God Speaking...anyone listening? [Archive]

Melanie

09-26-2013, 08:27 AM

You say: When good people suffer, it's not from God
Who created those people?
God did not want to create robots. He wanted to create man with an ability to make choices. Much of our suffering comes from natural consequences because of our wrong choices. Before Christ came in the New Testament (to pay the punishment for our sins), man was punished for wrong choices and disobedience to God. But now it's not punishment. Sometimes it's natural consequences and sometimes it's a myriad of other reasons as mentioned in the Bible. Have you ever heard someone say of their loved one, "He didn't die in vain."? It's because, looking back, we sometimes see why it was part of God's perfect plan. Sometimes we won't know until we have passed on ourselves...then we'll know everything according to God's Word.

Cacian is right. Man needs to own up to his own poor choices and quit blaming God for them or expecting God to bail him out every time.

YesNo

09-26-2013, 09:05 AM

God did not want to create robots. He wanted to create man with an ability to make choices. Much of our suffering comes from natural consequences because of our wrong choices.

I agree. I can't imagine why any God of any value would want to create us as robots. I also liked the way cacian put it: "man needs to man up".

mal4mac

09-26-2013, 10:55 AM

God does not look at death as a bad thing...quite the contrary. He looks at it as his children coming home to where there is no more suffering...

I actually don't think this is a cop out; if you spend your whole life on Earth suffering, and you get an infinite number of years in heaven to compensate for that, then that's fair enough. I think he might have been a bit kinder to us as regards our earthly existence, but "under the aspect of eternity" it's really no suffering at all, so I'll let him off in this regard.

The reason I don't believe in God is not because of the existence of suffering, but because there is absolutely no evidence for his existence! I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.

God speaking... then why can't I hear him?

cacian

09-26-2013, 11:02 AM

I actually don't think this is a cop out; if you spend your whole life on Earth suffering, and you get an infinite number of years in heaven to compensate for that, then that's fair enough. I think he might have been a bit kinder to us as regards our earthly existence, but "under the aspect of eternity" it's really no suffering at all, so I'll let him off in this regard.

The reason I don't believe in God is not because of the existence of suffering, but because there is absolutely no evidence for his existence! I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.

indeed in the same way that there is no evidence that he does not. Santa Claus and tooth fairy those are slightly on the childish touch. an adult of course would not believe that. in the same way that a fairy tale is only a fairy tale.

cafolini

09-26-2013, 11:24 AM

Am I fair and just?
-God

mkotova playing God. Ridiculous. ROFLMAO

Melanie

09-26-2013, 03:22 PM

The reason I don't believe in God is...because there is absolutely no evidence for his existence! I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. God speaking... then why can't I hear him?
There is evidence that Santa and the tooth fairy don't exist. What is your evidence that God doesn't exist? We can explain why there's money under the pillow and we can explain why there are presents under the tree, but, what's your explanation for where love came from? Whatever your scientific answer is to that, you haven't gone back far enough....as far back as nothingness...the unfathomable to our finite minds...and that would be infinity, eternity, God. Read "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell....2 huge volumes of evidence for God's existence. I never read it because I see enough evidence every day. I don't need any more.

When you say "why can't I hear God speaking"...you're not listening. Turn off the lights away from all distractions like in a small room or even a closet if need be...total silence and total darkness. Begin a conversation. Ask questions. Then stop, wait, listen. You will probably get an immediate answer. You'll soon know if that answer was from God or just your subconscious mind, by it's clarity and it's knowing what is best according to his will.

tailor STATELY

09-26-2013, 04:28 PM

Our Heavenly Father is fair and just. That is why He instituted His Plan of Salvation, His eternal plan of happiness.

For some of the issues brought forth earlier in this thread The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ has been very instructive in this matter for me starting with all of 2 Nephi Chapter 2 http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.11?lang=eng#10 ; and especially
2 Nephi 2:11 - For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so... righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

Later in The Book Of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ:
Alma 60:13 - For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked; therefore ye need not suppose that the righteous are lost because they are slain; but behold, they do enter into the rest of the Lord their God. Eternal life with our Heavenly Father is our highest goal after all.

1 Corinthians chapter 2 helps me to understand those who cannot understand the things of God http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/2.9?lang=eng

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

Volya

09-26-2013, 04:52 PM

Sure, there must've been something that started it all. But why would it be 'God', why not any other random religion or whatnot. No evidence to support that God isn't real, but then there's also no evidence to show we're not really in the Matrix D:

mal4mac

09-27-2013, 04:24 AM

indeed in the same way that there is no evidence that he does not. Santa Claus and tooth fairy those are slightly on the childish touch. an adult of course would not believe that. in the same way that a fairy tale is only a fairy tale.

OK let's ditch the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, what about Zeus and Thor? They were believed in by adults, why not believe in them instead of JC and the holy ghost?

Believing in God seems childish to me. Isn't believing in something nice, for which there is no evidence, a childish trait? For example, some children have an imaginary friend, who they believe in because it's nice to have a friend. Adults find this amusing and give children room to have this imaginary friend, knowing (hoping!) they will grow out of it.

mal4mac

09-27-2013, 04:48 AM

There is evidence that Santa and the tooth fairy don't exist. What is your evidence that God doesn't exist? We can explain why there's money under the pillow and we can explain why there are presents under the tree, but, what's your explanation for where love came from?

The tooth fairy doesn't actually leave money under the pillow, parents do that. But the tooth fairy looks on and, through telepathy, gives them a "warm feeling" when they leave the money. So love comes from the tooth fairy, and from Santa who's on duty on Christmas day. Cupid fires arrows when certain men and women get together.

OK, I'll turn off the satire generator... the point is you can always spin out your fairy story to match any circumstance you like as long as there is no actual evidence. If there were evidence for Christianity then why are there so many other faiths, and why is atheism increasing as general education improves? It said on the news yesterday that 37% of Scottish people no longer have any faith, up 10% from a decade ago.

Whatever your scientific answer is to that, you haven't gone back far enough....as far back as nothingness...

You don't know how far I've gone back. I don't pretend to have an explanation for the big metaphysical problems, either religious or scientific.

You'll soon know if that answer was from God or just your subconscious mind, by it's clarity and it's knowing what is best according to his will.

How do you know that it's not your subconscious mind being exceptionally clear? As it's your subconscious mind, then you are, by definition, not clear about the cause of clarity. If it is "something else", how do you know it's the Christian God and not Zeus or the flying spaghetti monster?

Melanie

09-27-2013, 09:20 AM

Right on. We finally agree on something, malmac. God tells us in the Bible that, as believers, we are children of God. We are his children and he is our Father. God is not imaginary. The Bible is the #1 Best Seller every year since it's inception....and that's for a reason. There are archeological findings, prophecies fulfilled, historical documentations, etc etc

YesNo

09-27-2013, 09:29 AM

The tooth fairy doesn't actually leave money under the pillow, parents do that. But the tooth fairy looks on and, through telepathy, gives them a "warm feeling" when they leave the money. So love comes from the tooth fairy, and from Santa who's on duty on Christmas day. Cupid fires arrows when certain men and women get together.

I know you are being sarcastic, but that is the best explanation for the tooth fairy or Santa that I have ever heard. This also shows that the "flying spaghetti monster" probably doesn't exist because it doesn't motivate us to do much of anything and so is just an idea.

OK, I'll turn off the satire generator... the point is you can always spin out your fairy story to match any circumstance you like as long as there is no actual evidence. If there were evidence for Christianity then why are there so many other faiths, and why is atheism increasing as general education improves? It said on the news yesterday that 37% of Scottish people no longer have any faith, up 10% from a decade ago.

The evidence I see for Christianity is found in the shared-death experiences reported in the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles and the in the way that Christians have developed their beliefs through two thousand years. I know they have been a pain in the rear at times, but overall, I think they did a good job. A similar argument would go for other religions. However, when atheists get political power, that is, get a chance to push their world view, which I find negative and dehumanizing, onto others all hell breaks loose.

I don't think atheism is increasing, but who knows? When the statistics are collected, I would probably be lumped with those who "don't have any faith". Even my wife tells me I don't "really" believe in those Hindu gods I seem to admire, however, I would have to say I am definitely not an atheist. Atheism doesn't make sense, especially the materialistic, deterministic kind, given quantum physics, the big bang, and given the existence of consciousness that can have near-death experiences.

This doesn't mean that there is an individualized God-object somewhere that exactly corresponds to a specific religion's portrayal. However, I think those religions, in their varied and sometimes contradictory ways, are closer to reality than atheism.

How do you know that it's not your subconscious mind being exceptionally clear? As it's your subconscious mind, then you are, by definition, not clear about the cause of clarity. If it is "something else", how do you know it's the Christian God and not Zeus or the flying spaghetti monster?

It is probably not the spaghetti monster. How do you know your subconscious is not a manifestation of some God?

mal4mac

09-27-2013, 05:54 PM

God tells us in the Bible that, as believers, we are children of God. We are his children and he is our Father. God is not imaginary. The Bible is the #1 Best Seller every year since it's inception....and that's for a reason. There are archeological findings, prophecies fulfilled, historical documentations, etc etc

Santa Claus is the "best selling" myth that adults "sell" to children; that doesn't mean he actually exists. What archaeological findings prove the existence of God? There are just a bunch of old buildings & sculptures that indicate some myth was in vogue at the time of their creation. You have ancient remains depicting Hindu and Roman gods; do they exist because they are portrayed in stone? God needs to part some oceans within sight of oceanic survey ships, then perhaps we can start to believe. Prophecies have been fulfilled? There are just vagaries in the bible that can be interpreted in many ways; if exact names and exact dates had been mentioned we might start to believe.

mal4mac

09-27-2013, 06:22 PM

However, when atheists get political power, that is, get a chance to push their world view, which I find negative and dehumanizing, onto others all hell breaks loose.

Like Nick Clegg? The current Conservative-lib-dem coalition in Britain isn't very pretty; but no signs of hell breaking loose! Also atheists don't have a world view that they share, all they share is a disbelief in theism, that's not a world view, it's just one view. There is little in common between Nick Clegg and Stalin (whatever students might say...)

Here's a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_politics_and_law

Look at the list of UK politicians, for instance, who have been atheists. There are better examples than Clegg, for instance:

Clement Attlee 1st Earl Attlee, KG, OM, CH, PC (1883–1967): Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1945 to 1951, under whose government the National Health Service and Welfare State were established.

Roy Hattersley PC (1932–): British Labour Party politician, author and journalist, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party 1983–1992

Michael Portillo, Conservative, former Minister of Defence. Now a TV writer and presenter whose work includes UK Channel 4's documentary Christianity: A History (I hesitated to include him in the same list as as the immortal Attlee, but I thought I'd better include a right winger!)

Given this list, how come Hell hasn't broken loose in the UK in the last few decades? Other countries, like Ireland and Australia, have also had declared atheists occupying top jobs. Those countries don't look like "visions of hell" to me!

Emil Miller

09-28-2013, 05:09 AM

Like Nick Clegg? The current Conservative-lib-dem coalition in Britain isn't very pretty; but no signs of hell breaking loose! Also atheists don't have a world view that they share, all they share is a disbelief in theism, that's not a world view, it's just one view. There is little in common between Nick Clegg and Stalin (whatever students might say...)

Here's a list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_politics_and_law

Look at the list of UK politicians, for instance, who have been atheists. There are better examples than Clegg, for instance:

Clement Attlee 1st Earl Attlee, KG, OM, CH, PC (1883–1967): Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1945 to 1951, under whose government the National Health Service and Welfare State were established.

Roy Hattersley PC (1932–): British Labour Party politician, author and journalist, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party 1983–1992

Michael Portillo, Conservative, former Minister of Defence. Now a TV writer and presenter whose work includes UK Channel 4's documentary Christianity: A History (I hesitated to include him in the same list as as the immortal Attlee, but I thought I'd better include a right winger!)

Given this list, how come Hell hasn't broken loose in the UK in the last few decades? Other countries, like Ireland and Australia, have also had declared atheists occupying top jobs. Those countries don't look like "visions of hell" to me!

I generally steer clear of discussions on the unknowable, but the political examples given here do confirm my belief in the existence of the devil.
As for Nick Clegg and Stalin, the pairing is not as incongruous as might first appear, for the major characteristic of both is a deviousness worthy of Machiavelli.

YesNo

09-28-2013, 08:46 AM

Given this list, how come Hell hasn't broken loose in the UK in the last few decades? Other countries, like Ireland and Australia, have also had declared atheists occupying top jobs. Those countries don't look like "visions of hell" to me!

The problem with hell breaking loose is when atheists get enough political power to dump their world views onto others. Based on the last century, the effects of atheistic intolerance of others is worse than that of religious people in the same situations. Under secular democracies where the bullying intolerance of atheists and religious people is constrained, both of these groups behave better. That's because the secular democracy forces them to behave.

It is just avoiding responsibility or delusional thinking for atheists to claim that they do not have a world view or that the actions of atheists like the Khmer Rouge do not represent them. Those actions do represent them. Atheists who excuse the bad behavior of other atheists but nitpick religious groups, the way Hitchens and Dawkins have done, represent a form of bigotry, much like racism or antisemitism. No sane person would ever want to give these kinds of people political power.

WyattGwyon

09-28-2013, 09:42 AM

God did not want to create robots. He wanted to create man with an ability to make choices. Much of our suffering comes from natural consequences because of our wrong choices. Before Christ came in the New Testament (to pay the punishment for our sins), man was punished for wrong choices and disobedience to God. But now it's not punishment. Sometimes it's natural consequences and sometimes it's a myriad of other reasons as mentioned in the Bible. Have you ever heard someone say of their loved one, "He didn't die in vain."? It's because, looking back, we sometimes see why it was part of God's perfect plan. Sometimes we won't know until we have passed on ourselves...then we'll know everything according to God's Word.

Cacian is right. Man needs to own up to his own poor choices and quit blaming God for them or expecting God to bail him out every time.

The Christian argument for free will is fatally flawed. As a fictional character once said:

"If, as Christians teach, God is truly omniscient and omnipotent, knowing all things past, present, and future and willing all into existence exactly as it is, was, and will be, then time is, for Him, essentially meaningless. From this being’s perspective, the lives of those he creates are laid out as completed courses at the moment he creates them, their every choice and action from cradle to grave encompassed by his divine consciousness at the instant of inception. Their lives are, for God, objects or completed motions in four dimensions which he envisions with utter clarity before he brings them into being, the same way his son, the carpenter, might have envisioned a table or chair before setting tools to wood. So when he brings human beings into existence, he does so with full knowledge of every word they will ever speak, every deed they will perform down to the most minute detail, every thought they will have, and every sin they will ever commit. Indeed, the act of bringing any individual into existence, from such a God’s perspective, can only mean intentionally creating every one of those words, deeds, thoughts, and sins. From this I conclude: Knowing all we will ever be in the process of willing us to be makes God morally culpable for all we are and all we do. If we are hell-bound it is because God decided to create a hell-bound soul. In fact, every denizen of hell from Cain to Nixon and beyond was a being intentionally created to suffer for all eternity. Two conclusions are inescapable: God as conceived by the Christians is a sadistic monster and if he is omniscient, there is no free will. When Calvin reached this point in the argument he simply accepted this God, character flaws and all, and accepted that the fates of our immortal souls are wholly determined from the start. This is why Calvinists and Presbyterians believe in predestination. I took the other road, deciding that the God of the Christians is a logical absurdity. Did this make me an atheist? Not in principle or as a matter of course, but it did make me effectively so. You see, I had never felt any need for God or other kinds of supernatural phenomena, so if he didn’t exist I would never have bothered to invent him. My sole concern was debunking the God I had been brow-beaten into acknowledging and after that was done I moved on."

Oedipus

09-28-2013, 10:04 AM

The problem with hell breaking loose is when atheists get enough political power to dump their world views onto others. Based on the last century, the effects of atheistic intolerance of others is worse than that of religious people in the same situations. Under secular democracies where the bullying intolerance of atheists and religious people is constrained, both of these groups behave better. That's because the secular democracy forces them to behave.

