I won't become a real Christian.

[The Atheist]

and we're back at the beginning again.. so is any of this really necessary?

honestly though, there are many respected and eminent scientists, who believe exactly what Shahsaab said there..

Really?

Please state which eminent and respected scientists are creationists. Plenty of scientists are theists, but I certainly know of none that would be classed as either respected or eminent who are creationists.

Creationism's biggest proponent, "Dr" Michael Behe admitted under oath that creationism isn't a science, so I really am interested in seeing some details here. I know plenty of other PhD-level scientists who are creationists, but they are laughing stocks rather than respected.

This may give you a clue as to why I do join these "debates".

... but to say that there is no "God" and to say this is fact is just as absurd as claiming that it is a fact there is a "God"...

I don't believe I've said that at any stage, so it isn't an argument for me. I completely disagree on the level of absurdity required, though.

as I said many very respected scientists believe that science itself points to the existence of some form of Creator God... this doesn't have to be at all at odds with any of science, with evolution or anything...

That's not the type of god I'm talking about, which should have been abundantly clear all the way.

Catholics, Anglicans, lots of religions produce scientists who believe in a theistic god, but I have been talking explicitly about young earth creationism.

As to the "many scientists", I'll simply point to the well-known statistic that members of the National Academy of Sciences - where the genuinely respected and eminent scientists hang out - disbelief in theistic god/s is the overwhelming position. Sure, lots of scientists are theists, but they're a small minority of the whole bunch.

but to imply that religious belief and spirituality suggest ignorance is just a way of showing one's own ignorance.. and arrogance for that matter...

Well, it all depends how you class arrogance, I guess, but the type of arrogance which gets on my goat is the kind which claims to have a personal relationship with an antity which created the entire universe and who's going to make people burn eternally because they don't like him.

Atheists tend not to worry too much about eternity, so I wonder which kind of arrogance is worse, myself.

Each to his/her own.

I'm interested in your vehemence on your stance since I haven't even seen so much as an ad hominem in the thread yet.

Scher and the others are pretty strict about keeping threads on the good side of fair, and not a comment has been forthcoming.

Like I said before though, I don't see anyone ripping on Taoism, and it's no shocker as to why - the same with Buddhism.

Bingo!

If only True Believers would see that obvious fact. Dawkins has no The Buddha Delusion, Sam Harris has not written Why I don't believe in Reincarnation and I'm certain Chris Hitchens has not penned The Dalai Lama Exposed!

Nope besides some hardcore atheists, who think all religion is evil no matter how innocent its outward appearance,...

Yet again, this seems like insinuation without basis in fact.

I know some pretty damned hardcore atheists and I don't know one who even mentions Buddhism. Sure, they - and me - might think it's laughable rubbish, but I know of not a single atheist who writes or agitates against "Eastern Philosophies" like Buddhism.

Our family are regulars at a huge Buddhist temple just down the road from our place and I wouldn't be seen dead - literally! - in a church.

Can you provide some examples of this behaviour actually existing?

One of these days I'm going to develop a font specifically for online forums, called Irony Sans Serif.

Brilliant!

[JBI]

Actually, the Chinese government likes to take stabs at Buddhism, in the Tibetan form (to the complaint of Westerners, but I won't pick a side). Ultimately, the argument seems founded on the same principles - the powers that control the religion are deemed to be out of hand, and they have cracked down (hard) on Falun Gong, which, if I understand is sort cult type thing like the Scientology of China.

But really, you aren't going to see people denying the Buddha, or the existence of LaoZi. You really aren't going to see people calling it delusional, and ultimately, these religions will get very little criticism of the religion, and will just get criticism over the organizations that distribute them.

In a sense though, the difference comes perhaps from a lack of recognition on the part of the believers as being part of an agonistic movement, which ultimately is a Western phenomenon - Western religions, ultimately, are far more text bound, I would argue, than Eastern ones (West here including the Abrahamic Religions) which leads too a more authoritative structure, as apposed to a more open one. Keep in mind, for instance, that the term Hindu actually was coined by Colonists trying to understand the beliefs of the region - it wasn't, in a sense, a religion until it became constructed as one in the colonial period - more of a way of life.

