Harleys, Caribbean cruises (http://immortality.co.nz/news%20network/atheismtamaki.html)...

He is by no means alone in being a very wealthy preacher. Never heard of Benny Hinn? Or noticed that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the richest organisation on the planet?

[The Atheist]

God was created by man in his own image.

Correct.

I'm amazed at how often I get a sense of deja vu on this subject - I covered exactly that this morning. God is everything we would wish him to be - the ultimate big-daddy who not only kisses it all better, he also lets us live foreever! Who wouldn't love the guy?



Before we were aware of our mortality, we didn't build churches, we didn't pray, we didn't imagine some omnipotent "eye in the sky" watching us or watching over us.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, man has always had gods. The human construct of the Abrahamic god/s is quite simple to acknowledge, but earlier than that, there were certainly religions which dealt with death as one of the subjects. That's one of the finer ironies in christianity - the only way to eternal life is through Jesus and god. Yeah, right. Thousands of years earlier, the only way to eternal life was through Osiris, Baal or other deity. There's nothing new in christianity, people have worshipped gods since they first realised they could think.


People are religious because they lack the intellectual resources and personal determination to work out ethical questions on their own.

I'm just loving the fact that a creationist denies that this is true, because I can prove, beyond any doubt that the more intelligent a person is, the less likely he are to believe in the sky-daddy, and conversely, the dumber he is, the more likely he will be to attend a church, be a creationist, an Amway salesman, or all of the foregoing.

I know some very clever christians, all of whom have a far different opinion of god and creation from fundies. The level of gullibility and doublethink required to be a creationist ensures that the lowest intellectual group will fall for it. Some of them may appear quite smart on the surface - I know a fundie with an IQ of 190, he has appeared on tv as "the human computer", yet he is a complete loser with no personality and is therefore able to practice doublethink on himself to ensure that he nevers asks questions, thus preserving the only social group he will ever fit into.


Why would someone who wrote fourteen hundred years ago, two thousand years ago or five thousand years ago have more wisdom than people who live today.

Amen to that, too.

Do we still mill corn and wheat by hand? Do we travel by donkey? Do we go to the toilet, or do it on the side of the road? I think that in this, at least the Amish are honest - they just ignore the past thousand years or so.


And why are churches ond of the most lucrative businesses on earth today?

Because it keeps them in business. Money buys television time which sells product and brings in new believers who tithe more money so more tv time can be bought, etc.

The Old Testament sets the financial scene quite nicely for religion when the sky-daddy himself tells the Hebrews:


When you destroy a city, kill all the men, keep the women and kids for your own purposes, give me one tenth part of the gold and keep the rest.

I can't be bothered finding the precise quote, but that covers it exactly - god has always loved cash.

[The Atheist]

Because wisdom is not a product of technology, "civilization" or whatever it is you think we have that they didn't. Another wrong idea that we moderns have some sort of lock on wisdom.

Actually, you're completely wrong, wisdom is acquired through experience. Humans today have the collective wisdom of thousands of years of science and society to start from. Children leave school with more wisdom that people used to collate in all their lives.

This is another point fundies miss entirely - there is 10,000 years of human wisdom and knowledge to refer to, yet they only refer to one book, which hasn't been updated for 1700 years or so.

[mtpspur]

I knew I shouldn't have made the joke about lucrative churches. I also need to stay off this forum. BUT to be serious. I am a believer in the Lord Christ as a personal Lord and Savior for sins to anyone who believes in Him which makes him available to anyone whether they have wisdom or not. I also know I'm a weak Christian in the faith due to my predilection for doing a Jonah--thinking I have a better plan then God for the "way it ought to be." If you think about the 10,000 years of recorded history for wisdom and the fact that the ONE BOOK doesn't need updating to get the lesson across should be a telling testimony to its authority. Professing themselves to be wise they become fools. Best to stick to the basics. With respect and no real interest in batting back and forth. I leave that to the more erudite amongst us. Faith, people, faith. All else is dust ands ashes.

[B-Mental]

mtpspur, I've been staying away from the religous texts forums for quite a while, but I've noticed several posts lately, and had to say. To Atheist - Do me a favor...please...TONE IT DOWN. I agree with many points you make, but you can take it too far. The intelligence of a person is not related to their belief in a higher being. Faith is the major thing. I would have quoted mtpspur, but its just above my post. Its true, the ability to believe is paramount to faith.


Actually, you're completely wrong, wisdom is acquired through experience
Only part right, experience and reflection can lead to wisdom, but experience alone will not lead to wisdom. What else can be involved? Gee, I don't have my all knowing recipe.

I know that people feel passionate about these topics, but discussion is one thing...I wonder why religous topics give me a headache.

[The Atheist]

Couple of nice coherent posts for a change!

I have no problem at all with faith - as I've said, I know some extremely clever christians who accept pretty much all scientific truths, including evolution, without any trouble to their faith at all. Those kind of people, who see a philosophical need for a god and have faith that he exists, I can admire. I can make an excellent case for god myself within those parameters, I just don't buy it.

What irks me, and it's not just in religion, is wilful ignorance - the refusal to accept that gravity works, physics rules the physical universe and that the laws of mathematics cannot be broken. Creationists are among the worst at trying to avoid these things.

And yes, mea culpa, my patience with them is thin!

[B-Mental]

I'll tell you that I was raised Roman Catholic, and quite a stink was made when the diocese spent 3 million dollars on a glorified garden. I know that there is a lot of things that could have been done with the money, but a garden doesn't seem high on my list.

[Redzeppelin]

Couple of nice coherent posts for a change!

Revise: "Couple of posts [that agree with my worldview] for a change!"


I have no problem at all with faith - as I've said, I know some extremely clever christians who accept pretty much all scientific truths, including evolution, without any trouble to their faith at all. Those kind of people, who see a philosophical need for a god and have faith that he exists, I can admire. I can make an excellent case for god myself within those parameters, I just don't buy it.

"Clever" apparently, because they agree with you. The people you described above do not sound like Christians at all - at least Christians who truly know who God is and recognize their need of Him. People who see God as a "philosophical" need have equated Him with some sort of intellectual "vitamin." I question that type of "Christianity."

Since I rarely see you make any real case here (but I do see you dismiss other people's) why don't you lay out your "excellent case for [G]od" - I would love to read it.


What irks me, and it's not just in religion, is wilful ignorance - the refusal to accept that gravity works, physics rules the physical universe and that the laws of mathematics cannot be broken.

You know little about Christians - perhaps you ought to hang around some and listen to them on occasion so that you might stop making such ill-informed statements about them. We acknowledge science's veracity in many areas (Christians who deny that gravity works would be denying the existence of God - because He created gravity). Your comments are based largely on your non-stop begging-the-question of the truth about evolution. Once again: you have a theory, with some pieces of "evidence" that appear to support that theory. Congratulations. Quit pretending that evolution is equal to gravity - to do so seriously puts to doubt your credibility as a spokesman/woman for evolution.


Creationists are among the worst at trying to avoid these things.

We try to avoid things that are flat-out mistruths if we are able to do so.


And yes, mea culpa, my patience with them is thin!

We forgive you.

[Scheherazade]

please...TONE IT DOWN. Thank you, B-Mental.

I think this is a suggestion we can all benefit from.

Please do not personalise your arguments and/or post off topic comments.

And The Atheist, I think it is very lucky for us all that the patience of the Moderators of this Forum is not so 'thin'.

[bazarov]

I have no problem at all with faith - as I've said, I know some extremely clever christians who accept pretty much all scientific truths, including evolution, without any trouble to their faith at all. Those kind of people, who see a philosophical need for a god and have faith that he exists, I can admire. I can make an excellent case for god myself within those parameters, I just don't buy it.

That's OK.



What irks me, and it's not just in religion, is wilful ignorance - the refusal to accept that gravity works, physics rules the physical universe and that the laws of mathematics cannot be broken. Creationists are among the worst at trying to avoid these things

And yes, mea culpa, my patience with them is thin!

I am a Christian, but that's not so relevant now. I am well educated and that's probably the main reason why I look and think different about some things; and those people probably aren't, and they can't understand some science things; and you should understand that. You don't have to respect that, but that will never change, especially at elderly population. My advice is to you: don't argue with them; you're probably intellectualy more superior above them and you won't prove nothing, their minds are not so open minded.

[Redzeppelin]

I'm amazed at how often I get a sense of deja vu on this subject - I covered exactly that this morning. God is everything we would wish him to be - the ultimate big-daddy who not only kisses it all better, he also lets us live foreever! Who wouldn't love the guy?

Any condemned man given a reprieve has good reason to love the man who came and freed him, and - unbelievably - took the punishment meant for the man he'd set free.


The human construct of the Abrahamic god/s is quite simple to acknowledge, but earlier than that, there were certainly religions which dealt with death as one of the subjects. That's one of the finer ironies in christianity - the only way to eternal life is through Jesus and god. Yeah, right. Thousands of years earlier, the only way to eternal life was through Osiris, Baal or other deity. There's nothing new in christianity, people have worshipped gods since they first realised they could think.

Other mythological "gods" who promised anything (if they did at all) offered no real hope to humanity; they had no clear mission on earth, no particular moral position and certainly did not claim the power to create as did God. They were mere pretenders to the throne. And, despite your cavalier assertion about Christianity, it is very different from most world religions, in a number of distinctive ways.


I'm just loving the fact that a creationist denies that this is true, because I can prove, beyond any doubt that the more intelligent a person is, the less likely he are to believe in the sky-daddy, and conversely, the dumber he is, the more likely he will be to attend a church, be a creationist, an Amway salesman, or all of the foregoing.

A statement beyond absurdity. Spiritual belief does not imply deficiency in thinking unless one subscribes to Naturalism (which, from the Christian POV is its own particular form of ignorant blindness). The only person who would make such a statement would be someone whose idea of reality is one of considerable limitation. Such comments as yours ironically affirm the exact opposite of your words.


I know some very clever christians, all of whom have a far different opinion of god and creation from fundies. The level of gullibility and doublethink required to be a creationist ensures that the lowest intellectual group will fall for it. Some of them may appear quite smart on the surface - I know a fundie with an IQ of 190, he has appeared on tv as "the human computer", yet he is a complete loser with no personality and is therefore able to practice doublethink on himself to ensure that he nevers asks questions, thus preserving the only social group he will ever fit into.

Ho-hum. This line of argument is nothing more than a collective ad hominem argument; apparently, what can't be refuted through a real argument will be assaulted through silly and unsubstantiated generalizations.


Do we still mill corn and wheat by hand? Do we travel by donkey? Do we go to the toilet, or do it on the side of the road? I think that in this, at least the Amish are honest - they just ignore the past thousand years or so.

These things are not necessarily reflections of wisdom as much as perhaps necessity or the development of technology. Try not to confuse the two.



Because it keeps them in business. Money buys television time which sells product and brings in new believers who tithe more money so more tv time can be bought, etc.

This cynical view is common; in some cases deserved, in many, not.


god has always loved cash.

Beyond absurd. God does not need money. He who created all doesn't need cash. You understand as little of God as you accuse me of understanding about evolution.

[RobinHood3000]

Wow, there've been a lot of posts. Here goes - apologies if I overdo my attempts to be aphoristic:

1) The Bible has presumably not required editing (although it has changed) to remain applicable throughout the ages. Neither have horoscopes or fortune cookies. It would be absurd to say that Bible stories do not offer any moral value whatsoever to my philosophy, but I personally grant them the same weight as Aesop's fables - legitimate in theme, questionable as fact. But that's just me.

2) Faith is no indicator of intelligence level, period. Religion does occasionally compromise the willingness of some to listen to logic, but then again, so can atheism.

3) I am of the opinion that ancient religions and mythologies have the same weight as today's theisms regarding truth value, as from my perspective, they have the same extent of support - the faith of their followers, nothing more. You may, of course, feel free to think otherwise.

I think that's about everything out of me for the time being. :wave:

[B-Mental]

2) Faith is no indicator of intelligence level, period. Religion does occasionally compromise the willingness of some to listen to logic, but then again, so can atheism.

I don't know if this was in my comment on faith. I intended to mean that the ability to have faith is the basis to believe. Believers and Atheists differ on the basis to accept something in their lives, or reject it. They both can have faith, but its where they place their faith.

[Redzeppelin]

Hi Robin - haven't heard from you in a while. Thanks for your balanced response. I fully agree with your 2nd point.

[Quark]

Doesn't religion mistake form for content? When we talk about deities or invisible spirits, are we not really discussing ideas like truth or justice? These concepts can be difficult to talk about. Often we use symbolic language that excites the soul more than reason, but once we commit ourself to the language of the discussion and not to the actual object don't we lose something. I generally like religious people, and I even identify with them--in that they actually hold ideals like truth and justice to be primary. But, I think that to restrict people to the standards and rules of a religion would be to make a mistake. People may begin to imagine that the strictures and plaudits of religious figures is more important than the ideals their religion stands for. This is the danger involved when people put form above content.

[Redzeppelin]

Doesn't religion mistake form for content? When we talk about deities or invisible spirits, are we not really discussing ideas like truth or justice?

In the case of God, we are discussing the origin and source of truth and justice. Without God, there's really no good reason for those two things to exist.

[Quark]

In the case of God, we are discussing the origin and source of truth and justice. Without God, there's really no good reason for those two things to exist.

Is that really honest? We know of Justice and Truth before we accept the deity that explains them. People are not born with a religious identity--they do not have any a priori notion of a specific deity. I agree that there is a connection between cause and the effect. For example, I know that object fall to the earth and I believe that gravity causes this. But, and here's the distinction, I know that gravity is the one that I have invented. I accept gravity because it appeals to certain experiences, principles, and feelings. The idea of gravity helps me bring order to my experience and it satisfies me, but I don't pretend that this just is. Instead, I realize that it's a creation which works for now, but doesn't preclude possible changes--possibly even refutation. This is my problem with religion: it pretends that gravity is the reality and the objects falling to earth is the illusion. Suddenly it becomes more important to know about gravity than it is to know that things fall to the earth, and the truth is that gravity is just one of many invented theories. Aristotle believed that objects seek rest and that causes them to move toward the center of the earth. This was another explanation that was satisfying for a time, but it yielded its place when another was found that was closer to what people thought and felt. Just as there were many theories of objects falling to earth, there any many ways of talking about spirituality, truth, and justice, but unfortunately religions believe that their theories are more important that what is really being talked about.

[cuppajoe_9]

In the case of God, we are discussing the origin and source of truth and justice. Without God, there's really no good reason for those two things to exist.