It is just avoiding responsibility or delusional thinking for atheists to claim that they do not have a world view or that the actions of atheists like the Khmer Rouge do not represent them. Those actions do represent them. Atheists who excuse the bad behavior of other atheists but nitpick religious groups, the way Hitchens and Dawkins have done, represent a form of bigotry, much like racism or antisemitism. No sane person would ever want to give these kinds of people political power.

"Based on the last century, the effects of atheistic intolerance of others is worse than that of religious people in the same situations'? A bare assertion with no evidence.

The Khmer Rouge represent all atheists? One of the most genocidal groups in history - who killed a greater percentage of their own people than Hitler, without a war -- are a fair representation of 16% of the population?

"The problem with hell breaking loose is when atheists get enough political power to dump their world views onto others." Another assertion with no evidence. I repeat what mal4mac said: "Given this list [of atheist politicians who have done well], how come Hell hasn't broken loose in the UK in the last few decades? Other countries, like Ireland and Australia, have also had declared atheists occupying top jobs. Those countries don't look like "visions of hell" to me!

You attack Dawkins for 'nitpicking'' after accusing all atheists of being Pol Pots in waiting. Can you give an example of this nitpicking?

Not believing in something does not mean building a world-view based on that lack of belief. Atheists have a vast range of approaches to life, of world-views. Secular humanism is one. You have the hubris to assume that everyone bases their life around a deity (or lack thereof), including atheists?

mal4mac

09-28-2013, 10:35 AM

Atheists who excuse the bad behavior of other atheists but nitpick religious groups, the way Hitchens and Dawkins have done, represent a form of bigotry...

I've read much of the writings of Hitchens and Dawkins and don't remember any examples of them excusing the bad behaviour of other atheists. Have you any examples? I'd certainly vote for Dawkins, imagine having a minister for science who actually knows something about science!

Melanie

09-28-2013, 11:18 AM

"If, as Christians teach, God is truly omniscient and omnipotent, knowing all things past, present, and future and willing all into existence exactly as it is, was, and will be, then time is, for Him, essentially meaningless.

I'll get to the topic at hand below, but first, I want to clarify that time is for us only. Time was a result of the creation of seasons. There is no time in eternity where God dwells. No clocks there. As an aside to the topic at hand, I'll just mention that it's comforting to know that when our loved ones die and then we die 20 yrs later, it will be as if we stepped over that line at the same time, because there is no time in eternity. We won't be missing anyone...no sadness from lost time together therefore.

"...So when he brings human beings into existence, he does so with full knowledge of every word they will ever speak, every deed they will perform down to the most minute detail, every thought they will have, and every sin they will ever commit....From this I conclude: Knowing all we will ever be in the process of willing us to be makes God morally culpable for all we are and all we do. If we are hell-bound it is because God decided to create a hell-bound soul."

Yes, God is all knowing and knows in advance what our decisions are going to end up being. But that doesn't make it meaningless to him. It was not predestined, he just plain knows what our decision will be in advance. God will use that to teach, test our faith, draw us closer into a loving relationship with Him, teach others, build humankind relationships, etc etc...just as a father would with his child. It's all about love....loving God enough to respect and obey him, loving others enough to help and support each other, and loving God's creation enough to take care of our planet responsibly.

cafolini

09-28-2013, 12:12 PM

"Yes, God is all knowing and knows in advance what our decisions are going to end up being. But that doesn't make it meaningless to him. It was not predestined, he just plain knows what our decision will be in advance. God will use that to teach, test our faith, draw us closer into a loving relationship with Him, teach others, build humankind relationships, etc etc...just as a father would with his child. It's all about love....loving God enough to respect and obey him, loving others enough to help and support each other, and loving God's creation enough to take care of our planet responsibly."

I don't think God knows beforehand what choices we will make. Otherwise we would have no responsibility whatsoever. But he does know beforehand what our choices should be, and allows for that kind of freewill. So, in that sense, good points about the outcome, Melanie. But we cannot enslave God in accounting for the responsibility of the entire process. Yet, that God knows what the outcome will be is infallible.

Melanie

09-28-2013, 01:04 PM

cafolini, just a friendly request; could you please use the "Reply With Quote" button when posting my words? Otherwise, readers might think Mike Hulme said it :biggrin5: (He is a highly intelligent and respected scientist and professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Science. He has said of his Christian faith, "I believe because I have not discovered a better explanation of beauty, truth and love than that they emerge in a world created - willed into being - by a God who personifies beauty, truth and love.")

WyattGwyon

09-28-2013, 11:01 PM

Yes, God is all knowing and knows in advance what our decisions are going to end up being. But that doesn't make it meaningless to him. It was not predestined, he just plain knows what our decision will be in advance.

Creating a being you know for an absolute certainty will perform a precise series of actions with a precise set of consequences is the very definition of predestination! What else do you think predestination could mean?

cafolini

09-29-2013, 01:07 AM

Creating a being you know for an absolute certainty will perform a precise series of actions with a precise set of consequences is the very definition of predestination! What else do you think predestination could mean?

Of course we can produce something that we know with absolute certainty it'll perform a precise set of actions. That's a computer. But we cannot determine at the same time a finite set of consequences. That's too much for us. It will never happen. We have no access to predestination.

Melanie

09-29-2013, 01:15 AM

Creating a being you know for an absolute certainty will perform a precise series of actions with a precise set of consequences is the very definition of predestination!
I couldn't find your definition in any of the dictionaries.
In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of predestination is, "the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed". If you'll notice the words "decided by God"...that's the part of the definition you're not acknowledging. God didn't make any of man's decisions. God knew about them but he didn't make man's decisions for him. Just because that's a difficult concept for our finite minds to grasp doesn't mean we can go and change it to fit what is easier for our minds to grasp.

mona amon

09-29-2013, 01:37 AM

Does it say anywhere in the Bible that God is omniscient? He's perspicacious all right, but he still seems so miffed with the children of Israel when they do wrong. More of "I can't believe you really did that!" rather than "Oh well, I always knew you were going to do it."

Melanie

09-29-2013, 02:11 AM

I don't think the words "omniscient" and "omnipresent"
appear in the Bible but these verses are the same thing:

He knows all things - Psalm 147;4-5
He is all-powerfu -l Matthew 19:26
He is present everywhere - Matthew 28:20;
He always has been and always will be -Psalm 90:1-2
He does not change Malachi 3:6
He'll never leave us - Hebrews 13:5
He's the same yesterday, today, and forever - Hebrews 13:8

But I understand what you're saying mona. I sometimes wonder if God wants to block his all-knowing powers regarding man's decisions for or against Him so that he can parent mankind...like teaching, loving, guiding, fellowshipping, conversing through His Word and prayer, etc etc. We won't know all the answers until we are someday in eternity with Him.

mal4mac

09-29-2013, 04:11 AM

... Mike Hulme ... (He is a highly intelligent and respected scientist and professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Science. He has said of his Christian faith, "I believe because I have not discovered a better explanation of beauty, truth and love than that they emerge in a world created - willed into being - by a God who personifies beauty, truth and love.")

Looking at his Wikipedia page, his career isn't very distinguished, certainly nowhere near as distinguished as Dawkins, Hawking, et. al. He doesn't even appear to be a FRS. But well done in finding a religious professor of science! They are few and far between. Dawkins in "The God Delusion" spends several pages looking at the "Argument from Admired Religious Scientists" in the God Delusion. If Hulme ever gets to be a FRS he'll find himself in a small club, only 3% of FRS level scientists believe in a personal God.

His statement of belief can't be taken seriously. It leads me to think he might have been working too hard on that big climate report that's just come out. It's like saying: "I believe in the tooth fairy because I have not discovered a nicer idea than a little fairy lady who gives me money when I have a toothache."

I tracked down his statement of belief to the New Statesman.

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2011/04/god-believe-faith-world-belief

New Statesman spent several months trying to find leading public figures in Britain who were believers, and came up with a very sad list. It starts with the leading non-intellectuals Cherie Blair and Jeremy Vine, probably because the other "public figures" aren't well known enough to be called "public".

Also, consider Mehdi Hasan who actually believes Mohammed flew on a winged horse to heaven:

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2011/04/god-believe-faith-world-belief

From Wikipedia: Mehdi was, "appointed senior editor (politics) at the New Statesman in late spring of 2009, where he stayed until May 2012... He became a presenter on Al Jazeera's English News Channel in May 2012."

"...the office will certainly be a quieter place without him." - Jason Cowley, editor of the New Statesman

So the winged horse didn't go down too well with the owners :).

Interesting that Dawkins was made a guest editor later that year, in an issue that included the final interview with Hitchens:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/12/dawkins-hitchens-catholic

"I have one consistency, which is [being] against the totalitarian - on the left and on the right. The totalitarian, to me, is the enemy - the one that's absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head, not just your actions and your taxes. And the origins of that are theocratic, obviously. The beginning of that is the idea that there is a supreme leader, or infallible pope, or a chief rabbi, or whatever, who can ventriloquise the divine and tell us what to do." - Christopher Hitchens

So it's not god speaking, it's some ventriloquist; watch out for those lips moving!

WyattGwyon

09-29-2013, 08:24 AM

I couldn't find your definition in any of the dictionaries.
In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of predestination is, "the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed".

This definition describes the same state of affairs as mine. Look past the words to the concepts.

If you'll notice the words "decided by God"...that's the part of the definition you're not acknowledging. God didn't make any of man's decisions.

God (if omniscient, omnipotent, and paying attention to what he was doing) made all of man's decisions. In the act of creating every individual he knowingly and willfully caused all of their actions to be performed.

Just because that's a difficult concept for our finite minds to grasp doesn't mean we can go and change it to fit what is easier for our minds to grasp.

The problem isn't that it is a difficult concept to grasp. The problem is that it is nonsense, internally contradictory that is.

Melanie

09-29-2013, 08:39 AM

...But well done in finding a religious professor of science!

Oh, there are many in addition to Mile Hulme. Don't let yourself be too buried in your "God Delusion" book not to notice the rest of the world out here. I've noticed multiple posts where your "Dawkin's God Delusion" is sounding like a broken record. No offense, just pointing out that it's noticeably redundant. I'm redundant too sometimes. In fact, I've posted a link in another thread with these religious men of science listed so I'm not pointing fingers.

John Lennox is a mathematician, philosopher of science and pastoral adviser. His works include the mathematical The Theory of Infinite Soluble Groups and the religion-oriented God's Undertaker – Has Science buried God? He has also debated religion with Richard Dawkins. He teaches at Oxford.

****************
And to Wyatt Gwyon, I respectfully disagree. I stand firm with my post #31

Calidore

09-29-2013, 08:49 AM

It occurs to me that if I knew everything that every living thing had done in the past and is doing in the present, I could make good enough guesses about the future to seem omniscient.

cafolini

09-29-2013, 09:37 AM

mal4mac

09-29-2013, 10:27 AM

Oh, there are many in addition to Mile Hulme...

In the full survey of FRS 213 were unbelievers and 12 believers ("The God delusion" p. 102)... doesn't sound like many to me.

John Lennox is a mathematician, philosopher of science and pastoral adviser. His works include the mathematical The Theory of Infinite Soluble Groups and the religion-oriented God's Undertaker – Has Science buried God? He has also debated religion with Richard Dawkins. He teaches at Oxford.

Who? It's easy to dig out minor scientists who believe in God. Keep digging, you'll find some who believe in the spoon bending power of Uri Geller, some who think spiritualist mediums are "for real", and who knows what else. The big question is: do their arguments for God's existence hold up.

cafolini

09-29-2013, 11:54 AM

In the full survey of FRS 213 were unbelievers and 12 believers ("The God delusion" p. 102)... doesn't sound like many to me.

Who? It's easy to dig out minor scientists who believe in God. Keep digging, you'll find some who believe in the spoon bending power of Uri Geller, some who think spiritualist mediums are "for real", and who knows what else. The big question is: do their arguments for God's existence hold up.

Ridiculous. At least get rid of the freaks. The plainly stupid would not argue with so much BS, although it is enough. No believer can actually argue the existence of God. Our belief is based on the impossibility of discarding the unresolved and unresolvable mystery of life. We must either believe or deny there is a mystery.
Regarding the freaks, of lower intelligence than even the stupid, I'll have to go with Robin Williams: "If they are psychic, why do they need a phone number?"

mal4mac

09-29-2013, 01:08 PM

No believer can actually argue the existence of God. Our belief is based on the impossibility of discarding the unresolved and unresolvable mystery of life. We must either believe or deny there is a mystery.

I don't see the necessity to believe or deny. Why not just live with the mystery?

Melanie

09-29-2013, 03:37 PM

mal4mac

09-29-2013, 05:14 PM

mal4mac, you never heard of the religious science professor Mile Hulme, and the mathmetician/science philosopher Lennox...so you deemed them "minor"?? I guess it's all relative because I never heard of Dawkins until you brought him up...should I therefore deem him "minor"?

I looked Hulme up and he seems an average professor, no Nobel prize, not even an FRS. Ditto for Lennox. They have also had little involvement with the religion vs. atheist debate in the UK. Dawkins usually seeks out the "real deal" to argue with (Archbishop of Canterbury, Chief Rabbi,...), not minor leaguers. Though as Lennox is in Oxford I guess he's easy to use as a sparring partner...

Have you really never heard of Dawkins? How did you avoid him? He's always on TV, and in leading newspapers in the USA and UK. You should read his wikipedia page, at least, just for the sake of "general culture". I think most people would hold him to be the highest profile atheist of the last decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

"In a poll held by Prospect magazine in 2013, Dawkins was voted the world's top thinker based on 65 names chosen by a largely US- and UK-based expert panel." Just over half of voters came to the world thinkers homepage via Twitter or Facebook, so you are likely to encounter a lot of people who hold Dawkins in high regard if you float around social media sites.

mal4mac

09-29-2013, 05:17 PM

mal4mac, you never heard of the religious science professor Mile Hulme, and the mathmetician/science philosopher Lennox...so you deemed them "minor"?? I guess it's all relative because I never heard of Dawkins until you brought him up...should I therefore deem him "minor"?

I looked Hulme up and he seems an average professor, no Nobel prize, not even an FRS. Ditto for Lennox. They have also had little involvement with the religion vs. atheist debate in the UK. Dawkins usually seeks out the "real deal" to argue with (Archbishop of Canterbury, Chief Rabbi,...), not minor leaguers. Though as Lennox is in Oxford I guess he's easy to use as a sparring partner...

Have you really never heard of Dawkins? How did you avoid him? He's always on TV, and in leading newspapers in the USA and UK. You should read his wikipedia page, at least, just for the sake of "general culture". I think most people would hold him to be the highest profile atheist of the last decade or two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

"In a poll held by Prospect magazine in 2013, Dawkins was voted the world's top thinker based on 65 names chosen by a largely US- and UK-based expert panel." Most voters came to the world thinkers homepage via Twitter or Facebook, so you are likely to encounter a lot of people who hold Dawkins in high regard if you float around social media sites.

Melanie

09-29-2013, 05:48 PM

YesNo

09-29-2013, 07:16 PM

I've read much of the writings of Hitchens and Dawkins and don't remember any examples of them excusing the bad behaviour of other atheists. Have you any examples? I'd certainly vote for Dawkins, imagine having a minister for science who actually knows something about science!

I think Hitchen's description of North Korea as a "religious" state when it is a state atheism is an example of attempting to excuse the bad behavior of atheists. Here's a quote: http://www.haveabit.com/hitchens/88001

YesNo

09-29-2013, 07:22 PM

Not believing in something does not mean building a world-view based on that lack of belief. Atheists have a vast range of approaches to life, of world-views. Secular humanism is one. You have the hubris to assume that everyone bases their life around a deity (or lack thereof), including atheists?

It is fine for atheists to have whatever world views they want as long as they are tolerant of others to believe differently. I don't see that tolerance in either Hitchens or Dawkins. This is essentially a civil liberties issue.