The Hellenizing of these religions then, has not altered them enough to create too big authority wholes - the understanding of the religion is still flowing, and isn't defined - there is no one body controlling everything - no Vatican or whatever, and as a result, there is no real opposition.

[NikolaiI]

But really, you aren't going to see people denying the Buddha, or the existence of LaoZi. You really aren't going to see people calling it delusional, and ultimately, these religions will get very little criticism of the religion, and will just get criticism over the organizations that distribute them.

Eh, true, perhaps, but I've been called delusional - which is a rather unpleasant thing, people should not say this kind of thing, you know! - for saying little else than what is in parts of the Tao Te Ching. For instance my understanding of God is no different from my understanding of the Tao - in the words of Laozi, it is the source of infinite worlds. Laozi says, how do I know it is true? I look within myself and know it is true. And what he says about the Tao is very similar to what Hindu rishis said about God or transcendental reality.

I have always been completely fascinated by Doaism. Is the Tao real then? Does it exist? It's called infinite in the Tao Te Ching. I haven't really ever thought of God as anything else than what Laozi describes the Tao as.

[The Atheist]

Actually, the Chinese government likes to take stabs at Buddhism, in the Tibetan form (to the complaint of Westerners, but I won't pick a side). Ultimately, the argument seems founded on the same principles - the powers that control the religion are deemed to be out of hand, and they have cracked down (hard) on Falun Gong, which, if I understand is sort cult type thing like the Scientology of China.

I'd have to argue pretty strongly that while the leaders in China are atheistic, the oppression of Falun Gong - Buddhism to a lesser extent - has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with an organisation which recognises an alternative voice to the government and can make huge numbers of people work in unison. The sight of tens of tens of thousands of people doing synchronised anything is anathema to dictators.

I've been intinately involved with Falun Gong members and join their protest outside the Chinese Embassy in Auckland from time to time. They quietly smile at this huge, mad Western man who stands among their silent protest.

One thing - Falun Gong is to Scientology in the way that shark is to a hippo. Scientology is just a scam; Falun Gong is a large, ponderous beast of great power solely because it's big. It is therefore a threat. Pretty bloody stupid all round in my opinion.



(Hey, I got to use that flamey thing - because the history of a certain, large Asian country's human rights regarding the Falun Gong is negligibly reported on, but we snuggle up to it through economic necessity appals me, but I won't get into that for fear of the P word!)

Back to.....

....which god was I bashing?



Seriously, if they were all like Vishnu and Buddha (not really a god, but close enough as makes no difference) I wouldn't even bother calling myself an atheist.

[JBI]

Oh, I didn't say they cracked down on them because they were a religion, I merely wanted to point out that they cracked down on them because they were an organized body. - keep in mind, for instance, that there is a protest - as soon as there is a protest, there is an opposition to authority, and, as you put it they are a threat because they are big, and quickly spreading.

But again, the major point is, they are striking the institution, not the actual belief system, though Fulan Gong seems only to be an institution, and not really to be a full blown religion, as it has no great historical significance, or oral or even textual tradition that existed outside of contemporary times. In that sense, it is similar in a sense to Scientology, in that it is annoying, and quickly spreading, except China isn't The US, and their value and hierarchical systems don't tolerate those sorts of disturbances and fluctuations in power.

In truth, I am simply disturbed by how there are always weirdo cults popping up everywhere even today. Hell, as they say, the difference between a cult and a religion is 10 years.

[JBI]

Eh, true, perhaps, but I've been called delusional - which is a rather unpleasant thing, people should not say this kind of thing, you know! - for saying little else than what is in parts of the Tao Te Ching. For instance my understanding of God is no different from my understanding of the Tao - in the words of Laozi, it is the source of infinite worlds. Laozi says, how do I know it is true? I look within myself and know it is true. And what he says about the Tao is very similar to what Hindu rishis said about God or transcendental reality.