The fact that a society which contains those two things is in the best interests of all its denizens is a very good reason for those two things to exist.

[Redzeppelin]

Is that really honest?

Absolutely. Lying is a sin - I'm trying to avoid sin wherever possible in my life.


We know of Justice and Truth before we accept the deity that explains them.

Sure - but we also learn what love is before we have a name for it. Most things we learn of before we have a name or idea as to where they came from. That we understand the concepts first doesn't necessarily mean that they exist independently. All good things in this world - truth, justice, love, mercy, compassion, charity, hope, faith, kindness, etc - are all qualities of God; they are reflections of His perfect character.


People are not born with a religious identity--they do not have any a priori notion of a specific deity.

The first statement is true; according to the Bible, the second is false.


I agree that there is a connection between cause and the effect. For example, I know that object fall to the earth and I believe that gravity causes this.

Me too. (*audible gasps from the evolutionists in the crowd who think Christians don't acknowledge the validity of science*).


But, and here's the distinction, I know that gravity is the one that I have invented. I accept gravity because it appeals to certain experiences, principles, and feelings. The idea of gravity helps me bring order to my experience and it satisfies me, but I don't pretend that this just is.

What? Here's where my jaw drops. Gravity is - period. It is not a concept because if you decide to disbelieve in it, guess what? It still "works." Either I'm missing some subtlety in your argument (highly possible) or you just went off into some mystery land where reality gets to obey your thoughts.


Instead, I realize that it's a creation which works for now, but doesn't preclude possible changes--possibly even refutation.

I have argued a version of this point as well - but I don't think that means that what is now is not real.


This is my problem with religion: it pretends that gravity is the reality and the objects falling to earth is the illusion. Suddenly it becomes more important to know about gravity than it is to know that things fall to the earth, and the truth is that gravity is just one of many invented theories. Aristotle believed that objects seek rest and that causes them to move toward the center of the earth. This was another explanation that was satisfying for a time, but it yielded its place when another was found that was closer to what people thought and felt. Just as there were many theories of objects falling to earth, there any many ways of talking about spirituality, truth, and justice, but unfortunately religions believe that their theories are more important that what is really being talked about.

Sorry - you lost me here. I don't get the analogy at all.


The fact that a society which contains those two things is in the best interests of all its denizens is a very good reason for those two things to exist.

A practical reason yes; but there's no reason they have to exist instead of some other "regulators" or "maintainers" of society. Without God, nothing has to be as it is.

[cuppajoe_9]

A practical reason yes; but there's no reason they have to exist instead of some other "regulators" or "maintainers" of society.How about the fact that they're the ones that work the best?


Without God, nothing has to be as it is.With God, there's no particular reason for everything to be as it is.

[Redzeppelin]

How about the fact that they're the ones that work the best?

That something turns out to be efficient does not necessarily mean that it had to exist.


With God, there's no particular reason for everything to be as it is.

Too vague for me to comment on without risk of falling into some sort of easily refuted error. Care to clarify?

[cuppajoe_9]

That something turns out to be efficient does not necessarily mean that it had to exist.No, but it means that it was probably going to turn up sooner or later. Evolution doesn't just happen to genes, you know.


Too vague for me to comment on without risk of falling into some sort of easily refuted error. Care to clarify?You said: without God there is no particular reason for everything to be the way it is at the moment (unless I'm badly misreading you, which is entirely possible). My position is that, with or without deities, if you ask why? enough times, you're eventually going to have to come to the conclusion that things are pretty arbitrary.

Examples:

"Why does that animal have that particular feature?"
"It evolved that way because it gives it an advantage over that other animal in competing for food."
"Why?"
"It uses energy more efficiently that way?"
"Why is that an advantage?"
"Because energy is need to sustain life."
"Why?"
"...just because."

Alternatively:

"Why does that animal have that feature?"
"Because God designed it that way?"
"Why that way and not some other way?"
"...just because."

You can do this with just about any feature of the universe, justice included.

[Redzeppelin]

No, but it means that it was probably going to turn up sooner or later. Evolution doesn't just happen to genes, you know.

Fine - but that still doesn't mean that it had to exist. That it does suggests to me something more than just "moral evolution" of some sort.


You said: without God there is no particular reason for everything to be the way it is at the moment (unless I'm badly misreading you, which is entirely possible). My position is that, with or without deities, if you ask why? enough times, you're eventually going to have to come to the conclusion that things are pretty arbitrary.

Examples:

"Why does that animal have that particular feature?"
"It evolved that way because it gives it an advantage over that other animal in competing for food."
"Why?"
"It uses energy more efficiently that way?"
"Why is that an advantage?"
"Because energy is need to sustain life."
"Why?"
"...just because."

Alternatively:

"Why does that animal have that feature?"
"Because God designed it that way?"
"Why that way and not some other way?"
"...just because."

You can do this with just about any feature of the universe, justice included.


You have radically simplified the Christian response; this is where science comes in handy because ID tells us how perfectly God's creation is suited for what it does and where it lives. Only the most stunted of Christians does the "God designed it - just because" two-step.

[The Atheist]

I am a Christian, but that's not so relevant now. I am well educated and that's probably the main reason why I look and think different about some things; and those people probably aren't, and they can't understand some science things; and you should understand that. You don't have to respect that, but that will never change, especially at elderly population. My advice is to you: don't argue with them; you're probably intellectualy more superior above them and you won't prove nothing, their minds are not so open minded.

Thanks!

I do try to avoid getting into this type of debate with creationists, but sometimes, I slip! I'm certainly not surprised that you are a more thoughtful christian.

[The Atheist]

Wow, there've been a lot of posts. Here goes - apologies if I overdo my attempts to be aphoristic:

1) The Bible has presumably not required editing (although it has changed) to remain applicable throughout the ages. Neither have horoscopes or fortune cookies. It would be absurd to say that Bible stories do not offer any moral value whatsoever to my philosophy, but I personally grant them the same weight as Aesop's fables - legitimate in theme, questionable as fact. But that's just me.

2) Faith is no indicator of intelligence level, period. Religion does occasionally compromise the willingness of some to listen to logic, but then again, so can atheism.

3) I am of the opinion that ancient religions and mythologies have the same weight as today's theisms regarding truth value, as from my perspective, they have the same extent of support - the faith of their followers, nothing more. You may, of course, feel free to think otherwise.

I think that's about everything out of me for the time being. :wave:

Extremely well put, but I would argue the religion/intelligence ratio. There are several studies I can dig up links to, if you like. Obviously, it isn't a perfect indicator, but in general terms, the premise is correct.

[The Atheist]

Beyond absurd. God does not need money. He who created all doesn't need cash. You understand as little of God as you accuse me of understanding about evolution.

Hey, I'm just telling you what the bible says - no secret to it. If you want a few chapter numbers, let me know.

[The Atheist]

Since I rarely see you make any real case here (but I do see you dismiss other people's) why don't you lay out your "excellent case for [G]od" - I would love to read it.

I may do that, if I have the time.


You know little about Christians - perhaps you ought to hang around some and listen to them on occasion so that you might stop making such ill-informed statements about them.

As it happens, I had a uncle who held a PhD in divinity and who was a Canon in the Anglican Church. I'll back my knowledge of religion any day.


We acknowledge science's veracity in many areas (Christians who deny that gravity works would be denying the existence of God - because He created gravity).

That is truly priceless!

We know far less about gravity than evolution, yet you accept it without question.


Your comments are based largely on your non-stop begging-the-question of the truth about evolution. Once again: you have a theory, with some pieces of "evidence" that appear to support that theory. Congratulations. Quit pretending that evolution is equal to gravity - to do so seriously puts to doubt your credibility as a spokesman/woman for evolution.

Again, I would never pretend to lump evolution with gravity - we understand the entire process of evolution, aside from abiogenesis, yet know very little about gravity.

Also, please note that evolution isn't "my theory", it is an accepted science which is backed by the overwhelming majority of scientists. That's not an appeal to authority, it's just a fact. If I were to appeal to authority, I'd choose the NAS, of which some 93+% of its membership totally accepts evolution.

[CountingSheep]

I am one serious atheist. Spirituality doesn't bother me... but organized religion causes so much **** it bothers me.

[Redzeppelin]

I may do that, if I have the time.

Please do so.


As it happens, I had a uncle who held a PhD in divinity and who was a Canon in the Anglican Church. I'll back my knowledge of religion any day.

Knowledge of "religion" is not the same as knowledge of God. Either way, your generalizations about Christianity are not part of how much "book knowledge" you have about the Bible - it is due to your unfair stereotyping.



That is truly priceless!

We know far less about gravity than evolution, yet you accept it without question.

Gravity is here, now. We can study it here, now. Evolution is neither. Only its so-called "traces" are left.



Again, I would never pretend to lump evolution with gravity - we understand the entire process of evolution, aside from abiogenesis, yet know very little about gravity.

Edit: "We understand the entire [suggested/hypothesized/sepculated] process of evolution."

Yeah - the abiogenesis thing is a problem, isn't it?


Also, please note that evolution isn't "my theory", it is an accepted science which is backed by the overwhelming majority of scientists. That's not an appeal to authority, it's just a fact. If I were to appeal to authority, I'd choose the NAS, of which some 93+% of its membership totally accepts evolution.

The majority doesn't always rule. It's possible for the majority to be wrong. Few people thought the Wright Brothers were sane. A university physics professor condemned their experiement as ludicrous.

[hyperborean]

The majority doesn't always rule. It's possible for the majority to be wrong.

Reminds me of Christianity :lol:

The theory of evolution isn't politically or religiously driven, and to me that makes it more credible than most theories.

[Redzeppelin]

Reminds me of Christianity :lol:

The theory of evolution isn't politically or religiously driven, and to me that makes it more credible than most theories.

It is ideologically driven, which places it in the same category as religion and politics.

[The Atheist]

Yeah - the abiogenesis thing is a problem, isn't it?

Nope, it's not a problem at all.

See, as someone who follows science rather than a 4000-year old book of just-so stories, I have no problem at all with an admission that our knowledge of something is imperfect.


It is ideologically driven, which places it in the same category as religion and politics.

Wrong.

Evolution is driven by fact and research, unlike creationism which is driven by assertion and lies or religion, which is driven by fear.

[Quark]

Before this completely devolves into a another evolution vs. creationism debate I'd like to answer the actual thread question: what do Atheists believe?

In Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, Levin finds himself in a spiritual crisis. He fears that life is meaningless and death will soon destroy every accomplishment that man has produced. He intends to shelter himself from this doubt--or at least find some expression of it--in philosophy. However, this quickly fails. Tolstoy recounts Levin's experience:

"Their ideas seemed to him fruitful when he was reading or was himself seeking arguments to refute other theories, especially those of the materialists; but as soon as he began to read or sought for himself a solution of problems, the same thing always happened. As long as he followed the fixed definition of obscure words such as SPIRIT, WILL, FREEDOM, ESSENCE, purposely letting himself go into the snare of words the philosophers set for him, he seemed to comprehend something. But he had only to forget the artificial train of reasoning, and to turn from life itself to what had satisfied him while thinking in accordance with the fixed definitions, and all this artificial edifice fell to pieces at once like a house of cards, and it became clear that the edifice had been built up out of those transposed words"

Levin rejects philosophy because it is an artificial interpretation of what he feels. It uses words and symbols to replace what he already knows. In the same way, Atheists reject religion as a false and misleading representation of human ideas. Perhaps I wouldn't go as far as Levin and say that we don't need any representation, but I would maintain that the ideas are more important than the representation.

[RobinHood3000]

I THINK what Quark was trying to say on the last page about gravity is that gravity as a concept is nothing but a human construct. We do not observe gravity objectively - we observe the apple falling towards the center of the earth under the force of what we CALL gravity, which (if you want to get technical about the matter) manifests via the exchange of particles called gravitons. We believe firmly in gravity, and for practical purposes so far, it works great. But we used to think the Sun orbited around the Earth, too. However, scientists are willing to acknowledge the limitations of science. Theists are generally less so regarding their respective religious texts - depending on who you are, this could be because a) you believe aren't any flaws, or b) you believe said theist is too dense to see them.

Regarding abiogenesis - it's the same thing. Science acknowledges its limitations on this front - which are not as bad as you might think. Experimentation has shown that primordial chemicals + energy can produce simple organic compounds (if memory serves, amino acids).

And regarding the faith-intelligence relationship: statistics may say that if you randomly select a theist and compare him/her to a randomly-selected atheist, the theist will probably be dumber. But correlation does not imply causation (one of the most important laws of statistics). Besides which, knowing that someone is a theist is not grounds for anyone to treat him/her like an idiot. If they open their mouths and say something stupid, then they may proceed to form opinions at will. But that applies to followers of any belief system, anyway.


Before this completely devolves into a another evolution vs. creationism debate I'd like to answer the actual thread question: what do Atheists believe? I'll answer that as soon as you can tell me what theists believe.

[cuppajoe_9]

Experimentation has shown that primordial chemicals + energy can produce simple organic compounds (if memory serves, amino acids).Memory serves. Miller and Urey, 1953.


And regarding the faith-intelligence relationship: statistics may say that if you randomly select a theist and compare him/her to a randomly-selected atheist, the theist will probably be dumber. But correlation does not imply causation (one of the most important laws of statistics).Alternate view: a person holding a PhD in molecular biology is more likely than the general population to be 1) a genius and 2) an atheist, thus skewing the results.

[The Atheist]

Before this completely devolves into a another evolution vs. creationism debate I'd like to answer the actual thread question: what do Atheists believe?

That's precisely the same as asking, "What do philatelists believe?"

"Atheism" isn't a belief system, it simply signifies lack of belief in god/s. Atheists can be rationalists, humanists, anarchists, Buddhists, Universal Unitarians, polytheists and UFO nutters, among others.



Atheists reject religion as a false and misleading representation of human ideas. Perhaps I wouldn't go as far as Levin and say that we don't need any representation, but I would maintain that the ideas are more important than the representation.

You're a little off-track here as well. Most atheists reject religion because the idea of god is quite preposterous to them. Many still accept that religion can do good and that the ideals and mores proposed by christianity actually true.

[RobinHood3000]

You're a little off-track here as well. Most atheists reject religion because the idea of god is quite preposterous to them. Many still accept that religion can do good and that the ideals and mores proposed by christianity actually true.Couldn't agree more, and would extend it to other forms of theism, as well. :)

[Redzeppelin]

Memory serves. Miller and Urey, 1953.