Oedipus

09-29-2013, 10:38 PM

It is fine for atheists to have whatever world views they want as long as they are tolerant of others to believe differently. I don't see that tolerance in either Hitchens or Dawkins. This is essentially a civil liberties issue.

Than you have a problem with specific people; who happen to be intolerant in your opinion. You don't have any evidence that this is something more common in atheists. They have the right to say whatever they want about religion; just as religious people have the right to respond or ignore. They have not done anything to repress religious people directly. As for North Korea, it is well known that the worship of the ruling family acts as a kind of surrogate religion

Oedipus

09-29-2013, 10:42 PM

If you had read my post #42 regarding why God is not a mystery to me, you would know why I have no desire nor purpose for reading about Dawkins. There are more things to learn of "general culture" that I would consider "best use of my time".

Regarding the existence of God being a mystery:

God's existence is not a mystery to me
I see proof daily all around me
in every breath I take
in every human relationship
in every gift of love, joy, kindness
in everything I learn
every word, every smile
looking into someone's eyes and seeing their soul
i could go on and on...

Show me the scientific evidence for those things...this could take awhile :Yawn:

You don't think there is scientific evidence that breathing has a naturalistic explanation? Neuroscience has shown the roots of every human emotion; none of these things are a mystery, no matter how warm and fuzzy they make you feel.

cafolini

09-29-2013, 11:01 PM

If you had read my post #42 regarding why God is not a mystery to me, you would know why I have no desire nor purpose for reading about Dawkins. There are more things to learn of "general culture" that I would consider "best use of my time".

Regarding the existence of God being a mystery:

God's existence is not a mystery to me
I see proof daily all around me
in every breath I take
in every human relationship
in every gift of love, joy, kindness
in everything I learn
every word, every smile
looking into someone's eyes and seeing their soul
i could go on and on...

Show me the scientific evidence for those things...this could take awhile :Yawn:

Of course. Unless one suffers utter stupidity it is impossible for God to be a mystery. We deal with the mystery of life. We could never resolve it and we refuse to discard it. Only God knows that. Who else? Not a single one of us or all of us together can give an answer. Hence our faith is in God. This is very obviously so.

mal4mac

09-30-2013, 03:51 AM

I think Hitchen's description of North Korea as a "religious" state when it is a state atheism is an example of attempting to excuse the bad behavior of atheists. Here's a quote: http://www.haveabit.com/hitchens/88001

The leader worship that goes on in perverted communist states like North Korea is very similar to religious worship. Judging all atheists by the actions of Kim Il-Sung is like judging all protestants by the actions of Henry VIII.

mal4mac

09-30-2013, 03:58 AM

It is fine for atheists to have whatever world views they want as long as they are tolerant of others to believe differently. I don't see that tolerance in either Hitchens or Dawkins. This is essentially a civil liberties issue.

Of course they are tolerant! How have they interfered with anyone's civil liberties? They are robust in argument, but their words have never damaged anyone's civil liberties; quite the opposite, they have always been great supporters of civil liberty. Can you produce any quotes that show them being against civil liberty?

mal4mac

09-30-2013, 04:30 AM

Regarding the existence of God being a mystery:

God's existence is not a mystery to me
I see proof daily all around me
in every breath I take...

Show me the scientific evidence for those things...

I agree with you that there is mystery in these things. Why is there breath? Why is there anything at all? Why are we conscious? I agree with you that science may not answer these most fundamental of questions. But why bring in God as an explanation of these mysteries? Today's science doesn't explain everything, perhaps science will never explain everything. But you can't explain away mystery by suggesting the answer is provided by the Old Testament God. Mystery is mystery, not God. There is no evidence for God, which is why other religions postulate Allah, Zeus, Odin, Brahma, and many other beings as the cause of everything. (Although there is no evidence for them either!) I don't see why you can't just live with the mystery, and pursue science to try and make inroads into solving some of the mysteries. Why do modern, intelligent, well read, people try and force themselves to believe in Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, whoever? Isn't it time to classify these figures as "interesting, perhaps inspiring, fictional characters", like Santa Claus and the tooth fairy?

cacian

09-30-2013, 04:33 AM

the question is would be to ask
would a believer in god become an atheist and vice versa? many atheists convert to religion but would the opposite apply?

mal4mac

09-30-2013, 04:52 AM

the question is would be to ask
would a believer in god become an atheist and vice versa? many atheists convert to religion but would the opposite apply?

Can you name any who have converted from atheism to religion? There are many who have converted the other way, e.g., Dawkins had "a normal Anglican upbringing" and was a Christian until his mid-teens years, Dawkins states: "the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature

cacian

09-30-2013, 05:05 AM

Can you name any who have converted from atheism to religion? There are many who have converted the other way, e.g., Dawkins had "a normal Anglican upbringing" and was a Christian until his mid-teens years, Dawkins states: "the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/10/religion.scienceandnature

hi malmac was not cat stevens an atheist who turned into Islam the same with Jacques Cousteau upon finding the source of sweet water in the ocean?

Melanie

09-30-2013, 08:56 AM

Can you name any who have converted from atheism to religion?
Are you kidding? Gazillions. I guess you've never watched a Billy Graham Crusade. One that comes to mind is Josh McDowell. When he was young he considered himself an agnostic. Here are two accounts of his transformation from agnostic to Christianity that only touches the surface:

"He truly believed that Christianity was worthless. However, when challenged to intellectually examine the claims of Christianity, Josh discovered compelling, overwhelming evidence for the reliability of the Christian faith. After trusting in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, Josh’s life changed dramatically as he experienced the power of God’s love."

"Eager to rail against the existence of a Savior, McDowell sought out conflict with the Christians he encountered in college. He mocked their beliefs and scorned their faith until they issued him a challenge: prove God doesn’t exist. Obsessively, McDowell traveled the world scouring sacred historical texts for evidence contradicting Christianity. What he found instead was truth — and a faith that led to grace and redeemed a broken man."

He went on to publish his story in a quick read paperback called "More Than A Carpenter" and more recently a film called "Undaunted" you can find online. Eventually, he published 2 volumes of evidence for God's existence titled "Evidence That Demands A Verdict".

Why is there breath? Why is there anything at all? Why are we conscious? I agree with you that science may not answer these most fundamental of questions. But why bring in God as an explanation of these mysteries?

Because I've experienced incredible answers to prayer that have no other explanation. And because I have read the New Testament (except Revelations...that will come in time) and found no contradictions when not taken out of context. And because I look around me and see proof everywhere. I know without a doubt.

Oedipus

09-30-2013, 09:12 AM

Why not God heal amputees? After all, he does offer "incredible answers to prayer", does he not"? Strange how he never does anything that cannot be explained as coincidence

mal4mac

09-30-2013, 11:39 AM

Are you kidding? ... One that comes to mind is Josh McDowell...

OK I was kidding a bit :) Just wanted to see what names would come up. I've no idea who Josh McDowell is! But, unlike you, I'm always open to learning about someone new. I read his Wikipedia page, and a few others, and wasn't that impressed:

"Apologetics as practiced by Josh McDowell is merely an exercise in after-the-fact rationalization of beliefs held on prior emotional grounds ... " Robert M. Price (Professor of Theology, expert in apologetics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price)

Jaqueus Cousteau impresses me more as an example. I used to watch, "The undersea World of Jacques Cousteau" as a kid. Just read his Wikipedia page -- what a man! But there is nothing there to indicate he was actively religious in any particular way. He came from a Roman Catholic family, and was buried in a Roman Catholic service. It's very common for people just to go along with the religious situation they find themselves in "on the surface", then they can concentrate on more interesting things... and he did a lot of interesting things!

cafolini

09-30-2013, 01:06 PM

I have an interesting story regarding Billy Graham, which I think I already told a long time ago in LitNet. But rather than search for it, I'll tell it again. My grandmother was a Baptist and used to take me to Sunday school. There was in Buenos Aires, in those days, a Boxing Stadium, named Luna Park, which Billy Graham used to rent for his crusade. One day my grandmother took me there, and when Billy started with his eternal pitch about "take the lord." my grandmother wanted me to do so, regardless of the fact that I was very young and hardly understood a word of it. But she started elbowing me and I decided to please her. So I stood up and took the lord, got my certificate, and we later went home, she as happy as could be.
Once home we got into a dispute. She somehow got me upset. So I pull out the certificate, tore it to pieces, let it fall on the floor and exited the house irritated.
About 10 years later I came to the United States of America. All throughout my life, I had noticed my grandmother collected my toys as I evolved and didn't play any longer with them. Years later, my grandmother passed away, and my aunt was in charge of distributing what grandma left, as per her instruction. So I inherited the box of toys. Surprise. Inside the box I also found the certificate I had gotten from Billy's assistants, put together with scotch tape on the back. At that point, I had already grasped the message. Amazing story.
God be with you.

Calidore

09-30-2013, 02:16 PM

That's a great story, cafolini.

Melanie

09-30-2013, 02:24 PM

mal4mac...why am I not surprised that an atheist would find a naysayer...only one? Naysayers abound when a man writes one of the 20th century's top 40 books and one of the 13 most influential books of the last 50 years on Christianity. The name of that book is "New Evidence That Demands a Verdict". Like your naysayer, Josh McDowell attended Talbot Theological Seminary, where he graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Master of Divinity degree. But what's more impressive is what he did with his education: http://www.josh.org/about-us/joshs-bio/

Oedipus...you asked "Why not God heal amputees?" Everyone has afflictions they suffer, some more visible than others, and for various reasons. In eternity, God will settle the score and make it right. Time here is a drop in the bucket if that. Some are natural consequences. None are caused by God. If someone prays for a healing then God may say yes, no, or wait for his perfect timing. If he says no, and allows suffering, it's for one or many of a gazillion reasons that are for the purpose of his perfect plan. It could be for the reasons of teaching, building relationships, and more. There are over 100 reasons in Biblical scripture for why God allows good people to suffer but, like I said, in eternity He will make it right. Regarding your comment about "coincidences"...that's semantics isn't it. You call it coincidences that rule out divine intervention. I call it all a part of God's perfect plan...whether it appears good or bad to us now, we will someday know why it was so perfect. There's a vast network, a vast web of a plan that God is doing...far more than our finite minds can fathom. I'm humbled by it. One word can describe what it's all about....love....brotherly love, love of God, love of yourself, love for the unlovable, love for creation, etc etc. Perfect love is waiting for us in eternity. Believe.

cafolini...yes, lovely story

mal4mac

10-01-2013, 05:17 AM

... one of the 13 most influential books of the last 50 years on Christianity. The name of that book is "New Evidence That Demands a Verdict".

Which has 22 one star reviews on Amazon, most of them written by people who seem to know what they're talking about. I think I'll give it a miss, I've read enough apologetic waffle for one lifetime. If you want to defend this book, I suggest you join the arguments there, there are some fairly interesting debates going on.

Melanie

10-01-2013, 08:24 AM

22 out of how many? A Billion? Wow, that's excellent! Those 22 are exactly the ones Josh McDowell wants to reach. Of course you would gravitate to their side since, A. You've never read the book, and B. You and they are like-minded which is closed to spiritual matters...so you've chosen to be their follower. I'd rather follow God.

mal4mac

10-01-2013, 09:11 AM

Well those 22 have read the book, and, for me, have produced very good reasons not to read it. I've just read a book devoted to spiritual exercises in Ancient Philosophy, so my mind isn't closed to spiritual matters. And you have to be very careful in using the word "spiritual"; it has multiple meanings. Looking at my concise OED, one of them is "having the higher qualities of the mind". It's very insulting to say to anyone, atheist or Christian, that they are not interested in the higher qualities of the mind.

"Spirituality can mean something that I’m very sympathetic to, which is, a sort of sense of wonder at the beauty of the universe, the complexity of life, the magnitude of space, the magnitude of geological time. All those things create a sort of frisson in the breast, which you could call spirituality. But, I would be very concerned that it shouldn’t be confused with supernaturalism." - Richard Dawkins

YesNo

10-01-2013, 09:19 AM

The leader worship that goes on in perverted communist states like North Korea is very similar to religious worship. Judging all atheists by the actions of Kim Il-Sung is like judging all protestants by the actions of Henry VIII.

What you provide is an example of an atheist excusing other atheists for bad behavior by saying, in this case, that the atheists are no longer atheists, but have turned themselves into some sort of "religion". It is more useful to use atheistic states like North Korean as evidence for what atheism can produce when it gets political power and its righteousness, unchecked by anything since it claims not to believe in anything, is unleashed.

Now, I need an example of people like Dawkins nitpicking religions. Here is a quote from Dawkins: http://ffrf.org/news/timely-topics/item/14035-time-to-stand-up

"To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.

Dawkins doesn't mind blaming Islam for 911 nor Christianity for what happens in Northern Ireland. However, you tell me I shouldn't do the same thing with atheists and North Korea. Why not?

Further in that article Dawkins says the following that I partially agree with:

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin color, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well.

As I see it, based on evidence from the 20th century, atheists are the primary ones who use the label "religion" to generate targets. This has destroyed the civil liberties and even the lives of millions of people.

It is ironical that Dawkins makes my case for me. This targeting of religion is much like targeting people with a different skin color or social class. I agree. Dawkins should stop targeting. Until he does I put his atheism on the same shelf with racism and antisemitism.

YesNo

10-01-2013, 09:33 AM

That was a very nice story, cafolini.

There is no evidence for...

This reminds me of something I learned in one of the threads on "many worlds". The phrase, "there is no evidence for", if one is honest, should be rephrased as "there is no evidence that I accept for" something.

The main reason I can't accept atheism is that the 20th century undermined any scientific foundation that atheism might have enjoyed. It has no ground to stand on given quantum physics, the big bang and evidence of near and shared death experiences.

Now if we were living in the 19th century with a belief that one day we would find an atomic structure that was materialistic and deterministic, then I would have to reconsider. But we are living in the 21st century, not the 19th century. If there is any metaphysics for which there is no evidence (certainly none that I accept), it is atheism.

cafolini

10-01-2013, 10:13 AM

cacian

10-01-2013, 10:16 AM

mal4mac

10-01-2013, 10:16 AM

What you provide is an example of an atheist excusing other atheists for bad behavior by saying, in this case, that the atheists are no longer atheists, but have turned themselves into some sort of "religion".

I'm not excusing Kim Il-Sung for anything. Like most liberals, atheist or Christian, I think that cruelty is the worst thing we can do, and no one, atheists or Christians, should be excused for being cruel.

It is more useful to use atheistic states like North Korean as evidence for what atheism can produce when it gets political power and its righteousness, unchecked by anything since it claims not to believe in anything, is unleashed.

Atheism only claims not to believe in a god.

Dawkins: http://ffrf.org/news/timely-topics/item/14035-time-to-stand-up

"To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.

Dawkins doesn't mind blaming Islam for 911 nor Christianity for what happens in Northern Ireland. However, you tell me I shouldn't do the same thing with atheists and North Korea. Why not?

9/11 and the troubles in Northern Ireland came out of conflicts directly related to the religions involved. Troubles in North Korea, and other communist states, come from the pseudo-religion involved there, i.e., communism. Communist states have killed people because of communist ideology. For instance, landowners who complained too loudly about their land being taken away from them, were killed for talking against communist principles. Dawkins himself has called the current North Korean leader "ludicrous":

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/320157043237474304

As I see it, based on evidence from the 20th century, atheists are the primary ones who use the label "religion" to generate targets. This has destroyed the civil liberties, not to speak of the lives, of millions of people.

Communists, like Stalin, certainly killed priests, but he didn't do that because he was an atheist, but because he saw priests as being opposed to communist ideology (along with many other sectors of society.) If you look at atheist leaders of liberal democracies, like Clement Attlee in the UK, then you see no sign of priests being persecuted, no sign of civil liberties of religious people being affected in any way.

This targeting of religion is much like targeting people with a different skin color or social class.