I have always been completely fascinated by Doaism. Is the Tao real then? Does it exist? It's called infinite in the Tao Te Ching. I haven't really ever thought of God as anything else than what Laozi describes the Tao as.

You seem to have missed the first point of Taoism though, from right at the beginning of the text (Section I I believe);

The Tao that is able to be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that is able to be named is not the eternal name.

The unnameable is the eternal - the naming is the mother of all particular things.


In other words, the fact that you ponder if the Tao is real or not isn't the point - the point is, that the actual way to understand things is to break apart the categorization of all things, which, ultimately, is the exact opposite of Greek and by extension, Western philosophy which, especially after Aristotle, to categorize everything.

Thereby, by denying the name, and denying the actual answer to everything, we are left within the infinite - beyond all relative understanding of the world. If one continues on, for instance, he argues that beauty is only beautiful next to ugliness, etc. etc., thereby, again by denying the binary of categorization and ignoring all comparisons and values.

I think the Tao is closer to what Derrida called an Aporia - at any rate, it is like an infinite Aporia, that is a complete lack of anything - it is similar in a sense to God, but instead, as LaoZi put it, when we name it, we aren't talking about the real thing, only a rationalized perception of it - the real thing is beyond everything - it essentially is nihilistic.

[NikolaiI]

You seem to have missed the first point of Taoism though, from right at the beginning of the text (Section I I believe);

The Tao that is able to be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that is able to be named is not the eternal name.

The unnameable is the eternal - the naming is the mother of all particular things.


In other words, the fact that you ponder if the Tao is real or not isn't the point - the point is, that the actual way to understand things is to break apart the categorization of all things, which, ultimately, is the exact opposite of Greek and by extension, Western philosophy which, especially after Aristotle, to categorize everything.

Thereby, by denying the name, and denying the actual answer to everything, we are left within the infinite - beyond all relative understanding of the world. If one continues on, for instance, he argues that beauty is only beautiful next to ugliness, etc. etc., thereby, again by denying the binary of categorization and ignoring all comparisons and values.

I think the Tao is closer to what Derrida called an Aporia - at any rate, it is like an infinite Aporia, that is a complete lack of anything - it is similar in a sense to God, but instead, as LaoZi put it, when we name it, we aren't talking about the real thing, only a rationalized perception of it - the real thing is beyond everything - it essentially is nihilistic.

I thought you were one to scoff at anyone who said their belief in the spiritual was an essence beyoned relative understandings of the world.

But anyway I didn't miss that point. I am well aware of it. And I agree with you about everything. The real thing is beyond everything. The mantra in the Prajna Paramitam Heart Sutra, mentioned as the great mantra, is Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Sva, or Gone, Gone, Gone Beyond, Gone Completely Beyond, All Awakened, So Be It! In other words - beyond everything. I don't agree it is nihilistic, but that's not really an issue.

[MarkBastable]

Can I just say, incidentally, that I have nothing much against any sort of religious belief that falls short of burning people, and I really don't think that religious observance is de facto a bad thing. I don't care how supportable or ludicrous may be the rationale for religious belief, or the lack of it, because it's just what people do, and some of us believe Elvis is alive and who cares?

To me, that is an entirely separate argument to the one about the existence of God. Even if everyone on the planet were a staunch atheist, God would continue to exist if he existed at all. And even if everyone were a committed believer, none of that belief would bring him into being if he didn't exist in the first place.

So - the existence of God has nothing to do with anyone's belief in God, or lack of it.

And that's why the argument is not about what people believe, but about the bases of those beliefs. For an argument for or against the existence of God to be worth anything, it has to work whether or not you believe in him.

[MSDGreen]

I feel out of place jumping into this thread now, but what the hey.