The results consisted only of a few amino acids - very far from the complex protiens, nucleotides, and organized information necessary for life. This is said to be the equivalent of manufacturing a drop of ink and claiming you have created the building block for an encylopaedia.

Other notes: Miller and Urey artificially blocked out oxygen and "trapped" only the amino acids favorable to life. There is no way to explain how this could have happened on the early earth.

It is rarely mentioned that the vast majority of components produced in these experiments were destructive "tar" - which would have eliminated early life.

[RobinHood3000]

The results consisted only of a few amino acids - very far from the complex protiens, nucleotides, and organized information necessary for life. This is said to be the equivalent of manufacturing a drop of ink and claiming you have created the building block for an encylopaedia.Early monocellular organisms are also very far from modern-day forms of life. Just because it's far doesn't mean it isn't traversible.


It is rarely mentioned that the vast majority of components produced in these experiments were destructive "tar" - which would have eliminated early life.I'm a little unclear on this - what exactly constitutes this "tar"? Given that oxygen is basic to some life and deadly to others, I'm a little leery of saying that any one substance is inherently destructive to life.

[Quark]

See, as someone who follows science rather than a 4000-year old book of just-so stories, I have no problem at all with an admission that our knowledge of something is imperfect.

Evolution is driven by fact and research, unlike creationism which is driven by assertion and lies or religion, which is driven by fear.

I objected because I thought this argument was turning into a discussion about the physical existence of God or Heaven or Hell. If you think you can settle this with an atheist and Christian in the room--good luck. You can throw evidence back and forth, but everyone will just interpret it in accordance with their predetermined world view. If any progress is to made, it's to be done on the philosophical, and perhaps even personal, level. We need to approach the real underpinnings of belief whether that's a belief in Christ or in science. Why does scientific research trump the Bible?



You're a little off-track here as well. Most atheists reject religion because the idea of god is quite preposterous to them.

Once again, this doesn't answer anything. Of course Atheist think that the idea of God is preposterous. The real question is why. If I'm off track for trying to answer that question, and the right track is a discussion on the merits of Evolution or Creationism, then the right track should be abandoned.




Many still accept that religion can do good and that the ideals and mores proposed by christianity actually true

I never argued the contrary

[The Atheist]

I objected because I thought this argument was turning into a discussion about the physical existence of God or Heaven or Hell.

Unfortunately, any discussion of this kind inevitably does. When one side only has the bible and the bible's the word of a god, then there isn't actually a lot of room to manoever away from "goddidit".


If you think you can settle this with an atheist and Christian in the room--good luck. You can throw evidence back and forth, but everyone will just interpret it in accordance with their predetermined world view.

No, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. I know of many christians who would take the same view as me - that evolution is virtually unchallengeable. There is no evidence back and forth, either - the evidence is all one way. A person's predetrmined world view only affects the ability to interpret facts and evidence when that evidence is contrary to a belief. Since atheists don't have a belief to contradict, their support for evolution is based upon the facts, not what they wish to find.


If any progress is to made, it's to be done on the philosophical, and perhaps even personal, level. We need to approach the real underpinnings of belief whether that's a belief in Christ or in science. Why does scientific research trump the Bible?

In two words - Thomas Aquinas. "Truth cannot contradict truth". This is why the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches accept evolution - to deny it is to ignore a large amount of factual evidence. Rowan Williams and Pope Benedict have no doubt that the earth is billions, not thousands of years old and that life has evolved from single-celled organisms. This is the problem - not christianity, but people who cannot accept factual evidence. The bible and science or religion and science can work alongside each other as long as they do not contradict each other. Science can never disprove god, but it can most certainly disprove young-earth-creationism.


Once again, this doesn't answer anything. Of course Atheist think that the idea of God is preposterous. The real question is why. If I'm off track for trying to answer that question, and the right track is a discussion on the merits of Evolution or Creationism, then the right track should be abandoned.

Well, I'd be surprised if anything ever changes - evolutionists have presented evidence, creationists have ignored it and presented not a single piece in support of creationism.

Same old, same old...

[Durgamol]

it may sound naive, but i think it's easier to believe: we have some reason for living and behaving "well" ;). If there is no life after death, then all the sins wouldn't be so much forbidden anymore. why to try be human if there is no reward? Why not to revenge if it will make me feel better and there will be no punishment?

[Lote-Tree]

why to try be human if there is no reward?


That is the CHALLENGE isn't it Durgamol? To be human without expecting a reward. Are you ready to take up that challenge?



Why not to revenge if it will make me feel better and there will be no punishment?

Revenge is easy.

Hardest thing is to learn to Forgive.

[Durgamol]

That is the CHALLENGE isn't it Durgamol? To be human without expecting a reward. Are you ready to take up that challenge?



Revenge is easy.

Hardest thing is to learn to Forgive.

what i mean is: how should we know what is good and what is no, if there are no "upper" rules? As i said i know it is easier to live like this. And naive. But people are finding being cruel as something natural - it comes too easy to hurt someone. So it is better to believe something not completely rational then not to believe anything and care only about myself.
the question i was asking myself since is: how someone can believe in god, be religious and still purposely hurt others. How someone can kill and say that believes? i don't get it...

[Lote-Tree]

what i mean is: how should we know what is good and what is no


"Good" is anything that minimises suffering? Is not that A Criteria to go by?



how someone can believe in god, be religious and still purposely hurt others.


It is quite easy. In order for someone to hurt someone else - that person needs to dehumanise that person in his mind. And religion can do that quite easily by separating believers from the Unbelievers into two separate camps. Once this is done - it is easy to strip away the humanity of the people in the other camp...until they become less than human...and thus easy to hurt them...

[Durgamol]

It is quite easy. In order for someone to hurt someone else - that person needs to dehumanise that person in his mind. And religion can do that quite easily by separating believers from the Unbelievers into two separate camps. Once this is done - it is easy to strip away the humanity of the people in the other camp...until they become less than human...and thus easy to hurt them...

That is probably a mechanism. You put it in words really well. But i found it too cynical to accept, as i mentioned before when it comes to faith i am a bit naive ;)

[soumyakans]

The debate on existence vs. non existence of God has been as old as mankind itself. i was treated to many interesting arguments in this thread - i only have this to add. Several Scientists have attempted to analyze the "force" that rules this universe - and only culminated in the view point that finally all is one - a view echoed by ancient Chinese and Indian philosophies.
i suggest that you read one or all of these books and it will pass for an interesting reading leave alone solve the debate of theism vs. atheism:
"The Tau of Physics" - Fritjoff Kapra
"The dancing Wu-Li Masters" - Gary Zukav

[Hand_Of_God]

I think that there is also an atheistic ethic, not only a religious one. I do not believe in god but I don't think it's right to kill people, not because I follow some rule, but because I respect life, mine and other people's. :alien:

I think one should be a little crazy to believe in god (look at tom cruise!)

[Lote-Tree]

But i found it too cynical to accept, as i mentioned before when it comes to faith i am a bit naive ;)

To have FAITH is a form of naievety too :-)

The challenge Durgamol is to be human without the reward that faith promises (faith need to be abandoned - but can be transcended). To embrace humanity for all it's beauty and ugliness. To celeberate the best of humanity with pride and also come to terms with worst of humanity with understanding.

Are you up for that challenge :-)

[Durgamol]

To have FAITH is a form of naievety too :-)

The challenge Durgamol is to be human without the reward that faith promises (faith need to be abandoned - but can be transcended). To embrace humanity for all it's beauty and ugliness. To celeberate the best of humanity with pride and also come to terms with worst of humanity with understanding.

Are you up for that challenge :-)

i wish i was such a good person, but the answer is no: there are moments when revenge seems to be so sweet ;)
So no, this challenge is not tempting me that much: i prefer to stay naive but at least a bit good, than realistic and really cruel. But Your arguments are really good - i can't wait to talk on some other matters with You :D

[Lote-Tree]

i wish i was such a good person, but the answer is no: there are moments when revenge seems to be so sweet ;)


LOL :-)

Even FAITH teaches Forgivenes is better for you :-)



So no, this challenge is not tempting me that much:


Why? do you not try to better yourself :-)



i prefer to stay naive but at least a bit good, than realistic and really cruel.


But one has to grow out of naievety? Just like a child grows out of childhood?



But Your arguments are really good - i can't wait to talk on some other matters with You :D

LOL :-)

[RobinHood3000]

Frankly, I think that one of the things that people find most appealing about religion is that it allows them to feel vengeful without being the person wreaking said revenge. "Hey, this guy wronged me - so, I shall take take comfort in knowing that he shall burn for eternity in a torturous world of fire, brimstone, and propane grills." On the one hand, it allows the theist to purge their vengeance without taking drastic action. On the other hand, is it really that healthy to have vengeful feelings at all?

[Redzeppelin]

No, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. I know of many christians who would take the same view as me - that evolution is virtually unchallengeable.

That some Christians believe evolution doesn't make it more credible; in fact, based on your argument that religious people are generally dumber than non-believers, such a claim as you make above seems odd - like it's supposed to bolster your position. When is having "dim" people agree with you a plus?


There is no evidence back and forth, either - the evidence is all one way.

Evolution has no more "evidence" that proves it than does ID. ID has a counter for evolutionary arguments.


A person's predetrmined world view only affects the ability to interpret facts and evidence when that evidence is contrary to a belief. Since atheists don't have a belief to contradict, their support for evolution is based upon the facts, not what they wish to find.

Incorrect as well: a person's world-view is always in effect in the interpretation of "facts." Atheists do have a belief: they believe there is no God (it has to be a belief because they can't prove He doesn't exist). That's the same type of argument from ignorance the evolution often argues: "since we don't know exactly what happened, and hypothesis that fits the evidence will do."


Science can never disprove god, but it can most certainly disprove young-earth-creationism.

Your fair admittance of the first statement leads to good odds that the second will be disproved as well.



Well, I'd be surprised if anything ever changes - evolutionists have presented evidence, creationists have ignored it and presented not a single piece in support of creationism.

Same old, same old...

There's plenty of ID info out there to suggest an intelligent designer; once that's granted, then creation becomes very feasible.

[cuppajoe_9]

Evolution has no more "evidence" that proves it than does ID. ID has a counter for evolutionary arguments.Absolute balderdash. There is no evidence whatsoever for ID, and there can never be any evidence for it because it makes no predictions. Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) is about the briefest possible summary of the evidence for univeral common descent. You may notice that it is very long. This is becase there is a lot of evidence.

To summarize the summary:

1. All living organisms fit into a historical, unique nested phylogical tree (some of which you can read here (http://www.tolweb.org/tree/)). This is exactly what one would expect if they had evolved from a comon ancestor as opposed to being created all at once. This is not a subjective arangement, it is mathematically verifiable.
2. Anatomical vestiges and atavisms are consistent with the theory of universal common descent, and always show up in the organisms that one would expect them to, given their position in the phylogical tree (mammals sometimes have vestigal gills, but reptiles never have vestigal fur).
3. Vestiges can be seen on the molecular level, in the form of non-functional 'pseudogenes'. Humans have a pathway for manufacturing vitamin C that would be completely functional except that the gene needed to manufacture a single enzyme is missing, for example.
4. Present biogeography is consistent with evolution. Animals are found where their recent ancestors were, not where the habitat is best suited to them. The exceptions to this rule are cases of extreme mobility, such as in birds or when humans introduce different species to new habitats.
5. Widespread pharmacology (similarity of organs in structure despite difference in function) is consistent with evolution. It is a reasonable assumption that an intelligent designer would choose organs for their functionality and not for their similarity to other organs in different animals. This is not the case, as can be seen on both macroscopic and microscopic levels.
6. Protein functional reduncany. I quote the argument from the source I give:




(P1) Ubiquitous genes: There are certain genes that all living organisms have because they perform very basic life functions; these genes are called ubiquitous genes.

(P2) Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes: Ubiquitous genes have no relationship with the specific functions of different species. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are a bacterium, a human, a frog, a whale, a hummingbird, a slug, a fungus, or a sea anemone - you have these ubiquitous genes, and they all perform the same basic biological function no matter what you are.

(P3) Molecular sequences of ubiquitous genes are functionally redundant: Any given ubiquitous protein has an extremely large number of different functionally equivalent forms (i.e. protein sequences which can perform the same biochemical function).

(P4) Specific ubiquitous genes are unnecessary in any given species: Obviously, there is no a priori reason why every organism should have the same sequence or even similar sequences. No specific sequence is functionally necessary in any organism - all that is necessary is one of the large number of functionally equivalent forms of a given ubiquitous gene or protein.

(P5) Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity: There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity.

(C) Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship: It follows that organisms which have similar sequences for ubiquitous proteins are genealogically related. Roughly, the more similar the sequences, the closer the genealogical relationship.
7. Transpons are parastic DNA which serve no function and are transmitted only by heredity. They are found across species.
8. Endogenous retroviruses are similarly transmitted only by heredity. They are found across species.
9. Speciation has been observed both in the lab and the wild.
10. The fossil record conforms exactly to molecular evidence and the phylogenic tree.

I don't expect you to believe a word of this, and frankly don't care. What does concern me is the idea of you teaching others factually false statements such as "Evolution has no more evidence that proves it than ID does". Please stop doing that.

[Quark]

I think that there is also an atheistic ethic, not only a religious one. I do not believe in god but I don't think it's right to kill people, not because I follow some rule, but because I respect life, mine and other people's. :alien:

Welcome to the forum Hand of God. I think there is an important truth in your post that others have overlooked: that morality is innately human and not the result of religion or any set rules. People have an instinct or a conscious need for morality and they create a system that is descriptive of that feeling they have. You mention that killing is not justifiable not because you were taught so but because you know so. The rule you have established was created to be descriptive of what you know--it wasn't prescribed by any religion. I think the lesson to be learned is that we need systems of morality and physical existence that are descriptive of what we know and not prescriptive of further thinking. I am sure that religions began in accord with the thoughts and feelings of their time--they provided people with a reality that people found both beautiful and believable. Eventually, though, they slowly lost that connection and became fixed systems which gained supremacy over the very things they were supposed to describe.

[RobinHood3000]

Evolution has no more "evidence" that proves it than does ID. ID has a counter for evolutionary arguments.Called omnipotence. Meaning that regardless of what evidence we produce, you can always say that God made it that way.


Incorrect as well: a person's world-view is always in effect in the interpretation of "facts." Atheists do have a belief: they believe there is no God (it has to be a belief because they can't prove He doesn't exist). That's the same type of argument from ignorance the evolution often argues: "since we don't know exactly what happened, and hypothesis that fits the evidence will do."Science tweaks its hypothesis to fit the evidence. Via the countermeasure mentioned above, religion retroactively tweaks the evidence to fit its own hypothesis, prematurely accepted as truth.