No it's not, religions have nasty doctrines like "Don't suffer a witch to live" that explicitly propagate cruelty. Think of the Salem Witch trials, and the persecutions of old women in Europe simply because they muttered a few off-colour words, or were said to have done so. Also, Dawkins doesn't promote violence against religious people, or suggest they should be treated as second class citizens. He just argues against their ideologies, and encourages them to adapt more rational & liberal attitudes.

cafolini

10-01-2013, 10:22 AM

Quote Originally Posted by mal4mac View Post
Well those 22 have read the book, and, for me, have produced very good reasons not to read it. I've just read a book devoted to spiritual exercises in Ancient Philosophy, so my mind isn't closed to spiritual matters. And you have to be very careful in using the word "spiritual"; it has multiple meanings. Looking at my concise OED, one of them is "having the higher qualities of the mind". It's very insulting to say to anyone, atheist or Christian, that they are not interested in the higher qualities of the mind.

"Spirituality can mean something that I’m very sympathetic to, which is, a sort of sense of wonder at the beauty of the universe, the complexity of life, the magnitude of space, the magnitude of geological time. All those things create a sort of frisson in the breast, which you could call spirituality. But, I would be very concerned that it shouldn’t be confused with supernaturalism." - Richard Dawkins"

Forget the universe. That's the verse of the UNI, impossible for you or anyone to reach in actuality. But to think of God as supernatural is the most appropriate way to avoid the possibility of people like you manipulating God and prescribing His behavior as if it were a natural piece of meat, which you postulate and then turn around and claim you can't find it.

EvoWarrior5

10-01-2013, 10:32 AM

Their lives are, for God, objects or completed motions in four dimensions which he envisions with utter clarity before he brings them into being, the same way his son, the carpenter, might have envisioned a table or chair before setting tools to wood. So when he brings human beings into existence, he does so with full knowledge of every word they will ever speak, every deed they will perform down to the most minute detail, every thought they will have, and every sin they will ever commit.

I found this quote interesting, but this part of the quote irks me a bit.
From my interpretation, this comparison is incorrect. If we are looking from the perspective of God being omniscient and omnipotent, and him knowing exactly what our every move and decision will be, and how we will come to look, this is a flawed comparison. A carpenter can vision a table, or a chair, but he will never know for a hundred per cent what it will come to look like. Even if he follows his plans perfectly, there will always be a scratch too many or too little which he did not picture beforehand. In that sense he can only make a general picture of it in his mind, a blueprint of the shape and properties he would ideally like it to have. He is also unable to see where it will end up, e.g. who will buy it and how it will be used, and he is most definitely not able to envision the scars it will collect over the years, and how its existence as a table or chair will end. Things which, from the perspective of God being omniscient, would all be visible to him beforehand. Whereas our creations will never truly end up the way we pictured them, God's creations will always end up the way he pictured them. Therefore, this is a comparison that to my view cannot be made, and is much more like a contrast than anything else.

mal4mac

10-01-2013, 10:35 AM

... to think of God as supernatural is the most appropriate way to avoid the possibility of people like you manipulating God and prescribing His behavior as if it were a natural piece of meat, which you postulate and then turn around and claim you can't find it.

But if God is supernatural how can he interact with nature? How can he impregnate a woman and produce a Virgin birth? If you say he didn't do that, then what did he do? If he's totally outside nature then how can he be even said to exist?

EvoWarrior5

10-01-2013, 10:38 AM

But if God is supernatural how can he interact with nature? How can he impregnate a woman and produce a Virgin birth? If you say he didn't do that, then what did he do? If he's totally outside nature then how can he be even said to exist?

That something is defined as supernatural does not have to mean that it cannot interact with the natural, though. Supernatural by definition only means that it is something that cannot be explained by science, which is exactly what God is. Unexplainable by science. The fact that he is supernatural, however, does not have to mean that he cannot interact with us, and (to some people) we cannot interact with him.

WyattGwyon

10-01-2013, 12:09 PM

I found this quote interesting, but this part of the quote irks me a bit.
From my interpretation, this comparison is incorrect. If we are looking from the perspective of God being omniscient and omnipotent, and him knowing exactly what our every move and decision will be, and how we will come to look, this is a flawed comparison. A carpenter can vision a table, or a chair, but he will never know for a hundred per cent what it will come to look like. Even if he follows his plans perfectly, there will always be a scratch too many or too little which he did not picture beforehand. In that sense he can only make a general picture of it in his mind, a blueprint of the shape and properties he would ideally like it to have. He is also unable to see where it will end up, e.g. who will buy it and how it will be used, and he is most definitely not able to envision the scars it will collect over the years, and how its existence as a table or chair will end. Things which, from the perspective of God being omniscient, would all be visible to him beforehand. Whereas our creations will never truly end up the way we pictured them, God's creations will always end up the way he pictured them. Therefore, this is a comparison that to my view cannot be made, and is much more like a contrast than anything else.

I agree. If the quotation was to be attributed to me, I would have excluded the part you point out. It is, however, the speech of a fictional character which I chose not to edit by removing that passage. (Probably should have removed it.)

EvoWarrior5

10-01-2013, 12:58 PM

I agree. If the quotation was to be attributed to me, I would have excluded the part you point out. It is, however, the speech of a fictional character which I chose not to edit by removing that passage. (Probably should have removed it.)

Nah don't worry about it. Quotes should never be edited. I failed to realise when I made my post that it was from a fictional character, in my mind I thought for a second that it was from a religious philosopher or something. Well technically the writer of the novel (?) did write it so maybe he did in fact have this view himself. Where is it from?

Also, to this thread in general, I find it interesting how on both sides, the views seem to be strong, instead of some people having a midway. One side composes of people who do not believe in God and have used arguments such as 'then why do bad things happen?' or 'why can I not hear him?' and on the other side are the strongly religious people who believe that God has a big plan which will make us realise that everything is perfect. I would also have expected to see more of an Enlightenment point of view, where some people (deists) started to believe that God was not really this omniscient being that brings good to the people who deserve it and punish those who have done bad, but instead, that he was the creator of man who no longer takes action or influences our lives. That all of our developments, growth, good things, bad things etc. do not come from him, but from our own thinking. This gives the idea of freedom a lot more, and to me, gives a lot more sense to the concept of Hell. If there is a Hell, then people who have sinned a lot would go there. Why would God let this happen, since his plan would be to get everybody an eternal life in Heaven? If God created us but man is responsible for their own sins, those who do good can live with God, but those that do bad would go to Hell. As I said earlier, this, to me, gives more meaning to the concepts of freedom and of hell.

I must say that I am not religious myself, but I liked this point of view and I am wondering if there is anybody who believes in this, rather than believing in a bigger plan or not believing in any religion.

mal4mac

10-01-2013, 01:24 PM

That something is defined as supernatural does not have to mean that it cannot interact with the natural, though. Supernatural by definition only means that it is something that cannot be explained by science, which is exactly what God is. Unexplainable by science. The fact that he is supernatural, however, does not have to mean that he cannot interact with us, and (to some people) we cannot interact with him.

We can only know God by his acts, and there is no good evidence that his supposed acts (immaculate conception, resurrection, burning bush...) ever happened. Therefore there is no good evidence that he exists, whether he is supernatural, natural, or "something else".

EvoWarrior5

10-01-2013, 01:47 PM

We can only know God by his acts, and there is no good evidence that his supposed acts (immaculate conception, resurrection, burning bush...) ever happened. Therefore there is no good evidence that he exists, whether he is supernatural, natural, or "something else".

I can agree with this, but you said that if he was supernatural that there would be no way for him to interact with us, which I defended by saying that this does not have to be true by definition. What you said earlier differs from what you say now; that instead of it not being possible, that there is no proof that it is true. This is a different case and I cannot argue about it. There is no solid evidence that he is real or that he is fiction. What I think however, is that absence of proof does not have to be proof of absence. I am open to a lot of views (which unfortunately limits my debating, especially in this case when there is no concrete evidence).

mal4mac

10-01-2013, 01:54 PM

If there is a Hell, then people who have sinned a lot would go there. Why would God let this happen, since his plan would be to get everybody an eternal life in Heaven? If God created us but man is responsible for their own sins, those who do good can live with God, but those that do bad would go to Hell.

Why would that be God's plan? Sounds more like your plan.:) Most Christian sects believe in the all powerful, Old Testament God, who condemns sinners to eternal torment in hell. Some of the "nicer" sects, like some branches of the good old Church of England, have come up with the concept of a "nicer" God. This holds that people don't go to a permanent torment in hell, they go to purgatory and work off their sins, so that eventually everyone ends up in heaven. They reckon it's still worth becoming Christian on Earth, because you avoid a very long slog through purgatory.

mal4mac

10-01-2013, 02:10 PM

I can agree with this, but you said that if he was supernatural that there would be no way for him to interact with us, which I defended by saying that this does not have to be true by definition.

I didn't say that, I asked a question, "But if God is supernatural how can he interact with nature?" I can't see how a supernatural God could interact with nature. Every time people have looked for the cause of events they have been able to find a natural cause. For instance, when looking for the cause of life they used to think there might be a supernatural "elan vital", but then scientists showed we do not need to postulate such a thing, as chemistry and biology can quite adequately explain how life comes about from generation and growth of chemical & biological structures. Lightning bolts were once though to be caused by an angry (perhaps supernatural?) God, but meteorologists found a better explanation, using basic physics & chemistry. So for all the events we see there is a physical explanation. There are only a few events (immaculate conception, resurrection...) that are holding on as possibilities for being supernatural events, but it seems like a desperate holding on, especially as Christians hold that they can only happened once, and that was 2000 years ago. Very neat... beyond any chance of all conquering science explaining them away as well. But why should we believe that these "one off" events happened? There is no good evidence for them.

absence of proof does not have to be proof of absence.

I'll accept that, along with Richard Dawkins. There can be no absolute proof of absence. But there is no proof of absence for Thor, Tooth Fairy, or Zeus. But do you believe in these things? Will you put a fallen tooth under your pillow, or raise hymns to the Gods of Mount Olympus and Valhalla, just in case, just to keep them happy. If not, why should you believe in the Christian God, and make similar genuflections to an almost-certain absence.

EvoWarrior5

10-01-2013, 02:59 PM

Why would that be God's plan? Sounds more like your plan.:) Most Christian sects believe in the all powerful, Old Testament God, who condemns sinners to eternal torment in hell. Some of the "nicer" sects, like some branches of the good old Church of England, have come up with the concept of a "nicer" God. This holds that people don't go to a permanent torment in hell, they go to purgatory and work off their sins, so that eventually everyone ends up in heaven. They reckon it's still worth becoming Christian on Earth, because you avoid a very long slog through purgatory.

Ah well, I do not know much about the "Old testament" or the New testament and such. It's not "my plan", it's what I've seen formulated here.
Yes purgatory would also work here, as man would still be responsible for their actions but end up in heaven eventually. That conforms to the idea of the Deists that there is a God but that we were born to be free and we have our own actions which he does not press influence on or even predetermines everything. As stated in earlier posts it is not what I personally believe in, but I liked the idea of it.

I didn't say that, I asked a question, "But if God is supernatural how can he interact with nature?" I can't see how a supernatural God could interact with nature.

Yes, sorry, you asked about it. I wasn't fully wrong in my assumption that you were of the view that a supernatural God could probably not interact with nature though, as you say so yourself now. What I was saying is that something supernatural is not by definition something that has no interaction with the natural world. Although I cannot provide any examples of supernatural happenings or beings interacting with us, so I have no further argumentation here.

Every time people have looked for the cause of events they have been able to find a natural cause. For instance, when looking for the cause of life they used to think there might be a supernatural "elan vital", but then scientists showed we do not need to postulate such a thing, as chemistry and biology can quite adequately explain how life comes about from generation and growth of chemical & biological structures. Lightning bolts were once though to be caused by an angry (perhaps supernatural?) God, but meteorologists found a better explanation, using basic physics & chemistry. So for all the events we see there is a physical explanation. There are only a few events (immaculate conception, resurrection...) that are holding on as possibilities for being supernatural events, but it seems like a desperate holding on, especially as Christians hold that they can only happened once, and that was 2000 years ago. Very neat... beyond any chance of all conquering science explaining them away as well. But why should we believe that these "one off" events happened? There is no good evidence for them.

I see your reasoning that we do not notice anything happening by influence of a supernatural God. What one does have to wonder though: if these events you named were truly fake (the resurrection of Jesus for example), would it not have been noticed by quite some people, even back then? Surely you cannot tell me that one person ran into a village saying that Jesus had come to life, and people just believed it with no questions asked? Either people simply believed it and the story kept being told without anybody questioning it, or something really happened and that is why people kept telling the tale.

As for why it was one off, I do not mean to be the desperate guy here who keeps defending religion against all proof, but ever since 2000 years ago there has been no Jesus on earth. He was the only one ever to be resurrected, and there is really no 'need' for God to resurrect anybody else. It is unnatural and shouldn't happen. There would be good reason why it only happened once back then (if it even happened).

I'll accept that, along with Richard Dawkins. There can be no absolute proof of absence. But there is no proof of absence for Thor, Tooth Fairy, or Zeus. But do you believe in these things? Will you put a fallen tooth under your pillow, or raise hymns to the Gods of Mount Olympus and Valhalla, just in case, just to keep them happy. If not, why should you believe in the Christian God, and make similar genuflections to an almost-certain absence.

I don't mean to use lack of proof of absence as my only excuse as to why something can be real. I think at this point I am only trying to defend something which I do not even really stand for myself, which does not work very well. I will leave the debate up to other people who have their own arguments for believing God is real. I'd appreciate it if you could answer to this post and clarify a few things!

mal4mac

10-01-2013, 04:20 PM

... if these events you named were truly fake (the resurrection of Jesus for example), would it not have been noticed by quite some people, even back then?

The gospels were written many years after the event, and were copied and copied by fallible scribes with their own religious agendas. They are just not reliable sources. Now others will argue against me, and if you want to come to an opinion on this you'll have to read a book or two. Start with Dawkins "the God Delusion" p.92 - p.97 and maybe read some of his recommendations on this particular topic.

Ecurb

10-01-2013, 05:06 PM

The gospels were written many years after the event, and were copied and copied by fallible scribes with their own religious agendas. They are just not reliable sources. Now others will argue against me, and if you want to come to an opinion on this you'll have to read a book or two. Start with Dawkins "the God Delusion" p.92 - p.97 and maybe read some of his recommendations on this particular topic.

As an atheist, I agree that the gospels are not reliable. Nonetheless, a great many ancient historians, from Herodotus to Livy, also wrote many years after the events and they had their own agendas, too. Yet I'm not quite so skeptical about their stories.

The "reliability" of stories is often influenced by the extent to which we are willing or eager to believe those stories. I have a friend here in Oregon who claims to have seen a Sasquatch. I don't buy it -- but the guy is normally reliable, reasonable, and credible. It's not the nature of the evidence that makes the story incredible, it's the nature of the story. (Well, it's the nature of the evidence, too. He says he saw it at night, peeking out at him from behind a tree, 60 or 70 yards away.)

mal4mac

10-02-2013, 04:21 AM

As an atheist, I agree that the gospels are not reliable. Nonetheless, a great many ancient historians, from Herodotus to Livy, also wrote many years after the events and they had their own agendas, too. Yet I'm not quite so skeptical about their stories.

Really? You trust Herodotus? You believe in the dog-headed men, death-dealing gods, life-saving dolphins, and public sex with goats? :) Plutarch dubbed him the 'Father of Lies', so I think one needs to careful. He's a good example that, given half a chance, historians will just make things up, or repeat any old fantasy, because 'it's a good story'. These days they tend to get into a great deal of trouble for doing such things, but in Ancient Times, they could get away with it.

Ecurb

10-02-2013, 11:55 AM

YesNo

10-02-2013, 12:39 PM

No it's not, religions have nasty doctrines like "Don't suffer a witch to live" that explicitly propagate cruelty. Think of the Salem Witch trials, and the persecutions of old women in Europe simply because they muttered a few off-colour words, or were said to have done so. Also, Dawkins doesn't promote violence against religious people, or suggest they should be treated as second class citizens. He just argues against their ideologies, and encourages them to adapt more rational & liberal attitudes.