No matter how much it breaks my mothers heart I can not allow myself to believe in something without any credible evidence. I do not believe in magic, so it boggles my mind why people accept an all powerful magical being giving us free will and then no evidence of its existence. I understand that death is scary, but to believe that there is a heaven to hide this fear seems like a horrible thing to do to yourself. I think that religion does bring some good to the world, but it is far outweighed by the atrocities done in its name.

It is exciting and depressing knowing that I only have one life to live. Almost like a constant reminder that I have to do something great before I am no more. Life can be ended at any moment, and I don't want to spend it on my knees.

[NikolaiI]

I feel out of place jumping into this thread now, but what the hey.

No matter how much it breaks my mothers heart I can not allow myself to believe in something without any credible evidence. I do not believe in magic, so it boggles my mind why people accept an all powerful magical being giving us free will and then no evidence of its existence. I understand that death is scary, but to believe that there is a heaven to hide this fear seems like a horrible thing to do to yourself. I think that religion does bring some good to the world, but it is far outweighed by the atrocities done in its name.

It is exciting and depressing knowing that I only have one life to live. Almost like a constant reminder that I have to do something great before I am no more. Life can be ended at any moment, and I don't want to spend it on my knees.

Oh don't feel out of place at all. That's the only way to enter discussion is jumping in.

For me there's not a fear of death, actually not at all. I do have a small fear about the pain which could go with death. As for death, I am quite sure that life and death are two parts of one coin. Some perhaps believe in heaven to hide the fear of death - I do not. I do not believe in heaven because others have told me they did. They would be foolishness.

My idea of heaven is a mix between Buddhism and Hinduism. I've had experiences which quite enlightening, which led me, in effect, to the understanding that beneath everything is peace and bliss, and also, that beneath all is a transcendental reality. Swami Vivekananda said exactly what I believe, and what I've experienced to be true;

"Herein lies the whole secret of Existence. Waves may roll over the surface and tempest rage, but deep down there is the stratum of infinite calmness, infinite peace, and infinite bliss."

So that is the only thing I know to be true. Why? In my experiences there was a constant thought: this alone is true, never forget. I do not always live completely to the standard ideal of life, and I have to strive in meditation and mindfulness to find peace in my life. Everyone living here on earth lives here on earth. But I also believe - or know, or something in between - that there is at the root something eternal and infinite.

The rest is just the fun of learning.

[islandclimber]

heaven is just one view of religion.. I can't say the belief that there is some sort of creator god/ divine force/ whatever that got the ball rolling is such a ridiculous belief... for that doesn't at all fly in the face of science, it just is one more way of providing an explanation for how existence began... and in point of fact, science has no explanation as to why things began... as to what caused them to begin when they did, etc.. hence the "oh so" human need for Religion and to a lesser degree philosophy...

but to say that the good religion does in the world is far outweighed by the atrocities... well that may be true of some religions.. but it is also true of science, for the atrocities committed using the inventions of science, the destruction of this world and the environment using the inventions of science, well they far outweigh the good that science has done in this world.. in fact even the supposedly good things science does, have pretty big downsides as well.. modern medicine has done more to contribute to overpopulation than anything in the world...

TheAthiest, Sorry if I came across as being vehement, not what I meant to sound like at all.. anyways in reviewing what you wrote and what was written a little more closely I see no problem with agreeing with you in reference to Young Earth Creationism type religion, which I agree is totally absurd as it flies in the face of all science and reason.. and though I do prefer to stick my tongue out at reason, well sometimes that even becomes a little ridiculous