There's plenty of ID info out there to suggest an intelligent designer; once that's granted, then creation becomes very feasible.And once it's debunked, creation goes right out the window again.

[Redzeppelin]

I don't expect you to believe a word of this, and frankly don't care. What does concern me is the idea of you teaching others factually false statements such as "Evolution has no more evidence that proves it than ID does". Please stop doing that.

I think I'm reaching "saturation" in terms of this discussion and may need to give it a rest for a while (but I've thought such things before). I am allowed to say whatever I believe to be true. I can say God is real; I can say that evolution isn't; I can say that I am God; I can evan say that "Evolution has no more evidence that proves is than ID does" if I like. You continue to say things that I disagree with, things that the Bible indicates to be untrue. I don't recall that I've ever told you to stop "teaching others" what you espouse to be true. Why don't you be tolerant and allow me my opinon, sir?

[cuppajoe_9]

I can say God is real; I can say that evolution isn't; I can say that I am God; I can evan say that "Evolution has no more evidence that proves is than ID does" if I like. You can certainly say all of those things, but the first two (or three) are matters of opinion. The fourth is a matter of fact. The evidence is there. You can argue about interpretations if you like, but denying that the evidence exists is completely dishonest.


You continue to say things that I disagree with, things that the Bible indicates to be untrue. I don't recall that I've ever told you to stop "teaching others" what you espouse to be true. Why don't you be tolerant and allow me my opinon, sir?You are entitled to what ever opinion you want. That isn't what I'm complaining about. Whether or not there is evidence for evolution is not a matter of opinion, only whether it's conclusive is.

[Redzeppelin]

You can certainly say all of those things, but the first two (or three) are matters of opinion. The fourth is a matter of fact. The evidence is there. You can argue about interpretations if you like, but denying that the evidence exists is completely dishonest.

You are entitled to what ever opinion you want. That isn't what I'm complaining about. Whether or not there is evidence for evolution is not a matter of opinion, only whether it's conclusive is.

My statements do not indicate that evolution has no evidence; they indicate that ID has comparable amounts. There's a difference. Just because you don't buy the ID arguments doesn't make them invalid.

[Hand_Of_God]

Welcome to the forum Hand of God. I think there is an important truth in your post that others have overlooked: that morality is innately human and not the result of religion or any set rules. People have an instinct or a conscious need for morality and they create a system that is descriptive of that feeling they have. You mention that killing is not justifiable not because you were taught so but because you know so. The rule you have established was created to be descriptive of what you know--it wasn't prescribed by any religion. I think the lesson to be learned is that we need systems of morality and physical existence that are descriptive of what we know and not prescriptive of further thinking. I am sure that religions began in accord with the thoughts and feelings of their time--they provided people with a reality that people found both beautiful and believable. Eventually, though, they slowly lost that connection and became fixed systems which gained supremacy over the very things they were supposed to describe.

Thank you, you are very deep. And what do you think about ID? I think it's stupid, it's a way to mask religion as science, but it's not a scientific theory because you can't prove (or deny) it with observation and experiments. :flare:

[Redzeppelin]

Thank you, you are very deep. And what do you think about ID? I think it's stupid, it's a way to mask religion as science, but it's not a scientific theory because you can't prove (or deny) it with observation and experiments. :flare:

ID is scientific in that it points out (via empirical evidence and examination of life forms) that the complexity and specificity of certain life form points to a designer (because the odds of random design of the complexity and specificity of the life form are astronomical). Both evolution and ID use nature to argue their points - and both ultimately point to an origin that neither can prove.

[kilted exile]

The statistical argument is one that has never really held any water with me. It would be different if you could show that the odds of there being a creator and "it" creating the universe were significantly less, however I realise this is impossible to do and I would not expect it. Instead the odds argument seems to boil down to "look at the odds for anything happening in one way, it must have been this way instead" - It is not an argument for the alternative, it is a criticism of the other, something which in my mind is an important distinction.

[Redzeppelin]

The statistical argument is one that has never really held any water with me. It would be different if you could show that the odds of there being a creator and "it" creating the universe were significantly less, however I realise this is impossible to do and I would not expect it. Instead the odds argument seems to boil down to "look at the odds for anything happening in one way, it must have been this way instead" - It is not an argument for the alternative, it is a criticism of the other, something which in my mind is an important distinction.


I don't point out odds to suggest that God exists or that He designed the universe; I point out odds so that evolutionists must deal with the fact that the odds of their particular position are no better than mine - because the odds of abiogenesis are as close to zero as you can get. Since atheists argue that God doesn't exist (which would be odds of zero - but I'm not a statistician) then I'd say we're on equal ground in terms of the odds.

[Cervan]

Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one! :lol: athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves. :lol: )

Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist?

I don't know if this is going to a popular thread or not, but I'll give it a try... ;)


I know this thread started a long time ago but I had to respond to this, because you see this kind of ignorance all over the place. This ignorance as to what atheism is is so widespread that on Youtube the other day I listened to a Pulitzer Prize winning author talking to Paula Zahn and saying "What does an atheist believe? He believes in nothing, right?"

If there is to be anything productive coming out of the debates between atheism and theism, the first thing that has to happen is that theists, of whatever persuasion, must consult a dictionary and learn what the definition of atheism is. If they refuse to do this they are wasting everyone's time.

I hope that after nearly nine-hundred posts in this thread Adelheid now understands what atheism means. I also hope that he or she realizes that yes, theists can be unbelievers as well. They are unbelievers in respect to every god up for offer, which is thousands, save for the one they happen to believe in.

[obesechicken13]

I consider myself an atheists because all of the modern religions are impossibly false. This is not to say that there could be one I would join. I can recognize however that I can not disprove the existence of a sentient being that operates as the very hypersphere itself. Therefore using probability simulation I can say that there is a small chance there is a god.

You might consider me an agnostic now. Well that would be an insult, and people just wouldn't understand my real point of view. My hatred towards the thought of going to a religion was fueled by the fact that a just god would allow his closest followers to lose their loved ones. This is not my reasoning nor my subjective emotions, just an initial reason for contemplative zealotry.

[Bookworm4Him]

My hatred towards the thought of going to a religion was fueled by the fact that a just god would allow his closest followers to lose their loved ones.

God gave up His loved one for us. What better way to show a loyalty to God then by being willing to do the same?
Besides, if life was all fun and cool for Christians, then everybody and their brother would "become" one. But if hardship and suffering comes with it, then only those who truly believe would stay consistent.
Lastly, everyone loses their loved ones, Christian or not. Eventually, everyone dies, and someone else is sad. But for Christians, they know that they will see their loved ones again, and be with them forever. So they don't lose them, they're just seperated for awhile. gtg

[Stieg]

Though I can entirely discount the existance of a god or creator, but I agree with obesechicken13. My family is traditionally Christian though not all immediate and distant family members are religious. I have had contact with Christian family members and other non-related Christians.

I've seen some really sad things that angered me, I seen family and friends divided by lifestyles, one side earthy with feet firmly on the terra and the other Christ-centered living in preparation for the return of Christ. I have witnessed close people relatives even of one another become absolute strangers, and bitterly I have always emotionally sided with the former. And martyrdom is simply incomprehesible and barbaric to me. It happens today.

[quasimodo1]

These terms are not contradictory. Tibeten Buhdism believes in things like the "Bardo" and "Enlightenment"/ they require no deity in the western sense yet they believe lives have infinite differences between what westerners call good and evil. As in physics, consciousness can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. A Buhdist is an atheist with strong beliefs although they would never put it that way. Believers in god and followers of the buhdist faith will both die and they will both be reborn. Just the view of one student of philosophy. quasimodo1

[Hand_Of_God]

ID is scientific in that it points out (via empirical evidence and examination of life forms) that the complexity and specificity of certain life form points to a designer (because the odds of random design of the complexity and specificity of the life form are astronomical). Both evolution and ID use nature to argue their points - and both ultimately point to an origin that neither can prove.

Red, I got your point, but let me say something. I don't say evolution is right at all costs in it's last formulation, but it is a scientific theory (in fact it can be confirmed or disproved by observations, for example finding ancient animals which respect or not what the model expects). On the other side, ID is not a scientific theory, because it has no way to do that (you can always say you see a designer in nature). So, one can believe there is an Intelligent behind universe who created or organized all, there's no problem, but it is not science. For me Evolution Vs ID is not a real match between 2 scientific models like could be dark matter vs mond. :alien:

[Redzeppelin]

Red, I got your point, but let me say something. I don't say evolution is right at all costs in it's last formulation, but it is a scientific theory (in fact it can be confirmed or disproved by observations, for example finding ancient animals which respect or not what the model expects). On the other side, ID is not a scientific theory, because it has no way to do that (you can always say you see a designer in nature). So, one can believe there is an Intelligent behind universe who created or organized all, there's no problem, but it is not science. For me Evolution Vs ID is not a real match between 2 scientific models like could be dark matter vs mond. :alien:

Here's how they work: evolution proceeds from the foundation that God is not the creator of Life; ID does. Both theories - once they establish the "ground rules" look to nature for clues that they believe point to their separate conclusions that they've already arrived at even before examining the data. Both camps utilize the same data. They simply interpret it differently because each side has already established the "creator": ID says it's God, evolution says it's chance. There you go.

[Lote-Tree]

Here's how they work: evolution proceeds from the foundation that God is not the creator of Life; ID does. Both theories - once they establish the "ground rules" look to nature for clues that they believe point to their separate conclusions that they've already arrived at even before examining the data. Both camps utilize the same data. They simply interpret it differently because each side has already established the "creator": ID says it's God, evolution says it's chance. There you go.

Chance?

You know nothing about Biological Evolution.

"chance" is mostly an illusion caused by our inability to see everything.

Mechanisms such as natural selection, mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift etc are not based "chance". Even mutations have definite properties, governed by genetic processes and natural law: there are germ mutations, point mutations, frame-shift mutations etc.

[Redzeppelin]

Chance?

You know nothing about Biological Evolution.

"chance" is mostly an illusion caused by our inability to see everything.

Mechanisms such as natural selection, mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift etc are not based "chance". Even mutations have definite properties, governed by genetic processes and natural law: there are germ mutations, point mutations, frame-shift mutations etc.

Well, hello, Lote; we meet again at last.

I know enough to know that things unguided by a conscious entity/design/"program" must be relegated to chance. "Natural selection" - what exactly drives that? That things have "properties" begs the question: how did those properties develop: design or chance? Genetic processes - how did those come about? Design or chance? Processes don't just appear out of nowhere - something initiates the process. You have not gone back far enough, my friend. I'm talking about the beginnings of life itself - before any "life processes" existed (which is where you went).

[Lote-Tree]

Well, hello, Lote; we meet again at last.


Hola chappy :-)



I know enough to know that things unguided by a conscious entity/design/"program" must be relegated to chance.


"chance" is a merely an illusion as I said before.



"Natural selection" - what exactly drives that?


Natural Selection is the DRIVE.



That things have "properties" begs the question: how did those properties develop: design or chance?


Natural Selection itself is not based on "chance" - please study it properly.



Genetic processes - how did those come about? Design or chance?


Natural Selection itself is not based on "chance".



Processes don't just appear out of nowhere - something initiates the process.


Yes. Natural Laws initiates it.



You have not gone back far enough, my friend. I'm talking about the beginnings of life itself - before any "life processes" existed (which is where you went).


As I said before research into abiogenesis is still at early days yet. But evolution is a fact and due course abiogeneis will also be established as a fact. But we are not sure how long this will take. Perhaps discovery of life on other planets - even bacterial life will help us in this regard or perhaps discovery of a second "abiogenisis" along side the current one may establish this fact...

[Redzeppelin]

Hola chappy :-)

"chance" is a merely an illusion as I said before.
Natural Selection is the DRIVE.
Natural Selection itself is not based on "chance" - please study it properly.
Natural Selection itself is not based on "chance".
Yes. Natural Laws initiates it.

As I said before research into abiogenesis is still at early days yet. But evolution is a fact and due course abiogeneis will also be established as a fact. But we are not sure how long this will take. Perhaps discovery of life on other planets - even bacterial life will help us in this regard or perhaps discovery of a second "abiogenisis" along side the current one may establish this fact...

You have missed the point: "natural laws" are blind forces that have no conscious will to act; as such, their existence is due to something (or Someone); life either came from conscious design, or the random workings of a "consciousless" universe. I say "chance" because there is no set law that says life must exist at all or that it must be created; one answer is God created it; the other is that the blind forces of nature somehow created it - but obviously not by conscious design. Natual laws may be obeying some particular property or process, but I'm talking about the origination of life - which is not due to any particular "natural process."

And you still didn't tell me what "drives" natural selection.

[Lote-Tree]

"natural laws" are blind forces that have no conscious will to act.


It does NOT need a "conscious" will. Just like DeepBlue Chess playing computer does not needs a consciouss will to act. All it needs is some rules to follow. And those rules are inherent in the nature itself - like conservation of Energy etc.

Have you come acrosss John Conways Game of Life? all it needs is simple rules...



I say "chance" because there is no set law that says life must exist at all or that it must be created


True, our theories do not predict the fundamental constanst of nature yet. But M theory is showing lots of promises in that regards.



Natual laws may be obeying some particular property or process


That is all you need. The rest is driven by Natural Selection.



And you still didn't tell me what "drives" natural selection


Natural Selection is the DRIVE.

Are you asking me what powers it?

[Redzeppelin]

It does NOT need a "conscious" will. Just like DeepBlue Chess playing computer does not needs a consciouss will to act. All it needs is some rules to follow. And those rules are inherent in the nature itself - like conservation of Energy etc.

Deep Blue is a bad example because a conscious will designed the program that runs it. Where do the "rules" come from? What do you mean "inherent in nature" - who says nature has to be the way it is? Nature (matter) has always existed?


True, our theories do not predict the fundamental constanst of nature yet. But M theory is showing lots of promises in that regards.

"Showing lots of promise." (i.e. as unverifiable as God)




That is all you need. The rest is driven by Natural Selection.


Natural Selection is the DRIVE.

Are you asking me what powers it?

I'm asking where the "logic" of natural selection came from - because it is a system that is at work in living things. Once life was created, how did natural selection get "activated" or "configured" (for lack of better terms)?