Atheistic righteousness against religion is as bad as any specific religious righteousness against another religion. It is the righteousness that is driving the hatred.

In general, bigots don't promote violence against other people in a state that protects civil liberties because that could get them into trouble. Basically, they have no power to implement that violence. That's the way it should stay.

mal4mac

10-02-2013, 01:03 PM

I actually knew that Herodutus was called "The Father of Lies", so he wasnt a good example (he was just the only ancient historian I could remember immediately, along with Livy). My point is reasonable, though. Plutarch also wrote years after the events he described. Some events are simply more credible than others, even when the "evidence" for them is identical. If my friend had said that he saw a cougar instead of a sasquatch, I'd believe him.

Plutarch is an untrustworthy, lightweight, tendentious commentator. He wrote as an Academic in the second century CE as the movement toward making Plato as the principal authority in all philosophical matters was gaining momentum. Stoicism needed to be dethroned, and he used unfair methods in an attempt to do so. The Pyrrhonist Sextus Empiricus was far more thorough and fair-minded in his presentation of the doctrines, making him and the actual stoics much better sources for details of the Greek Stoics.

That said he can't be totally ignored. For instance, Plutarch tells us that Epicurus was famous for the maxim “live unnoticed”. This is a splendid addition to the other maxims found in the Principal Doctrines and Vatican Sayings. To “live unnoticed” means to live a completely private life, with no involvement, beyond what might be obligatory for all citizens, in the public life of one’s community, and also with no ambitions for making a mark in any other public realm—in any of the arts or professions. This fits with the maxims we have from Epicurus' own hands, and his general philosophy, so is something we can accept more readily.

I've just read "Pursuits of Wisdom" by John M. Cooper who draws out how difficult it us to get a complete picture of the Ancient Philosophies from the main sources, like Plutarch, Cicero, et. al.

Your "sasquatch vs. cougar" point is a good one, I think. I'm more likely to believe Plutarch on a common sense, everyday, observation that Epicurus suggested "live unnoticed" than any of the (differing) stories of the resurrection in the four gospels, some of which make it necessary to believe in angels and such like supernatural things, beings for which there is no more evidence than there is for sasquatch. The Christian scribes had a Christian drum to beat so I think it very likely they "talked up the story", just as Plutarch "talked down" the Stoics.

YesNo

10-02-2013, 01:03 PM

There can be no absolute proof of absence. But there is no proof of absence for Thor, Tooth Fairy, or Zeus. But do you believe in these things? Will you put a fallen tooth under your pillow, or raise hymns to the Gods of Mount Olympus and Valhalla, just in case, just to keep them happy. If not, why should you believe in the Christian God, and make similar genuflections to an almost-certain absence.

You can prove things don't exist. For example, the deterministic materialism upon which atheism rests has been shown not to exist by quantum theory in the early 20th century. Without those deterministic billiard balls, atheism is a metaphysics without a universe to justify it.

You can also prove, using the same quantum theory, that Gods who are so omniscient that they know the initial state of the universe and can predict with that everything that will happen don't exist because that initial state of the universe doesn't exist.

However, what you are trying to do with reference to Thor, the tooth fairy and Zeus, which are metaphors, is to reduce what consciousness comes up with to a Spaghetti Monster. The Spaghetti Monster is easier to critique although I prefer to skip the critique and grate Parmesan cheese on mine. Atheism at core is a lack of imagination.

mal4mac

10-02-2013, 01:37 PM

You can prove things don't exist. For example, the deterministic materialism upon which atheism rests has been shown not to exist by quantum theory in the early 20th century.

A scientific theory cannot show that something doesn't exists; a scientific theory is just a model. Reality may make a model obsolete or reveal its limitations. Who knows, a deterministic material model may make a comeback, to reject this out of hand is to show a lack of imagination. Also, I don't see how atheism requires deterministic materialism.

The Atheist

10-02-2013, 02:39 PM

Atheistic righteousness against religion is as bad as any specific religious righteousness against another religion.

So, Richard Dawkins slagging off theists is as bad as the crazy islamist sects currently waging total war against people whose beliefs are slightly different to theirs.

I never considered looking at it that way, but now you bring it up, I can see the attraction.

mona amon

10-03-2013, 12:00 AM

Atheistic righteousness against religion is as bad as any specific religious righteousness against another religion. It is the righteousness that is driving the hatred.

In general, bigots don't promote violence against other people in a state that protects civil liberties because that could get them into trouble. Basically, they have no power to implement that violence. That's the way it should stay.

I'm no atheist and I hope I don't get struck by a thunderbolt for sticking up for them, but when have you seen an atheist trying to use force to convert others to atheism, or murdering blasphemers and heretics in the belief that it will send them straight to atheist heaven in a golden chariot?

EvoWarrior5

10-03-2013, 03:39 AM

I'm no atheist and I hope I don't get struck by a thunderbolt for sticking up for them, but when have you seen an atheist trying to use force to convert others to atheism, or murdering blasphemers and heretics in the belief that it will send them straight to atheist heaven in a golden chariot?

The closest I can think of is a politician in my country, Geert Wilders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders) (an agnost), who is extremely hateful towards the islam. If you look on his Wikipedia page you'll see what I mean, he even made a film about what an evil religion it is. I once saw the film and I am very surprised that he was not actually punished when he was being prosecuted for the things he's said. I do agree with YesNo on the fact that bigots do not have the power to implement violence and that is the main reason they do not do it. I actually suspect that if he had been able to, Wilders might actually have pressed for violent measures. Even though he doesn't do it in the present state of affairs because he would never be able to do it and would just end up in prison.

Aside from that, there's the Khmer Rouge which I almost forgot about for a minute. Cannot say I am an expert on the matter but I saw them being mentioned here and after a quick search for 'religion' on their Wikipedia page it's clear to me that they executed many religious people.

mal4mac

10-03-2013, 06:00 AM

mal4mac

10-03-2013, 06:50 AM

The closest I can think of is a politician in my country, Geert Wilders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders) (an agnost)...

These agnostics are the ones we really have to worry about :)

To get serious, I do find Wilders extreme, but you can't equate being an agnostic with being a bigot. You might say, with some justification, that Wilders is a bigot, but you have to look deeper to see where his extreme views come from. Wikipedia makes clear that he is a very right wing politician, might his politics not have more to do with him being a bigot than his agnosticism?

I once saw the film and I am very surprised that he was not actually punished when he was being prosecuted for the things he's said... I actually suspect that if he had been able to, Wilders might actually have pressed for violent measures. Even though he doesn't do it in the present state of affairs because he would never be able to do it and would just end up in prison.

So he didn't press for violent measures in the film? Then why should he be prosecuted? Everyone should have freedom of speech, even right wing fascists and extreme islamists.

Aside from that, there's the Khmer Rouge which I almost forgot about for a minute. Cannot say I am an expert on the matter but I saw them being mentioned here and after a quick search for 'religion' on their Wikipedia page it's clear to me that they executed many religious people.

Yes but they were, yet again, communists. You have one group of atheists (Attlee, Russell, Dawkins) who are not mass-murders and another group of atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) who are. So is there any difference between the first and second group? Yes indeed... the second group are communists, the first group are not. So doesn't it look like communism is the problem, not atheism?

EvoWarrior5

10-03-2013, 07:32 AM

Never mind for now, unfinished post. Will finish later, class starts soon!

Calidore

10-03-2013, 09:58 AM

Yes but they were, yet again, communists. You have one group of atheists (Attlee, Russell, Dawkins) who are not mass-murders and another group of atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) who are. So is there any difference between the first and second group? Yes indeed... the second group are communists, the first group are not. So doesn't it look like communism is the problem, not atheism?

Peaceful communists would probably beg to differ. The problem is the people, not the labels they adopt.

cafolini

10-03-2013, 11:48 AM

Peaceful communists would probably beg to differ. The problem is the people, not the labels they adopt.

Of course. Labels are mandatory in order to communicate. However, we must be very careful about this. There can be many double agents playing this peaceful game. As a resident of USA, I prefer to leave this topic to the CIA.

The Atheist

10-03-2013, 02:30 PM

cafolini

10-03-2013, 03:14 PM

On the strength of that, you have just won the entire internet for best post ever.

What a comical ignoramus you are. Best post ever? I know, you saw them all. You are omniscient, eh? ROFLMAO

The Atheist

10-03-2013, 03:30 PM

What a comical ignoramus you are. Best post ever? I know, you saw them all. You are omniscient, eh? ROFLMAO

I try to make allowances for people to whom English is a second language, and I'm presuming you're one of them, as you seem to struggle with metaphors.

Perhaps you should learn more of the language and its complexity before jumping in and making a fool of yourself.

AuntShecky

10-03-2013, 03:38 PM

mona amon

10-04-2013, 12:50 AM

The Atheist, thanks!!! You've made my day. :)

mal4mac

10-04-2013, 03:12 AM

Best post ever? I know, you saw them all. You are omniscient, eh?

Look up "hyperbole" in the dictionary; it's an entirely valid trope. Mr Atheist makes good use of it here in praising Mona Amon.

mal4mac

10-04-2013, 03:43 AM

This name of this particular sub-forum is "Religious Texts" --"texts" being the operative word. Yours fooly therefore suggests that we read various texts in order to form better-informed opinions. The "source" (i.e. the New Testament) is a good place to start...

I had that crammed into my brain in school for ten years. I think most people here have probably had similar experiences. I think we can take it as given that most people have adequate experience of that text.

Other sources might include "The Will to Believe" by William James(highly recommended!) and twentieth century theologians-- Catholics such as Teilhard de Chardin and other Christian commentators, such as Karl Barth and Paul Tillich.

I've read Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Barth and Paul Tillich. You seem to be assuming that the atheists here haven't read much in the area of religion. Why do you presume that? Maybe the thread is focusing on an "Old Testament" God, but that's because people have been defending an "Old Testament" god, but if you want to bring in the kind of God put forward by writers like Tillich, then bring in the idea, don't make veiled and unsubstantiated insults about atheists not being well read. Why not assume we have read these, or similar, writers and make your point?

Then again, there is always more to read :) Why not start a thread on "The Will to Believe", if you want people to read your favourite text. I do want to know more about James' view of religion, so I'll read along. I might even read parts of the Bible, again. So why not start a thread on Job?

AuntShecky

10-04-2013, 03:22 PM

RE: response to previous reply, #104 above^
Yours fooly's comment (#101) recommends that we refer to texts. This is more than a mere "suggestion," it is actually a cardinal LitNet rule, which can be found by clicking the top thread in this forum.

That comment was not directed at any specific LitNutter, but rather was a general observation. In that reply a reference to atheists, pro or con, was neither expressed nor implied.

The New Testament, The Book of Job, and the various theologians were mentioned as examples of authors of texts in chich we could discuss.

And as far as "starting a thread of "The Will to Believe," I've already done this, way back in November of 2010! Maybe you'd like to give it a look-see:

William James Redux (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?57272-William-James-Redux-quot-The-New-Atheists-quot-v-quot-The-Will-to-Believe-quot)

mal4mac

10-05-2013, 03:10 AM

mal4mac

10-05-2013, 04:28 AM

And as far as "starting a thread of "The Will to Believe":

William James Redux (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?57272-William-James-Redux-quot-The-New-Atheists-quot-v-quot-The-Will-to-Believe-quot)

Thanks for the long summary of “The Will to Believe.” Now I no longer feel the need to read James on religion and will avoid a lot of bad philosophy. I’ll present some arguments against James here. The quotes in the following are from James.

“The Will to Believe” is “a defense of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religion matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical intellect may not have been coerced.”

How can he dismiss the logical so easily?

“If I say to you ‘Be a theosophist or be a Mohammedan,’ it is probably a dead option”.

He's certainly wrong there (unfortunately!)

James finds fault with Pascal’s wager, “. . .We feel that a faith. . .adopted wilfully after such a mechanical calculation would lack the inner soul of faith’s reality.”

What on earth is the “inner soul of faith’s reality”? If we assume it is a strong, emotional belief, why wouldn’t Pascal have this? By all reports he seemed rather passionate about his faith, however mechanical his wager.

James quotes Clifford, the British mathematician, who said: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for every one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

At last some sense :)

After quoting that, and declaring it “healthy”, James then tries to argue against it (!) Objective evidence, he declares, is “never triumphantly there,” it is a “mere aspiration. . .marking the infinitely remote ideal of our thinking life.”

So he’s denying the usefulness of evidence, which is really very silly. We take the pragmatic view that the sun will rise tomorrow, so plan for work. We don’t need total evidence, just good evidence.

Now he decides to take Pascal’s wager anyway, ”When it comes to eternal truths – the ultimate question as to whether or not God exists – we do not have the luxury of waiting around “

“We ought . . .delicately and profoundly to respect one another’s mental freedom: then only shall we bring about the intellectual republic; then only shall we have that spirit of inner tolerance without which all our outer tolerance is soulless, and which is empiricism’s glory; then only shall we live and let live, in speculative as well as well as in practical things.”

Why should I tolerate James’ bad arguments? We should, of course, respect others rights to mental freedom. But we shouldn't be so delicate as to stop all argument. If was good arguments that defeated the slave trade and other evils that came to us as the legacy of our many dark ages. Of course we should let Christians live, and let them get on with their irrational practices, just as long as they don't try to revive practices like the Spanish Inquisition or Calvinist persecution. That is, just so long as they let us live, and get on with what we are doing.

I’d always wondered why Bertrand Russell heaped scorn on James as a philosopher, when pragmatism appears to be a fine philosophy. I guess he was thinking of documents like ‘the Will to Believe”.

AuntShecky

10-05-2013, 05:21 PM

Rules are mostly made to be broken. The originator of the thread didn't specify a text, so why shouldn't we proceed to argue without quoting texts? This is a free-for-all forum not a scholastic journal.If the moderators think this thread has broken the spirit of the rules then they will soon shut it down. But why does it bother you so much? Why should we quote chapter and verse when having an argument? Obviously we are all affected by the texts we have read, why do we have to make them explicit in a thread? If you don't like the thread ignore it!

Because, as it says in the rules for the "Religious Texts" forum, there are more appropriate places on this site for the arguments such as the ones in this particular thread: "Serious Discussions," for instance. The word "texts" means texts to me, but you have a right to the contrary opinion.

YesNo

10-06-2013, 12:13 AM

Oedipus

10-06-2013, 01:06 AM

However, if an atheist wants to hold religion in general responsible for events such as 911 or events in Northern Ireland, as my earlier quote of Dawkins showed, atheists need to assume responsibility for North Korea, the Khmer Rouge, Stalinism, and Maoism to name a few. After the 20th century atheists have not only lost on the scientific front, but also on the ethical front.

False equivalence.

mona amon

10-06-2013, 03:21 AM

They don't send them to an "atheistic heaven" since atheists don't believe in that.

My point exactly. An atheist may do evil because he's an Evil Atheist and there must be just as many of those as there are evil religious people, but at least he will not do evil in the belief that God told him to do it. Also, I'm not talking about murderous psychopaths like Pol Pot or Stalin. Such wackos can spring up from any ideological or religious background. Religion and atheism are both equally powerless against pure, irrational hatred, megalomania and destructive impulses gone berserk.

mal4mac

10-06-2013, 04:40 AM

... atheists need to assume responsibility for North Korea, the Khmer Rouge, Stalinism, and Maoism to name a few.

You just keep stating that without any justification. I pointed out earlier how it is Stalinist ideology that leads to "the killing fields", but you just keep repeating "it's atheism at fault", without providing any reasoned justification. Can you explain exactly how it is atheism that is responsible for these Stalinist atrocities?