And I also agree that there are pretty much no respected creationism figures in science, at least of that sort of creationism, but many (and I never said most for of course not most, but there are still many) scientists do believe that science itself points to something behind it all, and often are theistic, or at least in a more eastern sense believe there is something infinite and incomprehensible behind it all... somewhere in the recesses of this religious section there's a thread about this and a link to an article by Schroedinger about this very thing that is quite interesting.. or so I found it.. but anyways as I said sorry if I came across as vehement it is not what I meant at all, as I think your insight is often quite valid and thought provoking

in regards to criticizing eastern religions/ philosophies/ etc. well that is more personal experience with atheists I know, who ridicule and speak derisively about these things, and as you say you think it is a load of rubbish, well though you don't attack it, some atheists don't hesitate to make that opinion known in my personal experience... I'm not saying many, just maybe a small minority... and to be quite honest the worst people I have found with regards to criticizing buddhism, taoism, etc. are more fundamentalist members of the big three western religions...

anyways enough with that...


JBI, what you say there is all true, but I also think the use of the term nihilism with regards to Taoism, Buddhism, and other such apparently world denying religions/philosophies is more of a western mistake than a reality.. or so is my opinion.. One could find strains of Nihilism, skepticism, relativism, mysticism, contrarianism, ethical intuitionism, naturalist stoicism, primitivism, pluralism, transcendent monism, in Taoism. but to define it as any single one is a misinterpreting what it is in my opinion...

[NikolaiI]

by the way, great post Nikolai

Thanks and the same to you (the post above this one)

[hampusforev]

You non believers just don't understand believers. You think it's a calculation. It's not a calculation. It's God entering your heart. You either feel Him or you don't. The calculations are rationalizations by both believers and non believers. If you've never had Him in your heart you don't understand it.

See, this is what it all boils down to. There's no argument here, so there's no idea to argue with believers. They have drunk the Kool-aid, it's all over, they won't explain it and if you question it, it's your ignorance that's the problem, not their unwillingness to explain.

Maybe my post is all out of place in this thread, I haven't read all posts, I started at the beginning and saw Virgil's post, which pretty much confirmed why I don't bother arguing religion.

Religion is an evolutionary trait, I read this article recently, which argued that the more rules and restrictions a particular brand of theism had the more likely it is to survive. Not to say that there isn't a force greater than what we know, something that doesn't need to be explained scientifically, I cringe when I hear people trying to rationalize love, who the f--- cares!? It's great, it's the nutrition of songs, poems and suicide, that's enough for me.
The damage done by religious people is enough for me to see that it's a load of crap spewed by leaders to suppress the masses, and anybody who follows organized religion is part of the problem, as I see it.

[The Atheist]

Maybe my post is all out of place in this thread, I haven't read all posts, I started at the beginning and saw Virgil's post, which pretty much confirmed why I don't bother arguing religion.

And yet you just did, and pretty vehemently, too!

... I cringe when I hear people trying to rationalize love, who the f--- cares!? It's great, it's the nutrition of songs, poems and suicide, that's enough for me.

Should've been here last month, we did just that - rationalised love. Turns out love can be rational in origin and irrational in application. Life doesn't always turn out how we like.

You just need to remember that life is a simple dichotomy - there is either natural or supernatural and love and the universe are either rationally explained or they are not. Nothing gets a free pass - religion, love, telepathy, empathy, hatred, psychics, altruism, UFOs - none of them.

Unless one is agnostic, but I find fence-sitting pretty uncomfortable.

The damage done by religious people is enough for me to see that it's a load of crap spewed by leaders to suppress the masses, and anybody who follows organized religion is part of the problem, as I see it.

Pretty broad statement,

There's an awful lot of evidence that religion is of net benefit to mankind.

You have, however, provided timely proof of internet anti-theism, so thanks for that.

[MSDGreen]

but to say that the good religion does in the world is far outweighed by the atrocities... well that may be true of some religions.. but it is also true of science, for the atrocities committed using the inventions of science, the destruction of this world and the environment using the inventions of science, well they far outweigh the good that science has done in this world.. in fact even the supposedly good things science does, have pretty big downsides as well.. modern medicine has done more to contribute to overpopulation than anything in the world...

Maybe it is human nature. Advances in science seem to get further when being used for military application. Without religion we may just find different reasons to kill each other.