[Lote-Tree]

Deep Blue is a bad example because a conscious will designed the program that runs it.


This is what you said:



...blind forces that have no conscious will to act.


And I said you don't need a "conscious will" to act. DeepBlue does not need a "consciouss will" to play chess - it follows rules.



Where do the "rules" come from?


For you the Rules come from your Idea of God.

From science it seems that the rules are inherent in nature.



What do you mean "inherent in nature"


like Conservation of Energy, momentum...



- who says nature has to be the way it is?


For you it is God to others it is the part of the reality that many have called God, Nirvana, Tao etc..and to others no one really...



Nature (matter) has always existed?


This seems to be the case - Matter/Energy is neither created or destroyed.



"Showing lots of promise." (i.e. as unverifiable as God)


You said you know how science works?

Science does not at the moment predict what the fundamental constants of the universe is. M Theory is showing lots of promise in that regards.



I'm asking where the "logic" of natural selection came from - because it is a system that is at work in living things.


Why only living things? It works with any replicators that produces varients that compete for resources in the environment. Where did it come from? from the very nature of the replicators that produces varients that compete for resources in the environment.



Once life was created, how did natural selection get "activated" or "configured" (for lack of better terms)?

Soon as replication started and created varients that competed for resources in the environment so did natural selection.

[weepingforloman]

Okay, I think we need to address the basic point here: what is life? Where does it come from? We still have no clear idea of what "life" is, in and of itself. If we did, the debate over abortion would be different. We really don't know what "makes" something alive, dead, or inanimate. You can talk about electricity, but you can run electricity through just about anything and it will not come to life. Furthermore, I can't remember who did it, but a while ago, someone tried running an electrical current through all the chemicals the evolutionists believe to have been present at the beginning of life. Amino acids were produced, but that more or less shows that it takes more than energy to be animate. Secondly, my strongest objection to evolution is this: evolution is believed to depend on mutation (no one should be able to deny that, or else I'm totally stupid). When have we ever seen a mutation that has a positive effect on life? When have we seen a significant mutation that did not cause the death of the organism? Do we know for sure that an organism can even mutate far enough beyond its original form to evolve without being stillborn or dying immediately? And besides, what are the odds that a significant number of organisms, living in the remote past, all happened to have the same, beneficial mutation, find and mate with each other, and survive enough to create a new species? Someone want to calculate that? Besides, Lote, Red has a point. You continue to say that natural laws are a beginning in themselves, but that simply cannot be.

[Lote-Tree]

Okay, I think we need to address the basic point here: what is life? Where does it come from? We still have no clear idea of what "life" is, in and of itself.


Life at the level of DNA is just digital information replication.

[NSAM]

Slightly irrelevant, but on the poll above doesn't being "not sure" whether you're an Atheist or not make you, by definition, Agnostic?

[weepingforloman]

Life at the level of DNA is just digital information replication.
My point is, we don't know what animates matter, including genetic information. A cell is considered the lowest common denominator of life: DNA is not living, according to the scientific definition, so that doesn't quite hold up. "Digital?"

[Redzeppelin]

This is what you said:

And I said you don't need a "conscious will" to act. DeepBlue does not need a "consciouss will" to play chess - it follows rules.

Deep Blue's ability is the product of a conscious will enabling it to act.



For you the Rules come from your Idea of God.

It is a cop-out to answer a question directed to you by answering it in terms of how you think I see it. Why don't you answer the question, please.


From science it seems that the rules are inherent in nature.

Why should Nature have the rules it has?


like Conservation of Energy, momentum...

You gave an example of a natural process, but you did not answer my question as to why/how these rules would be "inherent" in nature - nature could be configured in a number of ways - why this way?


For you it is God to others it is the part of the reality that many have called God, Nirvana, Tao etc..and to others no one really...

Cf. my second response above.


This seems to be the case - Matter/Energy is neither created or destroyed.

Matter is not self-existent; it must have come from somewhere.


Why only living things? It works with any replicators that produces varients that compete for resources in the environment. Where did it come from? from the very nature of the replicators that produces varients that compete for resources in the environment.

I can't cut through all that "replicator" stuff - aren't things that "replicate" alive? Your first sentence seems to indicate that non-living things also experience natural selection - huh?


Soon as replication started and created varients that competed for resources in the environment so did natural selection.

Why?

[The Atheist]

I can't cut through all that "replicator" stuff - aren't things that "replicate" alive? Your first sentence seems to indicate that non-living things also experience natural selection - huh?

Prions, RNAs - there are several "non-living" replicators.

[Lote-Tree]

My point is, we don't know what animates matter, including genetic information. A cell is considered the lowest common denominator of life: DNA is not living, according to the scientific definition, so that doesn't quite hold up. "Digital?"

What I am saying is that life at the level of DNA is digital replication of information. So what is life? Life is digital replication of information? What is the differences between lump of rock and DNA? DNA is a replicator and lump of rock is not. You say DNA is non living so is a lump of rock - and the differences is? DNA replicates itself. So what animates life? Replication of digital information?

[Lote-Tree]

Deep Blue's ability is the product of a conscious will enabling it to act.


You don't get it do you? DeepBlue itself does not need an conscious will to act. It follows rules.



It is a cop-out to answer a question directed to you by answering it in terms of how you think I see it. Why don't you answer the question, please.


cop-out? I have given you three alternative answers. One of them is your own answer. And my answer is that rules are inherent in nature itself.



Why should Nature have the rules it has?


As I said before our science does not predict fundamental constants of the Universe yet. But M theory is showing to be quite promising in that regard. But early days...



You gave an example of a natural process, but you did not answer my question as to why/how these rules would be "inherent" in nature - nature could be configured in a number of ways - why this way?


These are rules we have discovered in nature. This is how nature works. Our science does not predict the fundamental constants of the Universe yet. But M theory is showing promising signs as I said before.



Matter is not self-existent; it must have come from somewhere.


Matter/Energy is neither created or destroyed. This is one of the tenets of science.



I can't cut through all that "replicator" stuff - aren't things that "replicate" alive? Your first sentence seems to indicate that non-living things also experience natural selection - huh?


Replicator is an apt definiton.



Your first sentence seems to indicate that non-living things also experience natural selection - huh?


Yes. As long as the replication creates varients that competes for resources in the environment.



Why?

Because only the varients that competes well for resources survives? Hence natural selection.

[ennison]

'the varients that competes well for resources survives? Hence natural selection.'
Unless a big rock falls on its bonce - unnatural selection
Here is a completely innocent question. I do not believe in evolution but I would like the evolutionists view on the huge variety of leaf forms exhibited by plants growing in the same climatic zones.
Is that off topic? No. Surely some clever evolutionist can give an on-topic answer.

[kiobe]

Now, I'm NOT an atheist, but I've always wondered what exactly an atheist thinks or believes (now there's a contradiction if you've ever seen one! :lol: athesist and believe might as well see if you have a believer who disbelieves. :lol: )

Now what exactly does an atheist believe?? What is the definition you would give to describe an atheist?

I don't know if this is going to a popular thread or not, but I'll give it a try... ;)

Describing myself as an atheist would be to compare my belief system with that of every other bit of life on this earth. Trees, ants, dogs, armdillos, butterflies, jellyfish, sharks....etc...go about thier existance worshiping nothing. No other bit of life on this earth has created an idea of a deity that has created them. It's not belief or a nonbelief. For me it's more of an acceptance that we're just one part or piece of a puzzle that makes up this planet. I have heard lots of religious folks say that they feel sad for atheists, because atheists see no purpose to thier lives, which is an assumption that without a belief in a creator atheists have and feel no purpose. This assumption has been laid at our feet to explain and define. Why does a person, wrongly accused of a crime, need to explain thier innosence to a group of accusers? The reason is to clear the doubt in the minds of the accusers. But that doesn't change the factual innosence of the accused, but rather allows the accusers to accept the accused as innocent in thier minds.

[Redzeppelin]

Describing myself as an atheist would be to compare my belief system with that of every other bit of life on this earth. Trees, ants, dogs, armdillos, butterflies, jellyfish, sharks....etc...go about thier existance worshiping nothing. No other bit of life on this earth has created an idea of a deity that has created them. It's not belief or a nonbelief. For me it's more of an acceptance that we're just one part or piece of a puzzle that makes up this planet.

Except that animals do not possess a rational self-consciousness; they do not have the ability to accept or reject God; the Bible says that knowledge of God is implanted in the human heart. Nothing is said of animals (who have no need to abstract about their existence like we do).

[kiobe]

Except that animals do not possess a rational self-consciousness; they do not have the ability to accept or reject God; the Bible says that knowledge of God is implanted in the human heart. Nothing is said of animals (who have no need to abstract about their existence like we do).

That's absolutly true in a biblical sence, but because I don't believe in a biblical God, just as I don't believe in mythical gods, your defination belongs to you and a group of belivers like you. As far as exactly what any person or animal may or may not be thinking is impossible for me or you to know. You may be able to give an estimated guess about what your mom may be thinking about in any given situation, but that's based on a long history of your experiances with your mom. Truth is, we don't know what is going on in the minds of others be they human, animal, insect or otherwise. There's always the possibility that animals don't have the ability to accept or reject your god because it's something that's man made. Do they have ability to accept or reject anything else that's man made? What does a dog think about health care, or the U.S. occupation in Iraq. As far as God being planted in the human heart, why then is it possible to find people that have lived thier lives in remote areas of the world that, not only don't believe in a biblical God but, invent gods, (that any Christian would deny existance of), to fit thier small isolated world. If you truly believe in a God as described in the Bible and your are happier for it, I couldn't be happier for you, really, a deep belief in anything that makes a person, a better person, I'm all for.

[Redzeppelin]

That's absolutly true in a biblical sence, but because I don't believe in a biblical God, just as I don't believe in mythical gods, your defination belongs to you and a group of belivers like you. As far as exactly what any person or animal may or may not be thinking is impossible for me or you to know. You may be able to give an estimated guess about what your mom may be thinking about in any given situation, but that's based on a long history of your experiances with your mom. Truth is, we don't know what is going on in the minds of others be they human, animal, insect or otherwise. There's always the possibility that animals don't have the ability to accept or reject your god because it's something that's man made. Do they have ability to accept or reject anything else that's man made? What does a dog think about health care, or the U.S. occupation in Iraq. As far as God being planted in the human heart, why then is it possible to find people that have lived thier lives in remote areas of the world that, not only don't believe in a biblical God but, invent gods, (that any Christian would deny existance of), to fit thier small isolated world. If you truly believe in a God as described in the Bible and your are happier for it, I couldn't be happier for you, really, a deep belief in anything that makes a person, a better person, I'm all for.

Fine - but the idea that animals do not possess a rational, self-conscious and self-reflective intellect is something that science pretty much attests to more than religion. I'm simply pointing out that your comparison to animals isn't workable because - as a human being - you possess an intellectual facility to consider questions of existence whereas they (by all apparent observation) do not. In other words, animals do not have a belief system not because they choose not to, but because they lack the mental capability to even entertain such a thought.

The fact that certain tribes worship false gods and that we tend to make "gods" out of other things (money, sex, power, women, fame) merely serves to reinforce the Biblical idea of God "implanted" in the human heart: we desire to worship something - that something is supposed to be God, but we'll put anything in His place (of course, worshipping these other things tends to lead to all kinds of unhappiness).

[kiobe]

Fine - but the idea that animals do not possess a rational, self-conscious and self-reflective intellect is something that science pretty much attests to more than religion. I'm simply pointing out that your comparison to animals isn't workable because - as a human being - you possess an intellectual facility to consider questions of existence whereas they (by all apparent observation) do not. In other words, animals do not have a belief system not because they choose not to, but because they lack the mental capability to even entertain such a thought.

The fact that certain tribes worship false gods and that we tend to make "gods" out of other things (money, sex, power, women, fame) merely serves to reinforce the Biblical idea of God "implanted" in the human heart: we desire to worship something - that something is supposed to be God, but we'll put anything in His place (of course, worshipping these other things tends to lead to all kinds of unhappiness).

Lets say for the sake of discusson that we know, absolutly, that animals don't posess the mental capablilty to entertain the idea of a creator that we are capable of knowing. How did we, man, know this before the bible was written? What was the reason that God chose to write, through man, a series of rules and fables to tell man what man should already feel in his heart. And why so much God-inspired killing, kidnaping and rape? Don't these thing seem more man made than Godly?

[Redzeppelin]

Lets say for the sake of discusson that we know, absolutly, that animals don't posess the mental capablilty to entertain the idea of a creator that we are capable of knowing. How did we, man, know this before the bible was written? What was the reason that God chose to write, through man, a series of rules and fables to tell man what man should already feel in his heart. And why so much God-inspired killing, kidnaping and rape? Don't these thing seem more man made than Godly?

The Bible is not a series of "rules" and "fables." God offers us guidelines about how to live a good, happy, and fulfilling life; please don't tell me that adhering to Biblical principles of morality would result in a bad life of some sort - what would society be like if we didn't steal, didn't lie, didn't sleep with each other's wives, didn't murder, didn't get drunk, spread gossip, hate each other, etc etc etc? People look at the Biblical guidelines as if they hamper their "fun" - but the "fun" they hamper ultimately ends up harming the individual or society. "Fables" because you don't believe them.

Second, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard this tired charge about the atrocities done in the "name of God." God does not "inspire" murder, kidnapping and rape - period. I'd like someone to explain why atheists keep putting that charge out again and again and again - like it proves something. What exactly is the point of telling me this?

[kiobe]

The Bible is not a series of "rules" and "fables." God offers us guidelines about how to live a good, happy, and fulfilling life; please don't tell me that adhering to Biblical principles of morality would result in a bad life of some sort - what would society be like if we didn't steal, didn't lie, didn't sleep with each other's wives, didn't murder, didn't get drunk, spread gossip, hate each other, etc etc etc? People look at the Biblical guidelines as if they hamper their "fun" - but the "fun" they hamper ultimately ends up harming the individual or society. "Fables" because you don't believe them.

Second, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard this tired charge about the atrocities done in the "name of God." God does not "inspire" murder, kidnapping and rape - period. I'd like someone to explain why atheists keep putting that charge out again and again and again - like it proves something. What exactly is the point of telling me this?