P.S. Note, I've moved from suggesting these are communist atrocities as there is some room for arguing that there might be nice communists.

mal4mac

10-06-2013, 04:45 AM

An atheist may do evil because he's an Evil Atheist and there must be just as many of those as there are evil religious people, but at least he will not do evil in the belief that God told him to do it.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

cacian

10-06-2013, 05:36 AM

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

wow a rather harsh take on what a person is. E. T would not approve.
good people do not act evil because of religion. good people is a fabricated concept made up to create a division between people. it is a title given to some to make them feel special or beside others like them. some people however do evil things because it is readily in them to do so. they just need that ticking hand and they are off on a rampage.
religion is that ticking hand besides the word GOOD needs a kicking and evil will come crushing down. There is no such a thing as GOOD what there is sensible and logical and the understanding that doing wrong to others is not characteristic to humans.
so really religion is a breeding ground for a justified killing or destroying but it is not the reason why people do what they do. people are evil because they are ignorant. ignorance is the reason why many take religion for granted.

YesNo

10-06-2013, 09:32 AM

You just keep stating that without any justification. I pointed out earlier how it is Stalinist ideology that leads to "the killing fields", but you just keep repeating "it's atheism at fault", without providing any reasoned justification. Can you explain exactly how it is atheism that is responsible for these Stalinist atrocities?

P.S. Note, I've moved from suggesting these are communist atrocities as there is some room for arguing that there might be nice communists.

The justification goes like this: If a state promotes atheism and there are atrocities, atheism is responsible for those atrocities.

Now, you need to provide justification for why someone should expect the current bunch of Dawkins-style atheists, given sufficient political power, would behave any differently than the atheists in North Korea or those in the Khmer Rouge. Listening to their self-righteous, fanatical defamation of religion in general, I can't see why they would be any different. I know they claim to be different, but I see no difference.

Here is where the "bigotry" comes in. If someone creates a we-them social ideology where they engage in haranguing the "them"-group but excuse similar behavior for the "we"-group, you have bigotry. It doesn't matter what that person is bigoted about.

YesNo

10-06-2013, 09:43 AM

My point exactly. An atheist may do evil because he's an Evil Atheist and there must be just as many of those as there are evil religious people, but at least he will not do evil in the belief that God told him to do it. Also, I'm not talking about murderous psychopaths like Pol Pot or Stalin. Such wackos can spring up from any ideological or religious background. Religion and atheism are both equally powerless against pure, irrational hatred, megalomania and destructive impulses gone berserk.

I think we agree except on one point: Doing evil on the belief that "God" told him to do it is no different than doing evil on the belief the universe or reason or whatever told him to do it.

One of the ways to get to what atheists are actually saying is to skip the "God" part and talk about the "Universe". Then we don't get caught up in the question of existence.

Just to make sure I understand your position, do the terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers in New York over a decade ago represent for you the Islamic religion or just their own wacko natures? In other words, to respond to that terrorism, is it enough to confront Al-Qaeda or was that a reason to be opposed to Islam itself?

Oedipus

10-06-2013, 09:44 AM

The justification goes like this: If a state promotes atheism and there are atrocities, atheism is responsible for those atrocities

That's nonsense though - a non sequiter. You could just as easily say that since the Soviet state supported socialist realist art, said art is responsible for the Holodomor. It ignores every single variable of a state except for one. Q.E.D.

mal4mac

10-06-2013, 10:01 AM

The justification goes like this: If a state promotes atheism and there are atrocities, atheism is responsible for those atrocities.

That's ridiculous, it's like saying, "If a state promotes gymnastics and there are atrocities, gymnastics is responsible for those atrocities."

Now, you need to provide justification for why someone should expect the current bunch of Dawkins-style atheists, given sufficient political power, would behave any differently than the atheists in North Korea... Listening to their self-righteous, fanatical defamation of religion in general, I can't see why they would be any different. I know they claim to be different, but I see no difference.

What's a Dawkins-style atheist? Atheists are found right across the political spectrum. I don't know what Dawkins' political views are exactly, he shows little inclination to pursue political power. He tends to argue against conservatives like Bush, and praise liberals like Obama, so I think he's fairly close to Obama in general (without the religious streak of course!)

YesNo

10-06-2013, 10:47 AM

What's a Dawkins-style atheist? Atheists are found right across the political spectrum. I don't know what Dawkins' political views are exactly, he shows little inclination to pursue political power. He tends to argue against conservatives like Bush, and praise liberals like Obama, so I think he's fairly close to Obama in general (without the religious streak of course!)

The defamatory rhetoric atheists use against religion generates self-righteousness. It sets up an us-them, good guy-bad guy dichotomy. We have seen atheists do this before. The consequences are visible in North Korea and the Khmer Rouge. It doesn't matter what the underlying politics were in the past. All that matters is the power of this self-righteousness.

Now I would like to hear a justification that the current atheistic self-righteousness and defamation of religion is any better than what fueled atrocities in the past.

Oedipus

10-06-2013, 10:57 AM

The defamatory rhetoric atheists use against religion generates self-righteousness. It sets up an us-them, good guy-bad guy dichotomy. We have seen atheists do this before. The consequences are visible in North Korea and the Khmer Rouge. It doesn't matter what the underlying politics were in the past. All that matters is the power of this self-righteousness.

Now I would like to hear a justification that the current atheistic self-righteousness and defamation of religion is any better than what fueled atrocities in the past.

Provide examples of this "defamation"

Oedipus

10-06-2013, 10:59 AM

Also, has the thought struck you, that perhaps you are simply projecting your own fear and dislike of atheism, your intolerance, onto atheists?

mal4mac

10-06-2013, 12:33 PM

Now I would like to hear a justification that the current atheistic self-righteousness and defamation of religion is any better than what fueled atrocities in the past.

Dawkins hasn't killed anyone.

mona amon

10-07-2013, 05:28 AM

Just to make sure I understand your position, do the terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers in New York over a decade ago represent for you the Islamic religion or just their own wacko natures? In other words, to respond to that terrorism, is it enough to confront Al-Qaeda or was that a reason to be opposed to Islam itself?

Definitely not Islam's fault, but I'd call the terrorists misguided and brainwashed rather than whacko. The atheist has no 'word of God' to misinterpret, no religious teachers to be misguided by.

cacian

10-07-2013, 09:58 AM

Dawkins hasn't killed anyone.

and neither has god. :) people have.

YesNo

10-07-2013, 10:18 AM

Definitely not Islam's fault, but I'd call the terrorists misguided and brainwashed rather than whacko. The atheist has no 'word of God' to misinterpret, no religious teachers to be misguided by.

I agree that it is not Islam's fault either. However, I don't think that is Dawkin's view. He would blame Islam. Here's a quote from him I referenced to earlier: http://ffrf.org/news/timely-topics/item/14035-time-to-stand-up

"To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.
In the interests of fairness, Dawkins, and atheists who agree with him, should be held to the same standards they impose on other religious groups.

As far as atheists having no "word of God", they do have a literature and Dawkins has contributed to it. They do use metaphors, such as Dawkin's own "selfish gene" and they have myths such as the belief that chance can generate change.

I know atheists claim they are not a religion, but I seriously doubt that. I will admit that their religion does not contain any god metaphor, but one can then focus on the "universe" to examine their belief system. They certainly believe the universe exists.

I also know they claim to be scientific, but after 20th century science falsified materialistic determinism through quantum physics, they lost any scientific justification they might have had. This only confirms their status as a religion.

Melanie

10-07-2013, 10:30 AM

Excellent post, YesNo! I'm beginning to think that atheists, unknowingly, look at Dawkins as their God because they follow his book just as Christians follow the Bible or Muslims follow the Koran, etc. What's the difference when describing religion? Some atheists here seem to idolize Dawkins.

SentimentalSlop

10-07-2013, 10:58 AM

I would argue that there are very few genuine atheists in the world. Most of them are pagans. They tend to always worship something, whether it be sex, science, tv, music, animals, etc.

The Atheist

10-07-2013, 05:40 PM

I'm beginning to think that atheists, unknowingly, look at Dawkins as their God because they follow his book just as Christians follow the Bible or Muslims follow the Koran, etc.

Complete nonsense.

First off, how does one "follow" Dawkins' books? He does not give any life instructions, he does not prescribe morality and he most assuredly does not say what is right and wrong.

You are making the identical error to a person who would claim that Clive Cussler is the same as Shakespeare because they both write in English.

When Dawkins writes a bible and people start following the instructions in it will be the day you can make your comment.

What's the difference when describing religion? Some atheists here seem to idolize Dawkins.

And you obviously accept the error of your own words, because you've already retreated to "some atheists".

I would say that hardline Dawkins idolisers make up well under 1% of all atheists. There are definitely a very few people who see Dawkins as some kind of messianic character, but extrapolating anything about atheism or atheists because of that is making the identical error you're complaining he's made regarding islam.

I would argue that there are very few genuine atheists in the world. Most of them are pagans. They tend to always worship something, whether it be sex, science, tv, music, animals, etc.

A nonsensical generalisation supported solely by a personal view.

SentimentalSlop

10-07-2013, 06:20 PM

^How is it a nonsensical generalization? I am not personally attacking you, by the way. I know nothing about you. But please, elaborate.

The Atheist

10-07-2013, 06:41 PM

I would have thought it was patently obvious, but here it is again:

I would argue that there are very few genuine atheists in the world. Most of them are pagans. They tend to always worship something, whether it be sex, science, tv, music, animals, etc.

You say that atheists "always worship something" and give some examples of what you think.

You offer no evidence beyond your own opinion. Then, if you look at it carefully, it is obvious how nonsensical that statement is. Who "worships" television? Does liking TV programs mean one is worshipping it? How does one worship television? The concept is idiotic, yet you apply it to atheists, while clearly knowing absolutely nothing about what you've gone and typed.

You also suggest atheists worship animals. In what way? Which animals? Give an example of one atheist anywhere who worships animals. Do veterinarians worship animals?

Music, ditto - how does one worship music? Did Beethoven & Mozart worship music? (not that they were atheists as far as I'm aware)

Sex? Sex is the best thing in the universe, but I certainly don't worship it, and as far as I can tell, many atheists tend to do without it, because lots of them are geeks with no interpersonal skills. They might worship it if they ever got any, but I doubt it.

Even science. I don't know of a single atheist who worships science, and lots of atheists are distinctly anti-science. I'm sure a majority of atheists do accept science as a means of explaining the mysteries of life & the universe, but I'd like you to expand on how they worship a subject or concept.

SentimentalSlop

10-07-2013, 06:51 PM

When I say worship, I don't mean nominal atheists go about on their knees and bow before their televisions or pets. What I mean is that most so-called atheists, unbeknownst to them, look for an outlet to complete them. They go after sex, television shows, science, among other things, to fill a void in their lives they cannot explain. Instead of turning to religion, they turn to the material world. Most, not all.

mal4mac

10-10-2013, 01:27 PM

... most so-called atheists, unbeknownst to them, look for an outlet to complete them. They go after sex, television shows, science, among other things, to fill a void in their lives they cannot explain. Instead of turning to religion, they turn to the material world. Most, not all.

I don't think this idea of "something to complete one" is useful. We are products of evolution, not jigsaw puzzles. There is nothing to complete! Ditto for "void in our lives", I can't see that as a useful concept. We are curious creatures who get bored easily, so all of us (atheists or Christians!) look for activities that are interesting. These include sex, television shows, science, and arts.

cafolini

10-10-2013, 04:30 PM

I don't think this idea of "something to complete one" is useful. We are products of evolution, not jigsaw puzzles. There is nothing to complete! Ditto for "void in our lives", I can't see that as a useful concept. We are curious creatures who get bored easily, so all of us (atheists or Christians!) look for activities that are interesting. These include sex, television shows, science, and arts.

Indeed. If you didn't, read Michel Serres on the subject.

SentimentalSlop

10-10-2013, 05:04 PM

I am sure you can ask any atheist if they've ever felt "incomplete," and I bet almost all of them would say yes to at least one point in their lives. Who hasn't felt that way? Whether you call it incompleteness or a void, it's natural to feel this way and seek out things to fill it. People put their faith into all sorts of material things all the time. I see it everyday, even with those very close to me.

And it's not merely being interested in something that makes people deify material things--it's the obsessiveness of it. Take someone's tv or internet away from them and they'll flip out, or turn off their football game and they'll raise hell. People have all sorts of things that they'll lose their mind over if it's taken away from them. They look to something material to fill their lives. Without whatever that thing is, they feel threatened.

Melanie

10-10-2013, 09:30 PM

"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." ~Matthew 6:21

SentimentalSlop is correct that every person has a void deep within. It's the innate longing of the human heart for something outside itself, something transcendent. No one can disagree with that. Ecclesiastes 3:11 refers to God's placing of "eternity in man’s heart." Believers feel God made humanity for His eternal purpose, and only God can fulfill our desire for eternity. Without that fulfillment from God, man attempts to fill it with things other than God. “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” Jeremiah 17:9. Solomon said, “The hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live…” (Ecclesiastes 9:3). Romans 8:7 says, “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so”.

Romans 1:18-22 describes man ignoring what can be known about God and instead worshipping anything and everything other than God...TV, electronic gadgets, sports, hedonism, etc. That part of humanity will never be fully satisfied. They'll find a measure of happiness for a time but Soloman, who had all the riches, success, and power in the world, claimed that it was all in vain and concluded that we should all respect God and keep his commandments "for this is the whole of man" (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

tailor STATELY

10-10-2013, 10:50 PM

A latter-day scripture from http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/7?lang=eng I came across today:

Moroni 7:16,17

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

Delta40

10-11-2013, 01:13 AM

There is no evidence to suggest that atheists are more likely to suffer from depression than believers. What baffles me is why my rejection of a belief in god means the quality or meaning of my life is somehow incomplete or unsettling to you. I'm not impinging on your right to believe yet you need to diminish who I am simply because I happen to disagree with you.

If I tell you I don't like chocolate and you do why would you insist that I really do but I just can't accept it? I'm not disputing your belief.

Melanie

10-11-2013, 04:56 PM

...What baffles me is why my rejection of a belief in god means the quality or meaning of my life is somehow incomplete...
It's not just you, every person has a void deep within. It's the innate longing of the human heart for something outside itself, something transcendent. No one can disagree with that. Without that fulfillment from God, man attempts to fill it with things other than God. Romans 1:18-22 describes man ignoring what can be known about God and instead worshipping anything and everything other than God...TV, electronic gadgets, sports, hedonism, etc. That part of them will never be fully satisfied. They'll find a measure of happiness for a time but, like Soloman, who had all the riches, success, and power in the world, claimed that it was all in vain.

Delta40

10-11-2013, 08:42 PM

That's your belief speaking. If you were born elsewhere you would reject Christianity and adopt the predominant religion you were born into and hold different beliefs. I might as well argue aussie rules is the real football making all other sports redundant.

Not everyone is like you. Accept diversity and take responsibility.

SentimentalSlop

10-11-2013, 09:38 PM

That's not always true. People convert to different religions everyday.

Delta40

10-11-2013, 09:46 PM

All part of diversity and more reason for tolerance of others.

SentimentalSlop

10-11-2013, 10:05 PM

It's one thing to tolerate others, but not all beliefs should be tolerated.

Delta40

10-11-2013, 11:48 PM

Lol oh I agree. Especially protesting religious zealots who spread hatred and show no compassion for those outside their circle. Love thy neighbor? What a joke.

SentimentalSlop

10-12-2013, 12:15 AM

There are hypocrites everywhere.

cacian

10-12-2013, 05:19 AM

That's not always true. People convert to different religions everyday.

I guess many people leave it too fed up there is nothing to it then just a lot of hot air.

mal4mac

10-12-2013, 05:42 AM

It's not just you, every person has a void deep within.

How do you know this? Do you have omnipotent telepathic powers to see into the souls of everyone?

It's the innate longing of the human heart for something outside itself, something transcendent. No one can disagree with that.

Why not?! Many men seem to have an inate longing to hear the result of the next football match, and seem to have no longing for anything transcendent.

