Atheists....

[bazarov]

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

That's OK.

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

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

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

[Redzeppelin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

god has always loved cash.

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

[RobinHood3000]

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

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

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

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

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

[B-Mental]

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

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

[Redzeppelin]

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

[Quark]

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

[Redzeppelin]

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

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

[Quark]

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

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

[cuppajoe_9]

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

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

[Redzeppelin]

Is that really honest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cuppajoe_9]

A practical reason yes; but there's no reason they have to exist instead of some other "regulators" or "maintainers" of society.

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

Without God, nothing has to be as it is.

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

[Redzeppelin]

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

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

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

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

[cuppajoe_9]

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

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

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

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

Examples:

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

Alternatively:

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

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

[Redzeppelin]

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

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

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

Examples:

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

Alternatively:

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

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

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

[The Atheist]

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

Thanks!

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