Wow, I have to say that using the bible, literally translated, as a book of morality is to do extreem cherry picking of it. Yes, the 10 commandments look like a moral life map until a person looks at the consequences of breaking any of the commandments, most of which is death. Pretty strict "guideline". Death for working on the sabbath. Ever work on a sunday? Has anyone in your family ever worked on a Sunday, if so, you know what you have to do. But you won't because it's absurd and moraly wrong to kill someone for trying to support a family even if that person needs to work on a Sunday at Wal-Mart because they offer a good health care plan. The consequence for breaking the 6th commandment, Thou shal not kill, is that the elders of the village are to stone to DEATH, the person that did the origional killing. What are we to do with the elders that just broke the 6th commandment by killing someone. Or should the 6th commandment actually read, Thou shal not kill unless DIRECTED by God. What about Numbers 31, where God DIRECTS Moses to kill all the Midinites and then chastises him for not killing the children and DIRECTS him to go back and kill the male children and return with the female virgins and to use them as vessels to grow a larger community. Any thinking person will look at this and know that it is not a moral thing to do. The bible is full of thousands of examples just like this. I've read the bible as a piece of literature and morality is not a common thread. If you look at the commandments they seem man made.
1.No other gods before me. Seems egotistical. Punishment is death.
2.No graven images. Again egotistical and rather controling. Death.
3.taking the lords name in vain. Sticks and stones, egotistical. Death.
4.Remember the sabbath. Controling. Punishment is death.
5.honour your parents. Good advise. Extreem punishment though...death.
6.Don't kill. Good advise. Punishment contradicts advise....death.
7Adultry is wrong. Good advise. Punishment is death of the 2 ofending people.
8. Don't steal. Good advise, origional meaning was that of people. Punishment, death. Someone has to break #6 to enforce the punishments for the offenders in the above 1 through 8 commandments.
9.False witness. Don't lie, good advise.
10. Don't covet. Good advise.
Well 2 out of 10 seem to have a moralistic result. Is God egotistical? Why is God so controling?

[Redzeppelin]

Wow, I have to say that using the bible, literally translated, as a book of morality is to do extreem cherry picking of it.

The Bible isn't a "book of morality." It is the revelation of God's character as told through the history of His people. In the process of telling that history, we get guidelines on how best to conduct ourselves.



Yes, the 10 commandments look like a moral life map until a person looks at the consequences of breaking any of the commandments, most of which is death. Pretty strict "guideline". Death for working on the sabbath. Ever work on a sunday? Has anyone in your family ever worked on a Sunday, if so, you know what you have to do. But you won't because it's absurd and moraly wrong to kill someone for trying to support a family even if that person needs to work on a Sunday at Wal-Mart because they offer a good health care plan.

If you are going to critique the Bible, make sure you've read all of it and are aware of the interaction between the Old and New testaments. First, all sin is rebellion against God; since God is the source of all life in the universe, rebelling against Him is kind of like refusing to eat: at some point, you will die. God did not randomly decide that sin = death; that is simply the nature of reality: all that is not reflective of His character leads to death. As well, Christ's sacrifice ended the death penalty for believers - Christ's substitutionary death frees us from the inevitable sentence of death that sin brings with it. God would rather that you worked on the Sabbath and took care of your family. The New Testament makes that very clear.


The consequence for breaking the 6th commandment, Thou shal not kill, is that the elders of the village are to stone to DEATH, the person that did the origional killing. What are we to do with the elders that just broke the 6th commandment by killing someone. Or should the 6th commandment actually read, Thou shal not kill unless DIRECTED by God.

The original Hebrew says "murder" not "kill." There is a difference. The Old Testament makes it clear that the taking of human life is not the greatest of sins - and God - the creator of all human life - is free to decide whom He wishes to live and whom He wishes to die - but these decisions are not arbitrary or random; since God is perfect in all His attributes - including justice - it is assumed that the death sentence delivered by God is completely fair (whether we see the merit in that justice or not). The Bible does not forbid all killing. So, your apparent Catch-22 is no such thing. Next, your capitals indicate that you seem to place God on level with human beings (i.e. that He can never have a good reason for calling for the death of a person or people) and that you've caught Him in some sort of contradiction - as if an adult must be held to the same rules as a small child. No. God makes His decisions based on things that we do not/cannot know. To us - with our limited ideas about justice - He may appear very wrong in calling for the elimination of certain people(s) - but some of your behaviors observed without proper knowledge and context might make you look pretty bad too.


What about Numbers 31, where God DIRECTS Moses to kill all the Midinites and then chastises him for not killing the children and DIRECTS him to go back and kill the male children and return with the female virgins and to use them as vessels to grow a larger community. Any thinking person will look at this and know that it is not a moral thing to do.

It is the honesty of the Bible to show such things that human beings are sure to misinterpret or misunderstand that makes the Bible different from many other documents. You make the assumption that the Midianites' lives should have been spared; upon what do you base this judgment? I don't understand God's decision either, but - since He is described as all-powerful, all-knowing, as the source of life and love in the universe, then I have to assume that He had good reasons for His decision (reasons I may not understand just yet). As well, your definition of "moral" may or may not jive with God's - and if He is who the Bible describes Him to be, then how can you compare your vision of morality to His?


The bible is full of thousands of examples just like this. I've read the bible as a piece of literature and morality is not a common thread. If you look at the commandments they seem man made.
1.No other gods before me. Seems egotistical. Punishment is death.
2.No graven images. Again egotistical and rather controling. Death.
3.taking the lords name in vain. Sticks and stones, egotistical. Death.
4.Remember the sabbath. Controling. Punishment is death.
5.honour your parents. Good advise. Extreem punishment though...death.
6.Don't kill. Good advise. Punishment contradicts advise....death.
7Adultry is wrong. Good advise. Punishment is death of the 2 ofending people.
8. Don't steal. Good advise, origional meaning was that of people. Punishment, death. Someone has to break #6 to enforce the punishments for the offenders in the above 1 through 8 commandments.
9.False witness. Don't lie, good advise.
10. Don't covet. Good advise.
Well 2 out of 10 seem to have a moralistic result. Is God egotistical? Why is God so controling?

"Egotistical" is a term that cannot be applied to God; He who created the universe and all that exists has a perfect right to be first in the minds and hearts of those He created. Generally, to have an issue with God's decree that He should come first stems from the refusal/inability to see God as a supreme being; instead, if we view Him as a sort of "super" human with human faults, then yes, His command is egotistical; but, as the source of all reality, He is worthy of such attention and praise because without Him, nothing would exist.

[kiobe]

The Bible is not a series of "rules" and "fables." God offers us guidelines about how to live a good, happy, and fulfilling life; please don't tell me that adhering to Biblical principles of morality would result in a bad life of some sort - what would society be like if we didn't steal, didn't lie, didn't sleep with each other's wives, didn't murder, didn't get drunk, spread gossip, hate each other, etc etc etc? People look at the Biblical guidelines as if they hamper their "fun" - but the "fun" they hamper ultimately ends up harming the individual or society. "Fables" because you don't believe them.

Second, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard this tired charge about the atrocities done in the "name of God." God does not "inspire" murder, kidnapping and rape - period. I'd like someone to explain why atheists keep putting that charge out again and again and again - like it proves something. What exactly is the point of telling me this?


The Bible isn't a "book of morality." It is the revelation of God's character as told through the history of His people. In the process of telling that history, we get guidelines on how best to conduct ourselves.



If you are going to critique the Bible, make sure you've read all of it and are aware of the interaction between the Old and New testaments. First, all sin is rebellion against God; since God is the source of all life in the universe, rebelling against Him is kind of like refusing to eat: at some point, you will die. God did not randomly decide that sin = death; that is simply the nature of reality: all that is not reflective of His character leads to death. As well, Christ's sacrifice ended the death penalty for believers - Christ's substitutionary death frees us from the inevitable sentence of death that sin brings with it. God would rather that you worked on the Sabbath and took care of your family. The New Testament makes that very clear.



The original Hebrew says "murder" not "kill." There is a difference. The Old Testament makes it clear that the taking of human life is not the greatest of sins - and God - the creator of all human life - is free to decide whom He wishes to live and whom He wishes to die - but these decisions are not arbitrary or random; since God is perfect in all His attributes - including justice - it is assumed that the death sentence delivered by God is completely fair (whether we see the merit in that justice or not). The Bible does not forbid all killing. So, your apparent Catch-22 is no such thing. Next, your capitals indicate that you seem to place God on level with human beings (i.e. that He can never have a good reason for calling for the death of a person or people) and that you've caught Him in some sort of contradiction - as if an adult must be held to the same rules as a small child. No. God makes His decisions based on things that we do not/cannot know. To us - with our limited ideas about justice - He may appear very wrong in calling for the elimination of certain people(s) - but some of your behaviors observed without proper knowledge and context might make you look pretty bad too.



It is the honesty of the Bible to show such things that human beings are sure to misinterpret or misunderstand that makes the Bible different from many other documents. You make the assumption that the Midianites' lives should have been spared; upon what do you base this judgment? I don't understand God's decision either, but - since He is described as all-powerful, all-knowing, as the source of life and love in the universe, then I have to assume that He had good reasons for His decision (reasons I may not understand just yet). As well, your definition of "moral" may or may not jive with God's - and if He is who the Bible describes Him to be, then how can you compare your vision of morality to His?



"Egotistical" is a term that cannot be applied to God; He who created the universe and all that exists has a perfect right to be first in the minds and hearts of those He created. Generally, to have an issue with God's decree that He should come first stems from the refusal/inability to see God as a supreme being; instead, if we view Him as a sort of "super" human with human faults, then yes, His command is egotistical; but, as the source of all reality, He is worthy of such attention and praise because without Him, nothing would exist.


You said "biblical principle of morality", not me. Incased in your reply is the very reason I don't believe in a biblical God. There's an illogical closed loop circle of contradictions, rationalizations, control and a huge L E A P of faith based on a 2500 year old blog that requires a person to shut down and answer any question with, it's God's will. Sorry man, I'll never get there. Besides we're way off the subject, Adelheid asked what do atheists believe, if anything, And I've answered that. I think the problem you and I are having coming to a middle ground on this is you are answering my inquiries with a fairy tale, and I am answering your's with what probably sounds like blasphemy........do you like football? lol

[Redzeppelin]

You said "biblical principle of morality", not me. Incased in your reply is the very reason I don't believe in a biblical God. There's an illogical closed loop circle of contradictions, rationalizations, control and a huge L E A P of faith based on a 2500 year old blog that requires a person to shut down and answer any question with, it's God's will. Sorry man, I'll never get there. Besides we're way off the subject, Adelheid asked what do atheists believe, if anything, And I've answered that. I think the problem you and I are having coming to a middle ground on this is you are answering my inquiries with a fairy tale, and I am answering your's with what probably sounds like blasphemy........do you like football? lol

My answer was more developed than "God's will." As well, I wouldn't call anything you've said "blasphemous." As far as the "fairy tale" part, well that remains to be seen. I suppose the one good thing about believing is this: if you're right, we'll never know; if I'm right, we'll both know. See you -

[kiobe]

The Bible is not a series of "rules" and "fables." God offers us guidelines about how to live a good, happy, and fulfilling life; please don't tell me that adhering to Biblical principles of morality would result in a bad life of some sort - what would society be like if we didn't steal, didn't lie, didn't sleep with each other's wives, didn't murder, didn't get drunk, spread gossip, hate each other, etc etc etc? People look at the Biblical guidelines as if they hamper their "fun" - but the "fun" they hamper ultimately ends up harming the individual or society. "Fables" because you don't believe them.

Second, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard this tired charge about the atrocities done in the "name of God." God does not "inspire" murder, kidnapping and rape - period. I'd like someone to explain why atheists keep putting that charge out again and again and again - like it proves something. What exactly is the point of telling me this?

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.

4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.

5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.

6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.

7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.

11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.

12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.

14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.

20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats’ hair, and all things made of wood.

21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses;

22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,

23 Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.

24 And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp.

25 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation:

27 And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation:

28 And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:

29 Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.

30 And of the children of Israel’s half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.

31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.

32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,

33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,

34 And threescore and one thousand asses,

35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

36 And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:

37 And the LORD’S tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.

38 And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD’S tribute was threescore and twelve.

39 And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD’S tribute was threescore and one.

40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD’S tribute was thirty and two persons.

41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was the LORD’S heave offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses.

42 And of the children of Israel’s half, which Moses divided from the men that warred,

43 (Now the half that pertained unto the congregation was three hundred thousand and thirty thousand and seven thousand and five hundred sheep,

44 And thirty and six thousand beeves,

45 And thirty thousand asses and five hundred,

46 And sixteen thousand persons;)

47 Even of the children of Israel’s half, Moses took one portion of fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, which kept the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses.

48 And the officers which were over thousands of the host, the captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds, came near unto Moses:

49 And they said unto Moses, Thy servants have taken the sum of the men of war which are under our charge, and there lacketh not one man of us.

50 We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.

51 And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of them, even all wrought jewels.

52 And all the gold of the offering that they offered up to the LORD, of the captains of thousands, and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels.

53 (For the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself.)

54 And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it into the tabernacle of the congregation, for a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD.

[kiobe]

My answer was more developed than "God's will." As well, I wouldn't call anything you've said "blasphemous." As far as the "fairy tale" part, well that remains to be seen. I suppose the one good thing about believing is this: if you're right, we'll never know; if I'm right, we'll both know. See you -

Yea but do you like football?

[Scheherazade]

Please avoid posting long passages from other resources (including religious texts) without offering your own arguments.

Such posts will be deleted with or without further warning.

[kiobe]

Please avoid posting long passages from other resources (including religious texts) without offering your own arguments.

Such posts will be deleted with or without further warning.
Thanks for the warning, but the cut and paste reply IS my argument. The point is, exactly what is considered moralistic to people here and now, is overlooked and rationalized by a wide varity of theists concerning many objectional acts by God in the bible. The original post that I was replying to stated that the bible contains a "biblical principle of morality".

[kiobe]

Except that animals do not possess a rational self-consciousness; they do not have the ability to accept or reject God; the Bible says that knowledge of God is implanted in the human heart. Nothing is said of animals (who have no need to abstract about their existence like we do).

The question is "what do atheists believe"? Your opinion based on what you have found in the bible doesn't apply here, now be a good boy and run down to 7-11 and get me some smokes.

[Redzeppelin]

Thanks for the warning, but the cut and paste reply IS my argument. The point is, exactly what is considered moralistic to people here and now, is overlooked and rationalized by a wide varity of theists concerning many objectional acts by God in the bible. The original post that I was replying to stated that the bible contains a "biblical principle of morality".