They'll find a measure of happiness for a time but, like Soloman, who had all the riches, success, and power in the world, claimed that it was all in vain.

I've known lifelong supporters of football clubs, who died never saying that their support was in vain. I've had lifelong interest in reading and have never found this to be in vain (certain reading yes, the Bible springs to mind! Fortunately there's lots of other stuff to read and re-read.)

mal4mac

10-12-2013, 05:55 AM

I think you have to be careful about not showing toleration to protesting religious zealots. Do they really spread hatred? In me they engender a feeling of curiosity. How can people believe such things? I also argue against them if I get the chance. If they show "show no compassion for those outside their circle" then this fact should be pointed out, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't tolerate them. Everyone has a right to free speech and to demonstrate. I've been on anti-fascist demonstrations, and the like, and wouldn't like my right to do this curtailed. It's a useful feature of a free society, a very good way to stress the importance of your feelings to yourself and others, and a good way to blow of stream. In a similar manner I think people should be allowed to go on anti-abortion demonstrations, even though I am very pro "the right to choose", and am likely to go on a counter demonstration. But anti-abortionists shouldn't be allowed to kill abortion doctors or browbeat young women outside clinics - that kind of direct 'violence against the person' should not be tolerated.

Melanie

10-12-2013, 06:02 AM

(in response to "everyone has a deep void within") How do you know this? Do you have omnipotent telepathic powers to see into the souls of everyone?

No, just common sense. Admit it, you've felt an emptiness you wanted filled from time to time. Some fill it with material things, some with self pleasures...but the only thing that will satisfy that void is love and there's no greater love than God's love.

...Many men seem to have an inate longing to hear the result of the next football match, and seem to have no longing for anything transcendent.

That's a man for you :)

I've known lifelong supporters of football clubs, who died never saying that their support was in vain. I've had lifelong interest in reading and have never found this to be in vain (certain reading yes, the Bible springs to mind! Fortunately there's lots of other stuff to read and re-read.)

When Solomon said he found riches and power to be in vain, he was comparing it to eternal life. You've never seen a hearse carrying a u-haul. You were born with nothing and you'll leave with nothing. And all that power?...same thing. We'll all be equal when we step over that line (in terms of riches and power).

mal4mac

10-12-2013, 08:01 AM

No, just common sense. Admit it, you've felt an emptiness you wanted filled from time to time. Some fill it with material things, some with self pleasures...but the only thing that will satisfy that void is love and there's no greater love than God's love.

Maybe a slight hunger to do something different, but not a feeling of a "deep void" inside. I think you can satisfy that hunger with all kinds of projects, like reading novels, doing science, watching "breaking bad", golf, etc., etc. Trying to force myself to belive in a sky god, and attending church with a boring preacher, doesn't appeal to me as a project.

You were born with nothing and you'll leave with nothing. And all that power?...same thing. We'll all be equal when we step over that line.

True, so building up wealth is just silly, but reading novels isn't.

Melanie

10-12-2013, 09:35 AM

All those things are good....but go deeper

cafolini

10-12-2013, 11:13 AM

We'll all be on a surface no matter where we go. That's complete and good enough.

Melanie

10-12-2013, 02:45 PM

We'll all be on a surface no matter where we go. That's complete and good enough.
Unless you factor in the lake of fire in Revelations:21:8 (Rev 19:20, Matthew 25:41, Matthew 10:6-15, Romans 2:5-16, etc)
Sorry, I'm just the messenger...don't shoot the messenger

The Atheist

10-12-2013, 02:52 PM

That's not always true. People convert to different religions everyday.

If you want to play numbers, you are going to lose by an order of magnitude.

There is evidence everywhere of the enormous decline in religious faith in every part of the world where relative freedom of thought exists. A few, fundamentals are growing, but every other religious organisation is seeing a massive decline as the last remaining generation of fully religious people die out.

Your move.

The Atheist

10-12-2013, 03:09 PM

No, just common sense. Admit it, you've felt an emptiness you wanted filled from time to time. Some fill it with material things, some with self pleasures...but the only thing that will satisfy that void is love and there's no greater love than God's love.

Yeah, I get that!

I have a yawning, empty feeling in my ..... let's call it my stomach! That's it. I have a yawning, empty feeling in my stomach.

So I will eat something. What shall I eat? Those delicious-looking red berries seem to be plump and ripe and look exactly like tomatoes. And I love tomatoes!

Thankfully, my life's guardians - parents and teachers - have taught me along the way that those things are actually deadly poisonous berries called deadly nightshade, or belladonna. Allegedly sweet in taste, six will kill you.

The "spiritual" or seeker part of children's mind is filled with Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, as it used to be filled with witches & hobgoblins.

And god/s.

The yearn for answers is nothing new, and it's why we have the dual burdens of religion and philosophy.

We'll all be equal when we step over that line.

Utterly right.

Which is it's really important not to waste huge swathes of the only life we'll have in pursuit of an unrealistic utopia or heaven.

Melanie

10-12-2013, 03:39 PM

Utterly right.
Which is it's really important not to waste huge swathes of the only life we'll have in pursuit of an unrealistic utopia or heaven.
If it's your only life, as you say, then I agree, don't waste it, party on, because it will soon be over and it will all be meaningless. But if it's earthly life plus eternal life then it's immeasurably worthwhile.

SentimentalSlop

10-12-2013, 07:17 PM

If you want to play numbers, you are going to lose by an order of magnitude.

There is evidence everywhere of the enormous decline in religious faith in every part of the world where relative freedom of thought exists. A few, fundamentals are growing, but every other religious organisation is seeing a massive decline as the last remaining generation of fully religious people die out.

Your move.

I'm not saying people are becoming more religious. All I'm simply saying is that people everyday convert from one religion to another. That's all. But yes, religion for the most part is something that is being tossed on the back-burner.

But having become serious in my faith just this past year or so, I have never been more free. Being taught by Christ to keep my childlike wonder, I have learned so much. I cannot thank him enough. He is the love of my life.

mal4mac

10-14-2013, 11:41 AM

If it's your only life, as you say, then I agree, don't waste it, party on, because it will soon be over and it will all be meaningless.

I find meaning in things I do everyday, in the moment, why do you think that would "all be meaningless"? Think of a game of tennis, when it's over nothing has been produced, does that make it meaningless? No - the meaning is in the doing - same with life.

But if it's earthly life plus eternal life then it's immeasurably worthwhile.

Yes, but there is no evidence that eternal life actually exists. In any case, isn't "today" of immeasurable worth? Seize the day!

Melanie

10-14-2013, 01:54 PM

I said, when it's over it will be meaningless without eternal life....key word is "over"

SentimentalSlop

10-14-2013, 02:30 PM

mal4mac

10-14-2013, 03:15 PM

Not to mention without eternal life there is no real justice. It's all arbitrary without immortality. People get away with stuff all the time. What's stopping them if they know they can get away with something?

People also get caught very often. If you are earning enough to live, why would anyone rational commit a crime? There is always the fear of getting caught, even if you don't actually get caught.

Also, the crime rate has always been high amongst people who "say" they believe in God. If the threat of eternal damnation had ever been a real threat how come there has always been crime throughout the most Christian periods of history?

What's stopping them if there is no absolute right and wrong?

Habits of decency. The threat of jail time. Social disapprobation. Threat of loved ones disowning you. Squeamishness...

There are many reasons to do the right thing, and many reasons not to do the wrong thing. You don't need to bring threat of eternal damnation into it.

Melanie

10-14-2013, 03:25 PM

Eternal damnation is not a threat. It's a choice.

SentimentalSlop

10-14-2013, 05:37 PM

People also get caught very often. If you are earning enough to live, why would anyone rational commit a crime? There is always the fear of getting caught, even if you don't actually get caught.

Also, the crime rate has always been high amongst people who "say" they believe in God. If the threat of eternal damnation had ever been a real threat how come there has always been crime throughout the most Christian periods of history?

Habits of decency. The threat of jail time. Social disapprobation. Threat of loved ones disowning you. Squeamishness...

There are many reasons to do the right thing, and many reasons not to do the wrong thing. You don't need to bring threat of eternal damnation into it.

If there is no God, then there is no right and wrong. Right and wrong would be reduced to how many more people support a certain stance on an issue compared to the support of another angle. Might makes right, basically. Do you really believe might makes right? People's views change throughout history--they support one thing and reject another, adopt this doctrine and throw out the one they've known for years, become more open-minded here and more closed-minded there, etc. Is right and wrong really so petty that it is influenced by the phases of the moon? Is there no rational absolute? Is it based only on law, emotion, and social niceties? What if one can get beyond all that and do what he wants? What if he can commit a horrible act and be sure he can get away with it? Why should he not do it? What is stopping him if law and conscience are not? What justice is there for those who get away with murder, rape, and genocide?

And what about those sick people who kill their family and then suicide? If life ends when the body dies, and there is nothing left to face, why does any of it matter? Why should they care how it will affect those still living--family and friends? They won't even be around to think about anything anymore. When they die, so does everybody else. I think that is a very dangerous philosophy.

And, by the way, what is right and wrong to you? I can guarantee that we have very different stances on various issues. Is there such a thing to you? Or is it all just, "I personally believe this is wrong, but that's just me." There can be no other way if you don't believe in immortality. There can only be right and wrong if there is a being who has authority over us mortals. That's the only way.

Eman Resu

10-14-2013, 06:02 PM

If there is no God, then there is no right and wrong. Right and wrong would be reduced to how many more people support a certain stance on an issue compared to the support of another angle.

That would mean that philosophical rationalism - "having a conscience" - would be impossible without the belief in a singular omniscient deity - a concept with which roughly half a billion Buddhists might take issue.

SentimentalSlop

10-14-2013, 08:30 PM

Why does that matter? I'm just talking about ideas. Why should I care if I offend a Buddhist, or anyone else? People offend me all the time. They have every right to offend me, as I have the right to offend them with my ideas.

But what good is a conscience if there is no higher being to guide it? Is the truth in ourselves? A lot of people think that, and they still have all sorts of different ideas about right and wrong.

mal4mac

10-15-2013, 04:06 AM

If there is no God, then there is no right and wrong.

Of course there is. If a religious zealot beats me up for expressing an atheist view, then they are wrong, in my opinion. As I live in a civilised society, the forces of law would probably agree with me, and the religious zealot would get locked up. There is no absolute right or wrong, but that doesn't stop people & societies from defining right and wrong, and acting on those definitions.

Right and wrong would be reduced to how many more people support a certain stance on an issue compared to the support of another angle. Might makes right, basically.

But individuals in a democracy are not mighty, so they tend to agree that beating people up, because of their views, should be outlawed, or they themselves might got beaten up. In a democracy, an agreement to treat each other decently "makes right", and this doesn't need religious fanaticism to back it up.

People's views change throughout history--they support one thing and reject another, adopt this doctrine and throw out the one they've known for years, become more open-minded here and more closed-minded there, etc.

There has been some progress. People have slowly, and painfully, learned how to treat people better. Slavery ends, child labour is halted, women get the vote, atheists are allowed to attend Cambridge and are not thrown out for writing atheist pamphlets (as happened to Shelley...)

Is right and wrong ... based only on law, emotion, and social niceties?

Law and emotion can be powerful, and habits of virtuous behaviour can be built up from childhood, even in atheists :). I feel no inclination to perform murder, rape, or genocide (!)

What if one can get beyond all that and do what he wants? What if he can commit a horrible act and be sure he can get away with it? Why should he not do it? What is stopping him if law and conscience are not?

Atheists have a conscience! It's this kind of argument, put forward by moderate Christians, that leads to atheists being persecuted. Christian extremists take the argument and say, "I agree, he doesn't have a conscience, burn him!"

What justice is there for those who get away with murder, rape, and genocide?

How can he be certain of getting beyond law? Look at all the tyrants who have fallen recently, even running a country doesn't let you off scot free. Think of Sadam, even when he was running Iraq he was always in fear of his life. If you treat people badly you must fear being badly treated yourself. That said, some people might get away with external justice being imposed on them, so we must continually defend justice. If a tyrant dies comfortably in his bed it's an incentive for us to try better at dethroning tyrants, and not retreat into fanatical religious quetism by trying to instill the belief, "he'll get his in hell", when there is no evidence that this will happen.

mal4mac

10-15-2013, 04:17 AM

But what good is a conscience if there is no higher being to guide it?

If you are are a German civilian facing the allied march on Germany in WWII and encounter a badge-wearing, atheist, British trooper with a gun, would you think (i) "He's wearing an atheist badge, there's no hope" or (ii) "I hope he has a conscience". I'm betting you would think (ii), because you would think having a conscience is a good thing, even if it's an atheist conscience.

WyattGwyon

10-15-2013, 12:47 PM

There can only be right and wrong if there is a being who has authority over us mortals. That's the only way.

This moral philosophy is grievously defective and dangerous. Behaving according to a rational ethical system is naturally rewarding to many among the religious and non-believers alike. One does so because it feels good, allows one to respect oneself, and makes life better for oneself and others. It is the basis of any high functioning society. It is something that should be expected of every adult human being. Those who need the threat of violence from a supernatural being to keep themselves in line exhibit the moral development of children. Dogs can learn the code of morality you espouse if one is willing to beat them enough. Human beings should aim higher.

SentimentalSlop

10-15-2013, 05:09 PM

Of course there is. If a religious zealot beats me up for expressing an atheist view, then they are wrong, in my opinion. As I live in a civilised society, the forces of law would probably agree with me, and the religious zealot would get locked up. There is no absolute right or wrong, but that doesn't stop people & societies from defining right and wrong, and acting on those definitions.

But individuals in a democracy are not mighty, so they tend to agree that beating people up, because of their views, should be outlawed, or they themselves might got beaten up. In a democracy, an agreement to treat each other decently "makes right", and this doesn't need religious fanaticism to back it up.

There has been some progress. People have slowly, and painfully, learned how to treat people better. Slavery ends, child labour is halted, women get the vote, atheists are allowed to attend Cambridge and are not thrown out for writing atheist pamphlets (as happened to Shelley...)

Law and emotion can be powerful, and habits of virtuous behaviour can be built up from childhood, even in atheists :). I feel no inclination to perform murder, rape, or genocide (!)

Atheists have a conscience! It's this kind of argument, put forward by moderate Christians, that leads to atheists being persecuted. Christian extremists take the argument and say, "I agree, he doesn't have a conscience, burn him!"

How can he be certain of getting beyond law? Look at all the tyrants who have fallen recently, even running a country doesn't let you off scot free. Think of Sadam, even when he was running Iraq he was always in fear of his life. If you treat people badly you must fear being badly treated yourself. That said, some people might get away with external justice being imposed on them, so we must continually defend justice. If a tyrant dies comfortably in his bed it's an incentive for us to try better at dethroning tyrants, and not retreat into fanatical religious quetism by trying to instill the belief, "he'll get his in hell", when there is no evidence that this will happen.

1) If there is no absolute right and wrong, then there is no right and wrong. It's made up. And notice how you say, "in my opinion." What if the religious zealot says "Well, in my opinion, I'm right"? What are you going to say to him or her? I'm not condoning religious zealots harassing atheists, by any means. It's pointless and barbaric.

2) Once again, might makes right. That doesn't make it right. Lots of countries have different views about what's right and wrong. Who's right?

3) Slavery still goes on, by the way. And where you think that Christians had no part in this progress is beyond me. Look at reverend MLK.

4) I believe everyone has a conscience. Where did I ever say that they don't? All I'm saying is if someone doesn't believe in immortality (God), then their conscience doesn't mean much. It's reduced to being a product of your upbringing, environment, and DNA. It's not worth much then if it's formulated by such petty things.

5) People get beyond the law everyday. Many people commit heinous crimes and die comfortably in their beds having never gone to prison.

SentimentalSlop

10-15-2013, 05:15 PM

If you are are a German civilian facing the allied march on Germany in WWII and encounter a badge-wearing, atheist, British trooper with a gun, would you think (i) "He's wearing an atheist badge, there's no hope" or (ii) "I hope he has a conscience". I'm betting you would think (ii), because you would think having a conscience is a good thing, even if it's an atheist conscience.