Quoting the Bible and stating that it is your argument is nothing more than you begging-the-question; you assume that the Bible proves your point without comment because you assume the incident recorded is clearly immoral - but that's your interpretation. You make assumptions about an ancient culture and a God you do not understand in order to make the evaluation of a recorded incident as "moral" or not. To what standard of morality, by the way, are you appealing? Not everything in the Bible is a lesson on morality - it is a narrative dealing with the character of God and His relationship with His people. You quoted one of those incidents. As well, you make the assumption that there is clearly something wrong with the episode quoted. To do so would be your way of saying "I have evaluated the facts at hand and decided that this act - approved by God - is immoral." What's your standard? Do you have all your facts? Do you know what God knows (since it was His decision and no mortal's)?

[Adolescent09]

All-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent may be terms used to describe the Christianic God. But labeling him egotistic or villainous are false insinuations. Although you have excerpted parts of the bible where God portrays wrath in a way that may be hardly conceived as rational to us simple mortals, these passages of anger are eclipsed in the profound love and reasoning He shows throughout the first and second testaments. Although my knowledge of the bible is comparatively little next to yours (or so it seems) and Redzepellin’s, I earnestly believe that when God crafted the sun, earth, moon and stars, He did so for a reason. Here is where science and theology clash in an effort to derive materialistic and fundamental evidence explaining our physical creation, henceforth our existence.

If you read it as a story God appears to have a plan however unfathomed and indefinite for all events whichsoever way they occur: Adam and Eve were subject to the penalties of labor and pain for their misdemeanors...Sodom and Gomorrah were the cities of homosexuality and vice thus the world was wholly deluged Yet the existence of mankind prevailed for He possessed a maudlin sense... Jesus was falsely implicated for having an ulterior motive to crown himself king and was severely persecuted... God depicts his furor through harsh climatic shifts...

For every evil that occurs in our world and isn't repented.. God creates a phenomena that will ultimately omit that evil, be it in the course of a few hours or a century.

[Whifflingpin]

Redzeppelin: "you assume that the Bible proves your point without comment because you assume the incident recorded is clearly immoral - but that's your interpretation. "

I'm sure that Kiobe can speak for himself, but as I read him he was responding directly to your statement "God does not "inspire" murder, kidnapping and rape - period." He quoted a passage from the Bible which shows, if the quoted statements are to be believed, that God inspired and commanded murder, kidnapping and rape, as well as robbery and slavery.

Personally, I would argue that the passage says something about ancient Hebrews (and modern man) but nothing about God.

If you think that the attitudes attributed to God in that passage are truly His, and are to be excused just because "God knows best," then, all I can say is "God help you!"

[billyjack]

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Except that animals do not possess a rational self-consciousness; they do not have the ability to accept or reject God; the Bible says that knowledge of God is implanted in the human heart. Nothing is said of animals (who have no need to abstract about their existence like we do).

animals dont have the ability to accept or reject god because they know that their is nothing outside of god. adding an acceptance or rejection to their intuitive knowing would be like putting legs on a snake---pointless.

knowledge of god is implanted via tradition, not god. your explanation rivals with using the word being defined to define the word.

[quasimodo1]

To all the members who have subscribed to the atheist thread or threads: Will any member (or guest) who has not been conditioned by religious people or environments please raise thier pen. After that poll, will all the people who believe that re-evaluation is an integral part of consciousness please raise their pen. That is all. quasimodo1

[Redzeppelin]

I'm sure that Kiobe can speak for himself, but as I read him he was responding directly to your statement "God does not "inspire" murder, kidnapping and rape - period." He quoted a passage from the Bible which shows, if the quoted statements are to be believed, that God inspired and commanded murder, kidnapping and rape, as well as robbery and slavery.

Killing and murder are not synonyms; I saw no instance of rape; who was kidnapped? Who was robbed? Are you forgetting that there was a war? Did you not read the part about "avenge" early in the passage?


Personally, I would argue that the passage says something about ancient Hebrews (and modern man) but nothing about God.

They acted under God's direction.


If you think that the attitudes attributed to God in that passage are truly His, and are to be excused just because "God knows best," then, all I can say is "God help you!"

Thanks for the blessing - I return it to you as well.

I do not need to "excuse" God - He can speak for Himself; I simply contend that - (for the hunderedth time, I'm sure) if God is who the Bible describes Him to be - here, specifically, a being of perfect moral judgment - then I must (by faith) assume that God's sentence on the Midianites was just. I am not in possession of the knowlegde God possessed that allowed Him to lay such a judgment upon this people; it appears shocking, and - based on the lack of knowledge we have - inexcusable. But, to render a verdict for that of which you are in possession of incomplete evidence seems highly presumptuous.

[The Atheist]

But, to render a verdict for that of which you are in possession of incomplete evidence seems highly presumptuous.

QED.



.

[Redzeppelin]

QED.

RE: QED

LOL

[Whifflingpin]

Redzeppelin: "I am not in possession of the knowlegde God possessed that allowed Him to lay such a judgment upon this people; it appears shocking, and - based on the lack of knowledge we have - inexcusable."

The behaviour of the Israelites to the Midianites was shocking and, by any standard of morality worth living to, inexcusable. Any claim that God could inspire or justify the behaviour described in the passage is pure blasphemy, as far as I am concerned. The passage that makes that claim is simply Israelitish propaganda, and certainly not the word of God.

[kiobe]

Quoting the Bible and stating that it is your argument is nothing more than you begging-the-question; you assume that the Bible proves your point without comment because you assume the incident recorded is clearly immoral - but that's your interpretation. You make assumptions about an ancient culture and a God you do not understand in order to make the evaluation of a recorded incident as "moral" or not. To what standard of morality, by the way, are you appealing? Not everything in the Bible is a lesson on morality - it is a narrative dealing with the character of God and His relationship with His people. You quoted one of those incidents. As well, you make the assumption that there is clearly something wrong with the episode quoted. To do so would be your way of saying "I have evaluated the facts at hand and decided that this act - approved by God - is immoral." What's your standard? Do you have all your facts? Do you know what God knows (since it was His decision and no mortal's)?

The midinites were slaughtered by Moses and his collected armys as directed by God to avenge the Israelites because the Israelites, as God puts it, are the chosen people. When God told moses the tell his people to "take for yourselfs all the women that have not layed with a man in bed" it clearly means virgins. Or is it something about beds? Take the virgins for yourself. God's unimaginable reasoning aside, when they took all the young women from thier families, that were just slaughtered, I can't imagine that any of the young women were thrilled about it. What would you call it if some stranger took your little sister, against her will, for himself? Wouldn't you call that kidnapping? And if that person that took your little sister used her for propagation, I think in any civilized mind, that would be considered rape. To say that God has His reason for all that He does, even if what He does seems unbelieveably cruel is to absolutly shut down the part of your God given brain that tells a person how to live in harmony with his fellow man.

[Redzeppelin]

The midinites were slaughtered by Moses and his collected armys as directed by God to avenge the Israelites because the Israelites, as God puts it, are the chosen people. When God told moses the tell his people to "take for yourselfs all the women that have not layed with a man in bed" it clearly means virgins. Or is it something about beds? Take the virgins for yourself. God's unimaginable reasoning aside, when they took all the young women from thier families, that were just slaughtered, I can't imagine that any of the young women were thrilled about it. What would you call it if some stranger took your little sister, against her will, for himself? Wouldn't you call that kidnapping? And if that person that took your little sister used her for propagation, I think in any civilized mind, that would be considered rape. To say that God has His reason for all that He does, even if what He does seems unbelieveably cruel is to absolutly shut down the part of your God given brain that tells a person how to live in harmony with his fellow man.

The verb "take" is a rather vague one; you've decided it means "sexually violate." It could just as easily mean "impress as servants" or even "marry" (though that was generally a no-no). You cannot assume rape off of that rather general verb. Once again, you are ignoring the fact that every frame omits certain pieces of information. I can take a picture that may appear to tell one story, but would reveal a far different story if the entire scene were shown. Example: I show you a picture of a man being burned to death by another man; you are outraged; but then I show you another picture of the same scene with a wider angle lense, and you now see a man in a director's chair, some cameras and the fire department standing at the ready - a film. So, your first picture appeared to be something that it in reality was not. That's what I'm trying to explain to you and Whiff both: we don't have all the facts - so your judgment is based on incomplete knowledge of the situation. I only ask that you admit that.


The behaviour of the Israelites to the Midianites was shocking and, by any standard of morality worth living to, inexcusable. Any claim that God could inspire or justify the behaviour described in the passage is pure blasphemy, as far as I am concerned. The passage that makes that claim is simply Israelitish propaganda, and certainly not the word of God.

Cf. response to kiobe above.

[NickAdams]

What does an atheist believe? It would take sometime to answer that, but not because the answer is complicated. What doesn’t an atheist believe in? That’s easier. An atheist doesn’t believe in deities or a deity. If it’s not related to that, an atheist is free to believe it. An atheist can even believe in the Ten Commandments. How? They can believe it is an ethically strong theory that would sustain order, without believing in the deity attached to it. I believe atheists have the potential to be morally stronger than anybody who subscribes to a deity religion, because their morals are upheld without future incentives, i.e. paradise. It’s funny when a atheist is said to be confused for exclaiming, “Oh my God!” which is a phrase that has worked its way into the vocabulary of the common man, by a Christian who backslides yet still considers themselves a Christian.

[kiobe]

The verb "take" is a rather vague one; you've decided it means "sexually violate." It could just as easily mean "impress as servants" or even "marry" (though that was generally a no-no). You cannot assume rape off of that rather general verb. Once again, you are ignoring the fact that every frame omits certain pieces of information. I can take a picture that may appear to tell one story, but would reveal a far different story if the entire scene were shown. Example: I show you a picture of a man being burned to death by another man; you are outraged; but then I show you another picture of the same scene with a wider angle lense, and you now see a man in a director's chair, some cameras and the fire department standing at the ready - a film. So, your first picture appeared to be something that it in reality was not. That's what I'm trying to explain to you and Whiff both: we don't have all the facts - so your judgment is based on incomplete knowledge of the situation. I only ask that you admit that.





Cf. response to kiobe above.

No, I assume "take" to mean kidnaping. The scriptures say "take for yourselves" as wifes. Not slaves, not workers, not golf caddys. Wifes. Why bother taking 32,000 virgin women as wifes if not to start a family? Also see Judges 21:10-24. Using your analagy of the photo sugests that the person that is showing only part of the picture isn't being forthright because that person, having full knowlage of the entire photo is purposly keeping the most important information from the viewer, and thus manipulating the viewer into believing something that isn't there........

[Redzeppelin]

No, I assume "take" to mean kidnaping. The scriptures say "take for yourselves" as wifes. Not slaves, not workers, not golf caddys. Wifes. Why bother taking 32,000 virgin women as wifes if not to start a family? Also see Judges 21:10-24. Using your analagy of the photo sugests that the person that is showing only part of the picture isn't being forthright because that person, having full knowlage of the entire photo is purposly keeping the most important information from the viewer, and thus manipulating the viewer into believing something that isn't there........

If an entire people are wiped out (their cities and possessions as well), the verdict of "taking" the virgins for wives (which also contradicts the rape interpretation) appears as almost a mercy of sorts (depending upon whether one saw death as more preferable to life married to a Hebrew). Being an unattended woman without the male population of your people around to support/protect you was not a desirable position to be in - even married to a foreigner was preferable to that. In terms of death vs. marriage vs. abandonment, well, with those choices, marriage might be deemed a merciful fate. (This in no way suggests that the women were happy with the decision).

The photo analogy sticks because not all photos are conscious attempts at manipulation; the sheer physics of reality dictate that it is impossible to see the entire picture of anything - there is no "lens" big enough to include all details of any particular picture; as well, when dealing with an ancient historical record and a decision made by a Divine Being, we are at a serious disadvantage in making a fair judgment because we cannot access all the facts. Would a court judge condemn God on the evidence presented - or would s/he say that there is insufficient evidence to convict God because we do not know the enough of the story to be certain "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?

You make a number of assumptions:

1) God had no good reason to doom the Midianites to death (God is unfair)
2) The Midianites did not deserve to die (God is not just)
3) Any killing is bad (context is irrelevant)

All assumptions within an argument ought to be considered and examined rather than assumed.

[NickAdams]

You can't judge the Old Testament's God by the New Testament.

[Redzeppelin]

You can't judge the Old Testament's God by the New Testament.


Both testaments provide different "sides" of God's character. They do interact and they augment each other.

[kiobe]

If an entire people are wiped out (their cities and possessions as well), the verdict of "taking" the virgins for wives (which also contradicts the rape interpretation) appears as almost a mercy of sorts (depending upon whether one saw death as more preferable to life married to a Hebrew). Being an unattended woman without the male population of your people around to support/protect you was not a desirable position to be in - even married to a foreigner was preferable to that. In terms of death vs. marriage vs. abandonment, well, with those choices, marriage might be deemed a merciful fate. (This in no way suggests that the women were happy with the decision).

The photo analogy sticks because not all photos are conscious attempts at manipulation; the sheer physics of reality dictate that it is impossible to see the entire picture of anything - there is no "lens" big enough to include all details of any particular picture; as well, when dealing with an ancient historical record and a decision made by a Divine Being, we are at a serious disadvantage in making a fair judgment because we cannot access all the facts. Would a court judge condemn God on the evidence presented - or would s/he say that there is insufficient evidence to convict God because we do not know the enough of the story to be certain "beyond a shadow of a doubt"?

You make a number of assumptions:

1) God had no good reason to doom the Midianites to death (God is unfair)
2) The Midianites did not deserve to die (God is not just)
3) Any killing is bad (context is irrelevant)

All assumptions within an argument ought to be considered and examined rather than assumed.

"Rape" is not an interpratation but rather an asumption of an act to happen after the virgins are taken to the homes of the kidnappers as they are forced to be thier wifes.

Mercy? Again with the " never question the Lord". So, let me get this right. For the few people that were "spared" the killing, the burning of thier villages, the systematic murder of thier children, the taking (stealing of personal items, animals, objects of value), the murder of mothers, brothers, fathers, cousins, uncles, for these people you see being obducted as mercifull? Whofa!

The photo analogy doesn't "stick". We are not talking about ALL photos, we're talking about the photo analogy you comunicated to me in your post. If we are ALL at a serious disadvantage in making a fair judgment because we cannot acesses all the facts, how then does one believe the biblical accounts if we cannot see all the facts.

I am not an attorney, but if Goldie Locks is guilty of breaking and entering and destruction of personal property, God can't be far behind.

Again, not an asumption.
1. God didn't kill the Midinites, Moses and his army did after being directed by God.
2.Deserving or not God doesn't seem to follow his own commandments. Thou shal not kill.
3. Al qaeda believes the same thing. You?

[Redzeppelin]

"Rape" is not an interpratation but rather an asumption of an act to happen after the virgins are taken to the homes of the kidnappers as they are forced to be thier wifes.

An ASSUMPTION is correct.


Mercy? Again with the " never question the Lord". So, let me get this right. For the few people that were "spared" the killing, the burning of thier villages, the systematic murder of thier children, the taking (stealing of personal items, animals, objects of value), the murder of mothers, brothers, fathers, cousins, uncles, for these people you see being obducted as mercifull? Whofa!

I said nothing about not "questioning the Lord" - please be accurate in your attempt to paraphrase my postition. I admitted that the episode described definitely appears to be a terrible one in terms of the picture of God it gives. I question the decision too - but since I believe God is who He claims to be - just, merciful, loving, compassionate, etc - then I make the assumption that there must be a good reason for His decision. Even our legal system recognizes that character counts (hence the "character witness"). The evaluation you are making of God is inconsistent with His character - and since God cannot be inconsistent in who He is, I must assume ignorance of certain knowledge that would - if known - perfectly justify God's decision.
To be granted life could be seen as "mercy" but I also qualified in my post that seeing it in that way is clearly dependent and not an in-and-of-itself given.




The photo analogy doesn't "stick". We are not talking about ALL photos, we're talking about the photo analogy you comunicated to me in your post. If we are ALL at a serious disadvantage in making a fair judgment because we cannot acesses all the facts, how then does one believe the biblical accounts if we cannot see all the facts.

We believe the Biblical accounts because the book is said to be the Divine Revelation of God - as such, since God does not lie, we assume that these things happened as we are told. To doubt so is to doubt who God is, and once we go down that road, we eventually arrive at the reality that there is no need to believe in Him at all.


I am not an attorney, but if Goldie Locks is guilty of breaking and entering and destruction of personal property, God can't be far behind.

If there were mitigating circumstances in Goldie's case, the writer didn't give them to us. If, however, the writer gave us a rendering of Goldie's character that indicated that she would never, ever do something wrong under any circumstances, then we would wonder what prompted her out-of-character behavior. Even our legal system recognizes such a thing.


Again, not an asumption.
1. God didn't kill the Midinites, Moses and his army did after being directed by God.
2.Deserving or not God doesn't seem to follow his own commandments. Thou shal not kill.
3. Al qaeda believes the same thing. You?

2. Already covered: God does not forbid killing - He forbids murder. Please make sure to read my posts carefully so I can avoid repeating myself. Thanks.

3. The difference is that we know why Al qaeda does what they do - they tell us. God's decision is based on things we cannot understand because God can read the deepest parts of the human heart (which is what He cares most about) while we are limited to what we see (which is not always what we think it to be).

[Whifflingpin]

Redzeppelin: "If an entire people are wiped out (their cities and possessions as well), the verdict of "taking" the virgins for wives (which also contradicts the rape interpretation) appears as almost a mercy of sorts (depending upon whether one saw death as more preferable to life married to a Hebrew). Being an unattended woman without the male population of your people around to support/protect you was not a desirable position to be in - even married to a foreigner was preferable to that."

This is pure dementia. According to the account, the entire people were wiped out by those who took their maidchildren into slavery. To justify the slavery on the grounds that the Israelites had already slaughtered their families, destroyed their cities and stolen their goods is utterly nauseating. It would be laughable, except that it is the sort of argument that has been used by the followers of the Book, right up to the present day, to justify all kinds of atrocities. It would be laughable if it did not provide atheists with the perfectly valid attitude - "If that is what god is supposed to be like, then I am glad not to believe in him."

Redzeppelin: "You make a number of assumptions:
1) God had no good reason to doom the Midianites to death (God is unfair)
2) The Midianites did not deserve to die (God is not just)
3) Any killing is bad (context is irrelevant)"

Wrong - I make one assumption, namely that the writer of the account was mistaken or lying in what he said about God.
The Israelites, by their own account, were a wandering horde, as merciless as the people of Genghiz or Tamburlaine, who slaughtered anyone living in lands that they coveted. Read the chapters before the one that was quoted and you will see that the "crime" of the Midianites was simply that they lived in Midian - a rich land that the Israelites wanted. The "war" that you mention as justifying the atrocities was nothing other than a war of conquest by marauding nomads against terrified and peaceful agriculturalists.

The fact that the chroniclers attempted to justify Israelitish depredations by claiming that God told them to do it just, in my view, makes them deluded or hypocritical or pursuing their own religio-political agenda. As I have said, I believe the account (which was not written down until at least three hundred years after the events, see for example http://www.catholicevangelism.org/bible-dates1.shtml) tells something about the people who carried out the acts, and something about those who wrote the story, but nothing whatever about God.

[kiobe]

An ASSUMPTION is correct.



I said nothing about not "questioning the Lord" - please be accurate in your attempt to paraphrase my postition. I admitted that the episode described definitely appears to be a terrible one in terms of the picture of God it gives. I question the decision too - but since I believe God is who He claims to be - just, merciful, loving, compassionate, etc - then I make the assumption that there must be a good reason for His decision. Even our legal system recognizes that character counts (hence the "character witness"). The evaluation you are making of God is inconsistent with His character - and since God cannot be inconsistent in who He is, I must assume ignorance of certain knowledge that would - if known - perfectly justify God's decision.
To be granted life could be seen as "mercy" but I also qualified in my post that seeing it in that way is clearly dependent and not an in-and-of-itself given.




We believe the Biblical accounts because the book is said to be the Divine Revelation of God - as such, since God does not lie, we assume that these things happened as we are told. To doubt so is to doubt who God is, and once we go down that road, we eventually arrive at the reality that there is no need to believe in Him at all.



If there were mitigating circumstances in Goldie's case, the writer didn't give them to us. If, however, the writer gave us a rendering of Goldie's character that indicated that she would never, ever do something wrong under any circumstances, then we would wonder what prompted her out-of-character behavior. Even our legal system recognizes such a thing.



2. Already covered: God does not forbid killing - He forbids murder. Please make sure to read my posts carefully so I can avoid repeating myself. Thanks.

3. The difference is that we know why Al qaeda does what they do - they tell us. God's decision is based on things we cannot understand because God can read the deepest parts of the human heart (which is what He cares most about) while we are limited to what we see (which is not always what we think it to be).


Redzeppelin: "If an entire people are wiped out (their cities and possessions as well), the verdict of "taking" the virgins for wives (which also contradicts the rape interpretation) appears as almost a mercy of sorts (depending upon whether one saw death as more preferable to life married to a Hebrew). Being an unattended woman without the male population of your people around to support/protect you was not a desirable position to be in - even married to a foreigner was preferable to that."

This is pure dementia. According to the account, the entire people were wiped out by those who took their maidchildren into slavery. To justify the slavery on the grounds that the Israelites had already slaughtered their families, destroyed their cities and stolen their goods is utterly nauseating. It would be laughable, except that it is the sort of argument that has been used by the followers of the Book, right up to the present day, to justify all kinds of atrocities. It would be laughable if it did not provide atheists with the perfectly valid attitude - "If that is what god is supposed to be like, then I am glad not to believe in him."

Redzeppelin: "You make a number of assumptions:
1) God had no good reason to doom the Midianites to death (God is unfair)
2) The Midianites did not deserve to die (God is not just)
3) Any killing is bad (context is irrelevant)"

Wrong - I make one assumption, namely that the writer of the account was mistaken or lying in what he said about God.
The Israelites, by their own account, were a wandering horde, as merciless as the people of Genghiz or Tamburlaine, who slaughtered anyone living in lands that they coveted. Read the chapters before the one that was quoted and you will see that the "crime" of the Midianites was simply that they lived in Midian - a rich land that the Israelites wanted. The "war" that you mention as justifying the atrocities was nothing other than a war of conquest by marauding nomads against terrified and peaceful agriculturalists.

The fact that the chroniclers attempted to justify Israelitish depredations by claiming that God told them to do it just, in my view, makes them deluded or hypocritical or pursuing their own religio-political agenda. As I have said, I believe the account (which was not written down until at least three hundred years after the events, see for example http://www.catholicevangelism.org/bible-dates1.shtml) tells something about the people who carried out the acts, and something about those who wrote the story, but nothing whatever about God.

Now there's a biblical history I can get my head around. Taking into account cultural history seems unavoidable. Really very succinct.

[kiobe]

Would you mind citing these different atheistic philosophies of which you speak? Atheism, by definition, is simply the rejection of religion. How can one make variety with that? In response to your "analogy correction", what do you mean by "not necessarily agreeing with the ideals of every soldier?" The soldier is the war, and the war is the soldier. We are not talking on an individual level here because a community is about the community, not the individual. If a religious person practices religion and believes in a god, it really doesn't matter why they are doing it. The fact is they are and because they are, what they stand for is contrary to atheistic thought. This can only mean that they themselves are against atheism. So, why support that?

I had no intention of stating that one religion was right for everyone, but I will state that once an individual is a declared member of a religious group he/she loses his or her individuality. If they feel the need to regain such individuality by disconnecting to certain doctrines of the said group, then they need to leave. Want a good example? Cafeteria Catholics- they pick and choose what they feel like believing. If you can't accept parts of a religion, why bother being a part of it? On another note, why do you think the Catholic Church is blamed for priest misconduct more than the individual priest? The priest is a symbol of Catholicism, and when a priest screws up the Catholic Church screws up. When you communicate your desire to support religion, you communicate the tendency for atheists to do the same and that is against the identity of our community. If you wish to go against atheistic beliefs, simply do not be atheist. If you are atheist then you do not support religion. If you do support religion, then you should not identify yourself as an atheist.

Sorry man but atheisim does cover many different styles.
Humanism
While atheism is merely the absence of belief, humanism is a positive attitude to the world, centred on human experience, thought, and hopes.
Secularism
Secularists oppose religion or the religious being afforded privileges, which - put another way - is the same as disadvantaging others.
Rationalism
Rationalism is an approach to life based on reason and evidence and rejects authority that cannot be proved by experience.
Atheist Buddhism
The Buddha did not claim to be in any way divine, nor does Buddhism involve the idea of a personal god.
Humanistic Judaism
Humanistic Judaism doesn't proclaim that there is no God, but it does do without God.
Christian Atheism
Christian Atheists, or non-realistic Christians, want to remove what they see as the fairy tale elements of Christianity.
Postmodernism
For postmodernists every society is in a state of constant change; there are no absolute values, only relative ones; nor are there any absolute truths.
Unitarian Universalism
Unitarian Universalism is not an atheist movement, but proclaims the importance of individual freedom of belief and so it is a movement into which some atheists may comfortably fit.

[Redzeppelin]

This is pure dementia. According to the account, the entire people were wiped out by those who took their maidchildren into slavery. To justify the slavery on the grounds that the Israelites had already slaughtered their families, destroyed their cities and stolen their goods is utterly nauseating. It would be laughable, except that it is the sort of argument that has been used by the followers of the Book, right up to the present day, to justify all kinds of atrocities. It would be laughable if it did not provide atheists with the perfectly valid attitude - "If that is what god is supposed to be like, then I am glad not to believe in him."

Well: you should not be having a debate with a demented person (because on the odd chance that you get bested, it might look really bad :) ). First off, I'd appreciate it if you'd read my posts carefully, because I never said anything about "justifying" slavery. I said that - to some - it might seem a mercy to keep at least somebody alive. Your response seems to indicate that death is preferable, and I'm not sure that that is a given. Either way, you're still avoiding the key points of my argument, choosing instead to express revulsion rather than deal with the point at hand. So - is it a) you cannot deal with what I've said, or b) you will not deal with what I've said? I'm clear on your feelings about me and Christianity - but how about the argument?


Wrong - I make one assumption, namely that the writer of the account was mistaken or lying in what he said about God.
The Israelites, by their own account, were a wandering horde, as merciless as the people of Genghiz or Tamburlaine, who slaughtered anyone living in lands that they coveted. Read the chapters before the one that was quoted and you will see that the "crime" of the Midianites was simply that they lived in Midian - a rich land that the Israelites wanted. The "war" that you mention as justifying the atrocities was nothing other than a war of conquest by marauding nomads against terrified and peaceful agriculturalists.

And what is the basis of this assumption about the invalidity of the scriptures (especially in comparison with any ancient manuscript)? Besides the fact that you don't like or believe in what it says? The ones who are mistaken about God are those who decide that they possess enough knowledge about an ancient event and the peoples involved to render their own judgment as to the appropriateness of God's actions. You claim that the writer is lying or mistaken about God - which implies that you have some idea as to what the character of God should be; I'd very much like to hear what your version of God looks like; care to share?


The fact that the chroniclers attempted to justify Israelitish depredations by claiming that God told them to do it just, in my view, makes them deluded or hypocritical or pursuing their own religio-political agenda. As I have said, I believe the account (which was not written down until at least three hundred years after the events, see for example http://www.catholicevangelism.org/bible-dates1.shtml) tells something about the people who carried out the acts, and something about those who wrote the story, but nothing whatever about God.

Upon what authority do you dismiss the veracity of the Bible? Beyond the fact that you don't like the picture it presents, what is the basis of your claims? Do you have any? The incident (I repeat) is troubling to Christians too - but your interpretation contradicts the known character of God. If you heard that someone you know very, very well had been accused of something that you know is TOTALLY out of character for that person, how would you respond? Instant condemnation, or would you say "Hold on - we need to get all the facts first before we rush to judgment." We do that for humans - but not for God?

[kiobe]

I disagree, Wiff was very clear as to every point. Not that he needs someone to speak for him.

[Whifflingpin]

Redzeppelin: "Well: you should not be having a debate with a demented person (because on the odd chance that you get bested, it might look really bad ). "

You are wrong about me, as you always seem to be, in assuming that I would mind being proved wrong by anyone.

The first part of your sentence is good advice, however, so I will take it. Thanks.

[Redzeppelin]

I disagree, Wiff was very clear as to every point. Not that he needs someone to speak for him.

I disagree.


You are wrong about me, as you always seem to be, in assuming that I would mind being proved wrong by anyone.

The first part of your sentence is good advice, however, so I will take it. Thanks.


1) Did you notice this: :) ? That was my way of making a joke.
2) I'd have preferred an refutation to an ad hominem.

[Scheherazade]

This thread is no longer open to discussions since it does not serve its original purpose.