How am I supposed to know what I'd think in such a situation if have never experienced it? But, yes, I would probably think the latter, sort of.I don't believe there is such a thing as an "atheist" conscience, whatever that means. You seem to think that I believe atheists are morally-depraved animals. Many atheists are very humane and kind people. I love atheists, too. My sister is a self-proclaimed atheist. I love her with all my heart. Why would you think I would look at an atheist as some second-class citizen?

SentimentalSlop

10-15-2013, 05:32 PM

This moral philosophy is grievously defective and dangerous. Behaving according to a rational ethical system is naturally rewarding to many among the religious and non-believers alike. One does so because it feels good, allows one to respect oneself, and makes life better for oneself and others. It is the basis of any high functioning society. It is something that should be expected of every adult human being. Those who need the threat of violence from a supernatural being to keep themselves in line exhibit the moral development of children. Dogs can learn the code of morality you espouse if one is willing to beat them enough. Human beings should aim higher.

Is that the only reason why someone should do something "ethical" because it's rewarding and makes them feel good? Some people out there don't feel very good when helping an individual or contributing to society. What are you going to tell them to convince them otherwise? What logical reason are you going to give them as to why they're wrong? Some people like raping, murdering, lying, and doing various other horrible things. The only reason you can give that person is "It's just the nice thing to do." That's not a reason. If someone can be an *** and then be dead for eternity, then why are they obligated to be kind, selfless, and forgiving? Why shouldn't they just live the life they want, no matter how virtuous or heinous it might be?

And believe it or not, there is a lot that we can learn from little children. You don't give them enough credit.

mal4mac

10-16-2013, 04:21 AM

3) Slavery still goes on, by the way. And where you think that Christians had no part in this progress is beyond me. Look at reverend MLK.

I know slavery still goes on, and where do I say Christians had no part in progress? (Of course, only some Christians pushed for progress, and only in some aspects, and progress was very slow, and held up by Christians in general.) Until recent times, in much of Europe and the USA you had to be a Christian, or pretend to be, to be part of anything. For instance, you couldn't be an atheist student at Cambridge, in the early 19th century, as Shelley found out.

4) I believe everyone has a conscience. Where did I ever say that they don't? All I'm saying is if someone doesn't believe in immortality (God), then their conscience doesn't mean much. It's reduced to being a product of your upbringing, environment, and DNA. It's not worth much then if it's formulated by such petty things.

A conscience doesn't mean much if its based on the fictional orders on a non-existent sky daddy.

mal4mac

10-16-2013, 04:26 AM

You seem to think that I believe atheists are morally-depraved animals. Many atheists are very humane and kind people. I love atheists, too. My sister is a self-proclaimed atheist. I love her with all my heart. Why would you think I would look at an atheist as some second-class citizen?

Because you say things like: "if someone doesn't believe in immortality (God), then their conscience doesn't mean much."

mal4mac

10-16-2013, 04:38 AM

Is that the only reason why someone should do something "ethical" because it's rewarding and makes them feel good? Some people out there don't feel very good when helping an individual or contributing to society. What are you going to tell them to convince them otherwise?

It's rational to act ethically, and most people have the ability to use rationality. But you don't need to convince the hard core of irrational sociopaths, just pay them well to do a job that leads to good outcomes for everyone. And make sure you have a sufficiently punitive prison system to keep their minds on what will happen if they act out. Christianity didn't work any better than our current system at keeping sociopaths on the straight and narrow, just look at all the crime in earlier times when Christianity was the dominant ideology!

Delta40

10-16-2013, 09:10 AM

Lol there must have been a reason why so many people were burned at the stake...not to mention being hung drawn and quartered.

SentimentalSlop

10-16-2013, 12:54 PM

@Mal4mac But it doesn't mean much. They might act according to their own morale, but that doesn't mean their conscience is any better than someone else's, or makes their conscience right. Everyone's conscience is different. Not all beliefs are the same, I'm sorry.

And that's pretty ballsy of you to say that God is a fictional, non-existent being. How do you know that? Are you God? How do you have so much knowledge to know that he doesn't exist? It's one thing entirely to say you don't believe in God, and another thing to say he doesn't exist. Keep that in mind.

@Delta40

Yeah, it sucks that people were persecuted and killed for not being Christians, but I hope you do know that Christ never taught that and that such monstrosity is completely contradictory to Christianity. And please don't begin to pull out OT Bible verses like most people end up doing. It's utterly embarrassing and easy to refute.

mal4mac

10-17-2013, 05:45 AM

And that's pretty ballsy of you to say that God is a fictional, non-existent being. How do you know that? Are you God? How do you have so much knowledge to know that he doesn't exist? It's one thing entirely to say you don't believe in God, and another thing to say he doesn't exist. Keep that in mind.

Would you consider it "ballsy" to deny the existence of the tooth fairy? Actually, I don't know anything "for sure". But the existence of Yahweh, for me, is about as likely as the existence of Zeus or the tooth fairy, or the actual existence of truly fictional character like Alice in Wonderland or Bugs Bunny. In these cases, I think it's a fair enough to say these are all fictional, non-existent characters; that's what I believe!

Yeah, it sucks that people were persecuted and killed for not being Christians, but I hope you do know that Christ never taught that...

What about the recent persecution of atheist students at the LSE Fresher's Fair? Would Christ have kicked them out for wearing a Jesus & Mo t-shirt? My guess is he might have, he has a track record of persecuting people by kicking them out of buildings, i.e., the money changers in the temple. Who's he to say how a building should be used? What a thug! Money changers are useful people, try going to France without using them.

SentimentalSlop

10-17-2013, 04:13 PM

If you're comparing God to the tooth-fairy, it just shows that you haven't thought about the existence of a higher being all that much and all that seriously. And that's fine and whatnot to not believe in God, I don't care, but please say something a little smarter than that. God, particularly the Christian God, gives us an absolute reason why we must be humble, love each other, forgive one another, look after the most vulnerable and helpless of society, be slow to anger and not hate, and why suffering on this earth makes sense. Not only that, but Christianity has a god that has done all those things. You don't believe in God, fine, but how could you even compare him to the tooth-fairy? Has the tooth-fairy ever saved anyone or done anything significant besides putting a quarter under someone's pillow in the middle of the night?

Christians are persecuted too, whether it be at your typical college campus in America or being blow-up or shot in predominately Muslim countries. It happens, believe it or not, especially if you're a Christian who actually takes his faith seriously. Persecution is not good from any side, my friend. I understand. You're shot and killed in some places of the world too.

The Atheist

10-17-2013, 04:37 PM

Has the tooth-fairy ever saved anyone or done anything significant besides putting a quarter under someone's pillow in the middle of the night?

So, you are saying the christian god has saved people?

When did this happen?

mal4mac

10-17-2013, 05:32 PM

If you're comparing God to the tooth-fairy, it just shows that you haven't thought about the existence of a higher being all that much and all that seriously.

Well I did mention Zeus. Why believe in God rather than Zeus? There are actually modern stoics who proclaim a belief in Zeus. Or why not Allah or Odin? Why so many Gods? It's because they don't exist, because there is no evidence for any one of them.

Christians are persecuted too, whether it be at your typical college campus in America or being blow-up or shot in predominately Muslim countries...

Yes, all for not believing in some God, or believing in a different God. Give up believing in any God, and maybe some of this irrational violence will go away, there would then be no religious excuse for it.

Eman Resu

10-17-2013, 06:39 PM

So, you are saying the christian god has saved people?

When did this happen?

Long before your Spaghetti Monster started reading Ayn Rand.

http://www.medievalbooks.org/fsm.gif

SentimentalSlop

10-17-2013, 11:20 PM

Well I did mention Zeus. Why believe in God rather than Zeus? There are actually modern stoics who proclaim a belief in Zeus. Or why not Allah or Odin? Why so many Gods? It's because they don't exist, because there is no evidence for any one of them.

Yes, all for not believing in some God, or believing in a different God. Give up believing in any God, and maybe some of this irrational violence will go away, there would then be no religious excuse for it.

There are certain religions that have better arguments than others. Christianity, by far, has the strongest arguments in defense of religion. And once again, you can't say something doesn't exist if you can't prove it in the same way that I can't say I can prove God exists, but I believe that he does exist. There's a major difference there.

And without God, everything is permitted. I don't know how you think in a world without religion people will become more civilized and compassionate. Look at all the wars done in the name of communism. The most barbaric statist atheistic communist dictators sought to wipe out religion, and that idea has killed more people in the 20th century than all of the religious wars combined. Think about that.

mal4mac

10-18-2013, 04:17 AM

There are certain religions that have better arguments than others. Christianity, by far, has the strongest arguments in defense of religion.

Have you read the Pali Canon? Or the Upanishads? Or Plato? Or Aristotle? Or the Koran? I've attempted to understand the main religious arguments of all of these in attempt to find better arguments than those of Christian authors. I have certainly found these in Plato, Aristotle & Buddhism. Of course Christianity tried to steal the best bits of Plato & Aristotle, but diluted their arguments with a lot "tooth fairy nonsense" like virgin birth, resurrection, whatever... Of course since Descartes, Kant, Darwin, Nietzsche, Russell et. al. even the the religious arguments of the Ancient Greeks & Buddhists can't stand up to the skeptical assault of atheist arguments.

Delta40

10-18-2013, 04:34 AM

Uhm look at all the wars in the name of religion. Don't flatter yourself. Why not admit that conflict is a natural state like happiness?

cacian

10-18-2013, 04:41 AM

There are certain religions that have better arguments than others. Christianity, by far, has the strongest arguments in defense of religion. And once again, you can't say something doesn't exist if you can't prove it in the same way that I can't say I can prove God exists, but I believe that he does exist. There's a major difference there.

belief is a funny thing and do not forget just as we believe we also disbelieve just as easily.

And without God, everything is permitted. I don't know how you think in a world without religion people will become more civilized and compassionate. Look at all the wars done in the name of communism. The most barbaric statist atheistic communist dictators sought to wipe out religion, and that idea has killed more people in the 20th century than all of the religious wars combined. Think about that.
that is not true. the worst wars were in the name of religion and they still go on today.it is called fanatism and terrorism. that is what religion does. it gives people the incentive to go on a rampage just like communism. it is exactly the same. religion is an institution just like communism. there is no difference there.
and god does not keep people saine or disorganised god is just another subject to talk about.
juts like politics it is a concept to monopolise control and build and destroy.
what kind of life is this if god is a notion that controls feelings and thoughts? not much I would say I think I need to start living a life that I cant think and decide for myself away from religion and politics for that matter.
the other thing to consider is this you may believe in god but I do not think god believes in anyone and that is the bottom line.

Delta40

10-18-2013, 05:33 AM

There are certain religions that have better arguments than others. Christianity, by far, has the strongest arguments in defense of religion.

That's like saying the English language is by far a superior language than any other and should therefore negate all other languages.

SentimentalSlop

10-18-2013, 01:55 PM

That's like saying the English language is by far a superior language than any other and should therefore negate all other languages.

Language and religion are a LITTLE different, don't you think? People who think all religions are the same are the same people who don't want to think. Somehow it's offensive in today's world to believe that some beliefs are better than others.

Delta40

10-18-2013, 05:20 PM

People experience the world through the language they speak. You're the one who made the claim that Christianity trumps other beliefs, not me.

cafolini

10-18-2013, 05:41 PM

Uhm look at all the wars in the name of religion. Don't flatter yourself. Why not admit that conflict is a natural state like happiness?

Look at all the petty wars in the name of any thing. Don't be ridiculous. ROFLMAO

Dono

12-02-2013, 11:29 PM

A boy walked along with his father and asked, "Do you believe in God?" The father thought for a moment and answered by pointing to an anthill in the sidewalk at their feet, with several lines of tiny ants moving about in orderly lines as they carried out their ant duties.
"Do you see those ants?" he asked. "They live in the same world we do, in the same structures, eating the same foods, and yet they could no more describe you or I than we could describe a God. If one is there at all, God's existence is not dependent on us or our belief. And our existence is not his chief concern. Have you ever noticed the ants before?" The boy shook his head and the father asked, "Do you think they notice us standing here watching them?" The boy again said no.

The father reached out with the tip of his shoe and swiped at the anthill, destroying it and killing many ants, sending the others scurrying into a frenzy of activity. "Do they notice us NOW?" He asked. Without waiting for an answer he continued, "This is the nature of our relationship with whatever god may exist. If he is real, we may never know until such times as he decides, by design or misstep, to send us to ruin. And even then, any rage we may feel would be impotent and unheard. And any god that exists would notice us only if he accidentally stepped on our world, and even then only briefly and without caring. So we do what these ants are doing now: acknowledge that there are forces much greater than we can comprehend, clean up our dead, rebuild our homes and hope he doesn't step on us again."

The Atheist

12-02-2013, 11:36 PM

Outstanding analogy!

I have said so many times that the christian god treats humans exactly as humans treat an ant-farm, and here you are putting in exactly those terms.

Ecurb

12-03-2013, 01:27 PM

Gloucester -- from King Lear:

As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods, They kill us for their sport.

Speaking of ants (and other eusocial insects), their cooperative nature may be the result of hapilodiploidy, a form of reproduction in which males have no fathers (they are born from unfertilized eggs). Here's a superb New Yorker article about it (unfortunately available in full only to subscribers):

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer/

Bleeding Pawn

12-03-2013, 02:31 PM

A boy walked along with his father and asked, "Do you believe in God?"

The father thought for a moment and answered by pointing to an anthill in the sidewalk at their feet, with several lines of tiny ants moving about in orderly lines as they carried out their ant duties.
"Do you see those ants?" he asked. "They live in the same world we do, in the same structures, eating the same foods, and yet they could no more describe you or I than we could describe a God. If one is there at all, God's existence is not dependent on us or our belief. And our existence is not his chief concern. Have you ever noticed the ants before?" The boy shook his head and the father asked, "Do you think they notice us standing here watching them?" The boy again said no.

The father reached out with the tip of his shoe and swiped at the anthill, destroying it and killing many ants, sending the others scurrying into a frenzy of activity. "Do they notice us NOW?" He asked. Without waiting for an answer he continued, "This is the nature of our relationship with whatever god may exist. If he is real, we may never know until such times as he decides, by design or misstep, to send us to ruin. And even then, any rage we may feel would be impotent and unheard. And any god that exists would notice us only if he accidentally stepped on our world, and even then only briefly and without caring. So we do what these ants are doing now: acknowledge that there are forces much greater than we can comprehend, clean up our dead, rebuild our homes and hope he doesn't step on us again."

So does that count as a yes? or perhaps a no? Hadn`t a straightforward answer sufficed? It is not smooth following for but it gets worse and even murkier when people like the father comes up with their own set of theories to define religion and/or people their beliefs/views.

Ecurb

12-03-2013, 02:46 PM

The father should, perhaps, have said, "They could no more describe you or ME than we could describe God." I hope the anecdote is not meant to disparage the language skills of agnostics.

Dono

12-03-2013, 10:15 PM

Outstanding analogy!

I have said so many times that the christian god treats humans exactly as humans treat an ant-farm, and here you are putting in exactly those terms.
My more vulgar opinion is that the God as it is imagined by man is a petulant little boy standing over an anthill, only taking notice of it when he remembers to bring his magnifying glass in order to burn a few dozen.

A boy walked along with his father and asked, "Do you believe in God?"

So does that count as a yes? or perhaps a no? Hadn`t a straightforward answer sufficed? It is not smooth following for but it gets worse and even murkier when people like the father comes up with their own set of theories to define religion and/or people their beliefs/views.The answer is, there is no answer that would satisfy or even matter. The better question would be, does God notice if we believe? And if he does, is he immediately dismissed from deity status by his own vanity?

The father should, perhaps, have said, "They could no more describe you or ME than we could describe God." I hope the anecdote is not meant to disparage the language skills of agnostics. The devil made me do it.